Error! Unknown document property name.
Section 5. Findings for Denial of Supportive Housing Project. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby deny the supportive housing project pursuant to Government Code Section 65650 et seq. based on the following grounds. (a) Government Code Section 65651(a) provides that supportive housing shall be a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, if the proposed housing development satisfies all of the following requirements:
(1) Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for 55 years.
(2) One hundred percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, within the development are restricted to lower income households and are or will be receiving public funding to ensure affordability of the housing to lower income Californians. For purposes of this paragraph, “lower income households” has the same meaning as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. The rents in the development shall be set at an amount consistent with the rent limits stipulated by the public program providing financing for the development.
(3) At least 25 percent of the units in the development or 12 units, whichever is greater, are restricted to residents in supportive housing who meet criteria of the target population.
If the development consists of fewer than 12 units, then 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, in the development shall be restricted to residents in supportive housing.
(4) The developer provides the planning agency with the information required by Section 65652.
(5) Nonresidential floor area shall be used for onsite supportive services and administrative office space in the following amounts:
(A) For a development with 20 or fewer total units, at least 90 square feet shall be provided for onsite supportive services.
(B) For a development with more than 20 units, at least 3 percent of the total floor area shall be provided for onsite supportive services that are limited to tenant use, including, but not limited to, community rooms, case management offices, computer rooms, and community kitchens.
(C) The total floor area dedicated to administrative office space shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area.
(6) The developer replaces any dwelling units on the site of the supportive housing development in the manner provided in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. (7) Units within the development, excluding managers’ units, include at least one bathroom and a kitchen or other cooking facilities, including, at minimum, a stovetop, a sink, and a refrigerator.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
(b) The Project does not meet the requirements set forth in Government Code section 65651 for the by right approval of a supportive housing project. Specifically, Government Code section 65651(a)(5) provides that for a development with more than 20 units, at least 3 percent of the total floor area shall be provided for onsite supportive services that are limited to tenant use, including, but not limited to, community rooms, case management offices, computer rooms, and community kitchens. The Project does not provide any onsite supportive services. Instead, the Project is bisected by Canyon Terrace Drive, dividing it into two separate sites: the 5.88 -acre southern portion, which includes six multi-story multifamily buildings with 28 supportive housing units, 51 affordable units, and one manager’s unit, and the 9.65- acre northern portion, which contains a 2,560-square-foot community building with supportive services, laundry facilities, and outdoor spaces, along with a 6,463- square-foot child daycare center. As the supportive services are provided on a separate site and not on the same site as the supportive housing, the Project does not meet the requirement of providing onsite supportive services.
Section 6. Findings Under the Housing Accountability Act. (a) Government Code Section 65589.5(d) provides that for a housing development project for very low, low -, or moderate -income households, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes one of the following written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record:
(1) The housing development project as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(2)).
The Project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety as Wakeland has not proposed to construct any sidewalk improvements as required by the objective standards set forth in the Mobility Element of the General Plan.
Specifically, Mobility Element Policy ME 2.11 states that the City “ [r]equire[s] street improvements as a condition of new developments, including undergrounding of utility lines, installation of fiber optic cable and other utilities, sidewalk, curb, gutter and street pave-out, bicycle and equestrian facilities, street lighting (where appropriate), street trees and landscaping.” ME 3.21 states that the City “[r]equire[s] safe pedestrian walkways that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements within commercial, office, industrial, mixed use, residential, and recreational developments.” ME 8.10 states that “Developers shall be responsible for right -of-way dedication and improvements that provide access to and enhance new developments. Improvements include street construction or widening, new paving, frontage improvements like curb, gutter, sidewalks, street trees, trails and parkways, installation of traffic signals, pavement markings and annunciators, and other facilities needed for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, and motor vehicles.” These standards are intended to protect the public health and safety.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
The Project is located adjacent to Camino Real, a four-lane road (two lanes in each direction), with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Wakeland is seeking a concession under State Density Bonus Law to avoid constructing any sidewalk improvements. This creates a dangerous situation for residents of the Project who will need to travel along Camino Real where the speed limit is 40 miles per hour in order to get to and from the Project site and the bus stops located on the corners of Limonite Avenue and Camino Real. The situation is made even more dangerous by the fact that the Project is intended to provide housing and services for homeless veterans, some of whom may need to use mobility devices, and will need to travel with their mobility devices on the same road where cars are traveling at a high rate of speed. The only way to mitigate this danger is for Wakeland to construct ADA - compliant sidewalk improvements that would allow pedestrians and persons using mobility devices to travel from the bus stops to the Project site (and from the Project site to the bus stops), without needing to travel in the roadway on Camino Real.
(2) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(3).
The City is required to deny the Project as Wakeland is refusing to comply with requirements imposed by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Building Code. As discussed above, Wakeland is required to construct sidewalks pursuant to the policies set forth in the Mobility Element of the General Plan.
Where sidewalks are required, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) mandates that the sidewalks be accessible, including providing connectivity to the nearest transit stops.
The ADA mandates that public facilities, including sidewalks, must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Project does not comply with a number of ADA regulations and standards. According to ADA Standards for Accessible Design Standards, Section 206.2.1, at least one accessible route must be provided within the site to accessible facility entrances from these site arrival points, where provided: (1) accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones, (2) public streets and sidewalks, and (3) each public transportation stop.
Wakeland is seeking a concession to not construct any sidewalks adjacent to the Project site. This results in there b eing no accessible unobstructed route to the Project site and therefore, none of the buildings are accessible from a public street, a public sidewalk, or a public transportation stop. The only way to get to the site is by driving, which prevents an individual who uses a mobility device from having an accessible route between the public streets and sidewalks in nearby neighborhoods or from the public bus stops.
The Project also does not comply with the requirements set forth in California Building Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations Section 1114B.1.2, which states that “when a building, or portion of a building, is required to be accessible or a daptable, an accessible route of travel complying with Sections 1102B, 1114B, 1124B, 1133B.3, 1133B.5, 1133B.7, and 1133B.8.6 shall be Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
provided to all portions of the building, to accessible building entrances, and between the building and the public way. . . At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be provided from public transportation stops , accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks, to the accessible building entrance they serve. The accessible route shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route for the general public.
At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, facilities, elements, and spaces that are on the same site. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible building or facility entrances with all accessible spaces and elements and with all accessible dwelling units within the building or facility. An accessible route shall connect at least one accessible entrance of each accessible dwelling unit with those exterior and interior spaces and facilities that serve the accessible dwelling unit. Where more than one route of travel is provided, all routes shall be accessible.”
Moreover, California Building Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations Section 11B-206.2.1 provides that at least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger drop-off and loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve. The Project does not provide an accessible route from a public transportation stop or from any public street or sidewalk to any of the buildings on the Project site.
Compliance with these requirements are essential to ensuring safe and accessible pathways for individuals who need to access the various buildings on site including the housing on the south site, the supportive housing services, child care, and laundry facilities on the north site, as well as transit services along Limonite Avenue. As no sidewalks are proposed, the Project fails to meet the ADA and California Building Code requirements set forth above.
(3) On the date an application for the housing development project was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)).
The City has a certified Housing Element that is in compliance with State law. The Project site is identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element. APN 185 -470-001 is identified as being available to provide 15 above moderate housing units. APN 185-470-002 is identified as being available to provide 17 above moderate housing units. As these units are identified as being available for above moderate units, the City can make the findings set forth in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) because the site inventory does not identify the Project site as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the City’s Housing Element.
On the date that the Project was deemed complete, the Project was inconsistent with the City’s zoning ordinance and General Plan. The Project includes a childcare center. Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.80.0202(A)(25) Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
provides that a childcare center is allowed in the R-3 zone with a site development permit. Wakeland has not submitted an application for a site development permit for the child care center and, therefore, the Project does not comply with the City’s zoning ordinance.
In addition, Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.240.120(6)(c)(ii) provides that “accessible parking spaces shall be located so as to provide for safety and optimum proximity to curb ramps or other pedestrian ways thereby, providing the most direct access to the primary entrance of the building served by the parking lot.” The accessible parking spaces do not provide direct access to the primary entrance of three multi -family buildings and the community building as required by this code section.
The Project is also inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Map establishes the pattern and arrangement of land uses in Jurupa Valley. It shows the locations and boundaries of the various land use designations and overlays. The land use designations encompass one or more “zones,” as described in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Zoning im plements the General Plan by setting specific use requirements and development standards for each zone.
Within each land use designations, one or more zones may be associated with that designation, depending upon the specific types of land uses to be allowed/encouraged. Table 2.5 shows the relationship of General Plan Land Use Designations and Zones. For more information on Zones and development regulations, refer to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Official Zoning Map.” The General Plan identifies that the City’s zoning ordinance establishes the specific use requirements and development standards. As noted above, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s zoning ordinance as the Project did not apply for a site development permit for the childcare center.
(b) Government Code Section 65589.5(j) provides that when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
The Project does not comply with the objective General Plan and zoning standards.
The Project includes a childcare center. Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section
9.80.0202(A)(25) provides that a childcare center is allowed in the R -3 zone with a site development permit. Wakeland has not submitted an application for a site Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
development permit for the child care center and, therefore, the Project does not comply with the City’s zoning ordinance.
In addition, Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.240.120(6)(c)(ii) provides that “accessible parking spaces shall be located so as to provide for safety and optimum proximity to curb ramps or other pedestrian ways thereby, providing the most direct access to the primary entrance of the building served by the parking lot.” The accessible parking spaces do not provide direct access to the primary entrance of three multi -family buildings and the community building as required by this code section.
Moreover, as noted above, the Project does not comply with objective standards set forth in the Mobility Element of the General Plan. Specifically, Mobility Element Policy ME 2.11 states that the City “ [r]equire[s] street improvements as a condition of new developments, including undergrounding of utility lines, installation of fiber optic cable and other utilities, sidewalk, curb, gutter and street pave-out, bicycle and equestrian facilities, street lighting (where appropriate), street trees and landscaping.” ME 3.21 states that the City “ [r]equire[s] safe pedestrian walkways that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements within commercial, office, industrial, mixed use, residential, and recreational developments.” ME 8.10 states that “Developers shall be responsible for right-of-way dedication and improvements that provide access to and enhance new developments. Improvements include street construction or widening, new paving, frontage improvements like curb, gutter, sidewalks, street trees, trails and parkways, installation of traffic signals, pavement markings and annunciators, and other facilities needed for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, and motor vehicles.” The Project does not propose to construct any sidewalks in contravention of the above referenced General Plan policies.
As the Project does not meet the above referenced objective General Plan and zoning standards, the Project can be denied. Moreover, as discussed in subsection (a)(1) above, the Project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety as Wakeland has not proposed to construct any sidewalk improvements as required by the Mobility Element, and there is no way to mitigate the adverse impact without constructing the necessary sidewalk improvements.
Section 7. Denial of Density Bonus Application . The density bonus application is denied because the Project is being denied.
Section 8. Denial of Master Application No. 24164. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby denies Master Application No. 24164 comprised of Site Development Permit (SDP24074) to construct an 80- unit affordable housing project consisting of 28 supportive housing units and 51 affordable housing units, and one manager’s unit, a 2,560 square foot community building, and 6,463 square foot child daycare center at the northeast corners of Camino Real and Limonite Avenue, and Camino Real and Canyon Terrace Drive, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 185-460-001, 185-470-001, 185-470-002.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
Section 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 26th day of June, 2025.
______________________________
Brian Berkson
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Maria Morris, CMC
City Clerk
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Maria Morris, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-100 was duly adopted and passed at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 26th day of June, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: C OUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: C OUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: C OUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________
Maria Morris
CITY CLERK
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Resolution No. PC-2025-06
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Chair Pruitt, Chair Pro TemShultz, CommissionersDe La
Torre, andNewman
CommissionerRosales
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Project Plan Set
(Architectural, Civil, and Landscape Plans)
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Appeal of Director's Action to Planning Commission
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
1 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC ATTACHMENT “A”
MA24164
EXPLANATION OF THE APPEAL
Executive Summary
In response to the Notice of Decision issued February 13, 2025, Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation (the “Applicant”) is appealing this decision in accordance with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (“JVMC”) Section 9.05.105. The Community Development Director erred in its decision for the following reasons:
• The City did NOT use Objective standards , as required by the State’s Housing Accountability Act, to justify its statement that the Project is not a Supportive Housing Project.
• The Project should be processed by-right regardless of whether the Project is a Supportive Housing Project based on the following provisions in the City’s Housing Element:
o Multi-Family Ministerial Review. The City’s Housing Element purports that all multi- family housing with 10% restricted affordable is processed via a Ministerial Site Development Permit (Housing Element, Page 5-85), but the City’s Zoning Code is not consistent with this statement.
o R-3 Zone Multi-Family By Right. The City’s Housing Element purports that all multi- family housing in the R-3 Zone is allowed by right (Housing Element, Page 5-88), but the City’s Zoning Code requires Site Development Permits for all development in the R-3 Zone.
• The City did NOT make the required findings pursuant to:
o The Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)) and o State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915(d) and (e)).
The City did NOT use Objective Standards to make its decision, as required by the Housing Accountability Act
The City has determined the Project is not eligible to be processed as a Supportive Housing Project. The eligibility requirement in question is written in Gov. Code Section 65651(a)(5):
Nonresidential floor area shall be used for onsite supportive services and administrative office space in the following amounts:
(B) For a development with more than 20 units, at least 3 percent of the total floor area shall be provided for onsite supportive services that are limited to tenant use, including, but not limited to, community rooms, case management offices, computer rooms, and community kitchens.
(C) The total floor area dedicated to administrative office space shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
2 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC The Project includes a 2,718 SF Community Buil ding, which co mprises 3.57% of the Project’s total proposed floor area (75,922 SF), and which includes administrative office space, a computer room, a community kitchen and laundry facilities.
The City has interpreted that this building does not meet the definition of “onsite” for the following reasons identified in the February 13, 2025 Notice of Decision and included in Figure 1 on the following page:
• The supportive services are located on a separate legal parcel from the housing units. • There is a 300-foot separation between the nearest proposed housing unit and the building offering services.
• Residents of the housing units would need to cross a public street to access the Community Building.
• The supportive housing is intended to service a target population that includes homeless veterans, who may have physical disabilities and would require the use of wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
• Those that use wheelchairs and mobility devices would have difficulty accessing the other site since there are no off -site improvements such as sidewalks that provide accessible and continuous paths between and around the two sites.
Figure 1. Screenshot of the Notice of Decision Findings Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
3 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC State Law does not objectively exclude large sites or sites with more than one parcel from being eligible from supportive housing. State Law does not specify an objective distance within which the supportive services must be provided , although the Notice of Decision has cited 300 feet .
State Law does not differentiate between project sites on contiguous lots and project sites on adjacent lots, although the Notice of Decision states the public street that divides the site would disqualify the project. State Law does not change its approach to the location of supportive services if the target population has a physical disability, although the Notice of Decision implies that supportive housing projects with physically disab led residence have different requirements than other supportive housing projects. Lastly, State Law does not reflect on whether there are existing sidewalks surrounding the project, but the Notice of Decision concludes that the proposed pedestrian improvements designed to connect the proposed accessible path-of-travel across the public street, as shown on the civil plans submitted with the application, are not sufficient.
Reasonable Person Standard
In accordance with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code Section 65915(f) (4)), a housing development project shall be deemed consistent with Objective Standards if substantial evidence exists allowing a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent.
The Housing Accountability Act, Gov. Code Section 65589.5(f)(9), defines “Objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies,” as follows:
For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” means criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public o fficial before submittal , including, but not limited to, any standard, ordinance, or policy… In the event that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed project.
Onsite Definition
Gov. Code Section 65651(a) does not define “onsite.” Absent an official definition in State Law, one could find definitions of “onsite” elsewhere, such as a dictionary, or find related definitions in the local Zoning Code or State Law. Some definitions of site, Building Site, Project and on-site are provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Definitions of Site, Building Site, On-Site and Off-Site Word Source Definition Example Sentences
Site Oxford English
Dictionary1
An area of land occupied by
a building, town, etc…, or
which is set apart for some
purpose.
N/A
1 Oxford English Dictionary: https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=site Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
4 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC Word Source Definition Example Sentences
Site
Merriam
Webster2
a: the spatial location of an
actual or planned structure
or set of structures (such as
a building, town, or
monuments)
b: a space of ground
occupied or to be occupied
by a building
N/A
Dictionary.com3
1. The position or location
of a town, building, etc.,
especially as to its
environment.
2. The area or exact plot of
ground on which
anything is, has been, or
is to be located.
the site of our summer
cabin,
the site of ancient Troy.
Building
Site
JVMC Section
9.10.190
The ground area of a
building or buildings
together with all open
spaces adjacent thereto, as
required by this chapter.
N/A
Project CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378
The term “project” refers to
the activity which is being
approved and which may be
subject to several
discretionary approvals by
governmental agencies.
The term “project” does not
mean each separate
governmental approval.
On-Site
Merriam
Webster4
At a particular place
especially of business.
printed on-site
on-site day care
on-site inspections
on-site parking
Dictionary.com5
Adj. Accomplished or
located at the site of a
particular activity or
happening.
Adv. on or at a particular
site.
Faculty, staff, and graduate
students have two options
for on-site childcare.
They treated the wounded
on-site before putting them
on a helicopter for
evacuation.
Oxford English
Dictionary6
Situated or occurring on a
particular site.
2 Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/site 3 Dictionary.com: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/site 4 Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on-site. Accessed 21 Feb. 2025. 5 Dictionary.com: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/on-site 6 Oxford English Dictionary: https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=on-site Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
5 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC In land use, it is common to refer to a site as a “Project Site,” which does not have an official definition, but is commonly considered to be the site of the Project or site of the activity which is being approved. The proposed supportive housing project, which includes housing, supportive services and childcare center, is proposed across a large, irregularly shaped, 15.56-acre site with a nearly 200-foot grade change that is divided by a public street (the “Project Site”). A reasonable person would not conclude the location of the proposed community building is not within the Project Site based on the available definitions of site, Building Site, Project and on-site.
In conc lusion, although State Law does not define “onsite,” the City has crafted a subjective definition of “onsite” that a reasonable person is unlikely to conclude on their own. Provided that the proposed supportive services are within the same Project Site as the proposed housing, both of which are proposed within a development unified by common ownership, architectural design, landscape program and accessible path of travel (despite contradictory statements in the Notice of Decision), the proposed supportive services objectively satisfy the on site supportive service requirement and should not provide grounds for denying the project as a “use by right.” The Project should be processed by-right for reasons stated in the City’s Housing Element The City’s Housing Element states the following:
Figure 2. Housing Element Page 5-88
If the above statement in the City’s Housing Element were true, the Project would only need to be reviewed in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. However, all uses in the R-3 Zone require a Site Development Permit as required by JVMC Section 9.80.020(A).
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
6 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC The City’s Housing Element also states the following:
Figure 3. Housing Element Page 5-85
If the above statement in the City’s Housing Element were true, the Project would be eligible for ministerial review because it is proposing 100% of the total units to lower income households , excluding one manager’s unit. However, the City’s multi-family residential development standards do not allow for ministerial review and instead include a slew of subjective standards, such as the requirement for a pro ject’s architectural style to be “Spanish Colonial, Craftsman, Victorian, California Bungalow, American Farmhouse, or California Ranch ” (JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(11)(d), or the requirement that all multi-family housing developers prepare a traffic impact assessment, a cultural resources report and a Phase 1 assessment and then incorporate the mitigations identified in those reports (JVMC Section 9.240.545(B)(12)).
Notice of Decision does NOT make the required findings
Findings Required by the Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act, Gov Code Section 65589.5(d), prohibits a local agency from denying an affordable housing development project , such as the project proposed by the Applicant, unless it makes written findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record (i.e. evidence that has a more convincing force than that opposed to it), as to one of the following:
(1) Has the City already exceeded its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) requirements?
Gov Code Section 65589.5(d)(1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article , and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
7 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.
Not only does the Notice of Decision not mention the City’s Housing Element or regional housing need allocation, but the City is neither in compliance with its own Housing Element goals, objectives and policies nor has it met its RHNA numbers, outlined in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4. Table 5.34 of the City’s Housing Element – 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Summary (2) Does the Project have an unmitigable Specific Adverse Impact Upon the Public Health or Safety (as defined)?
Gov Code Section 65589.5(d)(2): The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety:
(A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. (B) The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
As written in “findings” within the Notice of Decision, the “findings identify the project’s failure to comply with the Jurupa Valley General Plan policies, which results in specific, adverse impacts upon the public health and safety…” and then proceeds to identify several provisions within the Zoning Code from which the Applicant could either easily mitigate (ie, the landscape architect can remove a proposed tree within 10 feet of a driveway) or that the Applicant has requested incentives or waivers for relief in accordance with SDBL.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
8 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC However, requests for incentives and waivers pursuant to SDBL are prohibited from being reasons a project is not consistent with a Zoning Ordinance. The Housing Accountability Act states:
Gov Code Section 65589.5(j)(3): For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed hous ing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.
Additionally, the Housing Accountability Act explicitly prohibits using inconsistencies with a zoning ordinance as a Specific, Adverse Impact and subsequent memos issued by the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) have clarified that potential impacts to community character do not create a Specific, Adverse Impact (see Figure 5 below).
Figure 5. Excerpt from HCD’s Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory7 However, the City’s findings include statements such as: “ The proposed wall would obstruct visibility along Camino Real, creating adverse visual impacts contrary to policy objectives.
Alternative wall treatments, such as terraced or stepped designs, could better align with scenic corridor policies while improving stability and reducing visual obstructions ”. This finding states “adverse visual impacts” are impacts on public health and safety, which is completely disconnected from objective, identified written public health or safety standards.
Even if an “adverse visual impact” was legitimate, the City’s findings offer potential alternatives.
The intention behind Gov Code Section 65589.5(d) (2) is that a City can only deny a project if there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact . The City’s findings contradict this requirement.
The City also cites the Project Site’s location within a Very High Fire Severity Zone as contributing toward a Significant, Adverse Impact. While the Applicant has been working with the Riverside County Fire Department, Fire Department approval is not a stated requirement on the City’s list of entitlement application requirements , as mandated by the Permit Streamlining Act in accordance with Gov Code Section 65940 8 (see Exhibit “A ” for t he City’s list of application requirements in effect at the time the application was submitted) and thus, cannot be used to deny an application for a Housing Development Project.
7 See here: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community -development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/hcd- memo-on-haa-final-sept2020.pdf
8 Gov Code Section 65940(a)(1) states, “Each public agency shall compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project.” Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
9 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC Moreover, the standard of review is based on a Preponderance of Evidence. The Notice of Decision states that “fire safety is an important consideration since the target population includes veterans who may have physical disabilities. Therefore, the project cannot proceed without addressing these fire safety requirements in compliance with the applicable policies.” Since Fire Clearance is not a listed Planning application requirement, the Project could continue to resolve Fire Department comment s while preparing construction drawings and/or could have been conditioned to comply with Fire’s comments. Is it really a greater risk to the health and safety of the target population to live in a housing development that was still addressing Fire Department comments during Planning review than to remain unhoused? (3) Are there no feasible methods to comply with specific state or federal laws? Gov Code Section 65589.5(d) (3): The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
The Project does not violate any state or federal laws. On the contrary, the Project would advance state law, especially provisions designed to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and satisfy the parameters set forth under Government Code section 65008, known as Anti -Discrimination in Land Use Law. As described by HCD, “This statute provides that no city shall enact or administer its laws so as to “prohibit or discriminate against any residential development … because the development … is intended for occupancy by persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income.” (Gov. Code, § 65008, subd. (b).) Likewise, no jurisdiction may impose requirements on a residential use by persons in a protected class, including person s with disabilities and persons of very low, low, moderate, or middle income, other than those generally imposed upon other residential uses. (Gov. Code, § subd. (d)(2)(A).) These provisions are pertinent to the project as the units will be reserved for lower-income individuals and families.”9 (4) Is the Project Site zoned for agricultural or resource preservation? Gov Code Section 65589.5(d)(4): The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project.
The Project Site is located within the R -3 Zone and the Medium -High Density Residential (“MHDR”) General Plan Land Use Designation , which is not intended for agricultural use or resource preservation.
(5) Does the jurisdiction have a compliant Housing Element and the housing development project is inconsistent with both the applicable zone AND general plan land use designation?
Gov Code Section 65589.5(d)(5): On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised 9 HCD Techni cal Assistance Letter on By -Right Supportive H ousing: Sutter Creek/Amadour County Permanent Supportive Housing Project – Letter of Technical Assistance, By-Right Permanent Supportive Housing Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
10 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan.
(A) This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capac ity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
The proposed supportive housing project and associated childcare facility are both permitted uses within the R-3 Zone and MHDR general plan land use designation , although all uses in the R-3 Zone require a Site Development Permit as required by JVMC Section 9.80.020(A).
Whether the City is in compliance with its Housing Element is ultimately a determination made by HCD. However, the City is in clear violation with s everal of its Housing Element goals, policies and commitments identified in Section H and Appendix D of the City’s Housing Element, including:
Goal HE 1: Encourage and where possible, assist in the development of quality housing to meet the City’s share of the region’s housing needs for all income levels and for all special needs populations.
Policy HE 1.2: Affordable Housing. Encourage affordable residential development on sites zoned to allow multi-family residential uses and identified in the vacant land inventory, the City will adopt development incentives and standards to encourage lot consolidation, and to allow residential development at a density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre in the Highest Density Residential (HHDR) designation, where appropriate.
Policy HE 1.4: Housing Diversity. Encourage the development of diverse housing types and housing densities to best meet the needs of the community.
Policy HE 1.6 Availability of Suitable Sites. Ensure the availability of suitable sites for the development of affordable housing to meet the needs of all household income levels, including special needs populations.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
11 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC Policy HE 1.8 Housing for Homeless Persons and Those at Risk of Homelessness.
In cooperation with other cities and/or the County of Riverside, assist in the development of emergency, transitional, permanent supportive housing and low barrier navigation centers for homeless persons and families and those at risk of homelessness.
Policy HE 1.9 Housing for All Special Needs Groups. Ensure and encourage the availability of housing to all Special needs populations and income levels.
Policy HE 1.13 Code and Fee Transparency. Ensure the City’s planning and development processes regulations and fees are readily accessible and transparent.
Action HE 1.1.24 Code and Fee Transparency. Regularly review and update the City’s website and other materials to ensure that planning and development processes, regulations and fees are readily accessible and transparent.
Objective. Encourage and assist the feasibility of private development of affordable housing for lower income house holds and special needs groups, including the development of multi-family affordable units.
Action HE 1.1.4. Affordable Housing Incentives. Consider establishing incentives for developers of new housing that is affordable to lower income households and special needs groups, such as: fast track/priority application and permit processing, density bonuses and/or fee waivers, assist affordable housing developers with right-of-way acquisition, off-site infrastructure improvements and other development costs, and assist in securing federal or state housing financing resources. Incentives should be considered for new housing developments of 100 or more units in which at least 10% of total units are sold or rented at prices affordable to households with incomes below 80% of the Riverside County Area Median Income (AMI).
Action HE 1.1.10. City Development Fees. Develop a sliding scale fee assistance program where the amount and type of City development fees may be waived by the City Council based on the number of affordable units proposed (i.e., as the number of affordable units increases, the amount of fee waiver increases).
Goal HE 2: Conserve and improve the housing stock, particularly housing affordable to lower income and special housing needs households.
Objective: Remove or mitigate governmental constraints to housing such as outmoded, unnecessary, conflicting and excessive requirements.
Action HE 2.1.9: Remove Government Constraints. Evaluate the zoning ordinance, subdivision requirements, and other City regulations to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible. Evaluate and revise as appropriate the City’s density requirements for the Highest Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
12 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC Density Residential land use designation (HHDR) to address constraints for housing development including impacts on feasibility of proposals.
Goal HE 3: Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons.
Policy HE 3.1 : Fair Housing Program. Continue to support fair housing laws and organizations that provide fair housing information and enforcement.
Policy HE 3.3: Housing Opportunities for Seniors, Disabled Persons, Single Parent Households, Farmworkers, Veterans, Homeless, and all other Special Needs Groups. Encourage and, as budget allows, help support programs and activities that promote affordable housing opportunities for seniors, disabled persons, single parent household, farm workers, homeless, veterans, and all other special needs groups.
Objective: Ensure fair treatment of all persons in securing safe housing and to promote equal housing opportunities.
Policy HE 3.1.9. Amend the Zoning Ordinance . Amend the Zoning Ordinance to expand housing opportunities, as required by state and federal law, including but not limited to: amending the definition of “Family,” removing the minimum distance requirement between emergency shelters, permitting multi -family development without discretionary land use approval, providing reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, and encouraging development of a variety of housing for all income levels, such as manufactured housing, rental housing, mobile homes, single -room occupancy housing, employee housing and transitional and supportive housing.
Additionally, as previously discussed, the Housing Element states that multi-family housing in the R-3 Zone and multi -family housing with 10% restricted affordable are by right. However, these statements are inconsistent with the rules and regulations in the City’s Zoning Code. (6) Is the Project a Builder’s Remedy project?
(6) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development p roject is not a builder’s remedy project.
The Project is not a building’s remedy project.
In conclusion, the City was unable to appropriately address the findings. It failed to provide any evidence to justify the denial much less meeting the preponderance of evidence standard required by State law.
Findings Required by State Density Bonus Law
When denying an incentive related to the SDBL, Gov. Code Section 65915(d)(1) states that Cities “shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the [City] makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:” Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
13 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC (A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5,10 upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the develo pment unaffordable to low -income and moderate - income households.
(C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.
Per Gov. Code 65915(d)(4), the City “shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive” from State Density Bonus Law. The City’s SDBL ordinance conflates Incentives and Waivers, but Gov. Code Sections 65915(d) and 65915(e) clearly differentiate between the two. Incentives provide cost reductions whereas waivers allow for the physical construction of housing. Gov Code Section 65915(e)(1), which addresses waivers, states, “In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development…” The City’s findings only address 2 Incentives and 1 Waiver, although the Applicant had requested 6 Incentives and 4 waivers. Of the thre e requests for relief from otherwise applicable development standards, the City did not make the required findings as further described in Table 2 on the following page. Thus, the City did not make the required findings to deny the requests in accordance with State Density Bonus Law.
10 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. According to subparagraph (A), inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation is not a specific, adverse impact.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
14 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC Incentive/Waiver City’s Findings Response
Pedestrian
Access
(Incentive)
The project fails to provide adequate pedestrian access by omitting connections from the on -site walkways to public sidewalks, as required by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.240.545(B)(9)a.
Waiver No. 7 requests a deviation from this standard, and n o right- of-way improvements are proposed. While the site plan includes pathways connecting units to on-site recreation facilities and parking spaces on one of the two parcels, the lack of sidewalks compromises pedestrian accessibility and safety, failing t o comply with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.240.545(B)(9)a. and General Plan policies promoting connectivity and accessibility.
Additionally, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires continuous, safe, and accessible routes when they are required by the local jurisdiction pursuant to California Building Code Section11B-206.1. The absence of right -of-way improvements between the two sites and public transportation stop, a notable site arrival point, combined with the needs of the target population, which includes homeless veterans, poses specific and adverse impacts on public health and safety, as residents would be required to walk (or use wheelchairs) on right -of-way areas with steep and uneven terrain or on streets to travel between the s ites. The required standard for sidewalks on local streets, such as Canyon Terrace Drive and Camino Real, includes a 5 -foot-wide sidewalk on both sides of the right -of-way. The sidewalk must have a cross slope of
1.5%, with a maximum allowable slope of 2.0 % to ensure compliance with accessibility and drainage requirements pursuant to Riverside County Standard 105A. The proposed project fails to comply with these requirements.
The Project includes an ADA -compliant
path-of-travel across the entire Project Site,
including necessary curb i mprovements to
cross Canyon Terrace as shown on the
submitted civil drawings.
The surrounding area includes a
decomposed granite sidewalk on the west
side of Camino Real. This is the existing
condition, which is not posing any specific
adverse impacts on public health or safety
to any of the residents in the surrounding
area.
The City has provided no substantial
evidence that redeveloping a vacant site
without improving sidewalks, which are not
required for an otherwise ministerial project
that does not include a subdivision, would
create a new specific adverse impact on
public health or safety.
The intention of an incentive is to provide
cost eff iciencies to construct affordable
housing. Improving new sidewalks is
extremely costly and although the City has
not been able to point to a requirement that
the Project include the construction of new
sidewalks, the Applicant has included this
as an Incentive regardless.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
15 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC Incentive/Waiver City’s Findings Response
Parking Area
Setbacks
The project fails to comply with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.240.120(B)(6)(a)(i), which states, “Location of parking areas. No parking space shall be located within three (3) feet of any property line. No parking space located on driveways providing direct access to a street shall be located closer than thirty (30) feet from the property line at the right -of-way.” The proposed parking layout places spaces 17 feet 5 inches from the right -of-way, falling significantly short of the required setback. This reduction in setback compromises visibilit y for both pedestrians and motorists, particularly at ingress and egress points, increasing the risk of vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. The proximity of parking spaces to the right -of-way limits sightlines, potentially creating safety hazards, especially for vulnerable populations such as children and individuals with disabilities. No waiver has been requested to reduce the setback to 17 feet 5 inches. Moreover, this reduced setback poses a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety.
Although th e Applicant had initially
requested an Incentive to reduce the
parking area setback in order to maximize
the parking provided onsite, the Applicant
has since redesigned the parking layout to
eliminate this request in response to the
City’s Zoning Compatibility Letter . Thus,
this finding is no longer applicable.
Height of Wall
Along Camino
Real
The proposed Wakeland Camino Terrace Project includes a retaining wall along Camino Real, with sections reaching 14 and 18 feet in height. The wall is proposed at a zero setback from Camino Real, conflicting with multiple regulatory and policy standards. T he retaining wall does not comply with Section 9.240.545(B)(7)(d) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, which limits wall height to 42 inches within 20 feet of a street. The proposed 18 -foot wall significantly exceeds this restriction.
Additionally, the wall conflicts with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS 9.6, which requires the preservation of scenic views along designated scenic corridors. The proposed wall would obstruct visibility along Camino Real, creating adverse vis ual impacts contrary to policy objectives. Alternative wall treatments, such as terraced or stepped designs, could better align with scenic corridor policies while improving stability and reducing visual obstructions. Since the project design is not compat ible for the location, it does not meet objective design standards and poses a risk to health and safety. Given these conflicts, the retaining wall The City has provided no substantial
evidence that an 18 -foot wall, which is
necessary in order to develop housing on a
site with a significant gr ade change, poses
any threat to public health and safety. See
Figures 6 and 7 on the following page
wherein very tall retaining walls are not
causing any imminent threat to public health
and safety.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
16 February 27, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC Incentive/Waiver City’s Findings Response
component does not meet development standards, and the project cannot be supported in its current form.
Figure 6. Retaining Wall in the Sepulveda Pass Figure 7. Retaining Wall on Private Residence driveway Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Appeal of Planning Commission
Decision to City Council
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
1 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
ATTACHMENT “A”
MA24164, SDP24074, AP25001
EXPLANATION OF THE APPEAL
Execut
ive Summary
The Com
munity Development Director and Planning Commission erred in their decisions to deny the non-discretionary application for a new housing developing consisting of 80 homes for lower income households and veterans exiting homelessness with on-site services designed to help residents thrive including childcare, case management, financial literacy and other personalized services (the “Project”). There is an extreme need for this type of housing in Jurupa Valley as the most recent Homeless Count identified around 100 individuals experiencing homelessness in the City and the Housing Element estimates over 2,000 Extremely Low-income households.1 The Pr
oject is proposed by Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation (the “Applicant”), a non-profit leader in building and operating affordable and supportive housing throughout California, responsible for creating more than 8,700 affordable homes across 66 properties, including many in Riverside County. The Project has been awarded funding from the California Department of Housing and Community Development ( “HCD”) and services will be provided in partnership with the VA and Lighthouse Social Service Centers.
The Pr
oject is proposed on a site that was purchased by the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Riverside in 2006 with funds requiring the site be used for affordable housing. In 2012, the land was transferred to the successor agency, the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside , which currently owns the site.
At i
ts meeting on April 28, 2025, the Planning Commission voted to deny the Project and issued a Notice of Decision on April 29, 2025. The Applicant is appealing Planning Commission’ s decision to deny the Project for the following reasons:
1. Suppor
tive Housing Eligibility. The Project is consistent with Supportive Housing eligibility requirements specified by both the City and State Law. Thus, the Project is a qualifying Supportive Housing Project and must be approved as a use-by-right.2 a. Impr
oper Use of Subjective Judgment instead of Objective Standards.3 The City purports the Supportive Housing Project does not qualify based on unwritten, subjective interpretations of Supportive Housing eligibility requirements. This is in violation of State Law (see Exhibit “A” for HCD Notice of Potential Violation dated April 24, 2025).
1 Jurupa Valley General Plan HE Table 5.15 (page 5-26). 2 Government (“Gov”) Code Section 65583.2(i) defines “use by right” as “the local government’s review of the owner - occupied or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.” 3 Housing Accountability Act (Gov Code Section 65585.5 et seq) limits local review of Housing Development Projects to Objective Standards defines as “criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal…”
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
2 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
2. Compliance with all Applicable Standards. The Project, as designed, is compliant with applicable standards in the local code, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the California Building Code.
a. Accessibility. The Project includes accessible paths of travel within the boundaries of the Project Site throughout the interior of site, including connections between all buildings, open spaces, across and ADA parking. The City points to conditions outside of the site, which are not regulated by the ADA or CBC. Further, no City code requires that private developers build sidewalks in the adjacent public right of way.
b. Zoning Code Development Standards. The project is either designed to be consistent with or made consistent through State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”) with all applicable development standards within the zoning code.
3. Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) Required Findings. The City did NOT make the HAA-required findings to deny an affordable housing project, specifically:
a. Specific, Adverse Impacts. 4 The City has not provided any evidence that the Project would create a Specific, Adverse Impact upon public health and safety, let alone satisfied the HAA -mandated finding that there is a preponderance of evidence the Project would create a Specific, Adverse Impact upon public health and safety that cannot be mitigated. Instead, the City’s findings cite existing conditions, unenforceable General Plan elements and a clear misreading of the ADA requirements.
Because the City erred in denying the Supportive Housing Development for the above reasons, the Applicant is appealing the Planning Commission’s denial in accordance with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (“JVMC”) Section 9.05.100. The Project is not discretionary and objectively consistent, or can be conditioned to be consistent with, all local and State requirements. Additionally, the City has not provided evidence of Specific, Adverse Impacts that would be created by the Project, as is required for a denial per State Law .
Thus, the Applicant requests City Council approve the Project as submitted.
In addition to the justifications outlined above, the City’s zoning code is inconsistent with its Housing Element in several ways that have created obstacles in obtaining approval to construct new housing. The City’s Housing Element requires by -right processing of affordable housing at the Project Site to meet its RHNA targets based on the following provisions:
a. Suitable Sites Inventory. The Project Site was listed as a Pipeline Project in the County’s 4
th Cycle Housing Element, as well as a Suitable Site on the City’s 5th and 6th Cycle Housing Elements. Both State Housing Element Law5 and City HE Action
4 HAA defines Specific, Adverse Impacts as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions… The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety: (A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation” (Gov Code Section 65589.5(d)(2)).
5 Gov Code Section 65583.2 (c) states: “…a vacant site that has been included in two or more consecutive planning periods that was not approved to develop a portion of the locality’s housing need shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower income households that must be accommodated in the current housing element planning period unless the site is zoned at residential densities consistent with paragraph (3) of this subdivision and the site is subject to a program in the housing element requiring rezoning by the applicable deadline Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
3 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Item 1.1.1 6 require rezoning or housing overlays to make sites available for by - right processing when housing projects include at least 20% restricted affordable on vacant sites identified as a suitable site in two consecutive housing elements (see Exhibit “B” for HCD’s March 14, 2025, Letter of Inquiry regarding the City’s compliance with this rezoning effort);
b. Multi-Family Ministerial Review. The City’s Housing Element purports that all multi-family housing with 10% restricted affordable is processed via a Ministerial Site Development Permit (Housing Element, Page 5-85), but the City’s Zoning Code is not consistent with this statement;
c. R-3 Zone Multi-Family By Right. The City’s Housing Element purports that all multi-family housing in the R -3 Zone is allowed by right (Housing Element, Page 5-88), but the City’s Zoning Code requires Site Development Permits for all development in the R-3 Zone.
d. HE Action 1.1.6 Affordable Housing Development Review. The City’s Housing Element directs staff to “Develop SB35 expedited review process guide and qualification checklist for the development of affordable housing units in the City for developers.” The Project is eligible for SB 35 streamlining; however, the City has refused to carry out this process.
e. RHNA Commitments. The City has committed to permitting 4,497 units.
According to HCD”s Housing Element Implementation and Annual Progress Report dashboard,
7 the City has only permitted 441 units or 9.8% of its RHNA targets at 50% through the 6 th Cycle and none of the permitted units have been deed restricted for income-qualifying households
for rezoning set forth in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households.” 6 HE Action Item 1.1.1: General Plan and Zoning Amendments … address all byright requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i); and amend the Zoning Ordinance as appropriate to be consistent with the General Plan.
7 HCD Annual Progress Report dashboard: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community -development/housing- element-implementation-and-apr-dashboard
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
4 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
1. Supportive Housing Eligibility
Jurupa Valley Supportive Housing Requirements (JVMC Section 9.240.555)
On May 4, 2023, the City Council adopted a Zoning Code Amendment in Ordinance No. 2023- 08 8 to add JVMC Section 9.240.555 9 for ministerial processing of Supportive Housing Projects .
JVMC Section 9.240.555.B(1) states:
Supportive housing shall be permitted by right in any zone where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted if the proposed housing development satisfies all requirements of Government Code Section 65651(a).”
State Supportive Housing Requirements (Gov Code Section 65651(a)) 10 AB 2162 (2018) created a by -right approval process for housing development projects meeting specific requirements detailed in Gov Code Section 65651(a) (“Supportive Housing Projects”).
See Table 1 below for the Project’s consistency with these requirements.
Table 1. Project Compliance with Supportive Housing Eligibility Requirements Gov Code Section 65651(a) Project Compliance
(1) Units within the development are subject to
a recorded affordability restriction for 55 years.
The Project will provide deed-restricted
housing for lower income households for a
minimum 55 years.
(2) One hundred percent of the units,
excluding managers’ units, within the
development are restricted to lower income
households and are or will be receiving public
funding to ensure affordability of the housing
to lower income Californians…
The Project will provide 100% of units,
excluding one unrestricted manager’s unit, for
lower income households.
(3) At least 25 percent of the units in the
development or 12 units, whichever is greater,
are restricted to residents in supportive
housing who meet criteria of the target
population…11
The Project will provide 28 units (35%) of the
units for unhoused veterans.
8 See Ordinance No. 2023-08:
https://library.municode.com/ca/jurupa_valley/ordinances/municipal_code?nodeId=1218844 9 See JVMC Section 9.240.555:
https://library.municode.com/ca/jurupa_valley/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT9PLZO_CH9.240GEPR_S9.240.555 SUHO
10 See Gov Code Section 65651:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65651.&lawCode=GOV 11 Gov Code Section 65650(d) refers to Health and Safety Code Section 50675.14 to define Target Population, which states that “Target Population” means “persons, including persons with disabilities, and families who are ‘homeless…’” Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Supportive Housing Eligibility
5 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Gov Code Section 65651(a) Project Compliance
(4) The developer provides the planning
agency with the information required by
Section 65652:
(a) The name of the proposed entity or
entities that will provide supportive
services.
(b) The proposed funding source or
sources for the provided onsite
supportive services.
(c) Proposed staffing levels.
(a) Lighthouse Social Service Center,
(b) California Department of Housing and
Community Development Veteran’s
Housing and Homeless Prevention
funds (“VHHP”)
(c) 2 staff.
(5) Nonresidential floor area shall be used for
onsite supportive services and administrative
office space in the following amounts:
(B) For a development with more than
20 units, at least 3 percent of the total
floor area shall be provided for onsite
supportive services that are limited to
tenant use, including, but not limited to,
community rooms, case management
offices, computer roo
ms, and
community kitchens.
The Project proposes more than 3% of its total
floor area for services meeting this
requirement as further detailed below:
Use SF % of
Total
Residential 66,857 88%
Supportive Services
Building
(residents only)
2,718 4%
Child Care Building
(open to residents &
general public)
6,347 8%
Total 75,922 100%
(6) The developer replaces any dwelling units
on the site of the supportive housing
development in the manner provided in
paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section
65915.
There are no existing units on-site.
(7) Units within the development, excluding
managers’ units, include at least one
bathroom and a kitchen or other cooking
facilities, including, at minimum, a stovetop, a
sink, and a refrigerator.
All units will include a kitchen and a bathroom.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Supportive Housing Eligibility
6 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
1.a Objective Review of “On-Site” Supportive Services
The Housing Accountability Act (Gov Code Section 65589.5 et seq.) requires Housing Development Projects be reviewed in accordance with Objective Standards, defined as:
[C]riteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal…
The Planning Commission determined that the presence of a public street through the Project Site precludes the Project from being a Supportive Housing Project with the following finding:
The Project is bisected by Canyon Terrace Drive, dividing it into two separate sites: the
5.88-acre southern portion, which includes six multi -story multifamily buildings with 28 supportive housing units, 51 affordable units and one manager’s unit, and the 9.65-acre northern portion, which contains a 2,560-square-foot community building with supportive services, laundry facilities, and outdoor spaces, along with a 6,463-square-foot child daycare center. As the supportive services are provided on a separate site and not on the same site as the supportive housing, the Project does not meet the requirement of providing onsite supportive services.
12 Because the definition of onsite is not defined by law, the City came to this conclusion using personal or subjective judgment. There is nothing in State Law or otherwise that prohibits a Supportive Housing Project from being developed on a large, campus-like project site or on a site divided by a public street. HCD has reviewed AB 2162 eligibility requirements and also concluded that “there is nothing in AB 2162 that would prohibit a site that is divided by a roadway from serving as a single permanent supportive housing development.” See Figure 1 below and Exhibit “A.”
Figure 1. Excerpt from HCD’s Notice of Potential Violation (April 24, 2025)
Although AB 2162 does not explicitly contemplate project sites divided by public streets, two other similar streamlining programs do address this issue . Specifically, the Streamlined Ministerial Process, commonly referred to as SB 35 (Gov Code Section 65913.4(a)(2)(B)), and the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, commonly referred to as AB 2011 (Gov Code Section 65912.103(b)).
12 Resolution No. PC-2025-06, Page 3.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Supportive Housing Eligibility
7 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
SB 35 (Gov Code Section 65913.4) explicitly allows site to include multiple parcels divided by a street, stating:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (r), a development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (c) and is not subject to a conditional use permit or any other nonlegislative discretionary approval if the development complies with subdivision (b) and satisfies all of the following objective planning standards:
(2) The development and the site on which it is located satisfy all of the following:
(B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this section, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined.
AB 2011 (Gov Code Section 65912.103) states:
For purposes of establishing the total number of units in a development under this chapter, a development project includes both of the following:
(a) All projects developed on a site, regardless of when those developments occur.
(b) All projects developed on sites adjacent to a site developed pursuant to this chapter if, after January 1, 2022, the adjacent site had been subdivided from the site developed pursuant to this chapter.
Additionally, although AB 2162 does not define “on-site,” a “Project Site” has several common applications in land use practice. For example, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) prohibits piecemealing, the practice of "chopping up" a large project into smaller pieces if the individual project components are functionally dependent on one another. Since the proposed Community Building only provides accessory uses to the primary residential use, the Community Building cannot be independent from the rest of the project for CEQA purposes.
The provision of on-site childcare is also intricately linked to the Supportive Housing Project.
Please refer to the letter issued by the California Housing Defense Fund on April 28, 2025 (see Exhibit “C”), which states:
The provision of onsite childcare is a service that directly supports the needs of the residents of the development. While Government Code section 65651, subdivision (a)(5)(B) requires that at least 3% of the total floor area be for supportive services that are exclusively for tenant use, this section of law does not state that floor area above and beyond the 3% floor must be exclusively for tenant use.
Since the streamlining provision of AB 2162 is, in part, a CEQA exemption, it is unclear how the City proposes to review the Project by its individual parcels.
Lastly, the Project is objectively a unified development with eight operationally interdependent buildings designed with a common Craftsman Eclectic architectural style and landscape program.
An ADA-compliant pedestrian path will connect all buildings to one another as well as to all open space areas and vehicle parking. See Figure 2 on the following page.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Supportive Housing Eligibility
8 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Figure 2. Site Plan
In summary, the City’s statement that the proposed services are separate from the Project is inconsistent with State Law. The City’s conclusion that the supportive services are not on-site is an entirely subjective interpretation, which cannot be use as basis for denial.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
9 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
2. Compliance with Applicable Standards
The Staff Report in advance of the Planning Commission hearing lists several standards that Staff claims the Project is out of compliance. However, the Project, as submitted, is fully compliant with the cited standards, either through design or with SDBL, or can be made compliant with minor changes. The Applicant has offered to meet with Staff to discuss the Project on several occasions throughout the entitlement review to clarify any confusion about the Project, but Staff has yet to schedule a meeting with the Applicant’s design team to discuss any outstanding questions. Many of these misunderstandings could have been easily resolved through a dialogue with the Project Team or as a condition of approval. It is also critical to highlight that the use of Incentives and Waivers through SDBL does not make a project inconsistent with applicable Objective Standards based on the following provision in the HAA (Gov Code Section 65589.5(j)(3)):
the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.
2.a. American Disabilities Act ( “ADA”) and California Building Code (“ CBC”) Compliance
Resolution No. PC-2025-06 states, “Wakeland is refusing to comply with requirements imposed by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Building Code.” This statement has no merit. There are no requirements, in either the ADA or CBC, that a private developer construct public sidewalks on public property.
The Applicant is absolutely committed to complying with all state and federal accessibility requirements and believes the Project is compliant as currently designed. This commitment has been reaffirmed in writing in its Response letter to the Planning Commission Staff Report and stated it publicly at the Planning Commission hearing. The Applicant has engaged an architect licensed by the State of California to design the project in compliance with all accessibility regulations.
13 Additionally, the Applicant has engaged a Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”) to work with the architect and review the Project for consistent with all state and federal accessibility requirements, including the ADA and CBC. Both the architect and the CASp report that the Project’s site access is consistent with all ADA requirements. If the City is concerned about accessibility, the City can condition the Project to be consistent with Objective ADA standards; however, the Applicant is legally obligated to comply with the ADA and CBC regardless of such a condition.
The City cites CBC 11B-206.2.1
14 and the following regarding Site Arrival Points (see Figure 3 on following page):
13 Rodriguez Associates Architects & Planners, Inc. For more information regarding the architect, see here:
https://www.ra-architects.net/principal
14 CBC Section 11B.206.2.1, actually says: At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger drop-off and loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve. When more than one route is provided, all routes must be accessible. site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access.”
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Compliance with Applicable Standards
10 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Figure 3. Page 5 from Resolution No. PC-2025-06
This code section clearly describes site access requirements within the site and not beyond the boundaries of the site. The City implies that this ADA requirement means that a private developer is required to construct new sidewalks outside the boundaries of private property to a public transportation stop. However, this is a misreading of the requirement, which actually says that if there is a public transportation stop serving the project within the boundaries of the site, then there must be an ADA path of travel from that public transportation stop to the facility its serving. Given that this requirement also applies to hospitals and government facilities throughout the State, it is logical that new hospital buildings have an ADA connection to a public transit stop serving that hospital. However, it is rare for a public transit route to be tailored specifically to serve a housing project, let alone a housing project with only 80 dwelling units.
The Project does meet CBC accessibility requirements within the boundaries of the site, as designed, and includes a 5-foot wide, ADA-compliant pedestrian path connecting all buildings throughout the Project Site including proposed ADA-compliant curb ramps at the intersection of Canyon Terrace and Camino Real. This intersection improvement has been shown on the civil drawings provided with each application submittal since June 21, 2024.
Figure 4. Civil Drawings with ADA curb cuts submitted June 2024
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Compliance with Applicable Standards
11 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Please note, Planning is not the agency responsible for reviewing off -site improvements.
For Planning’s review of zoning consistency, the Applicant submitted conceptual entitlement drawings, as these matters are typically reserved for the permitting phase of the project. As a result, Planning can broadly condition the Project to be consistent with ADA requirements, but the City should not be using ADA compliance as a reason to deny the project for zoning consistency.
General Plan Policies
The City has also cited policies in the General Plan as a reason the Project is not consistent with the applicable Objective Standards. However, Page 1-9 of the City’s General Plan, as shown in Figure 5 below, clearly states the role of the General Plan:
General Plan becomes the basis for land use and other important municipal decisions; however, the Plan itself is not a regulation. The General Plan is implemented through zoning regulations, adopted standards, and other City laws.
As stated within the General Plan, the policies in the General Plan (including the Mobility Element) provide direction for the City to prepare implementation ordinances accordingly. These policies are not intended to be public health and safety standards and they are not Objective standards for private developers manifest. Since the City has not yet adopted an implementation ordinance for non-subdivision housing developments to make off-site improvements, the referenced Mobility Plan policies are limited to an advisory role.
Figure 5. Jurupa Valley General Plan Planning Context
The City has failed to provide an Objective Standard that requires private developers to construct new off-site improvements.
15 15 Resolution No. PC -2025-06 states that the Applicant is requesting an Incentive for relief from constructing new sidewalks. While the Applicant has requested relief from a requirement to connect the on-site pedestrian path to a public sidewalk since there are no existing sidewalks, the Applicant is not requesting relief from a requirement to construct sidewalks because the City has yet to provide a requirement as such.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Compliance with Applicable Standards
12 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
2.b. Consistency With Applicable Development Standards
PROJECT SUMMARY
Development
Standard Code Section(s) Required/Permitted Proposed
Density
Land Use Element
Table 2.4,
Gov Code Section
65915(f)(3)(D)(i)
Base Density: 126 units
80% Density Bonus: 228 units 80 units
Affordability
JVMC Section
9.240.555.B(1), Gov
Code Section
65651(a)(2)
100% of units, excluding
manager’s unit, for Lower
Income Households
100% of units, excluding
manager’s unit, for Lower Income
Households
Unit Sizes JVMC Section
9.240.110 Minimum 750 SF 593 SF
(See Unit A1, Sheet A0.1)
Lot Area JVMC Section
9.80.030(1) Minimum 7,200 SF
185470001: 121,532 SF
185470002: 134,600 SF
185460001: 420,354 SF
Setbacks –
South Site
JVMC Section
9.80.030(2) and (3)
Front
(Camino Real) 15 feet 25’
Side
(Canyon Terrace) 15 feet 57’-8”
Side (internal) 10 feet 56’-6”
Side (Limonite) 15 feet 306’-10”
Rear 15 feet 56’-11”
Setbacks –
North Site
JVMC Section
9.80.030(2) and (3)
Front
(Camino Real) 10 feet 33’-6”
Side
(Canyon Terrace) 10 feet 133’
Side
(Lakeside Drive) 10 feet 199’-4”
Rear 10 feet 428’-4”
Lot Coverage JVMC Section
9.80.030(4) Maximum 50% North Site: 2%
South Site: 11%
FAR JVMC Section
9.80.030(5) 2 to 1 North Site: 0.02 to 1
South Site: 0.26 to 1
Height JVMC Section
9.80.030(6) Maximum 50 feet Up to 37.5 feet
LEGEND Per Code Administrative SDBL SDBL Incentive SDBL Waiver Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Compliance with Applicable Standards
13 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Parking
JVMC Section
9.240.555.B(2), Gov
Code Section
65915(p), JVMC
Section
9.240.120.B(1)(b)(ii)
Day Care: 6 spaces
Residential: 71 spaces
Total: 77 spaces
North Site: 31 spaces
South Site: 74 spaces
Total: 106 spaces
(see notes below regarding
parking layout and shading
compliance, which would result in
101 spaces in lieu of 106)
Parking Layout JVMC Section
9.240.120.B(6)(a)(i) 30 feet from PL at driveway
17’-5” from PL at driveway
(South Site)
Project can be revised to comply
be eliminating 2 parking spaces.
Accessible
Parking
JVMC Section .
9.240.120(6)(c)(ii)
ADA parking to provide most
direct access to primary
entrances of buildings.
ADA parking provided to provide
the most direct access to primary
building entrances to which the
parking space serves.
Driveway
Dimensions
JVMC Section
9.240.120.B(6)(a)(ii) 24 feet At least 26 feet
Parking lot
shading
JVMC Section
9.240.120.B(7)(e)
North Site: 40%
South Site: 50%
North Site: 29%
South Site: 53.5%
Project can be revised to comply
be eliminating 3 parking spaces.
Parking lot
landscaping
screening
JVMC Section
9.240.120.B(7)(f)(i)(j)
3-foot high x 3-foot wide berm
– OR -
5-foot wide planter at right-of-way
with 3-foot high shrubbery
20-foot wide in-ground planter at
right-of-way with 3-foot high
shrubbery
Private Open
Space
JVMC Section
9.240.545.B(1)
Min. Dimensions: 8 ft x 5 ft
Min. SF – Ground Floor: 115 SF
Min. SF – Above Ground: 75 SF
Ground Level Wall Height: 6 feet
Above Ground Screen Height:
42”
Private open space will be
provided, however, Incentive
request to eliminate the private
open space requirement. Thus,
no private open space will be
designed to satisfy this
requirement.
Common
Open Space
JVMC Section
9.240.545.B(2)(c) 12,000 SF 15,555 SF
Laundry
Facilities
JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(3) 1 washer/dryer per unit Communal laundry facility with 8 washers and 8 dryers
Accessory
Storage
JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(4)(a) 35 cubic feet in dwelling unit At least 35 cubic feet in unit Accessory
Storage
JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(4)(b) 60 cubic feet outside unit 0 cubic feet Parking JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(5) Parking Management Plan Daycare parking: North Site Residential parking: South Site
Landscape
Buffer
JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(6)
20-foot landscape buffer along all
rights-of-way
20-foot landscape buffer along all
rights-of-way
Trees in
Landscape
Buffer
JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(6) Trees planted every 30 feet Trees planted every 30 feet Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Compliance with Applicable Standards
14 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Walls and
Fences -
Materials
JVMC Section
9.240.545.B(7)(a)
Concrete block walls that
includes split-face or slump stone
walls
Walls will be concrete block that
includes split-face or slump stone
walls
Walls and
Fences –
Commercial
buffer
JVMC Section
9.240.545.B(7)(b) 6-foot wall 6-foot wall
Walls and
Fences -
Height
JVMC Section
9.240.545.B(7)(d)
3.5 feet within 20 feet of street
setback 18 feet at Property Line
Buffers,
abutting
commercial
JVMC Section
9.240.545.B(8)(a) 50-foot setback 50+ foot setback
Pedestrian
Access
JVMC Section
9.240.545.B(9)
Pedestrian connection from units
to public sidewalk, parking
spaces and recreational facilities
Pedestrian connection from all
residential buildings to one
another, to parking and to open
spaces, but does not connect to
public sidewalks
Project Design JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(11)(a)
> 2 stories:
15-foot setback + 30 feet =
45 feet
21 feet 2 inches
Roof JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(11)(c)
Composition shingle roofs are
prohibited.
No composition shingle roofs are
proposed.
Architectural
Style
JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(11)(d)
Architectural Style: Spanish
Colonial, Craftsman, Victorian,
California Bungalow, American
Farmhouse or California Ranch
Craftsman
Impact
Mitigation
JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(12)
Submit Traffic Impact
Assessment, Biological
assessment, Phase I
Traffic Impact Assessment,
Biological assessment, Phase I
provided
Lighting
JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(13)
Lighting shall direct only onto
project site.
Lighting will be screened to
project only onto Project Site.
Refuse JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(14)
Per City’s solid waste hauler
franchisee
Per City’s solid waste hauler
franchisee
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
15 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
3. Housing Accountability Act Required Findings
The City did NOT provide a Preponderance of Evidence that the Project would create a Specific, Adverse Impacts upon Public Health and Safety for which there are no feasible methods to mitigate or avoid as required by Gov Code Section 65598.5(d).
Preponderance of Evidence Standard of Review
HCD defines a Preponderance of Evidence as:
Findings or determinations based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard require that local governments weigh the evidence and conclude that the evidence on one side outweighs, preponderates over, is more than the evidence on the other side, not necessarily in the number or quantity, but in its convincing force upon those to whom it is addressed. Evidence that is substantial, but not a preponderance of the evidence, does not meet this standard.
16 Specific, Adverse Impact
Gov Code Sections 65589.5(d)(2) and (j)(1)(A) defines a Specific, Adverse Impact as:
a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation is not such a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
HCD provides further clarification regarding Specific, Adverse Impacts:
An example of a condition that does not constitute a specific, adverse impact would be criteria that requires a project to conform with “neighborhood character”. Such a standard is not quantifiable and therefore would not meet the conditions set forth under the HAA. 17 It is critical to highlight that a Specific, Adverse Impact cannot be an existing condition. An existing condition is not an impact created by a future project. This clarification is necessary because the City has claimed that there will be a Specific, Adverse Impact because there are no existing sidewalks adjacent to the Project Site on the east side of Camino Real. There is no evidence that new residential development in an existing residential neighborhood without sidewalks creates a new Specific, Adverse Impact on public health and safety because there are no existing sidewalks.
Resolution No. PC-2025-06 has cited that this will create a dangerous situation because the “residents, including children, of the Project… will need to travel along Camino Real where the speed limit is 40 miles per hour in order to get to and from the Project Site and the bus stops
16 HCD, Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory, September 15, 2020. Page 13:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/hcd-memo-on-haa- final-sept2020.pdf
17 Ibid.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Housing Accountability Act Required Findings
16 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
located on the corners of Limonite Avenue and Camino Real.” If the City feels the speed that cars drive along Camino Real is creating a hazardous situation, the City should adjust the speed limit or implement other traffic calming measures. However, this is an existing condition and not an impact created by a future project.
Public Health or Safety Standards
An example of a Public Health or Safety Standard would be that according to the California Ambient Air Quality Standard, exposure to 50 µg/m
3 of particulate matter PM10 over the course
of 24 hours can result in premature mortality. If a Project were to create a release of particulate matter above this threshold and there were no feasible methods to reduce the release of particulate matter, then a Project would create a Specific, Adverse Impact on Public Health or Safety. This example would satisfy the requirement because it’s a measurable, written standard published by the California Air Resources Board
18 that could result in troubling health impacts.
However, with respect to the proposed Supportive Housing Project, there is no evidence, in the record or otherwise, that the Project will have Specific, Adverse Impact on Public Health or Safety.
On the contrary, the Project will improve public health and safety by providing affordable housing for lower income families and veterans with disabilities, providing affordable childcare for working families, clearing fire-prone invasive weeds from the property and planting over 200 new trees throughout the Project Site.
Planning Commission’s Findings do not identify a Preponderance of Evidence that the Project will create a Specific, Adverse Impact on Public Health or Safety.
The City’s findings do NOT meet the definition of a Specific, Adverse Impact because:
• The City identifies an existing condition – the lack of public sidewalks on the east side of Camino Real --not a project impact,
• The City does not identify what measurable impact the Project would have on public health or safety,
• The cited policy is a General Plan policy, not an objective public health or safety standard, and
• Even if the cited policy were an Objective Standard, State Law clearly details that inconsistency with a zoning ordinance is not a Specific, Adverse Impact on public health and safety.
Other Potential Impacts Have Already Been Studied
The City’s Development standards for Multiple family dwellings (JVMC Section 9.240.545.B(12)) require that an Applicant for a multi-family housing project submit several environmental analyses, which were submitted with the application in June 2024.
Although not specifically cited in the Planning Commission’s Findings, the Supportive Housing Project’s potential impact on traffic was discussed during the public hearing as a potential concern. As part of the original application, the Applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by a traffic engineering firm Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (see Exhibit “D”).
18 California Air Resources Board, Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10) https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Housing Accountability Act Required Findings
17 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
This report, which uses data from the ITE Trip General Manual 11 th Edition, concludes that the Project will not create a new traffic impact that would require street improvements.
The Cultural Resources Assessment, Biological Resources Assessment and Fire Protection Plan have also been completed. See Exhibit “E”. Additionally, see Exhibit “F” for the determination from the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission wherein it is determined that the Project will not create adverse impacts on airport activities and the Federal Aviation Administration aeronautical study determination that the proposed structures do not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation.
Based on the studied cited above, the Project will not have impacts or require mitigation measures regarding traffic, cultural resources, biological resources, fire safety or air navigation.
Finally, denial must be limited to projects with impacts that cannot be mitigated. Even if the “impacts” that the City has raised (including external sidewalks, internal ADA access and on-site childcare services) were found to be significant, they can all be mitigated by constructing sidewalks, ensuring ADA -compliant site design and removing the childcare facility from the project, respectively.
In conclusion, the City has failed to find a Specific Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety based on a preponderance of evidence that cannot be mitigated. Instead, the City has cited denial based on existing conditions, unenforceable General Plan elements, and clear misreadings of the ADA and California Building Code. Therefore, denial of the Supportive Housing Project must be overturned.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
18 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Housing Element – Unmet Housing Element Commitments to Meet RHNA Targets
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) may revoke a housing element’s compliance if a local government takes actions that are inconsistent with either the adopted housing element or state law. As outlined above, the City’s actions conflict with several state laws. Beyond these violations, the City’s Housing Element requires by -right processing of affordable housing at the Project Site, regardless of whether the Project is a Supportive Housing Project, to meet its RHNA targets based on the following provisions:
2.a. Suitable Sites Inventory – By-Right Processing Commitments
The Project Site was listed as a Pipeline Project in the County’s 4 th Cycle Housing Element, as
well as a Suitable Site on the City’s 5 th and 6th Cycle Housing Elements. State Housing Element Law requires rezoning to permit by-right processing for projects with 20% restricted affordable on vacant sites used in 2 consecutive housing elements (Gov Code Section 65583.2(c)).19
Accordingly, the City’s Housing Element also states that Zoning Amendments are required to permit by-right processing for multi -family housing on sites identified as a Suitable Site will be carried out by October 15, 2023:
HE Action 1.1.1. General Plan and Zoning Amendments… address all byright requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i); 20 and amend the Zoning Ordinance as appropriate to be consistent with the General Plan.
The City has reached a level of delinquency with implementing its own proposed Zoning Amendments that HCD issued a Letter of Inquiry on March 14, 2025, which says:
To ensure the City continues to meet the 6th cycle update requirements for a substantially compliant housing element, HCD requests that the City provide an update on the status and timeline of implementation of Action HE 1.1.1 by April 14, 2025, and submit any adopted rezones and accompanying resolutions to HCD for review.
HCD will consider any written response before taking further action authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i), including issuance of a Corrective Action Letter and revocation of HCD’s finding of housing element compliance.
The Applicant is unaware of how the City has responded to this inquiry. Regardless, the Applicant is familiar with the fact that the R-3 Zone requires a Site Development Permit for all multi -family housing regardless of whether a project includes 20% restricted affordable or whether the site has been identified as a suitable site on multiple consecutive Housing Elements.
19 See Gov Code Section 65583.2 here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65583.2.&nodeTreePath=12.1.10.10 &lawCode=GOV
20 Gov Code Section 65583.2(h)(1) states. “The program required by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 shall accommodate 100 percent of the need for housing for lower income households allocated pursuant to Section 65584 for which site capacity has not been identified in the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) on sites that shall be zoned to permit owner -occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households during the planning period.”
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Unmet Housing Element Commitments
19 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
The City has responded to previous comments regarding the Project Site’s inclusion as a Suitable Site by saying the Housing Element only assigned 32 above-moderate income units to the Project Site (Table A-3, HE Appendix A). However, Gov Code section 65583.2(c)(1) requires the inventory to be calculated based on minimum realistic capacity and vacant sites used on previous inventories cannot be calculated toward the affordable unit requirement. Thus, the units analyzed within the suitable sites inventory is not a maximum and the affordability assigned does not preclude projects from including more affordable.
2.b. Multi-Family Ministerial Review.
The Applicant raised concerns that the City does not have a by -right process for multi -family development with 10% restricted affordable as stated in the City’s Housing Element. This is stated as a fact within the Housing Element text on page 5-85, which says:
In 2020, the City adopted objective multifamily residential development standards (MMC
92.40.545) to facilitate the ministerial review of multifamily housing projects that reserve a minimum of 10% of the units affordable to lower income households.
However, no such program exists. The City addressed this in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. Staff’s response is copied in Figure 3 below.
Figure 6. Page 18 of the Staff Report to Planning Commission
Staff’s response is insufficient for the following reasons:
2. The Project is a multi -family housing project with on-site supportive services offered to both residents and the greater community. Supportive Housing and Multi-Family Housing uses are not mutually exclusive and most Supportive Housing Projects are also M ulti- Family Housing developments.
3. Craig Lawson & Co., LLC inquired with the City regarding any ministerial processing options for multi-family housing in February 2024. Staff provided the following response, “We confirmed that we do not have a ministerial site development permit program.” See Exhibit “G” for email correspondence regarding this topic.
2.c. R-3 Zone Multi-Family By Right.
The City’s Housing Element also purports that all multi-family housing is by-right in the R-3 Zone (see Figure 6 on the following page). If this were true, the Project would only need to be reviewed Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Unmet Housing Element Commitments
20 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. However, all uses in the R -3 Zone require a Site Development Permit as required by JVMC Section 9.80.020(A).
Figure 7. Housing Element Page 5-88
2.d. Affordable Housing Development Review – SB 35
The City’s Housing Element Objective to “Encourage and assist in the expedited housing development of affordable housing through state law qualification process to promote the production of affordable housing” includes an Action Item for the following:
HE 1.1.6: Develop SB35 expedited review process guide and qualification checklist for the development of affordable housing units in the City for developers.
The Applicant had initially submitted the Project as an SB 35 project in 2021, 21 but the City stalled
this process utilizing AB 168 despite there being no evidence of on-site cultural resources and HCD providing Technical Assistance regarding how to conclude this process. See Exhibit “H” for HCD Technical Assistance to the City on this topic. While the Project is still eligible under SB 35, the City has failed to process the application, which is “locked” in the City’s online planning permit application system.
21 See MA21351: https://aca-
prod.accela.com/JURUPA/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Planning&capID1=PLN21&capID2=00000&capID3=00713& agencyCode=JURUPA
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Unmet Housing Element Commitments
21 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
2.e RHNA Commitments
The City has committed to permitting 4,497 units, of which, 749 units are assigned for Lower Income households (HE Table 5.34). According to HCD’s Housing Element Implementation and Annual Progress Report dashboard,22 the City has only permitted 441 units, or 9.8%, of its RHNA targets, none of which have been deed-restricted for Lower Income households. Yet, the City asserts the following in its application to obtain a Prohousing Designation to HCD:
We have exceeded 150% of our Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) through targeted rezoning efforts, adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to promote affordability, and implemented policies to accelerate housing approvals, including a priority review process for affordable housing projects.
23 Since the City has only issued permits for 9.8% of its RHNA targets, its unclear how the City could have exceeded 150% of its RHNA targets except that perhaps the City has the zoning capacity for 150% of its RHNA targets . But, if the City continues to deny housing developments, it does not matter if the City’s zoning has the capacity for housing or not.
Figure 8. HCD Annual Progress Report, 6th Cycle Housing Element
22 HCD Annual Progress Report dashboard: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community -development/housing- element-implementation-and-apr-dashboard
23 City of Jurupa Valley Prohousing Designation Application:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/3879/ProHousing-Application Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Unmet Housing Element Commitments
22 May 9, 2025 Prepared by Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Failure to Approve Pipeline Projects
The City’s assessment of its own RHNA targets is misleading because the City has included 1,126 units under Pipeline Projects credited toward its RHNA. Of those projects, only approximately 376 units have either obtained building permits or been constructed. For example, the City’s Housing Element Table 5.36 purports to have 110 Moderate Income multi -family dwelling units as part of the Rexco development (MA21083). But, after a 2021 study session at the City’s Planning Commission,
24 the Project was advised to undergo a redesign and is now being constructed as 66 single-family homes.
HE Table 5.36 purports the City has 220 units in the pipeline under Paradise Knolls Planning Area 5 (MA20211). This application was formally submitted in November 2021 under Case No.
MA21231
25 and is listed as still in review under its 3 rd submittal. HE Table 5.36 also purports to have 78 single-family homes pending approval under Case No. PAR1314. This project was formally submitted in 2021 (MA21285) and the City’s online planning permit system reports this project is still in review under its 6
th submittal.26 HE Table 5.36 also includes 36 single-family homes as part of the Madone Collection, which was resubmitted utilizing State Density Bonus Law for 67 single-family homes and subsequently denied, litigated and settled with the developer to allow the housing development to proceed.
In conclusion, even if the City does have the zoning capacity for its RHNA targets, the City has made common practice of either reducing the density of or outright denying housing development projects. The proposed 80-unit Supportive Housing Project for Lower Income households is an opportunity for the City to start enacting the goals, objectives, policies and action items in its Housing Element to make progress toward its Housing Element commitments.
24 Planning Commission Minutes, April 21, 2021:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_04212021-355 25 MA 21312: https://aca-
prod.accela.com/JURUPA/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Planning&TabName=Planning&capID1=PLN21&capID2=00 000&capID3=00630&agencyCode=JURUPA&IsToShowInspection=
26 See MA21285: https://aca-
prod.accela.com/JURUPA/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Planning&TabName=Planning&capID1=PLN21&capID2=00 000&capID3=00577&agencyCode=JURUPA&IsToShowInspection=
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
April 24, 2025
Arleen Pruitt, Chair
Laura Shultz, Chair Pro Tem
Uriel de la Torre, Penny Newman, Christobal Rosales, Commissioners City of Jurupa Valley Planning Commission
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Dear Arleen Pruitt, Laura Shultz, Uriel de la Torre, Penny Newman, and Christobal Rosales:
RE: Jurupa Valley AB 2162 Camino Terrace – Notice of Potential Violation
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received a request for technical assistance regarding compliance with AB 2162 1 for a proposed
supportive housing project (Project) at the intersection of Limonite Avenue and Camino Real in the City of Jurupa Valley (City). Among other provisions, AB 2162 makes supportive housing a use by right if projects meet specified requirements. On February 13, 2025, the City issued a notice of decision denying the project, citing a lack of eligibility for AB 2162 due to the absence of onsite supportive housing and findings of specific, adverse impacts to public health and safety per the Housing Accountability Act (HAA),
2 including the lack of an accessible sidewalk across a street and inconsistent use classification. Ahead of the scheduled hearing on the appeal of the Project’s denial, HCD hereby notifies the City that failing to grant the appeal would constitute a violation of state housing law.
Background
HCD understands that the proposed Project consists of 80 units affordable to low- income households (excluding a manager’s unit), of which 25 units would be supportive housing intended for a target population that includes veterans who have experienced homelessness and who may have physical disabilities. The Project would be located on multiple parcels separated by Canyon Terrace; the residential units would be located on the southern parcels, while the onsite supportive services would be located on the northern parcel along with a daycare facility open to both residents and the public.
1 Chapter 753, Statutes of 2018; Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subd. (c)(3), 65650 et seq. 2 Gov. Code, § 65589.5.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Arleen Pruitt, Chair; Laura Shultz, Chair Pro Tem;
Uriel de la Torre, Penny Newman, Christobal Rosales, Commissioners City of Jurupa Valley Planning Commission
Wakeland is proposing the Project using the City’s supportive housing ordinance,3 which references AB 2162 and the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL).4
Wakefield originally submitted its application for the Project on June 21, 2024. The City deemed the application complete on October 16, 2024. On November 15, 2024, the City issued the applicant a zoning compatibility letter
5 identifying inconsistencies. The letter
highlighted two issues that were referred to HCD for review. First, the City was uncertain whether supportive housing services could be considered “onsite” due to the site plan not showing a continuous Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) connection between the parcels across Camino Terrace. Second, because the site’s zoning requires a site development permit for childcare centers, the City required the developer to seek an additional incentive or concession under the SDBL to allow the childcare use without the site development permit.
Because the applicant did not subsequently address these two issues raised by the City, the City denied the Project for these reasons and others laid out in the notice of decision. In denying the Project, the City claimed that the Project did not have onsite services because it “includes supportive services on a separate parcel that is located across the street from the 80 housing units” and “fails to provide adequate connectivity between the two parcels such that those residing in the housing units could have access to the services located on the other parcel.”
6 The City further claimed a lack of
compliance with City general policies that resulted in “specific, adverse impacts upon the public health and safety” under the HAA, including the aforementioned pedestrian access issue and the absence of a waiver for the childcare use. The City also claimed specific, adverse impacts from the configuration of parking spaces, unresolved items in the Project’s fire protection plan, excessive height in a retaining wall along a street, and lack of compliance with various objective design standards not addressed with SDBL incentives or waivers. The applicant subsequently appealed the denial to the City Council for a hearing scheduled for April 28, 2025.
HAA Findings
Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(2) specifies the written findings local governments must establish to disapprove a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households when there is a specific, adverse impact. Given that the City cited the inconsistency with development standards as specific, adverse impacts that required project denial, the relevant question for the Project is:
3 Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.240.555.
4 Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.
5 A zoning compatibility letter is the City’s method of communicating inconsistency items to an applicant. It is unrelated to an application completeness letter per the Permit Streamlining Act or a consistency determination pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. 6 City of Jurupa Valley Notice of Decision for MA24164, February 15, 2025, page 10.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Arleen Pruitt, Chair; Laura Shultz, Chair Pro Tem;
Uriel de la Torre, Penny Newman, Christobal Rosales, Commissioners City of Jurupa Valley Planning Commission
Can inconsistency with development standards alone qualify as specific, adverse impacts that justify the denial of a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households?
The answer is “no” for several reasons. First, the claimed specific, adverse impacts are not necessarily identified based on “written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” 7 For
example, the City identifies non-compliance with standards such as landscaping and property walls as creating “specific, adverse impacts upon the public health and safety.”
8 However, the City does not demonstrate that the standards are based on preexisting, written public health or safety standards instead of design standards for regulating aesthetics.
Similarly, the City cannot deny the Project based solely on findings of “[i]nconsistenc[ies] with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation.” 9 For example, the City identifies non-compliance with off-street vehicle parking10 and wall height11 standards as causing specific, adverse impacts. Such findings of inconsistencies with the City’s zoning ordinance are not in themselves sufficient grounds to deny the Project absent additional findings that the inconsistencies would create adverse impacts that have already been documented in “written public health and safety standards, policies, or conditions,” and that “there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid” these impacts.
12 Finally, the City does not demonstrate in its written findings that there is “no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.” 13 For
example, for the Canyon Terrace pedestrian crossing, the City could condition its approval on improvements to the intersection that would render the crossing ADA accessible. Doing so would likely mitigate any potential health safety risks associated with the crossing.
Supportive Housing Site Configuration
Government Code section 65651, subdivision (a)(5) requires that supportive housing developments provide a certain amount of supportive services onsite. Because the site is bisected by a roadway, the City is concerned that the apparent absence of an ADA-
7 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).
8 Jurupa Valley Notice of Decision, page 9.
9 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2)(A).
10 Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.240.120.
11 Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.240.545.
12 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).
13 Id.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Arleen Pruitt, Chair; Laura Shultz, Chair Pro Tem;
Uriel de la Torre, Penny Newman, Christobal Rosales, Commissioners City of Jurupa Valley Planning Commission
accessible pedestrian path of travel between the two parcels may conflict with a provision of the law that requires that “at least 3 percent of the total nonresidential floor area shall be provided for onsite supportive services that are limited to tenant use….”14 Therefore, the relevant question is:
Can a site that is bisected by a roadway be developed as a single permanent supportive housing development? If so, to what extent does the roadway dividing the site need to have pedestrian connectivity?
There is nothing in AB 2162 that would prohibit a site that is divided by a roadway from serving as a single permanent supportive housing development. The 3-percent onsite supportive services requirement would be applied to the project overall and not to each constituent part of the project site.
15 Where onsite supportive services are mentioned,
they are referred to in the context of a singular “development.” However, the Government Code text does not preclude the City from conditioning its approval on intersection improvements as previously mentioned.
Supportive Housing Uses
Government Code section 65651, subdivision (a) declares that “[s]upportive housing shall be a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses” if the proposed development satisfies the requirements of the statute. Therefore, the relevant question is:
Would a permanent supportive housing project which incorporates childcare use be entitled to the benefits of AB 2162? If not, could the childcare use be permitted via an alternative approval mechanism such as an SDBL incentive or concession?
The answer is “yes.” Permanent supportive housing can include a childcare use and maintain its eligibility under AB 2162. AB 2162, specifically Government Code section 65650, subdivision (b), references Health and Safety Code section 50675.2 in defining supportive housing. Specifically, Health and Safety Code section 50675.2, subdivision (h) defines supportive housing as being “linked to an onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live, and when possible, work in the community.” Adequate childcare is crucial for both child and parent residents of supportive housing who are trying to be integrated into the community and therefore qualifies for the
14 Gov. Code, § 65651, subd. (a)(5)(B).
15 Although not explicitly stated in AB 2162, other statutes that deal with ministerial approvals contain clauses that define parcels separated only by a street right-of-way as being one site. Examples include the Streamlined Ministerial Process (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (a)(2)(B)) and the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (Gov. Code, § 65912.103, subd. (b)).
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Arleen Pruitt, Chair; Laura Shultz, Chair Pro Tem;
Uriel de la Torre, Penny Newman, Christobal Rosales, Commissioners City of Jurupa Valley Planning Commission
benefits of by-right processing that AB 2162 provides to a supportive housing project in which a childcare use is included.
Other Potential Violations of State Law
The City should also consider whether denying the Project would violate other state laws.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), Government Code sections 8899.50 and 65583
Government Code section 8899.50 requires the City to “tak[e] meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”
16 Government Code section 65583 includes more specific obligations that require the City, for example, to affirmatively protect, promote, and remove constraints on housing for persons with low and very low incomes and persons with other protected characteristics, which, for the Project, would include veterans and persons with disabilities.
17 Section 65583 also requires the City to use data, quantifiable analysis, metrics, and milestones to implement its AFFH duties.18
The City should ensure that its treatment of this Project is consistent with its AFFH duties.
Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law, Government Code section 65008
Government Code section 65008 prohibits discrimination in land use and planning policies and practices. Section 65008 deems any action taken by a city or county to be null and void if such action denies an individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or any other land use in the state due to discrimination based on a protected characteristic.
19 The law further provides that no
city shall enact or administer its laws so as to "prohibit or discriminate against any residential development . . . because of the method of financing" or because "the development . . . is intended for occupancy” by persons with protected characteristics.20 In addition, no city may impose requirements on a residential project intended for use by persons with protected characteristics, other than those generally imposed upon other residential uses.21
16 Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2)(B).
17 Gov. Code, § 65583, subds. (a)(5), (a)(7), (b)(1), (c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(10)(A). 18 Id.
19 Gov. Code, § 65008, subd. (a).
20 Id., subd. (b).
21 Id., subd. (d)(2)(A).
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Arleen Pruitt, Chair; Laura Shultz, Chair Pro Tem;
Uriel de la Torre, Penny Newman, Christobal Rosales, Commissioners City of Jurupa Valley Planning Commission
Government Code section 65008 and its protections apply to the Project because it is intended for occupancy by, for example, persons with low and very low incomes, veterans, and persons with disabilities.
22 The City should ensure that its treatment of
this Project is consistent with its duties under section 65008. This includes considering whether denying the Project would have discriminatory effects, either by creating disparate impacts on persons with protected characteristics or by perpetuating segregated housing patterns. This also includes ensuring that the City’s treatment of the Project is not influenced in any manner by intentional discrimination.
Failure to Implement Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs, Government Code section 65585
Housing Element Law prohibits the City from taking an action or failing to take an action that is “inconsistent with an adopted housing element or [Government Code] Section 65583, including any failure to implement any program included in [its] housing element.”
23 The City should consider its treatment of the Project in light of its housing element’s goals, policies, and programs, including, for example:
• H.E. 1.2. Affordable Housing. Encourage affordable residential development on sites zoned to allow multi-family residential uses and identified in the vacant land inventory, the City will adopt development incentives and standards to encourage lot consolidation . . . .
• H.E. 1.4. Housing Diversity. Encourage the development of diverse housing types and housing densities to best meet the needs of the community. • H.E. 1.8. Housing for Homeless Persons and Those at Risk of Homelessness. In cooperation with other cities and/or the County of Riverside, assist in the development of . . . permanent supportive housing . . . . • H.E. 1.9. Housing for All Special Needs Groups. Ensure and encourage the availability of housing to all [s]pecial needs populations and income levels. • H.E. 3.3. Housing Opportunities for Seniors, Disabled Persons, Single Parent Households, Farmworkers, Veterans, Homeless and all other Special Needs Groups. Encourage and, as the budget allows, help support programs and activities that promote affordable housing opportunities for seniors, disabled persons, single parent household[s], farm workers, homeless, veterans, and all other special needs groups.
22 Id., subds. (a), (b), (d)(2)(A).
23 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(A).
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Arleen Pruitt, Chair; Laura Shultz, Chair Pro Tem;
Uriel de la Torre, Penny Newman, Christobal Rosales, Commissioners City of Jurupa Valley Planning Commission
• H.E. 6.1. Taking Meaningful Action. Take meaningful action to affirmatively further fair housing by implementing measures to improve housing mobility, provide new opportunities in higher opportunity areas, encourage place-based strategies for community revitalization, and discourage displacement. • Goal HE 2.1.9. Remove Government Constraints. Evaluate the zoning ordinance, subdivision requirements, and other City regulations to remove government constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible. . . .
Conclusion
HCD finds that (1) the City did not make the requisite findings required by the HAA in denying the project, (2) adjacent parcels can be considered part of the same site even if there is not a pedestrian connection (though a local government can condition approval on the installation of a connection), and (3) daycare facilities included in a qualifying supportive housing project should also benefit from the by-right processing AB 2162 requires. Failure to grant the appeal and approve the Project on these grounds would be a violation of the HAA and AB 2162. The City should also consider whether denying the Project would violate its AFFH duties, Government Code section 65008, and Housing Element Law.
Under Government Code section 65585, HCD must notify a local government when that local government takes actions that violate the HAA, AB 2162, and other laws that HCD enforces, and may notify the California Office of the Attorney General of these and other violations of state housing laws. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact David Ying at [email protected].
Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
/0 /1 /2 /1 /3 /i255/5/6/i255 /7 /2 /8 /9 /6/5/10/11 /9 /2 /i255 /12 /i255 /13 /14 /0 /9 /11 /3 /0 /0 /15 /i255 /7/5/11/0 /14/16/3/10 /i255 /0 /3 /10 /17 /9 /7 /3 /0 /i255 /2 /11 /18 /i255 /19/5/14/0 /9 /11/20/i255/2/20/3/11 /7 /21 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255/20/2/17 /9 /11 /i255 /11 /3/22/0/5/16 /15/i255/23/24/25 /26 /27 /28 /24 /27 /i255 /30 /31 /32 /33 /34 /35/36/31/37 /35 /i255/39/40/i255 /41/39/42/43 /44 /37/45/i255/33 /37 /30 /i255 /46/39/36/36/42/37 /44 /35 /47 /i255 /30 /31 /48 /31 /49/39/32/36/31/37 /35 /i255 /30 /44 /48 /44 /43 /44/39/37/i255/39/40/i255 /41/39/42/43 /44 /37/45/i255/32/39/49/44 /46 /47 /i255 /30 /31 /48 /31 /49/39/32/36/31/37 /35 /i255 /50 /51 /52 /i255 /13 /53 /54 /54 /55 /54 /i255 /0 /56 /57 /58 /58 /56 /15 /i255 /0 /56 /58 /59 /i255 /60 /61 /61 /i255 /0 /53 /62 /57 /53/63/58/54 /56 /55 /15/i255 /7 /2 /i255 /64 /51 /65 /52 /52 /i255 /66 /64 /52 /50 /67 /i255 /68 /50 /69 /12 /68 /64/52 /52 /i255 /70 /i255 /6 /2 /71 /i255 /66 /64 /52 /50 /67 /i255 /68 /50 /69 /12 /72 /60 /51 /69 /i255 /73 /73 /73 /59 /74 /62 /75 /59 /62 /53 /59/76 /55 /77/i255 /i255 /16/53/57 /62 /74 /i255 /52 /60/15 /i255 /68 /61 /68 /51 /i255 /i255
/i255
/10 /55 /78 /i255 /13 /79 /56 /80 /58
/57 /15 /i255 /7 /81 /56 /82 /i255/16/53/54 /53 /76 /58 /57 /i255 /7 /81 /56 /82 /i255 /55 /83 /i255 /84 /79/57 /79 /85 /53 /i255 /17 /53 /80 /80 /58 /82 /i255 /65 /64 /69 /61 /i255 /8 /81 /63/55 /54 /81 /56 /58 /i255 /2 /77 /58 /54 /79 /58 /i255 /84 /79 /57 /79 /85 /53 /i255 /17/53 /80 /80 /58 /82 /15 /i255 /7 /2 /i255 /64 /68 /51 /61 /64 /i255 /i255
/34 /31 /87 /i255 /46 /88 /89 /90 /i255/91 /92 /i255 /93 /94 /95 /94 /96 /97 /i255 /48 /97 /98 /98 /99 /90 /i255 /100/89 /101/i255 /46 /90 /102 /98 /99 /i255 /41 /91 /94 /103 /88 /104 /105 /i255 /31 /98 /99/106/99/104 /89 /i255 /42 /96 /107 /97 /89 /99 /i255 /34 /99 /108 /91 /104 /99 /i255 /34 /99 /109/94 /88 /95 /99/106/99/104 /89 /103 /i255 /110 /i255 /49 /99 /89 /89 /99 /95 /i255 /91 /92 /i255 /44 /104 /109 /94 /88 /95 /90 /i255 /i255
/18 /58 /53 /57 /i255 /10 /55 /78/i255 /13 /79 /56 /80 /58 /57 /111 /i255 /1 /74 /58 /i255 /85 /79 /57 /85/55 /112 /58 /i255 /55 /83 /i255 /56 /74 /81 /112 /i255 /80 /58 /56 /56 /58 /57 /i255 /81 /112 /i255 /56 /55 /i255 /81 /54 /113 /79 /81 /57 /58 /i255 /53 /78 /55 /79 /56 /i255 /56 /74 /58 /i255 /112 /56 /53 /56 /79 /112 /i255 /55 /83 /i255 /56 /74 /58 /i255 /7 /81 /56 /82 /i255 /55 /83 /i255 /84 /79 /57 /79 /85 /53 /i255 /17 /53 /80 /80/58 /82 /114 /112 /i255 /66 /7 /81 /56 /82 /67 /i255 /50/56 /74/i255/7 /82 /62 /80 /58 /i255 /19 /55 /79 /112 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /3 /80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /81/63/85/80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /53 /56 /81 /55 /54 /i255 /85 /57 /55 /76 /57 /53/63/i255/57 /58 /80 /53 /56 /58 /75 /i255 /56 /55 /i255 /112 /81 /56 /58 /112 /i255 /56 /55 /i255 /53 /62 /62 /55/63/63/55/75 /53 /56 /58 /i255 /56 /74 /58 /i255 /10 /58 /76 /81 /55 /54 /53 /80 /i255 /19 /55 /79 /112 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /11 /58 /58 /75 /112 /i255 /2 /80 /80 /55 /62 /53 /56 /81 /55 /54 /i255 /66 /10 /19 /11 /2 /67 /i255 /85 /79 /57 /112 /79 /53 /54 /56 /i255 /56 /55 /i255/20/55/77/58 /57 /54/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /7 /55 /75 /58 /i255 /112 /58 /62/56 /81 /55 /54 /i255 /50 /51 /51 /65 /51 /15 /i255 /112 /79 /78 /75 /81 /77 /81 /112 /81 /55 /54 /i255 /66 /81 /67 /59 /i255 /1 /74 /58 /i255 /7 /53 /80 /81 /83 /55 /57 /54 /81 /53 /i255 /18 /58 /85 /53 /57 /56/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /55 /83 /i255 /19 /55 /79 /112 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /53 /54 /75 /i255 /7 /55/63/63/79/54/81 /56 /82 /i255 /18 /58 /77 /58 /80 /55 /85/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /66 /19 /7 /18 /67 /i255 /112 /58 /54 /56 /i255 /56 /74 /58 /i255 /7 /81 /56 /82 /i255 /53 /i255 /80 /58 /56 /56 /58 /57 /i255 /55 /54 /i255 /2 /85 /57 /81 /80 /i255 /68 /52 /15 /i255 /68 /61 /68 /68 /15 /i255 /83 /81 /54 /75 /81 /54 /76 /i255/56 /74 /58 /i255 /7 /81 /56 /82 /114 /112 /i255 /74 /55 /79/112 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /58 /80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /81 /54 /i255 /112 /79 /78 /112 /56 /53 /54 /56 /81 /53 /80 /i255 /62 /55/63/85/80 /81 /53 /54 /62 /58 /i255 /73 /81 /56 /74 /i255 /19 /55 /79 /112 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /3 /80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /8 /53 /73 /59/52/i255 /1/74 /81 /112 /i255 /73 /53 /112 /i255 /78 /53 /112 /58 /75 /i255 /55 /54/15 /i255 /53/63/55/54 /76 /i255 /55 /56 /74 /58 /57 /i255 /57 /58 /53 /112 /55 /54 /112 /15 /i255 /56 /74 /58 /i255 /7 /81 /56 /82 /114 /112 /i255 /62 /55/63/63/81/56/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /56 /55 /i255 /62 /55/63/85/80 /58 /56 /58 /i255 /2 /62 /56 /81 /55 /54 /i255 /19 /3 /59 /i255/52 /59 /52 /59 /52 /i255 /66/20/58/54 /58 /57 /53 /80 /i255/115 /80 /53 /54 /i255 /53 /54 /75 /i255 /116 /55 /54 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /2/63/58/54 /75/63/58/54 /56 /112 /67 /i255 /56 /55 /i255 /57 /58 /117 /55 /54 /58 /i255 /53 /75 /58 /113 /79 /53 /56 /58 /i255 /112 /81 /56 /58 /112 /i255 /56 /55 /i255 /112 /53 /56 /81 /112 /83 /82 /i255 /81 /56 /112 /i255 /80/55 /73 /58 /57 /12 /81 /54 /62 /55/63/58/i255 /10/19 /11 /2 /i255 /112 /74 /55 /57 /56 /83 /53 /80 /80 /59 /i255 /34 /99 /108 /91 /104 /88 /104 /105/i255 /34 /99 /109 /94 /88 /95 /99/106/99/104 /89 /103 /i255 /115 /79 /57 /112 /79 /53 /54 /56/i255 /56 /55 /i255/20/55/77 /58 /57 /54/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /7 /55 /75 /58 /i255 /112 /58 /62 /56 /81 /55 /54 /i255 /50 /51 /51 /65 /69 /59 /60 /15 /i255 /112 /79 /78 /75 /81 /77 /81 /112 /81 /55 /54 /i255 /66 /53 /67 /15 /i255 /53 /80 /80 /i255 /57 /58 /117 /55 /54 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /53 /62 /56/81 /55 /54 /112 /i255/63/79/112 /56 /i255 /78 /58 /i255 /62 /55/63/85/80/58 /56 /58 /75 /i255 /56 /74 /57 /58 /58 /i255 /82 /58 /53 /57 /112 /i255 /53 /54 /75 /i255 /52 /68 /61 /i255 /75 /53 /82 /112 /i255 /83 /57 /55/63/i255/56 /74 /58 /i255 /112 /56 /53 /56 /79 /56 /55 /57 /82 /i255 /75 /58 /53 /75 /80 /81 /54 /58 /i255 /66/5/62/56 /55 /78 /58 /57 /i255 /52 /51/15 /i255 /68 /61 /68 /52 /67 /i255 /81 /83 /i255 /56 /74 /58 /i255 /80 /55 /62 /53 /80 /i255/76 /55 /77 /58 /57 /54/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /53 /75 /55 /85 /56 /58 /75 /i255 /53 /i255 /112 /81 /118 /56 /74 /i255 /62 /82 /62 /80 /58 /i255 /74 /55 /79 /112 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /58 /80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /53 /54 /75 /i255 /19 /7 /18 /i255 /83 /55 /79 /54 /75 /i255 /56 /74 /58/i255 /53 /75 /55 /85 /56 /58 /75 /i255 /58 /80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /56/55 /i255 /78 /58 /i255 /81 /54 /i255 /112 /79 /78 /112 /56 /53 /54 /56 /81 /53 /80 /i255 /62 /55/63/85/80 /81 /53 /54 /62 /58 /i255 /73 /81 /56 /74 /81 /54 /i255 /55 /54 /58 /i255 /82 /58 /53 /57 /i255 /55 /83 /i255 /56 /74 /58 /i255 /112 /56 /53 /56 /79 /56 /55 /57 /82 /i255 /75 /58 /53 /75 /80 /81 /54 /58/59 /i255 /i255 /46 /91 /104 /103 /99 /109 /94/99 /104 /102 /99 /103 /i255 /91 /92 /i255 /40 /97 /88 /98 /94 /95 /99 /i255 /89 /91 /i255 /44/106/96/98 /99/106/99/104 /89 /i255 /33 /102 /89 /88 /91 /104 /i255 /41 /31 /i255 /119 /120 /119 /120 /119 /i255 /i255 /i255
/20/55/77 /58 /57 /54 /63/58 /54 /56 /i255 /7 /55 /75 /58 /i255 /112 /58 /62 /56 /81 /55 /54 /i255 /50 /51 /51 /65 /51 /15 /i255 /112 /79 /78 /75 /81 /77 /81 /112 /81 /55 /54 /i255 /66 /81 /67 /15 /i255 /76 /57 /53 /54 /56 /112 /i255 /19 /7 /18 /i255 /53 /79 /56 /74 /55 /57 /81 /56 /82 /i255 /56 /55 /i255 /57 /58 /77 /81 /58 /73/i255 /53 /54 /82 /i255 /53 /62 /56 /81 /55 /54 /i255 /55 /57 /i255/83 /53 /81 /80 /79 /57 /58 /i255 /56 /55 /i255 /53 /62 /56 /i255 /78 /82 /i255 /53 /i255 /80 /55 /62 /53 /80 /i255 /76 /55 /77 /58 /57 /54/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /56 /74 /53 /56 /i255 /81 /56 /i255 /75 /58 /56 /58 /57/63/81/54 /58 /112 /i255 /81 /112 /i255 /81 /54 /62 /55 /54 /112 /81 /112 /56 /58 /54 /56 /i255 /73/81 /56 /74 /i255 /53 /54 /i255 /53 /75 /55 /85 /56 /58 /75 /i255 /74/55 /79 /112 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /58 /80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /55 /57 /i255 /19 /55 /79 /112 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /3 /80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /8 /53 /73 /59 /i255 /1 /74 /81 /112 /i255 /81 /54 /62 /80 /79 /75 /58 /112 /i255 /83 /53 /81 /80 /79 /57 /58 /i255 /56 /55 /i255 /81/63/85/80/58/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /85 /57 /55 /76 /57 /53/63/i255/53 /62 /56 /81 /55 /54 /112 /i255 /81 /54 /62 /80 /79 /75 /58 /75 /i255 /81 /54 /i255 /56 /74 /58 /i255 /74 /55 /79 /112 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /58 /80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /59 /i255 /6 /53 /81 /80 /79 /57 /58 /i255 /56 /55 /i255 /81/63/85/80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /57 /58 /117 /55 /54 /58 /i255 /2/62 /56 /81 /55 /54 /i255 /19 /3 /59 /i255 /52 /59 /52 /59 /52/i255 /78 /82 /i255 /56 /74 /58 /i255 /112 /56 /53 /56 /79 /56 /55 /57 /82 /i255 /75 /58 /53 /75 /80 /81 /54 /58 /i255/63/58/53 /54 /112 /i255 /56 /74 /58 /i255 /7 /81 /56 /82 /114 /112 /i255 /74 /55 /79 /112 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /58 /80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /73 /81 /80 /80 /i255 /54 /55 /i255 /80 /55 /54/76 /58 /57 /i255 /112 /79 /78 /112 /56 /53 /54 /56 /81/53 /80 /80 /82 /i255 /62 /55/63/85/80 /82 /i255 /73 /81 /56 /74 /i255 /19 /55 /79 /112 /81 /54 /76 /i255 /3 /80 /58/63/58/54 /56 /i255 /8 /53 /73 /15 /i255 /53 /54 /75 /i255 /19 /7 /18 /i255/63/53/82 /i255 /57 /58 /77 /55 /121 /58 /i255 /81 /56 /112 /i255 /83 /81 /54 /75 /81 /54/76 /i255 /55 /83 /i255 /112 /79 /78 /112 /56 /53 /54 /56 /81 /53 /80 /i255 /62 /55/63/85/80 /81 /53 /54 /62 /58 /59 /i255 /i255
/52/i255/20/55/77 /59 /i255 /7 /55 /75 /58 /15 /i255 /122 /i255 /50 /51 /51 /65 /61 /i255 /58 /56 /i255 /112 /58 /113 /59 /i255 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
/0 /1 /2 /i255 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 /9 /10 /i255 /11 /12 /6 /13 /i255/14/15/16 /15 /17 /8 /9 /i255 /18 /15 /17 /8 /i255 /19 /i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/22 /15 /9 /12 /1 /5 /23 /i255 /24 /1 /16 /23 /8 /25 /5 /8 /16 /24 /8 /23 /i255/26/15/13 /i255 /15 /27 /27 /7 /13 /i255 /12 /28 /i255 /6 /29 /8 /i255 /11 /12 /6 /13 /i255 /30 /1 /8 /23 /i255 /16 /1 /6 /i255 /29 /15 /31 /8 /i255 /15 /i255 /29 /1 /5 /23 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /8 /7 /8/26/8/16 /6 /i255 /12 /16 /i255 /24 /1/26/27/7 /12 /15 /16/24 /8 /i255 /32 /12 /6 /29 /i255 /33 /1 /5 /23 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /34 /7 /8/26/8/16 /6 /i255 /35 /15 /32 /10 /i255 /12 /16 /24 /7 /5 /30 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /12 /16 /8 /7 /12 /17 /12 /2 /12 /7 /12 /6 /13 /i255 /1 /9 /i255 /30 /8 /7 /15 /13 /i255 /12 /16 /i255 /9 /8 /24 /8 /12 /31 /12 /16/17 /i255 /24 /8 /9 /6 /15 /12 /16 /i255 /23 /6 /15 /6 /8 /i255 /28 /5 /16 /30/23 /10 /i255 /9 /8 /28 /8 /9 /9 /15 /7 /i255 /6 /1 /i255 /6 /29 /8 /i255 /11 /15 /7 /12 /28 /1 /9 /16 /12 /15 /i255/36/28/28 /12 /24 /8 /i255 /1 /28 /i255 /6 /29 /8 /i255 /37 /6 /6 /1 /9 /16 /8 /13 /i255/38/8/16 /8 /9 /15 /7 /10 /i255 /24 /1 /5 /9 /6 /39 /12/26/27/1 /23/8 /30 /i255 /28 /12 /16 /15 /16 /24 /12 /15 /7 /i255 /27/8 /16 /15 /7 /6 /12 /8 /23 /10 /i255 /6 /29 /8 /i255 /7 /1 /23 /23 /i255 /1 /28 /i255 /7 /1 /24 /15 /7 /i255 /7 /15 /16 /30 /i255 /5 /23 /8 /i255 /15 /5 /6 /29 /1 /9 /12 /6 /13 /i255 /6 /1 /i255 /15 /i255 /24 /1 /5 /9 /6 /39 /15 /27 /27 /1 /12 /16 /6 /8 /30 /i255 /15 /17 /8 /16/6 /10 /i255 /15 /16 /30 /i255 /6 /29 /8 /i255 /15 /27 /27 /7 /12 /24/15 /6 /12 /1 /16 /i255 /1 /28 /i255 /6 /29 /8 /i255 /40 /2 /5 /12 /7 /30 /8 /9 /41 /23 /i255 /9 /8/26/8/30 /13 /42 /43/19/i255 /i255 /i255
/44 /45 /46 /47 /48 /49 /50 /51/45 /46 /i255
/i255
/33 /1 /5 /23 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /8/7 /8/26/8/16 /6 /23 /i255 /15 /9 /8 /i255 /8 /23 /23 /8 /16 /6 /12 /15 /7 /i255 /6 /1 /i255 /30 /8 /31 /8 /7 /1 /27 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /15 /i255 /2 /7 /5 /8 /27 /9 /12 /16 /6 /i255 /28 /1 /9 /i255 /17 /9 /1 /32 /6 /29 /i255 /15 /16 /30 /i255 /15 /9 /8 /i255 /15 /i255 /31/12 /6 /15 /7 /i255 /6 /1 /1 /7 /i255 /6 /1 /i255 /15 /30 /30 /9 /8 /23/23 /i255 /11 /15 /7 /12 /28 /1 /9 /16 /12 /15 /41 /23 /i255 /27 /9 /1 /7 /1 /16 /17 /8 /30 /i255 /29 /1 /5 /23 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /24 /9 /12 /23 /12 /23 /42 /i255 /37 /24 /24 /1 /9 /30 /12 /16 /17 /7 /13 /10 /i255 /23 /6 /15 /6 /8 /i255 /7 /15 /32 /i255 /29 /15 /23 /i255 /8 /23 /6 /15/2 /7 /12 /23 /29 /8 /30 /i255 /24 /7 /8 /15 /9 /i255 /30 /12 /23 /12 /16/24 /8 /16 /6 /12 /31 /8 /23 /i255 /28 /1 /9 /i255 /7 /1 /24 /15 /7 /i255 /52 /5 /9 /12 /23 /30 /12 /24 /6 /12 /1 /16 /23 /i255 /6 /29 /15 /6 /i255 /28 /15 /12 /7 /i255 /6 /1 /i255 /24 /1/26/27/7 /13 /i255 /32 /12 /6 /29 /i255 /33 /1 /5 /23 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /34 /7 /8/26/8/16/6 /i255 /35 /15 /32 /42 /i255 /i255 /i255
/53 /1 /i255 /8 /16 /23 /5 /9 /8/i255 /6 /29 /8 /i255 /11 /12 /6 /13 /i255 /24 /1 /16 /6 /12 /16 /5 /8 /23 /i255 /6 /1 /i255/26/8/8 /6 /i255 /6 /29 /8 /i255 /54/6 /29/i255 /24 /13 /24 /7 /8 /i255 /5 /27 /30 /15 /6 /8 /i255 /9 /8 /25 /5 /12 /9 /8/26/8/16 /6 /23 /i255 /28 /1 /9 /i255 /15 /i255 /23 /5 /2 /23 /6 /15 /16 /6 /12/15 /7 /7 /13 /i255 /24 /1/26/27/7 /12 /15 /16 /6 /i255 /29 /1 /5 /23 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /8 /7 /8/26/8/16 /6 /10 /i255 /33 /11 /55 /i255 /9 /8 /25 /5 /8 /23 /6 /23 /i255 /6 /29 /15 /6 /i255 /6 /29 /8 /i255 /11 /12 /6 /13 /i255 /27 /9 /1 /31 /12 /30 /8 /i255 /15 /16/i255 /5 /27 /30 /15 /6 /8 /i255 /1 /16 /i255 /6 /29 /8 /i255 /23 /6 /15/6 /5 /23 /i255 /15 /16 /30 /i255 /6 /12/26/8/7 /12 /16 /8 /i255 /1 /28 /i255 /12/26/27/7 /8/26/8/16 /6 /15 /6 /12 /1 /16 /i255 /1 /28 /i255 /37 /24 /6 /12 /1 /16 /i255 /33 /34 /i255 /56 /42 /56 /42 /56 /i255 /2 /13 /i255 /37 /27 /9 /12 /7 /i255 /56 /57 /10 /i255 /19 /58 /19/59 /10 /i255 /15 /16 /30 /i255 /23 /5 /2/26/12/6 /i255 /15 /16/13 /i255 /15 /30 /1 /27 /6 /8 /30 /i255 /9 /8 /60 /1 /16 /8 /23 /i255 /15 /16 /30 /i255 /15 /24 /24 /1/26/27/15 /16 /13 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /9 /8 /23 /1 /7 /5 /6 /12 /1 /16 /23 /i255 /6 /1 /i255 /33 /11 /55 /i255 /28 /1 /9 /i255 /9 /8 /31 /12 /8 /32 /42 /i255/i255 /i255
/33 /11 /55 /i255 /32 /12 /7 /7 /i255/24 /1 /16 /23 /12 /30 /8 /9 /i255 /15 /16 /13 /i255 /32 /9 /12 /6 /6 /8 /16 /i255 /9 /8 /23 /27 /1 /16 /23 /8 /i255 /2 /8 /28 /1 /9 /8 /i255 /6 /15 /61 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /28 /5 /9 /6 /29 /8 /9 /i255 /15 /24 /6 /12 /1 /16 /i255 /15 /5 /6 /29 /1 /9 /12 /60 /8 /30 /i255 /2/13 /i255 /38/1/31 /8 /9 /16 /26/8 /16 /6 /i255 /11 /1 /30 /8 /i255 /23 /8 /24 /6 /12 /1 /16 /i255 /54 /59 /59 /62 /59 /10 /i255 /23 /5 /2 /30 /12 /31 /12 /23 /12 /1 /16 /i255 /63 /12 /64 /10 /i255 /12 /16 /24 /7 /5 /30 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /12 /23 /23 /5 /15 /16 /24 /8 /i255 /1 /28 /i255 /15 /i255 /11 /1 /9 /9 /8 /24/6 /12 /31 /8 /i255 /37 /24 /6 /12 /1 /16 /i255 /35 /8/6 /6 /8 /9 /i255 /15 /16 /30 /i255 /9 /8 /31 /1 /24 /15 /6 /12 /1 /16 /i255 /1 /28 /i255 /33 /11 /55 /41 /23 /i255 /28 /12 /16 /30 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /1 /28 /i255 /29 /1 /5 /23 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /8 /7 /8/26/8/16 /6 /i255 /24 /1/26/27/7 /12 /15 /16 /24 /8 /42 /i255 /i255 /i255
/33 /11 /55 /i255 /7 /1 /1 /61/23 /i255 /28 /1 /9 /32 /15 /9 /30 /i255 /6 /1 /i255 /9 /8 /24 /8 /12 /31 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /13 /1 /5 /9 /i255 /32 /9 /12 /6 /6 /8 /16 /i255 /9 /8 /23 /27 /1 /16 /23 /8 /i255 /6 /1 /i255 /6 /29 /12 /23 /i255 /12 /16 /25 /5 /12 /9 /13 /42 /i255 /65 /28 /i255 /13 /1 /5 /i255 /29 /15 /31 /8/i255 /15 /16 /13 /i255 /25 /5 /8 /23 /6 /12 /1 /16 /23/i255 /1 /9 /i255 /32 /1 /5 /7 /30 /i255 /7 /12 /61 /8 /i255 /6 /1 /i255 /30 /12 /23 /24 /5 /23 /23 /i255 /6 /29 /8 /i255 /24 /1 /16 /6 /8 /16 /6 /i255 /1 /28 /i255 /6 /29 /12 /23 /i255 /7 /8 /6 /6 /8 /9 /10 /i255 /27 /7 /8 /15 /23 /8 /i255 /24 /1 /16 /6 /15 /24 /6 /i255 /0 /8 /12 /30 /i255/14/12/7 /7 /8 /9 /10 /i255 /33 /1 /5 /23 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /18/1 /7 /12 /24 /13 /i255 /66 /27 /8 /24 /12 /15 /7 /12 /23 /6 /10 /i255 /15 /6 /i255/9 /8 /12 /30 /42/26/12/7 /7 /8 /9/67/29/24 /30 /42 /24 /15 /42 /17 /1 /31 /42/i255 /i255
/66 /12 /16 /24 /8 /9 /8 /7 /13/10 /i255
/i255
/14/8/7 /12 /16 /30 /15 /i255 /11/1 /13 /i255
/18 /9 /1 /15 /24 /6 /12 /31 /8/i255 /33 /1 /5 /23 /12 /16 /17 /i255 /37 /24 /24 /1 /5 /16 /6 /15 /2 /12 /7 /12 /6 /13 /i255 /11 /29 /12 /8 /28 /i255 /i255
/19/i255/38/1/31 /42 /i255 /11 /1 /30 /8 /10 /i255 /68 /68 /i255 /54 /59 /59 /62 /59 /10 /i255 /23 /5 /2 /30 /23 /42 /i255 /63 /52 /64 /10 /i255 /63 /7 /64 /63 /56 /64 /10 /i255 /63 /12 /64 /69 /i255 /54 /59 /59 /62 /70 /42 /59 /10 /i255 /23 /5 /2 /30 /42 /i255 /63 /30 /64 /63 /54 /64 /42 /i255 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Apr 28, 2025
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project “Camino Terrace Apartments”
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Jurupa Valley Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 80-unit, 100% affordable, supportive housing development project at the northeast corner of Camino Real and Limonite Avenue (APNs: 185-460-001, 185-470-001, 185-470-002). These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), binding caselaw from the California Court of Appeal, and Government Code section 65650 et seq.
Background
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would render the project infeasible or reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Id. at subd. (d).) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. The City must therefore approve the project unless it makes written findings regarding health and safety as mentioned above – which it cannot do since the preponderance of the evidence in the record does not support such findings. (Ibid.) Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).)
2221 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to tree spacing, parking lot shading, private open space, parking setback, pedestrian access, retaining wall height, unit sizes, laundry hook-ups, and parking, unless it makes written findings as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, or as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
On February 13, 2025,the Community Development director issued a Notice of Decision denying Master Application No. 24164 (MA24164) and Site Development Permit No. 24074 (SDP24074). This was a violation of the HAA and the DBL.
Compliance with Government Code section 65651
In its on February 13, 2025 denial, the City found that the project did not comply with Government Code section 65651, subdivision (a)(5), which requires onsite supportive services, as there is a street separating the offices for the supportive staff from the residential buildings. In the City’s view, this is not “onsite.”
The City’s ad-hoc decision to redefine “onsite” in such a way as to deny the project is not objective. The HAA requires disapprovals to be based on objective criteria (Gov Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1)), which “means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official” (Gov Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(9)).
2 of 7
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Given that the City code has no written definition of “onsite,” and certainly no definition that excludes services that are across the street internal to the development site, denying the project based on this novel definition is not objective.
It would not be challenging to find previous approvals by the City of development projects that included “onsite” community amenities, even though they may have been across an internal street, where the City did not object to such amenities not being “onsite” for all residents.
Site Development Permit for Childcare Facility
The City cites City Code Section 9.80.0202(A)(25) to justify disapproving the project, as this section of code requires a Site Development Permit for the childcare facility proposed as part of the project.
However, this section of City Code is preempted by Government Code section 65650 et seq.
The entire point of this law is to encourage the development of supportive housing, which includes supportive services. The provision of onsite childcare is a service that directly supports the needs of the residents of the development. While Government Code section 65651, subdivision (a)(5)(B) requires that at least 3% of the total floor area be for supportive
services that are exclusively for tenant use, this section of law does not state that floor area above and beyond the 3% floor must be exclusively for tenant use.
The City may wish to read Government Code section 65656, the legislative findings for the state supportive housing law at issue (emphasis added):
The Legislature finds and declares that, by adoption of Proposition 2 at the November 6, 2018, statewide general election, the voters expressly approved of the development of permanent supportive housing pursuant to the No Place Like Home Program (Part 3.9 (commencing with Section 5849.1) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code). The Legislature further finds and declares that the provision of adequate supportive housing to help alleviate the severe shortage of housing opportunities for people experiencing homelessness in this state and of necessary services to the target population described in Section 50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code, and that ensuring the development of permanent supportive housing in accordance with programs such as the No Place Like Home Program (Part 3.9 (commencing with Section 5849.1) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code) by removing zoning barriers that would otherwise inhibit that development, are matters of statewide concern and are not municipal affairs as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this article applies to all cities, including charter cities.
3 of 7
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
The City is obviously attempting to thwart the intent of this law by requiring discretionary approval of an integral aspect of the supportive housing proposal.
Proposed Health and Safety Findings
Sidewalk Improvements
The City is proposing to deny the project using health and safety findings pursuant to Government Code, section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(2). This is a transparent attempt to bypass the requirements of the DBL
The resolution uses the project’s proposed concession to not construct off-site sidewalk improvements as a health and safety impact with which to make findings to deny the project and deny the proposed concession.
Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (d)(1)(B):
The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households.
Additionally, as can be seen in the above excerpts, the law requires that there must be no feasible way to mitigate these impacts. There is a feasible way to mitigate the impact - the City could pay to improve the sidewalk. In short, this is a transparent backdoor attempt to undermine the DBL.
State and Federal Law
Additionally, the City is proposing to deny the project pursuant to Government Code, section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(3), which allows cities to deny projects if their approval would violate state or federal law.
However, there is no violation of state or federal law in this case. The state and federal law cited in the resolution mandate accessibility within the site, not on public property.
Regarding the American with Disabilities Act, a matter normally reserved for the building permit phase, the City provides the following (emphasis added):
4 of 7
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
The ADA mandates that public facilities, including sidewalks, must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Project does not comply with a number of ADA regulations and standards. According to ADA Standards for Accessible Design Standards, Section 206.2.1, at least one accessible route must be provided within the site to accessible facility entrances from these site arrival points, where provided: (1) accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones, (2) public streets and sidewalks, and (3) each public transportation stop.
Regarding state building code, a matter normally reserved for the building permit phase of the project, not the zoning entitlement phase, the City provides the following (emphasis added) :
The Project also does not comply with the requirements set forth in California Building Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations Section 1114B.1.2, which states that “when a building, or portion of a building, is required to be accessible or adaptable, an accessible route of travel complying with Sections 1102B, 1114B, 1124B, 1133B.3, 1133B.5, 1133B.7, and 1133B.8.6 shall be provided to all portions of the building, to accessible building entrances, and between the building and the public way. . . At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks, to the accessible building entrance they serve.
As can be seen in the above excerpts from the proposed Planning Commission resolution for April 28, 2025, the City is proposing to deny a project for not providing sidewalks on City property, external to the project site, by citing state and federal law that regulates accessibility interior to a site.
The City Is Exposing Itself to Legal Liability
The Council should be aware that should the City persist in its denial of the project, and face a lawsuit, it will be liable for attorney’s fees and costs of suit pursuant to Government Code, section 65915, subdivisions (d)(3) and (e)(1). If the City is found to have violated the HAA in addition to wrongly denying requested waivers/concessions under the DBL, additional penalties apply. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(B).) The liability for violating state housing law can be severe. As an example, the City of Berkeley was recently forced to pay $4 million after wrongfully denying a housing development project.
In addition to the provisions cited above, the HAA allows housing organizations like CalHDF to bring an enforcement suit. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(2).) If an enforcement lawsuit brought by a housing organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorney’s fees and costs. (Ibid.)
5 of 7
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Of note, the HAA provides for a 5x multiple of fines if the local agency has acted in bad faith through its denial of project. Government Code section Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subdivision (l):
If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it violated this section and (2) failed to carry out the court’s order or judgment within the time period prescribed by the court, the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. If a court has previously found that the local agency violated this section within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the fines by an additional factor for each previous violation. For purposes of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit.
This is relevant given the extraordinarily thin health and safety findings the City is proposing to make. And the City’s resistance to this project is especially shocking, as it will provide permanent housing for homeless veterans. After more than 20 years of the Global War on Terror, hundreds of thousands of veterans across the United States are suffering from post-traumatic stress and associated challenges. While it is terrible to see anyone live on the streets, it is particularly galling that we should have homeless veterans in the richest country in the U.S.
⧫ ⧫ ⧫
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New supportive housing such as this is a public benefit: this will provide affordable and supportive housing for veterans; it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
6 of 7
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
7 of 7
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
City of Jurupa Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines August 2020
A. City of Jurupa Valley Development Project Scoping Form This scoping form shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley to assist in identifying infrastructure improvements that may be required to support traffic from the proposed project.
Project Identification:
Case Number:
Related Cases:
SP No.
EIR No.
GPA No.
CZ No.
Project Name:
Project Address:
Project Opening
Year:
Project
Description:
Consultant: Developer:
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax/Email:
Trip Generation Information:
Trip Generation Data Source:
Current General Plan Land Use: Proposed General Plan Land Use:
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
Existing Trip Generation Proposed Trip Generation
In Out Total In Out Total
AM Trips
PM Trips
Internal Trip Capture: Yes No (
Pass-By Allowance: Yes No (
% Trip Discount)
% Trip Discount)
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
City of Jurupa Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines August 2020
Potential Screening Checks
Is your project screened from specific analyses?
Is the project screened from LOS assessment? Yes No LOS screening justification (see Pages 2-3 of the guidelines):
Is the project screened from VMT assessment? Yes No VMT screening justification (see Pages 13-16 of the guidelines):
Level of Service Scoping
Proposed Trip Distribution (Attach Graphic for Detailed Distribution):
North South East West
% % % %
Attach list of Approved and Pending Projects that need to be considered (provided by the Planning Department and adjacent agencies)
Attach list of study intersections/roadway segments
Attach site plan
Other specific items to be addressed:
o Site access
o On-site circulation
o Parking
o Consistency with Plans supporting Bikes/Peds/Transit
o Other
Date of Traffic Counts
Attach proposed analysis scenarios (years plus proposed forecasting approach) Attach proposed phasing approach (if the project is phased) VMT Scoping
For projects that are not screened, identify the following:
Travel Demand Forecasting Model Used
Attach WRCOG Screening VMT Assessment output or describe why it is not appropriate for use Attach proposed Model Land Use Inputs and Assumed Conversion Factors (attach) Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
TABLE 1
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES AND FORECAST1
CAMINO TERRACE APARTMENTS AND DAY CARE, JURUPA VALLEY
ITE Land Use Code /
Project Description
Daily
2-Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Generation Factors:
223: Affordable Housing Income Limits (TE/DU) 4.81 29% 71% 0.36 59% 41% 0.46 565: Day Care Center (TE/Student) 4.09 53% 47% 0.78 47% 53% 0.79 Proposed Project Generation Forecast:
Camino Terrace Apartments (80 DU) 385 8 21 29 22 15 37 Day Care Center (100 Students) 409 41 37 78 37 42 79
Pass-by Rates (Daily: 25%, AM: 35% PM: 44%)2 -102 -14 -13 -27 -16 -18 -34 Day Care Net Trip Generation 307 27 24 51 21 24 45
Total Project Trip Generation 692 35 45 80 43 39 82
Notes:
• TE/DU = Trip ends per dwelling unit
• TE/Student = Trip ends per Day Care student
1 Source: Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)]. 2 Source: Source: Daily and AM peak hour pass -by reductions conservatively assumed at 25% and 35%, respectively. 44% PM peak hour pass-by reduction based on Trip Generation , 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2021) pass -by table for Day Care Center.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
From: Roberto Gonzalez
To: Jamie Poster; Annette Tam Chyan; Jim Ries
Subject: Re: Supportive Housing Processing
Date: Friday, February 16, 2024 3:02:59 PM
Attachments: Outlook-cid_e38ce5.png
Hello All,
I just wanted to provide a follow-up from our meeting earlier this week. Please let me know if you need additional information:
Question Regarding R-3 Zone Section 9.80.020 and Sec. 9.240.555. - Supportive housing.
After our review, it has been determined that Sec. 9.240.555 Supportive housing is consistent with State law, and Sec. 980.020 of the R-3 zone is inconsistent. If the supportive housing project meet all the requirements outlined in Government Code Section 65651(a) and Sec. 9.240.555, the use is allowed by-right. The City will amend the code regarding the inconsistency separately.
Regarding Housing Element Text
We confirmed that we do not have a ministerial site development permit program. However, we are working on creating affordable housing incentives as part of our Housing Element program action.
Regarding the Question about the site being included in past HE Cycle Inventory The project site appears to be included in the 5th cycle; however, it was not included in the 6th cycle.
Therefore, this option would not be available as a basis to review the project as a by-right use, but according to State law and Sec. 9.240.555, supportive housing would be allowed by-right.
Regarding the Impact Mitigation Reports for Multi-family The studies are mandated for multi-family projects comprising more than 24 dwelling units. The necessity for submitting reports is generally objective, as these reports are required for the review process. We understand that the discussions stemming from the report's findings may lead to broader discussions on necessary mitigation measures, which may be subjective. However, the City would adhere to the provisions outlined in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
Sincerely,
Rob Gonzalez, MURP, AICP | Senior Planner
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY | T: 951.332.6464
ext. 149| F: 951.332.6995
8930 Limonite Avenue | Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected]
| jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:
Facebook
| Instagram | Twitter
From: Jamie Poster
Sent:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 10:59 AM
To:
Jamie Poster <[email protected]>; Roberto Gonzalez <[email protected]>; Annette Tam Chyan <[email protected]>; Jim Ries <[email protected]> Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
June 24, 2022
Jose Perez, Director
Community Development Department
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
RE: Camino Terrace Apartments – Letter of Technical Assistance
Dear Jose Perez:
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received a request for technical assistance regarding the Camino Terrace Apartments (Project). HCD is aware of a recent determination by the City of Jurupa Valley (City) that the Project does not qualify for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process created by Senate Bill (SB) 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) and codified in Government Code section 65913.4. The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance related to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. HCD recognizes the challenge of interpreting ever-changing housing and land-use laws and appreciates the opportunity to provide technical assistance that may lead to better housing outcomes for California, as well as the City.
HCD’s Understanding of the Project
HCD understands the Project is proposed to consist of 80 units with a mix of 20 one- bedroom units, 38 two-bedroom units and 22 three-bedroom units. The affordability levels will be between 30 percent and 60 percent of area median income (AMI) with an average of approximately 50 percent of AMI. To comply with the requirements of the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) program and Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), most of the units will be at 30 percent of AMI. The Project will incorporate a community building with indoor common area spaces for the property management company and spaces for resident services and social interaction. The Project will also have appropriate outdoor common area spaces for passive and active recreation. An application under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (SB 35 Application) was submitted for the Project on February 18, 2022.
Statutory Exclusion of Sites within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Government Code section 65913.4, subdivision (a), is broken into paragraphs that describe the eligibility requirements for a project to qualify for Streamlined Ministerial Approval Processing. Paragraph (6) enumerates a list of site characteristics that would exclude a site from eligibility from Streamlined Ministerial Approval Processing, and subparagraph (D) identifies the exclusion based on location in a “very high fire hazard severity zone” (VHFHSZ). The exact language is:
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Jose Perez, Director
Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development. (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (a)(6)(D); emphasis added.)
HCD understands the City determined the Project did not qualify for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process based on its location in a VHFHSZ. However, subparagraph (D) does not apply to “sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.”
Applicable Building Standards and State Fire Mitigation Measures
There are existing building standards and state fire mitigation measures applicable to this development. In consultation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), HCD has confirmed that this project must conform with standards set forth in the Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code (CFC), and the Minimum Fire Safe Regulations in the Public Resources Code Section 4290 (14 CCR 1270 et seq.). These codes have all been updated since the passage of SB 35 in 2017 to establish and/or strengthen development standards that govern residential development within Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas.
Both CBC Chapter 7A and CFC Chapter 49 require compliance with the requirements for defensible space and building in wildfire prone areas of Government Code sections 51175 through 51189.
Given the foregoing, the Project’s location in a VHFHSZ does not preclude the Project from eligibility for Streamlined Ministerial Approval Processing. Additionally, HCD is aware that a Fire Protection Plan has been prepared for the Project and will be submitted to the Riverside County Fire Department for review and approval to further ensure the Project meets all construction and infrastructure requirements resulting from a tailored fire risk assessment.
HCD appreciates the opportunity to provide information regarding the eligibility of the Camino Terrace Apartments under Government Code section 65913.4. Please feel free to contact Alex Contreras, at [email protected], with any questions.
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
December 23, 2022
Joe Perez, Director
Community Development Department
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
RE: Camino Terrace Apartments – Letter of Technical Assistance
Dear Joe Perez:
The purpose of this letter is for the California Department Housing and Community Development (HCD) to urge the City of Jurupa Valley (City) to process the Camino Terrace Apartments (Project) under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process created by Senate Bill (SB) 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) and codified in Government Code section 65913.4 and to provide technical assistance related to the City’s evaluation of the Project’s eligibility for this type of processing. Below is background on the Project and the current status as HCD understands it.
Background
On June 23, 2022, HCD sent a letter of technical assistance to the City regarding the Project, which as proposed consists of 80 affordable housing units. The letter provided technical assistance related to the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. The letter states the Project’s location in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) does not preclude the Project from eligibility for Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process.
On July 19, 2022, HCD received a letter from the City in response to HCD’s technical assistance letter. The City disagreed with HCD’s technical assistance in the June 23, 2022, letter. In addition to the Project’s location in the VHFHSZ, the City determined that the Project did not qualify for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process based on the potential to disturb the cultural resources of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The Tribe submitted to the City a letter stating that “the Tribe believes potential exists to disturb surface and subsurface cultural resources throughout the duration of the project.” The Tribe’s letter requested a cultural resources survey including an archaeological record search to identify any potential impacts to cultural resources.
In October 2022, the Project applicant provided to the Tribe the requested cultural resources survey including an archaeological record search to identify any potential Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Joe Perez, Director
impacts to cultural resources. HCD understands the Tribe has reviewed the submitted materials and indicated via email, dated November 30, 2022, that the Tribe has “no further questions at this time and can conclude consultation.”1
Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Eligibility
HCD understands the City previously denied the applicant’s request to utilize the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process for two key reasons: 1.) Location of the project in a VHFHSZ, and 2.) A request from the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians to provide a cultural resources survey including an archaeological record search to identify any potential impacts to cultural resources. HCD asserts these matters have been resolved.
Project’s Location in a VHFHSZ
As stated in HCD’s Letter of Technical Assistance, dated June 24, 2022, the Project’s location in a VHFHSZ does not preclude the Project from eligibility for Streamlined Ministerial Approval Processing. HCD’s position has not changed, and HCD stands by this technical assistance. The Project’s location should not preclude the City from processing this Project under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process.
Tribal Scoping Consultation
HCD understands the Project applicant has completed the requested cultural resources survey including an archaeological record search as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
2 and submitted it to the Tribe for its consideration. Based on the email correspondence sent from the Tribe to the County of Riverside and the Project applicant, it appears the Tribe has no further questions and is ready to conclude consultation. Per statute, “a local government may accept an application for the streamlined, ministerial approval process if… the parties to a scoping consultation pursuant to this subdivision find that no potential tribal cultural resource will be affected by the proposed development.” (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(3)(C)). With this matter apparently resolved, the City should verify with the Tribe that the consultation is concluded. If the Tribe confirms no further tribal consultation is required, the City should process this Project under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process.
Conclusion
To reiterate, the Project’s location in a VHFHSZ does not preclude the Project from eligibility for Streamlined Ministerial Approval Processing, and, as the Tribe has no
1 Attachment 1 to this letter is a copy of this email.
2 The Project is subject to NEPA because of its federal funding source.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Joe Perez, Director
further objections, the City must conclude the tribal consultation and process the Project under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process.
HCD appreciates the opportunity to provide information regarding the eligibility of the Camino Terrace Apartments for streamlined review under Government Code section 65913.4 and welcomes any further opportunities to assist with a discussion on next steps. Please feel free to contact Fidel Herrera, at [email protected], with any questions.
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
Enclosure
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
April 18, 2023
Joe Perez, Director
Community Development Department
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
RE: Camino Terrace Apartments – Letter of Technical Assistance
Dear Joe Perez:
The California Department Housing and Community Development (HCD) received a letter from the City of Jurupa Valley (City) dated February 10, 2023, in response to HCD’s technical assistance regarding the Camino Terrace Apartments (Project), a proposed multi-family development consisting of 80 affordable housing units. The purpose of this letter is to recap the discussion between HCD and the City at the ensuing March 2, 2023 meeting and to further provide technical assistance related to the implementation provisions of the tribal scoping consultation under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process created by Senate Bill (SB) 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) and codified in Government Code section 65913.4.
Background
On June 24, 2022, HCD sent a letter of technical assistance to the City regarding the Project. On July 19, 2022, HCD received a letter from the City in response to HCD’s technical assistance letter dated June 24, 2022. The City disagreed with HCD’s technical assistance letter. In addition to the Project’s location in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), the City determined that the Project did not qualify for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process based on the potential to disturb the cultural resources of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (Rincon Band). In addition, on August 4, 2022, the City provided a project timeline with additional information regarding the Project to HCD.
On December 23, 2022, HCD sent a second letter of technical assistance to the City regarding the Project. The letter provided technical assistance related to the City’s evaluation of the Project’s eligibility under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process.
The letter states the Project’s location in a VHFHSZ does not preclude the Project from eligibility for Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process and that, based on an email sent to the County from the Rincon Band, the tribe has “no further questions at this time and Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Joe Perez, Director
can conclude consultation.” However, HCD asked the City to verify with the Rincon Band whether the consultation was concluded.
On February 10, 2023, HCD received the City’s response to HCD’s technical assistance letter dated December 23, 2022. The City had contacted the Rincon Band to confirm whether consultation was concluded. It appears that a misunderstanding led the Rincon Band’s Cultural Resources Manager, Cheryl Madrigal, to mistakenly believe that she had been corresponding with the City and not the County. According to the City, Cheryl Madrigal reiterated the conclusion of her June 22, 2022 letter, that “[t]he Tribe believes potential exists to disturb surface and subsurface cultural resources throughout the duration of the project.” In addition, it appears the City received correspondence from a second tribe, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Gabrieleno Band), that states “there will be a potential to disturb tribal cultural resources that still exists as a result of the Camino Terrace Apartments.”
On March 2, 2023, HCD met with City representatives regarding the response letter sent by the City. HCD explained the tribal consultation process and responsibility of the City. Below are the statutory requirements for the tribal scoping consultation and the roles of each party.
Tribal scoping consultation and the defined roles of each party
AB 168 (Chapter 166, Statutes of 2020 and codified in Gov. Code, §§ 65400, 65913.4, and 65941.1) created a process for tribal scoping consultation for housing development proposals seeking review under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. The roles and responsibilities are outlined below:
• Developer Responsibility: Before submitting an application for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, developers must submit a notice of intent to submit an application to a local government (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(1)(A)(i)). • Local Government Responsibility: Within 30 calendar days of receiving the developer’s preliminary application, the local government must provide formal notice to each Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project site (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(1)(A)(iii)(I)). The formal notice must include the location and a description of the proposed development and an invitation to engage in scoping consultation (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(1)(A)(iii)(I)(ia-ic)).
o The local government shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for assistance in identifying any California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development. (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(1)(A)(ii)). • Tribal Responsibility: Each Tribe that receives this notice has 30 calendar days to accept the invitation to engage in consultation (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(1)(A)(iii)(II)).
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Joe Perez, Director
• Local Government Responsibility: The local government must initiate scoping consultation within 30 calendar days of a Tribe’s acceptance of the invitation to engage in scoping consultation (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(1)(A)(iii)(III)).
It appears the City denied the applicant’s request to utilize the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process for the Project in part because the City received a letter from the Rincon Band stating that “the Tribe believes potential exists to disturb surface and subsurface cultural resources throughout the duration of the project.” However, it is not clear to HCD the extent to which the City is implementing its responsibility under Government Code section 65913.4, subdivision (b)(1)(A). Based on the meeting with City staff on March 2, 2023, it appears that the City is failing to meet its statutory responsibility to engage in a tribal scoping consultation. Tribal scoping consultation must be between the City and the Tribe, and it is the City’s role to lead the consultation to conclusion. If the City does not engage in tribal consultation, the City is not fulfilling the role of implementing the tribal scoping consultation under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process.
Simply receiving a letter from a tribe that indicates potential disturbance of cultural resources does not conclude a tribal consultation. A tribal scoping consultation concludes if either 1) the parties to the scoping consultation (i.e., the Local Government and the Tribe) document an enforceable agreement concerning methods, measures, and conditions to avoid or address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that are or may be present (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(2)(D)(i)); or 2) one or more parties to the consultation, acting in good faith and after a reasonable effort, conclude that a mutual agreement cannot be achieved (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (b)(2)(D)(ii)).
The Rincon Band requested a cultural resources survey, including an archaeological record search, to identify any potential impacts to cultural resources. Despite the misunderstanding over the proper parties to the communication, when the study was provided, the Rincon Band seemed to indicate, via email, it was ready to conclude consultation.
Further, during the March 2, 2023 meeting, the City indicated that it had recirculated the proposed Project to additional tribes, including the Gabrieleno Band, when the applicant applied for funding in the summer of 2022. It appears the Gabrieleno Band had already been notified of the Project in January 2022 among the other tribes notified at the time the applicant submitted its intent to file an SB 35 application. It is further curious to HCD why the City did not communicate to HCD nor the Applicant prior to its February 10, 2023 letter to HCD that the Gabrieleno Band had raised concerns about the Project.
As the City acknowledged in the March 2, 2023 meeting, this Project remains subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because of its funding source, and there will be continued opportunities for both the Rincon Band and the Gabrieleno Band to engage with this Project. Through the NEPA process, the Tribes may request conditions of approval on the Project, including common requests such as on-site monitoring of Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Joe Perez, Director
Earth disturbance. However, it should be noted for future reference that while this is true for this Project, an SB 35 project that is not subject to NEPA could use the SB 35 tribal consultation to document an enforceable agreement to avoid or address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, and it is the City’s role to facilitate the documentation during the SB 35 tribal consultation.
Conclusion
HCD expects the City to meet its statutory obligation to engage in consultation with the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. This is an act that only the City can perform. By May 2, 2023, please provide a specific plan and timeline for engaging both tribes as required by Government Code section 65913.4.
For further reference, attached is a document prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) regarding AB 168: Tribal Scoping Consultation Requirements for Projects Seeking Review Under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process.
1 HCD appreciates the opportunity to provide information regarding the tribal consultation process under SB 35. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Fidel Herrera, at [email protected] w
ith any questions.
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
1 Also available on OPR’s website: https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/20201202- AB_168_Advisory_FINAL.pdf
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
AB 168: Tribal Scoping Consultation Requirements for
Projects Seeking Review Under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (SB 35)
AB 168 (Aguiar-Curry, 2020) created a process for tribal scoping consultation (“consultation”) for housing development proposals seeking review under the streamlined ministerial approval process created by SB 35 (Wiener, 2017).
Developers are now required to submit a preliminary application with key project details (found in Government Code §65913.4(b)(1)(A)) and engage in tribal scoping consultation that potentially influences the project’s eligibility for ministerial approval.
This document provides an overview of this new process pursuant to AB 168 and answers some common questions related to this new law. This document specifically focuses on the scoping consultation requirement related to SB 35’s streamlined ministerial approval process and not consultation requirements that may be required by other laws unless otherwise noted.
This document provides guidance only and should not be construed as legal advice. OPR provides this technical advisory as a resource for the public to use at their discretion. OPR is not enforcing or attempting to enforce any part of the recommendations or information contained herein.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
AB 168 Technical Advisory, November 2020
When does AB 168 take effect?
Immediately. AB 168 contained an urgency clause, which means that the bill took effect on September 25, 2020, when the Governor signed the bill. This law does not apply to any projects that obtained ministerial approval under SB 35 by the local government prior to this date (Government Code §65913.4(b)(8)).
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) advises that projects with pending applications under review should engage in this tribal consultation to ensure compliance with the requirements of AB 168.
What information must be included in a preliminary application? Before submitting an application for SB 35 approval, development proponents must now submit a notice of intent to submit an application, which includes a preliminary application. The preliminary application and its requirements are described in existing statute (Government Code §65941.1); it is also the same preliminary application referenced in SB 330 (Statutes of 2019).
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has developed a standardized form that applicants for housing development projects may use for the purpose of satisfying the requirements for submittal of a preliminary application if a local agency has not developed its own application form. The form and more information on the SB 330 preliminary application can be found at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/accountability- enforcement/statutory-determinations.shtml
A preliminary application must include all of the following information:
1. The project’s location, including the parcel number, a legal description, and address, as applicable
2. The existing uses of the site and the identification of major physical alterations to the property
3. A site plan showing the location of the property; as well as the massing, height, approximate square footage, and elevations showing design, color, and material of each building to be occupied
4. The proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and nonresidential development using the applicable categories in the applicable zoning ordinance
5. The proposed number of parking spaces
6. Any proposed point sources of air or water pollutants Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
AB 168 Technical Advisory, November 2020
7. Any species of special concern known to occur on the property
8. Whether a portion of the property is located within any of the following:
a. A very high wildfire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code Section 51178
b. Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993)
c. A hazardous waste site listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25356
d. A special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
e. A delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter
12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2 f. A stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code
9. Any historic or cultural resources known to exist on the property
10. The number of proposed below market rate units and their affordability levels
11. The number of bonus units and any incentives, concessions, waivers, or parking reductions pursuant to Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915)
12. Whether any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 66410) of the Government Code), including, but not limited to, a parcel map, tentative map, or condominium map, are being requested
13. The applicant’s contact information, and, if the applicant does not own the property, the property owner’s consent to submit the application Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
AB 168 Technical Advisory, November 2020
14. For a housing development proposed to be located within the coastal zone, whether any portion of the property contains any of the following:
a. Wetlands, as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13577 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
b. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 13577
c. A tsunami run-up zone
d. Use of the site for public access to or along the coast
15. The number of existing residential units on the project site that will be demolished and whether each unit is occupied or unoccupied
16. A site map showing a stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code and an aerial site photograph showing existing site conditions of environmental site features that would be subject to regulations by a public agency, including creeks and wetlands
17. The location of any recorded public easement, such as easements for storm drains, water lines, and other public rights of way How are Tribes identified for scoping consultation?
Upon receipt of a development proponent’s preliminary application, the local government must “engage in … consultation regarding the proposed development with any California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resources Code” and “contact the Native American Heritage Commission for assistance in identifying any California Native American Tribe” (Government Code §65913.4(b)(1)(A)(ii)).
What is the timeline for consultation?
The statute adopts a 30-30-30 timeline. Within 30 calendar days of receiving the developer’s preliminary application, the local government must provide formal notice for each Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project site (Government Code §65913.4(b)(1)(A)(ii)). The formal notice must include the location and a description of the proposed development, and an invitation to engage in scoping consultation (Government Code §65913.4(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I)(ia-ic)).
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
AB 168 Technical Advisory, November 2020
Each Tribe that receives this notice has 30 calendar days to accept the invitation to engage in consultation (Government Code §65913.4(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II)).
The local government must initiate consultation within 30 calendar days of a Tribe’s acceptance of the invitation to engage in consultation (Government Code §65913.4(b)(1)(A)(iii)(III)).
Who participates in the consultation?
The local government and any California Native American Tribe that is traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project site may participate in the consultation. In cases where more than one Tribe participates in consultation, the local government must grant separate consultation with a Tribe if individual consultation is requested (Government Code §65913.4(b)(1)(C)).
The development proponent and its consultants may participate in consultation if they agree to respect the principles established in AB 168, engage in good faith, and the Tribe approves of the proponent’s participation. The Tribe may revoke this approval at any time during the consultation process (Government Code §65913.4(b)(1)(C)).
AB 168 requires that consultation must recognize that California Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area have knowledge and expertise concerning the resources at issue, and shall take into account the cultural significance of the resource to the Tribe (Government Code §65913.4(b)(1)(B)).
What confidentiality requirements apply to the consultation process? Consultation must comply with the confidentiality requirements established in Government Code Section 6254(r), Government Code Section 6254.10, Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c), and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15120(d). Additionally, the Tribe may adopt any additional confidentiality requirements applicable to the consultation (Government Code §65913.4(b)(1)(D)).
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
AB 168 Technical Advisory, November 2020
Does the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) apply to the consultation process?
No, the tribal consultation required pursuant to AB 168 is not considered a project under CEQA (Government Code §65913.4(b)(1)(E)).
When does tribal consultation conclude?
Tribal consultation concludes either 1) upon documentation of an enforceable agreement regarding the treatment of tribal resources at the project site (Government Code §65913.4(b)(2)(D)(i)), or 2) one or more parties to the consultation, acting in good faith and after a reasonable effort, conclude that a mutual agreement cannot be achieved (Government Code
§65913.4(b)(2)(D)(ii)).
What are the potential outcomes of the tribal consultation? If the parties participating in tribal consultation determine that there is no potential impact to tribal cultural resources resulting from the project, then the development proponent may submit an application for ministerial approval pursuant to SB 35 (Government Code §65913.4(b)(2)(A)).
If the tribal consultation identifies a potential impact to tribal cultural resources resulting from the project, then the parties must document an enforceable agreement regarding the methods, measures, and conditions for treatment of tribal cultural resources. This agreement must be a condition of approval for the project application for SB 35 approval (Government Code §65913.4(b)(2)(B)).
If the parties are unable to reach an enforceable agreement regarding treatment of tribal cultural resources that may be present on the project site, then the development proponent is ineligible for ministerial approval under SB 35 (Government Code §65913.4(b)(2)(C)).
What is now required for a project to qualify for SB 35 ministerial approval? A project is eligible for the ministerial approval established under SB 35 if any of the following conditions apply:
1. A Tribe that received notice of the developer’s submission of a pre- application did not respond to the invitation to engage in consultation within 30 days (Government Code §65913.4(b)(3)(A));
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
AB 168 Technical Advisory, November 2020
2. A Tribe accepted an invitation to engage in tribal consultation but failed to engage after repeated attempts by the local government to initiate consultation (Government Code §65913.4(b)(3)(B));
3. The consultation concluded that there is no potential harm to tribal cultural resources resulting from the project (Government Code §65913.4(b)(3)(C)); OR
4. The consultation identified potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, and the parties committed to a documented, enforceable agreement regarding the treatment of potential resources (Government Code §65913.4(b)(3)(D))
Pursuant to AB 168, what might disqualify a project from ministerial approval under SB 35?
A project would be ineligible for ministerial approval pursuant to SB 35 if any of the following conditions apply:
1. The project site contains a tribal cultural resource that is listed on a national, tribal, state, or local historic register (Government Code §65913.4(b)(4)(A));
2. The parties to scoping consultation do not agree on whether the project will impact tribal cultural resources (Government Code §65913.4(b)(4)(B)); OR
3. A potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by the proposed project, and the parties to scoping consultation were unable to document an enforceable agreement regarding the treatment of potential tribal resources (Government Code §65913.4(b)(4)(C)) What documentation is required upon conclusion of the tribal consultation?
If the consultation concludes that the project would not affect potential tribal cultural resources, no further documentation is required and the development proponent may proceed with submission of its application for ministerial approval under SB 35 (Government Code §65913.4(b)(2)(A)).
If the consultation results in documentation of an enforceable agreement regarding the treatment of potential tribal resources, that agreement must be attached to the local government’s approval of the application for SB 35 ministerial approval (Government Code §65913.4(b)(20(B)).
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
AB 168 Technical Advisory, November 2020
If the consultation results in disqualification of the project from SB 35’s streamlined ministerial approval process, the local government must provide written documentation of the fact, with an explanation for the project’s ineligibility, to the development proponent and the Tribe or Tribes participating in the consultation (Government Code §65913.4(b)(5)(A)). The documentation provided to the development proponent must also include information on how to seek a conditional use permit or other discretionary approval of the project from the local government (Government Code §65913.4(b)(5)(B)).
What happens if the project changes after the conclusion of tribal consultation?
If the development or environmental setting substantially changes after the consultation, the local government must notify the Tribe of the change and engage in a subsequent consultation if requested by the Tribe or Tribes (Government Code §65913.4(b)(2)(E)).
While the bill does not specify a timeline for this subsequent notification and consultation, OPR recommends adhering to the 30-30-30 timeline required for the initial consultation.
For the purposes of this consultation, OPR advises that a project or environmental setting may “substantially change” if 1) those changes will require major revisions to the environmental impact report, or 2) if new information that was not available or could not have been known during preparation of the environmental impact report becomes available (see Public Resources Code §21166).
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
Project Review Correspondences
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
November 15, 2024
Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
C/O Jamie Poster, AICP
3221 Hutchison Avenue, Suite D
Los Angeles, CA 90034
RE: MA24164 – ZONING COMPATIBILITY LETTER - DEVELOPMENT OF AN 15.53 - ACRE V ACANT SITE WITH A NEW 80 -UNIT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, A CHILD DAYCARE FACILITY , SURFACE PARKING AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS.
Dear Jamie Poster,
This document provides a cons istency analysis of MA24164 project plans. Please review the following items and provide responses or plan corrections.
Density Bonus Summary
The project was assessed under Density Bonus Law. For a project with 25 supportive housing units and 51 affordable housing units (all for low-income households, except for a manager’s unit), your project is considered 100% affordable under California's Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915). Here’s a summary of the waivers, incentives, and concessions available:
Section 65915(d)(2)(D) - specifically provides that 100% affordable projects are eligible for five incentives or concessions to reduce development costs, such as parking reductions, increased building height, or reduced setbacks. Section 65915(e) - allows developers to request waivers from development standards that would otherwise physically preclude the project from being built at the permitted density and with the requested incentives/concessions . This provision applies to requirements such as height limits, setbacks, or lot coverage that may impede the feasibility of the project, provided that granting the waiver does not create specific adverse impacts on public health or safety that cannot be feasibly mitigated.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
Child Care Center
Since the R-3 Zone allows for childcare centers with a Site Development Permit, the applicant will need to request an incentive / concession to deviate from this requirement to allow the childcare use without obtaining a Site Development Permit.
The project includes a 6,432 sf childcare building on the north portion of the site. Section 65915(h) allows a developer who includes a childcare center in an affordable housing project to request an additional concession or incentive to make the childcare facility financially feasible. .
R-3 Zoning allows childcare centers with an approved Site Development Permit. Ministerial approval would require a request of a concession or incentive.
State Supportive Housing Provisions (Gov’t Code § 65651) California Government Code Section 65651(a)(5) requires that supportive housing developments provide a certain amount of supportive services onsite. In this context, the services are required to be integrated on the same or contiguous parcels of the housing development with the intent to provide easy access to the residents being served. In the proposed project, the supportive housing services are located on a separate parcel separated by Canyon Terrace. The housing units are located farther than 300 feet from the supportive services. Additionally, the site plan show s no continuous ADA connection between the north and south parcels. A key consideration to determine if supportive housing services are in fact being provided “onsite” is for the project to demonstrate connectivity between the housing and the services. The lack of accessibility to the service s may conflict with the provision of Government Code Section 65651(a)(5) that requires that “at least 3 percent of the total nonresidential floor a rea shall be provided for onsite supportive services that are limited to tenant use …” Please confirm that there is ADA accessible pedestrian connectivity between the two parcels and that at least 3 percent of the total nonresidential floor area is reserved for onsite supportive services limited to tenant use.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
Mission De Anza Specific Plan
The project site is located within Planning Area 11 of Specific Plan 123, the Mission De Anza Specific Plan. This Specific Plan has been amended multiple times since its original adoption, with the latest amendment being Substantial Conformance No. 9, approved in 2006. Under the guidelines of this Specific Plan, the project site is identified as a 15.30-acre area with a requirement to provide a maximum of 88 units at an average density not exceeding 5.8 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed project includes 81 units, achieving an average density of 5.2 dwelling units per acre. The City’s Housing Element identifies this property as sites 84 and 85, which are anticipated to produce 15 and 17 above moderate -income units respectively. A copy of the Mission De Anza Specific Plan is accessible online at: jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/2396/Mission-De- Anza-Specific-Plan.
Section 9.80.030 R-3 Zone Development Standards
The table below outlines the development standards applicable in the R -3 Zone, providing minimum requirements for lot area, yard setbacks, lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, and automobile storage. For a complete copy of Section 9.80.030, please visit: R-3 Zone.
Government Code Requirement Project Compliance
Sec. 9.80.030 (1) Minimum lot area of 7,200 sq ft
with a minimum average width of
60 ft and minimum average depth
of 100 ft.
Project complies with these
provisions.
Sec. 9.80.030 (2) Minimum front and rear yards: 10
ft for buildings ‚35 ft in height;
additional 2 ft setback for each ft
over 35 ft.
Project does not comply with this
provision as it proposes a retaining
wall within the side yard setback. The
retaining wall, considered a structure
per JVMC Section 9.10.1200,
encroaches into the required setback.
Sec. 9.80.030 (3) Minimum side yard: 5 ft for
buildings ‚35 ft in height;
additional 2 ft setback for each ft
over 35 ft.
Project complies with this provision.
Sec. 9.80.030 (4) Maximum 50% lot coverage with
buildings or structures.
Project complies with this provision.
Sec. 9.80.030 (5) Floor area ratio not greater than
2:1, excluding basement floor area.
Project complies with this provision.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
Government Code Requirement Project Compliance
Sec. 9.80.030 (6) Maximum building height of 50 ft;
up to 75 ft permitted per Section
9.240.370.
Project complies with this provision.
Sec. 9.80.030 (7) Automobile storage space as
required by Section 9.240.120.
Refer to the portion of this letter that
addresses compatibility with Section
9.240.120 for consistency with
specific requirements.
Section 9.240.545 Multiple Family Development Standards The table below provides an analysis of the project plans and includes only areas of incompatibility for the project. For a complete copy of Section 9.240.545, please visit: Multiple Family Dwellings Section Requirement Project Compliance
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(1)b –
Private Open Space
Min 115 sf for ground
units and 75 sf for
above ground units.
Does not meet standard. Proposed
balconies range from 49 to 58 sq ft. Unit
A1.2 and A1.1: 58 sq ft; Units B1.2 and
B1.1: 55 sq ft; Unit C1.2: 49 sq ft.
Applicant requested a waiver.
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(1)c –
Private Open Space
Ground-level private
open space must be
enclosed by a six-foot
fence or wall and
screened with shrubs or
a wall plus landscaping
if next to parking or
roads.
Does not meet standard. Includes a 3-foot
wall around patio area, providing partial
privacy but not fully aligning with design
standards. Applicant requested a waiver.
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(3)a –
Laundry Services
Washer and dryer
hookups required for
8+ unit dwellings
Does not meet standard. No individual
washer/dryer connections provided
within units or garage as required.
Applicant requested a waiver.
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(4)a –
Accessory Storage
Utility Closet
Utility closet minimum
35 cubic feet
Does not meet standard. Units A1.2,
A1.1: 46 cubic feet; Unit B1.1: 69 cubic
feet. Units B1.2, C1.2, and C1.1 lack
required utility closet space. Applicant
requested a waiver.
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(4)b –
Accessory Storage
Private Lockable
Lockable storage area
outside unit, minimum
60 cubic feet
Does not meet standard. Unit A1.2 and
A1.1: 56 cubic feet; Units B1.2, B1.1:
unspecified. Units C1.2 and C1.1: 40
cubic feet. All units fall below minimum.
Applicant requested a waiver.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
Section Requirement Project Compliance
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(5)b –
Parking Management
Plan
Parking management
plan required
The applicant has not yet submitted a
Parking Management Plan. Plan must
specify resident/guest parking
assignments, outline enforcement, and be
reviewed by Community Development
Director. The project can be conditioned
to require that the applicant submit a
Parking Management Plan prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(6)b
Landscape Areas Trees
Trees planted at 30-
foot intervals
Does not meet standard. Landscaping
plans show varied street tree spacing with
gaps exceeding 30-foot interval.
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(6)c
Landscape Areas
Sidewalks located
adjacent to right-of-
way with landscaped
area
Does not meet standard. Right-of-way
areas along Canyon Terrace and Camino
Real do not show any landscaping in
plans.
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(7)b
Walls
Six-foot wall required
along property lines
with commercial
properties
Does not comply. No proposed wall on
Site Plan for property abutting
commercial zone (APN 185470003).
The absence of a required six-foot wall
along the property line next to a
commercial zone, as per Sec.
9.240.545(B)(7)b, could create issues
with privacy, noise, and security.
Without this barrier, residents may
experience increased noise and visual
disruptions from the adjacent commercial
property.
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(7)d
Walls
Height limit of 42
inches within 20 feet of
street
Does not comply. Proposed 18-foot
retaining wall exceeds height restriction
within 20 feet of Camino Real. Applicant
requested a waiver for this development
standard.
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(9)a
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access shall
be provided for
between the public
sidewalk and the on-
site walkways that
provide access to the
dwelling units.”
Does not meet requirement. No
pedestrian access between public areas
or ROW and on-site walkways.
The lack of continuous pedestrian path
per Sec. 9.240.545(B)(9)a, may conflict
with ADA requirements, and may limit
accessibility for individuals with
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
Section Requirement Project Compliance
disabilities who rely on seamless
pathways. This compromises health and
safety by potentially forcing pedestrians
to navigate through vehicle areas.
Additionally, pedestrian access,
sidewalks, and offsite improvements are
an important aspect of providing a
cohesive site design. General Plan
Policies LUE 11.6, ME 8.8, ME 8.10, HC
4.9, HC 4.6, HC 4.17 all underscore the
requirement to provide pedestrian access,
sidewalks, and connectivity.
Section 9.240.120 Off Street Parking
The table below provides an analysis of the project plans and highlights specific provisions of Section 9.240.120 that are not met by the current design. For a complete copy of Section
9.240.120, please visit: Off Street Parking
Section Requirement Project Compliance
Sec.
9.240.120(B)(6)(a)(i)
Layout Design
Standards (Location of
Parking Areas)
No parking space within
3 feet of any property
line or closer than 30 feet
to the right-of-way
property line
Does not comply. Proposed parking is 17
feet 5 inches from the right-of-way,
falling short of the required 30-foot
setback.
Sec.
9.240.120(B)(6)(c)ii
Accessible Parking
Location
Accessible parking
spaces must provide safe
and direct access to curb
ramps or pedestrian
pathways leading to
primary entrances
Does not comply. Buildings 1, 3, and 4
lack accessible parking spaces with direct
access to primary entrances, resulting in
non-compliance. Accessible parking
must be placed directly at building
entrances.
Section 9.240.120 (7) Landscaping, General Provisions
The table below provides an analysis of the project’s compliance with landscaping and shading standards specific to parking areas as outlined in Section 9.240.120. The analysis highlights areas where the current design does not meet the specified requirements, including shading, tree placement, perimeter screening, and additional landscaping for larger lots. For a complete copy of Section 9.240.120), please visit: Off Street Parking Section Requirement Project Compliance
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
Sec.
9.240.120(B)(7)(e)(i)
Parking Shading Area
Minimum of 50% shade
coverage in parking area
landscaping
Does not comply. Lot A provides only
27.9% shading, short of the 50%
requirement. Lot B meets standard with
53.5% shading.
Sec.
9.240.120(B)(7)(f)(i)g
Trees
Prohibition on planting
trees within 10 feet of
the driveway
Does not comply. Trees are planted
within 10 feet of the driveway in
residential lot, conflicting with safety
standards.
Sec.
9.240.120(B)(7)(f)(i)j
Landscaping
Three-foot-high berm or
planter with shrubbery
required around parking
perimeter, with a five-
foot width where
adjacent to public road
Does not comply. Current design along
Canyon Terrace Drive lacks the required
landscape berm or shrubbery for
screening.
Sec.
9.240.120(B)(7)(f)(i)k
Additional
Landscaping in Parking
Areas
10% of total parking area
must be landscaped in
lots with 50 or more
spaces, especially along
scenic highways
Does not comply. Lot A lacks sufficient
landscaping, falling short of the required
10% coverage for lots with 50 or more
spaces.
General Plan Policies
The table below summarizes key General Plan policies relevant to the project, outlining requirements and how they apply to this development. These policies emphasize elements such as safe street crossings, compatibility with airport safety standards, thoughtful residential street design, streetscape amenities, connectivity, and scenic view preservation. For each policy, the table highlights its specific relevance to ensure the project aligns with the city's goals for safety, accessibility, and visual appeal.
Policy Element Requirement Project Relevance
Land Use Element
LUE 11.16
Street Crossings
Mandates new development to
provide safe and frequent pedestrian,
bicycle and, where appropriate,
equestrian street crossings, including
over- or underpasses where
necessary (Jurupa Valley General
Plan, 2024, p. 2-80).
This project is required to
prioritize pedestrian access and
safe crossings to enhance
connectivity between the
residential and northern parcels.
Currently, the project does not
include off-site improvements
to address this policy.
Mobility Element
LUE 5.65 and LUE
5.56 ALUC
Requirements
Requires compliance with Flabob
Airport Compatibility Zone E
standards, including specific Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC)
measures. ALUC reviews are also
implemented per LUE 5.65 (p. 2-
71), LUE 5.56 (p. 2-68)
Project must incorporate
compatibility measures to align
with Flabob Airport safety and
land use compatibility
standards. Currently, the project
is undergoing ALUC review.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
Policy Element Requirement Project Relevance
Mobility Element
ME 8.8
Residential Street
Design
Emphasizes residential street design.
Streets shall be designed to enhance
and be compatible with
neighborhood character, circulation
patterns and modal choices and to
provide safe access to neighborhood-
serving commercial uses, schools,
churches, parks and recreational
areas (Jurupa Valley General Plan,
2024, p. 3-73)
Project should ensure
residential street design that
fosters connectivity, safety, and
accessibility for all users.
Currently, the project does not
include off-site improvements
to address this policy.
Mobility Element
ME 8.10
Right-of-Way
Improvements
Requires right-of-way dedication
and improvements. Developers shall
be responsible for right-of-way
dedication and improvements that
provide access to and enhance new
developments. Improvements shall
include street construction or
widening, new paving, frontage
improvements like curb, gutter,
sidewalks, street trees, trails and
parkways, installation of traffic
signals, pavement markings and
annunciators, and other facilities
needed for the safe and efficient
movement of pedestrians, bicyclists,
equestrians, and motor vehicles
(Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2024,
p. 3-73)
Project should plan for right-of-
way enhancements to support
accessibility, safety, and
connectivity. Currently, the
project does not include off-site
improvements to address this
policy.
Healthy
Community
Element
HC 4.9
Streetscape
Amenities
Mandates incorporation of
streetscape amenities, such as
sidewalks separated by landscaping
and parkways with street trees.
Requires new development to
include streetscape amenities such as
sidewalks that are separated from the
roadway by landscaping and
parkways with street trees, trails,
hitching posts (where appropriate),
pedestrian waiting shelters, and other
features that enhance safety,
walkability, neighborhood appeal,
and help commercial neighborhoods
stay clean, safe and attractive
Integrating streetscape
amenities will enhance safety,
walkability, and neighborhood
appeal in the development.
Currently, the project does not
include off-site improvements
to address this policy.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
Policy Element Requirement Project Relevance
(Jurupa Valley General Plan 2024, p.
10-9).
Healthy
Community
Element
HC 4.6
Connectivity
Highlights importance of
interconnected neighborhoods
through well-designed trails and
sidewalks. Interconnect
neighborhoods with safe, well
designed, and regularly maintained
walking, equestrian, and/or biking
trails and sidewalks, where
appropriate, consistent with the
City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan (Jurupa Valley General Plan,
2024, p. 10-9).
Implementing this policy will
promote connectivity and
accessibility, enhancing
neighborhood cohesion.
Currently, the project does not
include off-site improvements
to address this policy.
Healthy
Community
Element
HC 4.17
Development
Features
Requires residential development to
include features promoting walking
and biking to schools, such as
crosswalks and bike racks. The
policy establishes a requirement for
new residential development to
include design features, such as
sidewalks, decorative crosswalks,
and bulbouts, bike paths and bike
racks, to promote walking and
biking to schools (Jurupa Valley
General Plan, 2024, p. 10-11).
Design features such as
sidewalks and bike paths should
be included to encourage active
transportation options.
Currently, the project does not
include off-site improvements
to address this policy.
Conservation and
Open Space
Element
COS 9.6
Scenic Corridors
and Roadways
Mandates preservation of scenic
views along scenic corridors,
minimizing structures that obstruct
visibility. Development projects
along and within scenic corridors,
including state highway projects,
noise walls, and new private or
public construction, shall not wall
off scenic roadways and block views
of scenic resources. The following
measures shall be implemented:
1. Utilities, traffic signals, and public
and private signs and lights shall not
intrude on or clutter views,
consistent with safety needs.
2. Where important vistas of distant
landscape features occur along local
Project should integrate
requirements to preserve scenic
views and avoid obstructing
visibility along scenic corridors.
The policy discusses the
importance of avoiding large
walls adjacent to streets within
scenic corridors, emphasizing
the need to preserve open views
and prevent obstructions that
could block scenic resources.
Aside from avoiding large walls
in these areas, the policy also
underscores the importance of
wall design.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
Policy Element Requirement Project Relevance
streets, street trees shall be clustered
to facilitate viewing (Jurupa Valley
General Plan, 2024, p. 4-16)
Summary of Requested Waivers, Incentives, and Concessions The following table outlines the waivers, incentives, and concessions requested to date for the proposed project. These requests are aimed at facilitating project feasibility and addressing specific site constraints while ensuring the development meets essential housing and community standards. # Code Section Referenced Description of Request Type of Request
1 JVMC Section
9.240.545.B(1)
Remove the requirement for private open space to
meet standard dimensions, reducing private space
needed for each unit. The project deviates by not
providing private open space.
Waiver
2 JVMC Section
9.240.545.B(3)
Reduce the number of required in-unit laundry
facilities by providing a communal laundry area with 8
washer/dryer units for all residents. The project
deviates from the standard by not providing in-unit
washer and dryer hookups and provides a communal
laundry area.
Waiver
3 JVMC Section
9.240.545.B(9)
Provide pedestrian access as shown on Site Plan,
including connections from each unit to on-site
recreation facilities and parking spaces, but no
connection to sidewalks. The project deviates from the
standard by not providing connection to sidewalks.
Waiver
4 JVMC Section
9.240.120.B(6)(a)(i)
Reduce the required parking area setback from the
right-of-way from 30 feet to 17 feet 5 inches, allowing parking spaces closer to the road.
Waiver
5 JVMC Section
9.240.120.B(7)(e)
Reduce the required shading coverage for parking
areas from 40% to 29%, lowering environmental
shading standards.
Waiver
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
# Code Section Referenced Description of Request Type of Request
6 JVMC Section
9.240.545.B(11)(a)
Reduce the required 3rd-story step back from the
setback line from 30 feet to 21 feet 2 inches for roof
overhang, bringing the building closer to property
lines.
NOTE: This development standard does not apply to
the project.
Waiver
7 JVMC Section
9.240.110
Reduce the minimum required dwelling unit size from
750 square feet to 593 square feet, allowing for
smaller unit designs.
Waiver
8 JVMC Section
9.240.545(B)(4)
Remove the requirement for an exterior accessory
storage space of 60 cubic feet per unit, eliminating
additional storage outside of units.
Waiver
9 JVMC Section
9.80.030 (2)
Increase the allowable retaining wall height,
considered a structure, within the front yard setback
from 42 inches to 18 feet, significantly raising front
yard wall limits.
Waiver
California Environmental Quality Act
Government Code Section 65651 states that supportive housing shall be allowed by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones that allow multifamily uses, provided the housing development meets all requireme nts outlined in Section 65651(a). If the applicant is able to demonstrate that supportive services are provided onsite, then this project qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Section 15268(a) , which establishes an exemption for ministerial permits.
Resubmittal Requested
Please review the enclosed comments carefully and make the necessary revisions to the plans or provide additional information as outlined in the comments. Once the City receives your resubmittal, we will conduct another review of the project and provide further feedback based on the updated submission.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
By:
________________________________________
Rob Gonzalez, Principal Planner
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
10/16/2024
Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
C/O Jamie Poster, AICP
3221 Hutchison Avenue, Suite D
Los Angeles, CA 90034
RE: MA24164 - STATUS OF APPLICATION LETTER - DEVELOPMENT OF AN 15.53- ACRE V ACANT SITE WITH A NEW 80 -UNIT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
(INCLUDING A DAYCARE FACILITY), SURFACE PARKING AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS.
Dear Applicant,
This letter serves to inform you that the application for the above-described project has been determined to be complete, as noted below:
Complete: The application includes the information in the Land Use Entitlement Application and addresses the items noted in the previous incomplete letters sent on July 19, 2024, and August 29, 2024.
Land Use Entitlement Application Completeness
The City’s Land Use Entitlement Application notes that projects must submit items listed under the Site Development Permit (Major) application. The summary below includes a review of the items previously noted as incomplete in the July 19, 2024, incompleteness letter.
No. Name of
Item
Description Notes Submitted Complete
1 Project
Description
and Narrative
Detailed
description
of the project
and its
purpose.
A Project Description and
Narrative was provided,
offering a detailed
description of the project and
sufficient information about
its scope, objectives, and any
relevant land use
considerations. This
9/16/2024
(revised
version)
Yes
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
No. Name of
Item
Description Notes Submitted Complete
submittal includes additional
information on the supportive
housing component of the
project to ensure that the
project qualifies for the
State’s ministerial approval
process.
2 Color
Architectural
Elevations
Colored
architectural
renderings of
the building
elevations.
Colored architectural
elevations, were provided
and include Sheets CLR 1
and CLR 2. The second
submittal includes
information about the color
architectural aspects of the
project.
9/16/2024 Yes
3 Color Sample
and Materials
Board
Samples of
colors and
materials to
be used in
the project.
A color samples and
materials board was
provided. The second
submittal includes
information about the colors
and materials used for the
project.
9/16/2024 Yes
Additional Information Demonstrating that the Project Qualifies as “Supportive Housing” for Purposes of the State’s Ministerial Approval Process In addition to the previously submitted documents, on August 29, 2024 the City requested further information to ensure that the project qualifies as “supportive housing” for purposes of Government Code Section 65582 and for purposes of the ministerial approval process under Government Code Sections 65650 et seq. The following details have since been provided:
Unit Allocation: 28 of the 80 units will be designated as supportive housing (over 25 %). Target Population: The target population is identified as homeless veterans. Affordability Restrictions: The project site will include a 55-year affordability restriction.
Supportive Services and Project Operations (Gov. Code § 65652):
o Supportive services will be provided by Light House Social Service Centers, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaV alley.org
o These services will be funded through the California Department of Housing and Community Development's Veteran’s Housing and Homelessness Prevention funds.
o The project will employ two staff members.
Staff will continue to review the submitted application and provide feedback on the project’s compatibility and consistency with relevant zoning and land use requirements. You can expect feedback within 30 days of receiving this letter. Please contact me with any questions at [email protected] or (951) 332-6464, extension 149.
Sincerely,
City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division
________________________________
Rob Gonzalez, MURP, AICP
Principal Planner
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaValley.org
July 19, 2024
Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
C/O Jamie Poster, AICP
3221 Hutchison Avenue, Suite D
Los Angeles, CA 90034
RE: MA24164 - STATUS OF APPLICATION LETTER - DEVELOPMENT OF AN 15.53-ACRE VA C A N T S I T E W I T H A N E W 8 0-UNIT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT,
ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, A DAYCARE FACILITY , SURFACE PARKING AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS.
Dear Applicant:
Pursuant to state law, a completeness review was conducted for the provided application documents and materials. It has been determined that the application is:
• Not complete. The application requires certain information, which is missing. The information needed is listed below and must be supplied before the application can be deemed complete.
Additional information required:
• Provide color architectural elevations of the proposed buildings. • Provide a color sample and materials board for the proposed buildings. • Information required on the Architectural Site Plan:
o Due to the size of the site, provide a detailed site plans be provided that focus on various portions of the site as this will help confirm compliance with municipal code requirements. o Complete legal description of the property.
o On site plans that demonstrate all existing lot lines. o For zone setback and building permit purposes, buildings typically cannot be placed over or within setbacks from a lot line. Lot line issues can be resolved by confirming setback requirements, adjusting the location of buildings to avoid placement issues, or completing a lot merger to remove conflicting lot lines o Existing zoning classification and General Plan Land Use designation of the subject property and the properties immediately surrounding it.
o Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and, if available, address of the property.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaValley.org
o If the project is within a Specific Plan, indicate the Specific Plan number and name, the Planning Area number, and the Land Use designation of the subject property and all surrounding properties.
o Names of utility purveyors and school district(s), including providers of water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable television. If within a water or sewer provider’s jurisdictional boundary, indicate if service is available at the project site; if not, specify how far water lines or sewer lines must be extended to provide service (distance in feet/miles). o Location, widths, and improvements of existing and proposed public utility easements, transmission lines, power and telephone poles, and underground utilities on or abutting the property.
o Plot the location of any known existing wells on the property or within 200 feet of the project boundary.
o List and accurately show all easements of record (by map or instrument number). o Existing topography of the property, with the source(s) of the contour lines identified. The contour lines shall extend 300 feet beyond the exterior boundaries of the subject property when adjacent property is unimproved or vacant. When adjacent property is improved or not vacant, contour lines shall extend beyond the exterior boundaries of the subject property a distance sufficient to determine compatibility with adjacent property. Maximum contour interval should be five feet. Flood Control District and Transportation Department base maps are acceptable sources of information. Topography from U.S.G.S. maps may be used only when more detailed information is not available. Additional topography may be required if deemed necessary.
o Spot elevations (proposed finished elevations) sufficient to demonstrate that streets, driveways, parking lots, and drainage grades meet minimum requirements. Provide spot elevations at street intersections, ends, cul-de-sacs, beginning and end of all driveways, parking lot outer limits, entrance and end points, and at all grade breaks. o Labeled common areas, open space, and recreational areas, with location, dimensions, acreage, any known proposed uses, and name of proposed owner(s) or entity(ies) who will maintain these areas.
• Please provide additional information on the architectural elevation plans:
o Details of any wall-mounted signs.
o Details of any mounted air conditioning equipment.
o Details of any mounted solar equipment.
o Details of any other equipment mounted on exterior walls. • Please provide information about the signs:
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
www.JurupaValley.org
o Include information and diagrams of the free-standing signs and monument signs proposed for the project.
• Please provide a wall and fence plan:
o Location, dimensions, setbacks, and nature of proposed and existing fences, gates, walls, free- standing signs, driveways, turnouts/turnarounds, curbs, drainage structures, and above and below- ground structures, including septic subsurface sewage disposal systems. o Provide a diagram of the proposed retaining wall located along Camino Real. o Walls located within 20 feet of any street shall be constructed of decorative concrete block
• Please provide a diagram of the trash enclosures.
Please provide the above-referenced additional plans and information for the proposed project. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions at [email protected] or (951) 332- 6464 x 149.
Sincerely,
CITY OF JURUPA V ALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
__________________________
Rob Gonzalez, Senior Planner
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
JUNE 26, 2025
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
JOE PEREZ, ASSISTANT CIT Y MANAGER/COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.A
APPROVAL O
F A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
CIVIC SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed Professional Services Agreement with Civic Solutions, Inc. to provide planning services.
BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2012, the City and Civic Solutions, Inc. entered into an initial agreement in which Civic Solutions, Inc. would provide land use planning services. This agreement was extended by amendments on June 6, 2013, June 19, 2014, June 18, 2015, and June 16, 2016.
On April 19, 2018, the City Council approved a three-year Agreement with two, two-year extensions. This agreement expires on June 30, 2025.
ANALYSIS
Good public policy lends itself to periodically placing professional service agreements such as this out on the open market for solicitation of other firms that would be interested in providing these services. As a result, “Request for Proposals” ( RFP) was issued on April 28, 2025 and it includes specific requirements to qualify for consideration. These requirements included a detailed Scope of Work (SOW) to be performed, references of recent clients for similar work provided, qualification requirements for performing the Scope of Work, including familiarity with the City, and resumes of senior staff. The “Request for Proposals” (RFP) was posted on Planetbids which is the City’s electronic procurement system. Planetbids allows registered vendors to view the RFP and submit a proposal online. Currently, Planetbids have 3,219 registered vendors, and the RFP was viewed 210 times. The proposals were due on May 12, 2025 by 3:00 p.m. and the City received proposals from 14 firms. Table 1 presents the 14 firms and the services they provide.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 2
Table 1. Firms & Services
Firms Services Offered
4LEAF, Inc. 1. Advance Planning and Special projects
services;
2. Planning staff augmentation (current planning
only); and
3. Entitlement processing.
Ascent Environmental, Inc. 1. Environmental Planning Services CASC Engineering & Consulting, Inc. 1. Advance Planning and Special projects services;
2. Entitlement processing;
3. Environmental Planning Services; and
4. Urban Design Services.
Civic Solutions, Inc. 1. Advance Planning and Special projects services;
2. Planning staff augmentation;
3. Entitlement processing;
4. Environmental Planning Services;
5. Urban Design Services; and
6. Landscape Design Review Services.
Community Counterpart Services 1. Advance Planning and Special projects services;
2. Planning staff augmentation; and
3. Landscape Design Review Services.
CSG Consultings, Inc. 1. Advance Planning and Special projects services;
2. Planning staff augmentation;
3. Entitlement processing; and
4. Environmental Planning Services.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 3
Firms Services Offered
EPD Solutions 1. Advance Planning and Special projects
services;
2. Planning staff augmentation;
3. Entitlement processing;
4. Environmental Planning Services; and
5. Urban Design Services.
FirstCarbon Solutions 1. Environmental Planning Services Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1. Advance Planning and Special projects services;
2. Entitlement processing;
3. Environmental Planning Services; and
4. Urban Design Services.
Meridian Consultants, Inc. 1. Advance Planning and Special projects services;
2. Entitlement processing; and
3. Environmental Planning Services.
MNS Engineers, Inc. 1. Advance Planning and Special projects services;
2. Planning Staff Augmentation
3. Entitlement processing;
4. Environmental Planning Services; and
5. Urban Design Services.
PSOMAS 1. Environmental Planning Services
Sagebrest Planning + Environmental 1. Advance Planning and Special projects services;
2. Planning Staff Augmentation
3. Entitlement processing; and
4. Environmental Planning Services;
Van Dyke Landscape Architects 1. Landscape Design Review Services.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 4
After thoroughly reviewing all the proposals and interviewing the four highest ranked firms, an Agreement with Civic Solutions, Inc. is recommended. Their proposal was complete, requirements of the RFP were met, and the firm is qualified for the services to be provided.
Additionally, as the City’s current service provider, a wealth of historical knowledge of the City is retained within the Civic Solutions, Inc. personnel.
Over the course of the last approximately 13 years, Civic Solutions, Inc. has performed exceedingly well in providing these services that comprise the full range of current and advance planning including some of the following projects: a) development of the City’s first General Plan; b) Environmental Justice Element (second adopted in the State); c) approval of large projects such Shadow Rock community, Shops at Jurupa Valley, the District of Jurupa Valley, and Rio Vista Specific Plan; and d) other pending long range planning efforts such as the Pedley Town Center Plan, and the Major Corridors Plan.
Civic Solutions, Inc. continues to provide excellent service and expertise in the areas of responsibility under the contract. These areas include land use planning, entitlement services, long range planning, environmental planning and landscape design serv ices.
The technical aspects of this service, as applied to the City as a whole, demands a high level of sensitivity to the various aspects of the community and Civic Solutions, Inc. has adapted to this very well.
Below are additional reasons Civic Solutions, Inc. is recommended:
• No Conflicts of Interest : Civic Solutions, Inc. currently serve s only public agencies and does not accept contracts from private-sector development interests in any jurisdiction.
• Comprehensive Services: Civic Solutions, Inc. is the only firm that can provide all the requested services as shown in Table 1. The services that can be provided cover current and advance planning, staff augmentation, environmental review, landscape review, and urban design. Furthermore, this firm has housing specialists and GIS services available.
• Competitive Rates: Due to Civic Solutions` long standing relationship, they are able to offer the most competitive rates. Their range for rates is considerably below the rates of planning firms providing similar services. • Extensive Public Sector Expertise: Every member of their team brings deep experience working in and for public agencies, with a shared mission to improve communities.
• Historical Knowledge of the City: Civic Solutions, Inc. has worked with the City of Jurupa Valley for thirteen years and has extensive knowledge about the City including residents and businesses. Additionally, the firm has extensive knowledge of the City’s adopted plans and municipal code.
• Organizational Depth and Resilience: Civic Solutions is equipped to fully support the City’s planning needs through all phases of service delivery and in all subareas identified in the City’s RFP, even in the face of increased demand or shifting priorities.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 5
• Solution-Oriented Service: They align their work with the vision and goals of the City Council, always seeking practical, forward-thinking outcomes. • Continuity of Services: The Civic Solutions team offers the City a valuable combination of institutional memory, trusted relationships, and cost -effective performance. They bring deep understanding of the City’s foundational policies, development history, and evolving land use dynamics. This engagement would ensure seamless service delivery, consistency with CEQA and other laws, informed policy recommendations, the preservation of historical context, and sensitivity to local concerns. In addition, this contract would enable efficient coordination, minimize onboarding time, and maintain continuity through leadership transitions or procedural changes. Civic Solutions’ institutional knowledge would reduce ramp- up time and allow them to immediately contribute to critical planning tasks with effectiveness and efficiency. • Demonstrated Success in Obtaining Grants: Since 2020, Civic Solutions has successfully obtained nearly $1.3 million in grant funding for the City, providing critical resources for implementing advance planning projects aligned with City policy. These funds have significantly reduced the need to rely on the City’s General Fund, delivering meaningful budgetary savings.
Hourly Rates
As with any Professional Services agreement, consideration is given to determining the most qualified firm(s) prior to reviewing the cost proposals for determining the reasonableness of the costs for services to be provided. Review of the hourly rates for the proposed personnel have been determined to be reasonable for the services to be performed. Due to the long -standing and successful relationship with the City, Civic Solutions offered rates at the bottom of the proposed ranges during the first contract year.
The hourly rates of the top four firms were reviewed, and Civic Solutions’ fee schedule was reasonable for the services performed . Additionally, the hourly rates for planning positions that would typically perform the requested services are under the City’s hourly rate of $175 that is charged to applicants. The range is $105 - $170 between Planning Technician and Principal Planner. The other three firms’ hourly rates for similar positions are between $90 - $410. CSG Consultants’ fee range is $90 - $240, and Meridian’s fee range is $110 - $295. Kimley-Horn Associates’ fee range is $190 - $410.
Term
The term of the agreement is for three years commencing July 1, 2025 . As with the existing agreement, there is an option clause for two additional two-year extensions. The Agreement also provides for the City to terminate all , or any portion of the services , provided with a sixty-day notification.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The estimated Fiscal Year 25/26 Civic Solutions’ budget for housi ng and planning is $1,494,912. The Planning budget is $1,206,912 and Housing Budget is $288,000. The total annual cost of services provided by Civic Solutions, Inc. for all planning services would be set on an an nual basis during the budgeting process for each fiscal year, and Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 6
based on the hourly rates established by the contract rates included in the contract. Each Budget cycle takes into consideration the anticipated workload for the upcoming fiscal year, anticipated staffing requirements to support the workload based on established workload execution goals, and anticipated revenues to suppport the workload. A significant portion of Civic Solutions, Inc.’s services will be offset by permit fees charged to applicants for processing entitlements or other permits (grading, building, final map, etc).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommended Action: That the City Council approve the Agreement with Civic Solutions, Inc. for Planning Services, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
_________________________ ___________________________
Joe Perez
Assistant City Manager/Community
Development Director
Rod Butler
City Manager
Reviewed by: Reviewed by:
___________________________ ___________________________ Susan Paragas Michael Flad
Finance Director Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by:
_________________
__________
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 7
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Agreement with Civic Solutions, Inc
a. Exhibit A: Civic Solutions, Inc. Proposal and Scope of Work
2. Request for Proposals (RFP)
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
-1-
12774-0001\2868044v1.doc
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY AND CIVIC SOLUTIONS FOR THE PLANNING SERVICES
(PROFESSIONAL SERVICES)
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of June 26, 2025, between the City of Jurupa Valley (“City”) and Civic Solutions, Inc., a California corporation (“Consultant”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Term
This Agreement sha ll co mmence on July 1, 2025, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed in accordance with the Scope of Services, but in no event later than June 30, 2028, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The City Council may extend the term of this Agreement by mutual agreement for two (2) extensions of two years each.
2. Services
Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A.
3. Performance
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. P
ayment
A. The City agrees to cause Consultant to be paid monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit A, Schedule of Fees and Payments, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed Three Hundred Ninety-Six Thousand One Hundred Forty-Five Dollars ($396,145.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
B. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Council.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
1 -2-
12774-0001\2868044v1.doc
C. Consultant shall submit invoices monthly for actual services performed.
Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant’s fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
5. Suspension or Termination of Agreement Without Cause A. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
B. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4.
6. Default of Consultant
A. The Consultant’s failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant’s control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
B. If the City Manager or their delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he or she shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
7. Ownership and Maintenance of Documents
A. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
1 -3-
12774-0001\2868044v1.doc
City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
B. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City Manager, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling , transferring and printing computer files.
8. Indemnification.
Consultant shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”) with respect to any and all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, costs or expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs of defense (collectively, “Claims” hereinafter), including but not limited to, Claims relating to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to acts or omissions of Consultant or any of its officers, employees, subcontractors, or agents in the performance of this Agreement, except for such loss or damage arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the parties. Consultant shall defend Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any such Claims with counsel of City’s choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Consultant’s duty to defend pursuant to this Section shall apply independent of any prior, concurrent or subsequent misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions or Indemnitees.
9. Insurance Requirements.
A. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
1) Minimum Scope of Insurance . Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
a) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
1 -4-
12774-0001\2868044v1.doc
b) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable.
c) Worker ’s Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker’s compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. d) Property Damage insurance covering risks of fire, water damage, vandalism, earthquake, flooding and other perils. e) Professional liability insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant’s profession. 2) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
a) General Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
b) Automobile Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
c) Worker ’s Compensation as required by the State of
California; Employer’s Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease.
d) Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in the aggregate. 3) Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions shall not exceed $25,000 unless otherwise approved in writing by the City Manager in their sole discretion.
B. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1) The City, its elected officials, officers, employees, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role City officials (“Additional Insured”) shall be covered as insured’s as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
1 -5-
12774-0001\2868044v1.doc
hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the Additional Insureds. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Additional Insureds. Any insurance or self- insured maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the Additional Insureds.
4) The Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.
5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that the insurer shall endeavor to provide thirty (30) days’ prior written notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the City prior to any action to suspend, void, cancel or otherwise reduce in coverage or in limits.
6) Within one (1) business day following receipt by Consultant of any notice correspondence or notice, written or oral, of an action or proposed action to suspend, void, cancel or otherwise reduce in coverage or in limits of the required insurance, Consultant shall notify City of such action or proposed action.
C. First Dollar Coverage. All policies required of Consultant must be written on a first-dollar coverage basis.
D. No Subrogation. All policies shall prohibit subrogation against the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role City officials.
E. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
F. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by or acceptable to the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City’s forms, the Consultant’s insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications.
G. Modifications. City Manager may, with the consent of the City Attorney, waive the provisions of this paragraph or provided for other forms of insurance as may be Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
1 -6-
12774-0001\2868044v1.doc
necessary to enable the City to receive adequate insurance protection as contemplated in this section.
10. Independent Contractor
A. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City.
Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
B. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
11. Legal Responsibilities
The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
12. Confidentiality; Release of Information
A. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City’s prior written authorization.
B. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
13. Assignment
The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. City consents to the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025