Jurupa Valley commission upholds denial of 80-unit Camino Real Terrace supportive housing project

The Jurupa Valley Planning Commission voted to adopt Resolution PC-2025-06, upholding the director's ministerial denial of the Camino Real Terrace Apartments, an 80-unit affordable housing project that included 28 permanent supportive units, a 2,500-square-foot community building and a 6,400-square-foot child care center.

The decision was the culmination of a public hearing in which staff and the city attorney said the project failed to meet objective development standards and created specific, quantifiable public-health and safety impacts; the project team and advocates argued state law and a letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) support ministerial approval.

Planning staff and the city attorney told commissioners the application was processed under Government Code section 65650'the state provision that can allow supportive housing as a by-right use'but that the city found several objective problems, including absence of required sidewalks and other improvements that, staff said, would force residents to travel in a traffic lane to access transit. City Attorney Maricela Merriquin said HCD'in a notice the city received on April 24, 2025'told the city it could not rely on a site being bisected by a roadway as a reason to deny a supportive housing application and reminded the city of obligations under state fair-housing law and the Housing Accountability Act. Merriquin also said the legal issue is unsettled: "There's nothing in case law, or in the statute that provides that a supportive housing site can, in fact, be bisected by a road," she said, adding that the commission retains discretion after a full hearing.

Staff and the draft resolution cited multiple grounds for the director's denial: lack of on-site supportive services as staff interpreted the statute; missing sidewalk and exterior-access improvements that conflict with ADA and local standards; a proposed retaining wall of roughly 18 feet along Camino Real; unit sizes for some supportive units below the city's minimum; and requests for multiple waivers or incentives (landscaping, parking setbacks, private open space, parking reductions under the state density bonus law and others). Staff recommended the commission uphold the denial and find no further CEQA review required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15270 for ministerial actions.

The applicant, Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation, represented by Rebecca Louie (president and CEO) and consultant Jim Reese, urged the commission to overturn the denial. Louie described Wakeland's track record building affordable projects in the region and said the project would provide much-needed housing for veterans and low-income households. "This is our mission in life is to provide homes for people who need them," Louie told the commission. The project team said it would partner with Lighthouse community services to deliver supportive services, that the development would be deed-restricted for 55 years, and that many disputed design issues could be resolved through redesign and conditions. The applicant also argued HCD's letter supports ministerial approval and warned that denial risks state-level consequences under housing laws.

During the hearing commissioners and members of the public pressed the project team on site-specific risks: lack of sidewalks adjacent to an 18-foot retaining wall along Camino Real, how residents (including people using wheelchairs or mobility devices) would safely access laundry and child care on the parcel north of Canyon Terrace Drive, emergency-evacuation concerns given nearby brush and recent local wildfires, potential grading and blasting on rocky terrain, parking and traffic impacts on neighborhood streets, and whether required on-site supportive services could be provided across two parcels bisected by a public roadway.

Public commenters were split. The Fair Housing Council of Riverside County and other housing advocates urged approval, stressing unmet local demand for affordable units and supportive services. Dozens of neighborhood residents and property owners urged denial or relocation of the project, citing traffic safety, limited egress (they pointed to Canyon Terrace as the primary exit), wildfire evacuation risk, retaining-wall safety, potential blasting and grading impacts, and insufficient parking.

Commissioners said they support adding affordable housing but voiced substantive public-safety concerns they said were unresolved. Several commissioners said they were receptive to continued dialogue but concluded the record supported staff's finding of specific adverse impacts and objective-standard violations. A motion to adopt Resolution PC-2025-06 upholding the director's denial passed unanimously among commissioners present (4 yes, 0 no; 1 absent).

The ruling does not preclude the project team from pursuing next steps. The Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that a written appeal of the planning commission decision to the City Council must be filed with the city clerk within 10 calendar days of the commission decision; counsel noted the applicant and staff will coordinate on the precise appeal deadline. If the applicant appeals, the City Council will review the commission's findings, the applicant's objections (including HCD's letter), and any additional information or proposed revisions.

What the project proposed: an 80-unit, 100%-affordable complex on about 15.53 acres bisected by Canyon Terrace Drive, including 28 permanent supportive units, 51 other deed-restricted units, one manager's unit, a community building with laundry and space for supportive services, and a child-care center. The site has been under an exclusive negotiation agreement with the Riverside County Housing Authority since February 2016; that ENA remains in effect through November 6, 2025, according to staff. The original application was filed June 21, 2024; the director issued a ministerial denial in February 2025, and the applicant filed this appeal on Feb. 27, 2025.

Key outstanding technical points identified in the hearing: - Sidewalks and access: staff said sidewalks adjacent to Camino Real and Canyon Terrace are missing and the proposed paved paths would not fully eliminate the need for residents to traverse a traffic lane to reach transit stops; the applicant said ADA-compliant walkways are included within the site design and offered shuttle or dial-a-ride services and on-site staff assistance. - On-site supportive services: staff asserted the state provision requires services to be "on-site" and integrated; the applicant said services would be provided in the community building and via Lighthouse; HCD's letter said a roadway bisecting a site does not necessarily preclude meeting the on-site-services requirement. - Retaining wall and grading: the applicant requests an up-to-approximately-18-foot retaining wall along Camino Real to create flat building pads; staff and neighbors expressed safety and visual impacts concerns; the applicant said retaining walls of similar heights have been built locally and proposed screening and landscaping. - Parking and density bonus: the applicant sought reduced parking under California's density bonus law; staff and the applicant disagreed about the proper application of objective standards and whether reductions were justified by transit proximity.

The Planning Commission's resolution upholding the denial recorded findings that, as presented, the application failed to meet applicable objective development standards and created specific adverse impacts to public health and safety. The applicant may appeal to the City Council; the record and HCD's correspondence will be central to any council review.

The Commission encouraged staff and the applicant to continue discussions to identify feasible design or mitigation measures that could address safety, pedestrian access, and other objective requirements should the project be revised and re-submitted or appealed.

(Reports and testimony for this story come from the Jurupa Valley Planning Commission public hearing on the Camino Real Terrace Apartments. The commission's written resolution and the HCD letter to the city are referenced in the transcript.)