Jurupa Valley City Council
February 16, 2023

Summary of Fair Housing Issues
There are no HUD R/ECAPs in Jurupa Valley. However, one TCAC-designated area of high segregation and poverty is located in southeastern Jurupa Valley. This tract also has raci al/ethnic minority populations exceeding 81%, between 20% and 40% of children living in female -headed households, and LMI populations between 50% and 75% (see Figure E -2 (Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration and Sites Inventory (2018) ), Figure E -8 (Percent of Children in Female -Headed Households and Sites Inventory (2019)), and Figure E-11 (Concentration of LMI Households and Sites Inventory (2020)). Hispanic/Latinos, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, persons of a race not listed, and persons with disabilities e xperience poverty at a rate exceeding the citywide average of 3.9%. There are no RCAAs in Jurupa Valley.

2.4. Access to Opportunities
HUD developed an index for assessing fair housing by informing communities about disparities in access to opportunity. Table E-15 shows index scores for the following opportunity indicator indices in Jurupa Valley and the Riverside County region (values range from 0 to 100):
• Low Poverty Index: The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. • School Proficiency Index : The higher the score, the higher the school system quality in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index : The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index : The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index : The higher the index value, the better access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index : The higher the value, the better environmental quality of a neighborhood.

HUD opportunity indicator scores a further discussed below.

Table E-15 HUD Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (2020)

Low
Poverty
School
Prof.

Labor
Market Transit
Low Trans.

Cost
Jobs
Proximity Env. Health
Jurupa Valley
Total Population
White, non-Hispanic 47.69 34.88 19.59 56.78 40.84 59.89 15.68 Black, non-Hispanic 42.76 31.14 23.83 58.82 43.10 61.98 14.84 Hispanic 37.31 27.07 16.85 57.06 42.26 60.67 15.38
Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 53.03 36.21 25.68 57.01 40.00 56.41 15.54 Native American, non-Hispanic 43.05 34.89 17.97 57.79 41.47 59.82 15.73 Population below federal poverty line
White, non-Hispanic 39.88 30.47 17.94 56.32 42.53 59.75 15.69 Black, non-Hispanic 36.26 23.88 19.12 62.91 43.24 58.51 15.13 Hispanic 29.39 21.58 15.52 59.02 44.38 61.15 14.78
Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 53.33 34.89 24.19 51.49 40.62 58.03 15.73 Native American, non-Hispanic 18.95 24.54 7.87 60.50 50.40 48.87 16.04 Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-247

Low
Poverty
School
Prof.

Labor
Market Transit
Low Trans.

Cost
Jobs
Proximity Env. Health
Riverside County
Total Population
White, non-Hispanic 54.34 49.82 34.92 49.30 41.48 46.74 46.55 Black, non-Hispanic 46.10 40.18 28.30 50.49 42.47 42.48 38.59 Hispanic 37.64 36.90 24.85 52.08 44.34 42.73 41.59
Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 59.61 53.22 39.33 52.51 39.60 47.47 38.35 Native American, non-Hispanic 43.23 39.36 26.49 47.63 42.19 41.41 50.18 Population below federal poverty line
White, non-Hispanic 42.88 41.70 28.16 51.75 46.30 47.26 47.46 Black, non-Hispanic 33.36 31.09 20.88 51.61 46.61 39.29 40.19 Hispanic 25.67 30.29 18.00 54.41 47.97 41.79 42.72
Asian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 46.61 37.78 29.23 56.57 47.40 55.01 34.96 Native American, non-Hispanic 36.00 36.90 21.34 46.71 44.73 43.74 46.02 Source: HUD AFFH-T Data: Dissimilarity Indices, 2020.

To assist in this analysis, HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) convened in the California Fair Housing Task force to “provide research, evidence -based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resource levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to hi gh opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs).” These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators.

Table E-16 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:

Table E-16 List of Domains and Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult education Employment Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education Math proficiency Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Poverty and Racial
Segregation
Poverty: Tracts with at least 30% of population under federal poverty line Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020 Local Trend
HUD opportunity indicator scores for Jurupa Valley are shown in Table E-15. In the City, the Hispanic population has the lowest low poverty, school proficiency, and labor market index scores; the Asian/Pacific Islander population has the lowest jobs proximity index score; and the Black population has the lowest environmental health index score. Asian/Pacific Islander communities in Jurupa Valley received the highest index scores for low poverty, school proficiency, and labor market participation. The Black

population was most likely to use transit, have low transportation costs, and have the best access to employment opportunities. The Native American population scored the highest for environmental health.

The TCAC Opportunity area maps are available in the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources Data Viewer (Data Viewer) and were used for this analysis. Higher composite scores mean higher resources. As shown in Figure E-18, the western side of the City has the highest and high resource tracts, while the eastern side is composed of mostly low resource tracts and one tract with high segregation and poverty. Table E-17 shows the opportunity map scores for all the tracts in Jurupa Valley. Appr oximately 41.7% of tracts are moderate resource, 20.8% are low resource, 16.7% are high resource, and 12.5% are highest resource.

One tract is moderate resource (rapidly changing), and one tract is an area of high segregation and poverty. Tracts along the western City boundary are highest resource, while the eastern side of the City is largely low resource with one area of high segregation and poverty.

Table E-17 TCAC Opportunity Map Scores by Census Tract (2021) Tract
Economic
Score
Environmental
Score
Education
Score
Composite
Score Final Category
06065040101 0.451 0.017 0.136 -0.63 Low Resource
06065040102 0.494 0.055 0.508 -0.302 Low Resource
06065040201 0.616 0.107 0.166 -0.359 Low Resource
06065040202 0.348 0.368 0.383 -0.245 Moderate Resource
06065040203 0.288 0.419 0.08 #N/A High Segregation & Poverty 06065040204 0.254 0.168 0.08 -0.599 Low Resource
06065040301 0.189 0.275 0.279 -0.479 Low Resource
06065040302 0.809 0.444 0.61 0.217 High Resource
06065040303 0.627 0.29 0.531 -0.015 Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) 06065040402 0.519 0.279 0.287 -0.225 Moderate Resource
06065040403 0.685 0.293 0.18 -0.197 Moderate Resource
06065040404 0.663 0.35 0.304 -0.105 Moderate Resource
06065040405 0.806 0.372 0.406 0.075 High Resource
06065040501 0.573 0.25 0.404 -0.128 Moderate Resource
06065040502 0.563 0.119 0.533 -0.147 Moderate Resource
06065040503 0.533 0.14 0.497 -0.182 Moderate Resource
06065040603 0.736 0.405 0.649 0.192 High Resource
06065040604 0.718 0.381 0.526 0.075 High Resource
06065040605 0.666 0.467 0.251 -0.11 Moderate Resource
06065040606 0.631 0.388 0.295 -0.118 Moderate Resource
06065040607 0.871 0.051 0.913 0.458 Highest Resource
06065040615 0.981 0.169 0.922 0.818 Highest Resource
06065040616 0.968 0.108 0.986 0.876 Highest Resource
06065041004 0.599 0.191 0.387 -0.167 Moderate Resource
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-249 Figure E-18 TCAC Opportunity Map and Sites Inventory (2021)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021 TCAC Opportunity Map, 2021.

Regional Trend
HUD opportunity indicator scores for Riverside County are shown in Table E-15 above. Like Jurupa Valley, the Hispanic population countywide received the lowest index scores for low poverty, school proficiency, and labor market participation. Asian/Pacific Islander communities in the County had the highest scores for low poverty, school pr oficiency, labor market participation, transit, and jobs proximity. In general, Jurupa Valley populations scored lower in low poverty, school proficiency, labor market participation, low transportation cost, and environmental health than populations countywide. Jurupa Valley residents are more likely to use transit and have better access to employment opportunities than residents throughout the County.

Figure E-19 shows the TCAC Opportunity Map for the Riverside County region. Low resource areas are concentrated in San Bernardino County, north of Jurupa Valley, from Moreno Valley to the Lake Elsinore area, and in jurisdictions west of Mount San Jacinto i ncluding the Morongo Reservation, Banning, and Hemet areas. Woodcrest, and the areas south of Highway 91 are mostly highest resource areas. Riverside County tracts around Menifee and between Moreno Valley and Beaumont are also mostly highest and high resource areas.

Sites Inventory
As presented in Table E-18, the largest proportion of lower income units (57.5%) are in moderate resource tracts, while the largest proportion of moderate income units (94.4%) and above moderate income units (54.7%) are in low resource tracts. However, there are 144 lower income units in the area of high segregation and poverty . While there are some lower income units (6.4%) in the high segregation and poverty tract, there are far fewer lower income units in low resource tracts compared to moderate and above moderate income units. Further, 250 lower income units (11%) are in highest resource tracts. The distribution of RHNA units generally follows the trend Citywide, where moderate resource tracts are the most common, followed closely by low resource tracts.

Table E-18 Distribution of RHNA Units by TCAC Opportunity Map Score (2021) TCAC Opportunity Map Category
Very Low Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units All Units
Highest Resource 250 11.0% 0 0.0% 509 24.9% 759 15.0%
High Resource 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 164 8.0% 164 3.3%
Moderate Resource 1,302 57.5% 41 5.6% 220 10.8% 1,563 31.0% Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) 276 12.2% 0 0.0% 33 1.6% 309 6.1% Low Resource 292 12.9% 695 94.4% 1,118 54.7% 2,105 41.7% High Segregation and Poverty 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.

Economic
As discussed previously, economic scores are calculated based on poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value. Refer to Table E-16 for the complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators. Figure E-20 shows the TCAC economic scores for Jurupa Valley census tracts. The northeastern areas of the City have the lowest economic scores in the City. One tract in Jurupa Valley has an economic score in the lowest percentile. This area contains block groups with higher concentrations of LMI households and is characterized as a low resource area.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-251 Figure E-19 Regional TCAC Opportunity Map (2021)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021 TCAC Opportunity Map, 2021.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-252 Figure E-20 TCAC Opportunity Map - Economic Score (2021)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021 TCAC Opportunity Map, 2021.

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-253 Education
As discussed previously, education scores are based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. Refer to Table E-16 for the complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators. Figure E-21 shows the TCAC education scores for Jurupa Valley tracts. Tracts with the highest education scores are located along the western City boundary. These areas are also considered high resource areas. Tracts along the eastern City boundary and one tract in the central western area of the Cit y have education scores in the lowest percentile. As discussed previously, the eastern side is mostly considered low resource.

Environmental
As described previously, environmental TCAC map scores are calculated using CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values. The California Office of Environment al Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Refer to Table E-16 for the complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators.

As presented in Figure E-22, the entire City has lower environmental scores under 0.50. The northern section of the City and the tracts along the southern, western, and eastern City boundaries have environmental scores in the lowest quartile. The eastern side is considered low resource, but the tract categorized as an area of high segregation and poverty has a slightly higher environmental score exceeding 0.25.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores are shown in Figure E -23. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is the OEHHA’s most updated California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool used to identify communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. CalEnviro Screen 4.0 scores are based on percentiles (the percentage of all ordered CalEnviro Screen scores that fall below the score for that area).

Lower percentile scores indicate better environmental conditions. All tracts in Jurupa Valley scored within the 40th percentile, with most of the City scoring within the 70th percentile or above. The northeastern corner of the City has the largest concentration of tracts with CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores in the highest percentile. Table E-19 shows the distribution of RHNA units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile. Most lower income units are in tracts in the 81st to 90th percentile, while most moderate income units are in tracts in the 91st to 10th percentile.

Approximately 40.6% of above moderate income units fall into the 71st to 80th percentile range, and 41.2% fall into the 91st to 100th percentile range. There are far fewer lower income units in tracts in the 91 st percentile or above (worst environmental conditions) compared to moderate and above moderate income units.

Table E-19 Distribution of RHNA Units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Score
(Tract) Very Low Income Units Moderate Income Units
Above Moderate Income
Units All Units
51-60% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 78 3.8% 78 1.5%
61-70% 129 5.7% 41 5.6% 116 5.7% 286 5.7%
71-80% 250 11.0% 0 0.0% 830 40.6% 1,080 21.4%
81-90% 1,500 66.3% 17 2.3% 177 8.7% 1,694 33.6%
91-100% 385 17.0% 678 92.1% 843 41.2% 1,906 37.8%
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 5-254 Figure E-21 TCAC Opportunity Map - Education Score (2021)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021 TCAC Opportunity Map, 2021.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-255 Figure E-22 TCAC Opportunity Map - Environmental Score (2021)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021 TCAC Opportunity Map, 2021.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-256 Figure E-23 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2021 OEHHA CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021.

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-257 Transportation
AllTransit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically loo king at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the most recent data posted (2019), Jurupa Valley has an AllTransit Performance Score of 3.6 (out of 10), indicating a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessi ble by transit (Figure E-24). According to AllTransit, 44,758 jobs are accessible within a 30-minute transit commute on average for households and 33,103 workers accessible within a 30-minute transit commute of an employer in Jurupa Valley. In comparison, Riverside County has an AllTransit Performance Score of 3.3 ( Figure E-25), indicating an even lower combination of trips per week and number of employment opportunities accessible to transit.

Figure E-26 below shows the job proximity index by block group for Jurupa Valley and the surrounding areas. HUD’s Job s Proximity Index can be used to show transportation need geographically. The Job s Proximity Index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. Block groups with lower Jobs Proximity Indices are located f arther from employment opportunities and have a higher need for transportation. The northeastern and northwestern corners of the City received the highest Jobs Proximity Indices. Most of the central areas of the City rec eived Jobs Proximity Indices between 40 and 60. There are two block groups in Jurupa Valley with particularly low Jobs Proximity Indices located in the central eastern side of the City. These areas are considered low resource and have higher LMI concentrations.

Availability of efficient, affordable transportation can be used to measure fair housing and access to opportunities. SCAG developed a mapping tool for High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) as part of the Connect SoCal 2020 -2045 Regional Transportation P lan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

SCAG defines HQTAs as areas within one -half mile from a major transit stop and a high -quality transit corridor. Areas around U.S. Route 91, Interstate 215, and part of U.S. Route 60 are considered HQTAs.

One small HQTA in Jurupa Valley is currently located along the southern City boundary (Figure E-27).

Figure E-24 AllTransit Performance Score – Jurupa Valley

Source: AllTransit Metrics: Jurupa Valley, 2019.

Figure E-25 AllTransit Performance Score – Riverside County

Source: AllTransit Metrics: Jurupa Valley, 2019.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-259 Figure E-26 Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group (2014-2017)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, HUD 2014-2017, 2021.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-260 Figure E-27 HQTAs (2021)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, HUD 2014-2017, 2021.

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-261

2.5. Disproportionate Housing Needs
The AFFH Rule Guidebook ( 24 C.F.R. § 5.152) defines “disproportionate housing needs” as “a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant grou ps or the total population experiencing the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area.” The analysis is completed by assessing cost burden, severe cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing.

Cost Burden
A household is considered cost burdened if it spends more than 30% of its income in housing costs, including utilities. Reducing housing cost burden can also help foster more inclusive communities and increase access to opportunities for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes.

Local Trend
Table E-20 shows HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data for housing problems in Jurupa Valley. HUD considers the following issues are housing problems:
• incomplete kitchen facilities,
• incomplete plumbing facilities,
• more than 1 person per room (overcrowding), and
• cost burden greater than 30%.

Nearly half of all households in Jurupa Valley experience a housing problem, including 40.4% of owner - occupied households and 67.6% of renter -occupied households. Pacific Islander , Black, and Hispanic households have housing problems at the highest rate. Regardless of race, renters are experiencing housing problems at a higher rate than owners.

Table E-20 Housing Problem by Race/Ethnicity and Tenure (2020) Race/Ethnicity
With Housing Problem
Owners Renters Total
White 31.1% 60.6% 38.5%
Black 27.6% 75.2% 55.1%
Asian 56.8% 30.8% 52.3%
American Indian 0.0% 69.2% 52.9%
Pacific Islander 75.0% 100.0% 85.7%
Hispanic 47.0% 71.1% 56.0%
Other 9.1% 41.6% 26.5%
Total 40.4% 67.6% 49.7%
Source: HUD CHAS Data, based on 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.

HUD considers households paying more than 30% of their gross income in housing costs to be cost burdened, and households paying more than 50% of their gross income in housing costs to be severely cost burdened.

According to 2020 HUD CHAS data shown in Table E-21, an estimated 40% of households within the City are cost burdened. Approximately 57.2% of renters are cost burdened and 31 % of owners are cost burdened in Jurupa Valley. There is a slightly larger proportion of cost burdened households in Jurupa Valley than countywide.

Table E-21 Cost Burden by Tenure (2020)

Cost Burdened
(>30%)
Severely Cost Burdened
(>50%) Total Households
Jurupa Valley
Renter-Occupied Households 57.2% 31.6% 8,605
Owner-Occupied Households 31.0% 13.0% 16,565
All Households 40.0% 19.3% 25,170
Riverside County
Renter-Occupied Households 54.5% 28.6% 248,935
Owner-Occupied Households 32.8% 14.2% 462,790
All Households 40.4% 19.2% 711,725
Source: HUD CHAS Data, based on 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.

In Jurupa Valley housing cost burden, and in particular housing the extremely-low income population (below 30% of area median income), can be especially challenging. Housing Cost Burden adversely affects the low income, very low income, and extremely low-income residents the most, and with the 2020-2021 COVID-19 pandemic, these income groups have been hit even harder with cost burdens. To track information related to cost burdens and issues surrounding fair housing, the City of Jurupa Valley is contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. The agency helps track housing trends that can be considered an impediment to accessing housing. According to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County 2019 -2020 Fiscal Year Report, most landlord/tenant complaints (23.45%) were related to housing lease/rental terms, followed closely (22.61%) by complaints related to notices (e.g., eviction notices, late rent notices, and other notices from landlords), and then by complaints related to speed and lack of repair to rental facilities. According to the Fair Housing Council, recent increases in complaints related to these categories are likely linked to the loss of work due to the pandemic closures and safety regulations implemented by the State of California for a staggered reopening of businesses. The increasing cost burdens and global pan demic have exacerbated the issue and resulted in associated issues such as overcrowding and the need to assist those in the special needs groups identified in the Community Profile.

The HCD Data Viewer provides a visual assessment of overpayment by homeown ers and renters by census tracts. Figure E-28 below shows that in most of the City, 20% to 40% of owner households have monthly costs that are 30% or more of their gr oss household income. There is only one tract along the northern City boundary where less than 20% of owners are cost burdened. Cost burden for owners has decreased in many tracts since the 2010-2014 ACS.

Figure E-29 shows that renters are cost burdened at a higher rate than owners during the same period. Nearly all census tracts show that 40% to 60% of renter households have monthly costs that are 30% or more of household income. There are five tracts where only 20% to 40% of renters are cost burdened, but eight tracts where more than 60% of renters experience cost burden. The proportion of cost burdened renters has decreased in some Jurupa Valley tracts but increased in others. There are more cost burdened renters in the southeastern areas of the City currently than in 2014.

HACR administers the federally funded Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) for Jurupa Valley residents.

This housing voucher program (also known as Section 8 housing) provides rental subsidies to low -income families that spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing cost and currently 344 Jurupa Valley households are receiving Housing Choice Vouchers. For the distribution of Voucher assistance within the City, HACR has established local preferences such as families who have lost HCVs due to funding cuts, working families, elderly or disabled, and veterans. As of February 2018, 1,742 households were on the waiting list for the HCV program. Of these households, 292 are seniors, 409 are disabled and 282 are self -identified as homeless without permanent housing.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-263 Figure E-28 (A) Overpaying Homeowners by Tract (2014)

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-264 Figure E-28. (B) Overpaying Homeowners by Tract (2019)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2010-2014 & 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-265 Figure E-29 (A) Overpaying Renters by Tract (2014)

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-266 Figure E-29. (B) Overpaying Renters by Tract (2019)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2010-2014 & 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-267 As an extension of the HCV program, HACR assists eligible families who purchase a home by applying their existing HCV towards a monthly mortgage payment. Eligible families may qualify for a maximum period of 10 or 15 years (depending on the mortgage terms).

Regional Trend
As discussed above, approximately 40% of Riverside County households are cost burdened, including 54.5% of renter households and 32.8% of owner households. Compared to Jurupa Valley, a larger proportion of Riverside County owners are severely cost burdened (14.2%), but a smaller proportion of renters are severely cost burdened (28.6%).

Figure E-30 and Figure E-31 show cost burden by tenure and tract in the Riverside County region. In most tracts, between 20% and 60% of owners overpay for housing. There are a handful of tracts where the proportion of overpaying owners exceeds 60%, located around the City of Riverside, Sun City, and Hemet.

Significantly more renters overpay for housing in Riverside tracts. Between 40% and 80% of renters in most tracts are cost burdened.

Sites Inventory
Figure E-28 and Figure E-29 above show the sites inventory used to meet the City’s 2021 RHNA. As shown in Table E -22, most low er income (55.1%), moderate income (94.4%), and above moderate income (52.8%) RHNA units are in tracts where 20% to 40% of owners are cost burdened . This follows the trend Citywide, where a majority of tracts have proportions of cost burdened owners in this range. The largest proportion of lower income units (58.1%) are in tracts where 40% to 60% of renters are cost burdened, whereas the largest proportion of moderate income units are in tracts where only 20% to 40% of renters overpay for housing .

Most above moderate income units are in tracts where 20% to 60% of renters are cost burdened. Most tracts in the City (11 tracts) have concentrations of cost burdened renters between 40% and 60%. There are only 8 tracts where 60% to 80% of renters overpay and 5 tracts where 20% to 40% of renters overpay. Despite tracts with cost burdened renters exceeding 60% being the second most common in the City, only 10.7% of RHNA units are located in these tracts.

Table E-22 Distribution of RHNA Units by Cost Burdened Households Cost Burdened Households (Tract) Very Low Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income
Units All Units
Owner
<20% 494 21.8% 41 5.6% 455 22.3% 990 19.6%
20-40% 1,247 55.1% 695 94.4% 1,080 52.8% 3,022 59.9%
40-60% 523 23.1% 0 0.0% 509 24.9% 1,032 20.5%
Renter
<20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 81 4.0% 81 1.6%
20-40% 777 34.3% 440 59.8% 948 46.4% 2,165 42.9%
40-60% 1,316 58.1% 58 7.9% 886 43.3% 2,260 44.8%
60-80% 171 7.6% 238 32.3% 129 6.3% 538 10.7%
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 5-268 Figure E-30 Regional Overpaying Homeowners by Tract (2019)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-269 Figure E-31 Regional Overpaying Renters by Tract (2019)

Source: HCD Data Viewer, 2015-2019 ACS, 2021.

Overcrowding
The California Department of Housing and Community Development defines overcrowding as housing units occupied by more than one person per room in a dwelling unit, excluding kitchen and bathrooms, and severe overcrowding as more than 1.5 occupants per room.

The average household size in Jurupa Valley is 4.21 people. The county has an average household size of 3.28 people per household, which is lower than Jurupa Valley. Large households often live in overcrowded conditions, due to both the lack of units of appropriate size, and insufficient income to afford available units of adequate size. Overcrowding increases health and safety concerns and stresses the condition of the housing stock and infrastructure. Overcrowding is strongly related to household size, particularly for large households, and the availability of suitably sized housing. Overcrowding impacts owners and renters; however, renters are generally more significantly impacted. Some households may not be financially able to purchase adequately sized housing and may instead accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home to lower costs. With the current 2020-2021 COVID-19 pandemic, the stress on housing availability and affordability is even higher, causing additional overcrowding.

Household overcrowding reflects various living situations: 1) a family lives in a ho me that is too small; 2) a family chooses to house extended family members; or 3) unrelated individuals or families are “doubling up” to afford housing. However, cultural differences also contribute to the overcrowded conditions. Some cultures tend to have larger household sizes than others due to the preference of sharing living quarters with extended family members as a way of sharing living costs among family members. Overcrowding can strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes and neighborhoods.

Local Trend
Approximately 15.5% of all households in Jurupa Valley were overcrowded, and 4% are severely overcrowded, according to the 2015-2019 ACS. As shown in Table E-23, overcrowding is significantly more common among the City’s renter -households than owner -households. By comp arison, the incidence of overcrowding in Riverside County is much lower at almost half as many households dealing with this issue.

Figure E-32 shows the proportion of overcrowded households in Jurupa Valley census tracts. Overcrowding is most common on the eastern side of the City. More than 20% of households in these tracts are overcrowded.

There are no concentrations of severely overcrowded households in the City.

Table E-23 Overcrowding by Tenure (2019)

Overcrowded
(1+ occupants per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(1.5+ occupants per room)
Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total
Jurupa Valley 23.1% 11.8% 15.5% 5.7% 3.1% 3.9%
Riverside County 12.1% 4.3% 6.9% 3.2% 1.6% 1.8%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-271 Figure E-32 Overcrowded Households by Tract and Sites Inventory (2020)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2020 HUD CHAS Data, 2021.

Regional Trend
As discussed previously, overcrowding is less common countywide than in Jurupa Valley. Only 6.9% of households in Riverside County are overcrowded, including 12.1% of renter households and 4.3% of owner households. Less than 2% of households in the County are severely overcrowded.

Figure E-33 shows overcrowding by census tract for the region. Tracts with more overcrowded households are most concentrated in the Jurupa Valley and City of Riverside areas, San Bernadino County north of Jurupa Valley, and along Interstate 215 from Moreno Valley to Perris.

Sites Inventory
A large proportion of lower income RHNA units are located in tracts where more than 20% of households are overcrowded (Table E-24). Nearly 76% of lower income units are in tracts with more than 20% overcrowded households. This is comparable to the distribution of moderate income units (100%) and above moderate income units (75.1%). A larger proportion of lower income units are in tracts where less than 20% of households are overcrowded. The City’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in tracts where overcrowding is more prevalent in comparison to moderate income and above m oderate income units. Tracts with concentrations of overcrowded households exceed 20% contain the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan (598 anticipated units) and the Rio Vista Specific Plan (1,018 anticipated units) Table E-24 Distribution of RHNA Units by Overcrowded Households (2020) Overcrowded Households (Tract) Very Low Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income
Units All Units
<8.2% 379 16.7% 0 0.0% 509 24.9% 888 17.6%

8.3-12% 93 4.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 93 1.8%

12.01-15% 82 3.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 92 1.8%

15.01-20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
>20% 1,710 75.5% 736 100.0% 1,535 75.1% 3,981 78.9%
Total 2,264 100.0% 736 100.0% 2,044 100.0% 5,044 100.0% Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021.

Substandard Conditions
Households living in substandard conditions are considered to be in need of housing assistance, even if they are not seeking alternative housing arrangements, due to the threat to residents’ health and safety that substandard housing poses. Incomplete plum bing or kitchen facilities and housing stock age can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. The age of a housing unit is often an indicator of housing conditions.

In general, housing that is 30 years or older may exhibit a need for repairs based on the useful life of materials.

Housing more than 50 years old is considered aged and is more likely to exhibit a need for major repairs.

Local Trend
As presented in Table E-25, approximately 0.3% of Jurupa Valley households lack complete plumbing facilities, and 0.9% lack complete kitchen facilities. A larger share of renter -occupied households lacks complete facilities. Only 0.2% of owner households lack complete facilities, whereas 0.6% of renter households lack complete plumbing facilities and 2.5% lack complete kitchen facilities.

Table E-25 Incomplete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities (2019)

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities Owner Renter Total Owner Renter Total
Jurupa Valley 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 2.5% 0.9%
Riverside County 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 1.6% 0.7%
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-273 Figure E-33 Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract (2020)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2020 HUD CHAS Data, 2021.

Jurupa Valley’s housing stock is older. Approximately 32.8% of the City’s housing stock was built prior to 1969 and 40.3% was built between 1970 and 1989. Table E-26 shows the housing stock age by Jurupa Valley census tracts. Over 90% of the housing stock in tracts 404.02, 405.03, and 406.04 are 30 years or older. Figure E-34 shows the median age of the housing stock by census tract. Tracts along the western City boundary have the most new housing, where the median year built ranges from 1989 to 2007. Tracts in the central western areas of the City and the northwestern City bound ary have the oldest housing, where the median year built ranges from 1964 to 1967. Based on housing age alone, a significant portion of Jurupa Valley’s housing stock could require rehabilitation in the upcoming decade.

Table E-26 Age of Housing Stock by Tract and Jurisdiction (2019) Tract/Jurisdiction
Year Built
Total Units
1969 or earlier
(50+ years)
1970-1989
(30-40 years)
1990 or earlier
(<30 years)
Census Tract 401.01 55.4% 29.8% 14.8% 1,011
Census Tract 401.02 34.9% 43.7% 21.4% 1,062
Census Tract 402.01 18.2% 40.2% 41.6% 1,666
Census Tract 402.02 23.4% 56.4% 20.2% 817
Census Tract 402.03 56.3% 31.3% 12.4% 946
Census Tract 402.04 60.8% 28.9% 10.3% 851
Census Tract 403.01 43.3% 30.5% 26.3% 2,059
Census Tract 403.02 9.9% 48.2% 42.0% 1,957
Census Tract 403.03 38.1% 34.5% 27.4% 901
Census Tract 404.02 56.2% 41.6% 2.3% 1,020
Census Tract 404.03 46.2% 40.3% 13.5% 1,378
Census Tract 404.04 3.6% 57.8% 38.6% 862
Census Tract 404.05 8.7% 62.6% 28.7% 1,618
Census Tract 405.01 27.2% 46.3% 26.5% 1,768
Census Tract 405.02 34.3% 23.7% 42.0% 1,688
Census Tract 405.03 60.8% 32.2% 7.0% 1,732
Census Tract 406.03 50.1% 21.1% 28.9% 741
Census Tract 406.04 1.4% 93.5% 5.1% 1,351
Census Tract 406.05 60.3% 27.6% 12.1% 717
Census Tract 406.06 42.9% 38.3% 18.9% 763
Census Tract 406.07 0.5% 9.4% 90.1% 3,503
Census Tract 406.15 1.5% 1.6% 96.9% 2,388
Census Tract 406.16 2.2% 0.7% 97.0% 2,052
Census Tract 410.04 9.0% 75.7% 15.3% 1,383
Jurupa Valley 32.8% 40.3% 26.8% 26,021
Riverside County 17.5% 35.8% 46.7% 840,501
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

One possible reason for the common use of substandard dwellings in the City is the relatively high number of lower income/large households and overcrowding in some residential areas. It should be noted that there might be some overlap in the number of substandard housing units, as some units may lack both complete plumbing and ki tchen facilities. Similar to the county and the state, housing units lacking appropriate infrastructure and utilities comprise a very small proportion of the City’s housing stock.

To maintain adequate housing conditions, the City’s Code Enforcement Division works to ensure safe living standards for all residents in the community. The City’s 2018 -2022 Consolidated Plan has the City of Jurupa Valley in 2019 to 2020 implementing a grant program for housing rehabilitation available to any resident who applied and qualified on an income basis. It was advertised on the City website, email lists, and social media pages. This program saw some success and was offered for a second group of grants when the first group of grants w as distributed. This program was funded through the CDBG provided to Jurupa Valley and administered by the City as well.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-275 Figure E-34 Median Housing Unit Age by Jurupa Valley Tract (2019)

Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Regional Trend
As show in Table E-25 above, a larger proportion of owner -occupied households but fewer renter -occupied households in Riverside County lack complete facilities. Approximately 0 .3% of households lack complete kitchen facilities, and 0.7% lack complete plumbing facilities. The housing stock in Jurupa Valley is older than the County. Only 17.5% of the Riverside County housing stock was built prior to 1969, and 35.8% was built between 1970 and 1989. Figure E -34 shows the median year built for the housing stock in jurisdictions surrounding Jurupa Valley. The cities of Riverside, Norco, Jurupa Valley, and Ontario have older housing stocks, while Beaumont, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, and Perris have significantly younger housing stocks.

Displacement Risk
The HCD Data Viewer (see Figure E-36) citing the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project shows that much of the City contains “Sensitive Communities” identified as “vulnerable .” Communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria.
• They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost.
• Vulnerability is defined as:
• Share of very low income residents is above 20%, 2017 and • The tract meets two of the following criteria:
• Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
• Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
• Share of very low -income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
• They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures Local Trend
Figure E-36 shows the sensitive communities identified by HCD that may be at risk of displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Se nsitive communities are generally located in the central and eastern areas of the City. Most of these areas have racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 81%, higher concentrations of children in female -headed households, and higher concentrations of L MI households. One sensitive community along the northern City boundary has a concentration of persons with disabilities exceeding 20% (see Figure E-2, Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration and Sites Inventory (2018); Figure E-5, Concentration of Persons with Disabilities and Sites Inventory (2019); Figure E-8, Percent of Children in Female -Headed Households and Sites Inventory (2019) ; and Figure E-11, Concentration of LMI Households and Sites Inventory (2020)). The sensitive communities on the western side are moderate resource areas, while tracts on the eastern side are low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty (see Figure E-18, TCAC Opportunity Map and Sites Inventory (2021) ). These areas have larger proportions of overcrowded households and overpaying renters (see Figure E-29 and Figure E-32).

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-277 Figure E-35 Median Housing Unit Age by Jurisdiction (2019)

Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-278 Figure E-36 Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement (2020)

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021 UC Berkley Urban Displacement Project, 2021.

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-279 Regional Trend
Sensitive communities at risk of displacement are identified for the region in Figure E-36. There are sensitive communities throughout the County; however, vulnerable communities are most concentrated around Moreno Valley, Perris, Hemet, Banning, and the City of Riverside. There is also a concentration of vulnerable communities in San Bernardino County, north of Jurupa Valley.

Housing tenure is, in turn, related to household income, composition (household size and relationships), and age of the householder. Communities need to have an adequate supply of units available both for rent and for sale to accommodate a range of households with varying incomes, family sizes, composition (individuals living together and their relationship s to one another), and lifestyles. Approximately 62% of Jurupa Valley households owned their homes, and 38% of households rented their homes in 2019. As shown in Table E-27, the homeownership rate in Jurupa Valley was only slightly lower than in Riverside County but noticeably higher than in the State of California as a whole.

Table E-27 Occupied Units by Tenure (2019)

Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Number % Number % Number %
Jurupa Valley 15,293 62.3% 9,254 37.7% 24,548 100%
Riverside County 493,150 67.1% 241,797 32.9% 734,948 100% California 7,223,672 54.9% 5,934,200 45.1% 13,157,873 100% Source: Bureau of the Census 2010 (H16 -SF1) ACS 2019

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 rates result in lower monthly payments for the homebuyer and can increase the buyer’s purchasing ability. 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 by 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. The d ifficulty to obtain a loan to own and to continue to live in Jurupa Valley can result in displacement of the households that are paying more and more for housing.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-280 Figure E-37 Regional Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement (2020)

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-281 Table E-28 below 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).

Table E-28 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

In 2019, 1,637 Jurupa Valley households applied for conventional loans to purchase homes, as shown in Table E-29. Approximately 83% of these applications were approv ed 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%.

The vast majority of loan applications filed by Jurupa Valley residents in 2019 were for home refinance loans (2,277 applications). About 73% of these applications were approved, while 27% were denied. For the County, 56% of refinancing applica tions were approved. Approximately 36% of home -improvement loan applications were denied and 64% were approved by lending institutions in 2019. 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.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more people are moving out of state due to the lack of ability to afford to continue living in California. The state overall has seen almost 70,000 people relocate to other parts of the U.S.

Homelessness
Local Trend
Population estimates for persons experiencing homelessness in Jurupa Valley are based on the 2020 Riverside County Homeless Point -in-Time (PIT) Count and Survey, conducted on January 29, 2020.

According to the 2020 PIT count, there were 103 unsheltered per sons experiencing homelessness in Jurupa Valley. Figure E-38 shows the unsheltered homeless population in Jurupa Valley from 2015 to 2020.

Since 2015, the unsheltered population in the City has decreased by nearly 40%.

Figure E-38 Unsheltered Homeless Trend – Jurupa Valley (2015-2020)

Source: Riverside County PIT Count, 2015-2020.

Table E-29 shows the unsheltered homeless population in Jurupa Valley by race and ethnicity in 2019 and 2020. This table also shows the racial/ethnic composition citywide based on the most recent ACS estimates. Overall, the unsheltered homeless population in the City has decreased since 2019. The share of unsheltered American Indian, White, and Hispanic residents has increased while the share of unsheltered Black residents has decreased. The American Indian, Black, and White populations are overrepresented in the unsheltered homeless population compared to the population citywide.

Table E-29 Unsheltered Homeless Population by Race/Ethnicity (2019-2020) Race/Ethnicity
2019 2020
Total Population Persons Percent Persons Percent
Asian 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 3.6%
American Indian 5 3.6% 4 3.9% 0.8%
Black 13 9.4% 9 8.7% 3.2%
White 75 54.0% 60 58.3% 52.6%
Multiple Races 18 12.9% 2 1.9% 3.6%
Native Hawaiian 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 0.1%
Unknown Race 27 19.4% 27 26.2% --
Hispanic 48 34.5% 45 43.7% 71.4%
Total 139 -- 103 -- --
Source: Riverside County PIT Count, 2019-2020; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-283 Of the 103 unsheltered individuals counted in Jurupa Valley, 84 people were interviewed. Table E-30, below, shows subpopulation statistics of the 84 interviewed individuals in the City. A quarter of the interviewed homeless population experience a physical disability and 10.7% experience a developmental disability. Most of the unsheltered population are adults, 38.1% are chronically homeless, and 38.1% are newly homeless.

Table E-30 Unsheltered Homeless Subpopulation Statistics (2020) Subpopulation Persons Percent
Substance Abuse 25 29.8%
PTSD 11 13.1%
Mental Health Conditions 12 14.3%
Physical Disability 21 25.0%
Developmental Disability 9 10.7%
Brain Injury 17 20.2%
Victim of Domestic Violence 5 6.0%
AIDS or HIV 0 0.0%
Veterans 1 1.2%
Chronically Homeless 32 38.1%
Adults Only 71 84.5%
Children Only 0 0.0%
Families with Children 0 0.0%
Pet Owners 33 39.3%
Newly Homeless 32 38.1%
Seniors (≥60) 9 10.7%
Source: Riverside County PIT Count, 2020.

Regional Trend
Figure E-39 shows the homeless population trend from 2016 to 2020 in Riverside County. The unsheltered homeless population has increased by approximately 60% since 2016, while the sheltered population has remained relatively constant. Of the 2,155 unsheltered homeless persons, 41% were on the street, 20% were in encampments, and 15% were in vehicles. Overall, the homeless population has increased approximately 3% since 2019.

Figure E-39 Homeless Population Trend – Riverside County (2016-2020)

Source: Riverside County PIT Count, 2020.

White residents make up the largest proportion of the homeless population followed by Black residents and American Indian residents. American Indian and Black populations are over represented in the homeless population. Approximately 2.5% of the homeless population is American Indian compared to

0.8% countywide, and 18.3% of the homeless population is Black compared to 6.5% countywide. Nearly 50% of the Riverside County population is His panic or Latino, compared to only 31.2% of the homeless population. A majority of the homeless population is male (63.3%).

Figure E-40 Homeless Population by Race, Gender, and Ethnicity – Riverside County (2020)

Source: Riverside County PIT Count, 2020.

Table E-31 shows persons experiencing homelessness in Riverside County by subpopulation and shelter status. Approximately 25% of homeless individuals are sheltered and 75% are unsheltered. A majority of children (84.5%) and families with children (91.4%) are sheltered. Less than 20% of chronically homeless individuals and individuals experiencing substance abuse are sheltered. Only a third of homeless persons with mental health conditions and 30.9% of veterans are sheltered.

Table E-31 Homeless Subpopulations by Shelter Status – Riverside County (2020) Subpopulation Sheltered Unsheltered Total
Individuals 25.3% 74.7% 2884
Adults (≥25) 23.1% 76.9% 2216
Youth (18-24) 21.5% 78.5% 326
Children (≤17) 85.4% 14.6% 171
Unknown Ages 0.0% 100.0% 171
Households (Interview) 32.0% 68.0% 1718
Families w/ Children (Interview) 91.4% 8.6% 70
Chronically Homeless 19.9% 80.1% 648
Substance Abuse 15.2% 84.8% 534
Mental Health Conditions 33.0% 67.0% 557
Veterans 30.9% 69.1% 162
Pet Owners -- 100.0% 280
Source: Riverside County PIT Count, 2020.

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-285

2.6. Other Relevant Factors
SB 535
Disadvantaged communities in California are specifically targeted for investment of proceeds from the state’s cap-and-trade program. Known as California Climate Investments (CCI), these funds are aimed at improving public health, quality of life, and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities while reducing pollution that causes climate change.

Any jurisdiction can choose to include policies focused on environmental justice in their General Plan, but an Environmental Justice Element or the incorporation of environmental justice policies throughout the General Plan is required under state law for any city or county that includes disadvantaged communities.

For the purposes of environmental justice, a disadvantaged community is defined as, “An area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) pursuant to §39711 of the California Health and Safety Code or an area that is a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.”
Senate Bill 535 def ines disadvantaged communities as the top 25 percent scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen. Assembly Bill 1550 defines low -income communities using census data, statewide median income data, and state Department of Housing and Community Development income lim its. As shown below (Figure E-41), all census tracts meet one or both of the definitions.

Based on the pollution data for Jurupa Valley, most of the City, specifically the northern and eastern sides, is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution.

Mobile Home Parks and Subsidized Housing
Mobile homes and subsidized housing typically house lower income persons and can be used to show concentrations of lower income households. As shown in Figure E -42, m obile homes and subsidized housing units are most concentrated on the eastern side of the City south of the Pomona Freeway. As described above, this area is also considered an area of high segregation and poverty according to TCAC opportunity maps, indicat ing that this area of the City has a high concentration of lower income households and racial/ethnic minority groups. This tract was also identified in the SB 535 map and as a community at risk of displacement.

There are several sites located within this tract used to meet the City’s RHNA. These sites were found to be suitable for lower income housing. While there are only lower income RHNA sites in this tract, sites used to meet the lower and moderate income RHNA are generally distributed throughout the C ity and are not concentrated in the area referenced. Most lower income units are in moderate resource tracts, which make up a majority of the City. Further, approximately 14% of lower income units are in highest resource tracts despite the low presence of highest resource tracts Citywide.

Historical Land Use
Jurupa Valley was part of the unincorporated area of Riverside County prior to its incorporation in 2011.

In the mid-20th century, the area consisted of farms, dairies, vineyards, rural large lot devel opment and vacant land and had a large Hispanic population. Slow and measured low density rural development continued over the next few decades under the Riverside County General Plan which predominately allowed low density single family residential develo pment and did not promote redlining or other

exclusionary land use practices. This era also saw the implementation of new public improvements such as the I-15 and SR-60 freeways and initial water and sewer infrastructure projects.

The late 1990s and early 2000s saw a significant increase in development activity in Jurupa Valley and surrounding areas as numerous single -family subdivisions were developed to provide more affordable housing options for persons working in Los Angeles and Orange counties. T he area offered the dream of single-family home ownership at prices $100,000 to $200,000 less than the other counties to folks willing to take on a daily commute. This resulted in a significant population increase between 1995 and 2005 as the area became a bedroom community to the more affluent western counties and developed a significant jobs/housing imbalance.

After a prior failed incorporation attempt, Jurupa Valley residents successfully voted to incorporate in 2011 to enhance police services and gain more local control over land use and zoning. Without cityhood, residents feared they would lose their rural and equestrian character and be consumed by surrounding municipalities that were being developed with homogeneous “cookie cutter” housing. However, concurrently with initial incorporation, the State modified the municipal tax structure which shifted millions of dollars of vehicle license fees away from the City. This resulted in the City teetering on the brink of disincorporation for the first several years and unable to focus on improvements for the community.

In 2015, the state remediated many of the City’s outstanding debts, and the City was finally on stable financial ground and able to shift its focus inward. A major priority of the City became att racting new employment and jobs which would enable local residents to live and work in the City, reduce their commuting time and cost and improve their quality of life. The City also adopted its first General Plan and Housing Element in 2017 which focused on providing livable neighborhoods for all income levels while preserving the equestrian character of the City. The plan maintains the predominately single -family character of the area with opportunities for medium and higher density residential developmen t near major transportation routes and community centers that can accommodate lower and moderate income households.

The goal of the City’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is to enhance the safety and quality of life for all citizens of Jurupa Valley and focuses on needed transportation and drainage improvements throughout the City’s nine communities. In addition, the City works with, and contracts with, other agencies to provide services and facilities, including the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA), th e Housing Authority of Riverside County (HACR), the Jurupa Unified School District, CalFire, and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.

In addition, three community service districts provide water and sewer service in the area. As of 2022, most of the City is equipped with wastewater infrastructure, with a portion of Mira Loma remaining on septic systems.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-287 Figure E-41 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-288 Figure E-42 Mobile Home Parks and Subsidized Housing

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-289

2.7. Sites Inventory
The City’s sites inventory is generally distributed evenly throughout the City. Most of the sites used to meet the lower income RHNA are located along the Pomona Freeway (Highway 60), one of the major highways in Jurupa Valley and transportation corridors.

Jurupa Valley is composed of mostly block groups where more than 80% of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group . Nearly all RHNA units are in block groups where 61% to 80% of the population belongs to a racial/ethnic minority (49.9%) or where more than 81% of the population belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group (49.4%). A larger percentage of lower income units are in areas with large proportions of non-White residents compared to moderate and above moderate income units.

Most block groups in the City have fewer than 50% LMI households. The distribution of RHNA units is shown at the tract level, which shows more LMI areas compared to the block group level map (see Figure E-43, below). A handful of LMI areas are located in the center of the City, specifically along Highway 60.

More than half of RHNA units (55.9%) are in tracts that are considered LMI areas, including 53.7% of lower income units, 94.4% of moderate income units, and 44.4% of above moderate income units.

Figure E-43 Concentrations of LMI Households by Tract

While some lower income RHNA sites are located in areas with higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and LMI households, as stated previously, most of these areas are moderate resource areas with fair economic opportunity scores and better access to transportation opportunities. The City’s RHNA strategy does not expose lower income households to adverse conditions at a higher rate than moderate

or above moderate income units. In general, all sites used to meet the RHNA, including lower income sites, follow the trends and patterns of the City overall.

Jurupa Valley’s sites inventory shown by neighborhood an income level in Figure E-44. Table E-32 also shows the RHNA strategy by neighborhood and AFFH variable. The sites inventory is also shown in relation to community centers, food outlets and walkshed, medical centers, parks and walkshe d, school facilities and walkshed, and bus stops and walkshed to ensure RHNA units have sufficient access to amenities.

Amenity data for the City was provided by Houseal Lavigne and Associates. Jurupa Valley neighborhoods are referred to as Areas 1 through 10 for the purposes of this analysis. There are no RHNA units allocated in Area 8. Jurupa Valley neighborhoods are described below:
• Area 1 includes residential, industrial, commercial and agricultural uses in the northwestern portion of Jurupa Valley including a portion of the Mira Loma community and the I-15 Specific Plan area. Overall, housing in the northern and central portions of the area include low-density, lower income single-family residential neighborhoods, while the southwestern area along the I-15 corridor includes vacant land and newer market rate single-family development. • Area 2 is located in the southeastern quadrant of the City along the Santa Ana River and includes primarily residential land uses with retail development along Limonite Aven ue and a golf course and open space along the river corridor. Residential uses include older single-family neighborhoods as well as newer market rate single- and multi-family development along the I- 15 corridor.
• Area 3 includes older, lower-income single-family neighborhoods in the Mira Loma community interspersed with small commercial establishments and ample equestrian activity.

Approximately 20-30% of the census tracts in this area fall below the poverty line. • Area 4 is located the north -central portion of the City straddling SR -60 with a portion located in the Jurupa Hills. Development includes older single -family rural residential development along Granite Hill Drive and mixed commercial and single - and multi -family residential development surrounding Mission Boulevard.
• Area 5 includes much of the community of Glen Avon and is located in the central portion of the City surrounding Mission Boulevard and Pedley Road. The area is historic in character and is characterized by small commercial establishments and traditional single -family neighborhoods.
• Area 6 encompasses a large area in the central portion of the city generally south of Jurupa Road and north of Limonite Avenue. Predominantly low density residential in nature with low levels of poverty, the area includes portions of the Mira Loma, Glen Avon, Indian Hills and Pedley communities with a strong equestrian presence.
• Area 7 is located in the south-central portion of the community along Limonite Avenue and the Santa Ana River in the Pedley community. The area includes older and newer single -family neighborhoods intermixed with commercial development and the Jurupa Valley City Hall along Limonite Avenue.
• Area 8 is similar in character to Area 7 with commercial development along Limonite Avenue and traditional single-family residential neighborhoods to the south. Approximately 20-30% of the census tracts in this area fall below the poverty level.

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-291 • Area 9 is located the north-central portion of the City straddling SR-60 and Mission Boulevard and includes the Sunnyslope community and a portion of Glen Avon. Development in the area includes older single -family rural residential development along Granite Hill Drive and mixed commercial and single - and multi -family residential development surrounding Mission Boulevard.
• Area 10 is located in the Pedley Hills area and includes portions of the Rubidoux, Indian Hills and Jurupa Hills communities. The area consists of traditional single -family residential development with vast open space areas.
• Area 11 includes the core of the Rubidoux community along both sides of Mission Boulevard.

Land uses include commercial development along Mission Boulevard and older residential neighborhoods as well as the Emerald Meadows Specific Plan which is approved for mixed commercial and residential development.
• Area 12 includes a portion of the Rubidoux community near Flabob airport. The area includes commercial development along Mission Boulevard with older traditional single -family neighborhoods. 30-40% of the census tracts in the area fall below the poverty level. • Area 13 includes Flabob Airport, Rancho Jurupa Regional Park and a portion of the Santa Ana River in the southeastern quadra nt of the City. Residential development in this area includes stable single-family neighborhoods and a mobile home park. • Area 14 includes the Crestmore community in the northeastern quadrant of the City with mixed residential, commercial and industrial development. The area also includes vacant hillside areas within the Rio Vista Specific Plan which are approved for residential and commercial development.

As shown below, above moderate income units are generally distributed throughout the City. Above moderate income units are located in all neighborhoods except Area 8 (no sites) and Area 12. Sites identified in Areas 2, 3, 6, 10, and 13 are allocated towards the above moderate income RHNA alone.

These neighborhoods are spread throughout the City. Areas 1, 11 , 13, and 14 have the highest concentrations of above moderate income units. The I -15 Corridor Specific Plan, located in Area 1, contributes most of the above moderate income units in this neighborhood. Similarly, the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan is located in both Area 11 and 13 and the Rio Vista Specific Plan is located in Area 14. The Specific Plans identified contribute largely to the City’s overall above moderate income RHNA. Areas 11, 13, and 14 are all located in the northeastern corner of the City. While Jurupa Valley’s RHNA strategy does concentrate above moderate income units in this section of the City, the City has also identified many sites in this area that are suitable to accommodate both moderate and lower income units.

Moderate income units are located exclusively in Area 11 and 14. The Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan and Rio Vista Specific Plan are the greatest contributors to the moderate income RHNA, both located in the northeastern corner of the City. As discussed above, Area 1 1 and 14 are characterized by older residential neighborhoods and vacant hillsides, respectively, allowing for more housing opportunities in this section of the City. While moderate income units are concentrated in this area, this is due to the availability of sites suitable for housing development. Further, the City’s RHNA strategy allocates a variety of units (lower, moderate, and above moderate) in this area and it is not exclusive to above moderate or moderate units alone. Area 11 and 14 are comprised o f low to moderate resource tracts with LMI tracts and higher rates of cost burden and overcrowding. Moderate and above moderate income units in this

area will increase the potential for mixed-income communities further diversity housing types in the area.

Further, amenities are very accessible in this corner of the City , specifically to Areas 11 and 12 and the southern section of Area 14. Amenities include two of the three community centers in the City are located in this area (Eddie Dee Smith Senior Center , Louis Rubidoux Library), food outlets, Rubidoux Family Care Center, and school facilities (Figure E-45, Figure E-46, Figure E-47, and Figure E-49).

There is only one neighborhood (Area 12) that contains sites exclusively allocated towards the lower income RHNA. All other lower income units are located in neighborhoods where a variety of units (lower, moderate, above moderate) have been allocated. Lowe r income units are located in the following neighborhoods:
• Area 1: 150 units (22.3% of units in this neighborhood) • Area 4: 780 units (94.8% of units in this neighborhood) • Area 5: 93 units (72.1% of units in this neighborhood) • Area 7: 300 units (91.5% of units in this neighborhood) • Area 9: 276 units (70.8% of units in this neighborhood) • Area 11: 171 units (24.3% of units in this neighborhood) • Area 12: 144 units (100% of units in this neighborhood) • Area 14: 250 units (19.5% of units in this neighborhood) Lower income units are not concentrated in a single area of the City, promoting accessible affordable housing to residents throughout Jurupa Valley. Tracts containing lower income RHNA units have a range of TCAC-designations from highest resource to high segregation and poverty. It is important to note that Area 12, where 100% of units are allocated towards the lower income RHNA, is an area of high segregation and poverty. Area 12 is described in detail in Section 2.3, Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas .

Though Area 12 is an area of high segregation and poverty, amenities are highly accessible in this part of the City. The Eddie Dee Smith Senior Center, Louis Rubidoux Library, and Rubidoux Family Care Center are located in or directly adjacent to Area 12 (Figure E-45 and Figure E-47). Park facilities, school facilities, and food outlets are abundant in Area 12, increasing walkability in this neighborhood where public transit is less accessible (Figure E-46, Figure E-48, Figure E-49, and Figure E-50).

Lower income units are not located exclusive ly in this tract. Units in Area 12 represents only 6.7% of all lower income units identified. Other sites selected to meet the lower income RHNA are generally located in or adjacent to walksheds for food outlets, parks, and schools ( Figure E-46, Figure E-48, and Figure E- 49). By identifying sites suitable for lower income units in a variety of tract-types, the City’s RHNA strategy promotes mobility for lower income households in the City and meets the needs of lower income households currently residing in low resource tracts or the area of high segregation and poverty.

Sites selected to meet the City’s RHNA were deemed suitable for development based on City knowledge and community input. Further, the sites inventory promotes a variety of housing types throughout the City, encouraging mixed-income communities and providin g suitable housing for existing communities impacted by fair housing issues (cost burden, overcrowding, etc.). The City’s sites inventory and RHNA strategy is described in Chapter D, Housing Opportunities and Resources, of this Housing Element.

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-293 Table E-32 Distribution of RHNA Units by Neighborhood and AFFH Variable Site # Tract Total Units
Capacity AFFH Indicators
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate % Non-White % LMI HH TCAC Opp.

Category
% Cost Burden
Owner HHs
% Cost Burden
Renter HHs
% Overcrowded
HHs
Area 1
20 27
28 32
82 88
406.05 16 0 0 16 86.65% - 88.66% 58.70% Moderate 38.20% 61.40% 19.47% A-01* 406.07 150 150 0 0 74.99% 24.88% Highest 43.30% 49.80% 4.81% I-15 SP 508 0 0 508 Total 674 150 0 524
Area 2
15 17
21 24
83 87
406.03 8 0 0 8 80.01% 66.44% High 32.80% 20.50% 15.48%
Total 8 0 0 8
Area 3
16 29
30 81
406.06 8 0 0 8 82.80% - 84.40% 45.92% Moderate 51.30% 50.90% 18.31% Total 8 0 0 8
Area 4
B-01
B-02
C-01
C-02
D-01
D-02
D-03*
D-04**
D-05
D-06
C-04*
405.02 823 780 0 43 85.28% 55.19% Moderate 39% 51% 21.40%

Site # Tract Total Units
Capacity AFFH Indicators
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate % Non-White % LMI HH TCAC Opp.

Category
% Cost Burden
Owner HHs
% Cost Burden
Renter HHs
% Overcrowded
HHs
C-05*
107
108
14 22
23 25
26 33
86 89
90 Total 823 780 0 43
Area 5
E-01
E-02
E-03
10 47
79 80
102
405.01 129 93 0 36 71.71 – 80.87 45.39 Moderate 36.50% 56.40% 8.36% Total 129 93 0 36
Area 6
18 19
31 34
35 37
48 71
97 404.03 59 0 0 59 77.56% - 83.43% 50.47% Moderate 26.80% 40.60% 13.89% 2 13
38 40
42 49
404.05 78 0 0 78 66.57% 18.92% High 35.40% 77.40% 2.85%

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-295 Site # Tract Total Units
Capacity AFFH Indicators
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate % Non-White % LMI HH TCAC Opp.

Category
% Cost Burden
Owner HHs
% Cost Burden
Renter HHs
% Overcrowded
HHs
50 53
57 59
64 98
Total 137 0 0 137
Area 7
36 39
41 44
45 55
404.02 22 0 0 22 70.44% 42.86% Moderate 45% 65.50% 4.47% PK SP 306 300 0 6
Total 328 300 0 28
Area 9
1 5
6 11
43 51
65 401.02 81 0 0 81 87.41% 41.90% Low 16.80% 59.50% 15.20% 66 92
94 103
F-01
403.03 309 276 0 33 83.79% 30.58% Moderate (Rapidly
Changing) 36.30% 33.50% 13.12%
Total 390 276 0 114
Area 10
3 8
75 77
84 85
91 93
403.02 78 0 0 78 57.08% - 75.70% 27.25% High 37.60% 43.90% 3.96%

Site # Tract Total Units
Capacity AFFH Indicators
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate % Non-White % LMI HH TCAC Opp.

Category
% Cost Burden
Owner HHs
% Cost Burden
Renter HHs
% Overcrowded
HHs
95 96
Total 78 0 0 78
Area 11
12 74
78 H-01
402.02 200 129 41 30 67.90% 44.21% Moderate 49.70% 60.10% 8.07% 4 G-01 402.04 47 42 0 5 92.18% 72.33% Low 34.90% 62.60% 29.14% EMR SP 367 0 238 129
7 54
67 68
69 70
72 76
106
403.01 90 0 17 73 78.39% - 88.29% 58.90% Low 50.20% 61.70% 23.3 Total 704 171 296 237
Area 12
99 100
101
104
105
402.03 144 144 0 0 95.38% 76.47 High Segregation
& Poverty 28.80% 57.40% 41.51%
Total 144 144 0 0
Area 13
9 62
63 402.01 7 0 0 7 65.39% - 84.92% 44.71% Low 40% 37.90% 21.52% EMR SP 231 0 0 231
Total 238 0 0 238
Area 14
52 56
58 60
401.01 264 250 0 14 95.25% - 97.25% 64.95% Low 23.60% 41.40% 23.86%

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-297 Site # Tract Total Units
Capacity AFFH Indicators
Lower Moderate Above
Moderate % Non-White % LMI HH TCAC Opp.

Category
% Cost Burden
Owner HHs
% Cost Burden
Renter HHs
% Overcrowded
HHs
61 73
RV SP 1,018 0 440 578
Total 1,282 250 440 592
I-15 SP = I-15 Corridor Specific Plan
EMR SP = Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan
RV SP = Rio Vista Specific Plan
PK SP = Paradise Knolls Specific Plan

Figure E-44 Distribution of RHNA Units by Neighborhood and Income Level

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-299 Figure E-45 Distribution of RHNA Units and Community Centers

Figure E-46 Distribution of RHNA Units and Food Outlet Facilities and Walkshed

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-301 Figure E-47 Distribution of RHNA Units and Medical Facilities

Figure E-48 Distribution of RHNA Units and Park Facilities and Walkshed

Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-303 Figure E-49 Distribution of RHNA Units and School Facilities and Walkshed

Figure E-50 Distribution of RHNA Units and Bus Stop Facilities and Walkshed

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-305

2.8. Outreach
State law requires that the preparation, adoption, and implementation of a housing element include a diligent effort t o include public participation from all economic segments of the community. A diligent effort means going beyond simply giving the public an opportunity to provide input and should be proactively and broadly conducted through a variety of methods to assure access and participation. AB 686 requires jurisdictions to include a summary of their fair housing outreach capacity. To address these requirements, the housing element must describe meaningful, frequent, and ongoing public participation with key stakeholders.

In preparing the 6th Cycle Housing Element, involvement with community members was prioritized to fully understand their values and ideas for the future. Several opportunities were available for community members and housing interest groups to express their input and weigh in on housing issues. Although in- person outreach was limited due to COVID-19 constraints, the community adapted and found meaningful ways to get involved in the Housing Element update process through digital engagement platforms and virtual meetings. A summary of outreach activities conducted during the planning effort is provided below.

Appendix C of the Housing Element contains community engagement materials used to inform and solicit input from the public d uring the process, including public notices, the Community Housing Survey, and community workshops.

Website and Community Housing Survey
In winter 2020 -21, the City launched the Housing Element Update webpage and online Community Housing Survey (in English and Spanish). The website contained educational information about the purpose and process for the Housing Element, project updates, and notices of upcoming opportunities to participate. This included the opportunity to sign up for an email list for future updates for the public study sessions and workshops that were planned for community participation.

To date, the Community Housing Survey has resulted in 231 responses. To connect with as many residents of Jurupa Valley as possible, the survey was promoted through the City’s Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the City’s email list, the City’s Facebook page, and the City’s website. The survey was open to the public through the Housing Element development process, and the responses demonstrated that the community’s interests and concerns reflected those found in the data and demographics. The responses from a majority of the survey takers show that those wi th the greatest need for housing in Jurupa Valley are seniors, large families, young adults, and homeless persons. The responses also reveal that the community does not see any difficulty in finding housing but does see the need for affordable housing and would like to see more diversity in affordable housing. Through the survey, the City also received a wide variety of comments on housing that are available in full in Appendix C of the Housing Element.

A summary of the survey responses identified the following housing concerns and desires for the City:
• Desire to increase the variety of housing types and affordability • Desire to see government assistance for the maintenance of existing homes • Desire to see housing developed near access to community and commercial amenities • Desire to provide housing to those who are in the special need categories (i.e., those who are homeless, single parent household, seniors or living with disabilities) The survey was provided in English and Spanish. To reach growing populati on of Spanish speakers living in the community, the outreach notices were also provided in English and Spanish. In addition to the

normal methods of distribution and legal noticing; the many utility companies, public agencies , and nonprofit organizations t hat operate in the City were able to provide their customers access to the information available through their websites and utility bills. These survey results captured the community’s sentiments towards the current housing issues present in Jurupa Valley.

The City incorporated the data into the overall analysis of the Housing Element and the main concerns of the community were reviewed and addressed in the Housing Opportunities and Resources Section of this Housing Element. The responses received from the community resulted in specific emphasis on affordable housing and diversity of in future housing types.

Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions: Housing Element Overview, Sites Inventory and New Housing Laws
Public input was facilitated by means of separate Study Sessions conducted with the Planning Commission and the City Council on March 10, 2021 and April 15, 2021, respectively, that provided an overview of Housing Element requirements and housing law and a discussion of the City’s RHNA and potential housing sites to meet the RHNA. The Planning Commission and City Council were generally supportive of the need for additional housing sites in the City and indicated areas of the City where additional housing and density would be most feasible, including within the Specific Plan areas and along the City’s major transportation corridors. The meetings were noticed as follows and open for public participation and comment. • Notices were mailed to interested persons and public agencies. • Notices were posted at City Hall.
• Notices were posted on the City’s website.
• Notices were placed in the Press Enterprise.

Community Workshops
On April 5 and 6, 2021 public workshops were conducted on the Housing Element, one in English and one in Spanish. Due to the COVID -19 pandemic, the workshops were conducted via teleconference with computer stations available at City Hall for participants without computer access. The workshops were advertised on the City’s website, community websites, and through social media. During the workshops, City staff provided an overview of Housing Element requirements and housing law and a discussion of the City’s RHNA and potential housing sites to meet the RHNA. Participants were then encouraged to provide their input on housing issues and needs in Jurupa Valley. Overall, participants agreed that lack of affordable housing is the biggest housing issue in Jurupa Valley.

During these workshops the participants also emphasized the following concerns and desires for the City to address:
• Desire to increase the variety of housing types and affordability, • Desire to locate higher density housing near transportation corridors, • Desire to see more multi-family dwelling development and small lot or condo developments to increase the income variety of the community,
• Desire to see more shared open spaces in the community and developments with less traditional lawns.

These comments have been incorporated into the development of the Housing Opportunities and Resources Section of this Housing Element.

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-307 Public Review Draft Housing Element
The Draft Housing Element was made available for public review at City Hall and on the City’s website beginning on May 20, 2021. Notices to inform the public and stakeholders about the avai lability of the Draft Housing Element were mailed and emailed to housing interest groups, including all homeowner’s associations in the City, and announcements of the Draft Housing Element were sent to subscribers of the City’s email service, community agencies, and Facebook.

Planning Commission and City Council Joint Study Session: Final Sites Inventory and Draft Housing Element
On May 20, 2021, a joint study session was conducted with the Planning Commission and the City Council on the Final Sites Inventory (Housing Element Appendix A), Proposed Redesignation/Rezone Sites (Housing Element Appendix B), and the Draft Housing Elemen t itself. This study session provided an overview of the Draft Housing Element and a detailed overview of the sites inventory. The meeting was noticed and open for public participation and comment. In addition, the City directly invited housing interest groups, including affordable housing developers and nonprofits, senior care providers, property management companies, and the Chamber of Commerce. A notice was also mailed to representatives of all homeowner’s associations in the City.

This study session was attended by Planning Commissioners, City Council members, community members, and community interest group representatives. The study session was livestreamed through the City website, and community members were provided the opportunity to send in written comments ahead of the session on May 20, 2021. The study session began with an overview of the Draft Housing Element and the timeline of the development and community involvement with this document. The presentation also included a review of the Sites Inv entory and ability of the City to meet its RHNA allocation based on existing and proposed land use designations and known development projects. The presentation was then followed by a discussion about proposed sites for redesignation/rezone to the City’s h ighest density residential designation (HHDR) and R -3 zone and the criteria used to select sites. Sites were chosen to best encapsulate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as set by the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) of California. The discussion centered on vacant and underutilized sites available in the City of Jurupa Valley.

City Council had the following comments and, based on individual study sessions, the draft document and the list of sites provided, they voiced their desires to see the following:
• Desire to see highest density housing around commercial development • Desire to see fewer industrial uses around housing
• Desire to see that no more housing get built directly in areas that are currently impacted by traffic issues
• Desire to see quality housing through designs and buffering to reduce the effects of pollutants to housing sites
All of the comments provided by City Council members were included and responded to through the programs in this document. For example, the housing sites proposed for redesignation and rezoning have been located near current commercial develop ments and future commercial developments so that the community will have access to amenities.

Planning Commissioners provided comments on the sites and the following desires:
• Desire to house as many people as possible in the community as part of a balancing act with jobs • Desire to see that the development for highest density housing infill and transit corridors spread the density throughout the city
• Desire for inclusionary and mixed income developments for the residents to encourage healthy development
These comments were taken into account when writing the Housing Element and were used to modify the overall Sites Inventory and proposed redesignation/rez one sites. The current housing policies in the Housing Element also include programs to address the diversity of housing for different incomes, to address the concentration and location of highest density housing, and to address environmental justice needs for housing developments.

This meeting was attended by the public and watched through the livestream available on the City website. This meeting was recorded and kept for future record. Representatives from the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) and Inland Equity, two local environmental justice groups, attended the meetings and spoke of their comments on the Draft Housing Element and also wrote into the City concerning potential additional programs to further the development of affordable for all.

The nonprofits discussed the following desires for inclusion in the City’s Housing programs:
• Desire for rent control in Jurupa Valley
• Desire to raise fines through code enforcement for substandard housing in both rental and ownership
• Desire for elimination of the lowest density residential zoning • Desire for programs to assist with housing ownership rather than renting • Desire to relocate the potential housing sites farther away from transportation corridors • Desire to see inclusionary and mixed housing
The comments received by the City at this study session from these two nonprofit groups have been addressed by the programs of the Housing Element, including a study for an inclusionary housing ordinance, the special criteria of potential housing site inventory selection, and the continued work by the code enforcement team to deal with substandard housing. As the City continues to grow and attempts to accommodate the development of the community, it makes all efforts to provide better hou sing for all income levels through the proposed programs.

As part of the City efforts to include all comments from the community meetings, the meetings were recorded and are all available on the City website. The City continues to do community outreach, surveys, and community meetings while also making sure that they meet the action plan developed through Consolidated Plan (2018-2022), Annual Action Plan (2020-2021), and the Citizen’s Participation Plan with the goal to generate significant public particip ation in the consolidated planning process, including any amendments to the Consolidated Plan, the Annual Action Plan, the AFH, and the CAPER. Input will be sought particularly from low- and moderate-income persons and groups residing within various areas of the City where program funds will be used.

On May 27, 2021, the Draft Housing Element was updated with comments received from the City Council and Planning Commission Joint session and then reposted on the City website for public review of the 6th Cycle. The announcement for this draft availability was posted on the City’s website and social media platforms and was sent to all community parties. The update draft was also sent to HCD for the first Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-309 review. The typical Housing Element review period is 60 days, and on July 23, 2021 the City met with the staff from HCD to review the state’s preliminary comments, which were formally provided to the City in writing on July 26, 2021. The City has incorporated changes requested by the state in a revised Draft Housing Element Update.

On October 5, 2021, the City made the revised Draft Housing Element with HCD -requested updates available on the City’s website with an invitation for comments. This document was posted on social media, sent to local agencies, and emailed to commissioners, council members, community g roups, and others requesting notification. As of October 15, 2021, the City had not received any comments from the public on the revised Draft Housing Element; however, the document remained available for public review and comment through February 7, 2022. The intention was to keep all community members informed of any changes and updates to the Housing Element and obtain as many comments as possible to best create a document that suits the needs of the people of Jurupa Valley.

On November 10, 2021, the Pl anning Commission considered the Housing Element Update at a duly noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission received a detailed overview of the Housing Element Update and invited members of the public to address the Commission. However, no members of the public asked to be heard. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval o f the Housing Element Update to the City Council.

On December 2, 2021, the City Council considered the Housing Element Update at a duly noticed public hearing. The Mayor invited members of the public to address the Council on the Housing Element Update.

However, no members of the public asked to be heard. Following discussion of the Housing Element Update the Council made minor modifications to the sites invento ry and unanimously approved the Housing Element Update . In addition, the Council authorized the Community Development Director to make any non -substantive, technical modifications to the document based on further comments from HCD without the need for re-approval by the City Council.

On December 13, 2021, the City received the second comment letter from HCD on the Housing Element.

The letter acknowledged that the City had responded to many of HCD’s previous comments and requested additional information and clarification on the AFFH and other topics.

On February 7, 2022, the City made the second revision of the Housing Element available on the City’s website with an invitation for comments. This document was posted on social media, sent to local agencies, and emailed to commissioners, council members, community groups, and others requesting notification. The revision reflected changes made to the Housing Element in response to HCD’s letter of December 13, 2021. As of February 21, 2022, the City received one c omment on the revised Housing Element Update related to whether the revised proposal for the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan was included in the document. As stated in Section D, the revised proposal was not included as it is early in the process and has not been reviewed or approved by the City. The revised draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD on February 22, 2022 for review and certification.

2.9. Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Findings from Jurupa Valley Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Community Profile
• The Hispanic ethnic population represent about 49% of the City’s total population, which is higher than the countywide total of 50%. All minority groups in the City account for over three- quarters of the City total population.

• The major ity (52%) of Jurupa Valley households spoke Spanish as their primary language.

Sixteen percent of these Spanish-speaking households had limited English proficiency and are considered linguistically isolated. Although smaller in number, households that spok e Asian/Pacific Islander languages as their primary language, had the largest degree of linguistic isolation at 21%.
• The Section 8 Housing Voucher Program administered by the Housing Authority of Riverside County (HARC) assists low-income renters living in Jurupa Valley with majority of these renters are homeless senior and/or disabled households. In 2018, approximately 1,700 households were on the waitlist for federal rental assistance.
• Seniors (age 65+) represent 11% of Jurupa Valley’s population. Some of the characteristics of elderly residents included: limited mobility; increased medical attention due to health complications; and, restricted fixed income, such as Social Security, pension programs and retirement income. Many elderly people also have diff iculty completing normal, everyday tasks without assistance.
• The number of Jurupa Valley residents age 18 and older with some type of disability totaled about 11% of the City’s total population of the same age group. The top three disabilities among persons age 5 and older include those with ambulatory difficulty, independent living difficulty, and cognitive difficulty. It was estimated that approximately two-thirds of the City’s elderly population had ambulatory difficulty.
• Over one-half of the homes in J urupa Valley are about 40 years and older. This compares to about one-third of the homes countywide. In general, homes built more than 30 years ago are likely to require structural renovation and increased maintenance, resulting in greater costs for the owner. Older homes can also create health and safety problems for occupants, as many deteriorated structures often do not meet current building code standards and lack safety features such as fire suppression, home security devices, and seismic safety retrof its. In addition, there are greater lead-based paint related health risks. • The average household size in Jurupa Valley was 4.0 as compared to 3.3 countywide. About 30% of the City’s households were considered large households (5 or more persons per household). Large households are a special needs group because of the lack of available affordable housing of adequate size. To save for necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care, lower - and moderate-income large households may reside in smaller units, resulting in overcrowding.
• Overcrowding (defined as more than one person per room) occurred in 11% of the City’s total occupied units and severe overcrowding (more than 1.5 persons per room) occurred in 5% of the total occupied units. More overcrowding occurred in rental units than owner -occupied units. This indicates the need for larger rental units and/or more rental subsidies to allow large households to afford adequately sized units.
• The most prevalent housing problem facing Jurupa Vall ey households was overpay ment on housing cost. A household is considered to be overpaying for housing if housing costs (rent plus utilities) make up more than 30% of the household’s gross monthly income. Overpaying occurred with 41% of the total occupied units. Renter households tended to overpay more for housing than owners occupied households.

Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-311 Fair Housing Profile
• Fair housing education and outreach to housing providers and owners is provided through the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC), the California Apartment Owner’s Association (CAA), and for properties with Section 8 rent vouchers, the Housing A uthority of the County of Riverside (HACR). Given the characteristics of Jurupa Valley’s apartment stock as predominately older and in smaller complexes, a large segment of the City’s rentals are not managed by professional management companies and small “ mom and pop” mangers may not be trained in fair housing laws. As small property managers/owners are typically the primary violators of fair housing laws, targeted outreach to this group by the FHCRC remains critical.
• Consistent with state and national tren ds, the leading basis of discrimination complaints in Riverside County over the past five years (7/2013 -6/2018) are as follows: physical disability (51%), mental disability (12%), race (10%), familial status (8%), national origin (7%), and sex (3%). In Jur upa Valley’s first year contracting with FHCRC, 21 discrimination cases were opened, including 16 related to physical disability, and one case based on each of the following protected classes: mental disability, race, familial status, sex and age. It will be important to monitor discrimination complaints in the City over time to more fully assess patterns and to appropriately tailor FHCRC’s outreach.
• There is a gap in understanding by many landlords about the requirements under the Federal fair Housing Act to provide reasonable accommodation or reasonable modifications for persons with disabilities. Lack of understanding of these Federal requirements is a leading reason why persons with disabilities encounter discrimination when seeking housing or attempting to maintain their housing.

Public Sector Impediments
• There is currently no mechanism specified in the Zoning Code to allow reasonable accommodation exceptions to zoning requirements for individuals with disabilities. This process should be placed in the Code to ensure that it is formalized and consistently applied. • Based on the affordability gap analysis conducted in the City’s Housing Element, market rents in Jurupa Valley are beyond the level of affordability of lower income (<80% AMI) households, and housing sales prices are beyond the level of affordability of moderate income (<120% AMI) households. Local tools including inclusionary zoning and density bonuses can be used to facilitate the production of units affordable to low - and moderate-income households, and further goals for economic integration.

Private Sector Impediments
• The approval rate for home purchase loans in Jurupa Valley in 2017 was below the Countywide average by 3.5% (84.5% compared to 88.0% for Riverside County). In general, all nearby counties had similar home purchase approval rates.
• Mortgage loan denial rates in Jurupa Valley were higher than Riverside County. The lowest denial rates in Jurupa Valley were among Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (7.1%), followed by Asians (13.5%), and Whites (14.2%). Denial rates of Hispanics were at 15.0%, with African Americans having the highest denial rates at 27.5%. Countywide loan denial rates were higher among African Americans (16.2%), Hispanic (12.4%) and Asian (13.0%) applicants than Whites (11.0%).

2.10. Local Data and Knowledge
As part of the Housing Element Update, the City sent out a Community Housing Survey in Spanish and English to collect data concerning information about the community needs and concerns with existing housing. While the questions were concentrated on access to housing and opportunities for change in this update to the Housing Element, the survey results were still revealing about the different types of housing we see in Jurupa. The survey results reveal that inhabitants of the City believe there is a lack of housing for those who are elderly, young professionals, and the homeless, which is addressed within this analysis and the Housing Element. The survey results also provided insight to the type of housing the community wants to see. This included both inclusionary housing, less high density but more affordable units which is limited in Jurupa Valley currently. The data and notes from all outreach related to the Housing Element can be found in the Appendix C of that document.

2.11. Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors Concentration of Special Needs Groups
Low resource areas, and one area of high segregation and poverty, are generally concentrated on the eastern side of the City, while the western side is comprised mostly of highest and high resource tracts.

While concentrations of racial/ethnic minority groups, LMI households, persons with disabilities, and children in female-headed households are scattered throughout the City, many of the tracts/block groups in these low resource areas have concentrations of special needs groups.

Priority Level: (High)
Contributing Factors
• Lack of private investment
• Location and type of affordable housing
• Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure Substandard Housing Conditions
Approximately 20% to 40% Jurupa Valley’s housing stock has at least 1 of the 4 severe housing problems monitored by CHAS (incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, and cost burden greater than 50%). Approximately 42% of the owner-occupied units in the City were built before 1980, and 18% were built before 1960. Of the City’s renter -occupied units, 47% were built before 1980, and 21% were built before 1960. Many of these housing unit s may be susceptible to deterioration and may need rehabilitation.

Priority Level: (Medium)
Contributing Factors
• Age of housing stock
• Cost of repairs or rehabilitation
Displacement Risk of Low Income Residents Due to Economic Pressures The HCD Data Viewer has identified several communities that may be at risk of displacement. Many of these communities have a higher concentration of overpaying renters, persons with disabilities, and Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029  Page 5-313 racial/ethnic minorities. The vulnerable communities on the eastern side of the City are also considered low resource areas.

Priority Level: (Low)
Contributing Factors
• Unaffordable rents
• Concentration of poverty in some tracts
• Availability of affordable housing

3. Summary and Conclusions
In addition to incorporating the City’s AI and Action Plan recommendations into the Housing Element process, the City gained additional Fair Housing Insights through the AB 686 analysis, including the review of the RHNA sites inventory. The review of the R HNA sites provided an understanding of sites that could better serve the needs of the community to attain fair housing in Jurupa Valley and due to the diversity of housing sites considered for the 6th Cycle Housing Element there were no changes needed.

Strategies and actions to implement priorities and goals may include, but are not limited to:
• Enhancing mobility strategies and promoting inclusion for protected classes • Encouraging development of new affordable housing in high-resource areas • Implementing place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preserva- tion of existing affordable housing
• Protecting existing residents from displacement
Table 5.56 in the Housing Element summarizes Jurupa Valley’s intended Fair Housing implementation actions.

As seen in the matrix, the City intends to complete the necessary actions to meet the needs of the State law for AFFH. 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 reasoning for these actions to be called out specifically is to ensure that they get completed in a timely manner to better serve the community of Jurupa Valley. These actions are intended to alleviate the main issues identifies in this AFFH analysis; however, the City continues to use other actions in the new Housing Element that will be implemented over the entirely of the 2021-2029 planning period.

Total Rezone: 19 Sites
Total Acres: 69.2 Acres
Potential Units: 1,169
Riverside
Ontario
Corona
Santa Ana
Anaheim
City of Jurupa Valley
2021 - 2029 Housing Element
Potential Redesignation/Rezone Sites
¯
0 52.5
Miles
Pats Ranch
Rd
Par kce nte r Dr
Sk
im
mer Dr
1 I-15 Corridor
Specific Plan
Rezone Area: A
Total Acres: 6.00
Potential Units: 150
A-01* 6 BP SP ZONE HHDR I-15 Corridor 25 25 25 150 Vacant Map ID APN Acres Existing GP Existing Zone Proposed GP Proposed Min. Density Max. Density Reduced Potential Status City of Jurupa Valley
2021 - 2029 Housing Element
Potential Redesignation/Rezone Sites
Area A
¯
0 500250
Feet
* Because the site is located in a Specific Plan which includes roads and infrastructure seperately, the mazimum density is assumed.

Eve Cir
N
Lynn
Cir
Country Village
Golf Course
Eve Cir
C St
Countr y Club Dr
Emm
a
St
N L
ynn
Cir
Nettie S
t
Ev
e
Cir
A St
Cou
ntr
y V
illage
Rd
Gran
ite Hill Dr
Eve C
ir
Co
un
try
Vi
llage R
d
1 2
Rezone Area: B
Total Acres: 5.80
Potential Units: 101
B-01 156230004 2.3 PF R-A-20 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 40 Vacant B-02 156220002 3.5 PF R-A-20 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 61 Vacant Map ID APN Acres Existing GP Existing Zone Proposed GP Proposed Min. Density Max. Density Reduced Potential Status City of Jurupa Valley
2021 - 2029 Housing Element
Potential Redesignation/Rezone Sites
Area B
¯
0 500250
Feet

Gra nite Hil l Dr
60 Be n Nevis Blvd
Pomona Fwy
45 60
Gra
nite Hill Dr
Pom ona Fwy
1 2
4 5
Rezone Area: C
Total Acres: 7.29
Potential Units: 127
C-01 173160002 0.8 LDR W-2 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 14 Vacant C-02 173160003 0.3 LDR W-2 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 5 Vacant C-04* 173160029 2.76 CR C-P-S HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 48 Vacant C-05* 173160030 3.43 CR C-P-S HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 60 Vacant Map ID APN Acres Existing GP Existing Zone Proposed GP Proposed Min. Density Max. Density Reduced Potential Status City of Jurupa Valley
2021 - 2029 Housing Element
Potential Redesignation/Rezone Sites
Area C
¯
0 500250
Feet
* These sites would be developed as mixed-use projects with commercial development on the southern half of each property and residential development on the northern half.

Qua
rt
z Canyon
Rd
60 Richard o Ave
Granite
Hill Dr
Pomona Fwy
Pom ona Fwy
45 60
1 2
3 4 5 6
Rezone Area: D
Total Acres: 29.90
Potential Units: 445
D-01 173120005 6.4 LI W-2 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 112 Vacant D-02 173120006 6.4 LI W-2 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 112 Vacant D-03* 173120007 13 LI W-2 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 150 Vacant D-04** 169040003 0.2 LI W-2 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 3 Vacant D-05 169040004 0.8 LI W-2 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 14 Vacant D-06 169040005 3.1 LI W-2 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 54 Vacant Map ID APN Acres Existing GP Existing Zone Proposed GP Proposed Min. Density Max. Density Reduced Potential Status City of Jurupa Valley
2021 - 2029 Housing Element
Potential Redesignation/Rezone Sites
Area D
¯
0 500250
Feet
* Although site size could result in unit count of 228 under the HHDR a more realistic unit count of 150 has been assumed. ** Although < 0.5 acres, this analysis assumes site would be consolidated with D-01.

Maria Bonita Ave
Miss ion Blvd
Franc
isco
Jr A
ve
Li
nco
ln Av
e
Jose Ave
Pe
dley Rd
Pedle
y
Rd
Mis sio n Blv d
1 2
3 Rezone Area: E
Total Acres: 5.40
Potential Units: 93
E-01 169070002 1.9 MHDR R-D HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 33 Vacant E-02 169070031 1 CR C-1/C-P HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 17 Vacant E-03 169172075 2.5 CR C-P-S HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 43 Vacant Map ID APN Acres Existing GP Existing Zone Proposed GP Proposed Min. Density Max. Density Reduced Potential Status City of Jurupa Valley
2021 - 2029 Housing Element
Potential Redesignation/Rezone Sites
Area E
¯
0 500250
Feet
Mission Bl vd Mission Blvd
Sikh T
emp
le W
ay
1 Rezone Area: F
Total Acres: 4.70
Potential Units: 82
F-01 171020006 4.7 BP A-1 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 82 Vacant Map ID APN Acres Existing GP Existing Zone Proposed GP Proposed Min. Density Max. Density Reduced Potential Status City of Jurupa Valley
2021 - 2029 Housing Element
Potential Redesignation/Rezone Sites
Area F
¯
0 500250
Feet
Av
alonSt
Ava
lon
St
36th
St
Pionee
r D
r
34th St
Avalon S
t
Pontiac A
ve
Pion
eer Dr
1 Rezone Area: G
Total Acres: 2.40
Potential Units: 42
G-01 179101002 2.4 MHDR R-2 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 42 Vacant Map ID APN Acres Existing GP Existing Zone Proposed GP Proposed Min. Density Max. Density Reduced Potential Status City of Jurupa Valley
2021 - 2029 Housing Element
Potential Redesignation/Rezone Sites
Area G
¯
0 500250
Feet
Sax
on C
t
Ri
ve
rv
iew
Dr
Pacif ic Ave
Pacif
ic
Ave
Allwood
St
Hor
izon
Ln
46 th
St
Lim
oni
te A
ve
Limon
ite A
ve
Limonit
e Ave
Allwood St
Bonh
ill St
1 Rezone Area: H
Total Acres: 7.40
Potential Units: 129
H-01 182350002 7.4 MDR R-3 HHDR R-3 20 25 17.5 129 Vacant Map ID APN Acres Existing GP Existing Zone Proposed GP Proposed Min. Density Max. Density Reduced Potential Status City of Jurupa Valley
2021 - 2029 Housing Element
Potential Redesignation/Rezone Sites
Area H
¯
0 500250
Feet
Page | 1

STAFF REPORT
DAT
E: FEBRUARY 16, 2023
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 17.C
EST

ABLISHMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

COMMITTEE
RECO

MMENDATION
1) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-19, entitled:

A RESO

LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
BAC

KGROUND
The
State of California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requires that when a proposed housing development project complies with all applicable plans, program s, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, and any other similar provisions, the City cannot deny the project unless it can make findings that the project would cause a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and that no feasible means exist to satisfyingly mitigate the impact.

Pursuant to the HAA, if the City considers a proposed project inconsistent with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision(s), and an explanation of the reason(s) it considers the housing development to be inconsistent within 30 days of the application being deemed complete if the development contains 150 or fewer units, and within 60 days of the application being deemed complete if the development contains more than 150 units.

Furthermore, the City cannot deny a housing development project on the basis that its reduction in density would require the re- designation of additional lands to Highest Density Residential (HHDR – Up to 25 dwelling units per acre) to remain in compliance with no-net-loss under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

RETURN TO AGENDA

Page | 2

PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF PROPOSED COMMITTEE

The purpose of Residential Development Committee (RDC) would be to ensure that the City is complying with the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) in that the City is identifying areas of non-conformity with the City’s General Plan, any Specific Plans, and the City’s Municipal Code, and informing the applicant of such non- conformities in the timelines provided for in the HAA.

The RDC would review proposed residential development projects consisting of five (5) or more residential units as soon as practicable following the first submittal of the formal entitlement application for the project, but no later than 30 days after the application has been deemed complete.

The RDC’s review would be limited to the project’s potential impacts and its compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s General Plan, any Specific Plans, and the City’s Municipal Code. The RDC would not recommend approval or disapproval of the project and the committee members would not express their opinions as to the merits of the project. The RDC’s review would be identify potential impacts and issues concerning the project in the early stages of the project’s review so that they may be further studied and analyzed as the project proceeds through the land use entitlement process.

The RDC would consist of four (4) members: the Mayor; the City Council Member whose district the proposed project is located in; the Chair of the Planning Commission; and the Planning Commissioner appointed by the City Council Member whose district the proposed project is located in. If the proposed project were located in the Mayor’s district, then the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem would serve on the committee. Similarly, if the proposed project were located in the district of the Council Member who appointed the Chair of the Planning Commission, then the Chair and Chair Pro Tem would serve on the committee.

The meetings of the RDC shall be open and public and shall comply with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Given the time constraints in providing comments on residential development projects, it is expected that most meetings of the RDC would be special meetings.

The City Clerk would be responsible for the scheduling, agenda preparation, and noticing of RDC meetings. RDC meetings would be scheduled on an as needed basis as special meetings, would require a 24-hour public notice, and be open to the publ ic. As the RDC would take no action on any development applications, there would be no quorum requirement.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The time to process this item , the establishment of the Residential Development Committee (RDC) would be covered by the general fund. Any staff time required preparing for agenda items for the RDC would be covered by the applicant. RDC members would not be paid a stipend.

2-7-23

-1-
12774-0007\2777996v3.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALL EY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING

THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council hereby establishes the Residential Development Committee (“Committee”).
(a) The Committee shall review proposed residential development projects consisting of five (5) or m ore residential units (“Project ”) as soon as practicable following the submittal of the first application for the Project’s land use entitlements, but not later than thirty (30) days following the Staff’s determination that the Project’s application is complete. (b) The Committee shall consist of four (4) members for each Project consisting of:
1) The Mayor.
2) The Counc il Member in whose Council District (“District”) the Project is located. In the event the Project is located in the Mayor’s District, then the Mayor and the Mayor pro Tem shall be members of the Committee.
3) The Chair of the Planning Commission.
4) The Planning Commissioner appointed by the Council Member in whose District the Project is located. In the event the Project is located in the District of the Council Member who appointed the Planning Commission Chair, then the Planning Commission Chair and the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission shall be members of the Committee. (c) The Committee’s review shall be limited to the Project’s potential impacts and its compliance with the applicable provisions of the General Plan, specific plan, subdivision laws, zoning laws, development standards and the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. The Committee shall not recommend approval or disapproval of the P roject and the members shall not express their opinions as to the merits of the Project. The purpose of the Committee’s review is to identify potential impacts and issues concerning the P roject in the early stages of t he Project’s review so that the impacts and issues may be further studied and analyzed as the Project proceeds through the land use entitlement process.
(d) The meetings of the Committee shall be open and public and shall comply with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. Given the time constraints in providing comments on residential development projects, it is expected that most meetings of the Committee will be special meetings. 2-7-23
-2-
12774-0007\2777996v3.doc
(e) The City Clerk shall be responsible for the scheduling, agenda and noticing of Committee Meetings.

Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 2nd day of February, 2023.

______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
2-7-23
-3-
12774-0007\2777996v3.doc

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )

I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-19, was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 16th day of February, 2023 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 16th day of February, 2023.

Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley