Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Council approves 80‑unit Camino Terrace affordable housing project with conditional blasting language after heated debate
Loading...
Summary
Following extensive public comment and a legal briefing on state housing laws, the council approved an 80‑unit affordable/supportive housing project with conditions including a $1.2M undergrounding commitment, sidewalk/ADA work, northern parcel set aside as open space, and alternative blasting language requiring city engineer and fire department approval if blasting is necessary.
Jurupa Valley’s City Council voted March 19 to approve the Camino Terrace apartment project — an 80‑unit affordable and supportive housing development — after lengthy public comment and debate focused on public‑safety, emergency access and grading concerns.
Principal planner Rob Gonzales presented the applicant’s revised site plan and staff‑recommended conditions: all development would be concentrated on the south portion of the parcel, the applicant agreed to dedicate the northern parcel (about 9.65 acres) for city open space, and the developer committed $1.2 million toward undergrounding utilities along Camino Real plus sidewalk and ADA improvements. Staff also recommended an emergency generator be included to support residents during power outages.
Residents and community members raised repeated safety objections: several speakers described steep grades, limited secondary egress, concerns about fire‑truck access and a long list of items raised in fire‑department memos. One public speaker told council, "This is a death trap for disabled veterans," characterizing the proposed circulation and emergency access as unsafe.
Council considered three options: (1) approve with a complete prohibition on blasting; (2) approve with alternative language that allows blasting only if the developer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the city engineer and the fire department that blasting is necessary and then follows strict safety and monitoring conditions; or (3) uphold the planning commission denial. After discussion and legal briefing — which explained state housing laws that constrain local denial of 100% affordable projects unless a preponderance of evidence shows unmitigable health or safety threats — the council approved the project using option (2): alternative blasting language plus the conditions noted above. The motion passed 3–1.
Council members stressed that requirements in the approval — including plan checks, street‑grade analyses, fire‑department sign‑offs, and precise grading and building plans — still require developer compliance before any permits are issued. Staff and the building, engineering and fire departments retain authority to require plan changes or to withhold permits if the necessary standards are not met.
What happens next: the developer must submit precise grading and building plans for city review and secure all required approvals (building permits, fire review, and any permits related to blasting if needed). If those plans fail to meet code or fire‑safety standards, the city can require redesigns or withhold permits.
