Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jurupa Valley studies permit‑amnesty program to legalize older unpermitted residential structures
Summary
City staff presented a possible building‑permit amnesty program May 21 to legalize qualifying older residential structures built before a cutoff date, with options for a pure amnesty, amnesty plus zoning leniency, or a building‑code certificate approach; council gave staff direction to draft program materials and return with cost estimates and draft ordinance language.
Jurupa Valley — Senior planning staff presented a draft framework May 21 for a building‑permit amnesty program intended to help homeowners legalize qualifying, older unpermitted residential structures while protecting public health and safety. The study session did not request formal action but council members generally signaled support and asked staff to return with specific eligibility criteria, fee scenarios and outreach plans.
Senior Planner Tiffany Chan told the council that unpermitted structures exist throughout the city and that full compliance with current codes can be costly and time consuming for homeowners. She described three policy approaches the city could pursue: (1) a building‑permit amnesty program with a confidential pre‑application consultation and a limited application window; (2) an amnesty program combined with a zoning‑code amendment to relax some development standard where appropriate while keeping health and safety requirements intact; or (3) an amendment to the building code to create a certificate of noncompliant conditions for qualifying older structures.
"Our goal is to safeguard the health and safety of the community from risk and potential dangers posed by non‑compliant structures," Tiffany Chan said. She summarized recommended default eligibility as residential construction built prior to January 1, 2017, up to 1,000 square feet, on legally established parcels consistent with zoning and the general plan — but noted council could elect an alternate cut‑off (for example, 2011 to reflect incorporation) or split criteria by circumstance.
Councilmembers pressed for details on cost and accessibility: several members said they wanted the program to minimize the need for expensive architectural services and recommended the city provide step‑by‑step checklists and public education materials at counter and online. Building official Brian Gumbert said inspections would be tailored to the structure: "We judge it by how great is the danger of this structure," he said, explaining that foundation, electrical and framing issues would determine the scope of required corrective work.
Councilmembers asked staff to return with a draft resolution, an amnesty guidebook and an application, plus projected staffing and fee estimates. Several members said they favored a short, first‑round application window (three to six months) with robust outreach and a confidential intake process that would not trigger enforcement while an applicant explores the program.
What comes next: staff will prepare a draft amnesty program guidebook, application and cost estimate; council directed staff to present options on eligibility dates, fee waivers, enforcement protections for applicants and outreach plans at a future meeting where council may direct a formal ordinance or pilot program. No formal vote was taken at the study session.
