[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,98,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6693274,"mediaKeyId","2369481-d06153813cca0007ffe9c5534f02cca4","parentId",2369481,"title","Council declines to adopt LaRue/Canal rezoning tonight, asks developer for project details","audioSeconds",1656,"startMs",8591000,"endMs",10247000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2369481-d06153813cca0007ffe9c5534f02cca4&start=8591&end=10247","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2369481-d06153813cca0007ffe9c5534f02cca4/thumbnail_8591000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6693274/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Council-declines-to-adopt-LaRueCanal-rezoning-tonight-asks-developer-for-project-details","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6693274-5ca2f8f9a7c583f37eeb2a94e3b1478d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771192373&Signature=PbswvIO~f8mVTvTaZ8T3oltVlGlfbqhkk54AjP5x7r7wgULsD2iqQjXKrAFRxRsZNnPO8gjuTArk1bSOCukcqMMw~LG9k0REYRptk6thRXNqZJpjT8s7hnLALx19XazLwD05j6wfc0cvjX46-OrnaqZLxnEZygW~NIfpkX5S5lXFmGfF4nLXBdnEjfIZ8mlC9FG~CSJ4BxpaVu8O3glCMTpVZEwn1JRi6qznLUl4u-JHjOBy00cMjsJPZsfm3zBOHR7JWCK5v1kUhABvw1NOAS-26OXo2d1VuBwpSe12cNOxOAqxkIls5J1cTGC43ZSLqRPfuKWTWtxY9rSSXV2atA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Jurupa Valley City","date","2025-02-20T00:00:00Z","article","Jurupa Valley’s city council on Thursday did not adopt a proposed rezone for a 3.06‑acre parcel at the southeast corner of LaRue Street and Canal Street, after the motion to approve did not secure three affirmative votes required for a zoning ordinance change.

The property has a general plan designation of Highest Density Residential (HDR) and had been identified in the city’s housing element as a potential housing site. The owner/applicant later proposed condominiums (the application materials described 52 units and were revised to 57 during review) with an affordability component: staff said the proposal includes a plan to designate 35% of units for low‑income households and 65% for very‑low‑income households as defined by state RHNA categories.

Nut graf: Council members said they supported housing goals in general but wanted more concrete project commitments because state law and density‑bonus provisions could allow the eventual unit count and concessions to change. The measure fell short of the votes needed; councilmembers asked to meet with the property owner and directed staff to return the item with further detail.

Public testimony and legal limits: Residents raised concerns about Canal Street’s condition, the narrow railroad corridor nearby, and whether necessary roadway improvement funding exists. Staff said the site is included in the housing element and that a future developer could seek density bonuses governed by state law; councilmembers asked staff to return with clarifications about the city’s discretion under state housing statutes and how to ensure the site’s proposed affordability and design commitments are enforceable.

Outcome and next steps: The council voted and the initial ordinance motion failed because it did not receive three affirmative votes. Council then voted to table the item and directed staff to hold a meeting with the developer and neighborhood representatives and return with more information, including whether the applicant is an entitlement company or a builder and what legally enforceable commitments could be attached to a rezoning.

Ending: Staff emphasized the city must balance state housing obligations against local infrastructure and neighborhood safety; council members asked for the item to be brought back after the requested meetings and legal review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Jurupa Valley City - City Council - Feb 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Jurupa Valley’s city council on Thursday did not adopt a proposed rezone for a 3.06‑acre parcel at the southeast corner of LaRue Street and Canal Street, after the motion to approve failed to obtain the three affirmative votes required for a zoning ordinance change.","taxTitle","Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California","taxId",3854,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6693284,"Council upholds planning commission denial of 67‑unit Wilmington residential plan at Camino Real",2711,10203000,12914000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2369481-d06153813cca0007ffe9c5534f02cca4&start=10203&end=12914","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2369481-d06153813cca0007ffe9c5534f02cca4/thumbnail_10203000.jpg","/articles/6693284/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Council-upholds-planning-commission-denial-of-67unit-Wilmington-residential-plan-at-Camino-Real","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6693284-c774cd85dc154148b555a9e9b84082f4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771192373&Signature=jPWaTAjlUrnm7OOCF9zvC7lv8d4mSXZIBvZVuQizMeP4A1~AM7vGyNrvFVAJEQNKI0-qKlCgwCIqcWLsPOJSlqaZoVhO2KZ2S5iDpBe0F4bulnnRjuMwJXfTByAAg8o2vHF5xfgdZTSdgpqx0PLIO~1ardEup4gP2TidOD7UegdAyZRVXrPME~M9Van7tNrbE8xjPYopQYaL-7jSn~SK8hqGbn3MnTy2sx3k0mL93sTLu0o62lMqEovgvfJ9R6lP5Gk2nP9MOaHB3ZTS~5ZmpmR0AhcPuaB6O~H2A88GaHHNylvVzqgR6dX1uvdPcQvxXKNPK-yot1XCpDHj2Tmhfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Jurupa Valley City Council on Thursday voted unanimously to deny Warmington Residential’s proposed 67‑unit development at the southwest corner of Camino Real and Jurupa Road, rejecting the developer’s request for two‑story units and related waivers.

Councilmembers said safety, traffic and neighborhood character drove their decision. Councilmember Armando Carmona noted that multiple residents had reported traffic collisions and near‑misses in the area: \"The safety of our children is nonnegotiable,\" he said during public comment, repeating several speakers’ appeals to delay or reject the project until a comprehensive safety plan is in place.

Nut graf: The project had been partially entitled under previous rezonings, but the planning commission denied the proposal. The developer asked the council to overrule that denial and to grant waivers to allow denser, two‑story construction; the council instead directed staff to return a denial resolution after extensive public testimony and staff briefings.

Traffic, railroad and cost concerns: City staff and councilmembers cited significant off‑site work the city would need to pay or manage if the development moved forward without negotiated mitigation. Public works staff gave a rough cost estimate for widening and signal/railroad work at the intersection and for spillway/road widening south of the site: \"Rough numbers…we are looking at over $1.6 to $1.8 million\" for intersection/railroad‑signal work, and roughly $800,000 to $900,000 for the spillway portion, Paul Toor, principal engineer, told council—\"so you're gonna go over $2.5 million at the bare minimum just to get out the door.\" Council members repeatedly said those costs underscored the project's local impacts.

Developer response and council reasoning: The applicant said it would build frontage improvements across its parcel—adding sidewalks, landscaping and widening where it can—but that the spillway and some railroad‑adjacent work lie off the applicant's property and are identified in the city's capital improvement program. The developer's representative asked the council to approve the project but said removing the two‑story component would make the project infeasible. Council members said the combination of the site’s constrained geometry, existing traffic patterns, proximity to schools (Camino Real, Patriot and Harupa Middle School) and rail crossings made the waivers and density requested unacceptable without stronger, guaranteed mitigation.

Vote and next steps: The council directed staff to prepare a formal denial resolution that would reflect the concerns heard from residents and staff. The motion to deny passed unanimously on a roll call vote. Staff will return a formal resolution for the council record.

Ending: Councilmembers said the decision reflected both local safety priorities and caution about state density incentives that can accelerate development without local infrastructure funding. Councilmembers urged staff to study site‑by‑site mitigation priorities and return with options to address corridor safety.","After months of debate, the council voted unanimously to deny a proposed 67‑unit development at Camino Real and Jurupa Road, citing pedestrian safety, traffic and neighborhood character; staff estimated at least $2.5 million in off‑site road and railroad‑related improvements would be needed if the project were approved.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6693288,"Jurupa Valley staff propose weekend enforcement, confiscation to curb unpermitted food vendors",0,2359000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2369481-d06153813cca0007ffe9c5534f02cca4&start=2359&end=2359","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2369481-d06153813cca0007ffe9c5534f02cca4/thumbnail_2359000.jpg","/articles/6693288/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Jurupa-Valley-staff-propose-weekend-enforcement-confiscation-to-curb-unpermitted-food-vendors","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6693288-c7a5a7b04886ae7913fc70083f823b09/orig.mp4?Expires=1771192373&Signature=gZclFw3DINEzb2-F8CnmVB3qWK8Z38EZ8Z5Hkqt0RAhyWbUh4gd~~ziQOVMmnhrwlKJHaPkeKki1MNAehMKHL6w419~P8k-qjE7Yx3YViNKjCdDYFfCjvVs56~T2qEHdpY-oDS-yhC6~Cg~4RVG~BS7XrlBNAeFOgvpVM0S~hUHTepL1yg4jBcscSoXCbd~-rHLrk7cG0DQ7lK-wgAkdZirTlIFOsuRWhY7uRfEB4hAMkCoJk20TouxlM8qgm2UEdDQnSxmX6UE4eJtTmm2xtjFbjrhL-R39zdVgo8L70uMowqogHwVF6Om0vTA0WLaAo~7FMUtrPBQhM6-VjtDe7A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jurupa Valley city staff on Thursday outlined a multi‑phase enforcement plan designed to reduce unpermitted mobile food vending, including night and weekend patrols, equipment confiscation and a public education phase.

The plan was presented by Erwin Salas, building and safety code manager, who said the city received more than 400 complaints about mobile vendors in 2024 and that current enforcement—citing and asking vendors to vacate—has been ineffective. \"The purpose is to protect the health and safety of the public, to protect the public from foodborne illnesses, and to protect the community from nuisances,\" Salas said.

Nut graf: The draft program would add a two‑person code enforcement team, a dedicated sheriff's deputy for vendor detail, an incremental education/citation/enforcement sequence and equipment impoundment. Staff estimated roughly $700,000 for the first year and asked council for direction to prepare an ordinance that would include impound and recovery rules.

Key elements and budget: Salas described five components—weekend/evening enforcement, confiscation of equipment, phased implementation (education then citations then full enforcement), installation of targeted barriers or landscaping at problem locations, and a 6‑ and 12‑month post‑implementation review. The staff cost estimate: two full‑time code officers $223,000; two pickup trucks with lift gates $120,000; a dedicated vendor deputy $410,200; and $20,000 for preventative measures at three to four locations. \"A total estimate for the first year cost is $700,073,\" Salas told the council (staff noted the figure is subject to change).

Process and limits: Staff said code officers cannot perform duties of the county health department (they are not health agents and cannot confiscate food), which is why the proposed enforcement focuses on impounding equipment rather than seizing food. Impoundment would be allowed up to 90 days and retrieval would require identification and payment of fees; staff cited Fontana's approach (not less than 30 days, not more than 60) as an example. Salas said the sheriff deputy’s role is safety and operational support when vendors resist enforcement.

Council and business response: Councilmembers asked for safeguards to avoid punishing local restaurants and residents, suggested prioritizing permits for in‑city operators, and urged creative, legally defensible ways to limit saturation without violating state law. Councilmember Armando Carmona and others pressed for mechanisms to prevent out‑of‑town operators from rotating personnel or vehicles to evade citations, suggesting vehicle tagging or stricter recovery rules. Several small business owners and restaurant operators spoke during public comment, citing trash, lost sales and repeated street‑side food service where customers eat in or around storefronts. Ronnie Romo, owner of Pizza Plug, said: \"I pay a lot of fees for my restaurant…we do want everybody to have their hustle, but everybody should pay their fair share.\"

Legal constraints and next steps: Staff repeatedly noted state law restrictions (for example, state law prohibits requiring minimum distances from existing businesses). The proposal calls for staff to prepare a draft ordinance that would include authority to impound equipment and recovery rules; staff also proposed bilingual education (English and Spanish) in the initial phase. Council members asked staff to return with a draft ordinance, cost and implementation timeline and to explore enforcement logistics such as where impounded equipment would be stored and how private‑property incidents would be handled.

Ending: Council provided general support for a stronger enforcement approach but requested more detailed ordinance language, clarifications about who pays for specific off‑site costs and assurance the plan prioritizes local businesses and safety. Staff said it will return with draft ordinance language, implementation details and refined cost estimates.","City staff presented a five-part enforcement program for mobile food vendors that would add evening/weekend patrols, a two-person code team, sheriff deputy support and equipment impoundment; staff estimates first‑year costs at about $700,000 and asked for policy direction.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6693279,"Council approves public‑safety Community Facilities District for Countryside Estates",973,7666000,8639000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2369481-d06153813cca0007ffe9c5534f02cca4&start=7666&end=8639","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2369481-d06153813cca0007ffe9c5534f02cca4/thumbnail_7666000.jpg","/articles/6693279/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Council-approves-publicsafety-Community-Facilities-District-for-Countryside-Estates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6693279-d0d49cbb5d377a210ada066f8b129f3b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771192373&Signature=DcZagiuZEktO992gMe90LQAtrGi4iE~EbvtC8~LGMQQsUKrT3b8Zey856ujaFNrr7R3HtQKP~WpRlNCNNYdB1UVyPN4gAEcCqhoWiDQKZEz-SpfITxEJOGAkyQiTY3BFhf6yrNjQHYPoPd4QRuB1D8qRpfuR-Y6z9fRFujNBRlwVu35K7zRjyQJwo~ehapvfafD5l~QQmr-VBpAoFkuJRvO-YbUw~R0M2V2BJ4YkU8YkqZqpMoBV6rO~NJ~HLz8LKx1mjz92u5FRE8szIwFKhG2mduW7TtoF~4TZu2xSXUaIORdub9ZnHoBmQ9UZj8suBGQP8-wJpAE3y4Gw66xX5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Jurupa Valley City Council on Thursday approved creation of Community Facilities District (CFD) PS2024‑8 (Public Safety Countryside Estates), a special tax district intended to fund public safety services for a proposed 31‑lot subdivision north of Avenue Quan Bastia and between Maverick Lane and Riverview Drive.

Staff explained the process: the CFD would assess future homeowners (only the new lots) to generate dedicated revenue for police and/or fire services; money collected cannot be used for other purposes. The proposed special tax was roughly $343 per household and would generate about $9,000 annually when the subdivision is complete, staff said.

Nut graf: Council conducted the noticed public hearing, accepted a mailed ballot from the property owner (the developer) and adopted the resolution approving the levy and the enabling ordinance. The city clerk reported one owner ballot was cast and all votes were in favor.

Vote and immediate outcome: Council adopted the resolutions needed to call a special election and, after the clerk tabulated the ballots, approved the levy. The clerk announced: \"The results are as follows. 1 owner cast 1 ballot. All votes cast were in favor of the special taxes.\" Council then adopted the implementing ordinances and resolutions.

Ending: Staff said tax proceeds will be restricted to public safety uses; the new CFD will not affect existing homeowners and will only apply to the future lots when sold and occupied. Staff will follow the usual steps for levy and collection once the subdivision is built.","The council held a public hearing and approved formation and levy of special taxes for Community Facilities District (CFD) PS2024‑8 (Countryside Estates), covering 31 future lots; ballots cast by the property owner were in favor and the council adopted the related resolutions and ordinance.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6693269,"Jurupa Valley, Southern California Edison set Feb. 27 town hall on power outages and PSPS",183,6067000,6250000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2369481-d06153813cca0007ffe9c5534f02cca4&start=6067&end=6250","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2369481-d06153813cca0007ffe9c5534f02cca4/thumbnail_6067000.jpg","/articles/6693269/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Jurupa-Valley-Southern-California-Edison-set-Feb-27-town-hall-on-power-outages-and-PSPS","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6693269-ddc88cbb0b2d345255f9016dc6eaed9d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771192373&Signature=lq9UWuA5pqDG6c08wRnxOetRNQgnBmmdZ0DXvmqXEGZZvTo4U68cLIJQ24iuob7e8jR35Dd7AQMQgFASCAJ9xaZVghfXQS3yh36rV9TWewVH4AwYu7g80LHN2Mu02cQ3GXO~6WoF-qwFSxOmmAir7UgaWKVflR~ja~yQoxLvvBso8njkHtoG5YL41KnqdT02quuN3c5y74y4bPoJbzwFpfj8W8LhJYJk8XaHTWBF9IotiW5s00A~XG8qyDN3tiDqrrF3O1oW-6yLJlHA0tKwPP7J~qJW3aS-a6je~Ep4I8sIqkBE-cdcE88LGdLdAHDZx2-iW8S-9xbZMLILiXKBQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff announced on Thursday that Southern California Edison will hold a special community meeting in Jurupa Valley on public safety power shutoffs (PSPS) and related outage issues next Thursday, Feb. 27, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Rubedo High School’s Elliot Dushawn Concert Hall, 4250 Opel Street.

Nut graf: The meeting will feature Edison community resource staff and an extended public‑comment portion. City staff encouraged residents to RSVP so the city can gauge seating (the hall has about 330 seats) and planned to provide Spanish translation; a live stream or recorded video may be posted after the event.

What to expect: The first portion of the meeting will include Edison presentations explaining why PSPS events occur, the criteria Edison uses and services available to customers — especially medically dependent customers and others who rely on electricity. Edison will also have staff on‑site to assist residents in signing up for programs and resources.

Logistics and RSVP: The city asked residents to RSVP on Jurupa Valley’s website so staff can estimate attendance and arrange translation and seating. City Manager Mike Butler told council staff had secured Edison and district cooperation and had asked Edison to bring community resources teams to register residents for programs. Councilmembers asked the city to press Edison for grocery reimbursement and confirmed the city will send a letter to Edison about reimbursements for spoiled groceries and other outage costs.

Ending: City staff said the meeting is a formally noticed special meeting of the council to permit broad public comment. Spanish translation will be available and the city will post RSVP information at roopavalley.org.","The city confirmed a special town hall with Southern California Edison for Feb. 27 at Rubedo High School to address public safety power shutoffs, resources for medically dependent residents and other outage concerns; residents may RSVP on the city's website.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council declines to adopt LaRue/Canal rezoning tonight, asks developer for project details

Council upholds planning commission denial of 67‑unit Wilmington residential plan at Camino Real

Jurupa Valley staff propose weekend enforcement, confiscation to curb unpermitted food vendors

Council approves public‑safety Community Facilities District for Countryside Estates

Jurupa Valley, Southern California Edison set Feb. 27 town hall on power outages and PSPS