[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6427872,"mediaKeyId","5893604-ebdc68a1b11ebcfc17b1cb3a28f127d4","parentId",5893604,"title","Jurupa Valley councilors question proposed 106,400‑sq‑ft self‑storage and contractor garages on Etiwanda Avenue","audioSeconds",1575,"startMs",64000,"endMs",1639000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5893604-ebdc68a1b11ebcfc17b1cb3a28f127d4&start=64&end=1639","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5893604-ebdc68a1b11ebcfc17b1cb3a28f127d4/thumbnail_64000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6427872/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Jurupa-Valley-councilors-question-proposed-106400sqft-selfstorage-and-contractor-garages-on-Etiwanda-Avenue","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427872-2336df9823d1a18912adcec2b5df7179/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021601&Signature=NupkhJ0YDkGtqZ0ct7Y~SIOO~NTQja5yOGmyEq-p7O3vnWU1AhBP~8cPb3nHhOKLnZ-3EfRMMV1RoX5FiQsYHVqjTnIz7e2~ahPn-J9Th5ROztuxfovRmGR-Y6AnVwDn~PoCraQFVLxDAZ0GdDpcYOLcpqUS6yhgXYL3bWGcKL9SLTqfVjFLXSPGkVF05oNP6uHpqxKiwzFCODR~0Z4WKlT1AfQdSNgUeXKVW8S-ICqQWKY5~W69RFg45pg0OMSXGw-uWblDK95s~ATjCf1hc3t1~feTCe4C9tY2iVBkxEbN3Y1egFB8eDXENATKuvEzug2-JavvXUMuE9V7ARFycA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Jurupa Valley City","date","2025-10-02T00:00:00Z","article","Jurupa Valley city staff and councilors pressed a developer on potential neighborhood impacts after reviewing a pre‑application for a 106,400‑square‑foot self‑storage building that would include contractor “business suites” at 5954 Etiwanda Avenue.

Associate Planner Oscar Estrada told council members the project is a three‑acre, two‑parcel site with three buildings: Building A, a 3,600‑square‑foot two‑story office/caretaker unit; Building B, a two‑story self‑storage building totaling about 106,400 square feet (roughly 53,000 square feet per floor); and Building C, a 7,200‑square‑foot, single‑story storage building. The applicant is listed in staff materials as Gossett Real Estate; the project was presented as a pre‑application only, meaning no formal entitlements have been submitted.

Estrada said the proposal would require a general plan amendment — changing the site from its current commercial‑office designation to commercial‑retail — a certificate of parcel merger for the two lots and a conditional use permit to allow the self‑storage use. He also flagged the site’s location in the city’s Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay (ELPO), which is intended to protect equestrian uses and discourages industrial‑style developments. “The intent [of the ELPO] is to protect, preserve equestrian uses…and discourage industrial uses,” Estrada said, adding that the project’s preliminary elevations and program do not propose equestrian amenities.

The staff presentation also emphasized the project’s “hybrid” character: contractor storage garages within the self‑storage buildings that would allow independent contractors to keep equipment, vehicles and materials on site and to perform some on‑site work. Estrada told councilors that, unlike a conventional self‑storage facility, the contractor suites could generate longer visits, truck idling, equipment noise and increased parking demand, and could encourage heavy vehicle storage and unpermitted material staging. He recommended the council receive the presentation and identify areas of concern or request more information.

A company representative, who spoke as the project applicant, said the firm expects to invest roughly $15 million and described a related business‑suite product they operate in Eastvale. “We own a facility over in Eastvale…we built 15 of these spaces. They’re for entrepreneurs and small business owners,” the applicant said, adding that the company had mailed notices to nearby property owners and hosted a community outreach event on Aug. 6. The applicant said market metrics show a local shortfall in storage square feet per capita compared with the national average.

Council reaction was cautious to negative. Several members said the concept, as presented, would likely face community opposition. Concerns included the concentration of existing and proposed self‑storage facilities along the Etiwanda commercial corridor (staff mapped three other storage sites within a half‑mile), the project’s compatibility with the ELPO architecture standards and the potential for increased noise, long‑term contractor parking and heavy equipment storage. One councilor summarized the council’s view as: “not a winner…as designed.”

Next steps: staff and the developer were clear that this was a pre‑application study session. No formal entitlements were filed or voted on. If the developer proceeds, city staff said the next formal step would be an entitlement submittal and Planning Commission hearings, at which community comment and required environmental and land‑use analysis would be presented.

Why this matters: the proposal would change the site’s land‑use designation and introduce a contractor‑oriented storage product that staff and councilors say could alter traffic, parking and the character of the Etiwanda corridor if built and replicated.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council","oneSentenceSummary","Jurupa Valley city staff and councilors reviewed a pre‑application for a hybrid self‑storage and contractor garage development planned for 5954 Etiwanda Avenue, raising concerns about required General Plan changes, compatibility with the Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay and potential noise, parking and heavy‑vehicle impacts.","taxTitle","Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California","taxId",3854,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6427852,"Jurupa Valley awards $100,000 in community service grants; one application blocked over conflict concerns",1467,5503000,6970000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5893604-ebdc68a1b11ebcfc17b1cb3a28f127d4&start=5503&end=6970","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5893604-ebdc68a1b11ebcfc17b1cb3a28f127d4/thumbnail_5503000.jpg","/articles/6427852/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Jurupa-Valley-awards-100000-in-community-service-grants-one-application-blocked-over-conflict-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427852-3c71bf18849a093833931b8122f9f1f7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021601&Signature=HUYRNug2mDz5~XOGG-dMCexk9EpA4vMiel7bOcTGEyY8ZJfZ6nV0093DmhZ25lrKSCW0fuLrIIpgoLJBRDkesfPNZm4~8xr7FchtpNHZB9zbLGsQ4vSwDvVjnaDIj5Z829vMheXyV2MbLRnAu4yo3oRC7mv0r-20cAjjn9S17y6MB5Ir7PTSvdowxQNHGvOjZEjmvZUEI1lYjAWzx44dgczhVvY8-3ksGCUamO1MBKkHu2tTw~CdP8XAH1Adk5dwnDkCbihTmZqtatoMPv082VNRpWKQGPqhAmAHdP2Nl06~itMRYxqf-ElT5RJ1Kw5lCcM8MJ68odZYVzWc0WYdvQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jurupa Valley’s City Council approved $100,000 in micro‑grants for local nonprofits at the meeting, awarding 20 organizations $5,000 each after staff and the Community Development Advisory Committee reviewed 37 applications and recommended a top 20.

Deputy City Manager Amy Sells explained the program history and process: the community service grants policy dates to a council resolution adopted in February 2019 and the council raised the program allocation to $100,000 for fiscal 2025–26, allowing up to 20 awards at $5,000 each. Staff screened applications for technical eligibility and the Community Development Advisory Committee scored eligible applications on project description, community benefit, fiscal responsibility and feasibility. The committee recommended 20 organizations for council approval.

Two applicants and several public speakers addressed the council. Lynette Jones, executive director of the nonprofit Kids in Conflict, brought a program participant to describe the organization’s youth services and requested funding. Tracy, representing Flabob Airport’s youth program, urged councilors to reconsider that nonprofit if it was not already among the recommended organizations; Flabob emphasized aviation‑themed workforce and after‑school activities that would reach local youth.

Before the council moved to vote, the city attorney advised that a conflict required separating one application from the group: a council member’s spouse serves on the board of “Harupa Valley Adopt A Family” (application materials used that name). Because the spouse’s unpaid board membership creates a disqualifying conflict for the council member, the council separated the item and the council member left the dais while it was considered. On the separated vote the item resulted in a 2–2 tie (the recused council member absent), and the motion to award that single $5,000 grant failed.

The council then voted to approve the remaining awards, adding one additional recommended application — Flabob Airport’s youth program — as the 20th award in place of the separated applicant. A motion to approve the full slate (19 original recommendations plus Flabob) passed; the clerk recorded the motion as carried by the council.

Why this matters: the program distributes modest, discretionary public funds to nonprofits providing direct services to Jurupa Valley residents. The council’s conflict‑of‑interest review followed state and local ethics rules and led to separating one applicant from the slate, which left an open $5,000 slot the council filled with a recommended alternate.","Jurupa Valley’s City Council approved 20 community service grants totaling $100,000 — awarding $5,000 apiece — after staff and the Community Development Advisory Committee screened 37 applications; one applicant was separated and did not receive funding because of a perceived conflict of interest.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6427858,"Riverside County says Harupa Road grade‑separation remains on track for 2027 completion; council presses county on business impacts and outreach",683,4204000,4887000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5893604-ebdc68a1b11ebcfc17b1cb3a28f127d4&start=4204&end=4887","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5893604-ebdc68a1b11ebcfc17b1cb3a28f127d4/thumbnail_4204000.jpg","/articles/6427858/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Riverside-County-says-Harupa-Road-gradeseparation-remains-on-track-for-2027-completion-council-presses-county-on-business-impacts-and-outreach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427858-b2efac8782a4218a1b97d1fafdaf6999/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021601&Signature=e~tr0hdO2Uk4VIE0hr0px5vPBMNW245DqgHnP5Vy~PYTzpwgTIMRnAMAE1jHBQHuY7CxVpZz~Yn2eyk2KOc6pdgTG-JsKxozLLujokh4NyAKAUhtXuhpd0fKvug8ZJPy36PHOcBY8p6pZ9tTYLo5AXPWu3yFPOM7Ckwbj4DHnjIoRU6Og33ydEPP02nvArXrPRjghqXZCpphvDdP2sL3D1HeCz68lglZxyFo8R-bBh2dj~TdmYwZJ~h7hvKMfcHNltaPUUnQgYXK1xsC6bavn8sjxk9FybdA8~pDUbPFM-cMq9Wj~19Ymi62jTSUFlI4D~C3Y2QwiY2t4gHuKLl7qA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Riverside County construction managers described major milestones completed on the Harupa Road grade separation project and outlined a phased path to full opening in 2027, while Jurupa Valley council members pressed the county on delays, cost increases and outreach to local businesses.

John Aslock, construction division manager for Riverside County, told the council the project — which lowers Harupa Road beneath Van Buren Boulevard and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks — aims to remove the at‑grade train crossing, improve safety and increase vehicle and train throughput. Aslock listed recently finished work including an extension of a box culvert (the “fly channel”), an arch culvert under railroad tracks, installation of temporary railroad tracks to the west and construction of a new traffic signal at Carupa and Pedley. He said the temporary track installation was about 70% complete and that the county expects to have trains shifted to the temporary alignment by the end of the year.

Aslock described a phased construction schedule: the county plans to finish temporary track relocation, begin construction of the first phase of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge in spring 2026, and complete final connections and road opening in 2027. “We expect to have it completed with trains moved over to the new tracks by the end of this year,” Aslock said about the temporary track work, and noted the permanent track construction and bridge phases will extend the timeline into 2026–27.

Andrea Suarez, the county’s public outreach director on the project, provided an update on communications and business outreach. Suarez said the project team maintains weekly notifications to 443 residents and businesses who have opted into updates, conducts targeted outreach to 23 named stakeholders (including the city, school district and emergency services) and has run modest social‑media advertising. She reported that a recent ad buy of $200 reached roughly 16,000 people and generated about 7,200 video views.

Council members and members of the public pressed county staff about two recurring issues: (1) the project’s cost and schedule overruns and (2) the rules governing “business goodwill” or business assistance. One council member said the delays and escalating cost were “unacceptable” and asked the county what steps it is taking to better manage scheduling on major projects; Aslock said the project remains on schedule for the 2027 completion date but acknowledged the work is complex and depends on railroad approvals. Another council member asked whether county or state fund rules could be loosened to expand the geographic area or eligibility for business assistance; county staff said they would consult the right‑of‑way team and return with information, but that some limits stem from state rules tied to public funding.

County staff also reiterated technical details important to residents: the railroad works alternate shifts and can have multi‑day gaps in visible activity while nonetheless meeting hourly totals, and certain final storm drain and roadway tie‑ins cannot be completed until final track and grade work is finished.

Why this matters: the grade‑separation is one of the largest infrastructure projects affecting Jurupa Valley in years. It aims to eliminate a dangerous at‑grade crossing and increase travel reliability, but adjacent businesses and residents remain concerned about prolonged construction impacts and eligibility for assistance. County officials said they will continue quarterly updates and remain open to additional outreach requests from the council.","Riverside County construction managers reported progress on the Harupa Road grade‑separation project and described a phased schedule that keeps the county on track for final roadway opening in 2027, while Jurupa Valley councilors pressed county staff about cost overruns, delays and business assistance eligibility.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6427866,"Jurupa Valley council discusses easing rules for residential metal shipping containers, staff to return with code amendment",2301,1495000,3796000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5893604-ebdc68a1b11ebcfc17b1cb3a28f127d4&start=1495&end=3796","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5893604-ebdc68a1b11ebcfc17b1cb3a28f127d4/thumbnail_1495000.jpg","/articles/6427866/Jurupa-Valley/Riverside-County/California/Jurupa-Valley-council-discusses-easing-rules-for-residential-metal-shipping-containers-staff-to-return-with-code-amendment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427866-8271eae74bd7e64396962de91d837c99/orig.mp4?Expires=1771021601&Signature=EHSbN8sZmDG3oqSGtLojNQ8Vzk6hTMtN6uoDg6FEJSZCkgXYPuFA7FO8B8qx0CmHc8exxBDtjEbH04ZfYRrEsT9cR3hzrX2~A9uEbbS0JfPH7a0o8Lb6DeXjc9wKuifO6rwx8yomqZ~zHkqEJIcI3SuoJyaA1PcUeXtgypdvhZvTlPVvz8fdOLaO2vTvrCwGNrVoL282uKYKFyNlHOfNi73P-if1bgrj9Rg4OdlrQvzlHXQgpAMatEw-nnGPXfsS6CxPfIHdqcqG00UjALQFuOJHcRTCSU~stjrcjUjK8rKizurd7MLthhbK0vv~7TdIoQ02OwcEksUrYb6XdCUuBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff presented draft standards and asked for council direction on whether to allow metal shipping containers as an accessory use in more residential neighborhoods, and — if so — what restrictions should apply.

Senior Planner Ronaldo Aquina told the City Council the current Jurupa Valley code permits metal shipping containers on residential lots only when lots are 5 acres or larger. Staff said council direction in an earlier study session prompted a follow‑up review of other jurisdictions, an inventory of Jurupa Valley lots of 20,000 square feet or greater, and a staff proposal that would lower the trigger to 20,000 square feet (about one‑half acre) with standards and a permit process.

Key proposed standards presented by staff included: a formal “metal shipping container permit” administered by the Community Development Director; a maximum container footprint of 400 square feet; a maximum height of 8 feet 6 inches (no stacking); a 25‑foot minimum setback from front, side and rear property lines (to keep containers in the rear half of larger lots); neutral or principal‑building‑matching colors; a maximum container age of 10 years at placement; maintenance in a good state of repair; a concrete or asphalt foundation or pad; and a revocation process allowing the Community Development Director to rescind a permit for public‑health, fraud or permit‑violation reasons.

Aquina said staff surveyed local jurisdictions and counties and found varying standards: Riverside County and other nearby jurisdictions use a sliding approach keyed to lot size (for example, allowing 1 container on a 1‑ to 2‑acre parcel, more containers on larger parcels). Jurupa Valley staff’s inventory identified roughly 8,000 parcels of 20,000 square feet or larger; most were located in the Sky Country/West area of the city.

Council members and public speakers raised practical and policy questions. Several council members favored allowing containers on larger residential lots but not in smaller‑lot neighborhoods; one suggested keeping a 1‑acre floor for most approvals, while others said a 20,000‑square‑foot threshold was reasonable if staff added objective design and screening requirements. Concerns included visual blight, pest and rodent attraction, structural deterioration of older containers, hazardous materials being stored in hot metal boxes and how to ensure ongoing maintenance. Mayor Bergson said, “it is not a smart idea to put chemicals in hot things,” noting metal containers exposed to summer heat can become extremely hot.

Council members asked staff to build flexibility into a permit so the Community Development Director could make site‑specific, common‑sense decisions for unusual lots (corner lots, odd setbacks). Several councilors suggested a requirement that applicants participate in community outreach or demonstrate a minimum lease term if they do not own the property. Some council members also proposed an inspection or photo‑renewal requirement at permit renewal, such as submitting photos at the 10‑year mark rather than mandatory replacement.

No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. By the meeting’s close council members asked staff to prepare a draft code amendment and bring it back with options on minimum lot sizes (staff was asked to include a one‑acre option and a 20,000‑square‑foot option), details on inspection and renewal, and examples of other cities that have lowered thresholds. Staff said the item would be prepared for Planning Commission and City Council public hearings if council directed a formal code change.

Why this matters: shipping containers are a low‑cost storage and small‑business solution for many residents but also carry neighborhood and public‑safety concerns. Council direction will determine whether Jurupa Valley expands allowance and how it balances homeowner flexibility with preservation of neighborhood character.","City planners outlined proposed permit standards to allow metal shipping containers as accessory uses on smaller residential lots, including a permit process, a 400‑sq‑ft size cap, 8'6\" height, 25‑foot setbacks and a 10‑year age limit. Council members expressed mixed views on minimum lot size and screening; staff will draft a code amendment for pu","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Jurupa Valley councilors question proposed 106,400‑sq‑ft self‑storage and contractor garages on Etiwanda Avenue

Jurupa Valley awards $100,000 in community service grants; one application blocked over conflict concerns

Riverside County says Harupa Road grade‑separation remains on track for 2027 completion; council presses county on business impacts and outreach

Jurupa Valley council discusses easing rules for residential metal shipping containers, staff to return with code amendment