Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances zoning change to fast‑track multifamily housing on 18 RHNA shortfall sites
Summary
The council introduced and unanimously approved first reading of a zoning code amendment May 21 to create a ministerial, objective‑standards approval process for qualifying multifamily projects on 18 RHNA shortfall sites, requiring at least 20% of units be reserved for lower‑income households with long‑term affordability protections.
Jurupa Valley — The City Council introduced first reading of a zoning code amendment May 21 that would establish a ministerial, by‑right approval process for qualifying multifamily housing projects on 18 identified RHNA shortfall sites. The measure, presented by principal planner Rob Gonzales, implements Government Code §65583.2(h)(1) and would require compliance with objective development standards, a ministerial site‑development permit reviewed administratively by the community development director, and a mandatory minimum of 20% lower‑income units with long‑term affordability restrictions.
Rob Gonzales told the council the ordinance is narrow in scope and aims to complete a housing‑element program (HE‑111) by providing a streamlined path for projects that meet the stated criteria. "The key features of this zoning ordinance... are that it establishes a ministerial process for these projects," Gonzales said, noting that qualifying projects would still be subject to objective zoning, parking and circulation standards and concurrent reviews by fire, engineering and other agencies.
Under the draft text, eligible projects must be located on one of the 18 shortfall sites, meet R‑3 development standards and the city'9s objective design criteria, and enter long‑term affordability agreements (the staff report specified a 55‑year affordability term for the lower‑income units). Projects denied under the ministerial path would receive written findings describing inconsistencies with the ordinance's objective criteria.
Councilmembers asked clarifying questions about the scope and safeguards; staff emphasized the amendment'9s narrow applicability and that discretionary hearings would not be required for qualifying developments. After questions, the council voted 5–0 to introduce the ordinance and find the action exempt under the listed CEQA provisions, advancing the item to subsequent hearings and final adoption steps.
Next steps: staff will return with final ordinance language and processing details for adoption; developers who can meet the objective standards on the designated RHNA shortfall sites will be able to pursue a ministerial review path once the ordinance is adopted.
