Jurupa Valley council hears hours of public safety concerns on proposed 80‑unit Camino Terrace apartments; council votes to return approval and denial options

The Jurupa Valley City Council spent much of its Feb. 19 meeting hearing public testimony and deliberating a contested appeal of the planning commission’s denial of the Camino Terrace Apartments, an 80‑unit affordable and supportive housing project proposed by Wakeland Housing and Development.

Rob Gonzales, the city’s principal planner, told the council the current proposal consolidates the development onto a 5.88‑acre southern parcel and includes 28 supportive units, 51 affordable units and one manager unit. Gonzales said the applicant agreed to several mitigation measures requested by the city, including frontage sidewalks, a one‑time $1.2 million payment to underground San Bernardino Edison utility poles along the site frontage and backup generators for the community building (estimated at about $200,000).

The applicant’s representative (Rebecca of Wakeland) said the developer had revised the design to address safety concerns, remove the previously proposed on‑site childcare and consolidate buildings. "We've also heard the concerns that have been made, especially around fire safety," she said, and described collaboration with staff and public‑safety professionals.

Neighborhood speakers — representing Canyon Terrace Drive and adjacent blocks — urged denial or significant changes, repeatedly citing wildfire history, steep grades and access problems. Lucas Strowinski, speaking for affected residents, said state and county officials were reviewing safety concerns and asserted that “Cal Fire changed the maps a year ago, which then allowed these state laws to be applicable to the site,” a point residents said warranted further explanation and documentation.

Many speakers raised parking and traffic concerns, arguing the site’s parking would be insufficient and that overflow would congest narrow residential streets. Residents also pressed the developer on blasting: several said earlier statements had assured no blasting, and objected when the developer later acknowledged blasting might be considered during grading. Diana Butts and others asked for pre‑ and post‑construction structural inspections of nearby homes if blasting occurs.

City Attorney Peter Thorson gave a legal briefing on options and risks. He warned that under recent state housing laws and the Housing Accountability Act a court could require approval if the city lacks legally sufficient findings to deny. “If that type of lawsuit were successful, the judge would probably order that the project be approved… and the city would also be required to pay their attorney’s fees,” Thorson said, and he noted a possible loss of local control via actions like decertification of the housing element and a builder’s remedy.

Council members debated conditions staff should draft if the council were to approve. Councilor (mover) made a motion to return two resolutions at the council’s next meeting: one resolution of denial and one resolution of approval that would include a proposed no‑dynamite condition. The motion passed on a council vote (motion carried). The developer declined at the meeting to commit to a no‑dynamite covenant but said it would “do our very best not to” and would continue to evaluate alternatives.

The council directed staff to prepare both resolutions and the detailed conditions for an approval option, and to seek clarification from Cal Fire about recent map changes that residents cited. The two options will return for a final vote at the council’s next meeting (the matter was not scheduled as a further public hearing but as a council decision session).