City of Riverside – Stakeholder Infill & Small Lot Subdivision Workshop Summary – February 13, 2024
Question Stakeholder Feedback
Question 1: Have you
worked on an infill or small
lot subdivision project? If
so, which city?
• Nearly all stakeholders had worked on such projects
• Many Southern California cities named: Corona, San
Bernardino, Chino, Victorville, Hesperia, La Quinta,
Moreno Valley, Loma Linda, Fontana, Colton, Desert Hot
Springs, Murrieta, Wildomar, Anaheim, Oceanside,
Redlands, Menifee, Irvine, San Marcos, West Covina,
Yucaipa, Murrieta, and Temecula. County of Riverside
also mentioned.
Question 2: How would
you describe working on
developing undersized
lots/small lot subdivision?
• Inefficiencies in terms of time and cost most frequently cited
• Benefits of providing diverse, affordable housing and encouraging responsible growth also cited
Question 3: What are
some challenges or
opportunities you've
encountered when
working on undersized
lots?
• Challenges
o Most frequently cited: Community opposition, slow
permit processing, cost of materials and labor,
high interest rates, contradicting development
codes, inflexible and burdensome zoning
standards (i.e., setbacks, parking, required
amenities) resulting in fewer units that can be built
• Opportunities
o Most frequently cited: Housing is in high demand,
undersized lots promote a new pathway to
homeownership, & zoning changes can
encourage creative development
Question 4: Have you
encountered any positive
experiences working on
infill or small lot
subdivision projects in
other cities? If so, what did
you like about their
program?
• Los Angeles, Murrieta, Temecula, Menifee, and Yucaipa received the most praise. LA was especially praised for its small lot subdivision ordinance.
• Favorite aspects of programs: Streamlined permitting, flexible zoning, ability to meet with planners before and during permitting process
• Riverside was praised for its One Stop Shop process, 2004 Infill Single Family Residential Development Program, and RPU and PW rebates
Question 5: Which
development standards
should be considered
when evaluating housing
production feasibility for
undersized lots or small lot
subdivisions?
• FAR, setbacks, building heights, density, lot
size/configuration, access easements, and parking most
commonly cited
o Parking is often requested even if not required
• For PRDs specifically, shared driveways are preferred over private streets and public maintenance/finance districts are preferred over private management such as HOAs.
Fewer required amenities are also preferred.
o WQMD stormwater treatment requirements were
cited as an obstacle to HOA independence
Question 6: Which areas
of the planning,
permitting, or construction
process could be
streamlined to increase
market feasibility of infill or
small lot subdivision
housing development?
• Shorter deadlines, consecutive/overlapping processes, preliminary applications with clear entitlement paths,
coordinated departmental responses, combined
variances, fee reductions and credits to offset costs,
flexible zoning, and the ability to match projects to
existing neighborhood conditions rather than the
underlying zoning were most frequently cited.
City of Riverside – Stakeholder Infill & Small Lot Subdivision Workshop Summary – February 13, 2024
• One stakeholder mentioned that the City’s 2004 Infill Single Family Residential Development Program should be expanded.
Question 7: Should small
lot subdivisions apply to
multi-family zones or be
limited to single-family
zones?
• The consensus was to include both types of zones for
flexibility
Question 8: What
challenges or
opportunities would a
required minimum density
present for an infill/small
lot subdivision project?
• Size, shape, topography, and market conditions were
frequently cited challenges
• Flexibility on setback and parking standards strongly encouraged
Question 9: What
challenges or
opportunities would a
required maximum
density present for an
infill/small lot subdivision
project?
• Flexibility encouraged, especially for setback, parking, and height standards
• Minimum and maximum density discouraged; should be
left to the developer’s discretion
Question 10: Any
additional feedback you
would like to share?
• Streamlining and zoning flexibility requests were
reiterated.
• Appreciation for reaching out & building a stakeholder- staff relationship was expressed.