Assessor Parcel
Number Street Address Acreage
156030014 Not Addressed 3.67
156030016 Not Addressed 2.15
156040073 4155 Wineville Rd 20.08
156050007 4231 Wineville Rd 2.15
156360037 Not Addressed 0.59
156360038 3777 De Forest Cir 2.99
156360041 10395 Noble Ct 5.54
156370005 10302 Birtcher Dr 2.99
156370008 Not Addressed 0.49
156390006 Not Addressed 2.46
156210067 Not Addressed 3.07
156050006 4231 Wineville Rd 0.61
156370009 Not Addressed 2.13
156370004 10314 Birtcher Dr 1.88
156370014 10266 Birtcher Dr 4.81
156390007 Not Addressed 1.28
156360039 3725 Nobel Ct 5.89
156370010 Not Addressed 0.47
156391026 Not Addressed 1.2
156030017 Not Addressed 1.37
156030043 Not Addressed 0.39
156040072 11850 Riverside Dr 26.97
156370015 Not Addressed 4.67
156030042 4453 Parkhurst St 3.36
156040071 11900 Riverside Dr 28.81
156050027 Not Addressed 136.8
156370003 10317 Birtcher Dr 3.43
156370006 10290 Birtcher Dr 2.41
156390005 3675 De Forest Cir 2.05
160040045 Not Addressed 1.5
156030044 Not Addressed 0.1
156370001 10293 Birtcher Dr 2.28
156370002 10305 Birtcher Dr 2.35
156370011 Not Addressed 0.08
156390002 Not Addressed 1.84
Assessor Parcel
Number Street Address Acreage
160040020 12087 Landon Dr 7
160040044 4685 Pier Enterprises Way 9.6
156360031 10395 Noble Ct 2.45
156390003 Not Addressed 1.78
156390004 Not Addressed 2
156390010 Not Addressed 0.19
156391023 Not Addressed 5.21
160040033 11911 Landon Dr 34.9
160040034 11811 Landon Dr 19.36
160040030 11905 Landon Dr 27.33
163400029 Not Addressed 1.03
163400051 Not Addressed 1.63
163400031 6250 Clay St 1.15
163400032 6212 Clay St 0.91
163400050 Not Addressed 2.59
163400028 Not Addressed 1.48
163400030 6280 Clay St 3.5
163400026 Not Addressed 1.61
167160027 Not Addressed 1
167160023 Not Addressed 3.5
167161020 Not Addressed 3.55
170350039 9251 Orco Parkway 1.12
170350042 9787 Orco Parkway 1.02
170350045 Not Addressed 1.12
170350046 Not Addressed 1.12
170350040 9263 Orco Parkway 1.12
170350041 9275 Orco Parkway 1.12
170350043 Not Addressed 1.25
170350044 Not Addressed 1.04
170350036 9215 Orco Parkway 2.67
170350037 9227 Orco Parkway 1.11
170350038 9239 Orco Parkway 1.12
170350047 Not Addressed 1.12
178150008 2610 Rubidoux Blvd 4.52
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-59
Figure 5-6: I-P Zoned Sites in Jurupa Valley
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-60
Figure 5-7: I-P Zones in Proximity/Access to Commercial Zones and Tranist
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-61 In addition to emergency shelters, the I -P zone allows three other uses that support human habitation. These include a single mobile home or caretaker unit on a site during construction, caretaker units for industrial or commercial facilities, and motels. Action Item 1.1.17 of this document requires the City to revise its off -street parking requirements for emergency shelters within 18 months of adoption of the Housing Element. Off-street parking standards shall be revised to accommodate all staff working in emergency shelters, provided they do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other commercial uses in the I-P zone.
Transitional and Supportive Housing
State law require s local jurisdictions to address the provisions for transitional and supportive housing. Under Housing Element law, transitional housing means buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the ter mination of assistance and reassignment of the assisted unit to another eligible program participant at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than 6 months from the beginning of the assistance ( California Government Code §65582(h)). For example, a multi-family dwelling that is designated as a temporary (typically 6 months to 1 year) residence for abused women and children, pending relocation to more permanent housing.
State law addresses the requirements, local provisions and stream - lining of transitional and supportive housing. State law currently requires local jurisdictions to address the provisions for transitional and supportive housing. It requires the city to address the criterion for assessing the need for emergency shelters and housing on a regional level and requires they be accounted for as part of the City’s Housing Element to create an impactful change on the current homeless housing situation.
Currently, state housing law requires local jurisdictions to allow permanent supportive housing meeting specific conditions by right in all zones where mixed use and multi -family housing is permitted and to streamline the applications for permanent supportive housing. For such supportive housing located within one-half mile from transit, no minimum parking can be required.
Supportive housing means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an on- site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Target population means persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 commencing
with §4500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code ) and may includ e, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people (California Government Code §§65582(f) and (g)).
Accordingly, state law establishes transitional and supportive housing as residential uses and therefore, local governments cannot treat these uses differently from other similar types of residential uses (e.g., requiring a use permit wh en other residential uses of similar function do not require a use permit). As part of the development of this Housing Element, the City will include provisions for transitional and supportive housing, pursuant to current state law.
Permanent Supportive Housing and Low Barrier
Navigation Centers
Similar to transitional and supportive housing, state law requires that permanent supportive housing and low barrier navigation centers be allowed by -right in multi -family and mixed -use zones, including non -residential zones permitting multi -family uses.
Permanent supportive housing is permanent housing with voluntary supportive services such as health and mental health care for chronically homeless households. Low barrier navigation centers include housing and shel ters where a resident at risk for homelessness can live temporarily and receive services while waiting to move into permanent housing. Local governments cannot treat these uses differently from other similar types of residential units. Accordingly, the Cit y will include provisions for permanent supportive housing and low barrier navigation centers as part of this Housing Element.
Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
State law mandates that local jurisdictions address the provision of housing options for extremely low -income households, including Single Room Occupancy units (SRO). SRO units are typically one - room units intended for occupancy by a single individual. They are distinct from a studio or efficiency unit, in that a studio is a one-room unit that must contain a kitchen and a bathroom. Although SRO units are not required to have a kitchen or bathroom, many SROs have one or the other. There are minimum standards for SROs (including a minimum floor area requirement) under the California Health and Safety Code.
The City of Jurupa Valley’s Zoning Code does not specifically address SROs. As part of this Housing Element, the City will include provisions to address SRO housing.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-63 Farm Worker and Employee Housing
The California Employee Housing Act requires that housing for six or fewer employees be treated as a regular residential use. In general, the California Health and Safety Code §17008(a) defines “employee housing” as “any portion of any housing accommoda tion, or property upon which a housing accommoda tion is located, if all of the following factors exist:
(1) The accommodations consist of any living quarters,
dwelling, boardinghouse, tent, bunkhouse, maintenance - of-way c ar, mobile home, manufactured home,
recreational vehicle, travel trailer, or other housing
accommodations, maintained in one or more buildings or
one or more sites, and the premises upon which they are situated or the area set aside and provided for parkin g of mobile homes or camping of five or more employees by the employer.
(2) The accommodations are maintained in connection with any work or place where work is being performed, whether or not rent is involved.”
Section 17005 of the California Health and Safety Code identifies the few types of employees excluded, and Section 17008 provides a detailed definition of employee housing. The Employee Housing Act further defines housing for agricultural workers consisting of 36 beds or 12 units be treated as an a gricultural use and permitted where agricultural uses are permitted.
The City of Jurupa Valley permits agricultural uses in several of its residential zones. The Zoning Code does not specifically address farm worker housing in residential zones but does allow farm worker housing in the City’s agricultural zones (A -1 and A -2) with S DP approval, and single-family dwellings are permitted by right in these zones. As part of the implementation of this Housing Element, the City will amend the Zoning Code to address the requirements of the Employee Housing Act.
D. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES
State housing law requires that each jurisdiction in the state quantify the need for housing within its jurisdiction as part of the periodic process of updating local hous ing elements of the General Plan. As such, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has allocated the City of Jurupa Valley housing production goals for the 6th Cycle Housing Element update. The paragraphs below outline how the City of Jurupa Valley will accommodate its share of regional housing needs during the planning period.
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) developed and adopted by SCAG covers the growth projection period from June 30, 2021 through October 15, 2029. The RHNA assigns a housing production number to each jurisdiction in the region. Jurupa Valley must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and develop - ment standards to accommodate its allocation of the regional housing need. The RHNA allocation is divided into four income categories: Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate. Table
5.34 outlines that Jurupa Valley’s share of regional future housing needs is a total of 4,497 new units between October 15, 2021 and October 15, 2029. This allocation is distributed into the four income categories identified above. The RHNA includes a fair share adjustment that allocates future (construction) need by each income category in a way that meets the state mandate to reduce over - concentration of lower income households in historically lower income communities or areas within the region.
Table 5.34: City of Jurupa Valley 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Income Category
(% of County AMI) Number of Units Percent
Very Low (0 to 50%) 1,207* 26.8%
Low (51 to 80%) 749 16.7%
Moderate (81% to 120% 731 16.3%
Above Moderate (Over 120%) 1,810 40.2%
Total: 4,497 100%
Source: SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, March 2021 AMI = Area Median Income
*The City has a RHNA allocation of 1,207 very low income units (inclusive of extremely low income units). This allocation is evenly split between extremely low and very low income groups pursuant to state law (AB 2634)
Credits toward RHNA
Several categories of h ousing are combined to meet the City of Jurupa Valley’s RHNA requirements. These include Approved Units, Units Pending Approval (Pipeline Projects), Accessory Dwelling Units, Specific Plans, and Vacant Sites. As outlined in detail below, when combined, these categories meet all the City’s Moderate and Above Moderate Income housing requirements and most of the Low and Very Low -Income requirements. Additional sites have been identified to meet the City’s RHNA, and the City has committed to undertaking a gener al plan amendment and rezone process following adoption of the 2021 -2029 Housing Element to meet this requirement. For more detail about sites contributing to the City’s RHNA, please refer to Appendix A – Specific Plan Capacity and Vacant Sites Inventory and Appendix B– Proposed Redesignation/ Rezone Sites.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-65 Approved Units Built and/or Entitled Since June 30, 2021 The 6th Cycle RHNA covers an 8-year planning period, beginning on October 15, 2021. Housing units built, under construction, or receiving building permits from June 30, 2021 onward can be credited towards meeting the City’s RHNA and subtracted from the City’s share of regional housing needs. As shown in Table 5.35 below, between June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021, the City entitled a total of 152 housing units, including 131 single-family units, 6 duplex units, and 15 accessory dwelling units (ADUs). None of the units have been designated affordable. However, the ADUs are considered partially affordable to low- and very-low-income households based on a SCAG survey of ADU affordability in Riverside County and outlined further below.
Table 5.35: Approved Units Built/Entitled June 30-September 30, 2021 Project
Income Level
Total Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Single Family Units – – – 131 131
Duplex Units – – – 6 6
ADUs 4 5 5 1 15
Total 4 5 5 138 152
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2021
Units Pending Approval (Pipeline Projects)
As of October 4, 2021, eleven proposed projects totaling 1,126 units were at various stages of review and approval ( Table 5.36). These projects include nine single-family residential subdivisions and two apartment projects. None of the proposed projects include a guaranteed affordable housing component, although one, Madone Collection, is exploring the inclusion of three single -family units affordable to mode rate income households. The two proposed apartment projects, Vernola Marketplace Phase B, and Rexco Apartments, propose densities of 24 and 26.7 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), respectively. Based on apartment rent levels in the City, the apartment units are considered affordable to moderate -income households. The single -family units are presumed to be affordable to above-moderate income households.
Table 5.36: Pipeline Projects (Units Pending Approval) as of September 30, 2021 Project Unit Type
Income Level
Total Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
9640 Philadelphia (MA16161) SF – – – 44 44
Philadelphia & Country Village (MA19029) SF – – – 54 54 Montecito Subdivision (MA20090) SF – – – 25 25
Pearl Communities (MA14143) SF – – – 74 74
Appaloosa Springs (MA20065) SF – – – 254 254
Madone Collection (MA20086) SF – – – 36 36
Sequanota Partners (PAR1314) SF – – – 78 78
Paradise Knolls PA-5 (MA20211) SF – – – 220 220
Saddlehorn Ranch (MA21158) SF – – 31 31
Vernola Marketplace – Phase B (MA21046) Apt. – – 200 – 200 Rexco (MA21083) Apt. – – 110 – 110
Total – – 310 816 1,126
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
As previously identified, ADUs are units with complete independent living facilities for one or more persons built on the same lot as, or attached to, a primary residence. To promote ADUs as a means of providing affordable infill hous ing, the State of California enacted several laws since 2017 to streamline the ADU permitting processes and reduce restrictions on ADUs. The City of Jurupa Valley has modified its development regulations to meet state requirements and has experienced a co rresponding increase in ADU activity. Due to the number of ADU permits tracked in the past, conflicting numbers have been reported to HCD about the number of ADU permits issued by the City for the years 2018 -2020. However, the City is now utilizing Accela permit tracking software and has a more reliable system for tracking ADU permits going forward. In addition, the City has confirmed it issued 15 ADU permits in 2018 and 10 permits in 2019 and saw an increase in inquiries about ADUs in 2020 although only 5 permits were issued. Nonetheless, the City anticipates increased ADU activity in the future and is also in the process of preparing sample building plans that property owners can use to facilitate ADU construction and reduce the cost of the ADU development process. In addition, 15 ADUs were permitted between June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021, further indicating increased ADU activity in the City. Based on these trends, the City has made a conservative estimate that at least 15 ADUs will be permitted in e ach year of the 2021 -2029 Cycle for a total of 120 projected ADU units. This Housing Element includes a policy (HE-1.3) to encourage the development of ADUs through out the creation of sample plans and development information packets.
To assist cities and counties determine affordability levels for ADUs, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) conducted an analysis of ADU affordability in the region. The analysis Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-67 included a survey of ADU rents by subarea. Based on this analysis, SCAG publishes ADU affordability assumptions that can be used by jurisdictions preparing site inventory analyses for the 6 th Housing Element Planning Cycle. The final affordability assumptions for Riverside County are outlined in Table 5.37 below, together with a breakdown of projected 6 th Cycle ADUs in Jurupa Valley by income level.
Table 5.37: ADU Affordability Assumptions, 2021-2029
Riverside County ADU
Affordability Assumptions
(%)
Jurupa Valley
Total Projected 2021-2029
ADUs Based on
Affordability Assumptions
Extremely Low 15.0% 18
Very Low 7.7% 9
Low 34.8% 42
Moderate 34.8% 42
Above Moderate 7.7% 9
Total 100% 120
Source: SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, 2020 Development Potential in Specific Plans
Specific Plans are planning documents that outline the land use and development plan for an area of a city or county. As of 2021, there are four Specific Plans in the City of Jurupa Valley with remaining residential capacity: the I -15 Corridor, Paradise Knolls, Emerald Meadows Ranch, and Rio Vista Specific Plans. The location of each Specific Plan is outlined in Appendix A. It is anticipated that the remaining development capacity within each Specific Plans will be developed during the 2021 -2029 planning cycle and thus will contribute toward the City’s ability to meet its RHNA allocation. The paragraphs below outline the current status of each Specific Plan and the assumptions for development within the planning cycle.
In considering market affordability of future development projects, the City has applied the following affordability categories, based on state and federal standards. The standards are based on surveys of local AMI and subject to adjustment using household size and other factors:
• Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)
• Very Low Income (31-50% AMI)
• Low Income (51-80% AMI)
• Lower Income: (0 -80% AMI): Refers to a range of income levels that includes Extremely Low, Very Low and Low
Income households. Based on the analysis of the adequacy of density and actual housing production in the West
Riverside County region during the past several years, it is assumed that sites with a general plan designation of
Highest Density Residential (HHDR - 20-25 dwelling units/
acre or du/a) are adequate to facilitate the construction of housing affordable to Lower Income households in Jurupa Valley.
• Moderate Income (80-120% AMI): Based on the analysis of the adequacy of density and actual housing production in the West Riverside County region during the past several years, it is assumed that sites with a general plan designa - tion of High Density Residential (HDR – 8-14 du/a) or Very High Density Residential (VHDR – 14-20 du/a) are adequate to facilitate the construction of housing affordable to Moderate Income households in Jurupa Valley.
• Above Moderate Income (Over 120% AMI): Based on the
analysis of the adequacy of density and actual housing
production in the West Riverside County region during the past several years, it is assumed that sites with a general plan designation of Medium High Density (MHDR 5 -8
du/acre or lower) are adequate to facilitate the
construction of housing affordable to above -moderate
income households in Jurupa Valley).
I-15 Corridor Specific Plan
The I-15 Corridor Specific Plan is an approved planned community of over 750 acres consisting of a mix of commercial and single -family detached and attached residential uses. It was adopted by the County of Riverside w hen Jurupa Valley was still a part of the unincorporated County. Upon buildout, the project will provide a total of 2,400 residential dwelling units—of which 1,100 units were originally approved within the boundaries of the City of Jurupa Valley. Most of the Jurupa Valley units have already been developed; however, there is a remaining capacity of 508 single-family units in Jurupa Valley north of Limonite Avenue based on the original Specific Plan. The units are expected to be market rate and thus could con tribute to the City’s supply of above -moderate housing.
Due to the progress of development within the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan to date, its location along the I-15 Corridor, and general interest in housing development in the area, the Specific Plan is expected to fully build out within the 2021-2029 planning period.
In addition, in 2015, the City approved an amendment to remove a
10.2-acre site from the southern limit of the Specific Plan that was designated for industrial use to accommodate the developm ent of the Vernola Marketplace Project, a 397 -unit luxury apartment project. As of the date of preparation of this Housing Element Update, the project is under construction and the property owner has submitted a second application the for the Vernola Marketplace – Phase B project on an adjacent 8.3-acre site within the Specific Plan area that is designated for industrial use. The project would remove Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-69 the site from the Specific Plan and redesignate and rezone the site to accommodate 200 additional apartment units; the units are included in Table 5.36, Pipeline Projects. Because these two projects have been removed from the boundaries of the Specific Plan, they are not included in Table 5.38.
Table 5.38: Approved I-15 Corridor Specific Plan Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2029 Planning Area
Remaining
Dwelling Units Unit Type
Anticipated Build-
Out 2021-2029
Projected Dwelling
Units 2021-2029
Projected
Income Level
10 & 13 508 Single-Family 100% 508 Above Moderate
Total Units: 508 508
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2021
Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan
The Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan is located in the eastern portion of the City, south of SR-60, and was adopted prior to Jurupa Valley’s incorporation. The Plan area proposes a variety of uses, including a mix of residential single -family and multi -family uses.
Upon buildout, the Specific Plan will add a total of 1,196 new dwelling units to the City, as shown in Table 5.39 . Based on the densities proposed, 476 units, ranging from 12 to 16.2 du/ac , are considered moderate income with the remainder falling into the above-moderate category. As of October 2021, none of the units within the Specific Plan had been constructed, although the applicant is in preliminary negotiations with the City on revisions to the project’s land use distribution.
Table 5.39: Approved Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2029 Planning Area
Remaining
Dwelling Units Unit Type
Anticipated Build-
Out 2021-2029
Projected Dwelling
Units 2021-2029
Projected
Income Level
3A, 3B, 6A, 6B. 6C, 7, 9,
10, 11, 13, 14, 15
720 Single-Family 50% 360 Above Moderate
16, 18, 19 476 Multi-Family 50% 238 Moderate
Total Units: 1,196 598
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2021
Based on the property owner’s renewed interest in developing the property, and general interest in development in the area, Planning staff estimates that construction will begin in 2025 and that half (50%) of the units in each land use category will build out during the 2021-2029 planning period. This would result in an estimated 360 units of new above-moderate income housing and 238 new units of moderate income housing being approved and/or constructed within the 6th Cycle.
Rio Vista Ranch Specific Plan
The Rio Vista Ranch Specific Plan located in the northeastern portion of the City was adopted prior to Jurupa Valley’s incorporation. The Plan area proposes a variety of uses, including a mix of residential
single-family and multi-family uses, retail and commercial services, parks, and open space covering 918 acres. Upon buildout, the Specific Plan will add a total of 1,697 new dwelling units consisting of single-family and multi-family units, as shown in Table 5.40. As of the date of this report, the property owner has had an application in process for several years for a Specific Plan Amendment to revise the land use distribution of the plan but maintain the overall total number of residential units. In addition, a draft environmental document and numerous technical reports have been prepared for the project although no hearings have been scheduled. Because the project is so far along in its proces s, the numbers below reflect the proposed Specific Plan Amendment land use plan rather than the approved Specific Plan. In addition, based on the developer’s recent activity in pursuing approvals and entitlements, it is estimated the project will receive b uilding permits in 2023, commence construction in 2024, and achieve 60% completion across all land use categories by 2029.
Table 5.40: Proposed Rio Vista Specific Plan Amendment (2021) Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2029 Planning Area
Remaining
Dwelling Units Unit Type
Anticipated Build-
Out 2021-2029
Projected Dwelling
Units 2021-2029
Projected
Income Level
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 963 Single-Family/
Multi-Family
60% 578 Above Moderate
4, 11 734 Multi-Family 60% 440 Moderate
Total Units: 1,697 1,018
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2021
Paradise Knolls Specific Plan
Approved in 2016, the Paradise Knolls Specific Plan was approved for a master planned residential community for the development of 650 dwelling units, plus commercial, recreational , and open space uses on about 107 acres in the Pedley Town Center area. Of about 71 acres to be developed with ho using, just over 10 acres (about 15% of the housing area) is planned for Highest Density Residential (HHDR) uses at a density of 28 du/ac and qualifies as lower income housing based on density. As of October 2021, 107 single -family dwelling units were under construction in Planning Area 1, as shown in Table 5.41 . In addition, an application has been submitted to subdivide Planning Area 5 into 220 single -family lots, as outlined above under “Pipeline Projects.” Due to the progress of develop - ment to date and the developer’s interest in pursuing the remaining entitlements, the Specific Plan is expected to fully build out within the 2021-2029 planning period.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-71 Table 5.41: Approved Paradise Knolls Specific Plan Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2019 Planning Area
Remaining Dwelling
Units Unit Type
Anticipated Build-
Out 2021-2029
Projected Dwelling
Units 2021-2029
Projected
Income Level
2 300 Multi-Family 100% 300 195 Very Low
105 Low
4 6 Single-Family 100% 6 Above Moderate
Total Units: 306 306
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2021
Combined, the four Specific Plans outlined above are projected to add 2,430 dwelling units within the 6th cycle planning period, which are broken down by income level in Table 5.42.
Table 5.42: 2021-2029 Projected Specific Plan Development Specific Plan
Income Level
Total
(DUs)
Very Low
(DUs)
Low
(DUs)
Moderate
(DUs)
Above Moderate
(DUs)
I-15 Corridor (100%) – – – 508 508
Emerald Meadows Ranch (50%) – – 238 360 598
Rio Vista (60%) – – 440 578 1,018
Paradise Knolls (100%) 195 105 – 6 306
Total 195 105 678 1,452 2,430
Vacant Sites
The City of Jurupa Valley conducted a c ity-wide inventory of vacant sites to identify additional residential development during the 2021- 2029 housing cycle. This analysis built upon the sites inventory conducted during the 5th Cycle Housing Element Update process, removed sites that had been developed or entitled and added sites identified for the production of housing . Sites were assigned a housing income category based on a compr ehensive survey of housing affordability conducted for the 5 th Cycle, which resulted in the affordability levels outlined in Table 5.43 below. As shown in Table 5.43, only sites designated Highest Density Residential (HHDR) with a density range of 20-25 du/ac were assumed to contribute to Very Low and Low income housing.
Table 5.43: General Plan Affordability Level Assumptions General Plan
Land Use Designation General Plan Density Range Affordability Level Ranch (EDR) 1 du/2 acres Above Moderate (Over 120% AMI) Rural Neighborhood (VLDR) 0-1 du/ac Above Moderate (Over 120% AMI) Country Neighborhood (LDR) 1-2 du/ac Above Moderate (Over 120% AMI) Medium Density Residential (MDR) 2-5 du/ac Above Moderate (Over 120% AMI) Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) 5-8 du/ac Above Moderate (Over 120% AMI) High Density Residential (HDR) 8-14 du/ac Moderate (80-120% AMI) Very High Density Residential (VHDR) 14-20 du/ac Moderate (80-120% AMI) Highest Density Residential (HHDR) 20-25 du/ac Low (0-80% AMI)
To provide a realistic forecast, and account for the need to provide access and infrastructure, build-out of vacant sites was determined by taking 70% of the maximum permitted density allowed by the General Plan. This estimate is based on a survey of housing development projects approved by the Jurupa Valley City Council and Planning Commission between January 1, 2019 and October 15, 2021. Actual percentages ranged from 65% to 100% of the maximum density range with averages well over 75% depending on density and affordability level. Thus, the 70% of General Plan density used in this analysis is a conservative estimate that reflects actual development patterns in the City. Table 5.44 below outlines the projects included in this analysis, together with their densities and affordability levels, the latter of which also correspond with the affordability levels outlined in Table 5.43 above.
Table 5.44: City Council and Planning Commission Approved Projects by Density and Affordability, January 1, 2019-October 15, 2021
General Plan
Designation
Number/Type
of Residential
Units
Project
Density
(du/ac)
Density as a
Percentage of
Maximum General
Plan Density
Anticipated
Affordability Level
JM Built Residential Project
MA 18153
LDR
1-2 du/ac
6 SF 1.29 65% Above Moderate
Sequanota Heights
MA 17099
MDR
2-5 du/ac
48 SF 4.6 92% Above Moderate
Highland Park 2
MA 18089
MDR
2-5 du/ac
34 SF 5.0 100% Above Moderate
Veteran’s Housing
MA 19008
MDR
2-5 du/ac
26 SF 4.9 98% Low
Hudson Street Subdivision
MA 16146
MDR
2-5 du/ac
25 SF 3.9 77% Above Moderate
Montecito
MA 20090
MDR
2-5 du/ac
25 SF 4.7 94% Above Moderate
Emerald Ridge So (single family)
MA 18141
MHDR
5-8 du/ac
97 SF 7.5 94% Above Moderate
Emerald Ridge So (townhomes)
MA 18141
HDR
8-14 du/ac
118 MF 9.9 71% Moderate
Mission Gateway Villas
MA 16224
HDR
8-14 du/ac
57 MF 11.0 78% Very Low/Low/
Moderate
du/ac = dwelling units per acre; SF = Single Family; MF = Multi-Family; LDR = Low Density Residential; MDR = Medium Density Residential; MHDR = Medium High Density Residential; HDR = High Density Residential
Table 5.45 below summarizes the sites inventory for Jurupa Valley.
Additional information on the sites inventory can be found in Appendix A.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-73 Table 5.45: Sites Inventory
General Plan
Land Use Designation
Income Level
Total
(DUs)
Very Low
(DUs)
Low
(DUs)
Moderate
(DUs)
Above Moderate
(DUs)
Ranch Residential (EDR) – – – 1 1
Country Neighborhood (LDR) & Rural Community
– Low (RC-LDR)
– – – 274 274
Medium Density Residential (MDR) – – – 207 207
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) – – – 109 109
High Density Residential (HDR) – – 58 – 58
Very High Density Residential (VHDR) – – – – 0
Highest Density Residential (HHDR) 452 243 – – 695
Total 452 243 58 591 1,344
Progress in Meeting Housing Needs
Table 5.46 summarizes Jurupa Valley’s progress in meeting the 6 th Cycle RHNA and its capacity for housing development. Overall, the land use inventory indicates that the City has the existing capacity needed to accommodate its RHNA in the Moderate and Above - Moderate categories with a combined surplus of 1,558 units in those categories. However, there is an unmet need of 354 units in the Low- Income category and an unmet need of 5 29 units in the Very Low/Extremely Low-Income Category as shown on Table 5.46.
Table 5.46: Progress in Meeting 6th Cycle Regional Housing Need Allocation Unit Capacity
Income Category
Total
Units
Extremely/
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
RHNA 1,207 749 731 1,810 4,497
1. Units Built and/or Entitled Since 6/30/2021 4 5 5 138 152
2. Pipeline Projects – – 310 816 1,126
3. Accessory Dwelling Units1
Total ADUs 2021-2029 (15/year) 27 42 42 9 120
4. Development Potential in Specific Plans
I-15 Corridor Specific Plan
Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan
Rio Vista Specific Plan
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
238
440
508
360
578
508
598
1,018
Paradise Knolls Specific Plan 195 105 – 6 306
Subtotal 195 105 678 1,452 2,403
5. Development Potential on Vacant and Underutilized Parcels Ranch Residential (EDR) – – – 1 1
Country Neighborhood (LDR) & Rural Community –
Low (RC-LDR)
– – – 274 274
Medium Density Residential (MDR) – – – 207 207
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) – – – 109 109
High Density Residential (HDR) – – 58 – 58
Very High Density Residential (VHDR) – – – – –
Highest Density Residential (HHDR)2 452 243 695
Subtotals 452 243 58 591 1,344
Total RHNA Credits (Built + Potential) 678 395 1,093 3,006 5,172 RHNA Surplus/[Deficit] (529) (354) +362 +1,196
1 ADU affordability levels based on SCAG’s 2020 Affordability Analysis for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties 2 Assumes 65% of potential HHDR units on vacant or underutilized parcels applied to “Very Low/Extremely Low” housing need, with the remaining potential HHDR units allocated to meet “Low Income” need.
Additional Sites Needed to Meet RHNA
Based on the foregoing, the City identified additional sites to be redesignated and rezoned to make up for the shortfall of very low and low income housing units during the 2021 -2029 cycle. As outlined i n Action Item HE -1.1.1, following Housing Element adoption, the City will consider a proposal to redesignate 19 sites, totaling 69.2 acres, to the City’s highest density, HHDR. As shown on Table 5.47 and based on a density range of 20-25 du/ac, these sites are projected to accommodate a minimum of 1,147 units, including 760 units of very low income housing and 409 units of low income housing, which will make up for the anticipated shortfall. The City will consider the redesignations/ rezones within three years of the October 15, 2021 beginning of the 6 th Cycle planning period. The summary of sites proposed to be redesignated is outlined in Appendix B.
Table 5.47: RHNA Summary With Redesignation Sites
Unit Capacity
Income Category
Total
Units
Extremely/
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
RHNA 1,207 749 731 1,810 4,497
Total RHNA Credits 678 395 1,093 3,006 5,172
RHNA Surplus/[Deficit] without Redesignation Sites -529 -354 +362 +1,196 – New Redesignation Sites 760 409 – -22 1,147
RHNA Surplus with Redesignation Sites +231 +55 +362 +1,174 +1,9822
E. FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR HOUSING
As a young City with limited financial resources, Jurupa Valley has limited access to funding sources for affordable housing activities. In addition, the City does not have a housing authority. The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside (HACR) manages public housing programs in the City of Jurupa Valley and other participating jurisdictions in the County. The following paragraphs outline the three largest housing funding sources the City of Jurupa Valley can use for housing production, rehabilitation, or preservation.
SB 2/LEAP Grants
In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed a 15 -bill housing package aimed at addressing the state’s housing shortage and high housing costs. The package included the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2, 2017), which established a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California.
The funding was made available until the beginning of March of 2019 to update p lanning documents and land -use ordinances to streamline and promote the development of housing. During the first year of the program, the City of Jurupa Valley received $310,000 Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-75 in state funds for planning efforts to facilitate housing production.
Funding was allocated for the preparation of objective residential design standards, rezoning of sites to accommodate higher density, and preparation of a town center area plan for the Pedley area.
For the second year and onward, 70 % of SB 2 funding will be allocated to local governments for affordable housing purposes. A large portion of year two allocations will be distributed using the same formula used to allocate federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Year Two affordable housing funds will be available for:
• Increasing the supply of housing for households at or below 60% of AMI
• Increasing assistance to affordable owner -occupied
workforce housing
• Assisting persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness • Facilitating housing affordability, particularly for lower and moderate income households
• Promoting projects and programs to meet the local
government’s unmet share of regional housing needs
allocation
Another source of funding to help local jurisdictions to update their planning documents and implement process improvements that will facilitate housing construction is the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grants. The City received $500,000 in LEAP grants in 2020 for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, a general plan consistency program, and programs to incentivize the development of ADUs. LEAP grants are a one -time-only program and are not expected to be offered again in the future.
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside manages the federally funded Section 8 Housing Voucher Program in the City of Jurupa Valley. The program provides rental assistance to very low income persons in need of affordable housing. The program offers a voucher to income -qualified tenants that pays the difference between the payment standard (an exception to fair market rent) and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g. , 30% of their income). A voucher allows a tenant to find their own housing that meets the requirements of the program, including housing that may cost above the payment standard, with the tenant paying the extra cost.
Approximately 344 households in Jurupa Valley receive assistance through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
In 2018, the City of J urupa Valley became an “entitlement City” for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The CDBG program is a grant -funded effort administered by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CDBG program provides about $1.2-$1.3 million in funding for the City to carry out projects in three areas: infrastructure, social services, and housing initiatives. The City is utilizing its CDBG housing funding to assist households with housing rehabilitation through a grant program and to support the Housing Authority of Riverside County implement the Voucher Program outlined above.
Additional Resources
Described below are public agencies, and private and nonprofit organizations that have been involved or are interested in housing activities in Jurupa Valley. These agencies play important roles in meeting the housing needs of the community. In particular, these agencies and organizations have been or are currently involved in the improvement of the housing stock, expansion of affordable housing opportunities, preservation of existing affordable housing, and/or provision of housing assistance to households in need in Jurupa Valley:
• Housing Authority of Riverside County
• Riverside Housing Development Corporation
• Habitat for Humanity
• Jamboree Housing
• Palm Communities
The City will continue to work with these and other qualified housing developers and service providers to create affordable housing through new construction, acquisition/rehabilitation, and preserva- tion.
F. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY
CONSERVATION
Construction of energy efficient buildings can add to the production costs of ownership and rental housing. Over time, however, housing with energy conservation features should reduce occupancy costs as the consumption of fuel and electricity is decreased. This can result in monthly housing costs that are equal to or less than what they otherwise would have been had no energy conservation devices been incorporated in the new residential buildings. This section provides an overview of opportunities for energy conservation during the 2021 through 2029 Housing Element planning period.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-77 State Regulations
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code establishes energy conservation standards that must be applied to all new r esidential buildings. The regulations specify energy -saving design for walls, ceilings, and floor installations, as well as heating and cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, conservation standards, and the use of non -depleting energy sources, such as solar energy or wind power. Compliance with the energy standards is achieved by satisfying certain conservation requirements and an energy budget. Among the alternative ways to meeting the energy standards are the following:
• Alternative 1: The passive solar approach , which requires proper solar orientation, appropriate levels of thermal mass, south -facing windows, and moderate insulation
levels.
• Alternative 2: Generally, requires higher levels of insulation than Alternative 1, but has no thermal ma ss or window
orientation requirements.
• Alternative 3: Requires active solar water heating in exchange for less stringent insulation and/or glazing
requirements.
Residential developers must comply with these standards while localities are responsible for en forcing the energy conservation regulations.
State and Federal Programs
The California Department of Community Services and Development in partnership with the network of local community services agencies that assist lower-income households, administers the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP provides financial assistance to lower income households to offset the costs of heating and/or cooling their residences.
Private Sector Programs
The following private sector energy conservatio n programs are available to Jurupa Valley residents:
• Energy Savings Assistance (ESA) Programs: Lower-income customers enrolled in Southern California Edison’s and/or Southern California Gas ESA program may be eligible to
receive low - or no -cost products and installation: attic insulation; energy -efficient lighting; door weather -
stripping; replaceme nt of qualified appliances; caulking; minor home repairs; low -flow showerheads; and water
heater blankets.
• Gas Assistance Fund (GSF): Lower-income residents having trouble paying their gas bill may receive a one -time grant up to $200 through a joint progr am between Southern
California Gas and United Way.
G. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Governmental Constraints
Governmental constraints are policies, standards, requirements, and actions imposed by the government that affect the
development and provision of housing. Thes e constraints may include building codes, land use controls, growth management measures, development fees, processing and permit procedures, and site improvement costs. State and federal agencies play a role in the imposition of governmental constraints; h owever, these agencies are beyond the influence of local government and are therefore not addressed in this analysis. These governmental policies often have positive and negative effects on housing and thus contributing to the many constraints that are reviewed and used to developed housing objectives. While policies have the intention of encouraging availability and affordability of housing, these same policies can be seen as potentially constraining when met with other nongovernmental constraints.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of a General Plan designates the general distribution, location, and extent of uses for land planned for housing, business, industry, open space, and public or community facilities. As it applies to housing, the Land Use Elem ent establishes a range of residential land use categories, specifies densities (typically expressed as dwelling units per acre), and suggests the types and locations of housing appropriate in a community.
Residential development is implemented through the zoning districts, use classifications, development regulations, and design standards specified in the jurisdiction’s zoning code.
The City of Jurupa Valley adopted the County of Riverside General Plan upon the City’s incorporation in 2011. In 2017, the Ci ty then developed and adopted the current General Plan.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-79 Types of Residential Communities
The governmental factor that most directly influences the types and character of residential communities, as well as market conditions, is the allowable density range of residentially designated land. These densities reflect the type of housing expected in each development, allowing for developers to build in larger scale. In general, higher densities allow developers to take advantage of economies of scale, reduce the per -unit cost of land and improve ments, and reduce developments costs associated with new housing construction.
Reasonable density standards ensure the opportunity for higher - density residential uses to be developed within a community, increasing the feasibility of producing affordable housing, and offer a variety of housing options that meet the needs of the community.
Table 5.48 summarizes the City’s 2017 General Plan land use designations that will allow residential uses, as well as their permitted net densities (without density bonus). The 2017 General Plan provides a range of densities for single -family (up to 14 units per acre) and multi -family (1 4-25 units per acre) housing development to accommodate a wide range of housing options.
Maximum allowed densities are established for all residential designations, and minimum densities are established to help ensure that land zoned for residential use will be developed as efficiently as possible.
The Zoning Code is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan Land Use and Housing elements. It is designed to protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as to promote quality design a nd quality of life. The City of Jurupa Valley’s residential zoning districts control both the use and development standards of each residential site or parcel, thereby influencing the location, design, quality, and cost of housing. Title 9 (Zoning) works with Title 7 (Subdivisions) to ensure that all codes are met when developing new housing communities and neighborhoods.
Table 5.48: Jurupa Valley General Plan Residential Land Use Designations, 2017 Designation Description
Density Range
(du/acre)
Minimum
“Target”
Maximum
Allowed
Small Farm (Rural Residential – RR) • Single-family detached residences on large parcels of at least 5 acres.
-- 1 unit per
5 acres
Ranch (Estate Density Residential -
EDR)
• Single-family detached residences on large parcels of at least 2 acres.
-- 1 unit per
2 acres
Rural Neighborhood (Very Low Density
Residential – VLDR)
• Single-family detached residences on large parcels of 1 to 2 acres.
-- 1 unit per
1 acre
Country Neighborhood (Low Density
Residential (LDR)
• Single-family detached residences on large parcels of ½ to 1 acre.
-- 1 unit per
½ acre
Medium Density Residential (MDR) • Single-family detached and attached residences with a density range of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
2 5
Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR)
• Single-family attached and detached residences with a density range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre.
5 8
High Density Residential (HDR) • Single-family attached and detached residences, including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes, patio homes, and zero lot line homes.
8 14
Very High Density Residential (VHDR) • Single-family attached residences and all types of multi- family dwellings.
14 20
Highest Density Residential (HHDR) • Multi-family dwellings, includes apartments and condominium.
• Multi-level (3+) structures are allowed.
20 25
Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) • Allows a mix of residential, commercial, office and other compatible uses.
• Flexible residential density and development standards are applied to encourage compatible, attractive, high-quality development.
8 20
*Town Center Overlay (TCO) • Applied to three historic core areas, namely Rubidoux, Pedley, and Glen Avon.
• Promotes infill and improvement of established town centers a more urbanized, pedestrian-oriented mix of residential, commercial, office, entertainment, civic, transit, educational, and/or recreational uses, or other uses is encouraged.
• Special Design Guidelines apply to the Pedley, Rubidoux and Glen Avon Town Centers
5 25
Source: Jurupa Valley General Plan
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-81 Development Requirements
Upon incorporation as a city, Jurupa Valley adopted the Riverside County Zoning Code by reference. Table 5.49 summarizes the City’s residential zon ing districts and their development standards, as established in the County Zoning Code adopted by the City. Jurupa Valley has historically been composed of much larger, ranch style residential development , and t he current larger lot development standards are typical to the more rural areas of the State of California. These current development standards can be considered a constraint because it can create underutilized sites through the City. And when applied to new subdivisions, where smaller lot sizes are more compatible, the standards become restrictive to develop- ment. To resolve this issue, the City will be updating its Zoning Code to implement additional standards for multi -family and small lot subdivisions as part of the programs for this Housing Element.
Table 5.49: Summary of Residential Zoning Districts Development Standards Zoning
District
Minimum
Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Minimum Lot Maximum
Building
Height
(stories/feet)
Minimum
Front Yard
(feet)
Minimum
Interior
Side Yard
(feet)
Minimum
Corner
Side Yard
(feet)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(feet)
Lot
Coverage
Width
(feet)
Depth
(feet)
Frontage
(feet)
RR 21,780 80 -- -- 40-50 -- -- -- -- --
R-1/R-1A 7,200 60 100 60 3-story/40 20 10% of lot width 10 10 50% R-A 20,000 100 150 -- 40-50 20 -- -- -- --
R-2 7,200 -- -- -- 3-story/40 20 10% of lot width 10 10 60% R-2A 7,200 -- -- -- 2-story/30 20 5 -- 10 60%
R-3 7,200 60 100 -- 50-75 10 5 10 10 50%
R-3A 9,000 -- -- -- 50-75 10 5 10 10 50%
R-4 3,500 40 80 -- 40-50 20 5 10 10 –
R-5 None n/a n/a n/a 50-75 50 50 50 50 –
R-6 5,000 -- -- 30 35-50 10 – – 10 –
R-T 3,600/7,200 40/60 100 30/45 40 20 5 5 5 –
PUD -- -- -- -- -- 10 5 10 10 varies
Parking Requirements
Table 5.50 summarizes the residential parking requirements in Jurupa Valley. Parking requirements do not constrain the development of housing directly. However, parking requirements may reduce the amoun t of available lot areas for residential development. The City determines the required number of parking spaces based on the type and size of the residential unit and has found the required parking spaces to be necessary to accommodate the number of vehicles typically associated with each residence.
Table 5.50: Residential Parking Requirements
Type of Residential Development Required Parking Spaces (off street) Single-family 2 spaces per dwelling
Multi-family Studio or 1 BR: 1.25 spaces per unit; 2 BR: 2.25 spaces per unit 3 BR: 2.75 spaces per unit (add 1 space per employee); Multi- Family Planned Residential Development: 1.5 spaces per unit
Planned residential development 1 BR: 1.5 spaces per unit; 2 BR or more: 2.5 spaces per unit Senior housing See Single-Family and Multi-Family requirements Mobile home parks 2 spaces per trailer or mobile home space* (add 1 guest space per 8 mobile home spaces) Accessory dwelling units 1 space per unit
Source: Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, 2021
Density Bonus Ordinance
California Government Code §65915 requires local governments to grant a density bonus and additional incentive s and reductions in parking requirements to a developer of a qualifying housing project – for example, applicants that agree to provide a certain percentage of very low -income units, low-income units, or moderate income units. The density bonuses that the City has are the same as state law and will continue to be included in new housing developments.
Building Codes and Enforcement
Building and safety codes are adopted to preserve public health and safety and ensure the construction of safe and decent housing.
These codes and standards also have the potential to increase the cost of housing construction or maintenance.
The City of Jurupa Valley has adopted the 2019 California Building Standards Code. Other codes commonly adopted by reference within the region include the California Mechanical Code, the California Plumbing Code, the California or National Electric Code, the Uniform Housing Code, and the California Fire Code. Le ss common are the California Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Urban -Wildland Interface Code, and the Uniform Code for Building Conservation. The City has not adopted any local amendments that constrain the development, main - tenance, or preservation of housing.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Land Use Controls
As previously noted, the City will address the provision of residential care facilities as part of the action plan for this Housing Element through a Zoning Code update. After the update, Jurupa Valley will be able to accommodate all persons with disabilities as required by state law.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-83 Reasonable Accommodation
Building and development standards may constrain the ability of persons with disabilities to live in housing units that are suited to their needs. Currently, the City considers requests for reasonable accommodation when requests are made, without a formal
application and approval process. As part of this Housing Element’s Programs, the City will adopt a formal reasonable accommodation ordinance into the Zoning Code.
Building Code
As indicated above, the City of Jurupa Valley has adopted the 2019 California Building Standards Code and routinely adopts updates as they become available. The City has not adopted any special amendments to this Code that would impede housing for persons with disabilities.
Planning and Development Fees
Housing construction imposes certain short - and long -term costs upon local government, such as the cost of providing planning services and inspections. The City of Jurupa Valley relies upon various planning and development fees to recoup costs and ensure that essential services and infrastructure are available when needed. Current planning fees for Jurupa Valley , which may be updated by the City Council by resolution from time to time, are summarized in Table 5.51.
Table 5.51: Planning Fees
Application Initial Deposit Fee
General Plan Amendment $7,479.66
Conditional Use Permit $9,646.14+$5.10 per lot or site
Variance (filed alone) $2,625.48
Site Development Permit (Plot Plan) $4,791.96
Tentative Tract Map (Single-Family Residential) $11,368.92 + $102 per unit Tentative Tract Map (Multi-Family Residential) $11,368.92 + $102.00 per lot + $19.38 per acre
Tentative Parcel Map (without waiver of Final
Parcel Map)
$5,621.22 + $104.04 per lot
Zone Change $3,648.54
Accessory Dwelling Unit $550
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, January 1, 2021
Fees vary due to location of the units.
A funding source widely used among local governments in California is the development impact fee, which is collected for a variety of improvements including street and drainage improvements. The City of Jurupa Valley collects development impact fees from developers of new housing units, as well as commercial, office, retail, and industrial development. These fees are used to offset
costs primarily associated with traffic impacts and City street improvements that are necessitated by the proposed develop - ments. Table 5.52 summarizes the development impact fees required by the City and by other relevant agencies in 2017 for residential developments. Based on 2020 development applications, development impact fees are in the order of $15,500 per unit for a market-rate single -family development and $12,000 per unit for market-rate multi-family apartment projects.
Table 5.52: Residential Development Impact Fees (Per Unit) Fee Type
Area 1: Jurupa
Single-Family Multi-Family
Public Facilities Fee $1,207 $1,011
Fire Facilities Fee $705 $590
Transportation (Roads, Bridges) Fee $1,001 $ 791
Transportation (Signals) Fee $420 $378
Regional Parks $563 $472
Regional Trails Fee $316 $264
Libraries Fee $341 $286
Program Administration Fee $60 $50
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Single-family: $8,873 Multi-family: $6,231 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Fee
Less than 8.0 units per acre: $1,952/unit
Between 8.0-14.0 units per acre: $1,250/unit
Greater than 14.0 units per acre: $1,015/unit
Mira Loma Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) Fee Zone A:
$1,667
MF*: $417
Zone B:
$884
MF*: $612
Zone D: $2,681
MF*: $1,857
Zone E: $1,644
MF*: $1,139
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, reassessed in 2021
Fees for senior single-family units are reduced by 33%.
Code and Fee Transparency
California Government Code §659401(a)(1) requires that every city or county make all information regarding development processing applications, regulations, and fees readily available to all applicants for development projects and any person requesting the information. The City of Jurupa Valley provides information its development processes, regulations and fees available on its website. Many of the develop - ment regulations and fees were inherited from the County of Riverside and still refer to County documents. At the time of preparation of this Housing Element, the City is reviewing the website to ensure that all processes, regulations, and fees are provided on the website and are easy to navigate to, and that systems are in place to regularly update and maintain the information.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures
Considerable holding costs are associated with delays in processing development applications and plans. At times, these holding costs are passed through to renters and homeowners in the price/rent of housing, thus affecting affordability. The City of Jurupa Valley’s Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-85 development review process is designed to accommodate housing development applications of various levels of complexity and requiring different entitlements. Processing times vary with the complexity of the project. Currently, state law requires specific review times and project completion for certain types of ministerial housing related applications. These laws streamline the time and review process each project can go through, but the timelines still depend on the type of housing and size of the overall development and total units proposed.
Ministerial Site Development Permits (SDPs)
In 2020, the City adopted objective multifamily residential develop- ment standards (MMC 92.40.545) to facilitate the ministerial review of multifamily housing projects that reserve a minimum of 10% of the units affordable to lower income households. As of the preparation of this document, the City is in the process of formalizing the process through the preparation of an application and other procedures. A pplicants for affordable multi-family projects that conform with underlying general plan and zoning designations need only to submit for building permits . Applications are routed to the Community Development Department to
determine conformance with the City’s objective multifamily development standards. Staff works with applicants directly on any minor design changes needed to ensure conformance thus allowing projects to remain in an expedited ministerial building permit review process. This process eliminates the need for a discretionary Site Development Permit and CEQA for affordable housing projects, but still requires impact studies where site conditions warrant them.
Objective Residential Development Standards
The City’s multifamily residential design standards were prepared to be objective and not subject to varying interpretations or opinions in accordance with State law. A recent review conducted with the preparation of this Housing Element confirmed their objectivity. For instance, most of the standards are numerically based and require a minimum size such as requiring washer and dryer hook -ups in each dwelling unit (or garage) for projects of eight units or more. Other standards provide clear direction on requirements and are not subject to interpretation.
As of 2021, t he City has also been working with an affordable housing developer to relax some of t he multifamily development standards to be more conducive to affordable housing development.
The Planning Commission and City Council are considering changes to the standards including reduce d setbacks from industrial, commercial, and institutional uses; r educed landscape buffer requirements, more flexibility with building articulation, removal of
pad-mounted mechanical equipment attenuation requirements , and a reduction in private open space requirements.
Parcel Maps
A parcel map will be required if a housing project either spans multiple small parcels that need to be merged or for projects that are on large parcels and need to b e subdivided for single family homes. Permits for a tract home or an apartment complex will require elevation approvals thro ugh a professional services application with the City. These applications often review the color, design, and style sheets associated with each development. In some cases, these elevation reviews include landscaping, materials, design elements, and wall/fence designs. This process, if it does not include environmental review, can take about 3 to 5 months for staff review and approval at public hearing. Then it goes t hrough the Building Permit process. If the project is for a multi -family development, it can take about 6 months to 1 year including interagency review of parcel maps, and environmental studies before it goes to building permitting. After the approval of the planning permits, developers will move forward with grading permits and environmental surveys, and will serve letters prior to obtaining the building permits , which typically take 3 to 5 months of processing and analysis by Engineering and outside agencies.
Building Permit Processing Timeline
Residential projects typically take 3 to 6 months to complete the Building Permit plan check process, sometimes longer depending upon the size of the project and whether any impact studies are required. The City ’s permit procedures expedite planning and building approvals wher e possible and are not likely to unduly constrain housing development. The following discussion describes in detail the City’s administrative development review procedures (such as discretionary Site Development Plan Review) as well as other discretionary review and approval processes.
Pre-Application Review
Prospective discretionary permit applicants are encouraged to meet with a City Planner prior to submitting an application. This preliminary meeting help s to expedite the development process.
Applicants may also request a more detailed, formal pre-application review. This type of review can be helpful for large or more complex projects, and when the applicant desires review by multiple City departments, such as Engineering, Building, and Public Works. Pr e- Application Review requires submittal of an application, fee, plans, and background information and can take from 5 to 8 weeks to process depending on the complexity of the project.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-87 Following submittal, the application is routed to all City departments and outside agencies that need to review the formal entitlement application. For example, a Tentative Tract Map would be transmitted to utility companies (e.g., Southern California Edison, SoCal Gas), special districts (JCSD/RCSD/JARPD) and the County of Riverside.
Discretionary Site Development Permits (SDPs)
The City of Jurupa Valley requires a discretionary Site Development Permit for all residential projects with the exception of affordable housing developments that qualify for ministerial review. There are three basic levels of review for site development permits. Projects that are not subject to CEQA and are not combined with a general plan amendment, rezone or subdivision map , may be approved by the Community Development Director without the need for a public hearing. Site development projects that require a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR), but are not combined with a general plan amendment, rezone or subdivision map, may be approved at a Community Development Director hearing. Site Development Permit projects which have policy implications, public controversy or include a general plan amendment, rezone or subdivision action, are considered by the Planning Commission and City Council at noticed public hearings.
At a minimum, projects needing an SDP require submittal of an application, fee, checklist, site plan and other exhibits, and supporting informat ion to the Community Development
Department. All SDPs require written notice to owners of property located within at least 300 feet of the proposed project boundaries.
The time for processing an SDP varies with the complexity of the proposal. However, the review process for a minor SDP that is exempt from CEQA can usually be accomplished within 90 to 120 days. This process usually includes one to two rounds of plan reviews, which can last about 30 days each plan resubmittal , and a 21-day noticing period for public comments, after which the Community Development Director will take action. Projects subject to CEQA and those requiring approval by the Planning Commission and City Council typically take two to four rounds of review. The total processing time for these projects is variable and largely dependent on the completeness of project applications and supporting technical information as well as applicant’s responsiveness to reviewer comments.
Land Use Controls Analysis
The City of Jurupa Valley’s development approval process is designed to accommodate, not hinder, residential development. For example, developments of single -family homes and manufactured
homes on existing, individual lots in any residential zones that meet development standards (setbacks, lot size and coverage, building height, parking) do not require discretionary approval. They require only a building permit – a ministerial process – to allow construction.
Similarly, multi-family housing is allowed “by right” in the R -3 Zone (General Residential). In all residential zones that do not allow multi- family by right would require a Site Development Permit (SDP). As described above, the SDP process provides a discretionary review process that allows most residential development projects to be evaluated for compliance with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance standards. The SDP will review the architectural designs and materials, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and parking in the process before evaluating for the necessary findings for the permit approval.
The primary decision-making criteria to approve an SDP are:
1. The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the Jurupa Valley General Plan and with all applicable
requirements of state law and the ordinances of the city.
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 improve- ment o f necessary streets and sidewalks, including the avoidance of traffic congestion; and shall take into account topographical and drainage conditions, including the need for dedication and improvements of necessary structures as a part thereof.
3. All site development permits that 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 that prohibits the sale of any existing or
subsequently constructed structures on the parcel until the parcel is divided and a final map is recorded in accordance with Title 7 in such a manner that each building is located on a separate legally divided parcel. The City’s processing and permit procedures are consistent with state planning and zoning law and are not considered to be an
unreasonable constraint on the cost or supply of housing.
Applicants are given clear advice and direction during pre - application reviews on project processing requirements and timelines. Staff also advises applicants of potential issue areas and suggests changes that could be made prior to submittal of formal applications to minimize conflicts and/or processing times. Many projects are also scheduled for Planning Commission study sessions early in th e process to gain input from decisionmakers about Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-89 potential issues. In making SDP findings , the Community Development Director, Planning Commission and City Council generally consider projects that are consistent with the General Plan to be “compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.” Where issues exist, the City seeks to work with project applicants on project modifications and revisions that are mutually beneficial in order to enable projects to move forward with minimal delays.
Conditional Use Permits (CUP)
A CUP is required for certain limited residential uses that are conditionally permitted in non -residential districts (e.g., General Commercial “C -1/C-P” zone district), such as congregate care residential fa cilities. CUPs can be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on specific findings. Typically, the Planning Commission reviews and takes final action on CUPs, and appeals are considered by the City Council, who would then take final action on t he matter. Any permit that is granted is subject to such conditions of approval as may be necessary to protect the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, duration, site improvements (e.g., access, parking, landscaping, fencing, signage), off -site improvements (e.g., trails, frontage improvements, street trees), and architectural design. The City’s CUP process typically allows the Planning Commission to consider conditional uses within approximately 90 to 150 days if the project is exempt from environmental review requirements.
Development within Density Range
The decision on what residential densities to build to are largely market-driven as private developers strive to produce the most marketable housing. The City does not enforce minimum densities, meaning that developers may propose any density up to the maximum permitted by the underlying General or Specific Plan designation. However, development in Jurupa Valley generally falls at 75% of the maximum allowable density or above. In addition, City staff and decisionmakers, increasingly aware of the need to increase housing choice within the City, are generally encourage applicants to propose within the upper limits of the allowable density range.
Environmental Constraints
Potential environmental constraints to future development in the City include seismic and liquefaction hazards, urban and limited wildland fire hazards, and historical contamination by hazardous materials such as the Stringfellow property in the northern portion of the City. All sites identified in the Sites Inventory (Appendix A) that are int ended to meet the City’s RHNA needs are not within these areas that have development restrictions due to risk of damage from disasters (such as floods, wildfires, seismic events, or hazardous material contamination).
The sites inventory has land use designations that were determined based on surrounding land uses and has already examined potential environmental constraints. Aside from the typical constraints mentioned above, there are no additional constraints that would impede the development of new housing units in the future on the identified sites.
Seismic Hazards
As stated in the General Plan Community Safety, Services and Facilities Element, the entire City, as well as all of Southern California, is a seismically active region that has been subject to major earthquakes in the past. There are no known active faults in Jurupa Valley. However, the Rialto -Colton, San Jacinto, and Chino Faults are all located close to the City (i.e., within 5 miles). The greatest damage from earthquakes results from ground s haking.
Although ground shaking is generally most severe near a quake epicenter, property not immediately adjacent to the epicenter may be subject to extreme damage due to liquefaction. The greatest potential danger is the collapse of older residential units constructed from unreinforced masonry, and explosions of petroleum and fuel lines. Some parts of the City have a combination of silts and sandy soil types and a relatively high water table that are conductive for liquefaction to occur during intense gro und shaking. The State Mining and Geology Board has designated some areas in the City within a liquefaction zone. Most of these areas are along the Santa Ana River, but the far eastern and southwestern portions of the City are also susceptible to liquefaction. Much of the northern portion of the City, north of the SR 60 freeway, has moderate to very high susceptibility to landslides and soil slumps. There are also areas in the central portion of the City with steeper slopes that may be subject to soil block slides.
Development in much of the City will require geotechnical or soil constraints reports to mitigate the potential undermining of structural integrity during earthquakes or due to geologic or soil limitations.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-91 Flooding
The Federal Emergency Manageme nt Agency (FEMA) publishes maps that identify areas of the City subject to flooding in the event of a major storm. These Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) indicate areas that may be inundated in the event of a 100-year or a 500-year storm. In addition, the maps indicate the base flood elevations at selected intervals of the floodway. The City had been subject to periodic and historic flooding and flood insurance requirements imposed by FEMA until improvements were constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers on the Santa Ana River and other major flood control channels within the City. FEMA Flood Maps show that the City’s main flood hazard zone lies in the southern portions of the City near the Santa Ana River, along Pyrite Creek, and in the far northwestern and western portions of the City just east of the I -15 freeway.
Some areas of the City that are designated for future residential development fall within the 100 -year floodplain and would be subject to specialized flood construction requirements.
Fire Hazards
The most serious fire threat within the City is building and structure fires. However, like most Southern California cities adjacent to wildland areas (e.g., steep hills in the northern portion of the City), the late summer fires that result from the accumulation of this brush have the potential to spread into the City proper. Since the City center is largely developed, there is less potential for wildland fires in the more central portions of the City. Other fire hazards within the City may be associated with heavy industrial uses, older commercial and residential structures, the presence of hazardous materials, and arson. Only a small portion of the City is located within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Zone; and the sites identified to accommodate the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA allocation are located outside of the high fire hazard zone and in largely developed urban or suburban areas that are not generally prone to wildland fire hazards.
Noise
Noise generated from mobile sources such as traffic will continue to have the greatest potential impact on land use (e.g., I -15 and SR 60 freeways, Mission Boulevard). In addition, noise from rail and aviation sources will also affect some community residents. The General Plan Noise Element describes the existing noise environ - ment using maps that indicate high levels of noise and also contains goals and policies to reduce the effects of noise, if not the actual intensity of noise. Land use policy discourages the placement of noise-sensitive land uses in areas that are subject to high noise levels. The City regulates noise through the Jurupa Valley Ordinance
No. 2012-01: Noise Regulations, under the authority of §50022.9 of the California Government Code.
Each potential development that would occur as a result of the Housing Element and subsequent implementation would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis and be required to adhere to the noise regulations set forth in the General Plan, and when applicable, mitigation measures as part of the CEQA documentation process, which would identify potentially significant impacts and appropriate mitigation measures at the individual project level.
Hazardous Materials
The City contains a number of industrial uses that produce, handle, store, or transport various hazardous materials at various times.
However, the use and handling of these materials are governed by a variety of federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and should not pose a significant impediment to development in non-industrial portions of the City.
Portions of the City overlie an historical plume of groundwater contamination from the Stringfellow Class I Site located in Pyrite Canyon in the northern portion of the City at the headwater of Pyrite Creek. The Pyrite Channel runs through the central portion of the City in a northeast-southwest direction toward the Santa Ana River.
The Stringfellow site is a major historical regional source of contamination in the Jurupa Valley and was one of the first designated federal “Superfund” sites. It is listed on many governmental databases regarding hazardous materials (e.g., NPL, CERCLIS, U.S. Engineering Controls, ROD, RCRA-SQC, CONCENT, and PRP databases). According to the Chino Basin Watermaster, the Stringfellow groundwater contamination plume consists primarily of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and perchlorate; however, the VOCs ex tend approximately 1 mile from the source area in the down-gradient direction with the remainder of the plume consisting of perchlorate. The presence of perchlorate represents a potential health hazard if the public were to encounter the contaminated Stringfellow groundwater plume; however, none of the sites identified to accommodate the City’s 2021 -2029 RHNA allocation would be directly affected by the Stringfellow groundwater plume.
Infrastructure Constraints
The 2021 -2029 Housing Element promotes the pro duction of housing, which in turn may result in population growth. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for producing socioeconomic projections and developing, refining, and maintaining the SCAG regional and small area f orecasting models. These forecast numbers are used to Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-93 forecast travel demand and air quality for planning activities such as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Air Quality Management Plan, and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
allocations. The U.S. Census as reported by the California Department of Finance estimates the City’s 2015 population was 98,855 persons. SCAG ’s most recently adopted demographics and growth forecast projects that the City’s population will grow to 117,800 persons by the year 2045.
With the exception of public streets, Jurupa Valley’s infrastructure, including parks, flood control, sewer and domestic water treatment and facilities are provided and maintained by the County of Riverside and by community service distr icts (CSDs), primarily the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) and the Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD). These agencies were asked to provide input and received the 2021 Housing Element, as required by law. In addition, the City refers all pertinent development applications to the CSDs and requires that they be reviewed for adequate infrastructure and service capacity. Applications are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure there is enough capacity to service new developments. The CSDs ’ development requirements and
comments are addressed as part of City approvals of planning applications.
The City has established standard street widths for different road types and Table 5.53 summaries these requirements. In addition to requiring improvements to public streets, the City may also require on- and off -site improvements related to water supply, fire protection, sewage disposal, fences, and electrical and communication facilities.
Table 5.53: Street Design Standards
Street Type
Street Width
(feet) Number of Lanes
Expressway 184 to 220 6 to 8
Urban Arterial 152 minimum 6 to 8
Arterial 128 minimum 4 to 6
Major 118 minimum 4
Secondary 100 minimum 4
Collector 74 minimum 2
General Local 44-60 2
Source: City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, (2015)
Water Supply
Jurupa Valley’s domestic water is supplied primarily by the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) and the Rubidoux Community Services District, with a small portion of old Mira Loma served by the Santa Ana Water Company. The JCSD service area comprises about 26,000 acres within the City of Jurupa Valley and the eastern portion of the City of Eastvale, while the RCSD se rvice area includes
approximately 4,907 acres located in the northeastern portion of Jurupa Valley. Water sources for the JCSD and RCSD come primarily from the Chino Groundwater Basin and the Chino Basin Desalter Authority.
The Chino Basin is designated as a High Priority Basin under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring ( CASGEM) Program. The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino adjudicated the Chino Groundwater Basin on January 27, 1978. The princip al function of the adjudication is to control the use of the water source in order to ensure the source is utilized in an optimum manner. Operation of the basin is governed by the Judgment and agreement among producers, whereby
producers are allotted a “Base Water Right” to a certain amount of the operating “Safe Yield” of the basin. According to the Judgment, participating entities including JCSD, can pump in excess of their allotted “Base Water Right” but must pay a replenishment assessment to the Waterma ster to cover the cost to replenish any overdraft caused by the excess pumping. The provisions of the Judgment and the monitoring of the basin are carried out by the court-appointed Chino Basin Watermaster. The Watermaster files an annual report to the cou rt that addresses pumping and replenishment.
In June 2021, JCSD and RCSD adopted their 2020 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs), which detail each district ’s current and future water supplies. The UWMPs found that with all of its existing and planned supplies, JCSD and RCSD can meet 100% of projected demand of growth in the City through 2045 under normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year demand conditions for expected growth. Projected demand was based on known proj ects and build-out under the Jurupa Valley and Eastvale General Plan land use designations including pipeline projects and housing on the sites inventory list contained in this Housing Element Update. As such, the districts will have adequate water supplie s and infra - structure to serve pipeline projects and sites on the sites inventory list.
Regarding the proposed redesignation/rezone sites, Sites G and H are located within the RCSD service area with the remaining located within the JCSD service area. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum prepared for this Housing Element Update includes an analysis of the additional water demand for the proposed redesignation/rezone sites. Based on water demand factors contained in the UWMPs, the increased water d emands from the proposed redesignation/ rezone sites would be within the current and projected supplies available from the JCSD and RCSD through the year 2045. Thus, adequate water supplies and infrastructure would be available to accommodate the City’s RHNA.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-95 Wastewater Treatment
JCSD and RCSD also provide wastewater service to most of Jurupa Valley although, some areas in the City, particularly in Old Mira Loma and Sky Country, still rely on private septic systems. The City of Riverside, the Western Rivers ide County Regional Wastewater Authority, and the Orange County Sanitation District are responsible for treatment of wastewater in the JCSD service area. The JCSD sends approximately 41% of wastewater to the Riverside County’s Regional Water Quality Contro l Plant (RWQCP) and 38% to the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority
(WRCRWA) Treatment Plant, the remaining 13% is conveyed to the Inland Empire Brine Line (IEBL), whereas all of RCSD wastewater is transferred to the RWQCP.
Both JCSD and RCSD have existing and future capacity rights to the wastewater treatment facilities based on general plan build -out projections. Thus, the agencies will have adequate wastewater capacity to serve the pipeline projects ADUs, Specific Plans and sites inventory list outlined in this Housing Element Update.
The environmental Addendum prepared for this Housing Element Update includes an analysis of the additional wastewater demand for the proposed redesignation/rezone sites. Based on district wastewater genera tion rates, the Addendum determined that demand would not significantly impact wastewater flows to either treatment facility and development fees will offset the future expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. Thus, adequate wastewater supplies and in frastructure would be available to accommodate the City’s RHNA.
Market Constraints
Land Prices
Land costs have a demonstrable influence on the cost and availability of affordable housing. Land prices are determined by a number of factors, most important of which are land availability and permitted development density. As land becomes less available, the price of land increases.
According to Lennar Homes, in 2020 unentitled multi-family land in the region typically sells for about $400,000 per acre. By comparison, unentitled single -family land costs between $300,000 and $500,000 per acre , which only increase s when developed .
However, land cost is very site -specific; many factors such as location, size, shape, entitlement processes required, and environmental factors can impact land cost significantly. In general, land costs in Riverside County are significantly lower than in more urbanized counties of San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles counties.
Construction Costs
Current construction costs are primarily determined by the costs of materials and labor. They are also influenced by market demands and market -based changes in the cost of materials. Construction costs depend on the type of unit being built and the quality of the product being produced. However, construction costs are set by regional and national factors that rarely impede housing development in specific localities.
In Jurupa Valley, construction costs vary for single-family homes and multi-family homes. Different type s of buildings are often considered when developing in Jurupa Valley, and there is a trend to develop housing through master planned and prefabricated units, where the cost is minimized. The California Building Standards Code 2019 adopted by the City of Jurupa Valley is updated to include the option to recertify older prefabricated or manufactured homes as long as they have been updated to meet the adopted Build ing Standards Code.
Financing
Mortgage interest rates have a large influence over the affordability of housing. Higher interest rates increase a homebuyer’s monthly payment and decrease the range of housing that a household can afford. Lower interest rate s result in lower monthly payments for the homebuyer and can increase the buyer’s purchasing ability. With the market being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the current mortgage interest rates have dropped while price of homes holding steady in the medium range of $540,000.
The availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications b y the income, gender, and race of the applicants. This applies to all loan applications for home purchases, improvements, and refinancing, whether financed at market rate or with government assistance.
Table 5.54 summarizes the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions in 2017 for home purchase, refinance, and home improvement loans in Jurupa Valley and the County of Riverside. Included is information on loan outcomes (i.e., the number of applications that were approved and originated, denied, withdrawn by the applicant, and incomplete).
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-97 Table 5.54: Disposition of Home Loans, 2019
Loan Type
Total
Applicants
Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied
Jurupa Valley
Government-backed 460 91.1% 8.9%
Conventional 1,637 82.6% 17.4%
Refinance 2277 73.2% 26.8%
Home improvement 401 63.6% 36.4%
Total 4,775 77.3% 22.7%
Riverside County (Unincorporated)
Government-backed 995 21.6% 78.4%
Conventional 1143 72.4% 27.6%
Refinance 2590 56.3% 43.7%
Home improvement 512 42.0% 58.0%
Total 5,420 62.7% 37.4%
Source: www.LendingPatterns.comTM, July 2019
Home Purchase Loans
In 201 9, 1,637 Jurupa Valley households applied for conventional loans to purchase homes, as shown in Table 5.54 . Approximately 83% of these applications were approved and 17% were denied. The City’s approval rate was moderately higher than the approval rate for Riverside County. By comparison, 72% of conventional home loan applications countywide were approved while 28% were denied.
460 applications were submitted for the purchase of homes in Jurupa Valley through government -backed loans (e.g., FHA, VA) in 2019. Among applications for government -backed home purchase loans in the City, 91% were approved and 9% were denied. Again, the City’s approval rate for this loan type was much lower than that of Riverside County, where the approval rate for govern ment- backed home purchase loans was 22%.
Refinance Loans
The vast majority of loan applications filed by Jurupa Valley residents in 2019 were for home refina nce loans ( 2,277 applications). About 73% of these applications were approved, while 27% were denied.
For the County, 56% of refinancing applications were approved.
Home Improvement Loans
Within the City of Jurupa Valley, home improvement loans were the least likely to be approved. Approximately 36% of home - improvement loan applications were denied and 64% were
approved by lending institutions in 201 9. The high proportion of denials may be explained by the nature of these loans. Most home improvement loans are second loans and therefore more difficult to qualify for due to high income-to-debt ratio requirements.
Energy Conservation Constraints
The City of Jurupa Valley is committed to conserving energy and reducing pollution associated with the production of electricity. The City continues to require compliance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code on the use of energy efficient appliances and insulation. Through compliance with Title 24, new residential development has produced reduced energy demands. While local governments are limited in the impact they can have in this area, there are some significant steps cities can take to support this goal.
The state mandate in 2019 started the implementation of solar panels inclusion on new structures and buildings in the California as of January 2020. Legislation like this includes aids in the City’s effort to ensure that development in the community continues to grow in a sustainable fashion.
To further its energy conservation objectives, in September 2015, the City adopted an ordinance that establishes an expedited, streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems.
The Jurupa Unified School District improved the energy efficiency of school campuses by implementing a comprehensive organizational behavior-driven energy conserva tion program in partnership with Energy Education starting in December of 2009.
Southern California Edison, which provides electrical ser vice in Jurupa Valley, offers public information and technical assistance to developers and homeowners regarding energy conservation.
Southern California Edison also provides a number of rebate programs for energy efficient new construction and home improvements. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing is also available in Southern California to help homeowners finance energy efficiency upgrades or renewable energy installations.
In January 2020, the state mandated that all new construction required solar panels unless it was in a qualifying category of exemption. As a result, with this housing developers have started to offer solar packages as part of the sale price for a new single-family home with some exemptions when roof area and solar is not po ssible. The associated Green Code requirements should not constrain the developer; however, the cost of this requirement will likely be shouldered by the consumer, making the cost of purchasing a home increase.
H. HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS , AND POLICIES
The condition, availability, and cost of Jurupa Valley’s housing stock are of vital importance to its residents and employers, and the City’s Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-99 economy as a whole. The primary housing goals are meeting housing needs for all income groups, including market rate housing needs, housing conservation and improvement, equal housing opportunity, neighborhood improvement and removal of blight, energy
conservation, and housing policy implementation. Policies and programs for each goal are described below.
Goals
HE 1 Encourage and, where possible, assist in the development of quality housing to meet the City’s share of the region’s housing needs for all income levels and for special needs populations.
HE 2 Conserve and improve the housing stock, particularly housing affordable to lower income and special housing
needs households.
HE 3 Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons.
HE 4 Maintain and enhance residential neighborhoods and remove blight.
HE 5 Reduce residential energy and water use.
HE 6 Affirmatively further fair housing.
Policies
HE 1 – Encourage Development of Quality Housing That
Meets the City’s Affordable Housing Needs
Policies
HE 1.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Changes to the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and Map shall
provide and/or maintain sufficient land at appropriate
densities to meet the City’s Regiona l Housing Needs
Allocation for the 2021-2029 Planning Period.
HE 1.2 Affordable Housing. Encourage affordable residential development on sites zoned to allow multi -family
residential uses and identified in the vacant land
inventory, the City will adopt dev elopment incentives
and standards to encourage lot consolidation, and to
allow residential development at a density of up to 25
dwelling units per acre in the Highest Density Residential (HHDR) designation, where appropriate.
HE 1.3 Accessory Dwelling Unit s (ADUs). Encourage the
development of ADUs on residentially zoned parcels ,
were appropriate through the creation of sample plans
and development information packets.
HE 1.4 Housing Diversity. Encourage the development of diverse housing types and housing densities to best meet the needs of the community.
HE 1.5 Preservation of Affordable Housing. All residential development projects that receive City financial
incentives shall be required to remain affordable, in
compliance with the specific requirements of the
program in which they participate.
HE 1.6 Availability of Suitable Sites. Ensure the availability of suitable sites for the development of affordable housing to meet the needs of all household income levels,
including special needs populations.
HE 1.7 Housing for Mentally Disabled. Encourage the
development of additional housing for the mentally
disabled.
HE 1.8 Housing for Homeless Persons and Those at Risk of Homelessness. In cooperation with other cities and/or
the County of Riverside, assist in the development of
emergency, transitional, permanent supportive housing
and low barrier navigation centers for homeless persons and families and those at risk of homelessness.
HE 1.9 Housing for All Special Needs Groups. Ensure and encourage the availability of housing to all Special needs populations and income levels.
HE 1.10 Self-Help Housing. City will promote self -help housing programs (e.g., Habitat for Humanity) and, as bud get
allows, provide financial assistance.
HE 1.11 Innovative Housing. Encourage innovative housing, site plan design, and construction techniques to promote
new affordable housing, improve energy efficiency, and
reduce housing costs.
HE 1.12 Starter Housing. Consider allowing construction of high quality “starter housing” (single-family units up to 1,600 square feet) on smaller lots in Medium-High Density and High-density zones, and consider providing incentives
such as flexible development standards, permi t fast
tracking, and City fee reductions.
HE 1.13 Code and Fee Transparency. Ensure the City’s planning and development processes regulations and fees are
readily accessible and transparent.
HE 1.14 Development Within Density Range. Encourage
development at the upper limits of the applicable
general plan density range to increase housing choice in the City.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-101 HE 2 – Conserve and Improve the Housing Stock,
Particularly Housing Affordable to Lower Income and
Special Housing Needs Households
Policies
HE 2.1 Retain Housing. Where feasible and appropriate, older, sound housing should be r etained, rehabilitated, and
maintained as a significant part of the City’s affordable housing stock, rather than demolishing it. Demolition of non-historic housing may be permitted where
conservation of existing housing would preclude the
achievement of other housing objectives or adopted City goals.
HE 2.2 Removal of Affordable Housing. Discourage the removal or replacement of sound housing that is affordable to
extremely low, very -low, low - and moderate income
households, and avoid discretionary approvals or other municipal actions that remove or adversely impact such
housing unless: 1) it can be demonstrated that
rehabilitation of lower-cost units at risk of replacement is financially or physically infeasible, or 2) an equivalent number of new units compa rable or better in
affordability and amenities to those being replaced is
provided, or 3) the project will remove substandard,
blighted, or unsafe housing.
HE 2.3 Public Housing. Encourage the Riverside County Housing Authority to pursue federal and state funds to modernize public housing affordable to very low and low -income
households.
HE 2.4 Tax-Exempt Bonds. Consider using tax -exempt private activity bonds for the financing of multi -family housing rehabilitation.
HE 2.5 Historic Residential Properties. Consider adopting incentives for the preservation of historic residential structures, such as the Mills Act Program, which provides property tax relief for rehabilitation of historic
properties, as well as grants for the identification of historic structures.
HE 2.6 Housing Rehabilitation Funding. Pursue all available federal, state, and local funds to assist housing
rehabilitation.
HE 2.7 Neighborhood Quality. The condition and quality of residential neighborhoods is a key measure of a
community’s housing health. The City will consider and
promote the safety, appearance, and quality of
residential neighborhoods by preserving the fabric,
amenities, spacing (i.e., building heights and setbacks), and overall character and quality of life in established neighborhoods.
HE 2.8 At-Risk Housing Preservation. Work with Riverside County Housing Authority and other housing agencies to
preserve the affordability of assisted housing and other affordable housing resources at risk of conversion to
market rate housing utilizing federal, state, and local financing and subsidies, as City resources allow.
HE 3 – Promote Equal Housing Opportunities for All
Persons
Policies
HE 3.1 Fair Housing Program. Continue to support fair housing laws and organizations tha t provide fair housing
information and enforcement.
HE 3.2 Housing Information. Provide referrals to low -income households and households with special housing needs
on how to obtain housing counseling, financing, and
other housing information.
HE 3.3 Housing Opportunities for Seniors, Disabled Persons , Single Parent Households, Farmworkers, Veterans,
Homeless, and all other Special Needs Groups .
Encourage and, as budget allows, help support programs
and activities that promote affordable housing
opportunities for seniors, disabled persons, single parent household, farm workers, homeless, veterans, an d all
other special needs groups.
HE 4 – Maintain and Enhance Residential Neighborhoods
and Remove Blight
Policies
HE 4.1 Removal of Blight. As part of developm ent approvals, City budget and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) program
and other municipal actions, give high priority to
removing and reversing the effects of blight, particularly in residential neighborhoods and highly visible locations along major street and highway corridors. Within
established neighborhoods, new residential develop-
ment shall be of a character, scale, and quality that
preserve the neighborhood character and maintain
the quality of life for existing and future residents.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-103 HE 4.2 Design Compatibility. Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on-site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative and affordable design solutions and shall be designed to enhance prevailing neighborhood
architectural and site character.
HE 4.3 Neighborhood Integration. New neighborhoods should be an integral part of an existing neighborhood or
should establish pedestrian, bicycle, and, w here
appropriate, equestrian linkages that provide direct,
convenient, and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods,
schools, parks and shopping.
HE 5 – Reduce Residential Energy and Water Use
Policies
HE 5.1 New Construction. Encourage the development of
dwellings with energy-efficient designs, utilizing passive and active solar features and energy-saving features
that exceed minimum requirements in state law.
HE 5.2 Sustainable Design. Residential developments should promote sustainability in their design, placement, and
use. Sustainability can be promoted through a variety of housing strategies, including the following:
1. Maximize use of renewable, recycled-content and
recycled materials, and minimize use of building
materials that require high levels of energy to
produce or that cause significant, adverse environ-
mental impacts.
2. Incorporate renewable energy features into new
homes, including passive solar design, solar hot
water, solar power, and natural ventilation and
cooling.
3. Minimize thermal island effects through reduction
of heat-absorbing pavement and increased tree
shading.
4. Avoid building materials that may contribute to
health problems through the release of gases or
glass fibers into indoor air.
5. Design dwellings for quiet, indoors and out, including appropriate noise mitigation for residential uses near
noise sources such as highways, major streets,
railroad tracks, and industrial uses.
6. Design dwellings to be economical to live in due to
reduced energy or resource use, ea se of
maintenance, floor area, or durability of materials.
7. Help inform residents, staff, and builders of the
advantages and methods of sustainable design, and
thereby develop consumer demand for sustainable
housing.
8. Consider adopting a sustainable development rating
system, such as the LEED® or Green Globes program.
HE 5.3 Site and Neighborhood Design. Residential site, subdivision, and neighborhood designs should consider
sustainability. Some ways to do this include:
1. Design subdivisions to maximize solar access for each dwelling and site.
2. Design sites so residents have usable outdoor space
with access to sun and shade.
3. Streets and access ways should minimize pavement
devoted to vehicular use.
4. Use multi -purpose neighborhood “pocket parks”/
retention basins to purify street runoff prior to its
entering creeks. Retention basins shall be designed
to be visually attractive as well as functional. Fenced- off retention basins should be avoided.
5. Encourage cluster developments with dwellings
grouped around significantly sized, shared open
space in return for City approval of smaller individual lots.
6. Treat public streets as landscaped parkways, using
continuous plantings at least 6 feet wide and, where
feasible, median planters to enhance, define , and
buffer residential neighborhoods of all densities from
the effects of vehicle traffic.
HE 6 – Affirmatively further fair housing
Policies
HE 6.1 Take Meaningful Action . Take meaningful action to affirmatively further fair housing by implementing
measures to improve housing mobility, provide new
opportunities in higher opportunity areas, encourage
place-based strategies for community revitalization and discourage displacement.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-105 I. HOUSING ACTION PLAN
An important component of the Housing Element is the City’s description of what it hopes to achieve during the current planning period. This is accomplished with a state ment of goals, policies, actions, and quantified objectives on the maintenance, preserva - tion, improvement, and develop ment of housing to help meet the housing needs of all residents.
This section of the Housing Element presents the City’s Housing Action Plan for the period 2021 - 2029. The objectives and actions described in Table 5.55 reflect the assessment of the City’s housing needs and summarize Housing Element programs, responsible parties, and anticipated time frames for their implementation. Time frames are intended to be achieved unless determined by the City Council to be infeasible due to budget or staffing constrain ts. All items in Table 5.55 are developed to further the goals set forth by the city and to meet newly implemented state and federal housing laws for the requirements of the 6 th cycle and the needs of the growing community.
In addition to the Housing Action Plan , the City conducted a Fair Housing Assessment , as outlined in Appendix E. As required by HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (A FFH) guidelines, the analysis includes a specific matrix of Fair Housing action items as outlined in Appendix E and Table 5.55 below:
1. AFFH Issues
2. Contributing Factors
3. City Actions
4. Time frame and Priority
Figure 5-8: Housing construction in Jurupa
Valley
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-106 Table 5.55: Housing Action Plan Summary, 2021-2029
Objective Action Responsible Party Time Frame
Goal HE 1: Encourage and where possible, assist in the development of quality housing to meet the City’s share of the region’ s housing needs for all income levels and for all special needs populations.
Ensure that the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance and Map desig-
nate sufficient land at appropriate
densities and in appropriate
locations to accommodate the City’s
fair share of regional housing needs.
HE 1.1.1. General Plan and Zoning Amendments. Amend
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Map to designate 69.2 additional acres for residential use at HHDR density (up to 25 du/acre) to help meet Lower Income RHNA needs; address all by- right requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i); and amend the Zoning Ordinance as appropriate to be consistent with the General Plan.
Community Development
Department / Planning
Commission / City Council.
Initiate and adopt within by October 15, 2023.
Provide incentives to encourage
development of Opportunity Sites
and adaptive reuse of properties in
all Residential Zones, with emphasis
on Medium-High, High, Very High,
and Highest Density Residential
zones.
HE 1.1.2. Housing Authority Coordination. Coordinate with the Riverside County Housing Authority to pursue grant funding and other incentives to promote and assist the nonprofit and/or private production of housing affordable to lower income households.
Utilize public financing tools when available, including revenue bonds, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME, and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program funds.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle. Coordinate annually with
the Riverside County Housing Authority.
Preserve mobile homes and
encourage their maintenance and
improvement as affordable housing
for seniors, disabled persons and
lower income households, and to
maintain and enhance neighbor-
hood quality and safety.
HE 1.1.3. Mobile Homeowner Assistance. As resources allow, use federal and state grant funds, when available, to assist seniors, veterans and other lower income households purchase and/or improve mobile homes.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
Encourage and assist the feasibility
of private development of affordable
housing for lower income house-
holds and special needs groups,
including the development of multi-
family affordable units.
HE 1.1.4. Affordable Housing Incentives. Consider establishing incentives for developers of new housing that is affordable to lower income households and special needs groups, such as: fast track/priority application and permit processing, density bonuses and/or fee waivers, assist affordable housing developers with right- of-way acquisition, off-site infrastructure improvements and other development costs, and assist in securing federal or state housing financing resources. Incentives should be considered for new housing developments of 100 or more units in which at least 10% of total units are sold or rented at prices affordable to households with incomes below 80% of the Riverside County Area Median Income (AMI).
Community Development
Department
Implement within 18 months of Housing Element
Adoption.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-107 Objective Action Responsible Party Time Frame
Encourage and assist in the
expedited housing development of
affordable housing through state law
qualification process to promote the
production of affordable housing.
HE 1.1.5 Employee Housing Act Ordinance. Update the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to include provisions for work force housing/ employee housing to ensure consistency with state law, including all requirements for the Employee Housing Act.
Community Development
Department
Initiate within 6 months of Housing Element
Adoption and adopt within 18 months of initiation.
HE 1.1.6 Affordable Housing Development Review. Develop SB35 expedited review process guide and qualification checklist for the development of affordable housing units in the City for developers.
Community Development
Department
Complete within 2022, monitor annually for
updates.
Encourage the development of
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in
appropriate locations to expand
housing opportunities for all income
levels and special needs groups.
HE 1.1.7 Accessory Dwelling Units. Develop ADU informational materials and 'as built' sample plans to promote the development of ADUs in the City; monitor the production and affordability of ADU’s annually to ensure meeting the assumptions outlined in this element; and revisit the RHNA strategy mid-cycle if ADU production and affordability falls short of assumptions.
Community Development
Department and Building and
Safety Department
Complete ADU informational materials and ‘as
built’ sample plans within 2022. Annually monitor
ADUs permitted at the time of the Annual Progress
Reports (APRs). If needed, revisit and adapt the
RHNA strategy mid-cycle.
Maintain consistency with state law
and encourage production of
smaller, affordable housing where
appropriate.
HE 1.1.8. Density Provisions. Update the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code and General Plan density provisions to ensure consistency with government codes, including minimum density requirements and density bonuses, as required by state law, to encourage production of smaller, affordable housing, particularly in Town Centers and in higher density, mixed-use and other areas where appropriate and compatible with adjacent development.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle. Complete by October 15,
2023.
Encourage and assist the feasibility
of private development of affordable
housing for lower income house-
holds and all special needs groups.
HE 1.1.9. Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees. Establish a City affordable housing fund and affordable housing in-lieu fee program.
Work with private housing developers to include affordable units and/or make in-lieu contribution to City’s affordable housing fund.
Community Development
Department
Establish affordable housing fund and in-lieu fee
program within calendar year 2022. On an ongoing
basis, work with private developers to include
affordable units and/or make in-lieu contributions to
the affordable housing fund.
HE 1.1.10. City Development Fees. Develop a sliding scale fee assistance program where the amount and type of City
development fees may be waived by the City Council based on the number of affordable units proposed (i.e., as the number of affordable units increases, the amount of fee waiver increases).
Community Development
Department
Adopt sliding scale fee assistance program within
Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
Utilize grant funding to assist in the
development of affordable housing
and to improve neighborhoods.
HE 1.1.11. Assistance Programs. Create programs and grant application program to provide the CDBG funds obtained by the City to the community for neighborhood development.
Community Development
Department
Ongoing for the 2021- 2029 planning period in
coordination annually with the City’s CDBG
Program.
Encourage and assist the feasibility
of private development of affordable
housing for lower income
households and all special needs
groups.
HE 1.1.12. Site Identification. Work with public, private and nonprofit housing entities to identify candidate sites for new construction of rental housing for seniors and other special housing needs, and take all actions necessary to expedite processing and approval of qualified projects determined by the City.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-108 Objective Action Responsible Party Time Frame
Assist developers, decision makers,
and the public in identifying housing
opportunities.
HE 1.1.13. Updated Land Use Inventory and Map. Establish and maintain a Land Use Inventory and a map that provide a
mechanism to monitor a) acreage and location by General Plan designation, b) vacant and underutilized land, and c) build-out of approved projects utilizing the City’s GIS system and supported by mapping. Maintain the Land Use Inventory on a regular basis, as frequently as budget allows.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle. Establish Land Use
Inventory and map within 2022-2023. Monitor
annually within the 2021-2029 planning period.
HE 1.1.14. Candidate Sites Mapping. Collaborate with developers to identify vacant and underutilized properties as candidate sites for affordable or mixed market rate/affordable housing development and identify them in the Land Use Inventory.
Community Development
Department
Complete within 18 months of Housing Element
adoption.
Establish a shelter to help meet
local needs for safe housing for
homeless adults and children.
HE 1.1.15. Homeless Shelter. In cooperation with nonprofit organizations, adjacent cities, and with Riverside County, encourage the development of a homeless shelter to meet Jurupa Valley’s and adjacent communities’ homeless shelter needs.
Community Development
Department
Adopt a plan within 24 months of Housing Element
adoption.
Address the broad range of needs
of homeless persons.
HE 1.1.16. Homelessness Strategy. Until a permanent shelter or shelters can be established within the City, the City shall work with Riverside County and local housing agencies to help prepare a homelessness strategy to address immediate needs dealing with safety, health and sanitation, environmental health, temporary housing, and access to homeless services. The strategy shall address all special needs categories including, but not limited to, persons with developmental disabilities and farmworkers.
Community Development
Department
Adopt a strategy within 18 months of Housing
Element adoption.
HE 1.1.17. Update the I-P Zone Parking Standards for
Emergency Shelters. Update the I-P Zone parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for Emergency Shelters to accommodate all staff working in emergency shelters, provided they do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other commercial uses within the I-P zone.
Community Development
Department
Update the parking standards of the I-P zone for
emergency shelters within 18 months of
adoption of the Housing Element.
Provide government incentives to
promote creative, private- and public
sector housing products, particularly
for lower income households and all
special needs groups.
HE 1.1.18. Creative Housing Solutions. Provide incentives to encourage development of a range of creative and affordable housing types to accommodate homeless persons, seniors, disabled persons, and other low and extremely low-income populations, such as single room occupancy dwellings (SROs), pre-fabricated housing, so-called “tiny houses,” and other emerging housing products. Potential incentives include priority permit processing, fee waivers or deferrals, flexible development standards, supporting or assisting with funding applications, and coordinating with housing developers. Incentives shall address all Community Development
Department
Adopt incentives within 24 months of Housing
Element adoption.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-109 Objective Action Responsible Party Time Frame
special needs categories including, but not limited to, persons with developmental disabilities and farm workers.
Encourage and coordinate activities
of nonprofit housing providers in
Jurupa Valley.
HE 1.1.19. Coordination with Non-Profit Housing Providers.
Continue to work with non-profit organizations, such as National Community Renaissance, Mary Erickson Housing, and Habitat for Humanity, in the production of affordable and self-help housing for all special needs groups.
Community Development
Department
Ongoing, 2021-2029 City will continue to consult
with nonprofit housing providers at least annually
and on an on-going basis as part of its annual
CDBG outreach.
Encourage and assist the feasibility
of developing high-quality housing
that meets a wide range of housing
needs, tenure and budgets including
those for mobile homes, special
development and multifamily
dwellings.
HE 1.1.20. Flexible Standards. Continue to provide for flexibility in the design of residential development through the processing of planned unit developments (PUDs), area and specific plans, and town center plans, and through the application of Zoning Ordinance provisions allowing flexible lot sizes and development standards.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
HE 1.1.21 Inclusionary housing Ordinance. Study the feasibility of adopting an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Community Development
Department
Initiate study within 6 months of adoption of 6th
cycle housing element and adopt within 18 months
from initiation
Encourage and assist the
development of high-quality housing
that meets a wide range of housing
needs, tenure and budgets,
including needs for disabled
persons and other persons with
special needs.
HE 1.1.22. Mixed Housing Types and Densities. Continue to work with residential developers to develop a range of housing types and densities for all income levels, including affordable housing, using creative planning concepts such as traditional neighborhood design, small lot subdivisions, planned unit developments, area and specific plans, and mixed-use
development.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
HE 1.1.23 Lanterman Act Ordinance. Update the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code disability accessibility provisions to ensure consistency with state law, including all requirements for the Lanterman Act. In addition to allowing residential care facilities of six or fewer persons through a ministerial process, larger group homes of seven or more persons must be permitted ministerially, regardless of license.
Adopt in 18 months of adoption of 6th cycle housing
element
Promote accessible housing that
meets the needs of disabled
persons and other persons with
special needs.
HE 1.1.24. Affordable Housing for Disabled Persons. Apply for grant money and as budget allows, help support programs providing increased opportunities for disabled persons in affordable residential units rehabilitated or constructed through City or County programs.
Continued from 5th Cycle and Ongoing for the
2021-2029 planning period.
Ensure the City’s planning and
development processes, regulations
and fees are readily accessible and
transparent.
HE 1.1.25 Code and Fee Transparency. Regularly review and update the City’s website and other materials to ensure that planning and development processes, regulations and fees are readily accessible and transparent.
Community Development
Department and Building and
Safety Department.
Ongoing 2021-2029.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-110 Objective Action Responsible Party Time Frame
Encourage the development of
transitional, temporary and
permanent supportive housing, and
low-barrier navigation centers for
homeless adults and children and
those at risk of homelessness.
HE 1.1.26 Transitional, Temporary and Permanent Supportive Housing, and Low Barrier Navigation Centers. Review and update the City’s Zoning Code to ensure that transitional, temporary and permanent supportive housing and low barrier navigation centers are allowed by-right in zones allowing similar types of residential development as required by state law.
Community Development
Department
Initiate within 12 months of adoption of the 6th
Cycle Housing Element.
Encourage development at the
upper levels of the applicable
General Plan density range.
HE 1.1.27 Development within Density Range. Encourage
development at the upper limits of the allowable General Plan density range to increase housing choice in the City. Requests for densities below the allowable density range should generally be discouraged except where environmental constraints or other factors limit the development potential of a site.
Community Development
Department
Ongoing 2021-2029.
GOAL HE 2: Conserve and improve the housing stock, particularly housing affordable to lower income and special housing needs households.
Conserve housing resources,
particularly for historic resources
and to provide cost- and resource-
efficient, high quality affordable
housing.
HE 2.1.1. Adaptive Housing Strategies. Develop program to assist in creative strategies for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of residential, commercial, and industrial structures for housing, if appropriate.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle. Work with HOME/CDBG
Programs and develop adaptive housing strategies
program by 2024.
Protect public health, safety and
neighborhood quality for all persons;
administer codes in a fair, consistent
and community-responsive manner.
HE 2.1.2. Code Enforcement. Ensure that housing is maintained through code enforcement activities. Continue to administer the Code Enforcement Program to eliminate unsafe, illegal, and substandard conditions in residential neighborhoods and residential properties.
Building and Safety Department
and Code Enforcement
Department
Ongoing 2021-2029.
Preserve mobile homes and
encourage their maintenance and
improvement as affordable housing
for special needs groups, and to
maintain and enhance neighbor-
hood quality and safety.
HE 2.1.3. Affordable Mobile Homes Conservation. Conserve affordable mobile home housing stock and help bring such housing up to code through periodic outreach and mobile home loan and improvement grants funded by CDBG and other funds, as
available.
Community Development
Department
Work with FHCRC to develop a program for annual
outreach to mobile home owners, non-profits and
other agencies and fund three mobile home
improvements per year beginning in FY 23/24 with
CDBG funds.
Preserve affordable homes and
encourage their maintenance and
improvement as affordable housing
for special needs groups, and to
maintain and enhance neighbor-
hood quality and safety.
HE 2.1.4. Affordable Homes Conservation. Conserve affordable housing stock and help bring such housing up to code through and improvement grants funded by CDBG and other funds, as
available. In addition, where affordable homes are in need of replacement, help with replacement through CDBG and other funds.
Community Development
Department
Develop a program for affordable home repair and
replacement within 36 months of Housing Element
adoption.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-111 Objective Action Responsible Party Time Frame
Offer all persons an equal
opportunity to participate in planning
and housing decisions that affect
them.
HE 2.1.5. Bilingual Outreach. As resources allow, provide bilingual outreach materials and activities to educate and inform the community about available housing rehabilitation programs and resources.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle and Ongoing for the
2021-2029 planning period.
Preserve publicly assisted
affordable housing that is at risk of
being converted to market-rate and
losing its affordability provisions.
HE 2.1.6. Monitor Assisted Units. Help ensure that affordable housing assisted with public funds remains affordable for the required time through maintenance of an inventory of assisted units which is monitored for expiration of assisted housing.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle. Create inventory within
Fiscal Year 2022-2023, monitor regularly for the
2021-2029 planning period.
HE 2.1.7. Preserve At-Risk Housing Units. Preserve grant- assisted, bond-financed, density bonus or other types of affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate during the planning period by working with the Riverside County Housing Authority or other nonprofit housing entities to 1) purchase the units using state, federal or local financing and/or subsidies, 2) assist with low or no interest loans for rehabilitation, as budget allows, 3) support bond refinancing, and 4) refer the project sponsor to other federal or local sources of below-market financing. City shall also ensure compliance with state noticing and tenant education requirements.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle. Create inventory within
Fiscal Year 2022-2023, monitor regularly for the
2021-2029 planning period.
Preserve affordable housing as
required by the funding agency or
source of funds providing assistance
to the project.
HE 2.1.8 Affordability Covenants. As a condition of project approval, require new affordable housing projects to remain affordable for a specific time, consistent with and as required by the funding program(s) in which they participate, through covenants with the project proponent, Housing Authority or other housing agency.
Community Development
Department / City Council
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
Remove or mitigate governmental
constraints to housing such as
outmoded, unnecessary, conflicting
and excessive requirements.
HE 2.1.9 Remove Government Constraints. Evaluate the zoning ordinance, subdivision requirements, and other City regulations to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible. Evaluate and revise as appropriate the City’s density requirements for the Highest Density Residential land use designation (HHDR) to address constraints for housing
development including impacts on feasibility of proposals.
Community Development
Department, assisted by Building
and Safety Department and
Engineering Departments
Ongoing action for 2021-2029 planning period and
annually assessed.
GOAL HE 3: Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons.
Help ensure that all persons are
treated fairly and have access to
housing which meets their needs
and budget.
HE 3.1.1. Fair Housing Council. Utilize the services of the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to implement a number of programs, including: 1) audits of lending institutions and rental establishments, 2) education and training of City staff, and 3) fair housing outreach and education regarding fair housing laws and resources.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-112 Objective Action Responsible Party Time Frame
Help ensure that all persons are
treated fairly and have access to
housing which meets their needs
and budget.
HE 3.1.2. Education and Outreach. Continue to use the services of the Fair Housing Council to provide education and outreach services to the public in both Spanish and English (also see HE 3.1.1 above).
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
Preserve existing public housing. HE 3.1.3. Public Housing and Rental Assistance. Develop program to assist in creative strategies for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of residential, commercial, and industrial structures for housing, if appropriate.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle. Develop program within
Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
Explore innovative financing
strategies to assist first time
homebuyers.
HE 3.1.4. First-Time Homebuyers Assistance. Explore the feasibility of developing a new First Time Home Buyer Down Payment Assistance Program, utilizing tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to finance mortgages and down payment
assistance for single-family homes for very low and low income first time homebuyers.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle. Explore within Fiscal
Year 2022-2023 and ongoing for the 2021-2029
planning period.
Ensure new multi-family housing
meets the same high quality
standards for safety, quality and
environmental health that other
housing types must meet for all
income levels.
HE 3.1.5 Multi-Family Dwellings Standards. Establish standards for multiple-family dwellings that will achieve comparable recreation and open space opportunities, protection from sources of noise and degraded air quality, adequate access to public services and facilities and parking,
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle. Adopt within Fiscal Year
2021-2021.
Ensure fair treatment of all persons
in securing safe housing and to
promote equal housing
opportunities.
HE 3.1.6. Fair Housing Council. Collaborate with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to continue to provide services to the community and accept requests, complaints and assistance for fair housing needs.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
HE 3.1.7 Reasonable Accommodations. Establish a written procedure for providing reasonable accommodations in zoning code and land use.
Community Development
Department
Initiate and complete in 18 months of Housing
Element certification with HCD
GOAL HE 4: Maintain and enhance residential neighborhoods and remove blight.
Enhance the quality of life in all
residential areas and promote
residents’ active involvement in and
support for neighborhood pride and
improvement activities.
HE 4.1.1. Neighborhood Participation. Implement varied
strategies to ensure residents are aware of and able to participate in planning decisions affecting their neighborhoods early in the planning process, such as neighborhood meetings, City Council member visits, and town hall meetings.
Community Development
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
HE 4.1.2. Neighborhood Needs. Identify specific neighborhood needs, problems, trends, and opportunities for improvements. Work directly with neighborhood groups and individuals to address concerns.
HE 4.1.3. Neighborhood Improvements. As budget allows, help fund neighborhood improvements, such as street paving or repairs,
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-113 Objective Action Responsible Party Time Frame
sidewalks, pedestrian and equestrian trails, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and other public facilities to improve aesthetics, safety, and accessibility.
Establish a proactive code
enforcement program to identify
housing in need of repair and make
owners aware of resources for
financial assistance
HE 4.1.4. Neighborhood Pride. Working with Riverside County, CSDs and nonprofit housing entities, develop and promote a Neighborhood Pride Program including cooperative projects with Code Enforcement staff, and Public Works projects in target areas, as funding allows.
Community Development
Department, Code Enforcement
Department and Engineering
Department
Develop within 18 months of Housing Element
adoption and ongoing for the 2021-2029 planning
period.
GOAL HE 5: Reduce residential energy and water use.
Conserve resources, reuse and
recycle solid waste, and improve
environmental sustainability.
HE 5.1.1. Incentives. Consider establishing incentives for energy conservation above and beyond the requirements of Title 24, such as priority permit processing or reduced permit fees on a sliding scale Fee Assistance Program, as budget allows.
Building and Safety Department,
Community Development
Department, and Engineering
Department
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
HE 5.1.2. Energy Programs for Lower Income Households.
Encourage and participate in Riverside County’s and utility providers’ programs to reduce maintenance and energy costs for households with low incomes, and increase efforts to inform the public about available cost-saving, energy conservation programs.
Engineering Department, assisted
by Community Development
Department and Building and
Safety Departments.
HE 5.1.3. Energy Conservation Grants. Pursue grant funds for energy rehab costs and consumer education.
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
HE 5.1.4. City Requests for Proposals. City RFPs, contracts, and bidding procedures capital projects and programs shall incorporate energy conservation and sustainability measures.
Continued from 5th Cycle and ongoing for the 2021-
2029 planning period.
HE 5.1.5. Sustainable Design. Adopt sustainable design policies, standards and codes that result in attractive, energy efficient, neighborhoods.
Adopt within 18 months of Housing Element
adoption.
GOAL HE 6: Affirmatively further fair housing.
Implement measures to affirmatively
further fair housing.
HE 6.1.1. AFFH Actions. Address the AFFH issues outlined in Appendix E by implementing the AFFH action items contained in Table 5.56.
City Manager’s Office, and
Community Development
Department.
On-going for the 2021-2029 planning period.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The City complies with the State A ffirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements by taking meaningful actions to address impediments identified in the Fair Housing Assessment located in Appendix E. In summary, the City of Jurupa Valley offers high opportunity areas but faces challenges in prom oting and providing a range of housing types and prices suitable for lower - income households. Providing a range of affordable housing can help foster more inclusive communities and increase access to opportunities for persons of color, persons with disabil ities, and other protected classes. Table 5.56 summarizes fair housing issues, contributing factors, and implementing actions.
The actions listed below, along with the other programs identified in this section, were developed to cumulatively address the AFFH goals to counter act the disparities and issues that were identified in the AFFH analysis located in Appendix E. The timeframes and priority levels are added to ensure the implementation of these actions in a timely manner. The priorit y levels for these actions are defined as the following:
• High Priority contributing factors are those that have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing, and are core municipal functions that the City can control;
• Medium Priority factors are those that have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing, but the City has limited capacity to control their implementation;
• Low Priority factors may have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing choice, but the City lacks capacity to address it, or the factor may have only a slight or indirect impact on fair housing choice.
As shown in Table 5.56, the City intends to complete the necessary actions to meet the requirements of State AFFH requirements.
These actions are integrated into the action plan for the overall 6 th Cycle Housing Element with the specialized time frames for expedited implementation. The rationale for identifying these actions is to ensure they are implemented in a timely manner to better serve the community of Jurupa Valley. These actions are intended to alleviate the main issues identifies in the Fair Housing Assessment and the City intends to implement these and all the action items outlined above during the 2021 -2029 planning period.
In addition, the City intends to monitor the AFFH actions on an annual basis in conjunction with the preparation of Annual Progress Reports (APRs) to ensure the goals are being met. If any action items are not being achieved, the City will adjust its metrics, timeframes and commitments as necessary in FY 24/25 to ensure it meets its AFFH goals.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-115 Table 5.56 – Fair Housing Program Action Items
Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe Geographic Targeting Metrics Housing Mobility
Accessory Dwelling
Units
Encourage the development of Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs) in appropriate
locations to expand housing opportunities
for all income levels and special needs
groups.
1. Develop ADU informational materials
and ‘as built’ sample plans to promote
the development of ADUs in the City.
2. Monitor the production and affordability
of ADUs annually to ensure the City is
meeting the assumption of 15 AUDs per
year as outlined in this Housing
Element.
High priority /
within 18
months of
Housing
Element
adoption.
Citywide, target
marketing and outreach
efforts in higher
opportunity areas.
Complete ADU informa-
tional materials and ‘as
built’ sample plans within
2022. Annually monitor
ADUs permitted at the
time of the Annual
Progress Reports (APRs).
Target 20% of ADUs in
higher opportunity areas.
Public Housing and
Rental Assistance
Support HACR’s Housing Choice Voucher
Assistance Program
1. Encourage the HARC to continue to
provide housing choice vouchers to a
minimum of 344 households in Jurupa
Valley and increase voucher usage in
higher opportunity areas.
2. Work with HARC and FHCRC to
encourage small property owners to
participate in HACR’s Housing Choice
Voucher Assistance Program
Low priority /
within 36
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Increase the number of
voucher assistance
recipients in higher
opportunity areas.
Target education and
marketing efforts
throughout the
community with an
emphasis on higher
opportunity areas.
Increase the number of
low-income recipients in
receiving voucher
assistance in higher
opportunity areas by 5%
by FY 24/25.
Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe Geographic Targeting Metrics New Opportunities in Higher Opportunity Areas
Provide Housing
Opportunities in Higher
Opportunity Areas for all
Members of the
Community
Provide government incentives to promote
creative private and public-sector housing
products, particularly for lower income
households and all special needs groups.
1. Provide incentives to encourage
development of a range of creative and
affordable housing types to
accommodate homeless persons,
seniors, disabled persons, and other
low and extremely low-income
populations, such as single room
occupancy dwellings (SROs),
prefabricated housing, tiny houses, and
other emerging housing products
through fee waivers or deferrals, flexible
development standards, supporting
funding applications, etc.
2. Work with local developers to include
affordable housing units in all new
housing developments during the
entitlement process.
3. Develop an inclusionary housing
ordinance to increase the variety of
affordable housing to provide for special
needs groups that aren’t being reached
right now according to the AFFH.
4. Allocate funding for Infrastructure
improvements citywide including, but
not limited to, pedestrian and bicycle
improvements, complete streets and
corridor beautification, ADA
improvements, and Safe Routes to
School enhancements with a priority in
the most economically impacted
neighborhoods.
Medium priority
/ within 24
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Target creative housing
types throughout the
City with an emphasis
on higher opportunity
areas. Provide
affordable housing
throughout the City with
an emphasis on higher
opportunity areas and
areas of concentrated
poverty. Prioritize
funding for
infrastructure
improvements in areas
of concentrated
poverty.
Creative incentive
packages for creative
housing solutions in
FY23/24. Develop an
inclusionary housing
ordinance and promote the
inclusion of affordable
units in every housing
project in entitlement
beginning in FY22/23.
Target 30% of new
affordable housing in
higher opportunity areas
and 30% in areas of
concentrated poverty.
Prioritize funding for
infrastructure improve-
ments in the most
impacted areas beginning
in FY 23/24.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-117 Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe Geographic Targeting Metrics Traditional
Neighborhood Design
Standards
Adopt and implement Traditional
Neighborhood Design Standards
ordinance to allow smaller single-family
homes on smaller lots and increase
housing choice and affordability.
Promote the development of smaller single-
family homes on smaller lots using the
Traditional Neighborhood Design
Standards to developers through the
entitlement process. Also develop
promotional materials such as educational
fliers/handouts on Traditional Neighborhood
Design Standards for dissemination to the
development community and in meetings
with developers.
High Priority /
adopt
ordinance in
FY 21/22,
Medium Priority
/ implementa-
tion ongoing for
the 2021-2029
planning cycle.
Higher opportunity
areas designated for
single-family residential
development at 2+
dwelling units per acre.
Increase the affordability
of new single-family
residential subdivisions by
5% in high opportunity
areas and throughout the
City by the end of the
2021-2029 planning
period.
Place-based Strategies for Community Revitalization
Affordable Mobile
Homes Conservation
Preserve mobile homes and encourage
their maintenance and improvement as
affordable housing for special needs
groups
1. Conservation. Conserve affordable
mobile home housing stock and help
bring such housing up to code through
periodic outreach and mobile home
loan and improvement grants funded by
CDBG and other funds, as available.
Medium priority
/ within 24
months of
Housing
Element
adoption.
Existing mobile home
parks and areas of
concentrated poverty
and higher need.
Work with FHCRC to
develop a program for
annual outreach to mobile
home owners, non-profits
and other agencies and
fund three mobile home
improvements per year
beginning in FY 23/24 with
CDBG funds.
Substandard Housing
Conditions
Undertake efforts to correct disparities in
the provision of standard housing
conditions due to the lack of new housing
affordability, age of housing stock and cost
of repairs or rehabilitation.
1. Allocate CDBG grant for housing
update and rehabilitation for most aged
housing stock for homes older than 50
years.
Medium priority
/ within 24
months of
Housing
Element
adoption.
Census tracts 404.02,
405.03, and 406.04 and
other areas of
concentrated poverty
and higher need.
Allocate CDBG funding for
five houses per year
beginning in FY23/24.
Enforcement and
Outreach to Reduce
Discrimination
Reduce fair housing discrimination by
small landlords resulting from the lack of
local private fair housing outreach and
enforcement, resources for fair housing
agencies and organizations, and state or
local fair housing laws to support strong
enforcement.
1. Allocate CDBG funding to creating
locally hosted educational workshops
on fair housing to reduce the amount of
discrimination
2. Provide social media and fact
sheets/resource alternatives to access
fair housing info with links to the City
website
3. Collaborate with Fair Housing Council
of Riverside County for continued
Medium priority
/ within 24
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Citywide Allocate CDBG funding for
a minimum of two
educational workshops per
year and provide social
media and fact sheets on
fair housing beginning in
FY23/24.
Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe Geographic Targeting Metrics tracking of fair housing enforcement for
discrimination cases.
Support At-Risk
Children and Youth
Support the Rubidoux Youth Opportunity
Center provide support, encouragement
and opportunities to at-risk youth facing
abandonment and neglect.
1. Provide informational materials on the
Youth Opportunity Center at City Hall
and promote the Center through social
media platforms and regular updates at
City Council meetings.
2. Make meeting rooms available to the
Center at the City’s Jurupa Valley
Operations Center located in the
Rubidoux area.
3. Assist the Center in the preparation of
grant applications as needed.
4. Work with the Rubidoux Youth
Opportunity Center to promote their
services in census tracts with
concentrated poverty and highest need.
Medium priority
/ within 24
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Census tracts 404.02,
405.03, and 406.04 and
other areas of
concentrated poverty
and higher need.
Promote and provide
assistance to the Center
beginning in FY 23/24.
Target promotion of
resources twice a year.
Please note, it is difficult to
quantify the outcomes of
this action item but the
City is committed to
supporting at-risk youth in
the Rubidoux community
and throughout the City.
Provide Additional
Parkland in Areas of
Concentrated Poverty
Support the Jurupa Area Recreation and
Park District’s acquisition and
development of a neighborhood park in the
Rubidoux Community.
1. Provide technical support and assistance
to JARPD to acquire and develop a ¾
acre park in the Mission / Wallace / Daly
area.
Low priority /
within 36
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Areas of concentrated
poverty and higher
need within the
Rubidoux Community
Provide a new
neighborhood park in the
Rubidoux Community by
FY 24/25.
Promote Meaningful
Engagement in the
Public Decision-Making
Process
Continue to implement the policies of the
Environmental Justice Element to promote
meaningful engagement in the public
decision-making process among
disadvantaged populations.
1. Ensure that affected residents have the
opportunity to participate in decisions
that affect their health (EJ 1.1).
2. Schedule public meetings on key issues
affecting the public at times and locations
most convenient to community members
(EJ 1.4).
3. Provide translation and interpretation
services at public meetings on issues
affecting populations whose primary
language is not English. Translation time
should not be taken from the person’s
time limit for comments (EJ 1.6).
High priority /
ongoing for the
2021-2029
planning cycle
Areas of concentrated
poverty and higher
need.
Increase participation in
the public decision-making
process by disadvantaged
persons by 10% by the
end of the 2021-2029
planning cycle.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-119 Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe Geographic Targeting Metrics Displacement
Displacement Risk of
Low Income Residents
Due to Economic
Pressures
Reduce disparities in the loss of affordable
units and encourage the development of
affordable units to reduce the
displacement of residents due to
unaffordable rents, the concentration of
poverty in some tracts, and the availability
of affordable housing.
1. Work with FHCRC to continue to
provide access to aid and financial
counseling for residents and develop an
outreach plan for the neighborhoods
with the greatest concentration of
poverty.
2. Promote development of affordable
units though City polices and State Law
on every housing project in entitlement
Low priority /
within 36
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Target financial aid and
counseling on areas of
concentrated poverty
and higher need.
Promote the
development of
affordable units in
higher opportunity
areas.
Provide financial aid and
counseling through
FHCRC to a minimum 5
households per year
beginning in FY24/25;
promote the inclusion of
affordable units on every
housing project in
entitlement in FY22/23.
J. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
The State requires that the Housing Element include an assessment of quantified objectives during the 6th Cycle planning period.
Quantified objectives are estimates of the number of housing units likely to be constructed, rehabilitated, or preserved by income level between 2021 and 2029. Estimates are based on the trends, goals, policies and objective s outlined throughout this Housing Element and may differ from the City’s RHNA requirement. They represent the City’s best assessment on what is likely to be built during the planning period based on needs, resources, and constraint s. Table
5.57 below summariz es the City’s Quantified Objectives for the 2021-2029 planning period.
Table 5.57: Quantified Objectives
Income
Category
RHNA
Targets
2021-2029
Units that
Could be
Constructed
2021-2029
Units that
Could be
Rehabilitated
2021-2029
Units that
Could be
Preserved
2021-2029
Extremely Low 604 180 8 12
Very Low 603 180 8 12
Low 749 450 16 16
Moderate 731 625 18 --
Above Moderate 1,810 1,810 -- --
Total 4,497 3,245 50 40
###
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-121
APPENDI CES
Appendix A – Specific Plan Capacity and Vacant Sites Inventory Appendix B – Proposed Redesignation/Rezone Sites
Appendix C – Public Participation
Appendix D – Evaluation of Previous Housing Element/Past Accomplishments Appendix E – Fair Housing Assessment
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-123 Appendix A – Specific Plan Capacity and Vacant Sites Inventory
1. Specific Plans
As outlined in the Housing Element, as of 2021, there are four Specific Plans in the City of Jurupa Valley with remaining residential capacity: the I -15 Corridor, Emerald Meadows Ranch, Rio Vista and Paradise Knolls Specific Plans. The remaining residentia l capacity and projected build -out of each Specific Plan within the 2021-2029 planning period varies by area as outlined in Table A-1.
Table A-1 2021-2029 Projected Specific Plan Development Specific Plan
Income Level
Total
(DUs)
Very Low
(DUs)
Low
(DUs)
Moderate
(DUs)
Above Moderate
(DUs)
I-15 Corridor (100%) – – – 508 508
Emerald Meadows Ranch (50%) – – 238 360 598
Rio Vista (60%) – – 440 578 1,018
Paradise Knolls (100%) 195 105 – 6 306
Total 195 105 678 1,452 2,430
Development of the I -15 Corridor and Paradise Knolls Specific Plans is well underway , and these areas are anticipated to completely build out within the 2021 -2029 planning period. Development of the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan has not started, and the property owner has just initiated conversations with the City about land use chan ges and ultimate build-out as of the date of preparation of this document. It is anticipated that the area will begin construction in 2025 and achieve 50% build -out within the planning period. Similarly, development of the Rio Vista Specific Plan has not b egun although the property owner is much further along in pursuing entitlements. As such, development of the Rio Vista Specific Plan is anticipated to begin in 2024 and achieve 60% build out within the planning period. Figure A-1 through Figure A-4 illustrate the land use plans for each Specific Plan. A detailed land use summary by parcel number and income assumption is included in Table A-2.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-124 Figure A-1 Land Use Plan, I-15 Corridor Specific Plan
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-125 Figure A-2 Land Use Plan, Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-126 Figure A-3 Rio Vista Specific Plan
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-127 Figure A-4 Land Use Plan, Paradise Knolls
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-128 Table A-2 Specific Plans with Remaining Residential Capacity
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-129
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-130
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-131
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-132
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-133
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-134
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-135
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-136
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-137
2. Vacant Sites Inventory
Table A-3 contains an inventory of vacant underutilized sites to identify additional residential development during the 2021-2029 housing cycle. All of the sites are vacant, although some are used for storage. Sites were assigned a housing income category based on the allowable general plan and zoning designations.
Development potential was determined by taking 70% of the maximum permitted density allowed by the General Plan to account for potential deve lopment constraints and infrastructure. Only sites designated Highest Density Residential (HHDR) with a density range of 20 -25 du/ac were assumed to contribute to Very Low and Low income housing. Figure A-5 illustrates the location of each site.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-138 Table A-3 Existing Site Designations/Zones
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-139
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-140
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-141
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-142
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-143 Figure A-5 Site Locations
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-144
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-145
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-146
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-147
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-148
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-149
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-150
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-151
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-152
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-153
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-154
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-155
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-156
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-157
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-158
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-159 Appendix B – Proposed Redesignation/Rezone Sites
As outlined in the Housing Element, the City has identified 19 sites, totaling 69.2 acres, for redesignation to the City’s highest density, HHDR (20-25 du/ac) and rezoning to R-3. These sites are projected to accommodate a total of 1,169 gross dwelling units, or 1,147 net units after accounting for an overlap with another site. The remaining units will include 760 units of very low-income housing and 409 units of low-income housing, and will enable the City to adequately meet its RHNA in all income levels. Table B-1 below outlines the City’s ability to meet its RHNA. The sites proposed for redesignation are outlined on the following pages. The City will consider the redesignation and rezoning of these sites within one year of Housing Element adoption, as outlined in Action Item HE-1.1.1.
Table B-1 Jurupa Valley RHNA Summary
Very Low
Income
Housing (DUs)
Low Income
Housing (DUs)
Moderate
Income
Housing (DUs)
Above
Moderate
Income
Housing (DUs) Total (DUs)
RHNA 1,207 749 731 1,810 4,497
Approved Projects, Pipeline Projects,
ADUs, Specific Plans, Site Inventory
678 395 1,093 3,006 5,172
New Redesignation Sites 760 409 -22 1,147
Surplus Dwelling Units Over RHNA +231 +55 +362 +1,174 +1,822
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-160
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-161
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-163
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-165
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-167
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-169 Appendix C – Public Participation
The following materials were used to promote the Housing Element website, public participation opportunities include the community housing survey and two virtual community housing outreach meetings.
These materials included promotional posters and flyers for the different public participation opportunities throughout the process of the Housing Element Update. These materials were posted in the City Hall, Facebook, and libraries, and sent to local agencies, utility companies, community groups and nonprofits in Jurupa Valley.
1. Housing Element Update Webpage on the City of Jurupa Valley Website
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-171
2. Community Survey Facebook and Email Image- 1st Push
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-173
3. Community Survey Flyer- 1st Push
4. Community Survey Facebook and Email Image- 2nd Push
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-175
5. Community Survey Flyer- 2nd Push (English and Spanish)
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-177
6. Community Survey (English and Spanish)
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-179
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-181
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-183
14. Are there any examples of new housing (in Jurupa Valley or elsewhere) that you like and that seem to “fit” Jurupa Valley? Why? What features do you like?
226 responses
1. not that i know of
2. Affordable housing
3. More single family homes and more shopping centers
4. No
5. More single family homes.
6. the track that is going to be build off Camino seems to fit both of both worlds -city and country- Large lots enough space to "breathe" where you're not so close to neighbors and model updated homes.
7. Jurupa Valley has pushed it's limits.
8. Detached mother law house perfect for big families
9. Homeless needs to be taken care of! So many homeless camping out and bugging family’s for money ! You can’t even go to the store without them harassing you for money!
10. More houses like sky country
11. The newer houses by Del Sol Academy are a wonderful addition to Jurupa Valley. There are many parks in the area and it's a more desirable area of Jurupa Valley.
12. none
13. I don't like new housing because the roads have not been designed for high volumes of traffic, which creates SIGNIFICANT congestion at intersections such as Mission and Valley Way, Mission Inn Ave heading to Riverside, Van Buren heading into Riverside, etc.
14. Del Sol area
15. Single story condos or apartments will be a great fit for Jurupa Valley as there are many families/couples living with others or in ADUs that would love their own space.
16. All new housing is to close to each other.....should have been 2 or 4 houses per acre...
17. N/A
18. I like what Eastvale is doing, providing multiple restaurant, shopping and entertainment venues. They’re building housing communities around these venues. Which in turn gets people to spend more money locally, at the same time providing the city with tax revenue.
19. Sky country is an amazing little community. Great neighborhood
20. Frontier Homes - community amenities
21. Rural
22. Lofts/condominiums to attract young professionals.
23. Clean housing communities that are being built
24. No
25. Larger lots
26. Slow the growth !
27. More Horse Property
28. Need more “starter homes” which can also be good for seniors looking to downsize.
29. Sky country with single story homes, horse property, walking trails and a strong sense of community seems representative, as does areas of Jurupa Hills with single story homes, larger properties for privacy, views, and open areas. The condos are a small complex, many handicapped accessible and single story, tucked in unseen without fences, views but locate them away from Limonite, Van Buren, Jurupa Rd, to not increase density and traffic congestion.
30. I love the neighborhood around the Soccer sports park, the closeness to nature and large yards are exactly what people expect in this town.
31. I like the new Lennar homes in Jurupa valley, but they are too expensive for the average homeowner around here. Need more affordable housing. Good quality but under 300,000.
32. No. The new homes have no to little backyards and over priced.
33. Sidewalks on all neighborhoods. Encourage the community to take walks in their own neighborhoods. It would also improve the look of the city overall.
34. NA
35. None
36. Need housing development where public sidewalks and walkways are better maintained by the city and better materials are selected for landscaping. The upkeep in our neighborhood(Sage Pointe and Vintage- DR Horton) is terrible. Ground cover, trees and plants are not well maintained.
37. None
38. no
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-185
39. Vesada apartments are nice but to expensive
40. No. All the new housing is not zoned for horses and the lots are too small.
41. I would love to see mixed use development that includes apartments, condos and entry level single family (2 to 4) bedrooms no larger than 2,000 sq ft.
42. No, new housing needs to have bigger lots and preserve the rural community that we all moved here for. Too many high density homes. We’re not Eastvale!
43. Sky Country 1/2 ac lots horse property
44. Granite Ridge community has a nice mix of property types (single family homes and condos). Cantera has large lots.
45. More family friendly streets
46. Street lighting
47. No
48. Country Village senior homes
49. No answer
50. Western Jurupa Valley. Modern, large homes in a planned community near the convenience of top retailers (in Eastvale)
51. No, they are too Close together. No yards for family to enjoy.
52. Along Mission Blvd and Philadelphia. Why not build homes there
53. The next gen homes should come to JV. we live in an older home in Pedley Hills, and love it. I would like to see more focus on the area around us. Camino Real / Limonite
54. I don't have an answer.
55. Stone Ave 1/2 acre lots
56. no
57. N/A
58. No
59. No
60. Don’t know.
61. What is being done to protect new and older hoes from flooding in the mountainous areas? Did the City attempt to protect it's residences?
62. The new houses across from Sky Country, it adds to the improvement of the community
63. New housing need to be like sky country homes.
64. No
65. Apartments located over retail, including grocery option with public transit nearby. Can provide housing option to non car residents.
66. N/A
67. Eastvale
68. Need to maintain rural atmosphere, control high density housing.
69. "New Housing track next to
70. Patriot High School and new housing tracks next to the 15 freeway. They are beautiful neighborhoods and convenient to be next to schools."
71. Sky Park, Loring Ranch - nice neighborhoods
72. Granny houses
73. No
74. I like the new housing development by Lennar in the Sunnyslope area. Wished they had more nextgen housing at a lower price.
75. No
76. Large lots. Option for animals/horses.
77. No
78. We need more homes with large yards that allow animals
79. more light
80. Not really. New houses going up at Shadow Rock but will it create more traffic?
81. Bigger lots
82. "Single family homes that are under 2000 square feet on an adequate lot that allows for outdoor recreation for the family living in the home. "
83. Ranch homes
84. "I can not give a fair answer!"
85. No
86. Stone Ranch homes and houses on Hallbrook Terrace that are half acre and rv parking. They are animal friendly and provide garage parking for recreational toys.
87. Just purchased a new home in Vista Cielo. There's a style and level of living conditions we're expecting. Our community is quiet replete with hardworking families. Now I want to see higher end business attracted to our community.
88. No
89. No
90. More house
91. No
92. Parks
93. Large lots, ?townhouses with community stables, No HOA, informant of laws no rooster
94. I'm glad there are some small developments of single story homes.
95. Features regarding weather.
96. None
97. SFR
98. We need affordable homes built. Not rentals!
99. The Enlcave at Homecoming Terra Vista in Rancho Cucamonga. 100. We need single-family dwellings. Three bedrooms two bathrooms. 1002 1500 ft.² 101. I don’t know
102. N/A
103. don't know.
104. Rural "horse" property
105. I don’t know
106. I don’t know
107. Horse property
108. We need smaller 1500sqft or less affordable homes for young single adults, under $400000. 109. All the New housing I have seen are too expensive
110. I don't know
111. No
112. Additional parks, shopping centers in the Rubidoux area. 113. More single afford housing
114. Affordable housing for single parents with one income. 115. The new housing in Jurupa Valley is too much like Eastvale. Not a good fit. 116. No
117. Yes, Stone Ranch. Single story on half acre lot. The way Jurupa Valley was meant to be. 118. Sky County Community. Good size houses, good size lots, horse property, horse trail, good parks, nice school. 119. I don't know
120. I love the ranch life
121. Nothing comes to mind.
122. None
123. Homes with accessory dwelling unit (ADU or "Granny Flat") 124. None that I can think of
125. Homes with adequate yards
126. Housing for young professionals that are looking for a high-quality lifestyle. 127. Née developments on Jurupa Rd/Tyrolite and at the end of Stone Ave seem to be nice. But very expensive. 128. As a senior, I like the Esperanza housing community. 129. Don’t know
130. The new houses that went in in the wineville area seem nice and the type of neighborhoods I like to see. They are newer and well maintained.
131. New homes on Granite Hill give the area an uplift look. 132. Yes the ones near the Indian Hills golf course. I also like housing that is multi-generational. 133. The older housing is better. Anything resembling Sky Country is the closest fit to Jurupa Valley. (One story, large lots.) Two story close together doesn't fit the community as well. 134. No
135. high density housing seems rather out of place, I think we have enough 136. safe communities with tiny homes for young adults
137. Homes past Jurupa Valley High - more space between 138. No
139. More shops to shop at
140. None
141. No
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-187 142. Higher standards for the materials used to build the homes. Too many new homes being built quickly and cheaply. 143. low income
144. N
145. Eastvale,ca , the streets are clean and have no homeless encampments 146. Na
147. Need housing that is under $400,000 so young adults can afford to buy. Hoping Paradise Knolls will offer this in single family homes.
148. Don't know
149. I like property with home not sitting on top of each other 150. Houses with yards not built so close together
151. No. There new houses are priced too high for most residents in Jurupa Valley. 152. Horse friendly, large lots similar to Norco should be added. 153. I like property with home not sitting on top of each other 154. Just more affordable housing.
155. Need to have more standard single family homes reasonably priced in good locations not the ghetto) instead of the huge expensive homes.
156. There are none
157. Aside from the housing, Jurupa valley needs more commercial, shopping and dinning centers. It's not fair and right that I have to travel to nearby cities to do business. As housing grows retail, commercial and dinning must keep up as well. 158. I noticed that some communities offer club houses with community pools. This is a great idea. 159. Serve people
160. N/A
161. Eastvale larger size property's home doesn't homes by camino elementary but no HOA 162. Low housing apartment or town houses
163. Closed gated communities, Supposedly safe
164. Don't know
165. Don't know
166. The new homes coming in are beautiful and improve Jurupa Valley. 167. Baldwin park metro stop. Has housing , stores walking distance , park near by , community center nearby, restaurants , all is a two to three mile radius
168. Lower rent
169. less section 8
170. New developments are nice but need to be on larger lots. 171. Na
172. None
173. Smaller single story cottages within a small secure community, Nicer industrial condos with elevators near freeway access for comuters, senior or adult only areas,
174. Larger Lots are needed, the new developments are too close together. 175. Eastvale
176. I think the new homes off of Stone Avenue fit the city well because they have larger properties. There needs to be a consistent mix of horse property/larger property neighborhoods to maintain the spirit of the city. The perfect example of a neighborhood would be Arabella Ranch, with large homes but 1/2 acre properties. While there needs to be adorable homes, too many apartments or dense/low income neighborhoods require a lot of strict rules and regulations. Our city should work on improving streets, and adding waking trails and areas for the existing homes. There is also a lot of homes that are not kept up and run down that need to be addressed. 177. Need more handicapped accessible housing. Near the freeway, some modern type condos with offices underneath and residences above. Single level condos with elevators like in Rancho. Also nice multi office buildings for Drs right by on and off ramps to increase revenue to city. Gated single level cottages. Also need areas with larger lots, horse property where burrtec trash isn't on the street. Get rid of the multi neighborhood, tiny mailboxes that people break into. We need more multi use paths to have access for equestrians to ride through the city. Camino real need a path way it's not safe for kids to walk to school. Wish we were more like Norco than a slum. 178. Single family homes. Apartments attract more traffic 179. "properties with space for animals, when Jurupa became a city, we were promised it would remain animal friendly, and try to maintain the rural feel. I have lived here all my life and feel extremely encroached upon." 180. N/A
181. At the corner of Cherry and Jurupa in Fontana, there is a development that has small single family residences. These are great starter houses without being attached.
182. Larger ranch style homes, property with side yard access for RV and horses
183. Rural, horse-friendly homes like Norco.
184. Single family homes
185. New horse properties for rural living in Mira Loma it fits the character of the city. I would like to see more affordable housing in Rubidoux and revitalization of that street. Maybe build some multi-use facilities. Housing/storefront walkable community with transport hub.
186. Homestead, Bellegrave &Hamner. Services provided on-site and in surrounding area 187. In Jurupa Valley, thre are notany new housing developments. The houses across from Camino Real Elementary are nice.
Lots that have horse property are a draw
188. NA
189. Country Village
190. Building of single family residences on a minimum quarter acre properties. 191. Condominiums in Rancho Cucamonga and other areas instead of apartments that cause transitional tenants that use city resources and then move on. Get homes so property taxes are collected. 192. Jurupa Valley used to be more rural, we moved here because we appreciate that life style 193. Community with HOA to maintain home and surrounding areas esthetics 194. I don’t have a particular one in mind but have then look nice and have their own pool and park. 195. no
196. Unknown
197. Single family homes.
198. Turnleaf and serrano ranch homes. nice, well maintained, and safe 199. N/A
200. I am excited about The Shadow Rock Community being built. The single family homes and new recreational activities integrated into the landscape look promising.
201. Vista Cielo because the lots are a decent size and home values will help the community. 202. Jurupa Valley, Crestwood at Stone Ranch - 2,500 - 3,000 sq ft, single story, 1/2 - 1 acre lots, w/side access to the backyard.. 203. New homes, traffic issues
204. N/a
205. N/A
206. Na
207. None
208. No, ore and more cookie cutter houses on tiny lots. We moved here for the rural feel. 209. Arabella Ranch in Mira Loma. These homes are in high demand. People who want land cant find it. These homes are high dollar and never for sale. You cant get into one. We have a demand, but we dont cater to these homes. Instead we build more homes than our infrastructure can handle.
210. I think we are loosing the attributes of Jurupa Valley that most people like in thid are, I have a large Jurupa community connection and we all would like more horse properties. That is what Jurupa Valley once was. I am a 32 women with a growing family and would like to see new developments with larger lots for horse properties. 211. I like how Jurupa valley homes have yard space with decent size houses. 212. I like the new neighborhood off of Jurupa Rd.
213. Beaumont/Coachella/San Diego and various other communities that made cooperative living care facilities that allowed transitional living skills and/or multi home land acquisation with easements allowing disabled community and the elderly community to live together and support one another using public grant funding for development and funding so that the disabled adult could be self-sufficient and live independently while offering employment to In Home Service Providers and other community based program funding. Thus decreasing indigent communities and increasing workforce and maintaining real property value and care.
214. New, parks, and walking paths.
215. No. All the new housing is too crammed together. JV should have larger lots. 216. I like our horse-keeping properties.
217. N/A
218. Unknown
219. lennar
220. h
221. Serrano Ranch neighborhood NO HOA
222. Haven’t seen any but from living here we need gated communities too much homeless people coming into communities 223. Houses that young adults can afford. Not 2,000 square feet homes, but smaller like 1,300 so that they can have a starter home like we did back then. We want them to be independent not have to live with parents or in laws forever. We also are not used to so many tráfico lights. We were a small torneos back then and not a city, so we want to keep the horse Property homes around all Jurupa Valley.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-189 224. I believe Jurupa Valley is beautiful place but we have lost so much of our beautiful ranch town since the cows left and the city of Eastvale became neighbors. Please do not add more traffic lights. We were a small town and since we became a city we have seen more road work but that just means we pay more taxes for this. We don't want ever piece of land to be new housing development. We lose the beauty of our city. Instead leave flat lands where the community can enjoy walks, RIDE bikes, or horses
225. No. Need larger lots, how the area was intended.
16. Do you have any additional information or observations you would like to share about housing in Jurupa Valley?
226 responses
1. Question 3 says "select all that apply to you..." but will only let you select 1 option.
2. No
3. NA
4. Fires are becoming a concern
5. Variety of models would be nice. Less HOA's.
6. there's no townhomes or duplexes to rent- when just starting the family this would have increased the quality of life for my family. Since I couldn't afford to purchase a home in the beginning. Having option to rent in "good " areas was hard or impossible to find here in jurupa valley
7. No
8. We need new bigger houses with big lots
9. There are way to many homeless people in our city! That needs to be addressed
10. no
11. I do not want to see more multi family housing.
12. none
13. Please designate some open spaces for hiking and species conservation
14. I love the newer areas of JV
15. Many neighborhoods I have seen do not have sidewalks or street lights. I have personally refrained from purchasing a beautiful home in a neighborhood like this because I would like to live somewhere where the home is up kept as well as the community and neighborhood. It was a deal breaker and I would love to see the city improve the already existing neighborhoods as well.
16. Improvements for the older areas, street lighting, sidewalks, incentives to improve the property, traffic control (still not enough patrol, people are blowing through stops and lights knowing nothing happens)
17. You can’t have more housing without more businesses, this should be the priority.
18. I can’t stress enough the need for more restaurants, shopping and entertainment. We also need more single family homes, condos and apartments. However, if there’s no restaurants, shopping and entertainment, you’re not gonna attract people to the city. If they have to drive 15-30 minutes away to eat or shop, they’re not gonna move to our city.
19. More affordable housing
20. More new large home builds and shopping centers
21. Needs better upkeep
22. Have developers create recreational spaces for the community when building homes.
23. I would like to see areas of JV repaired, it seems like certain areas are very undesirable. We need more business like restaurants and stores to make this a desirable city, like Eastvale.
24. Work in Jurupa Valley regularly. Was not able to find affordable rental in or near city so commute 2-3 hours round trip. In addition to unaffordability, parts of JV look run down or unsafe, making me unsure if I want to live there anyway.
25. Our area looks worse since becoming a city. Take Care of us!
26. Quit taking away from the core promisses made to become a city. no trucking .
27. ?
28. No
29. We were open spaces, low density living, large lots, horse property, horse facilities, and public arenas, wildlife areas, few fires in the riverbed, no crowds, or traffic congestion, maintained properties, safe areas. That has changed. We have seas of congested housing, more theft, junky proterties, congested roads in and out, many fires. We should go back to our roots, create a master plan for the residents of Jurupa and strict zoning so property buyers know what can and cannot be built on that property before they buy. No change from low density to medium or high density, or commercial to housing.
30. Two story homes are more in demand. There needs to also be attractive jobs so that people can live where the work, Californians are tired of commuting.
31. Need more affordable housing.
32. Create more family friendly housing with yards, and improve current apt. Housing. Make it affordable, ie. One bedroom for 900-1k.
33. There is too many empty lots that eventually get occupied by homeless who makes the neighborhood look trashy! We need regular clean ups of the neighborhoods. I regret moving to Jurupa Valley. There are no sidewalks where we can walk on down our street. 37th street to be precise. The dirt is horrible to our children who suffer from asthma.
34. Clean up our neighborhood and don’t allow these homeless encampments out in the open
35. None
36. "Landscape services used for City responsible areas of upkeep need improved vendors. Areas are not well maintained and workmanship is poor
37. Need to promote ca's ADU laws to increase low income housing in family neighborhoods, while also bringing noncompliant ADUs up to safety standards.
38. We don't have enough businesses to warrant calling this place a city.
39. No
40. Keep horse zoning
41. We need to make the development process easier and faster. Work with developers instead of creating more road blocks.
42. Preserve our rural communities. All the high density homes are pushing those of us who moved here to have our livestock and run our businesses out of our homes. I can’t even park an RV in front of my home.
43. More horse property
44. Homeowners need to be provided with incentives and assistance to maintain their property, if at all possible. Too many properties in the city are in need of maintenance and look terrible.
45. No
46. There is not enough street lights. Some areas are really dark.
47. Code enforcement of laws needed., provide permit parking for neighborhoods affected by the beach visitors.
48. More help for homeless and mentally ill
49. Planning neighborhoods and communities to meet each need is important. Holding on to our equestrian heritage around equestrian amenities and trails should have co-lo aged ranch house with large lots. While areas around commercial, parks and civic amenities should be surround by suburban and mixed use neighborhoods. Reguonal connections between these neighborhoods and communities with shared use paths would serve the community well.
50. None
51. Many homes, not enough amenities.
52. It looks like only eastvale developed with expensive homes to buy .what about people who want something decent snd not all those old out dated homes no options here except for the homes on granite hill theres more land to build there
53. Yes! Please add more street lights. Streets are dark. JUrupa Valley is a great place to live! But needs some TLC!
54. No
55. No
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-191
56. no
57. Housing is only affordable when living wages are fair otherwise more than two families need to get together to buy a single house which makes it not a good environmental to live in.
58. No
59. No
60. Create an atmosphere that will draw families of ALL levels to JV. I’m leaving.
61. Are existing homes protected when building new homes in mountainous areas due to the flow of water or rain being altered in a new direction?
62. We need more restaurants/commercial
63. More lighting needed
64. New housing is not very affordable for a lot of single parents out there and with high prices you will have 2,3 or 4 families will move in these homes causing a lot of vehicles on the streets.
65. ADUs would benefit some of needs
66. N/A
67. Poor planning department. Inefficiency to attract new businesses
68. None
69. No
70. Too many homeless and no one does anything about it.
71. Need affordable housing
72. Building new housing to fast and causing more traffic. Need to have additional outlets to major streets and fairways.
73. More affordable housing for young adults or young families.
74. No
75. High density housing not needed
76. I feel that some more apartment complexes are needed, as well as emergency housing.
77. Stop building in the area, already too many people. If you do build then make single family homes with large yards amd spaced apart
78. Cleanup the city, there is too much trash
79. Alot of new houses going up. My concern is theres going to be even mote congestion on our already busy streets. More road maintenance. Need to create more outlets to ease the traffic.
80. It’s getting to big
81. Gated communities, especially for single family homes, should be limited. They do not build community and they interfere with regular and emergency access.
82. More street lights
83. More code enforcement , less fences and more sidewalks for homes!
84. No
85. There is not enough off street parking for existing housing.
86. I want to see the city move away from too many apartments, mobile home parks, etc. We've just invested approximately 3/4 of a million dollars. I don't want to regret our investment in the city.
87. The homeless situation is bad
88. Na
89. "More hours
90. Cleaning up mess of people who illegally dump trash
91. No more houses
92. Stop the import of cheap stores, but in good stores. Need to upper class our town
93. No
94. Need more affordable 1 bedrooms. Covered parking to protect vehicles from the elements.
95. No
96. Need more upper class SFR homes to turn this city around. Look at Eastvale's model. Higher tax bracket homes increase property tax revenue to help improve our schools.
97. No
98. No
99. We do not need any more monster homes. It creates a chaotic neighborhood. 100. I think this community is really lacking 55+ communities, my in-laws would’ve moved into this city had there been that kind of facility instead I drive to Beaumont twice a week to help them. 101. Too costly for even just a 1 bed and 1 bath housing 102. need parks in Robidoux area, need affordable rentals for low income singles, 103. no
104. I think this community is really lacking 55+ communities, my in-laws would’ve moved into this city had there been that kind of facility instead I drive to Beaumont twice a week to help them. 105. Clean up the streets
106. No
107. No
108. I would want there to be adequate streets for housing 109. n/a
110. No
111. Rubidoux area is in need of street lighting and sidewalks. Additional parks and shopping centers in that area would improve the neighborhood and bring additional jobs into that specific community. I feel that all efforts go into improving the Limonite/Eastvale areas as I’ve seen new housing continue to grow in that area yet, the Rubidoux area is lacking. I ask that you look into creating new housing in the Rubidoux area as there are plenty of vacant lots that can be used for new housing/shopping centers.
112. Low rent
113. It is not affordable for a single income.
114. 1,200 sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. housing with a nice yard would be best for families starting out. The housing available is too dense and expensive made worse by mello-roos tax.
115. "It’s difficult to be placed in affordable housing when they say you make too much but are barely meeting ends meet. I feel like that’s something that needs
116. To be looked into more. "
117. No.
118. More affordable quality housing.
119. Put a CAP on price gauging by mobile home park owners--they are forcing us out of our homes 120. reason we moved out of the city was to live better. 121. No.
122. Developers seem to dictate to the City as opposed to the opposite 123. no
124. None
125. No
126. Need more parks and recreation areas
127. Need more affordable apartments or condos. Need somewhere for ALL THE HOMELESS to live....and you should NOT be able to “live” outside all of our businesses and NOT in motorhomes parked all over the city!!!!!! 128. I’m still fairly new to this area so I hesitate to comment too much. 129. No
130. There doesn't seen to be too many nice apartments to rent. 131. Would like to sidewalks on the older housing off of Granite Hill and the home owners improve the curb appeal of their house. And stop all the trash burning which we have to put up with because they refuse to pay for trash pickup. Trash burning should be banned.
132. There needs to be a lot of code enforcement to make neighborhoods look like places people want to live. Broken chain linked fences and junk in yards do not attract people. Also, there needs to be big improvements to conditions of streets and sidewalks.
133. No
134. I'd like to see the older neighborhoods upgraded. It's nice there are 34 parks in JV, but only one baseball park and I unkept horse arena between Van Buren and Etiwanda in Pedley and Mira Loma. 135. can we turn an empty store or warehouse into a homeless shelter? 136. homes with plenty land or opportunity for additional units on property 137. Adding housing is expected but roads and access are congested. Takes 30 minutes to cross the city. 138. No
139. Handle the homelessness
140. Need more stores and restaurants a d less houses
141. No
142. Clean up the tent cities. I understand homelessness is hard but the eye sores all over the city is what will push people to live elsewhere
143. low income
144. N
145. Too many homeless people & encampments — it looks embarssing — I don’t show people Jurupa valley because of the homeless population
146. Na
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-193 147. Jurupa needs housing that is single homes > 1400 sq ft that are affordable for young single income adults or we will loose them to surrounding areas.
148. no
149. No apartment are needed/ single family dwelling only 150. Need starter homes. 2 to 3 bedrooms not McMansions 151. No.
152. You shouldn’t approve additional housing without increasing lanes on well traveled roads. Congestion is too great already. 153. No apartment are needed/ single family dwelling only 154. Not at this time.
155. Need more affordably priced homes in good locations for the average family to purchase or for seniors to purchase. $500,000 homes every where is not it.
156. Before developing more housing your need to clean/ bring up to code( if one exist as it doesn't appear so) up the one that are in existence .
157. N/A
158. I noticed there aren’t very many community health centers in my area. 159. Very nice community
160. We need sidewalks.
161. I live by limonite and clay and the area is nice quiet feels safe to go out at night and day. There is space by linares and clay to build homes, it would be a good addition to the area but no apartments as it may overcrowd the area. Also instead of building no commercial space in the center by the jurupa 14 theater there are alot of spaces open for new businesses. Also older parks I feel need a major update in comparison to eastvale. And not sure if this is possible but making a park near river bottom with parking or a parking fee will be a nice added feature for locals. I personally enjoy the area but I do know if apartments or other housing similar will start attracting the wrong type of good citizens and possibly start overcrowding areas. Overall I am interested and happy i found this area. And if any way possible to be involved with further discussion i would be happy to help. I want the city to thrive in a good way. 162. I would like affordable housing for single parents. 163. Streets and housing area clean and street lights to make the place safer at night , before anything 164. There are a lot of homeless encampments. We need to find ways to meet their needs. 165. There are a lot of homeless encampments. We need to find ways to meet their needs. 166. Would like housing with bigger yards.
167. Wondering what kind of support there is for a homeless person?? Services?? 168. We need less rent
169. none "
170. None
171. Na
172. Need to maintain equestrian options. Not too many houses. This is why we moved here and it seems to be phasing out with all the new construction.
173. People don't maintain their properties. Many areas look bad and junked up, many neighbors are rude and don't care about anyone but themselves. We have a lot of issues with car theft, mail theft and package theft. Jurupa Valley is mostly run down, mismatched, where poor people live and don't take care of anything. There shouldn't be Butec trash bins in front of houses, or other eye sores. There is inadequate parking especially around schools. Our houses don't appreciate as much as they would in neighboring cities.
174. Sidewalks and lighting in older parts of the city, old Mira Loma, Rubidoux 175. Need commercial plazas
176. "Please continue to address the transient issue, whole empathy for the homeless and those in need is important, the higher existence of chronically unaddressed substance abuse and mental health issues in these communities cannot be ignored. The public health concerns of transients camping throughout our city and its natural habitats affect our citizens quality of life. Aid those in need and refer them to adequate resources, but do not allow camps and people living in vehicles/RVs to overwhelm our community. Nor ignore the increase in petty theft and crimes that come with chronic substance abusers and those with untreated mental health. 177. The Horseshoe Park was a great addition, and I would like to see us have something like Mt. Rubidoux and more trails and nature walks to benefit from our city’s existing river/creeks and hills." 178. Our city has more petty theft, stolen vehicles, junky yards, illegal fireworks, houses deteriorating, than nicer surrounding areas. Our property values aren't going up. We need to attract people that have nicer properties, want to be part of the community and keep their places nice. People park in other people's parking, let properties go, rental properties are not good neighbors, pannhandliners, death shrines they do not attract higher end people. 179. Please don’t overdevelop this city with apartment complexes. There is already enough traffic and roadkill. So sad :(
180. Like I said previously, when Jurupa Valley was becoming a city, those of us who lived here already were promised it would the rural, animal feel would be protected. It really doesn't seem like that is happening. 181. Help first time renters. A lot of apartment complexes expect renters insurance and renter history 182. Many properties have encroached on the right of way easement in front of their houses (especially in the older sections).
We need to reclaim those easements and convert that space to multi-use D.G. trails. D.G. is much softer on your feet for walking or horse riding than concrete. And less costly and lower maintenance. It is not safe to see the children walking in the street to get to school when there could be a safe path with a ranch fence separating them from the traffic by having the City exercise its rights to that easement.
183. "Too many misc signs all over
184. Build some new 1/2 acre lots with side yard access for people w/RV's and horses" 185. It's important to keep horse country safe for horses and high-density housing brings more vehicles with drivers who speed and scare the horses with little or no concern for the horses or riders. 186. We need more retail rather than housing
187. Old farm properties should be conserved and be given a chance for rehabilitation before demolishment for new housing or industrialization.
188. Affordable!
189. No
190. The new houses being built on Sierra and Valley way have no close shopping centers we will lose revenue to Fontana for families to do their shopping
191. The city is a dump. Poor Code inforcement.
192. I would like Jurupa Valley to continue to offer a semi-rural environment as it continues to grow. 193. Do not push your low income housing to the outskirts of the city because you don't have to see them. Put them near shopping, transportation and away from dispensaries so they can walk to the things they need and not bring the issues surrounding that to unsupported areas
194. none
195. NA
196. Many streets don’t have any lighting or sidewalks. Please work on improving streets. Safety is key, need street lighting. 197. no
198. There needs to be better land use planning so that commercial needs (specifically grocery) are within walking distance to residential neighborhoods.
199. No
200. None
201. N/A
202. Please consider the noise pollution that comes with building new neighborhoods. It would be beneficial to strengthen walls surrounding streets that have become new major commuting streets. (Armstrong, 60 to Sierra) 203. I think the retail development is missing to attract more buyers into our city. Many locations on Limonite remain vacant like the old Albertsons and Kmart.
204. There is not much availability of 1/2 - 1 acre buildable lots for those who want to build their own home. 205. General city improvements.
206. N/a
207. Need more shelters for the homeless people in the area 208. Na
209. No
210. Stop listening to Sacramento who wants everyone crammed into tiny, high density cheap housing, to control people. We need and want larger lots, wide open spaces in our neighborhoods. 211. Too much traffic.
212. Yes I would like to be informed and involved on a Jurupa Valley housing resident commitee if any are available to voice my concerns about future developments in the area.
213. The new houses on granite hill shoulda had more yard space. I feel like Jurupa valley is more like a western living with livestock.
214. I like the senior apartments on Mission, near the market. I’m extremely interested in seeing the property on the southwest corner of Camino Real and Jurupa Rd developed into a nice neighborhood of single family residences, given the location next door to Camino Real elementary school.
215. I am a single mother of four disabled children. I have access to purchase a family dwelling and housing for each of my disabled children yet can not afford a typical "single-family" dwelling within Jurupa Valley in stead I have to go to Indio, Coachella, Palamar etc. disabled community should be able to access housing within Jurupa Valley when Jurupa Valley has documented students registered with physical and mental disabilities (with IEPs and 504s) that are potentially the future generations residents. I would emplore the committee to consider the projected number of registered residents within Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-195 Jurupa Valley and with the potential growth of funding under DDS - Person Centered Funding and other County Funded resourses for Transitional / Supportive Housing and Licensed Assisted Livings or Licensed Cared Facilities. Please if you need further information reach out to Inland Regional housing liason and/or Department of Social Services housing and urban developmental council. I am a mother of four disabled children but an advocate for the community. I would be happy to share educate and/or participate or work alongside any committee. 216. N/A
217. Additional housing in JV should not be added without significant infrastructure improvement first! 218. I don't mind our city looking modest but I sure don't want it looking trashy: code enforcement is important. 219. N/A
220. The new housing near wineville and bellegrave needs retail and shopping centers. There are many new residents and although not far, we have to drive across the freeway to east vale to shop and dine 221. n/a
222. h
223. N/A
224. Don’t know
225. We were a small town and now are turning into a big city. We don't need Jurupa Valley to be the next Orange county or LA county. Please think about what we already have and don't add more traffic in our small city. 226. Please do not add more apartment. INSTEAD just add nature walks 227. No
Spanish Survey Results:
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-197
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-199
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-201
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-203
14. A visto ejemplos de nuevas viviendas (en Jurupa Valley otra ciudad) que le guste y que pueda “ajustar” a Jurupa Valley? Porque? Cuales funciones le gusto? *
4 responses
1. No se
2. vecindarios con banquetas, luces y calles en buenas condiciones
3. Rentas de acuerdo al ingreso.
4. No
16. Tiene informacion adicional o observaciones que quisiera compartir sobre viviendas en Jurupa Valley? 4 responses
1. No
2. Que se exija mantenimiento y limpieza al propietario de la casa
3. Me gustaria que hubieran viviendas para personas mayores de 65 de bajos recursos.
4. Las rentas están subiendo.
7. Virtual Community Workshop Flyer (English and Spanish)
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-205
8. Community Flyer – Revised Draft Housing Element Update
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-207 Appendix D – Evaluation of Previous Housing Element/
Past Accomplishments
Per California Government Code §65588, “Each local government shall review its housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following: (1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing go al; (2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives; and (3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the housing element.” Jurupa Valley’s 5 th Cycle Housing Element spanning the 2013 -2021 planning period was initially adopted by the City Council on September 7, 2017 with the 2017 General Plan. The City subsequently worked with HCD on minor changes needed to fully comply with state law and HCD deemed the 5 th Cycle Housing Element to be in full compliance with state law on June 4, 2019. This 6 th Cycle includes updates and all achievements made by the City during the 2017 to 2021 time period.
From adoption (i.e., 2017) to the development of the 2021 Housing Element, t he City has achieved the following:
• Implemented programs for housing rehabilitation and infrastructure updates • Updated and adopted municipal code for affordable housing density per state law • Up-designated and up-zoned 35 acres to allow for higher density residential development • Implemented programs to fund transitional and homeless housing. • Contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside to keep data on discrimination, complaints and housing access for the City.
• Conducted an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice • Updated and adopted municipal code for Emergency shelters per state law • Updated and adopted municipal code to for Accessory Dwelling Units • Continued progress of developing a more expedited housing developmental review process.
These notable changes to housing policy have bolstered the hous ing development choices in the C ity and aided in the approval of over 1,000 new dwelling units in the past four years.
From the previous Housing Element, there are still objectives and programs that are being worked on and in progress. However, with how recent the last cycle review was conducted, the City of Jurupa Valley has many objectives that will continue into the 6th cycle and beyond. As part of the annual review of the Housing Element as part of the General plan, each local government is required to complete an evaluation of the existing goals, objectives, programs, and policies to identify the effectiveness of the programs. The following table reviews the work accomplished during the 5th cycle, indicates changes and identifies programs being continued in the 6th cycle Housing Element for the planning period of 2021 to 2029.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-208 Table D-1 Housing Action Plan Summary 2017-2021 (5th Cycle Status of Items) Objective Action Current Status of Progress
Goal HE 1: Encourage and where possible, assist in the development of quality housing to meet the City’s share of the region’ s housing needs for all income levels and for special needs populations.
Ensure that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
and Map designate sufficient land at appropriate
densities and in appropriate locations to accommodate
the City’s fair share of regional housing needs.
HE 1.1.1. General Plan and Zoning Amendments. Amend General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Map to designate at least 16 acres for residential use at HHDR density (up to 25 du/acre) to help meet Lower Income RHNA needs. The Land Use Map will be amended concurrently with the 2017 General Plan. Zoning Ordinance amendments shall be initiated within 1 year of adopting the new General Plan.
Updated action to 6th cycle Previously
required rezones in 5th cycle housing
element were completed and now
numbers will replace 16 acres with
additional potential parcels to satisfy
corrected need based on RHNA
numbers.
Provide incentives to encourage development of
Opportunity Sites and adaptive reuse of properties in all Residential Zones, with emphasis on Medium-High,
High, Very High, and Highest Density Residential
zones.
HE 1.1.2. Housing Authority Coordination. Coordinate with the Riverside County Housing Authority to pursue grant funding and other incentives to promote and assist the non-profit and/or private production of housing affordable to lower income households. Utilize public financing tools when available, including revenue bonds, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME, and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program funds.
Continued action to the 6th cycle During
the 5th cycle the City worked with the
Housing Authority to utilize grant funding
to help homeowners and renters alike
with improvements on housing stock of
the community.
Encourage construction of multi-family housing
affordable to moderate- and lower-income households.
HE 1.1.3. Tax Exempt Bonds. Consider using tax-exempt revenue bonds to help finance new multi-family construction.
Updated action in the 6th Cycle Housing
Element, through the combination of the
objective and removal of action because
funding is not an action.
Preserve mobile homes and encourage their
maintenance and improvement as affordable housing
for seniors, disabled persons and lower income
households, and to maintain and enhance
neighborhood quality and safety.
HE 1.1.4. Mobile Homeowner Assistance. As resources allow, use federal and state grant funds, when available, to assist seniors, veterans and other lower income households purchase and/or improve mobile homes.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle .
Encourage and assist the feasibility of private
development of affordable housing for lower income
households and special needs groups.
HE 1.1.5. Affordable Housing Incentives. Consider establishing incentives for developers of new housing that is affordable to lower income households and special needs groups, such as: fast track/priority application and permit processing, density bonuses and/or fee waivers, assist affordable housing developers with right-of-way acquisition, off-site infrastructure improvements and other development costs, and assist in securing federal or state housing financing resources. Incentives should be considered for new housing developments of 100 or more units in which at least 15% of total units are sold or rented at prices affordable to households with incomes below 80% of the Riverside County Area Median Income (AMI).
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Maintain consistency with state law and encourage
production of smaller, affordable housing where
appropriate.
HE 1.1.6. Density Provisions. Update the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code and General Plan density provisions to ensure consistency with state law, including minimum density requirements and density bonuses, as required by state law, to encourage production of smaller, affordable housing, particularly in Town Centers and in higher density, mixed-use and other areas where appropriate and compatible with adjacent development.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-209 Objective Action Current Status of Progress
Encourage and assist the feasibility of private
development of affordable housing for lower income
households and special needs groups.
HE 1.1.7. City Development Fees. Develop a sliding scale Fee Assistance program where the amount and type of City development fees may be waived by the City Council based on the number of affordable units proposed (i.e., as the number of affordable units increases, the amount of fee waiver increases).
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Utilize grant funding to assist in the development of
affordable housing and to improve neighborhoods.
HE 1.1.8. CDBG and HOME Funds. When available, use CDBG; HOME and other grant or housing trust funds to write down costs of acquiring sites and to offset infrastructure and construction costs for residential developments in which at least 15% of total units are sold or rented at prices affordable to households with incomes below 80% of the Riverside County Area Median Income (AMI).
Updated action in the 6th cycle to clarify
specifics and rewrite the action.
Encourage and assist the feasibility of private
development of affordable housing for lower income
households and special needs groups.
HE 1.1.9. Site Identification. Work with public, private and non-profit housing entities to identify candidate sites for new construction of rental housing for seniors and other special housing needs and take all actions necessary to expedite processing and approval of such projects.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
HE 1.1.10. Residential Incentive Zone (R-6). Update and continue to encourage development of affordable housing in the R-6 zone, and other multi-family residential zones, where appropriate. Utilize incentives for development as established in Ordinance 348, or in the 2017 General Plan and subsequent Zoning Ordinance amendments.
Removed action for 6th cycle because the
City completed this action and adopted
the R-6 zone into the municipal code.
Assist developers, decision makers and the public in
identifying housing opportunities.
HE 1.1.11. Updated Land Use Inventory and Map. Establish and maintain a Land Use Inventory and a map that provide a mechanism to monitor a) acreage and location by General Plan designation, b) vacant and underutilized land, and c) build-out of approved projects utilizing the City’s GIS system and supported by mapping. Maintain the Land Use Inventory on a regular basis, as frequently as budget allows.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Assist developers, decision-makers and the public in
identifying housing opportunities.
HE 1.1.12. Candidate Site Mapping. Encourage developers to identify vacant and underutilized properties as candidate sites for affordable or mixed market rate/affordable housing development and identify them in the Land Use Inventory.
Updated in the 6th cycle to clarify
specifics and rewrite the action because
it sounded too similar to the objective.
Establish a shelter to help meet local needs for safe
housing for homeless adults and children.
HE 1.1.13. Homeless Shelter. In cooperation with non-profit organizations, adjacent cities, and with Riverside County, encourage the development of a homeless shelter to meet Jurupa Valley’s and adjacent communities’ homeless shelter needs. Consider tax incentives and other financial incentives to encourage homeless shelter development.
Updated to the 6th cycle to clarify
specifics and rewrite the action without
the financial incentive because they do
not have financial incentives for
homeless shelters.
Address the broad range of needs of homeless
persons.
HE 1.1.14. Homelessness Strategy. Until a permanent shelter or shelters can be established, the City shall work with Riverside County and local housing agencies to help prepare a homelessness strategy to address immediate needs dealing with safety, health and sanitation, environmental health, temporary housing, and access to homeless services.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-210 Objective Action Current Status of Progress
Provide government incentives to promote creative,
private- and public sector housing products, particularly for lower income households.
HE 1.1.15. Creative Housing Solutions. Provide incentives to encourage development of a range of creative and affordable housing types to accommodate homeless persons, seniors, disabled persons, and other low and extremely low-income populations, such as single room occupancy dwellings (SROs), pre-fabricated housing, so-called “tiny houses,” and other emerging housing products. Potential incentives include priority permit processing, fee waivers or deferrals, flexible development standards, supporting or assisting with funding applications, and coordinating with housing developers.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Encourage and coordinate activities of non-profit
housing providers in Jurupa Valley.
HE 1.1.16. Coordination with Non-Profit Housing Providers. Continue to work with non- profit organizations, such as National Community Renaissance, Mary Erickson Housing, and Habitat for Humanity, in the production of affordable and self-help housing for moderate and lower income households.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Encourage and assist the feasibility of developing high- quality housing that meets a wide range of housing
needs, tenure and budgets.
HE 1.1.17. Flexible Standards. Continue to provide for flexibility in the design of residential development through the processing of planned unit developments (PUDs), area and specific plans, and town center plans, and through the application of Zoning Ordinance provisions allowing flexible lot sizes and development standards.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Comply with new state law and to provide housing that
meets the needs and budgets for small households,
such as single parent families, adult children, seniors.
HE 1.1.18. Accessory or Second Dwelling Units. Update the Municipal Code to allow “Accessory Dwelling Units” in compliance with state law within 1 year of Housing Element adoption.
Removed action for 6th cycle because the
City completed this action and adopted
the Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance
into the municipal code.
Preserve mobile homes and encourage their
maintenance and improvement as affordable housing,
and allow for the construction or expansion of high-
quality mobile home parks.
HE 1.1.19. Mobile and Manufactured Homes. Continue to allow mobile homes, modular and manufactured homes in single-family residential zones “by right,” and mobile home parks subject to a CUP, and encourage construction of new mobile home parks and manufactured housing to increase the supply of affordable dwelling units, where appropriate.
Updated to the 6th cycle to clarify
specifics and rewrite the into existing
objective.
Encourage and assist the feasibility of developing high- quality housing that meets a wide range of housing
needs, tenure and budgets.
HE 1.1.20. Mixed Housing Types and Densities. Encourage residential development proposals to provide a range of housing types and densities for all income levels, including market rate housing, using creative planning concepts such as traditional neighborhood design, planned unit developments, area and specific plans, and mixed-use development.
Updated to the 6th cycle to clarify
specifics and rewrite the action because
it sounded too similar to the objective.
Promote accessible housing that meets the needs of
disabled persons and other persons with special needs.
HE 1.1.21. Accessible Housing for Disabled Persons. Encourage single- and multi-family housing developers to designate accessible and/or adaptable units already required by law to be affordable to persons with disabilities or persons with special needs.
Removed action for 6th cycle because the
action is already part of Building Code
Promote accessible housing that meets the needs of
disabled persons and other persons with special needs.
HE 1.1.22. Universal Design. Encourage “universal design” features in new dwellings, such as level entries, wider paths of travel, larger bathrooms, and lower kitchen countertops to accommodate persons with disabilities.
Removed action for 6th cycle because the
action is already part of Building Code
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-211 Objective Action Current Status of Progress
Promote accessible housing that meets the needs of
disabled persons and other persons with special needs.
HE 1.1.23. Affordable Housing for Disabled Persons. Encourage, and as budget allows, help support programs providing increased opportunities for disabled persons in affordable residential units rehabilitated or constructed through City or County programs.
Updated to the 6th cycle to clarify
specifics and rewrite the action because
it sounded too similar to the objective.
GOAL HE 2: Conserve and improve the housing stock, particularly housing affordable to lower income and special housing needs households.
Maintain and improve the overall quality, safety and
appearance of Jurupa Valley’s housing stock.
HE 2.1.1. Infrastructure. Plan for adequate maintenance of public facilities such as streets, sidewalks, and drainage in the City’s capital improvement program and encourage community services districts to do likewise.
Removed action for 6th cycle because the
action is already part of City’s
responsibilities.
Conserve housing resources, particularly for historic
resources and to provide cost- and resource-efficient,
high quality affordable housing.
HE 2.1.2. Adaptive Housing Strategies. Support creative strategies for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of residential, commercial, and industrial structures for housing, if appropriate.
Updated to the 6th cycle to clarify
specifics and rewrite the action.
Protect public health, safety and neighborhood quality
for all persons; administer codes in a fair, consistent and community-responsive manner.
HE 2.1.3. Code Enforcement. Ensure that housing is maintained through code enforcement activities. Continue to administer the Code Enforcement Program to eliminate unsafe, illegal, and substandard conditions in residential neighborhoods and residential properties.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Preserve mobile homes and encourage their
maintenance and improvement as affordable housing
for seniors, disabled persons and lower income
households, and to maintain and enhance neighbor-
hood quality and safety.
HE 2.1.4. Affordable Mobile Homes Conservation. Conserve affordable mobile home housing stock and help bring such housing up to code through mobile home loan and improvement grants funded by CDBG and other funds, as available.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Offer all persons and equal opportunity to participate in planning and housing decisions that affect them.
HE 2.1.5. Bilingual Outreach. As resources allow, provide bilingual outreach materials and activities to educate and inform the community about available housing rehabilitation programs and resources.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Preserve publicly assisted affordable housing that is at risk of being converted to market-rate and losing its
affordability provisions.
HE 2.1.6. Monitor Assisted Units. Help ensure that affordable housing assisted with public funds remains affordable for the required time through maintenance of an inventory of assisted units which is monitored for expiration of assisted housing.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Preserve publicly assisted affordable housing that is at risk of being converted to market-rate and losing its
affordability provisions.
HE 2.1.7. Preserve At-Risk Housing Units. Preserve grant-assisted, bond-financed, density bonus or other types of affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate during the planning period by working with the Riverside County Housing Authority or other nonprofit housing entities to 1) purchase the units using state, federal or local financing and/or subsidies, 2) assist with low or no interest loans for rehabilitation, as budget allows, 3) support bond refinancing, and 4) refer the project sponsor to other federal or local sources of below- market financing. City shall also ensure compliance with state noticing and tenant education requirements.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Preserve affordable housing as required by the funding
agency or source of funds providing assistance to the
project.
HE 2.1.8 Affordability Covenants. As a condition of project approval, require new affordable housing projects to remain affordable for a specific time, consistent with and as required by the funding program(s) in which they participate, through covenants with the project proponent, Housing Authority or other housing agency.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-212 Objective Action Current Status of Progress
Remove or mitigate governmental constraints to
housing such as outmoded, unnecessary, conflicting
and excessive requirements.
HE 2.1.9 Remove Government Constraints. Evaluate the zoning ordinance, subdivision requirements, and other City regulations to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible. Evaluate and revise as appropriate the City’s density requirements for the Highest Density Residential land use designation (HHDR) to address constraints for housing development including impacts on feasibility of proposals.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
GOAL HE 3: Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons.
Help ensure that all persons are treated fairly and have access to housing which meets their needs and budget.
HE 3.1.1. Fair Housing Council. Utilize the services of the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to implement a number of programs, including: 1) audits of lending institutions and rental establishments, 2) education and training of City staff, and 3) fair housing outreach and education regarding fair housing laws and resources.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Help ensure that all persons are treated fairly and have access to housing which meets their needs and budget.
HE 3.1.2. Education and Outreach. Continue to use the services of the Fair Housing Council to provide education and outreach services to the public in both Spanish and English (also see HE 3.1.1 above).
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Preserve existing public housing. HE 3.1.3. Public Housing and Rental Assistance. Encourage Riverside County to continue to maintain 300+ public housing units and continue to assist very low-income recipients in Jurupa Valley with Section 8 rental assistance vouchers.
Updated to the 6th cycle to clarify
specifics and rewrite the action because
it sounded too similar to the objective.
Explore innovative financing strategies to assist first time homebuyers.
HE 3.1.4. First-Time Homebuyers Assistance. Explore the feasibility of developing a new First Time Home Buyer Down Payment Assistance Program, utilizing tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to finance mortgages and down payment assistance for single-family homes for very low and low income first time homebuyers.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Explore innovative financing strategies to assist first time homebuyers.
HE 3.1.5. Lease/Purchase Home Ownership Program. Encourage the Housing Authority to continue the Lease/Purchase Home Ownership Assistance Program, which assists potential homeowners in leasing a property while moving towards ownership at the end of 3 years.
Removed action for 6th cycle because the
action is program with the Housing
Authority no longer exists.
Accommodate new market rate housing to diversify the
housing stock, increase property values, increase
median income and create the elements for prosperity
for all households.
HE 3.1.6. Housing Variety. Facilitate new market rate residential projects that provide a variety of housing types and densities.
Removed action for 6th cycle because the
action is not a housing program but an
economic sustainability action and will be
relocated and reevaluated as part of that
Economic Sustainability Element.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-213 Objective Action Current Status of Progress
Provide safe pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle
linkages between neighborhoods; promote walkability.
HE 3.1.7. Neighborhood Connectivity. Require new residential neighborhoods to interconnect with existing neighborhoods to provide for social interaction, assure pedestrian- friendly connectivity, and minimize vehicle trips.
Removed action for 6th cycle because the
action is not a housing program but a
mobility element program and will be
relocated and reevaluated as part of the
Mobility Element.
Ensure new multi-family housing meets the same high
quality standards for safety, quality and environmental health that other housing types must meet for all
income levels.
HE 3.1.8. Multi-Family Dwellings Standards. Establish standards for multiple-family dwellings that will achieve comparable recreation and open space opportunities, protection from sources of noise and degraded air quality, adequate access to public services and facilities and parking that apply to single-family housing.
Updated in the 6th cycle to clarify
specifics and rewritten because part of
this was adopted in 2021 is an ongoing
process.
Ensure fair treatment of all persons in securing safe
housing and to promote equal housing opportunities.
HE 3.1.9. Amend the Zoning Ordinance. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to expand housing opportunities, as required by state and federal law, including but not limited to: amending the definition of “Family,” removing the minimum distance requirement between emergency shelters, permitting multi-family development without discretionary land use approval, providing reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, and encouraging development of a variety of housing for all income levels, such as manufactured housing, rental housing, mobile homes, single-room occupancy housing, employee housing and transitional and supportive housing.
Updated in the 6th cycle to clarify
specifics and rewrite the action. This
action’s code update was completed and
item replaced with a new other action.
See HE 3.1.6
GOAL HE 4: Maintain and enhance residential neighborhoods and remove blight.
Enhance the quality of life in all residential areas and promote residents’ active involvement in and support
for neighborhood pride and improvement activities.
HE 4.1.1. Neighborhood Participation. Implement varied strategies to ensure residents are aware of and able to participate in planning decisions affecting their neighborhoods early in the planning process, such as neighborhood meetings, City Council member visits, and town hall meetings.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
HE 4.1.2. Neighborhood Needs. Identify specific neighborhood needs, problems, trends, and opportunities for improvements. Work directly with neighborhood groups and individuals to address concerns.
Continued action from 5 th cycle to the 6 th
cycle.
HE 4.1.3. Neighborhood Improvements. As budget allows, help fund neighborhood improvements, such as street paving or repairs, sidewalks, pedestrian and equestrian trails, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and other public facilities to improve aesthetics, safety, and accessibility.
Continued action from 5 th cycle to the 6 th
cycle.
Establish a pro-active code enforcement program to
identify housing in need of repair and make owners
aware of resources for financial assistance
HE 4.1.4. Neighborhood Pride. Working with Riverside County, CSDs and non-profit housing entities, develop and promote a Neighborhood Pride Program including cooperative projects with Code Enforcement staff, and Public Works projects in target areas, as funding allows.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-214 Objective Action Current Status of Progress
GOAL HE 5: Reduce residential energy and water use.
Conserve resources, reuse and recycle solid waste,
and improve environmental sustainability.
HE 5.1.1. Incentives. Consider establishing incentives for energy conservation above and beyond the requirements of Title 24, such as priority permit processing or reduced permit fees on a sliding scale Fee Assistance Program, as budget allows.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Conserve resources, reuse and recycle solid waste,
and improve environmental sustainability.
HE 5.1.2. Energy Programs for Lower Income Households. Encourage and participate in Riverside County’s and utility providers’ programs to reduce maintenance and energy costs for households with low incomes, and increase efforts to inform the public about available cost-saving, energy conservation programs.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
HE 5.1.3. Energy Conservation Grants. Pursue grant funds for energy rehab costs and consumer education.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
HE 5.1.4. City Requests for Proposals. City RFPs, contracts, and bidding procedures capital projects and programs shall incorporate energy conservation and sustainability measures.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
HE 5.1.5. City Facilities. Utilize energy/water saving measures in City-owned buildings and facilities, including landscaping, to meet industry sustainable design standards.
Removed action for 6th cycle because the
action is not a housing program but an
community safety, services and facilities
action and will be relocated and
reevaluated as part of that Community
Safety, Services, and Facilities Element.
HE 5.1.6. Sustainable Design. Adopt sustainable design policies, standards and codes that result in attractive, energy efficient, neighborhoods.
Continued action from 5th cycle to the 6th
cycle.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-215 Appendix E – Fair Housing Assessment
1. Introduction and Overview of AB 686
In 2018, California passed Assembly Bill (AB 686) as the statewide framework to affirmatively further fair housing; to promote inclusive communities, to further housing choice, and to address racial and economic disparities through government programs, policies, and operations. AB 686 defined “affirmatively furthering fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The bill added an assessment of fair housing to the housing element that includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessm ent of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions. The City of Ju rupa Valley continues to assess the access to housing with the most recent Analysis of Impediments (AI) prepared in 2019 to comply with the requirements of the current code. With this Housing Element Update, the City is again analyzing future actions to promote fair housing for all in Jurupa Valley.
AB 686 also requires that preparation of the housing element land inventory and identification of sites occur through the lens of AFFH, and that the housing element include a program that promotes and affirmatively furthers fair housing opportunities throughout the community. The program should address the issues identified through the assessment. The program must include: 1) meaningful actions that address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity; 2) a timeline of concrete actions and a timeline for implementation; and 3) no actions inconsistent with AFFH. In the Jurupa Valley Housing Element, the Housing Element Section I includes the required AFFH program, based on the recommendations of the AI and the additional analysis done for the 6th Cycle Housing Element update provided in this assessment.
2. Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
In 2019, the City of Jurupa Valley completed its first Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice as a City, pulling from regional and county -based data for the review. This analysis considered the current issues surrounding Jurupa Valley’s fair housing and resulting in an action plan for the planning period of 2019-2023.
It included a community survey, local knowledge, and help from housing consultant, which all shaped the focus of that report. The report concluded that the following main changes to current fair housing practices in Jurupa Valley were needed:
• Additional outreach and education activities
• Increase enforcement activities from discrimination cases • Monitoring of lending, housing providers, and local real estate practices • Increase geographic choice in housing
• Adopting land use law to increase inclusionary housing access Currently the City is contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC) and provides housing programs through Community Development Block Grants to provided additional options to the community of Jurupa Valley. The City, with the help of FHCRC, tracks issues of fair housing and also provide housing education, housing access, and housing counseling.
Now with the development of the 2021 -2029 Housing Element, the City is performing an analysis to satisfy the requirements to meet the needs of current state housing law. In this analysis the City relied on the AFFH
Data and Mapping Resources provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD Data Viewer), the following sources of data:
• City of Jurupa Valley General Plan (adopted September 7, 2017) • City of Jurupa Valley Draft Housing Element (under review by the State of California Housing and Community Development and adopted by the Jurupa Valley City Council on December 2, 2021 • Consolidated Plan (2018-2022)
• California Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates (2019) • U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
• California Employment Development Department (2007-2019) • Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (2019)
• Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Report (2019-2020) • Annual Action Plan for 2020-2021
Additional sources of information include the American Community Survey 2015-2019 five-year estimates (ACS), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, and the “Pre-Certified Local Housing Data” prepared for Jurupa Valley by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG Report), and additional local sources of information.
2.1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
The City has contracted the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC) to implement its Fair Housing Program, and the availability of these services are promoted on the City’s website and the Fair Housing Council website. The FHCRC provides free fair housing services including landlord/tenant counseling to answer questions about rights and responsibilities; investigation concerning allegations of housing discrimination and help for victims of discrimination; outreach and education about Fair Housing laws and issues; and publication of a monthly rental listing of affordable housing opportunities. Due to the COVID -19 pandemic, FHCRC now provides additional resources for those who need rental assistance and education opportunities to stay informed of housing rights. Their website includes housing videos, workshops, and events to promote public awareness for housing education. FHCRC has physical offices in Riverside, Corona, More no Valley, and Palm Springs, which currently maintains a Housing Rights Hotline, and offers phone or online counseling.
According to the FHCRC Data collected for 2020, the county has seen a rise in complaints for overdue rent, lack of maintenance, and discrimination. The FHCRC profile of Jurupa Valley spells a similar story and can be attributed to the many closures and job losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic through 2020. In Jurupa Valley, FHCRC received 429 complaints and assisted 1,169 residents during the 2019 -2020 fiscal year. The highest landlord-tenant complaints received concerned notices (25.5%), lease/rental terms (20.7%), and repairs (19.9%). This information is not tracked by address, so there is no way to tell if a concentration of complaints occurs in specific neighborhoods.
At the County level, the data collected by FHCRC has shown that discrimination happens most often when landlords and property managers enact rules and polices that are discriminatory due to lack of understanding or misunderstanding of the Fair Housing Act and what is considered discriminatory. Due to this lack of knowledge, the FHCRC investigates violations through its Fair Housing Initiative Program grants that fund the Private Enforcement Initiative and the Education and Outreach Initiative. The Private Enforcement Initiative utilizes investigational techniques to monitor and uncover when discriminatory practices are present for home seekers and current residents. The Education and Outreach Initiative focuses on educating the public, tenants, and property managers and public services of forms of housing and the different access needed for those who are overlooked, like individuals with disabilities. From the FHCRC countywide data, the three main reasons Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-217 that people are discriminated against in housing are based on physical disability (54%), race (13%), and mental disability (8%). The City of Jurupa Valley had reports of housing discrimination based on physical disability at 50% and a five-way split in discrimination due to sex, national origin, familial status, race, and marital status with 10% each.
According to HCD Data Viewer Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) complaints for Jurupa Valley in 2013-2021, the City received fewer than 0.25 inquiries for every 1,000 people in the total city population, which is similar to most cities adjacent to Jurupa Valley, except for the City of Riverside, which has received twice as many complaints (Figure E-1).
While the data from the Data Viewer does not include a breakdown for the different types of complaints at the City level, it does provide a breakdown at the County level from 2010 and 2020. In 2020, the County of Riverside as a whole saw a reduction of FHEO complaints in comparison to its 2010 data. However, of those complaints received, the proportions of AFFH cases that are based on disabilities bias and race bias have remained the same with 45% to 65% of all cases dealing with disabilities bias and 20% to 35% in race bias. This data reflects a very similar story as the FHCRC data for discrimination in housing at the County level.
Figure E-1 also shows housing choice voucher (HCV) recipients by tract. Between 5% and 15% of renters in five Jurupa Valley tracts receive HCVs. To protect the confidentiality of those receiving Housing Choice Voucher Program assistance, tracts containing 10 or fewer voucher holders were omitted from this data set.
In Jurupa Valley, the majority of the housing programs for fair housing are handled through the contract with FHCRC due to the lack of housing -dedicated city staff to operate these programs at the capacity that they need to be operated. However, the City still operates a handful of programs that are developed with funds from Community Development Block Grants. These programs are required to report annua lly to maintain funding through the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). The City of Jurupa Valley completed its CAPER in November 2020 for the evaluation period of 2019-2020.
The CAPER report includes the breakdown of goals, and the outcomes of the City efforts. The report also reviews the different forms of assistance provided to the community and the demographics of the families assisted, along with methods of monitoring, special needs groups, and affordable housing. This report looked at the following goals for change:
• Homeless Services: The city expected to assist 90 persons and assisted 121 persons. • Fair Housing Services: The city expected to assist 200 persons and assisted 429 persons. • Housing Rehabilitation: The city expected to assist 5 households and assisted 1 household. • Program Administration: The city expected to contract 1 entity for administration and contracted 1 entity.
• Public Facilities: The city expected to assist 0 persons and assisted 0 persons. • Public Infrastructure Improvements: The city expected to assist 11,225 persons and assisted 11,225 persons.
• Services for Low - and Moderate-Income Households: The city expected to assist 275 persons and assisted 274 persons.
The CAPER helps the City understand which programs are working and which are not , while some programs like Public Facilities were not budgeted for in the 2019-2020 year. The number of people assisted includes all people who made a formal complaint to FHCRC to have FHCRC enforce the housing law and provide education for tenants and landlords/property managers.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-218 Figure E-1 FHEO Inquiries (2013-2021) and HCVs (2020)
Source: HCD Data Viewer (2013-2021 HUD FHEO inquiry and HCV database), 2021
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-219
2.2. Integration and Segregation
The HCD Data Viewer, drawing from U.S. Census, ACS, and other data sources, provides a depth of resources to better understand patterns of affluence, poverty, segregation, and integration.
AB 686 requires that preparation of the housing element land inventory and identification of sites occur through the lens of A FFH. To meet this requirement, the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Sites Inventory has been mapped and overlaid onto the HCD Data Viewer opportunity and R/ECAP maps (Figure E-1), as further discussed below.
The Sites Inventory was developed with many attributes and requirements to ensure that parcels that were included could successfully meet the needs of the RHNA. These sites were selected due to their proximity to similar densities, similar developments, access to transportation, and access to amenities. Some sites are entitled as part of specific plans in which they will develop with the adjacent homes and commerci al sites to better integrate the developments within each neighborhood. While these sites are based on opportunity, vacant, and underutilized sites, they are not concentrated in any given neighborhood but rather dispersed all over the city to provide oppor tunity for diverse living situations and geographies. With the help of the HCD Data Viewer, the City was able to determine sites that were suited in locations of development to best serve the community of Jurupa Valley.
Race and Ethnicity
The ethnic and ra cial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, because it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility.
Local Trend
The breakdown of population by race can be found in Table E -1. From 2012 to 2019 the largest shifts in racial/ethnic composition in Jurupa Valley can be seen in a decre ase of the Non -Hispanic White and the increase of the Hispanic or Latino demographics. Regionally Hispanic/Latino residents make up 48.9% of the total population compared to 71.4% in Jurupa Valley. Jurupa Valley has a smaller share of Whites, Black/ African Americans, American Indian/Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, persons of a different race, and persons of two or more races compared to the County.
Table E-1 Race/Ethnicity Demographics (2012-2019)
Race/Ethnicity
2012 2019
Jurupa Valley Riverside County Jurupa Valley Riverside County White 23.8% 39.6% 20.6% 35.3%
Black/African American 3.5% 5.9% 3.0% 6.1%
American Indian/Alaska Native 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.4%
Asian 2.9% 5.8% 3.5% 6.3%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3%
Other 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%
Two or more races 1.1% 2.2% 1.0% 2.4%
Hispanic/Latino 68.1% 45.5% 71.4% 48.9%
Total 97,673 2,192,982 105,653 2,411,439
Source: 2008-2012 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Dissimilarity indices can be used to measure the evenness of distribution between two groups in an area. The distribution of racial/ethnic groups can be used as an indicator for segregation. HUD provides dissimilarity indices for CDBG jurisdictions, including Jurupa Valley and Riverside Count y. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
Segregation between all non-White and White groups in Jurupa Valley is considered low. Dissimilarity indices in the City are lower than the County for all racial/ethnic groups. Since 1990, dissimilarity indices have increased in all racial/ethnic and White populations. Black and White communities are most segregated in the City, while Hispanic and White communities are the least segregated.
Table E-2 Dissimilarity Indices (1990-2020)
1990 2000 2010 Current
Jurupa Valley
Non-White/White 17.93 21.61 22.77 26.15
Black/White 32.98 30.34 31.53 37.56
Hispanic/White 16.56 23.82 24.58 27.76
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 15.36 20.81 23.88 31.04 Riverside County
Non-White/White 32.16 38.18 36.71 39.53
Black/White 46.72 47.08 40.59 44.89
Hispanic/White 34.33 41.31 40.66 42.61
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 34.92 35.99 36.36 40.80 Source: HUD AFFH-T Data: Dissimilarity Indices, 2020.
As shown in Figure E-2, racial/ethnic minority groups make up more than 60% of most block groups in Jurupa Valley. Jurupa Valley has similar racial/ethnic minority concentrations compared to the region. There are slightly fewer racial/ethnic minorities in jurisdictions south of Jurupa Valley compared to the jurisdictions on the northern, western, and eastern sides.
According to ACS data used for the HCD Data Viewer, the city is dominated in almost all tracts by Hispa nic populations. Predominant racial/ethnic populations are shown in Figure E-3. This map is important when looking at the Sites Inventory, because the ethnic majority can provide insight into the types of cultural habits and cohabitation habits seen throughout the City and can also provide insight into locations throughout the City that require a higher density of housing. The data of the co mmunity ethnic/racial demographics is necessary for the AFFH analysis , because the two largest discrimination issues in Jurupa Valley according to FHCRC data are racial discrimination and disabilities discrimination.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-221 Figure E-2 Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration and Sites Inventory (2018)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-222 Figure E-3 Predominant Racial/Ethnic Population (2021)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-223 Regional Trend
Riverside County is predominantly non-White; nearly half the population is Hispanic/Latino, 6% is Asian, and
6.1% is Black/African American (Table E-1). As shown in Table E-2, dissimilarity indices are higher in the County compared to Jurupa Valley. Overall, segregation between all non-White and White communities is considered low, while Black/White communities, Hispanic/White communities, and Asian or Pacific Islander/White communities are considered moderately segregated. Table E-3 shows the racial/ethnic composition of Riverside County, Jurupa Valley, and neighboring jurisdictions. Jurupa Valley has the largest Hispanic/Latino population among the selected jurisdictions. Moreno Valley, Jurupa Valley, and Eastvale have smaller White populations, while Norco has the largest White population (55.6%). Jurupa Valley also has the smallest share of Black/African American residents, Asian residents, and residents of two or more races compared to nearby cities.
Table E-3 Race/Ethnicity Composition of Jurupa Valley and Neighboring Jurisdictions (2019) Race/Ethnicity Jurupa Valley Corona Eastvale
Moreno
Valley Norco
City of
Riverside
Riverside
County
White 20.6% 34.7% 21.2% 15.7% 55.6% 29.8% 35.3%
Black/African American 3.0% 5.2% 7.9% 17.1% 4.5% 5.8% 6.1% American Indian/Alaska Native 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% Asian 3.5% 11.1% 25.7% 6.0% 4.3% 7.4% 6.3%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% Other 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2%
Two or more races 1.0% 2.5% 5.2% 1.8% 2.3% 2.5% 2.4%
Hispanic/Latino 71.4% 45.7% 39.5% 58.7% 33.0% 53.7% 48.9% Total 105,653 166,972 62,046 207,289 26,670 326,414 2,411,439 Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
As shown in Figure E-4, most block groups in Riverside County in the Jurupa Valley region have racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 61%. San Bernardino County jurisdictions north and east of Jurupa Valley, and the areas surrounding Moreno Valley and Perris, have high concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities.
Racial/ethnic minority groups make up a slightly lower proportion of block groups around Woodcrest and Sun City; however, in most block groups the non-White population outnumbers the White population.
Sites Inventory
The distribution of RHNA units, including vacant and underutilized sites, rezone sites, and specific plan sites, are shown below. As presented in Table E -4, most lower -income RHNA units are in block groups where racial/ethnic minorities make up more than 81% of the population. In comparison, only 34.6% of moderate income RHNA units and 32% of above -moderate income RHNA units are in block groups with the same racial/ethnic minority concentration. There are no lower or moderate income units in block groups with lower racial/ethnic minority populations of 60% or below. Approximately 49.4% of all RHNA units are in block groups where more than 81% of the popu lation belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group. The RHNA sites strategy does concentrate lower income units in tracts with larger racial/ethnic minority populations. However, as shown above, the sites strategy does not concentrate sites suitable to accommodate lower income units in a single area of the City. The concentration of lower income units is a reflection of the composition of the City as a whole.
Table E-4 Distribution of RHNA Units by Racial/Ethnic Minority Population (2018) Racial/Ethnic Minority Population
(Block Group) Very Low Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income
Units All Units
41-60% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 32 1.6% 32 0.6%
61-80% 679 30.0% 481 65.4% 1,358 66.4% 2,518 49.9%
>81% 1,585 70.0% 255 34.6% 654 32.0% 2,494 49.4%
Total 2,264 100.0% 736 100.0% 2,044 100.0% 5,044 100.0% Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-224 Figure E-4 Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration (2018)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-225 Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of their fixed income, the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability.
Local Trend
In Jurupa Valley, persons living with one or more disability make up about 10.8% of the total population with a variety of different disability types. Ambulatory and independent living disabilities are the most common; approximately 6.3% of the population experiences an ambulatory difficulty , and 6.1% expe riences an independent living difficulty. Nearly 40% of elderly adults in Jurupa Valley experience a disability, as shown in Table E-5.
Table E-5 Disability by Age and Type – Jurupa Valley (2019) Disability Type Under 18 18-64 65+ Total
With a hearing difficulty 0.5% 1.7% 15.9% 2.8%
With a vision difficulty 1.1% 2.7% 6.7% 2.6%
With a cognitive difficulty 3.6% 3.2% 12.9% 4.3%
With an ambulatory difficulty 0.7% 4.5% 29.1% 6.3%
With a self-care difficulty 1.3% 1.8% 10.5% 2.6%
With an independent living difficulty – 3.5% 22.2% 6.1% Total with a disability 3.7% 9.3% 39.9% 10.8%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
Table E-6 shows disability status by race. Black or African American and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander residents have the highest rate of disability. App roximately 21.8% of the Black/African American population and 21.1% of the Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander population in Jurupa Valley experience a disability. White and American Indian/Alaska Native populations also experience disabilities at a higher ra te than the average citywide.
Table E-6 Disability Status by Race – Jurupa Valley (2019) Race/Ethnicity Total Population With a Disability
White alone 55,104 12.8%
Black or African American alone 3,374 21.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 835 12.3%
Asian alone 3,809 8.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 142 21.1% Some other race alone 37,955 7.1%
Two or more races 3,801 9.8%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 21,470 18.7%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 75,190 8.0%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
According to the data provided in FHCRC data collected over the year of 2019 -2020, most of the complaints of discrimination both at the City and County level s stem from racial disability discriminations. According to FHCRC discrimination complaint records, 50% were related to physical disability.
The HCD Data Viewer maps show that that the percentage of the population with a disability is predominantly located in the highest concentration in the community in the northwest side of Jurupa Valley; this area is the same area that is under specific review of the Environmental Justice Element. More than 50% of the tracts have from 10% to 20% of the total population living there with one or more disabilities shown in Figure E-5.
There is one tract in Jurupa Valley with a higher concentration of persons with disabilities compared to the region (Figure E-6). Most tracts in the Jurupa Valley region have concentrations of persons with disabilities up to 20%.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-226 Figure E-5 Concentration of Persons with Disabilities and Sites Inventory (2019)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-227 Figure E-6 Regional Concentration of Persons with Disabilities (2019)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
Regional Trend
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, 11.6% of Riverside County residents experience a disability, more than in Jurupa Valley. As discussed previously, 10.8% of Jurupa Valley residents experience a disability, a larger proportion compared to the neighboring jurisdictions of Corona (7.9%), Eastvale (8.3 %), and Moreno Valley (9.7%), but smaller than Norco (11.6%) and the City of Riverside (11.2%). Disabilities are more common among elderly adults countywide. Approximately 26.2% of the County population aged 64 -74 and 49.5% of the population aged 75 and ol der experience a disability. Over half of discrimination complaints filed through FHCRC were related to physical disability and 8% were related to mental disability.
As shown in Table E-7. less than 20% of the population experiences a disability in most tracts in Riverside County. Tracts around the cities of Sun City, Hemet, and Beaumont, and one tract in Jurupa Valley, have disabled populations exceeding 20%.
Sites Inventory
Approximately 69.6% of all RHNA units, including 46.6% lower income units, 100% of moderate income units, and 76.8% of above moderate income units, are in census tracts where 10 to 20% of the population has a disability. There are no units in t he tract where more than 20% of the population experiences a disability.
While there are more RHNA units in tracts where more than 10% of the population experiences a disability, the sites strategy does not disproportionately place lower income sites in these tracts compared to moderate and above moderate income units. As shown above, tracts with a population of persons with disabilities exceeding 10% make up more than half this City. The sites inventory generally follows this trend, specifically for lower income units.
Table E-7 Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Persons with Disabilities (2019) Disabled Population (Tract) Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income
Units All Units
<10% 1,056 46.6% 0 0.0% 475 23.2% 1,531 30.4%
10-20% 1,208 53.4% 736 100.0% 1,569 76.8% 3,513 69.6%
Total 2,264 100.0% 736 100.0% 2,044 100.0% 5,044 100.0% Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021.
Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the martial status of the head of households. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. Single -parent households are protecte d by fair housing law. Female -headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.
Local Trend
As shown in Table E-8, 40.5% of Jurupa Valley households were households with children in 2012, a higher proportion than the County as a whole (37.2%). As of 2019, th e proportion of households with children in Jurupa Valley had decreased from 40.5% to 39.8%. Approximately 30.4% of households are married couple households with children, and 9.4% are single -parent households, including 6.7% single -parent female - headed households.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-229 Table E-8 Household Type Composition Trend (2012-2019)
Household Type
2012 2019
Jurupa Valley Riverside County Jurupa Valley Riverside County Households with Children 40.5% 37.2% 39.8% 32.6%
Married Couple with Children 30.8% 26.5% 30.4% 23.4%
Single-Parent 9.7% 10.7% 9.4% 9.2%
Male-Headed 3.1% 3.1% 2.7% 2.6%
Female-Headed 6.6% 7.6% 6.7% 6.6%
Total Households 25,043 676,618 24,907 724,893
Source: 2008-2012 & 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Housing element law requires analysis of specialized housing needs, including female-headed households, in an effort to ensure adequate childcare or job training services. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 2,331 single-parent households resided within Jurupa Valley, representing 9.4% of the City’s households. An estimated 1,657 households of the 2,331 single-parent households with children under age 18 are headed by females. Of particular concern are single-parent households with lower incomes.
As shown in Figure E-7, most Jurupa Valley tracts have more than 60% of children living in married couple households. There are two tracts along the northern border and five tracts in the southeastern areas of the City where fewer than 60% if children live in married couple households. Figure E-8 shows the percentage of children living in female-headed households by tract. There are six tracts in Jurupa Valley where more than 20% of children live in female-headed households; they are not generally concentrated in one area of the City.
Regional Trend
As discussed previously, River side County has a smaller proportion of families with children compared to Jurupa Valley; approximately 32.6% of households in Riverside County are households with children. Only
9.2% of Riverside County households are single -parent households, including 6 .6% female -headed households, compared to 9.4% in Jurupa Valley. Jurupa Valley has a share of households with children comparable to the neighboring jurisdictions of Corona and Moreno Valley (Table E-9).
Table E-9 Households by Type with Children (2019)
Race/Ethnicity Jurupa Valley Corona Eastvale
Moreno
Valley Norco
City of
Riverside
Riverside
County
Households with Children 39.8% 36.8% 50.0% 40.7% 29.4% 33.2% 32.6% Married Couple with Children 30.4% 27.9% 41.3% 27.1% 24.2% 22.9% 23.4% Single-Parent 9.4% 8.8% 8.7% 13.6% 5.2% 10.3% 9.2%
Male-Headed 2.7% 2.7% 2.9% 3.5% 1.3% 2.9% 2.6%
Female-Headed 6.7% 6.1% 5.7% 10.1% 4.0% 7.3% 6.6%
Total Households 24,907 48,899 14,749 50,886 7,119 90,722 724,893 Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Table E-9 and Figure E-9 show the percentage of children in married couple households and female -headed households by tract in the Riverside County region. In most tracts, fewer than 40% of children live in female- headed households. There are a few tracts in the Woodcrest, City of Riverside, Sun City, and Hemet areas where more than 40% of children live in female-headed households. There are also concentrations of children living in female-headed households in the San Bernardino County areas of Colton and Redlands (Figure E-10).
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-230 Figure E-7 Percent of Children in Married Couple Households and Sites Inventory (2019)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-231 Figure E-8 Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households and Sites Inventory (2019)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-232 Figure E-9 Regional Percent of Children in Married Couple Households (2019)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-233 Figure E-10 Regional Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households (2019)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
Sites Inventory
As presented in Table E-10, only 4.1% of lower income units, 14.9% of above moderate income units, and no moderate income units are in tracts where more than 80% of children live in married couple households. As shown above, there are only nine tracts in the City where more than 80% of children live in married couple households. Most RHNA units (60.8%) are in tracts where 60 to 80% of children live in married couple households. There is a higher proportion of lower income units (48.4%) in tracts where less than 60% of children live in married couple households compared to moderate income units (37.9%) and above moderate income units (10.1%). A higher percentage of lower income units are in tracts where more tha n 20% of children live in female -headed households compared to moderate and above moderate income units.
Approximately 60% of all RHNA units are in tracts where less than 20% of children live in female-headed households (Table E-11). The City’s sites inventory does concentrate lower income units in areas where more children live in single -parent female headed households. However, as shown above, sites that can accommodate lower income units are generally distributed throughout the Cit y and are not concentrated in a single area. Further, there are no tracts in the City with a concentration of children living in female-headed households that exceeds the 20 to 40% range. Only 33% of children live in female -headed households in the tract with the highest concentration.
Table E-10 Distribution of RHNA Units by Children in Married Couple Households (2019) Children in Married Couple
Households (Tract) Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income
Units All Units
40-60% 1,095 48.4% 279 37.9% 207 10.1% 1,581 31.3%
60-80% 1,076 47.5% 457 62.1% 1,532 75.0% 3,065 60.8%
>80% 93 4.1% 0 0.0% 305 14.9% 398 7.9%
Total 2,264 100.0% 736 100.0% 2,044 100.0% 5,044 100.0% Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021.
Table E-11 Distribution of RHNA Units by Children in Female-Headed Households (2019) Children in Female-Headed
Households (Tract) Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income
Units All Units
<20% 722 31.9% 498 67.7% 1,806 88.4% 3,026 60.0%
20-40% 1,542 68.1% 238 32.3% 238 11.6% 2,018 40.0%
Total 2,264 100.0% 736 100.0% 2,044 100.0% 5,044 100.0% Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021.
Income Level
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51% of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80% of the AMI).
Local Trend
Only 38% of households in Jurupa Valley are considered lower income and approximately 20% are considered moderate income. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, the median income in Jurupa Valley is $70,642. Table E-12 below shows that a majority of the tracts in the City are comprised of between 25-50% LMI households. There are concentrations of LMI households in the central eastern and central western areas of the City where more than 50% of households are low or moderate income.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-235 Table E-12 Distribution of Households Income Category (2020) Income Category Jurupa Valley Riverside County
Very Low (0-50%) 5,765 22.9% 175,594 24.7%
Low (50-80%) 3,807 15.1% 114,480 16.1%
Moderate (80-120%) 5,007 19.9% 124,301 17.5%
Above Moderate (>120%) 10,591 42.1% 297,349 41.8%
Total 25,170 100% 711,724 100%
Source: SCAG Final RHNA Data Appendix, 2020.
Regional Trend
As shown in Table E-12 above, Riverside County has a larger proportion of low income households (40.8%) but a smaller proportion of moderate income households (17.5%) compared to Jurupa Valley. The median household income of $67,005 countywide is lower than $70,642 in Jurupa Valley. The median household income in Jurupa Valley is lower than the neighboring jurisdictions of Corona ($83,752), Eastvale ($119,213), and Norco ($102,817), but higher than Moreno Valley ($66,134) and the City of Riverside ($69,045).
As shown in Figure E-12, there a re concentrations of LMI households in San Bernardino County, north of Jurupa Valley, from Moreno Valley to the Lake Elsinore area, in the Jurupa Valley/City of Riverside areas, and around the cities of Hemet, Winchester, and Banning.
Sites Inventory
Parcels used to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA are included in Figure E-11. It is important to note that the distribution of units shown in Table E-13 are at the tract level. There are more LMI tracts compared to LMI block groups in the City (see Figure E-43). The largest share of RHNA units (53%) are in tracts where 50 to 75% of households are low or moderate income. More than half of all units (55.9%) are in LMI areas where more than 50% of households are low or moderate income, including 53.7% of lower income units, 94.4% of moderate income units, and 44.4% of above moderate income units.
Table E-13 Distribution of RHNA Units by Concentration of LMI Households (2020) LMI Households (Tract) Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income
Units All Units
<25% 250 11.0% 0 0.0% 587 28.7% 837 16.6%
25-50% 798 35.2% 41 5.6% 550 26.9% 1,389 27.5%
50-75% 1,072 47.3% 695 94.4% 907 44.4% 2,674 53.0%
75-100% 144 6.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 144 2.9%
Total 2,264 100.0% 736 100.0% 2,044 100.0% 5,044 100.0% Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-236 Figure E-11 Concentration of LMI Households and Sites Inventory (2020)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, HUD 2020, 2021.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-237 Figure E-12 Regional Concentration of LMI Households (2020)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, HUD 2020, 2021.
Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Jurupa Valley has a large racial/ethnic minority population, primarily comprising Hispanic/Latino residents.
More than 60% of the population in most Jurupa Valley block groups have racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 61%. A larger proportion of lower income RHNA units are in block groups with very high racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 81% compared to moderate and above moderate units.
There is one tract where the population of persons with disabilities exceeds 20%. Within this tract, there are three block groups , one of which has a racial/ethnic minority population over 81%. However, there are no RHNA units located in this tract.
The tracts with higher concentrations of children living in female-headed households in the northern, central, and eastern areas of the City also have racial/ethnic minority populations of 81% or higher. The tracts along the southern City boundary where a larger percent of children live in female-headed households have smaller racial/ethnic minority populations between 60% and 80%. Overal l, Jurupa Valley has a smaller share of households with children, but a larger share of single -parent households compared to Riverside County. A larger share of lower income RHNA units are in tracts where 20 -40% of children live in female -headed households compared to moderate and above moderate income units.
Jurupa Valley has a smaller proportion of lower income households but a larger proportion of moderate income households than the County. More than 50% of households are LMI in several block groups in t he central western and central eastern areas of the City. Nearly all LMI concentrated areas have racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 81%. The tract along the northeastern City boundary with a concentration of persons with disabilities exceeding 20% also contains a block group where 79% of the population is LMI. The tract along the northern City boundary and tracts on the eastern side of the City with larger concentrations of children in female-headed households also have LMI populations exceeding 50%.
2.3. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
To identify racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non-white population (greater than 50%) and has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower.
In the Jurupa Valley regional area, there are few tracts surrounding the City that meet the requirements to be classified as a R/ECAPs area. A few tracts designated as R/ECAP are located near Loma Linda, Fontana, and Ontario to the north and Riverside and Moreno Valley to the south. As shown on Figure E-15, there are no R/ECAPs in Jurupa Valley, but there is a TCAC designated area of High Segregation and Poverty provided by HCD on the AFFH Data Viewer (tract 402.03). TCAC Opportunity Maps are further described in Section 2.4, Access to Opportunities. This is important to the Housing Element due to the context of this type of metric to measure the different disparities based on race or ethnicity in certain tracts. Tracts that meet the R/ECAP metrics would consider the different methods of development that would build up the value to better serve the community. Within the TCAC -designated area of high segregation of poverty are several RHNA sites the City has identified as appropriate for lower inc ome units. While only lower income units are located within this tract, sites used for lower and moderate income RHNA units are generally dispersed throughout the City and are not concentrated within the high segregation and poverty tract. As described in Section 2.4, Access to Opportunities below, most lower income RHNA units are in moderate resource tracts. Further, more lower income RHNA units are located in highest resource tracts compared to moderate and above moderate units.
As described in Section 2. 6, Other Relevant Factors below, the TCAC -identified area of high segregation and Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-239 poverty likely exists, in part, due to the high concentration of mobile home parks and subsidized housing in this area.
As shown in Figure E-16, tract 402.03 is the only tract in the City with a poverty rate exceeding 30%. This tract has a non-White population of 90%, a population of persons with disabilities of 13.9%, population of children living in female-headed households of 29%, and LMI population of 76.5%, exceeding the Citywide average for all groups. The UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project created neighborhood segregation typologies which identify which groups have more than 10% representation within a tract ( Figure E-13). Tract 402.03 and the northern adjacent tract are the only areas in the City that have been identified as mostly Latinx. The remainder of the City is Latinx-White, a mix of three groups, or a mix of four groups.
Zoning designations in this tract are primarily R -2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) and R -3 (General Residential), with smaller areas designated for R-4 (Planned Residential), R-6 ( Residential Incentive ), and General Commercial. The tract is located adjacent to the Flabob Airport along the southern tract boundary. Non-White and lower-socioeconomic populations are generally exposed to noise pollution, including noise generated by airports, at a higher rate than White and high -income communities. 1 As shown below, 15.6% of the Hispanic/Latino population in Jurupa Valley is below the poverty level, higher than the Citywide average of
13.9%.
The median home value for owner-occupied units with a mortgage by tract based on 2015-2019 ACS estimates is presented in Figure E-14. Consistent with the findings discussed previously, tracts surrounding the Flabob Airport, including tract 402.03, the area of high segregation and poverty, have the lowest home values in the City. The median home value in tract 402.03 is $263,600, significantly more affordable than other areas of the City. While for -sale housing is generally more affordable here, it is relevant to note that this tract is characterized by a renter household majority of 63.5%, more than half of which are cost burdened (57.4%).
An assessment of median rental prices revealed that rental prices in this area are also the lowest in the City.
The affordability of housing in this tract contributes to the concentration of lower income households.
The proximity of Flabob Airport is likely a driving factor for the concentration of racial/ethnic minority populations and lower income households in this area as there are a plethora of facilities and resources, including community centers, food outlet facilities, hospitals/clinics, parkland, and schools, accessible to persons residing in this tract. Amenities, facilities, and resources are further described in Section 2.7, Sites Inventory, of this Appendix.
1 Joan A. Casey, Rachel Morello-Frosch, Daniel J. Mennitt, Kurt Fristrup, Elizabeth L. Ogburn, and Peter James. 2017.
Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, Residential Segregation, and Spatial Variation in Noise Exposure in the Contiguous United States. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP898.
Figure E-13 Urban Displacement Project – Neighborhood Segregation by Tract (2019)
Figure E-14 Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units with a Mortgage by Tract (2019)
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-241 Figure E-16 shows poverty status by tract in Jurupa Valley. When compared to the areas of high segregation and poverty in Figure E-15, the higher concentration of need comes from the neighborhoods that are most adversely impacted by the industrial uses that are located adjacent to or in their tract. As seen in Figure E-16 below, the west portions adjacent to the Mira Loma Overlay, the east portions next to the Agua Mansa Specific Plan, and the southern portions next to the industrial complex/business parks show the higher concentration of poverty with 20% to 30% of the population living under the poverty line in these tracts. The highest concentration of poverty is shown in the purple area located adjacent to the Flabob Airport. This tract is sandwiched between industrial uses to the north and the airport to the south. Due to regulations for airports, the housing density located around an airport is required to be higher density rather than low density with 30% to 40% of the population in that tract living in poverty.
Table E-14 shows poverty status by race/ethnicity and disability status in Jurupa Valley and Riverside County.
Nearly 14% of the Jurupa Valley population is below the poverty level compared to 13.7% countywide.
Residents of a race not listed, Hispanic/Latino residents, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and residents with a disability have the highest rate of poverty in the City.
Table E-14 Poverty Status by Race/Ethnicity and Disability Status (2019) Jurupa Valley Riverside County
Total Population Below Poverty Level Total Population Below Poverty Level White 55,001 12.4% 1,425,172 12.0%
Black or African American 3,373 9.3% 152,447 17.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native 835 3.2% 19,429 20.8% Asian 3,799 8.0% 153,018 11.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 142 14.1% 7,246 13.0% Some other race 37,852 17.8% 512,339 18.2%
Two or more races 3,768 9.9% 104,055 11.4%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 74,972 15.6% 1,162,009 16.7% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 21,451 9.9% 841,304 9.3% With a Disability 10,497 15.7% 256,561 16.3%
Total 104,770 13.9% 2,373,706 13.7%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-242 Figure E-15 R/ECAPs and TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (2020, 2021)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, HUD 2020 (based on 2009-2013 ACS) and 2021 TCAC Opportunity Map, 2021.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-243 Figure E-16 Poverty Status by Census Tract (2019)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. According to a policy paper published by HUD, RCAA is defined a s affluent white communities. 2 According to HUD’s policy paper, whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States and in the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent White communities.
The AFFH Guidance Memo issued by HCD discusses research from the University of Minnesota as follows:
“RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 1) 80% or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016). While this is a useful measure nationwide, HCD has adjusted the RCAA methodology to better reflect California’s relative diversity.” The AFFH Guidance Memo then encourages jurisdictions to refer to the HCD Data Viewer for HCD’s adjusted definition of RCAAs, along with RCAA maps and accompanying data. However, the RCAA data layer is not currently available and the HCD definition is not provided. Using data that is available on the Data Viewer, this fair housing assessment uses the percent white population and median household income to identify potential areas of affluence. The City has one identified area of affluence that is considered marginally slim in population difference and also has a median income level of over $125,000.
Figure E-17 provides a view of m edian household income by block group and racial/ethnic minority by tract in Jurupa Valley. More than 50% of the City’s households earn less than the State Median Income of $87,100. There is only one block group in Jurupa Valley with a median income exceeding $125,000 located along the eastern City boundary. Between 80% and 100% of the population in this area belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group. There are no areas in the City that are considered RCAAs.
2 Goetz, Edward G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. Published by the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in Cityscape: A Journal Policy Development and Research (21,1, 99-123).
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-245 Figure E-17 Median Income by Block Group and Racial/Ethnic Minority by Tract (2018, 2019)
Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.