Jurupa Valley City Council
September 5, 2024

1 2
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 2
et seq., of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC). The MSHCP established conservation programs to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental take of covered species in association with future development activities covered by the USFWS and CDFW take permits.

The City of Jurupa Valley is an MSHCP Permittee. The Wildlife Agencies request that the City’s implementation of the MSHCP for this Project be addressed in the EIR as discussed below.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY
Description: The City of Jurupa Valley (City; Lead Agency) and (Project Applicant) are proposing the Rio Vista Specific Plan Project (Project). The proposed Project will construct 1,697 residential dwelling units on 204.4 acres, a Light Industrial and Business Park on 140.3 acres, additional public facilities (including a school and water tanks) on 140.3 acres, 19.6 acres of roads, 18.4 acres of parks and trails, and 9.0 acres for water basins on the 917.3-acre Project site. Approximately 510.8 acres of the Project site will be designated as Open Space.

Location: The Project site is located north of State Route (SR) 60, between Armstrong Road and Rubidoux Boulevard on approximately 917.3 acres in the City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California, in Sections 4 and 9, Township 2 South, Range 5 West U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fontana, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, California topographic quadrangle map; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 175-080-010 and -021,175-090-001, -002, -003, -004, and - 005, 175-100-003, -005, and -006, 175-150-002, 175-160-001 and -005, 177-030-012 and -0014, and 177-040-002 and -008.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the EIR documents made available by the City for review, the Wildlife Agencies offer the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying, avoiding, and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions are also included to improve the environmental document. CDFW recommends the measures or revisions below be included in a science-based monitoring program that contains adaptive management strategies as part of the Project’s CEQA mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15097).

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Compliance with approved habitat plans, such as the MSHCP, is discussed in CEQA.

Specifically, Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the CEQA document discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans, including habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans. An assessment of the impacts to the MSHCP as a result of this Project is necessary to address CEQA requirements.

The proposed Project occurs within the MSHCP Plan Area and is subject to the provisions and policies of the MSHCP. To be considered a covered activity, Permittees need to demonstrate that proposed actions are consistent with the MSHCP, the associated USFWS and CDFW take Permits issued to the City of Jurupa Valley, and the MSHCP Implementing Agreement signed by

USFWS-CDFW

2 CONT
3 4
5 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 3
the City and the Wildlife Agencies. The City is the Lead Agency and is signatory to the Implementing Agreement of the MSHCP. To demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP, as part of the CEQA review, the City should ensure the Project pays the MSHCP’s Local Development Mitigation Fees and other relevant fees as set forth in Section 8.5 of the MSHCP; and demonstrates compliance with: 1) the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP); 2) the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP); 3) the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP); 4) the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, specifically the policies set forth for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (Section 6.3.2of the MSHCP); and 5) the Best Management Practices and the siting, construction, design, operation and maintenance guidelines as set forth in Section 7.0 and Appendix C of the MSHCP.

Specific Comments
Comment #1: Protection of Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resources (MSHCP Section

6.1.2)
The procedures described in the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools section of the MSHCP Plan (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) are to ensure that the biological functions and values of these areas are maintained throughout the MSHCP Plan Area (including all areas of the Plan located outside the Criteria Area). Additionally, this process helps identify areas to consider for priority acquisition, as well as those functions that may affect downstream values related to Conservation of Covered Species within the MSHCP Conservation Area. The assessment of riparian/riverine and vernal pool resources may be completed as part of the CEQA review process as set forth in Article V of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, the MSHCP identifies that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CDFW shall be notified in advance of approval of public or private projects of draft determinations for the biologically equivalent or superior determination findings associated with the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools policies presented in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP (MSHCP Section 6.11). As required by the MSHCP Plan, its Implementation Agreement, and the City’s associated take permits from USFWS and CDFW, completion of the DBESP process prior to adoption of the environmental document helps to ensure that the Project will be consistent with the MSHCP Plan, and provides public disclosure and transparency during the CEQA process by identifying the Project impacts and mitigation for wetland habitats and species, a requirement of CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15071, subds.(a)- The MSHCP identifies that assessment of these areas include identification and mapping of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. The assessment shall consider species composition, topography/ hydrology, and soil analysis, where appropriate. The documentation for the assessment shall include mapping and a description of the functions and values of the mapped areas with respect to the species identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Factors to be considered include hydrologic regime, flood storage and flood-flow modification, nutrient retention and transformation, sediment trapping and transport, toxicant trapping, public use, The MSHCP identifies that for mapped riparian/riverine and vernal pool resources that are not included in the MSHCP conservation area, applicable mitigation under CEQA, shall be imposed

USFWS-CDFW

5 CONT
6 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 4
by the Permittee (in this case the Lead Agency). Furthermore, the MSHCP identifies that to ensure the standards in Section 6.1.2 are met, the Permittee shall ensure that, through the CEQA process, project applicants develop project alternatives demonstrating efforts that first avoid, and then minimize direct and indirect effects to the wetlands mapped pursuant to Section 6.1.2. If an avoidance alternative is not feasible, a practicable alternative that minimizes direct and indirect effects to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools and associated functions and values to the greatest extent possible shall be selected. Those impacts that are unavoidable shall be mitigated such that the lost functions and values as they relate to Covered Species are replaced as through the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) process.

The City is required to ensure the Applicant completes the DBESP process prior to completion of the EIR entation.

The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the analysis of impacts provided within the EIR and its General Biological Resource Assessment. However, the MSHCP implementation process is not complete, because a DBESP has not been prepared and submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review and response for us to determine if the mitigation proposed for the impacts to riparian/riverine resources is biologically equivalent or superior preservation to avoidance. It is not appropriate for the City to adopt the EIR until the DBESP is complete because the City is required to notify the Wildlife Agencies in advance of approval of public and private projects for identified MSHCP activities, such as completion of the DBESP for the riparian/riverine policy (Section 6.11 of the MSHCP).

The Wildlife Agencies request that the City of Jurupa Valley complete the DBESP process, and once the DBESP is complete, then update the EIR with the riparian/riverine mitigation measures identified in the DBESP. This process would demonstrate the Project’s consistency with and the City’s implementation of the MSHCP.

Comment #2: Impacts to the Jurupa Valley Palmer Oak
Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak (Quercus palmeri) of unique biological, regional, and global significance.

Specific Impacts: Project activities, such as grading, cutting, or trenching, could potentially impact the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak through damage from soil compaction, severing of roots, trunk and limb injury, and limb breakage from construction equipment and activities. There is a high potential for indirect permanent impacts by the installation of houses, other buildings, paved surfaces within the vicinity of the oak. Additionally, grading might divert water percolation which currently nourishes the oak’s outer root system away from the root system, resulting in a decrease in moisture availability to this prehistoric oak.

Why Impacts Would Occur: The EIR identifies that the unique Jurupa Valley Palmer oak, represented by approximately 70 stem clusters forming a dense and homogeneous thicket with dimensions of approximately 25×8 meters and limited to roughly one meter in height, is located on a mountaintop ridge on the Project site. The EIR states that “no project-related construction activities may occur within the tree's mapped limit and the 200-foot buffer”. The DEIR indicates that construction activities may occur within 200 to 259 feet of the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak.

USFWS-CDFW

6 CONT
7 8
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 5
This has a high potential to fundamentally alter the surrounding environment as well as indirect effects through alterations to decomposition and nutrient cycling, access to water, as well as the abundance of herbivores, pathogens, pollinators, and seed dispersers.

Heavy equipment, storage of supplies and materials, and work activities within or near a tree’s dripline (i.e. directly below the canopy) can cause the soil within the root zone to compress and can often limit the availability of air, water, and nutrients to the roots. Soil compaction is greatly increased following an event such as rain or irrigation, when wet or moist soil is compressed by equipment or foot traffic (NPS 2022). Compacted soil is extremely difficult to remedy and can lead to the decline and/or death of a tree. In addition, trucks and other large equipment that strike tree limbs can cause breakage. The loss of limbs through breakage results in two principle impacts to trees: reduced capacity to capture sunlight for photosynthesis through lost foliage, and the opening of branch wounds that expose the tree to damaging insects and diseases. While the loss of smaller limbs and branches may only cause a minimal set-back in the health and vitality of a tree, breakage and/or loss of particularly large limbs can result in tree decline and death.

The Project’s proposal to impact the drainages onsite could result in moisture stress as grade changes may potentially lower the water table or divert drainage patterns away from the site.

Any changes to the microtopography surrounding the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak could potentially be detrimental to the long-term survival of this individual oak. No studies have been conducted to determine the water source for this tree; it is unknown if the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak is sourcing water (1) from surface flow that will be diverted away from the oak under the proposed Project activities, or if the oak is (2) relying on groundwater resources that may be impacted by grading and Project development, or if the oak (3) is partially sustained by fog drip from fog flowing slowly against the thicket’s leaves and stems. Based on our knowledge of the local area, we suspect that fog events on that ridge-top likely happen most often in the Spring months, and secondarily on Winter nights. The harvesting of fog-water during the Spring months may be an important component of the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak’s survival strategy, since significant rain events in western Riverside County are limited in most years to the months of November – March; harvesting fog-water during the months of April – June may be an important part of the Oak’s moisture-gathering strategy for surviving the generally rainless months of April – October.

Buildings, fences, and walls rising equal to or higher than the oak’s elevation on the mountain could potentially decrease or prevent future fog flow onto the oak once the Project has been constructed.

It is unknown whether the buffer size presented in EIR would be sufficient to ensure the longterm survival of the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak. There was no information provided in the EIR or the appendices on how this buffer distance was calculated or what factors were considered when selecting the chosen buffer distance of only 200 to 259 feet. Also, no information was presented on how the proposed Project impacts would alter the microtopography surrounding the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak and how that would affect its long-term survival through potential changes to air currents, moisture availability, ground water resources, impacts to soil composition, etc. In addition, the EIR does not include a discussion of any of the potential indirect impacts from increased human recreation and activity on the Jurupa Palmer oak through unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, increased fire risk, and dumping.

USFWS-CDFW

8 CONT
10 9
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 6
The Wildlife Agencies strongly recommend that additional studies be conducted to better understand the potential long-term effects on the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak.

Evidence that the Impact Would Be Significant: Palmer oak is a shrub oak species which is sparsely distributed across California and Arizona (as well as distributed slightly into New Mexico, Baja California, and Mexico). It is a species which is in rapid decline, has specialized habitat requirements, and has extremely limited distribution within the MSHCP Plan Area (Beckman et al 2019). Much of this species’ distribution is composed of isolated subpopulations that are presumed to be relics from a once-larger range that shrunk as aridity increased after the Pleistocene Ice Ages ended approximately 10,000 years ago. Many of the isolated occurrences north of Riverside County, California, have been found to consist of thickets or groups of oaks made up solely of clones of a single genetically distinct individual.

An isolated occurrence of Palmer oak has been identified on the Project site in drier habitat and at a lower altitude than has ever been previously reported for this species (Provance et al. 2000).

There is no other record of Palmer oak in the Jurupa Valley area, and local floras do not report this species from any of the surrounding areas, except for a small occurrence on top of the Bernasconi Hills west of the San Jacinto River (Roberts et al. 2004). Based on stems collected from a variety of environmental conditions, it is estimated that the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak is at least 13,000 years old, which likely renders it among the oldest living plant on Planet Earth (May et al. 2009), older than the oldest redwood trees or bristlecone pines, among other notably old plants on Earth.

As trees age they become less able to recover from impacts associated with construction and are more likely to prematurely deteriorate. Due to the age of the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak onsite, it is extremely susceptible to both direct and indirect impacts associated with the Project.

Excessive or uncontrolled access within the areas surrounding the oak can result in habitat degradation and disruption of key ecological functions. Both human access and the potential for wildfire ignition from human activity can result in species displacement and invasive species introduction. Human use of and divergence from designated trails can have a significant effect on trailside native communities. Trampling may lead to a reduction in vegetation cover, reduced plant height, a change in predominant growth forms, and a change in composition to favor more resistant species (Goldsmith et al. 1970, Liddle 1975). In addition, human activity is a significant vector for non-native species introductions as invasive species commonly invade disturbed areas such as roads due to recurrent access by humans and the creation of available space (Mack et al. 2000, Tyser and Worley 1992, Knops et al.1995, and Vitousek et al.1997). Trails, including unofficial trails created by uncontrolled access to conservation lands, are also documented to be conduits for weedy annuals that increase fire frequency (Mack et al. 2000, Tyser and Worley 1992, and Knops et al.1995) and are therefore often specifically managed for weeds.

Research suggests that this Jurupa Valley Palmer oak is reproducing clonally and is not regenerating enough for eventual replacement (May et al. 2009). Attempts to germinate acorns from the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak in a greenhouse failed, whereas acorns collected from the Garner Valley (San Jacinto Mountains) population demonstrated normal viability under the same horticultural conditions. Therefore, any detrimental impacts to the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak by

USFWS-CDFW

11 12
15 14
13 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 7
the Project would result in permanent damage to this slow-growing plant, and the loss of the regenerating portions of the shrub would result in a total loss of this extremely unique Palmer’s oak.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Based on the insufficient information presented in the EIR and supporting documents, the Wildlife Agencies are unable to recommend potentially feasible mitigation measures at this time. The Wildlife Agencies strongly recommend that additional studies be conducted to better understand the potential long-term effects on the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak. Thus, we recommend that the City remove Mitigation Measure BIO-5 and recirculate the EIR once sufficient information has been obtained.

The Wildlife Agencies recommend that scientific studies be conducted to determine the specific identity and the spatio-temporal distribution of the sources of water for the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak. Specifically, to determine if the oak (1) is sourcing water from surface rain-runoff flows that will be diverted away from the oak under the proposed Project design; or (2) if the oak is relying on groundwater resources that may be impacted by grading and Project development; or (3) if the oak is partially sustained by fog drip from fog flowing slowly against the thicket’s leaves and stems. If the studies show that fog is the main source of sustainable water buildings, fences, and walls rising equal to or higher than the oak’s elevation on the mountain could potentially decrease or prevent future fog flow onto the oak once the Project has been constructed.

Therefore, the Wildlife Agencies recommend that an isotopic discriminant study of the oak’s stem water (in the xylem) be performed to help determine what fractions of the oak’s moisture are received from fog drip, deep groundwater, and rainfall percolation into the soil, respectively.

We further recommend that the studies include a fog drip/fog condensation study of the oak and its ridge-top surroundings to determine if the oak is harvesting fog-water, and how often fog events occur at its location. As mentioned above, we suspect that the harvesting of fog-water during the Spring months may be an important component of the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak’s survival strategy. Studies of this type have previously been conducted for native trees and shrubs in California (Ingraham & Matthews 1995; Sawaske & Freyberg 2015; Fischer et al 2016; Evola & Sandquist 2007; Potter 2016; Fischer & Still 2007), so it should be eminently feasible to adapt those studies’ equipment and methods and apply them to the situation of the Jurupa Valley Palmer oak.

Comment #3: Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), a Species of Special Concern (SSC) and an ESA-listed species.

Specific impact: Project construction and activities may result in injury or mortality to coastal California gnatcatchers, disrupt natural coastal California gnatcatcher breeding behavior, and reduce reproductive capacity. Also, the Project may impact breeding, wintering, and foraging habitat for the species. Populations of coastal California gnatcatchers have been found to be genetically isolated from other populations within their range. Lack of genetic mixing between

USFWS-CDFW

15 CONT
16 17
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 8
other geographical populations is likely due to heightened fragmentation and loss of suitable habitat across their range in southern California (Vandergast 2019).

Why Impacts Would Occur: There are approximately 579.68 acres of potential habitat (brittle bush scrub and California buckwheat scrub) for coastal California gnatcatchers on the Project site and the surrounding 500-foot buffer, which includes the 363 acres set aside for conservation.

Therefore, the proposed Project activities would remove 216 acres of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat. This area is occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher; coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), was observed on the Project site during surveys from 2014 through 2018 by L&L Consulting. However, focused surveys for gnatcatchers have yet to be completed.

Surveys for coastal California gnatcatchers are necessary to understand the impacts the Project may have on gnatcatcher nesting habitat and to identify occupied gnatcatcher habitat to meet MSHCP requirements. The coastal California gnatcatcher is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as a threatened species, and the USFWS permit to the City for the MSHCP restricts clearing of coastal California gnatcatcher-occupied habitat during the nesting season:
“Clearing of occupied habitat within [Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)] lands and the Criteria Area between March 1 and August 15 is prohibited.” (per Condition 5b of the USFWS MSHCP permit). This condition protects gnatcatchers during the nesting season and prevents take of active nests, which if it occurred, would violate federal law (the Migratory Bird Treaty Act).

Gnatcatchers are territorial, year-round residents with high-site fidelity, and can be extremely quiet during brooding and therefore difficult to detect when nesting. There must be a clear understanding of habitat use by coastal California gnatcatcher before any vegetation removal or ground disturbance occurs. The Project Applicant cannot rely on nesting bird surveys just prior to grading to determine gnatcatcher use of coastal sage scrub and chapparal on the Project site.

The Wildlife Agencies recommend focused surveys to determine coastal California gnatcatcher use of the site within one year of start of Project activities or adherence to the vegetation removal restriction periods in the permits; the emphasis should be on mapping the distribution of gnatcatchers within shrubland habitat across the various seasons of the year.

Evidence Impacts Would Be Significant: The coastal California gnatcatcher is an ESA- listed species and a California SSC. ESA-listed species are considered endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Take under the ESA is more broadly defined than CESA. Take under ESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns federally listed species, but for any species including, but not limited to SSC, which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. SSC’s meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of SSC’s could require a mandatory finding of significance (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065).

Coastal California gnatcatchers are non-migratory, territorial, and have been found not to disperse far from their natal nests (Bailey 1998; Vandergast 2019). Thus, the preservation of sensitive natural communities which they have been documented to utilize is paramount.

USFWS-CDFW

17 CONT
18 19
20 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 9
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: To address the above issues and help the Project applicant avoid unlawfully taking of nesting birds, the Wildlife Agencies request the City include the following mitigation measures in the EIR per below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1“Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.

MM BIO-XX: Prior to grading or other ground-disturbing activities are proposed, a qualified biologist shall survey all potential nesting vegetation within and adjacent to the site for nesting coastal California gnatcatcher. The City of Jurupa Valley (City) shall impose conditions of approval on future grading permits requiring focused surveys to be conducted prior to ground disturbance or discing activities. A minimum of twelve (12) surveys shall be conducted at least one week apart to determine the distribution of coastal California gnatcatchers in the Project’s anticipated areas of impact on shrublands.

Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the appropriate time of day, during appropriate weather conditions. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. Written and mapped qualitative descriptions of plant communities (including dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the area surveyed will also be provided with survey results to USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), within 45 days following the field surveys, and prior to ground-disturbing activities. The results of the focused surveys shall be provided to the City, CDFW, and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, mowing, grubbing, and disking activities). In the event that the focused surveys do not detect the presence of any coastal California gnatcatchers, the habitat will have been confirmed to be unoccupied by coastal California gnatcatchers, and MM BIO-1g has been completed, then ground disturbance or discing may occur during the nesting season (i.e., between March 1 and August 15). In the event that the focused surveys identify the presence of California gnatcatchers, then ground disturbance or discing of the occupied areas shall be prohibited between March 1 and August 15. If an active coastal California gnatcatcher nest is located, the nest site shall be fenced with a buffer of a minimum of 500 feet in all directions, and this area shall not be disturbed until after the nest becomes inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, as confirmed by a qualified biologist. If a nest is suspected, but not confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall establish a disturbance-free buffer until additional surveys can be completed, or until the nest’s precise location can be inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed, but thought to be inactive, the Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors during the non-breeding season) prior to approaching the nest to determine

USFWS-CDFW

21 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 10
status. The Designated Biologist shall use their best professional judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these requirements and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Jurupa Valley staff or its designee to confirm compliance. Comment #3: Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Issue: The Project may impact Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis; DSF; fly), a federally endangered species.

Specific Impacts: The Project may result in temporal or permanent loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Project ground-disturbing activities may cause death or injury of adults, eggs, and larvae.

Why Impact Would Occur: According to page 58 in Section 3.8.1 of Appendix D Biological Resources Supporting Information, Delhi Sands flower-loving flies were observed on the western portion of the site by AMEC biologists in August 2005. Adult flies were observed on four (4) separate dates, and carcasses of dead flies were located on two (2) other dates. All Delhi Sands flower-loving fly observations were made within an approximately 3.73-acre area on the western side of the site, where flat areas containing Delhi series (sandy) soils are present next to a residential area. Surveys were also conducted in 2015 and 2016; however, no individuals were identified during those survey attempts. Direct effects would include the permanent conversion of fly-occupied habitat to Project infrastructure or changes to micro-/local hydrology. Indirect effects on Delhi Sands flower-loving fly during construction would include the accumulation of fugitive dust resulting in degradation of habitat for these invertebrates. In addition, changes to local runoff would have negative effects on the health and vigor of plants and soils that make up suitable habitat.

The Project proposes that it would impact 4.87 acres (24.4 percent) of the total 19.97 acres of Delhi soils present within the project site (see L&L BRA Figure 12, included in Appendix D). Of the 3.73 acres of occupied DSF habitat mapped in 2005, 0.84 acres (22.5 percent) will be directly impacted by the construction of the Project. It states that by implementing MM BIO-1b, which “would create a deed restriction of any avoided habitat to prevent future impacts, and speciesspecific conservation goals for DSF under the MSHCP, Project impacts to DSF would be reduced to less than significant levels.”
Evidence Impact Would Be Significant: The Delhi Sands flower-loving fly was listed as an endangered species by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on September 23, 1993 (58 Federal Register 49881). Take under the ESA is more broadly defined than under CESA. Take under the ESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as . The Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is found only in small parts of San Bernardino and Riverside counties at the eastern edge of the Los Angeles Basin in areas of fine sandy soil known as Delhi series sands. While formerly widespread, this habitat has been intensively developed in the past

USFWS-CDFW

21 CONT
22 25
24 23
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 11
century, primarily for agriculture, though more recently for industry and housing. Only an estimated 2-3% of the original habitat remains undeveloped. As of the establishment of the Recovery Plan for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly in 1997, only 12 sites were known to be inhabited by the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, encompassing approximately 450 acres (190 hectares) of suitable habitat (USFWS 1997). The Rio Vista Specific Plan Project is located adjacent to two of these 12 sites and has been documented to be occupied by Delhi Sands flowerloving fly as of 2005.

The EIR has yet to provide any mitigation to offset the Project’s anticipated impacts on the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. Accordingly, the Project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as federally endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: To address the above issues and help the Project applicant to avoid unlawfully taking Delhi Sands flower-loving flies, the Wildlife Agencies request that the City include the following mitigation measures for DSF in the EIR per the following (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1“Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.

MM BIO-XX: Prior to grading or other ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall survey all suitable habitat for Delhi Sands flower loving fly (DSF) according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) survey protocol for this species (1996) as revised by USFWS in 2004. The City of Jurupa Valley (City) shall impose conditions of approval on future grading permits requiring focused surveys to be conducted prior to ground disturbance or discing activities. Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the appropriate time of day, and during appropriate weather conditions for DSF flies to be active aboveground. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. Written and mapped qualitative descriptions of plant communities (including dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the area surveyed will also be provided with survey results to USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), within 45 days following the field surveys, prior to ground disturbing activities. The results of the focused surveys shall be provided to the City, CDFW, and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencement of ground disturbing or discing activities.

If the protocol survey determines that some or all of the Delhi sands in the Rio Vista Specific Plan are occupied by the endangered Delhi sands flower-loving fly, then the City should make a determination as to whether or not the MSHCP Plan requires some or all of the occupied areas to be conserved (consistent with DSF conservation strategy “B”, the option selected by the City

USFWS-CDFW

25 CONT
26 27
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 12
and the other MSHCP Permittees at the inception of the MSHCP Plan in 2004), and adjust the land use of the fly-occupied areas in the Rio Vista Specific Plan, if needed, to become consistent with DSF conservation strategy “B” in the MSHCP Plan, including the recordation of a conservation easement or transfer of fly-occupied areas to be conserved to a qualified wildlife habitat conservation organization, such as the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, the San Diego Habitats Conservancy, etc.

Comment #5: Burrowing Owl
Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a Species of Special Concern (SSC).

Specific Impacts: Project construction and activities may result in injury or mortality of burrowing owl, disrupt natural burrowing owl breeding behavior, and reduce reproductive capacity. Also, the Project may impact breeding, wintering, and foraging habitat for the species.

Habitat loss could result in local extirpation of the species and contribute to the ongoing local, regional, and state-wide decline of the burrowing owl.

Why Impacts Would Occur: The EIR identifies that protocol burrowing owl focused surveys of the Project site were completed, as described in the 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area and that no burrowing owls were seen; however, suitable habitat was found. Additional details (the survey dates, times, etc.) were provided regarding the burrowing owl surveys mentioned within the EIR.

As specified in the “Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area”, a written report must be provided detailing results of the habitat assessment with photographs and indicating whether the project site contains suitable burrowing owl habitat and burrow locations.

There is insufficient information provided to determine if the proposed avoidance and minimization measures will mitigate Project impacts below a level of significance. BIO-1i would require a 300-500 foot buffer around occupied burrowing owl burrows, both during the nesting season and outside breeding season, with the precise buffer width to be determined by the surveying biologist. However, the buffer proposed could be an insufficient buffer from occupied burrows and adjacent foraging grounds given the types of disturbance associated with the Project. Burrowing owls can react adversely to low-level disturbances such as vehicle movement in the vicinity, or minimal ground disturbance/excavation (Environment Canada 2009). The Project is proposing a buffer that may be more suitable for low-level disturbances; however, the Project could generate noise and ground vibrations more consistent with medium to high levels of disturbance. Project construction would generate noise and ground vibrations during daytime and nighttime earthmoving activities, demolition, tunneling, spoils hauling, and operation of large machinery. A mere 500-foot buffer from occupied burrows during these types of more intense disturbances could result in burrowing owls abandoning active nests, potentially causing loss of eggs or developing young, and noise could cause birds to avoid suitable nesting habitat.

Finally, a buffer would not protect important foraging habitat during the burrowing owl nesting season.

USFWS-CDFW

27 CONT
28 29
30 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 13
Implementation of buffers may not be sufficient to offset potential impacts to burrowing owls, which means that the mitigation proposed would not be effective in reducing the Project’s impacts to burrowing owls to the less-than-significant level. Furthermore, CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Mitigation (CDFG 2012) does not support relocating burrowing owls during their breeding season as a mitigation measure. BIO-1i does not provide any performance standards suitable for successfully mitigating impacts on burrowing owl habitat. The mitigation measure proposed in the EIR may not satisfy the CEQA standards for mitigation such that “the formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future date” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4).

Evidence Impact Would Be Significant: The burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern (SSC), which are defined as species, a subspecies, or a distinct population of a species native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria:
is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, is extirpated in its primary season or breeding role;
is listed as ESA-, but not CESA-, threatened, or endangered; or meets the State definition of threatened or endangered, but has not formally been listed; is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; and/or,
has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for CESA threatened or endangered status (CDFW 2022b). CEQA provides protection not only for ESA and CESA-listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These SSC meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). In addition, migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, §

10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA). It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any raptor.

In California, burrowing owls are in decline primarily because of habitat loss due to conversion of their habitat to urban development, supplemented by disease, predation, and drought.

Burrowing owls require specific soil and microhabitat conditions, occur in few locations within a broad habitat category of grassland and some forms of agricultural land, require a relatively large home range to support their life history requirements, occur in relatively low numbers, and are semi-colonial.

The Project’s impacts on burrowing owls have not been mitigated below a significant level in the EIR. Accordingly, the Project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through

USFWS-CDFW

31 32
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 14
habitat modifications, on a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species by the Wildlife Agencies.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

Mitigation Measure #1: To avoid take of active burrowing owl burrows (nests), the Wildlife Agencies request the City include the following mitigation measures in the EIR per below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1“Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

MM-Bio-1i:

A) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Planning Department shall verify that the burrowing owl breeding season protocol survey is not more than one year old. If it is older than one year, an updated breeding season protocol survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within all suitable burrowing owl habitat on the site and a 150-meter buffer. A copy of the report shall be provided to the Planning Department and the two Wildlife Agencies before grading occurs. If one or more owl-occupied burrows are identified by the breeding season protocol survey, then the Project Applicant shall immediately prepare a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan (BOPaRP) for review and approval by USFWS and CDFW, without deferring such preparation to a later time, and the 30-day pre-construction burrowing owl survey will no longer be required. The proposed BOPaRP shall be submitted to the two Wildlife Agencies through the City once the City has reviewed the draft BOPaRP.
b) If no burrowing owls are detected in the Project vicinity by the most recent breeding-season burrowing owl protocol survey, then, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey in accordance with the March 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days before ground or vegetation disturbance, including grubbing, tree removal, or site watering. The surveys shall be conducted as close to the actual construction initiation date as possible. In addition, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 3 days prior to initiation of Project activities and reported to CDFW. Additionally, if ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is subsequently left without further disturbance for more than 30 days, a preconstruction survey shall again be necessary to reconfirm that burrowing owls have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed.

If no burrowing owls are observed during all the surveys, site preparation and construction activities may begin.

If burrowing owls are detected by the pre-construction survey, the Biologist shall notify the City of Jurupa Valley, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) field office in

USFWS-CDFW

32 CONT1
33 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 15
Palm Springs with written notification sent within 48 hours of detecting the burrowing owls. If owl-occupied burrows are identified on an implementing Project site during the pre-construction survey, the Project Applicant shall not commence activities until the City receives CDFW and USFWS approval of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, as described below.

If owl presence is difficult to determine, a qualified biologist shall monitor the burrows with motion-activated trail cameras for at least 24 hours to evaluate burrow occupancy. The onsite qualified biologist will verify the nesting effort has finished according to methods identified in the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan. A copy of the plan shall be provided to the Planning Department.

The BOPaRP shall be implemented prior to any construction activities that may disturb burrowing owls. Mitigation shall be based on the following goals and requirements in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP):

1. If the site contains or is part of an area supporting less than 35 acres of suitable habitat or the survey reveals that the site and the surrounding area supports fewer than three pairs of burrowing owls, on-site burrowing owls shall be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols.

2. Occupied nests shall be avoided during the nesting season (February 1- August 31) along with a buffer of 300–500 feet dependent upon the level of disturbance surrounding the burrow.

3. Burrow exclusion shall be utilized outside of the nesting season by installing a one-way door in burrow openings. Burrows shall be closed following verification they are empty through site monitoring and scoping.

4. If the project site (including adjacent areas) supports three or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habitat, and is noncontiguous with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the area with long-term conservation value and burrowing owl pairs shall be conserved on-site.

The qualified biologist and the Project Applicant shall coordinate with the City, CDFW, and USFWS to develop a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan to be approved by CDFW and USFWS prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan shall describe the Project’s proposed avoidance, relocation, monitoring, minimization, and/or mitigation actions to protect burrowing owls from harm and to maintain their survival and numbers in the MSHCP Plan Area. The Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on proposed buffers if avoiding the burrowing owls, or information on the adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management

USFWS-CDFW

33 CONT
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 16
activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan. The City will implement the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.

If burrowing owls are observed within Project Site(s) during Project implementation and construction, the Project Applicant shall notify the Wildlife Agencies immediately in writing within 48 hours of detection. A Burrowing Owl Plan will be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval within two weeks of detection and no Project activities will occur within 1,000 feet of the burrowing owls’ burrows until the Wildlife Agencies approves the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan. The City shall be responsible for implementing appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including burrow avoidance, passive or active relocation, or other appropriate mitigation measures as identified in the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan.

A final survey report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist documenting the results of the burrowing owl surveys and detailing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The final report will be submitted to the City and the Wildlife Agencies within 30 days of completion of the survey for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

Comment #6: Nesting Birds, Eggs, and Nestlings
Issue: The Project may have a significant impact on nesting birds, including Species of Special Concern and fully protected species, that are subject to Fish and Game Code section 3513 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

Specific Impact: Project implementation could result in the loss of nesting and/or foraging habitat for passerine and raptor species from the removal of vegetation onsite.

Why Impacts Would Occur: Project activities could result in temporary or long-term loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitats. Construction during the breeding season of nesting birds could potentially result in the incidental loss of breeding success or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Noise from road use, generators, and heavy equipment may disrupt nesting bird mating calls or songs, which could impact reproductive success (Patricelli and Blickley 2006, Halfwerk et al. 2011). Noise has also been shown to reduce the density of nesting birds (Francis et al. 2009), and songbird abundance and density was significantly reduced in areas with high levels of noise (Bayne et al. 2008). Additionally, noise exceeding 70 dB(A) may affect feather and body growth of young birds (Kleist et al. 2018). In addition to construction activities, residential development and increased human presence in the Project site could contribute to nesting bird impacts.

The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as the bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). The Wildlife Agencies have observed that changing climate conditions may result in the nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates. The Wildlife Agencies recommend the completion of nesting bird survey

USFWS-CDFW

33 CONT
36 35
34 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 17
regardless of time of year to ensure compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to nesting and to avoid take of nests.

The duration of a pair to build a nest and incubate eggs varies considerably, therefore, the Wildlife Agencies recommend surveying for nesting behavior and/or nests and construction within three days prior to start of Project construction to ensure all nests on site are identified and to avoid take of nests. Without appropriate species-specific avoidance measures, biological construction monitoring may be ineffective for detecting nesting birds. This may result in Take of nesting birds. Project ground-disturbing activities such as grading and grubbing may result in habitat destruction, causing the death or injury of adults, juveniles, eggs, or hatchlings. In addition, the Project may remove habitat by eliminating native vegetation that may support essential foraging and breeding habitat.

Evidence Impacts Would Be Significant: It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to avoid Take of all nesting birds. Fish and Game Code section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. These regulations apply anytime nests or eggs exist on the Project site.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

Mitigation Measure #1: To address the above issues and help the Project applicant avoid unlawfully taking of nesting birds, the Wildlife Agencies request the City include the following mitigation measures in the EIR per below, and also included in Attachment 1“Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Mitigation Measure 1g: To prevent impacts to nesting birds (including raptors), clearing or other work in native habitats shall be avoided during the nesting season (January 1 through September 15). If work cannot be avoided during this timeframe, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist within 3 days prior to issuance of a grading or building permit site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation). The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Planning Department and the Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:

1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and

USFWS-CDFW

36 CONT
37 38
39 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 18
minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.

2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If an active nest or nesting birds are present, a Nesting Bird Plan shall be developed and implemented The Nesting Bird Plan shall include appropriate measures such as establishment and maintenance of a buffer area while the nest is active. The size of the buffer area shall be defined by a qualified Biologist based on the specific nesting species, as defined below. avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, based on their best professional judgement and experience in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) regulations and the California Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take.

Active bird nests shall be mapped utilizing a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS), getting as close as possible without disturbing the nest, and a buffer shall be flagged around the nest (300 feet for non-raptors, 500 feet for raptor nests, or as determined by the Biologist). The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. Construction shall not be permitted within buffer areas while the nest continues to be active. Once fledging has occurred or the nest otherwise becomes inactive, no further avoidance shall be required. An active nest is defined as a nest that is being built or in use as part of the reproductive process, including a nest with eggs, chicks, or dependent juveniles. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a

USFWS-CDFW

39 CONT
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 19
report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

Comment #7: Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Issue: The Project may impact Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii).

Specific Impacts: The Project may result in temporal or permanent loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Project ground-disturbing activities may cause death or injury of adults, eggs, and larva; burrow collapse; nest abandonment; and reduced nest success.

Why Impact Would Occur: According to page 57 in Section 3.8.1 of Appendix D Biological Resources Supporting Information, Crotch’s bumble bee was observed on the Project site during the 2005 biological surveys conducted by AMEC and focused surveys have yet to be conducted.

Direct effects also include the permanent conversion of occupied habitat to project infrastructure or changes to micro/local hydrology. Indirect effects on Crotch’s bumble bee during construction would include the accumulation of fugitive dust resulting in degradation of habitat for these invertebrates. In addition, changes to local runoff would have negative effects on the health and vigor of plants that make up suitable habitat.

The Project proposes MM BIO-1k to mitigate the Project’s impact. However, the Project’s impact on Crotch’s bumble bee has yet to be mitigated below a level of significance. MM-BIO 1k does not provide performance criteria or action(s) to meet those performance criteria to compensate for the loss of Crotch bumble bee habitat (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4).

Evidence Impact Would Be Significant: The California Fish and Game Commission accepted a petition to list Crotch bumble bee as endangered under CESA, determining the listing “may be warranted” and advancing the species to the candidacy stage of the CESA listing process. Crotch bumble bee is granted full protection of a threatened species under CESA. Take of any endangered, threatened, candidate species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law (Fish & G. Code, §§ 86, 2062, 2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 786.9). In addition, Crotch bumble bee has a State ranking of S1/S2. This means that the Crotch bumble bee is considered critically imperiled or imperiled and is extremely rare (often five or fewer populations). Crotch bumble bee is also listed as an invertebrate of conservation priority under the Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority (CDFW 2017). The Project’s impact on Crotch bumble bee has yet to be mitigated. Accordingly, the Project continues to have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by CDFW.

USFWS-CDFW

39 CONT
40 41
42 43
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 20
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):

Mitigation Measure #1: To address the above issues and help the Project applicant avoid unlawfully taking of Crotch’s bumble bee, the Wildlife Agencies request the City include the following mitigation measures in the EIR per below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1“Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1k: Because of suitable habitat within the project site, within one year prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, a qualified entomologist familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee behavior, as approved by CDFW, and life history conduct surveys in accordance with any Crotch’s bumble bee survey protocol provided by CDFW to determine the presence/absence of Crotch’s bumble bee. Surveys should be conducted during flying season when the species is most likely to be detected above ground, between March 1 to September 1. Surveys should be conducted within the project site and areas adjacent to the project site where suitable habitat exists. If a colony is present, a 100-foot avoidance buffer shall be established. Survey results, including negative findings, should be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to projectrelated vegetation removal and/or ground-disturbing activities. If a survey finds that a Crotch’s bumble bee colony is present on the project site or Crotch’s bumble bee are observed during Project activities, the project Biologist shall consult with CDFW. The qualified biologist should identify the location of all nests in or adjacent to the Project site. If Project activities may result in disturbance or potential take, the qualified biologist, in coordination with CDFW, should expand the buffer zone as necessary to prevent disturbance or take. If the proposed project impacts Crotch’s bumble bee, an Incidental Take Permit from the CDFW shall be obtained pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) and/or other mitigation shall be implemented as required by the CDFW.

Any floral resource associated with Crotch’s bumble bee that will be removed or damaged by the Project should be replaced at no less than 2:1. Floral resources should be replaced as close to their original location as is feasible. If active Crotch’s bumble bee nests have been identified and floral resources cannot be replaced within 200 meters of their original location, floral resources should be planted in the most centrally available location relative to identified nests. This location should be no more than 1.5 kilometers from any identified nest. Replaced floral resources may be split into multiple patches to meet distance requirements for multiple nests. These floral resources should be maintained in perpetuity and should be replanted and managed as needed to ensure the habitat is preserved.

Comment #8: Impacts to Rare and Species of Special Concern Issue: The Project identified a total of one special-status plant species and 9 special-status wildlife species onsite during the various biological surveys. An additional two special-status plant species and 18 special-status wildlife species were described as having moderate to high potential to occur within the Project site. CDFW is concerned that the proposed mitigation may not provide enough specificity to sufficiently avoid or minimize impacts to California Species of Special Concern (SSC).

USFWS-CDFW

44 45
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 21
Specific Impact: The EIR and supporting Appendix B identify the Project site has confirmed occurrences of Plummer’s mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), great egret (Ardea alba), Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae), red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), orangethroated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) within the Project site. Direct impacts to SSCs could result from Project construction and activities (e.g., equipment staging, mobilization, and grading); ground disturbance; vegetation clearing; and trampling or crushing from construction equipment, vehicles, and foot traffic. Indirect impacts could result from temporary or permanent loss of suitable habitat.

Why Impacts Would Occur: Without appropriate species-specific avoidance measures, biological construction monitoring may be ineffective for detecting SSC. This may result in trampling or crushing of SSC. Demolition and paving after false negative conclusions may trap wildlife hiding under refugia and burrows. Project ground-disturbing activities such as grading and grubbing may result in habitat destruction, causing the death or injury of adults, juveniles, eggs, or hatchlings. In addition, the Project may remove habitat by eliminating native vegetation that may support essential foraging and breeding habitat.

Evidence Impacts Would Be Significant: CEQA provides protection not only for state and federally listed species, but for any species including but not limited to California Species of Special Concern which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These Species of Special Concern meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of SSC could require a mandatory finding of significance by the City (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065).

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1 and 2: To address the above issues and help the Project applicant avoid unlawfully take of nests and eggs, CDFW requests the City include the following mitigation measures in the EIR per below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1“Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.

MM BIO-XX: Scientific Collecting Permit – The City/qualified biologist must obtain appropriate handling permits to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate SSC wildlife and rare plants, and to avoid harm or mortality in connection with Project construction and activities. MM BIO-1h Biological Monitoring and Clearance Surveys: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an engagement letter from a qualified Biologist with experience surveying for each of the following species shall be retained: Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), great egret (Ardea alba), Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae), reddiamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis

USFWS-CDFW

45 CONT
46 47
48 49
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 22
hyperythra), and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii).

Prior to commencing any Project-related ground-disturbing activities, the qualified biologist should conduct surveys for where suitable habitat is present.

Project related activities include construction, equipment and vehicle access, parking, and staging. Focused surveys should consist of daytime surveys and nighttime surveys no more than one month from the start of any grounddisturbing activities. The surveys should include mapping of current locations of special-status wildlife species for avoidance and relocation efforts and to assist construction monitoring efforts. The survey should be conducted so that 100 percent coverage of the project site and surrounding areas is achieved. In addition, resumes/and or statements of qualifications shall be provided to the City by the applicant identifying one or more qualified Biological Monitors that will be assigned to the project to monitor construction activities. Monitors shall be responsible for ensuring that impacts to special-status species, native vegetation, wildlife habitat, jurisdictional waters, and sensitive or unique biological resources are avoided to the extent possible.

The City in consultation with a qualified biologist should prepare a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training prior to implementation of Project ground-disturbing activities. Monitors shall also conduct Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training to inform construction personnel of applicable mitigation measures and permit conditions, and any potential for infraction and should include effective, specific, enforceable, and feasible actions.

The qualified biologist should have prepared maps showing locations where SSC were detected and share this information to workers as part of training. The qualified biologist shall meet with the construction crew at the project site at the onset of construction to educate the construction crew on the following: 1) a review of the project boundaries; 2) all special-status species that may be present, their habitat, and proper identification; and 3) the specific mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the construction effort. The qualified biologist should communicate to workers that upon encounter with a SSC, work must stop, a qualified biologist must be notified, and work may only resume once a qualified biologist has determined that it is safe to do so. Any contractor or employee that inadvertently kills or injures a special-status animal, or finds one either dead, injured, or entrapped, should immediately report the incident to the qualified biologist and/or onsite representative identified in the worker training. The Biological Monitor shall submit a weekly report to the City inspector, and shall promptly identify any concerns or violations, as needed.

A Biological Monitor shall be present during initial site clearing activities (vegetation clearing, soil preparation, and ground disturbance), during work adjacent to avoided Delhi soils and jurisdictional waters and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Riparian/Riverine habitat, and at appropriate intervals throughout construction to ensure compliance with mitigation measures and regulatory permit conditions.

USFWS-CDFW

49 CONT
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 23
In addition, a qualified Biologist shall conduct clearance surveys for special-status plant or wildlife resources within or adjacent to the project disturbance area within three calendar days prior to initial vegetation clearing and ground disturbance, including fence installation. Daily biological monitoring should be conducted during any activities involving vegetation clearing or modification of natural habitat. Surveys for SSC should be conducted prior to the initiation of each day of vegetation removal activities in suitable habitat. Surveys for SSC should be conducted in the areas flagged in earlier surveys before construction and activities may occur in or adjacent to those areas. Work may only occur in these areas after a qualified biologist has determined it is safe to do so. Even so, workers should be advised to work with caution near flagged areas. If SSC is encountered, qualified biologist should safely protect or relocate the animal per relocation and handling protocols. If any special-status plants or wildlife are found, the Biologist shall take appropriate action as defined in the MSHCP, mitigation measures, permit conditions, and regulations. The qualified biologist should use visible flagging to mark the location where SSC was detected. The qualified biologist should take a photo of each location, map each location, and provide the specific species detected at that location. Federal, State, and local agencies shall be consulted as needed and appropriate. If needed, an avoidance buffer shall be established to protect the resource until this action has been completed. The qualified biologist should provide a summary report of SSC surveys to the City before any Project-related grounddisturbing activities. The CDFW should be notified and consulted regarding the presence of any special-status wildlife species found on site during surveys. If an Endangered Species Act-listed species is found prior to or during grading of the site, the USFWS should also be notified. If any special-status or listed species are/have been observed on or in proximity to the Project site, Permittee shall submit California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) forms and maps to the CNDDB within five working days of the sightings. Additional avoidance and minimization measures may need to be developed with CDFW/USFW. Where applicable, wildlife should be protected, allowed to move away on its own (non-invasive, passive relocation), or relocated to adjacent appropriate habitat within the open space on site or in suitable habitat adjacent to the project area (either way, at least 200 feet from the grading limits). Special status wildlife should be captured only by a qualified biologist with proper handling permits.

The qualified biologist should prepare a species-specific list (or plan) of proper handling and relocation protocols and a map of suitable and safe relocation areas.

The list (or plan) of protocols should be implemented during project construction and activities/biological construction monitoring. The City/qualified biologist may consult with CDFW/USFWS to prepare species-specific protocols for proper handling and relocation procedures. Only a USFWS approved biologist should be authorized to capture and relocate ESA-listed species. A relocation plan should be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and comment prior to implementing Project-related ground-disturbing activities.

USFWS-CDFW

49 CONT
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 24
If any SSC are harmed during relocation or a dead or injured animal is found, work in the immediate area should stop immediately, the qualified biologist should be notified, and dead or injured wildlife documented immediately. The qualified biologist should contact the USFWS, CDFW, and the City by telephone by the end of the day, or at the beginning of the next working day if the agency office is closed. In addition, a formal report should be sent to the City, CDFW, and USFWS (as appropriate) within three calendar days of the incident or finding. The report should include the date, time of the finding or incident (if known), and location of the carcass or injured animal and circumstances of its death or injury (if known). Work in the immediate area may only resume once the proper notifications have been made and additional mitigation measures have been identified to prevent additional injury or death.

Monitoring and survey activities shall be documented, and, summaries shall be submitted on a monthly basis during periods of Project activity until Project completion or monitoring is complete. Monitoring reports of any passively relocated species shall also be included. At the conclusion of project construction activities, a final construction report shall be submitted to CDFW and the City at least two weeks after the Project is fully completed including color photographs of before and after Project-related activities, including the surrounding staging areas. The construction report at a minimum shall contain pre- Project photographs, total amount of area impacted post-Project, post-Project photographs, and biological survey notes (including construction monitoring). aAll monitoring reports and communications shall be retained in project files to allow review by the lead agency and wWildlife aAgencies, if requested.

MM BIO-XX: Plummer’s Mariposa Lily Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a botanist experienced in identifying Calochortus species in the field shall map the locations of the Plummer’s mariposa lilies (Calochortus plummerae) inside the Project’s anticipated permanent and temporary impact areas during the month of June (the month when the species is detectable and identifiable in the field), and the Project shall immediately remove the Plummer’s mariposa lilies from the impact areas via hand excavation, and transport them to a nursery specializing in the cultivation of native California plants, where the mariposa lilies shall be cared for until cooler weather in Autumn. The salvaged mariposa lilies shall be planted into suitable habitat inside the Project’s conservation areas between October and December (the precise timing shall be determined by the horticulturalists at the native plant nursery, but shall be selected to minimize the mortality rate of the transplanted mariposa lilies). The receptor areas shall only consist of areas which will be placed into permanent conservation or is currently conserved via a conservation easement or transfer of title by the Project, and which shall be maintained in perpetuity by a qualified habitat maintenance organization such as the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, or the San Diego Habitats Conservancy, etc.

Comment #9: Noise Pollution

USFWS-CDFW

49 CONT
50 51
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 25
Issue: Construction may result in substantial noise through road use, equipment, and other Project-related activities.

Specific Impacts: The proposed Project activities may result in a substantial amount of noise through road use, equipment, and other project-related activities. This may adversely affect wildlife species in several ways as wildlife responses to noise can occur at exposure levels of only 55 to 60 dB (Barber et al. 2009).

Why Impact Would Occur: Anthropogenic noise can disrupt the communication of many wildlife species including frogs, birds, and bats (Sun and Narins 2005, Patricelli and Blickley 2006, Gillam and McCracken 2007, Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester 2008). Noise can also affect predator prey relationships as many nocturnal animals such as bats and owls primarily use auditory cures (i.e., hearing) to hunt. Additionally, many prey species increase their vigilance behavior when exposed to noise because they need to rely more on visual detection of predators when auditory cues may be masked by noise (Rabin et al. 2006, Quinn et al. 2017). Noise has also been shown to reduce the density of nesting birds (Francis et al. 2009) and cause increased stress that results in decreased immune responses (Kight and Swaddle 2011).

Evidence Impact Would Be Significant: Construction may result in substantial noise through road use, equipment, and other Project-related activities. The EIR (Section 3.13-18) states construction noise would occur due to the use of equipment that includes a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels, but includes no analysis of the impacts of construction noise on biological resources. The EIR indicates noise levels have the potential to reach 67 to 85 dBA during the hours when construction is permitted, which exceeds exposure levels that may adversely affect wildlife species. In addition, there is no analysis provided to analyze the effect of potential blasting that may be utilized during construction. The Wildlife Agencies are concerned about impacts to wildlife from noise generated during Project activities.

Per the MSHCP, wildlife adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. However, MM BIO-1f only has the generic language from the MSHCP and does provide specific details on the types of measures that will be implemented to reduce noise impacts to the adjacent Conservation Area. CDFW recommends that MM BIO-1f is revised to provide specific measures to address noise impacts from the development to reduce edge effects from noise on the adjacent Conservation area. These measures should establish existing noise levels in the Conservation Area and post-project monitoring to evaluate the noise levels in the Conservation Area during construction and after the Project is complete.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: To address the above issues and help the Project applicant avoid impacts from noise, CDFW requests the City include the following mitigation measures in the EIR per below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1“Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.

USFWS-CDFW

51 CONT
52 55
54 53
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 26
MM BIO-XX:: Prior to approval of the Final Design, a Noise plan shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley for review and approval. Proposed The Noise Plan shall identify noise generating land uses that may affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area and shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The Noise Plan shall include monitoring during construction and post-project to demonstrate noise levels in the Conservation Area do not exceed residential standards. If noise standards are exceeded, the Project Applicant is responsible for immediate implementation of remedial actions to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels.

Comment #10: Lighting and Light Pollution
Issue: Artificial lighting that does not conform to wildlife-friendly lighting guidelines often results in light pollution, which has the potential to significantly and adversely affect fish and wildlife.

Specific Impacts: Artificial lighting and the resulting light pollution alter ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; and the detection of resources and natural enemies and navigation (Gatson et al. 2013). Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song; Miller 2006), determining when to begin foraging (Stone et al. 2009), behavior thermoregulation (Beiswenger 1977), and migration (Longcore and Rich 2004). Phototaxis, a phenomenon which results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it (Longcore and Rich 2004). Further, many of the effects of artificial nighttime lightning on population- or ecosystem-level processes are still poorly known.

Why Impact Would Occur: The EIR identifies that light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting, and vehicular traffic accessing the site will occur once the site is in operation and would introduce a new source of light into the adjacent Conservation Area. Nighttime lighting has the potential to indirectly affect wildlife use and activity in adjacent Conservation Area. Shielded lighting will produce a glow, and with enough lights, may increase the ambient light level in the area at night. Species may be subject to increased predation from diurnal predators foraging for longer periods due to light from the adjacent development as well as increased visual acuity of nocturnal predators. The EIR does not identify species that may be more vulnerable to increased predation from increased visibility and other impacts of adjacent lighting.

The EIR identifies that the proposed Project would be developed in accordance with the MSHCP requirements and that must comply with the City’s requirements that lighting be restricted to the Project site through shielding and directing light downward. However, the EIR provides limited detail on shielded lighting in MM BIO-1f and lacks specific, technical details on the type of lighting along the Conservation Area boundary. The EIR does not provide data on existing

USFWS-CDFW

55 CONT
58 57
56 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 27
ambient lighting conditions and does not analyze the impacts of the lighting on the adjacent Conservation Areas. The EIR does not contain any measure that could be sufficient to offset the impacts of Project-related lighting on the Conservation Area. To ensure that any building, traffic, or parking area lighting would not significantly impact species within the Conservation Area and would comply with MSHCP urban wildlife interface guidelines, the Wildlife Agencies recommend the Project is conditioned to provide a Lighting Plan that identifies existing ambient lighting conditions, analyzes the lighting impacts on the adjacent conservation area, and demonstrates that the proposed lighting plan will not significantly increase the lighting on the Conservation Area.

Evidence Impact Would Be Significant: A significant source of artificial nighttime lighting with the potential to impact wildlife in adjacent conservation areas may come from lighting associated with the Project. Although the CEQA document indicates that all lightning will be shielded and directed away from wildlife areas, the Wildlife Agencies recommend that lightning analysis before Project construction and operations is needed to determine that existing lighting levels and to demonstrate that potential lightning impacts to wildlife using adjacent conserved area will be less than significant. To determine if artificial nighttime lighting associated with Project construction and operations will result in minimal to no increase from existing lighting levels to all areas of Conservation Area, the Wildlife Agencies recommend that lighting and glare impacts are evaluated before, during, and after Project construction and operations. The Wildlife Agencies request the inclusion of the following new measures in the DEIR:

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: To address the above issues and help the Project applicant avoid impacts from light and light pollution, CDFW requests the City include the following mitigation measures in the EIR per below (edits are in strikethrough and bold), and also included in Attachment 1“Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”.

MM BIO-XX: To reduce nighttime artificial lighting-related impacts to wildlife using conservation areas, the Project shall take lightning measurements before, during, and post construction operations to determine impacts of nighttime artificial lightning on adjacent conservation areas and the wildlife it supports. To protect wildlife using conserved areas, project construction and operations shall result in not net increase to pre-construction ambient night-time levels to all areas of conservation areas. If light or glare impacts to conservation areas exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt landscape shielding, dimming, lighting curfews or other appropriate measures that result in the Project causing minimal to no glare to all conserved.

Additional Recommendations
Weed Management Plan. A weed management plan should be developed for the Project site and implemented during the duration of this long-term Project. On-going soil disturbance promotes establishment and growth of non-native weeds. As part of the Project, non-native

USFWS-CDFW

58 CONT
59 61
60 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 28
weeds should be prevented from becoming established. The Projects site should be monitored via mapping for new introductions and expansions of non-native weeds.

Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan The Wildlife Agencies recommends updating the EIR’s proposed Biological Resources Mitigation Measures to include mitigation measures recommended in this letter. Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments [Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(2)]. As such, the Wildlife Agencies have provided comments and recommendations to assist the City in developing mitigation measures that are (1) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4; (2) specific; (3) detailed (i.e., responsible party, timing, specific actions, location), and (4) clear for a measure to be fully enforceable and implemented successfully via mitigation, monitoring, and/or reporting program (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15097). The City is welcome to coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies to further review and refine the Project’s mitigation measures. Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), the Wildlife Agencies have provided the City with a summary of our suggested mitigation measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP; Attachment 1).

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plantsand-Animals. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the opportunity to comment on the EIR for the Rio Vista Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2018121005 to assist in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. Wildlife Agencies personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize impacts. The Wildlife

USFWS-CDFW

61 CONT
62 63
65 64
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 29
Agencies request that the City of Jurupa Valley address their comments and concerns prior to adoption of the EIR for the Project.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, and to schedule a meeting, please contact James Thiede of the Service at [email protected] or Katrina Rehrer of CDFW at [email protected]. Sincerely,
Rollie White Kim Freeburn
Assistant Field Supervisor Environmental Program Manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife Palm Springs Fish & Wildlife Office Inland Deserts Region ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Carly Beck, Senior Environmental Scientist Supervisor
[email protected] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Karin Cleary-Rose
[email protected]
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Tricia Campbell
[email protected]
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Aaron Gabbe
[email protected]
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Claudia Tenorio
[email protected] Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected].

USFWS-CDFW

65 CONT
Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 30

REFERENCES
Bailey, E. A. and P. J. Mock. (1998). Dispersal capability of the California Gnatcatcher: a landscape analysis of distribution data. Western Birds 29:351-360.

Beckman, E., Manos, P., Meyer, A., & Westwood, M. (2019). Quercus palmeri Engelm. In Beckman, E., Meyer, A., Man, G., Pivorunas, D., Denvir, A., Gill, D., Shaw, K., & Westwood, M. Conservation Gap Analysis of Native U.S. Oaks (pp. 166-171). Lisle, IL:

The Morton Arboretum. Retrieved from https://www.mortonarb.org/files/species-profilequercus-palmeri.pdf. Beiswenger, R. Diet patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temperature. Ecological Society of America, 1977 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency. Available for download at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline=true Evola, S. and Sandquist, D.R., 2007, February. Quantification of fog input and use by Quercus pacifica on Santa Catalina Island. In Oak ecosystem restoration on Santa Catalina Island, California: proceedings of an on-island workshop. Fischer, D.T. and Still, C.J., 2007. Evaluating patterns of fog water deposition and isotopic composition on the California Channel Islands. Water Resources Research, 43(4).

Fischer, D.T., Still, C.J., Ebert, C.M., Baguskas, S.A. and Park Williams, A., 2016. Fog drip maintains dry season ecological function in a California coastal pine forest. Ecosphere, 7(6), p.e01364.

Francis, C.D., C.P. Ortega, and A. Cruz. 2009. Noise Pollution Changes Avian Communities and Species Interactions. Current Biology 19:1415–1419.

Gatson, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T., Hopkins, J. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews, 2013.

Goldsmith, F.B., Munton, J.C., and A. Warren. 1970. The impact of recreation on the ecology and amenity of semi-natural areas: methods of investigation used in the Isles of Scilly.

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Accessed from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095- 8312.1970.tb01690.x. Halfwerk, W., L.J.M. Holleman, C. M Lessells, H. Slabbekoorn. 2011. Negative Impact of Traffic Noise on Avian Reproductive Success. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:210–219.

Ingraham, N.L. and Matthews, R.A., 1995. The importance of fog-drip water to vegetation: Point Reyes Peninsula, California. Journal of Hydrology, 164(1-4), pp.269-285.

USFWS-CDFW

Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 31
Johnson, P.T., A. R. Townsend, C. C. Cleveland, P. M Glibert, R. W. Howarth, V. J. McKenzie, E. Rejmankova, and M.H. Ward. 2010 Linking Environmental Nutrient Enrichment and Disease Emergence in Humans and Wildlife. Ecological Applications. 20(1):16–29. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/08-0633.1 Kleist, N. J., R. P. Guralnick, A. Cruz, C. A. Lowry, and C. D. Francis. 2018. Chronic Anthropogenic Noise Disrupts Glucocorticoid Signaling and has Multiple Effects on Fitness in an Avian Community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115:

E648–E657.

Knops, J.M.H. and Tilman, D. and Haddad, Nick and Naeem, Shahid and Mitchell, C.E. and Haarstad, J. and Ritchie, Mark and Howe, K.M. and Reich, Peter and Siemann, Evan and Groth, J. 2002. Effects of plant species richness on invasion dynamics, disease outbreaks, insect abundances and diversity. Ecology Letters, Volume 2, Page 286 – 293. Accessed from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229665981_Effects_of_plant_species_richness _on_invasion_dynamics_disease_outbreaks_insect_abundances_and_diversity Liddle, M. J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural ecosystems. Biological Conservation, Volume 7, Issue 1. Accessed from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0006320775900282. Longcore, T. and Rich, L. Ecological Light Pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2004.

May, M.R., Provance, M.C., Sanders, A.C., Ellstrand, N. C., and Ross-Ibarra, J. 2009. A Pleistocene Clone of Palmer's Oak Persisting in Southern California. PLOS One.

Accessed from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008346. Miller, M. 2006. Apparent Effects of Light Pollution on Singing Behavior of American Robins.

The Condor, 108(1), University of Florida.

National Park Service (NPS). 2022. Preservation Matters: Landscape Maintenance - Protecting Historic Trees During Construction. Accessed from
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/preservation-matters-landscape-maintenanceprotecting-historic-trees-during-construction.htm Potter, C., 2016. Measurements of fog water interception by shrubs on the California central coast. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 20, pp.315-325.

Provance MC, Sanders AC, Soza V, Boyd S, Bramlet DE, et al. (2000) Noteworthy collections, California. Ambrosia pumilla, Dicoria canescens, Erodium malacoides, Koeleria phleoides, Monardella pringlei, Nama stenocarpum, Quercus palmeri. Madroño 47: 139– 141.

USFWS-CDFW

Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 32
Sawaske, S.R. and Freyberg, D.L., 2015. Fog, fog drip, and streamflow in the Santa Cruz Mountains of the California Coast Range. Ecohydrology, 8(4), pp.695-713.

Stone, E., Jones, G., and Harris, S. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology, 19(13), p. 1123-1127, 2009.

Thorp, R., Horning Jr., D., and Dunning, L. Bumble Bees and Cuckoo Bumble Bees of California (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Bulletin of the California Insect Survey, volume 23, 1983.

Tyser, R.W and C.A. Worley. 1992. Alien Flora in Grasslands Adjacent to Road and Trail Corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology, Volume 6, Number 2. Accessed from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2386247 USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996a. Interim General Survey Guidelines for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. Accessed from
https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/TEspecies/Recovery/SurveyInfo.html USFWS. 1997. Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Recovery Plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 51 pages. Accessed from https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/970914.pdf
USFWS. 2004a. Changes to the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Recommended Survey Guidelines. April 30. Accessed from
https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/TEspecies/Recovery/SurveyInfo.html USFWS. 2004b. Guidelines for Conducting Presence/Absence Surveys for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. June 30. Accessed from
https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/TEspecies/Recovery/SurveyInfo.html Vitousek, P.M., Aber, J.D., Howarth, R.W., Likens, G.E., Matson, P.A., Schindler, D.W., Schlesinger, W.H., and D.G. Tilman. 1997. Human Alteration of the Global Nitrogen Cycle: Sources and Consequences. Ecological Applications: Ecological Society of America. Accessed from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/1051- 0761%281997%29007%5B0737%3Ahaotgn%5D2.0.co%3B2 . Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (RCA). 2006.

Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Available for download at:
https://www.wrcca.org/species/survey_protocols/burrowing_owl_survey_instructi ons.pdf

USFWS-CDFW

Attachment A: Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan The Wildlife Agencies recommend the following language to be incorporated into a future environmental document for the Project. A final MMRP shall reflect results following additional plant and wildlife surveys and the Project’s final on and/or off-site mitigation plans. Biological Resources (BIO) Mitigation Measure (MM) Timing Responsible Party Coastal California Gnatcatcher MM BIO-XX: Prior to grading or other ground-disturbing activities are proposed, a qualified biologist shall survey all potential nesting vegetation within and adjacent to the site for nesting coastal California gnatcatcher. The City of Jurupa Valley (City) shall impose conditions of approval on future grading permits requiring focused surveys to be conducted prior to ground disturbance or discing activities. A minimum of twelve (12) surveys shall be conducted at least one week apart to determine the distribution of coastal California gnatcatchers in the Project’s anticipated areas of impact on shrublands. Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the appropriate time of day, during appropriate weather conditions. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. Written and mapped qualitative descriptions of plant communities (including dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the area surveyed will also be provided with survey results to USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), within 45 days following the field surveys, and prior to ground-disturbing activities. The results of the focused surveys shall be provided to the City, CDFW, and USFWS for review and approval prior to Prior to commencing ground- or vegetation disturbing activities Project Proponent USFWS-CDFW Page 33 of 49 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 34 commencement of ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, mowing, grubbing, and disking activities). In the event that the focused surveys do not detect the presence of any coastal California gnatcatchers, the habitat will have been confirmed to be unoccupied by coastal California gnatcatchers, and MM BIO-1g has been completed, then ground disturbance or discing may occur during the nesting season (i.e., between March 1 and August 15). In the event that the focused surveys identify the presence of California gnatcatchers, then ground disturbance or discing of the occupied areas shall be prohibited between March 1 and August 15. If an active coastal California gnatcatcher nest is located, the nest site shall be fenced with a buffer of a minimum of 500 feet in all directions, and this area shall not be disturbed until after the nest becomes inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, as confirmed by a qualified biologist. If a nest is suspected, but not confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall establish a disturbance- free buffer until additional surveys can be completed, or until the nest’s precise location can be inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed, but thought to be inactive, the Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors during the non-breeding season) prior to approaching the nest to determine status. The Designated Biologist shall use their best professional judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with these requirements and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Jurupa Valley staff or its designee to confirm compliance. Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly MM BIO-XX: Prior to grading or other ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall survey all suitable habitat for Delhi Sands flower loving fly (DSF) according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) survey protocol for this Prior to commencing ground- or vegetation Project Proponent USFWS-CDFW Page 34 of 49 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 35 species (1996) as revised by USFWS in 2004. The City of Jurupa Valley (City) shall impose conditions of approval on future grading permits requiring focused surveys to be conducted prior to ground disturbance or discing activities. Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the appropriate time of day, and during appropriate weather conditions for DSF flies to be active aboveground. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. Written and mapped qualitative descriptions of plant communities (including dominant species and habitat quality) on and adjacent to the area surveyed will also be provided with survey results to USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), within 45 days following the field surveys, prior to ground disturbing activities. The results of the focused surveys shall be provided to the City, CDFW, and USFWS for review and approval If the protocol survey determines that some or all of the Delhi sands in the Rio Vista Specific Plan are occupied by the endangered Delhi sands flower-loving fly, then the City should make a determination as to whether or not the MSHCP Plan requires some or all of the occupied areas to be conserved (consistent with DSF conservation strategy “B”, the option selected by the City and the other MSHCP Permittees at the inception of the MSHCP Plan in 2004), and adjust the land use of the fly-occupied areas in the Rio Vista Specific Plan, if needed, to become consistent with DSF conservation strategy “B” in the MSHCP Plan, including the recordation of a conservation easement or transfer of fly-occupied areas to be conserved to a qualified wildlife habitat conservation organization, such as the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, the San Diego Habitats Conservancy, etc. disturbing activities USFWS-CDFW Page 35 of 49 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 36 Burrowing Owl MM-Bio-1i: A) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Planning Department shall verify that the burrowing owl breeding season protocol survey is not more than one year old. If it is older than one year, an updated breeding season protocol survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within all suitable burrowing owl habitat on the site and a 150-meter buffer. A copy of the report shall be provided to the Planning Department and the two Wildlife Agencies before grading occurs. If one or more owl-occupied burrows are identified by the breeding season protocol survey, then the Project Applicant shall immediately prepare a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan (BOPaRP) for review and approval by USFWS and CDFW, without deferring such preparation to a later time, and the 30-day pre-construction burrowing owl survey will no longer be required. The proposed BOPaRP shall be submitted to the two Wildlife Agencies through the City once the City has reviewed the draft BOPaRP. b) If no burrowing owls are detected in the Project vicinity by the most recent breeding-season burrowing owl protocol survey, then, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a pre-construction burrowing owl survey in accordance with the March 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days before ground or vegetation disturbance, including grubbing, tree removal, or site watering. The surveys shall be conducted as close to the actual construction initiation date as possible. In addition, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 3 days prior to initiation of Project activities and reported to CDFW. Additionally, if ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is subsequently left without further disturbance for more than Prior to commencing ground- or vegetation disturbing activities Project Proponent USFWS-CDFW Page 36 of 49 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 37 30 days, a pre-construction survey shall again be necessary to reconfirm that burrowing owls have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If no burrowing owls are observed during all the surveys, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If burrowing owls are detected by the pre-construction survey, the Biologist shall notify the City of Jurupa Valley, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) field office in Palm Springs with written notification sent within 48 hours of detecting the burrowing owls. If owl-occupied burrows are identified on an implementing Project site during the pre-construction survey, the Project Applicant shall not commence activities until the City receives CDFW and USFWS approval of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, as described below. If owl presence is difficult to determine, a qualified biologist shall monitor the burrows with motion-activated trail cameras for at least 24 hours to evaluate burrow occupancy. The onsite qualified biologist will verify the nesting effort has finished according to methods identified in the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan. A copy of the plan shall be provided to the Planning Department. The BOPaRP shall be implemented prior to any construction activities that may disturb burrowing owls. Mitigation shall be based on the following goals and requirements in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP): 1. If the site contains or is part of an area supporting less than 35 acres of suitable USFWS-CDFW Page 37 of 49 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 38 habitat or the survey reveals that the site and the surrounding area supports fewer than three pairs of burrowing owls, on-site burrowing owls shall be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols. 2. If the project site (including adjacent areas) supports three or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habitat, and is noncontiguous with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the area with long-term conservation value and burrowing owl pairs shall be conserved on-site. The qualified biologist and the Project Applicant shall coordinate with the City, CDFW, and USFWS to develop a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan to be approved by CDFW and USFWS prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan shall describe the Project’s proposed avoidance, relocation, monitoring, minimization, and/or mitigation actions to protect burrowing owls from harm and to maintain their survival and numbers in the MSHCP Plan Area. The Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on proposed buffers if avoiding the burrowing owls, or information on the adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan. The City will implement the USFWS-CDFW Page 38 of 49 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 39 Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval. If burrowing owls are observed within Project Site(s) during Project implementation and construction, the Project Applicant shall notify the Wildlife Agencies immediately in writing within 48 hours of detection. A Burrowing Owl Plan will be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval within two weeks of detection and no Project activities will occur within 1,000 feet of the burrowing owls’ burrows until the Wildlife Agencies approves the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan. The City shall be responsible for implementing appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including burrow avoidance, passive or active relocation, or other appropriate mitigation measures as identified in the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan. A final survey report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist documenting the results of the burrowing owl surveys and detailing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The final report will be submitted to the City and the Wildlife Agencies within 30 days of completion of the survey for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. Nesting Birds Mitigation Measure 1g: To prevent impacts to nesting birds (including raptors), clearing or other work in native habitats shall be avoided during the nesting season. If work cannot be avoided during this timeframe, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist within 3 days prior to site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation). The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Planning Department and the Project Applicant shall adhere to the following: Prior to commencing ground- or vegetation disturbing activities Project Proponent USFWS-CDFW Page 39 of 49 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 40 1.Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures. 2.Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If an active nest or nesting birds are present, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, based on their best professional judgement and experience in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) regulations and the California Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologist shall halt all USFWS-CDFW Page 40 of 49 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 41 construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. Active bird nests shall be mapped utilizing a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS), getting as close as possible without disturbing the nest. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. Construction shall not be permitted within buffer areas while the nest continues to be active. Once fledging has occurred or the nest otherwise becomes inactive, no further avoidance shall be required. An active nest is defined as a nest that is being built or in use as part of the reproductive process, including a nest with eggs, chicks, or dependent juveniles. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. USFWS-CDFW Page 41 of 49 Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 42 Crotch’s Bumble Bee Mitigation Measure BIO-1k: Because of suitable habitat within the project site, within one year prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, a qualified entomologist familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee behavior, as approved by CDFW, and life history conduct surveys in accordance with any Crotch’s bumble bee survey protocol provided by CDFW to determine the presence/absence of Crotch’s bumble bee. Surveys should be conducted during flying season when the species is most likely to be detected above ground, between March 1 to September 1. Surveys should be conducted within the project site and areas adjacent to the project site where suitable habitat exists. If a colony is present, a 100-foot avoidance buffer shall be established. Survey results, including negative findings, should be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to project-related vegetation removal and/or ground-disturbing activities. If a survey finds that a Crotch’s bumble bee colony is present on the project site or Crotch’s bumble bee are observed during Project activities, the project Biologist shall consult with CDFW. The qualified biologist should identify the location of all nests in or adjacent to the Project site. If Project activities may result in disturbance or potential take, the qualified biologist, in coordination with CDFW, should expand the buffer project impacts Crotch’s bumble bee, an Incidental Take Permit from the CDFW shall be obtained pursuant to Fish and Game Code implemented as required by the CDFW. Any floral resource associated with Crotch’s bumble bee that will be removed or damaged by the Project should be replaced at no less than 2:1. Floral resources should be replaced as close to their original location as is feasible. If active Crotch’s bumble bee nests have been identified and floral resources cannot be replaced within 200 meters of their original location, floral resources should be Prior to commencing ground- or vegetation disturbing activities Project Proponent USFWS-CDFW Page 42 of 49 66 CONT Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 43 planted in the most centrally available location relative to identified nests. This location should be no more than 1.5 kilometers from any identified nest. Replaced floral resources may be split into multiple patches to meet distance requirements for multiple nests. These floral resources should be maintained in perpetuity and should be replanted and managed as needed to ensure the habitat is Species of Special Concern MM BIO-XX: Scientific Collecting Permit – The City/qualified biologist must obtain appropriate handling permits to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate SSC wildlife and rare plants, and to avoid harm or mortality in connection with Project construction Prior to commencing ground- or vegetation disturbing activities Project Proponent Species of Special Concern MM BIO-1h Biological Monitoring and Clearance Surveys: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified Biologist with experience surveying for each of the following species shall be retained: Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), great egret (Ardea alba), Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae), red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii). Prior to commencing any Project-related ground-disturbing activities, the qualified biologist should conduct surveys for where suitable habitat is present. Project related activities include construction, equipment and vehicle access, parking, and staging. Focused surveys should consist of daytime surveys and nighttime surveys no more than one month from the start of any ground-disturbing activities. The surveys should include mapping of current locations of special-status wildlife species for avoidance and relocation efforts and to assist construction monitoring efforts. The survey Prior to commencing ground- or vegetation disturbing activities Project Proponent USFWS-CDFW Page 43 of 49 66 CONT Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 44 should be conducted so that 100 percent coverage of the project site and surrounding areas is achieved. In addition, resumes/and or statements of qualifications shall be provided to the City by the applicant identifying one or more qualified Biological Monitors that will be assigned to the project to monitor construction activities. Monitors shall be responsible for ensuring that impacts to special-status species, native vegetation, wildlife habitat, jurisdictional waters, and sensitive or unique biological resources are avoided to the extent possible. The City in consultation with a qualified biologist should prepare a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training prior to implementation of Project ground-disturbing activities. Monitors shall conduct WEAP training to inform construction personnel of applicable mitigation measures and permit conditions, and any potential for infraction and should include effective, specific, enforceable, and feasible actions. The qualified biologist should have prepared maps showing locations where SSC were detected and share this information to workers as part of training. The qualified biologist shall meet with the construction crew at the project site at the onset of construction to educate the construction crew on the following: 1) a review of the project boundaries; 2) all special-status species that may be present, their habitat, and proper identification; and 3) the specific mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the construction effort. The qualified biologist should communicate to workers that upon encounter with a SSC, work must stop, a qualified biologist must be notified, and work may only resume once a qualified biologist has determined that it is safe to do so. Any contractor or employee that inadvertently kills or injures a special-status animal, or finds one either dead, injured, or entrapped, should immediately report the incident to the qualified biologist and/or onsite representative identified in the worker USFWS-CDFW Page 44 of 49 66 CONT Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 45 the City inspector, and shall promptly identify any concerns or violations, as needed. A Biological Monitor shall be present during initial site clearing activities (vegetation clearing, soil preparation, and ground disturbance), during work adjacent to avoided Delhi soils and jurisdictional waters and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Riparian/Riverine habitat, and at appropriate intervals throughout construction to ensure compliance with mitigation measures and regulatory permit conditions. In addition, a qualified Biologist shall conduct clearance surveys for special-status plant or wildlife resources within or adjacent to the project disturbance area within three calendar days prior to initial vegetation clearing and ground disturbance, including fence installation. Daily biological monitoring should be conducted during any activities involving vegetation clearing or modification of natural habitat. Surveys for SSC should be conducted prior to the initiation of each day of vegetation removal activities in suitable habitat. Surveys for SSC should be conducted in the areas flagged in earlier surveys before construction and activities may occur in or adjacent to those areas. Work may only occur in these areas after a qualified biologist has determined it is safe to do so. Even so, workers should be advised to work with caution near flagged areas. If SSC is encountered, qualified biologist should safely protect or If any special-status plants or wildlife are found, the Biologist shall take appropriate action as defined in the MSHCP, mitigation measures, permit conditions, and regulations. The qualified biologist should use visible flagging to mark the location where SSC was detected. The qualified biologist should take a photo of each location, map each location, and provide the specific species USFWS-CDFW Page 45 of 49 66 CONT Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 46 detected at that location. The qualified biologist should provide a summary report of SSC surveys to the City before any Project- related ground-disturbing activities. The CDFW should be notified and consulted regarding the presence of any special-status wildlife species found on site during surveys. If an Endangered Species Act-listed species is found prior to or during grading of the site, the USFWS should also be notified. If any special-status or listed species are/have been observed on or in proximity to the Project site, Permittee shall submit California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) forms and maps to the CNDDB within five working days of the sightings. Additional avoidance and minimization Where applicable, wildlife should be protected, allowed to move away on its own (non-invasive, passive relocation), or relocated to adjacent appropriate habitat within the open space on site or in suitable habitat adjacent to the project area (either way, at least 200 feet from the grading limits). Special status wildlife should be captured only by a qualified biologist with proper handling permits. The qualified biologist should prepare a species-specific list (or plan) of proper handling and relocation protocols and a map of suitable and safe relocation areas. The list (or plan) of protocols should be implemented during project construction and activities/biological construction monitoring. The City/qualified biologist may consult with CDFW/USFWS to prepare species- specific protocols for proper handling and relocation procedures. Only a USFWS approved biologist should be authorized to capture and relocate ESA-listed species. A relocation plan should be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and comment prior to implementing Project-related ground- If any SSC are harmed during relocation or a dead or injured animal is found, work in the immediate area should stop immediately, the USFWS-CDFW Page 46 of 49 66 CONT Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 47 qualified biologist should be notified, and dead or injured wildlife documented immediately. The qualified biologist should contact the USFWS, CDFW, and the City by telephone by the end of the day, or at the beginning of the next working day if the agency office is closed. In addition, a formal report should be sent to the City, CDFW, and USFWS (as appropriate) within three calendar days of the incident or finding. The report should include the date, time of the finding or incident (if known), and location of the carcass or injured animal and circumstances of its death or injury (if known). Work in the immediate area may only resume once the proper notifications have been made and additional mitigation measures have been identified to prevent additional injury or death. Monitoring and survey activities shall be documented, and, summaries shall be submitted on a monthly basis during periods of Project activity until Project completion or monitoring is complete. Monitoring reports of any passively relocated species shall also be included. At the conclusion of project construction activities, a final construction report shall be submitted to CDFW and the City at least two weeks after the Project is fully completed including color photographs of before and after Project-related activities, including the surrounding staging areas. The construction report at a minimum shall contain pre- Project photographs, total amount of area impacted post-Project, post-Project photographs, and biological survey notes (including construction monitoring). All monitoring reports and communications shall be retained in project files to allow review by the lead agency and Wildlife Agencies. Species of Special Concern MM BIO-XX: Plummer’s Mariposa Lily Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a botanist experienced in identifying Calochortus species in the field shall map the locations of the Plummer’s mariposa lilies (Calochortus plummerae) inside the Project’s anticipated permanent and temporary impact areas during Prior to commencing ground- or vegetation Project Proponent USFWS-CDFW Page 47 of 49 66 CONT Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 48 the month of June (the month when the species is detectable and identifiable in the field), and the Project shall immediately remove the Plummer’s mariposa lilies from the impact areas via hand excavation, and transport them to a nursery specializing in the cultivation of native California plants, where the mariposa lilies shall be cared for until cooler weather in Autumn. The salvaged mariposa lilies shall be planted into suitable habitat inside the Project’s conservation areas between October and December (the precise timing shall be determined by the horticulturalists at the native plant nursery, but shall be selected to minimize the mortality rate of the transplanted mariposa lilies). The receptor areas shall only consist of areas which will be placed into permanent conservation or is currently conserved via a conservation easement or transfer of title by the Project, and which shall be maintained in perpetuity by a qualified habitat maintenance organization such as the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, or the San Diego Habitats Conservancy, etc. disturbing activities Noise Pollution MM BIO-XX: Prior to approval of the Final Design, a Noise plan shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley for review and approval. Proposed The Noise Plan shall identify noise generating land uses that may affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area and shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The Noise Plan shall include monitoring during construction and post-project to demonstrate noise levels in the Conservation Area do not exceed residential standards. If noise standards are exceeded, the Project Applicant is responsible for immediate implementation of remedial actions to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. Prior to commencing ground- or vegetation disturbing activities Project Proponent USFWS-CDFW Page 48 of 49 66 CONT Mr. Jim Pechous, (FWS/CDFW-WRIV-jt-2024-0019889) 49 Light Pollution MM BIO-XX: To reduce nighttime artificial lighting-related impacts to wildlife using conservation areas, the Project shall take lightning measurements before, during, and post construction operations to determine impacts of nighttime artificial lightning on adjacent conservation areas and the wildlife it supports. To protect wildlife using conserved areas, project construction and operations shall result in not net increase to pre-construction ambient night- time levels to all areas of conservation areas. If light or glare impacts to conservation areas exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt landscape shielding, dimming, lighting curfews or other appropriate measures that result in the Project causing minimal to no glare to all conserved. Prior to commencing ground- or vegetation disturbing activities Project Proponent USFWS-CDFW Page 49 of 49 66 CONT

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-53 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Federal Agencies
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWSCDFW) Response to USFWS-CDFW-1
The introductory paragraph, identifying the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as the Wildlife Agencies and acknowledging the Wildlife Agencies’ receipt of the Draft EIR, does not raise any specific environmental issues related to the Draft EIR or proposed project; as such, no further response is required.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-2
The comment provides introductory information, identifies the Wildlife Agencies’ roles, and requests that the City’s implementation of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for this proposed project be addressed in the Draft EIR as further discussed in the comment letter. No further response is required.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-3
No response is required to the summary of project description, including land uses and acreages, and project location, including identification of United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles and Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs).

Response to USFWS-CDFW-4
The comment that the Wildlife Agencies offer the comments and recommendations, editorial comments, or other suggestions does not require a response.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-5
The comment states that the proposed project needs to demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP.

The comment provides a general summary of requirements under the MSHCP. An MSHCP Consistency Analysis is included in the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, dated September 2023, pages 107 to 112) to demonstrate consistency with the MSHCP.

Specifically, the comment states that the Draft EIR should demonstrate compliance with five MSHCP items identified in the comment. These items are listed below, along with the reference to the relevant discussion in Appendix D1:
1) Compliance with the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP) is discussed in Appendix D1, Section 7.2 Impacts to Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pools;
2) Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP) is discussed in Appendix D1, Section 7.3.2 Narrow Endemic Plants;
3) Compliance with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP) is discussed in Appendix D1, Section 7.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface; City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-54 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX 4) Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, specifically the policies set forth for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP) is discussed in Appendix D1, Section 7.3.1 Burrowing Owl; and
5) Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the siting, construction, design, operation, and maintenance guidelines, as set forth in Section 7.0 and Appendix C of the MSHCP, are discussed below.
• Biological Monitoring and Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training (MSHCP Appendix C, BMPs 1, 4, and 10): addressed through Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1d (Wildlife Hazards) and MM BIO-1h (Biological Monitoring and Clearance Surveys). • Fencing impact areas and limiting disturbance to native vegetation (MSHCP Appendix C, BMPs 3, 11, and 14): addressed through MM BIO-1a (Flag or Fence Impact Areas), MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space), MM BIO-1f (Urban/Wildlands Interface), and MM BIO-1h (Biological Monitoring and Clearance Surveys) and through implementation of Project Design Features (PDFs).
• Exotic species control (MSHCP Appendix C, BMP 12): addressed through MM BIO-1e (Invasive Plants) and MM BIO-1f (Urban/Wildlands Interface) and through implementation of PDFs.
• Water pollution, erosion control, and avoiding impacts to streambeds and riparian habitat (MSHCP Appendix C, BMPs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9): addressed through MM BIO-1f (Urban/Wildlands Interface), MM BIO-1h (Biological Monitoring and Clearance Surveys), MM BIO-2a (MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Habitat), MM BIO-2b (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan), MM BIO-3a (RWQCB Jurisdictional Areas), and MM BIO-3b (CDFW Jurisdictional Areas) and through implementation of PDFs.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-6
The comment states that preparation of a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Habitat (DBESP) is required. The comment also refers to projection of riparian/riverine vernal pool resources.

DBESP is part of the regulatory permitting process and is not required to be attached to the Draft EIR. See Response to USFW-CDFW-5.

Impacts to riparian/riverine vernal pool resources is discussed in Appendix D1, Section 7.2 Impacts to Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pools.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-7
Impacts to the Palmer’s oak, such as those suggested in the comment (soil compaction, severing of roots, truck and limb injury, and limb breakage from construction equipment and activities), would be avoided by prohibiting project-related construction activities from occurring within the tree's mapped limit and the 200-foot buffer. This includes, but is not limited to, staging of supplies and equipment, vegetation removal, grading, stockpiling, paving, and any other activity related to development of the proposed project. In addition, no heavy equipment may operate within 259 feet of the mapped limits of the tree. As stated in MM BIO-5 Palmer’s Oak, the buffer would be measured from the mapped limit of the tree.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-55 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to USFWS-CDFW-8
It is important to distinguish that while the majority of construction activity is prohibited within 200 feet of the tree’s mapped limit as described in Response to USFWS-CDFW-7, MM BIO-5 clearly states that heavy equipment would not operate in the 259-foot distance. It is heavy equipment repeated driving, rather than temporary materials staging, that has the potential for compacting soil and impacting the subsurface bedrock (which stores and provides water to the tree). The 259-foot buffer for heavy equipment provides adequate mitigation for potential impacts (see Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient). Absence of heavy equipment within the 259-foot buffer surrounding the tree would prevent potential damage to tree limbs and associated breakage resulting from heavy equipment operations because there would not be heavy equipment in the vicinity of the tree.

Furthermore, causing damage to the tree is illegal regardless of the proposed project. Per Public Resources Code Section 5097.993, unlawfully and maliciously excavating, removing, destroying, or defacing a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site is a misdemeanor and is punishable by imprisonment in county jail for up to one year, by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-9
The comment’s statement that impact the drainages on-site may potentially lower the water table or divert drainage patterns away from the site and therefore affect the Palmer’s oak onsite is negated by two studies which are discussed in the Draft EIR, page 3.4-45. First, a hydrogeologic investigation of the on-site hill where the tree is growing concluded that vegetation there is likely supported by annual rainfall and water stored in near-surface fractures since depth to groundwater at this location is greater than 90 feet below ground surface. Therefore, the groundwater is not likely to be sufficient to support the oak tree. Second, a Biological Review of Palmer’s Oak memorandum used ground-penetrating radar (GPR) to conclude that planar or basinshaped depressions in subsurface bedrock, at a depth of approximately 2 meters, form a collection basin for water in a manner that provides water to sustain the tree beyond periods of major rainfall.

The two studies demonstrate that the tree’s water supply is not dependent on groundwater, surface flows or fog drip.

Furthermore, the on-site Palmer’s oak is located on a hill with the nearest delineated stream (labeled D2 in Appendix D1 Figure 8) over 1,000 feet and downhill from the tree. As such impacts to this stream would not affect the water supply for the tree.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-10
The vibration prediction study, provided in Appendix D5, concluded that 259 feet is the buffer required to ensure heavy construction equipment operations would not impact the bedrock that stores water to supply the tree. Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient, explains both the 200-foot and the 259-foot buffers.

The tree location and several acres in its surrounding area would be designated Open Space and no construction—including grading—would occur there. The total Open Space area would be 510.8 City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-56 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX acres. Without grading activities, the microtopography surrounding would not change, therefore not causing changes to air currents, moisture availability, ground water resources, etc., as the comment suggests.

Unauthorized public access, illegal trespass, and dumping cannot be controlled or predicted and may occur even without project development, and it is assumed that users would adhere to applicable laws and regulations (such as Public Resources Code [PRC] § 5097.993, discussed in Response to USFWS-CDFW-8). The proposed project would not exacerbate fire risk, as discussed in the Draft EIR pages 3.20-11 through 3.20-13. Instead, with development of roads to allow better emergency access if wildfire poses a risk to the tree, impacts related to fire would be reduced with implementation of the proposed project.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-11
As the comment implicitly acknowledged, three studies were undertaken to understand potential project effects on the Palmer’s oak, and they are discussed in the Draft EIR, Section 3.4 Biological Resources.

1. A hydrogeologic investigation of the hill where the tree is growing was conducted in January 2022. It aimed to identify the water source that allows the tree to grow at that location.

According to the hydrogeologic investigation, groundwater level maps indicate that regional groundwater levels in the alluvium and surficial deposits are much lower than the elevation of the project site and the hill and is not likely to support the tree. A field investigation conducted as part of the hydrogeologic investigation concluded that vegetation in the tonalite is likely supported by annual rainfall and water stored in near-surface fractures since depth to groundwater in the fractured tonalite at this location is greater than 90 feet below ground surface. This water is not likely to be sufficient to support the oak tree.

2. A Biological Review of Palmer’s Oak memorandum was prepared in July 2023 based on field work conducted in August and November 2022. This review included a GPR study which detected planar or basin-shaped depressions in subsurface bedrock to a depth of approximately 2 meters in several location in the study area. These features appear to confirm the hypothesis that the shape of subsurface bedrock collects and perches water in a manner that provides water to sustain the Palmer’s oak beyond periods of major rainfall.

3. A vibration prediction study for the area of the Palmer’s oak was conducted in May 2023. It concluded that equipment vibrations from the largest piece of equipment at a distance of 259 from the tree would not impact the subsurface bedrock that supports the tree.

Combined, these three studies identify the water supply mechanism that supports the Palmer’s oak and identifies measures to ensure it remains intact.

The Palmer’s oak would be avoided in accordance with MM BIO-5, which fully mitigates the potential for long-term impacts. Moreover, approximately 510.8 acres of the project site would be preserved as open space, managed by a City-approved conservation entity, and placed under a deed with restrictions from future development. This would reduce long-term effects and ensure protection of the Palmer’s oak located on-site. Specifically, no grading would occur, thus not City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-57 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX affecting the microtopography surrounding the tree and not resulting in soil compaction. The development of the project site would not conflict with any other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not cause or contribute to any significant long-term effects.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-12
The comment’s summary of Palmer’s oak distribution and the age and rarity of the individual found on the project site is not disputed; no response is required.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-13
The comment’s statement that older trees are more susceptible to construction-related impacts is not disputed. However, the comment’s statement that the Palmer’s oak on-site would be susceptible to impacts associated with the proposed project is addressed by MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak), which would ensure a buffer from heavy equipment operations and from project development. In addition, the tree is located in an area that is proposed for Open Space land use.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-14
The comment’s statement that uncontrolled access to the area surrounding the on-site Palmer’s oak can result in habitat degradation and disruption of key ecological functions is addressed by MM BIO5 (Palmer’s Oak), which would ensure a 200-foot buffer from any project development and a 259- foot buffer from heavy equipment.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-15
The comment’s statement that detrimental impacts to the on-site Palmer’s oak could result in permanent damage to this slow-growing plant and the loss of the regenerating portions of it are not refuted. However, implementation of MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak) would ensure a buffer from heavy equipment operations and from project development. In addition, the tree is located in an area that is proposed for Open Space land use.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-16
The comment states because of insufficient information in the Draft EIR about the on-site Palmer’s oak, the Wildlife Agencies cannot recommend feasible mitigation measures without additional studies, and they recommend that the City remove MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak) and recirculate the EIR once sufficient information has been obtained.

As discussed in Response to USFWS-CDFW-11, three studies were conducted to understand the onsite Palmer’s oak, its ecology, and its water supply. Together, these studies provide a comprehensive evaluation of potential temporary and long-term impacts to the tree.

As described in Response to USFWS-CDFW-9, these studies refute the comment’s speculation that the tree’s water supply source is surface flow that will be diverted by project construction, or that groundwater resources supporting the tree may be impacted by grading and project development, or that fog drip from fog flowing slowly against the thicket’s leaves and stems supports the tree. Furthermore, Response to USFWS-CDFW-11 concludes that the water source for the tree is a subsurface water basin that keeps water available for the tree.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-58 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to USFWS-CDFW-17
The comment states that the proposed project may result in impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat.

Coastal California gnatcatcher is a covered species under the MSHCP and associated take permits.

The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the MSHCP regarding coastal California gnatcatcher (Draft EIR, page 3.4-30).

However, the MSHCP does not cover impacts to nesting birds, including coastal California gnatcatcher. MM BIO-1g (Nesting Birds) in the Draft EIR requires avoiding work during the nesting season (January 1 to September 15) or conducting nesting bird surveys and establishing appropriate avoidance buffers around active nests. With implementation of MM BIO-1g, impacts to nesting coastal California gnatcatcher (if any are present) would be avoided and minimized. See Response to USFWS-CDFW-39.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-18
The comment states that there is suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher on the project site and that the species has been observed on the project site, but focused surveys for gnatcatcher have not been done. The USFWS permit for the MSHCP restricts clearing of habitat occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher during the nesting season (March 1 to August 15) in Public/QuasiPublic (PQP) lands and the Criteria Area.

The MSHCP does not require focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher on the project site.

The project site is not within PQP lands or the Criteria Area and the restriction on clearing during the gnatcatcher nesting season is not applicable. Nonetheless, development projects within the plan area would further avoid and minimize impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher through conservation of open space, as required by MM BIO-1b, implementation of nesting bird surveys and avoidance, as required by MM BIO-1g, and biological monitoring and clearance surveys, as required by MM BIO-1h.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-19
The comment states that coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally listed species and a California Species of Special Concern.

This information is stated in the BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, page 59) and in the Draft EIR (page 3.4-17).

Response to USFWS-CDFW-20
The comment states that preservation of natural communities that support coastal California gnatcatcher is paramount.

Coastal California gnatcatcher is a covered species under the MSHCP and associated take permits.

The MSHCP conserves habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher in the MSHCP Reserves and allows take of habitat for development projects that are in compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the MSHCP regarding coastal California gnatcatcher (Draft EIR, page 3.4-30).

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-59 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to USFWS-CDFW-21
The comment proposes a mitigation measure to include pre-construction surveys for nesting coastal California gnatcatcher, 12 focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher, written and mapped descriptions of plant communities, prohibiting ground disturbance in the occupied area from March 1 to August 15, and 500-foot fenced buffers around active coastal California gnatcatcher nests.

MM BIO-1g (Nesting Birds) in the Draft EIR requires avoiding work during the nesting season (January 1 to September 15) or conducting nesting bird surveys and establishing appropriate avoidance buffers around active nests (see Response to USFWS-CDFW-39). As discussed in the BRA, flagging of buffers, along with monitoring, is adequate to avoid encroachment (Draft EIR Appendix D1, Section 4.1 Vegetation Communities). Installing fencing around a buffer would create unnecessary disturbance.

The MSHCP does not require focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher on the project site.

The project site is not within PQP lands or the Criteria Area and the restriction on clearing during the gnatcatcher nesting season (March 1 to August 15) is therefore not applicable. Compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP for California gnatcatcher is required as a condition of project approval.

Compliance with the MSHCP provides full mitigation for the proposed project's impacts on MSHCP covered species. The additional proposed mitigation is not required to comply with the MSHCP and is therefore unnecessary.

Written descriptions of vegetation communities are provided in the Draft EIR (pages 3.4-9 through

3.4-12). Written descriptions and mapping of vegetation communities are provided in the BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, pages 33 through 40).

Response to USFWS-CDFW-22
The comment states that the proposed project may impact Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF) and its habitat.

This information is disclosed in the Draft EIR (page 3.4-30). DSF is a covered species under the MSHCP and associated take permits. Moreover, the proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the MSHCP regarding DSF.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-23
The comment states that DSF was observed on the project site in 2005 but surveys in 2015/2016 were negative. The proposed project would impact 4.87 acres (24.4 percent) of the Delhi soils on the project site and 0.84 acre (22.5 percent) of the occupied DSF habitat mapped in 2005. Project impacts include habitat loss, changes to hydrology, and fugitive dust.

Project impacts to DSF are disclosed in the Draft EIR (pages 3.4-30 and 3.4-48). Consistent with MSHCP requirements for conservation of DSF habitat, MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) conserves open space on the project site, including DSF habitat. Over 75 percent of the Delhi soils on the project site and over 77 percent of the 2005 occupied habitat will be deed restricted with ownership transferred to a City-approved conservation entity.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-60 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX The proposed project would comply with the MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface guidelines regarding drainage. MM BIO-2b, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, includes measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to open space area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions (Draft EIR page 3.4-49). Additional information regarding hydrology is provided in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the Draft EIR (pages 3.10-1 through 3.10-24).

Fugitive dust rates could increase during clearing as a result of vehicle and machinery use and exposure of soils. Implementation of MM BIO-1d (Wildlife Hazards), which limits vehicle speeds on unpaved roads within the project site to 15 miles per hour (mph), would help reduce fugitive dust.

Air quality regulations also govern emissions of fugitive dust (Draft EIR, Section 3.3 Air Quality, page

3.3-28, MM AIR-1a, and Plans, Policies, and Programs [PPP] 3.3-1).

Response to USFWS-CDFW-24
The comment states that DSF is a federally endangered species and summarizes take under the Endangered Species Act.

This information is provided in the BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, page 58) and the Draft EIR (pages 3.1-1 and 3.4-17).

Response to USFWS-CDFW-25
The comment states that the proposed project is adjacent to occupied habitat and DSF occupied the project site (as of 2005).

Similar background information is provided in the BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, Pages 58 through 59) and the Draft EIR (Pages 3.4-17 through 3.4-19).

Response to USFWS-CDFW-26
The comment states that the Draft EIR does not provide mitigation to offset impacts to DSF.

The Draft EIR does provide mitigation for DSF consistent with MSHCP requirements (see Response to USFWS-CDFW-27). MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) in the Draft EIR conserves open space on the project site, including DSF habitat. Over 75 percent of the Delhi soils on the site and over 77 percent of the 2005 occupied habitat will be deed restricted with ownership transferred to a City-approved conservation entity.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-27
The comment proposes a mitigation measure to include an additional protocol survey for DSF prior to ground disturbance, conservation of occupied habitat consistent with MSHCP DSF conservation strategy “B,” and a conservation easement or transfer of occupied habitat to a conservation entity.

Protocol surveys for DSF were conducted in 2015/2016 with negative results. Under the MSHCP, an additional DSF protocol survey is not required (Draft EIR, page 3.4-30). Under MSHCP Objective 1B for DSF (MSHCP page 9-31), “Once two years of surveys have been conducted, no further surveys City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-61 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX shall be required. If the project site is determined to be occupied, 75 percent of the mapped Delhi soils on-site will be conserved.”
MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) in the Draft EIR conserves open space on the project site, including DSF habitat, with deed restrictions and ownership transferred to a City-approved conservation entity. Over 75 percent of the mapped Delhi soils (DSF habitat) on the site will be conserved. This complies with MSHCP requirements for DSF. The MSHCP provides full mitigation for the proposed project's impacts on MSHCP covered species and, therefore, the mitigation measure proposed in the comment is unnecessary.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-28
The comment states that the proposed project may impact burrowing owl and its habitat.

As stated in the Draft EIR (page 3.4-24), there is potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl on the project site but no burrowing owls were found during protocol surveys. MM BIO-1i (Burrowing Owl) provides mitigation as required by the MSHCP for impacts to burrowing owl.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-29
The comment states that protocol surveys for burrowing owl were done and a written report must be provided.

The BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR) includes the written report detailing the burrowing owl surveys and results (BRA pages 21–24 and 69).

Response to USFWS-CDFW-30
The comment states that a buffer of 500 feet from occupied burrowing owl burrows, as required by MM BIO-1i (Burrowing Owl), may be insufficient to prevent impacts.

The CDFW recommends site-specific monitoring to inform development of buffers and provides general guidelines for buffers of 50 to 500 meters (164 to 1,640 feet) depending on time of year, level of disturbance, and sensitivity of the owls. See Response to USFWS-CDFW-33.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-31
The comment states that the burrowing owl mitigation measure proposed in the Draft EIR may not satisfy CEQA standards for mitigation.

See Response to USFWS-CDFW-33.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-32
The comment states that that burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern and that the proposed project’s impacts on burrowing owl have not been mitigated below a significant level in the Draft EIR.

See Response to USFW-CDFW-33.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-62 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to USFWS-CDFW-33
The comment proposes a mitigation measure to include preparation of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan if burrowing owls are found during a protocol survey conducted within one year prior to issuance of a grading permit. This proposed measure also includes a pre-construction burrowing owl survey within 30 days prior to ground or vegetation disturbance, an additional preconstruction survey within 3 days prior to initiation of project activities, and an additional preconstruction survey if the site is disturbed but then left undisturbed for more than 30 days. The proposed measure also includes an avoidance buffer of 1,000 feet from occupied burrows.

In response to this comment and to make the mitigation measure in the Draft EIR more inclusive and more specific, the revisions as suggested by the commenter are made to MM BIO-1i as detailed in the Errata. Under Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 C4th 1112 (Laurel Heights II) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(3), when information added to the Final EIR consists of a suggested alternative or mitigation measure, recirculation is required only if the alternative or mitigation measure meets all of the following criteria (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330):
• It is feasible;
• It is considerably different from the alternatives or already evaluated in the Draft EIR; • It would clearly lessen the project's significant environmental impacts; and • It is not adopted.

Recirculation is required only if each of the above tests is met. Where, as here, the suggested revisions to MM BIO-1i are adopted, recirculation is not required. Because this revision is accepted and it clarifies an existing mitigation measure, and the Draft EIR’s impact conclusions remain the same, it does not represent a significant change to the Draft EIR. No other changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-34
The comment states that the proposed project could result in loss of nesting and foraging habitat for birds.

As stated in the Draft EIR (page 3.4-32), development of the project site could result in the loss of potential foraging and/or nesting habitat for birds. Implementation of MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) would ensure the proposed project would avoid and conserve 427 acres of habitat for nesting birds on the site.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-35
The comment states that the proposed project could result in impacts to nesting birds through habitat loss, noise, and human presence.

Potential impacts are discussed in depth in the Draft EIR and administrative record. See Responses to USFWS-CDFW-34, USFWS-CDFW-51, and USFWS-CDFW-55.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-63 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to USFWS-CDFW-36
This comment notes that the nesting season varies due to many factors and recommends that a nesting bird survey be completed regardless of time of year.

See Response to USFWS-CDFW-39.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-37
The comment states that nesting bird surveys are recommended within 3 days prior to start of project activities. The comment alleges that the proposed project may impact nesting birds through habitat loss, death, or injury.

See Responses to USFWS-CDFW-34 and USFWS-CDFW-39.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-38
The comment summarizes some of the Fish and Game Code regulations that protect nesting birds.

This information is provided in the BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, page 198).

Response to USFWS-CDFW-39
The comment proposes revision of MM BIO-1g (Nesting Birds).

In response to this comment and to make the mitigation measure in the Draft EIR more inclusive and more specific, the suggested revisions are made to MM BIO-1g, as identified in the Errata section.

Because this revision is accepted and it clarifies an existing mitigation measure, it does not represent a significant change to the Draft EIR. No other changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-40
The comment states that the proposed project may impact Crotch’s bumble bee through habitat loss and death or injury.

This information is disclosed in the Draft EIR (page 3.4-31). Implementation of MM BIO-1k (Crotch’s Bumble Bee) would avoid and minimize impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-41
The comment states that Crotch’s bumble bee was observed on the project site in 2005 and focused surveys have not been conducted. Impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee include habitat loss, changes to hydrology and runoff, and fugitive dust.

The Crotch’s bumble bee observation from 2005 is disclosed in the Draft EIR (pages 3.4-19 through

3.4-20). CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement No. EPIMS-RIV-28674-R6 for the proposed project included requirements for Crotch’s bumble bee habitat mapping (Measure 2.10) and surveys (Measure 2.11). Subsequently, a habitat assessment and focused survey report was prepared in January 2024.4 This report is included in Appendix M to this Final EIR. As described in this report, 4 L&L Environmental. Inc. 2024. Crotch’s Bumble Bee Habitat Assessment and Focused Visual Survey, Rio Vista, Specific Plan 16001, Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California. January.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-64 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee were conducted in 2023 with negative results. MM BIO-1k (Crotch’s Bumble Bee) provides mitigation for impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee.

MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) conserves open space on the project site, including potential Crotch’s bumble bee habitat. See Response to USFWS-CDFW-23 regarding hydrology and fugitive dust.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-42
The comment states that MM BIO-1k does not mitigate impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee below a level of significance.

As stated in the Draft EIR (page 3.4-31), MM BIO-1k (Crotch’s Bumble Bee) requires the project proponent to coordinate with CDFW to determine whether an Incidental Take Permit is required. If a permit is required, it would be obtained prior to the start of construction. With implementation of MM BIO-1k (Crotch’s Bumble Bee) and MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) and any additional mitigation required under the Incidental Take Permit (if any), impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be less than significant. See Response to USFWS-CDFW-44.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-43
The comment states the conservation status of Crotch’s bumble bee and states that the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on Crotch’s bumble bee.

See Responses to USFWS-CDFW-42 and USFWS-CDFW-44.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-44
The comment proposes a revision of MM BIO-1k (Crotch’s Bumble Bee).

In response to this comment, and to make the mitigation measure in the Draft EIR more inclusive and more specific, all of commenter’s suggested revisions, with the exception of replacing floral resources to be managed in perpetuity (which is unnecessary to mitigate the proposed project’s impact to a less than significant level), are incorporated into MM BIO-1k as identified in the Errata section. Because this revision is accepted and it clarifies an existing mitigation measure, it does not represent a substantive change to the Draft EIR. No other changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Crotch’s bumble bees utilize common wildflowers as food sources5 and these floral resources are present throughout conserved areas of the project site. With implementation of MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space), Crotch’s bumble bee habitat and floral resources would be conserved and managed by a City-approved conservation entity.
5 The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for Food Safety (Xerces). 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus franklini), Suckley cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi), and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. October 16. Website:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=161902&inline. Accessed April 18, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-65 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to USFWS-CDFW-45
The comment states that Species of Special Concern may be impacted by project activities.

Mitigation may not sufficiently avoid or minimize impacts to Species of Special Concern including injury/mortality and loss of habitat.

See Response to USFWS-CDFW-49.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-46
The comment states that biological monitoring may be ineffective for detecting Species of Special Concern. This may result in impacts including injury/mortality as well as loss of habitat.

See Response to USFWS-CDFW-49.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-47
The comment states that, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, California Species of Special Concern meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species and take of any California Species of Special Concern could require a mandatory finding of significance.

California Species of Special Concern may meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, “A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur. . . .

The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species. . . .” An EIR has been prepared for the proposed project consistent with CEQA.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-48
The comment proposes a mitigation measure to require the qualified Biologist to obtain a Scientific Collection Permit/handling permit for wildlife Species of Special Concern and rare plants.

The California Code of Regulations Section 650 regarding Scientific Collection Permits states, “Except as otherwise authorized by the Fish and Game Code or regulations adopted pursuant thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person or entity to take and/or possess live or dead wildlife, or parts thereof in any part of the State of California, for scientific, educational, and/or propagation purposes except as authorized by a permit issued by the department pursuant to this Section.” The qualified Biologist would handle wildlife only as needed to move the animal out of harm’s way or, if injured, to transport it to a wildlife rehabilitator, or possibly to remove a carcass from roads or work areas. This does not appear to be covered under the regulation regarding Scientific Collection Permits. The Biologist would not have any other need to handle or temporarily possess wildlife and would not conduct scientific research, education, or propagation.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-66 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Section 650 does not address rare plants and refers to Section 786.9 of the California Code of Regulations, which states: “(1) Except as provided in (2) below, the department may issue permits or memorandums of understanding that authorize rare plant impacts for scientific, educational or management purposes pursuant to either Fish and Game Code Sections 1002, 1002.5 and 1003 and Section 650(a) of these regulations, or Fish and Game Code subdivision (a) of Section 2081. The choice between using Fish and Game Code Sections 1002, 1002.5 and 1003 and Section 650(a) of these regulations, or Fish and Game Code subdivision (a) of Section 2081 shall be made by the department. (2) Where propagation is being conducted for scientific, educational or management purposes, a permit will be issued as described in this subdivision (c). All other rare plant propagation shall be permitted under (b) above.”
Rare plants would be handled only if required for salvage and relocation (see MM BIO-1c [Specialstatus Plants] and Response to USFWS-DCFW-50). It is unclear how possessing handling permits would avoid and minimize impacts to wildlife Species of Special Concern or rare plants. Accordingly, the proposed mitigation measure is rejected with respect to requiring the qualified Biologist to possess a handling permit.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-49
The comment proposes a revision of MM BIO-1h (Biological Monitoring and Clearance Surveys) to include additional pre-construction survey, monitoring, and WEAP requirements.

In response to this comment and to make the mitigation measure in the Draft EIR more inclusive and more specific, the suggested revisions are made to MM BIO-1h, with the exception of requiring the qualified Biologist to possess a handling permit (see Response to USFWS-CDFW-48), as identified in the Errata section. Because this revision is accepted and it clarifies an existing mitigation measure, it does not represent a substantive change to the Draft EIR. No other changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-50
The comment proposes a mitigation measure to include mapping and salvage of all Plummer’s mariposa lilies in project impact areas, caring for the lilies at a native plant nursery, and planting them in conserved areas of the site.

Plummer’s mariposa lily is a covered species under the MSHCP and associated take permits and it is considered adequately conserved (Biological Resources Supporting Information, Appendix D, D.1, page 80). Therefore, under the MSHCP, no additional mitigation is required for impacts to Plummer’s mariposa lily. This mitigation measure is unnecessary.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-51
The comment states that the proposed project construction may result in substantial noise that may adversely affect wildlife.

As addressed in the Draft EIR (pages 3.4-48–3.4-51), Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP presents guidelines to minimize indirect effects of projects adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas that might adversely affect biological resources within the MSHCP Conservation Area, including noise.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-67 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX The proposed project would incorporate landscape elements, including trees, shrubs, and groundcover, which would assist in noise reduction in native habitats adjacent to the project site.

Noise levels within the project site following development are not expected to exceed residential noise standards. See Response to USFWS-CDFW-55.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-52
The comment lists ways in which anthropogenic noise can affect wildlife.

The comment is noted; no response is required.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-53
The comment states that project construction may result in substantial noise that may adversely affect wildlife species.

In response to this comment, MM BIO-1l is incorporated into the EIR. See Response to USFWSCDFW-55. In addition, as discussed in the BRA (Appendix D1) MSHCP Consistency Analysis, Section

7.4.5 Noise, the proposed project would incorporate landscape elements, including trees, shrubs, and groundcover, which would further reduce noise in native habitats adjacent to the project site.

Noise levels created on the project site following development are not expected to exceed residential noise standards.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-54
This comment states that MM BIO-1f does not provide details on measures that will be implemented to reduce noise impacts in the conservation area.

See Response to USFWS-CDFW-55.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-55
The comment proposes a mitigation measure to include preparation of a Noise Plan and noise monitoring and minimization measures.

To ensure impacts are reduced to the greatest extent feasible, the following mitigation measure, based on the language provided in the comment letter, is added.

MM BIO-1l Prior to approval of the Final Design, a Noise Plan shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley for review and approval. The proposed Noise Plan shall identify noise generating land uses that may affecting the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Area and shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The Noise Plan shall include monitoring during construction and post-project to demonstrate noise levels in the Conservation Area do not exceed residential standards. If noise standards are exceeded, the project applicant is responsible for immediate implementation of remedial actions to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-68 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to USFWS-CDFW-56
The comment states that artificial lighting that does not conform to wildlife-friendly lighting guidelines may adversely affect wildlife. The comment lists potential impacts of artificial lighting on wildlife.

The comment is does not identify any project specific impacts and is noted; no response is required.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-57
The comment states that project lighting has the potential to affect wildlife use and activity in conserved areas. The EIR does not identify species that may be more vulnerable to increased predation due to lighting.

It is acknowledged that light spill into conserved areas may impact wildlife and MM BIO-1f (Urban/Wildlands Interface) has been proposed to avoid and minimize this impact. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 regarding EIR comments, lead agencies are not required to conduct every study or provide all information requested by commenters. An analysis of the specific wildlife that may be more vulnerable to increased predation due to light spill would not result in further reductions to potential impacts and as such is excessive and unnecessary.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-58
The comment states that MM BIO-1f lacks technical details on the type of light to be used and the Draft EIR does not provide data on ambient lighting conditions or analyze the impacts of lighting on conservation areas. A Lighting Plan should be prepared to identify existing lighting conditions, analyze lighting impacts, and demonstrate that the proposed project will not significantly increase lighting in the conservation areas.

As addressed in the Draft EIR (pages 3.4-48–3.4-51), Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP presents guidelines to minimize indirect effects of projects adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas that might adversely affect biological resources within the MSHCP Conservation Area, including lighting. The proposed project will incorporate measures to meet MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines and requirements for the Open Space areas of the proposed project.

The proposed project would also comply with applicable requirements and policies of the City of Jurupa Valley. Outdoor lighting of residences within the project site would be designed so that all direct beams would be confined to dwelling sites. Lighting would not intrude into avoided or adjacent Open Space areas. Street lighting, parking lot lighting, and other project-related illumination sources would be positioned, directed, and shielded to avoid “light spill” into conserved areas. Through the implementation of these PDFs, potential impacts of lighting on conserved areas would be less than significant. No additional mitigation is required to comply with the MSHCP.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-59
The comment states that lighting and glare impacts should be evaluated before, during, and after project construction and operations.

See Response to USFWS-CDFW-58.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-69 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to USFWS-CDFW-60
The comment proposed a mitigation measure to avoid impacts from light and light pollution.

See Response to USFWS-CDFW-58.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-61
The comment states that a weed management plan should be developed, to include weed monitoring and mapping.

The BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, pages 118 –123) provides a list of all plant species observed on the site and indicates which are non-native. Of the 196 plant species observed on the site, 63 (32 percent) are non-native.

MM BIO-1e (Invasive Plants) provides measures to avoid and minimize the introduction and spread of non-native plants including avoiding the use of invasive plants in landscaping, washing heavy equipment before bringing it on-site, using only certified weed-free straw, mulch, or similar products, using only native species in erosion control seeding, and maintaining staging areas free of invasive plants.

This mitigation is sufficient to avoid and minimize the introduction and spread of invasive plants and no additional mitigation is warranted.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-62
A Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed project and is part of the Final EIR. This MMRP includes the following agency-recommended mitigation measures:
• Revisions to MM BIO-1g, Nesting Birds
• Revisions to MM BIO-1h, Biological Monitoring and Clearance Surveys, with the exception of requiring the qualified Biologist to possess a handling permit • Revisions to MM BIO-1i, Burrowing Owl
• Revisions to MM BIO-1k, Crotch’s Bumble Bee, with the exception of replacing floral resources with management in perpetuity
• New MM BIO-1l, Noise Plan
As stated in the comment, mitigation measures would be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-63
The comment states that special-status species detected during surveys must be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

The BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, pages 136–157) includes copies of CNDDB forms that were submitted to CDFW for detections of special-status species during surveys.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-70 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to USFWS-CDFW-64
The comment states that assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary.

The comment is acknowledged; no response is required.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-65
The concluding paragraph is acknowledged; no response is required.

Response to USFWS-CDFW-66
The comment includes a proposed MMRP with all the mitigation measures provided in the comments above, as well as timing and responsible party for each mitigation measure.

An MMRP has been prepared for the proposed project and is part of the Final EIR. The language of the proposed mitigation measures has been addressed in comments above (Responses to USFWSCDFW-21, USFWS-CDFW-,27, USFWS-CDFW-33 USFWS-CDFW-39, USFWS-CDFW-44, USFWS-CDFW49, USFWS-CDFW-55, USFWS-CDFW-58, USFWS-CDFW-60, and USFWS-CDFW-61), and edits have been incorporated in the Errata section of this Final EIR and in the MMRP, as appropriate. None of the edits result in the need for recirculation of the Draft EIR.

The Responsible Party for each mitigation measure would be the City of Jurupa Valley in its capacity as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. While the project applicant is responsible for implementation of the MMRP (such as recruiting and paying a Biological Monitor),the Lead Agency is responsible for ensuring compliance with the mitigation measures.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-71 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (SOBOBA)
Tribal comments on the Draft EIR were received as part of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Tribal Consultation and are, therefore, confidential. In response to the Tribe’s comments, and as a result of consultation, several mitigation measures related to Cultural Resources and to Tribal Cultural Resources were revised. The revisions are shown in the Errata section of this Final EIR. The actual comment letter is not provided to maintain confidentiality as required under AB 52.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-73 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX State Agencies
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS-CDFW) Responses to this comments letter are provided under Federal Agencies.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8
PLANNING (MS 722)
464 WEST 4th STREET, 6th Floor
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400
PHONE (909) 383-4557
FAX (909) 383-5936
TTY (909) 383-6300
www.dot.ca.gov/dist8
Make Conservation
A California Way of Life.

November 30, 2023
Riv-60-9.555 (Rubidoux Blvd)
MA16045/Specific Plan# SP16001
SCH# 2018121005
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Department
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Jim Pechous
Principal Planner
Notice of Availability, Draft Environmental impact Report Rio Vista Specific Plan Amendment
Mr. Pechous,
The Rio Vista Specific Plan Amendment (SP16001) replaces Specific Plan No. 243 originally approved by the County of Riverside in 1992, prior to the City’s incorporation in 2011. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions, dated October 19, 2023, updates impact analysis and mitigation alternatives previously identified with SP 243 approval.

In our capacity as a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)we have completed our review of the October 19, 2023 DEIR and have identified no direct impacts to State Route 60 right-of-way (R/W) requiring mitigation. However, future encroachment into SR-60 R/W for utility facility connections appears possible.

In the event such encroachment is determined necessary, issuance of a Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be required. Compliance to applicable Highway Design Standards, construction policies and practices will be required as a condition of Caltrans permit plan approval and permit issuance.

Application procedures may include a requirement to submit updated studies or analysis that support the future encroachment effort. 1 2

CALTRANS

Jim Pechous
November 30, 2023

“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
General information regarding Caltrans Encroachment Permit requirements is available at:

Caltrans Encroachment Permit Office
464 W. Fourth Street, 9th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401
(909) 383-4526
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/
We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments concerning the Rio Vista Specific Plan and the DEIR. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Talvin Dennis at (909) 806-3957 for assistance.

Sincerely,
ROSA F. CLARK
Office Chief
Local Development Review
2 3

CALTRANS

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-77 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX California Department of Transportation, District 8 (CALTRANS) Response to CALTRANS-1
The introductory paragraph, referencing the proposed project and the Draft EIR, does not require a response.

Response to CALTRANS-2
The City notes Caltrans’s conclusion that the proposed project would have “no direct impacts to State Route (SR) 60 right-of-way requiring mitigation.” Caltrans’s statement, in its capacity as a Responsible Agency, that in the event that encroachment into the SR-60 right-of-way is determined necessary, issuance of a Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be required, is acknowledged and no further response is required. In addition, Caltrans’s statement that further compliance with applicable standards, policies, and practices would be required and that updated studies or analysis would be required to support the future encroachment effort is also noted and no further response is required.

Response to CALTRANS-3
The concluding paragraph, noting Caltrans contact for information regarding Caltrans Encroachment Permit requirements, is acknowledged and no further response is required.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 2
3 LAFCO

4 3
CONT
LAFCO

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-81 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Local Agencies
Riverside Local Agency Formation (LAFCO)
Response to LAFCO-1
This introductory comment does not raise any questions regarding the Draft EIR or the proposed project, and no further response is required.

Response to LAFCO-2
This comment states that the Draft EIR should be clarified to indicate that receipt of the items identified in Table 3.11-6 would not constitute an automatic approval of the annexation to the Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) but rather would allow the annexation application to be deemed complete. Clarifying language has been added as explained in the Errata.

Response to LAFCO-3
This comment requests a discussion regarding Total Disolved Solids (TDS) be included. TDS is discussed in Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality). According to the 2020 Annual Report of Santa Ana River Water Quality prepared by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, the average TDS concentration for the samples collected from Reach 4 of the Santa Ana River (within which the project site is located) was 525 milligrams per liter (mg/L) which complies with the applicable water quality objective of 550 mg/L. See Draft EIR, Section 3.10 at page 3.10-3.

RCSD is coordinating with the Riverside Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) (formerly known as RRWQTP) to resolve the TDS compliance concern prior to final project approval.

Response to LAFCO-4
This comment notes that the Draft EIR discusses provision of services in the appropriate sections of the document. Additionally, the comment states that the Draft EIR should identify whether services are provided via contracts with RCSD.

The majority of the project site is already within the RCSD service area. The areas that are not currently within the RCSD service area would need to be annexed into it to ensure services. The area to be annexed is shown on Figure 1 and includes Planning Area (PA) 10, PA 11, portions of PA 12, PA 13, PA 15, portions of PA 16, portions of PA 21C, all of 21d, PA 21D, and a small portion of PA 21E.

The RCSD would provide water, wastewater, streetlights, solid waste collection, and fire protection services to the proposed project.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-82 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Figure 1: Proposed Rubidoux Community Service District Annexation Map

CALFIRE-RCFD

1 2

CALFIRE-RCFD

3 4
5 8
7 6

CALFIRE-RCFD

9 13
12 11
10 CALFIRE-RCFD

14 CALFIRE-RCFD

15 CALFIRE-RCFD

16 CALFIRE-RCFD

17 CALFIRE-RCFD

18 CALFIRE-RCFD

19 CALFIRE-RCFD

20 City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-93 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX CAL FIRE–Riverside Unit, Riverside County Fire Department (CALFIRE-RCFD) Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-1
The introductory paragraph, the Riverside County Fire Department’s (RCFD) role in reviewing proposed developments throughout its jurisdiction, does not raise any specific environmental issues related to the Draft EIR or proposed project; as such, no further response is required.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-2
This comment lists the three RCFD Fire/City stations closest to the project site with the associated distance and response drive time. No response is required, although it should be noted that these stations are listed in the Draft EIR Section 3.15 Public Services, Table 3.15-1: RCFD Fire Stations in Jurupa Valley. The Impact Analysis for Threshold PUB-1, page 3.15-11, also relays information that was provided by CAL FIRE/RCFD about Station 38. Note that the 2.18 miles distance from Station 38 to the project site referenced in the comment is incorrect. The Draft EIR identifies the driving distance from Station 38 to the project site’s Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) on Paramount Drive to be 1.1 miles, which is the correct distance. This distance is more accurate than the 2.18 miles cited in the comment, further reducing the estimated drive time.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-3
The comment states that the proposed project would contribute to a cumulative adverse impact related to RCFD’s ability to provide an acceptable level of service.

Unlike the construction of a new facility or alteration of an existing facility, increases in response times does not create an “environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate.” See City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of Cal.State University (2015) 242 CA4th833, 843.

Consistent with this principle, Draft EIR Section 3.15 Public Services, evaluates impacts to public services and public facilities. While additional equipment may be required to meet the demand of the proposed project, such equipment would be accommodated in the existing facility at Station 38 (Draft EIR, page 3.15-11), and construction of a new additional facility would not be required. The proposed project’s incremental contribution to cumulative demands on fire protection services is fully addressed in the Draft EIR (Draft EIR, pages 3.15-17–19). The City collects Development Impact Fees (DIF) from developers of new housing units, as well as commercial, office, retail, and industrial development. With payment of DIF, the proposed project, in combination with future development, would not be anticipated to result in the need for new or physical improvements to existing fire protection services (Draft EIR, pages 3.15-10 and 3.15-11); therefore, there would be no construction of such new improvements that could cause significant cumulative impacts to the physical environment. Potentially increased response times also do not affect evacuation times or related impacts in the event of a wildfire. Thus, all impacts in this section remain less than significant.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-4
The comment states that the commenter believes that the nearest fire station is outside the acceptable response distance and travel time to a portion of the project and recommends a discussion between the City and the RCFD be held to discuss this concern.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-94 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX RCFD Station 38 is the nearest station to the project site and is 1.1 mile away from the Paramount Drive EVA entrance. See Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-2. Furthermore, the project would not trigger the need for a new fire station, nor would it require physical improvements to existing facilities.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-5
The comment states that the proposed project will add to the workload of the closest fire station, which is operating at or exceeding optimal workload capacity. The comment also recommends a discussion between the City and the RCFD be held to discuss this concern.

Increase in workload does not create an adverse physical environment impact such as the construction of a new or altering an existing facility would create. See City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State University (2015) 242 CA4th 833, 843. As discussed in the Draft EIR, Draft EIR Section 3.15 Public Services, while additional equipment or personnel may be required to meet the demand of the proposed project, it would be accommodated in the existing facility at Station 38, and construction of a new facility would not be required.

On April 24, City representatives participated in a conference call with RCFD representatives. As discussed during this meeting, in 2020, the City commissioned the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report6 (Nexus Study) which analyzed Fire Department needs and the City determined that the DIF was sufficient to cover the incremental increases in fire safety needs generated by new residents and businesses. The Nexus Study considered the increase in new residences in the City and fire safety needs and based the future uses on the growth anticipated in General Plan growth estimates, which included the proposed project. The Nexus Study also identified the facility, vehicle, and staffing needs to service the future residents and businesses.

Because the proposed project was already accounted for in the residential assumptions of the Nexus Study which led to the fire safety funding portion of the DIF, the DIF sufficiently mitigates for the increased fire safety demand generated by the residential uses. In addition, the proposed project would pay the nonresidential fire safety DIF to mitigate for any incremental increase in fire safety services. RCFD has not performed its own Nexus Study to determine that additional funding is needed beyond the DIF; therefore, the DIF is sufficient and no additional funding is necessary.

In addition to the DIF discussed above, payment of the Development Agreement Annual Public Safety Benefit Contribution would include fire protection and paramedic services (people and equipment).7 This fee will supplement funds from the DIF that would be allocated to fire protection and paramedic services; therefore, the additional funding requested by RCFD to mitigate any demand for fire protection and paramedic services from the proposed project is not necessary.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-6
The comment states that the Draft EIR should include mitigation that would provide additional funds for the purchase of fire response equipment.
6 Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC. 2020. Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Jurupa Valley, California. May. Website: https://jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/1676/Jurupa-Valley-DIF-Final-5-29-20-Draft-PDF. Accessed April 26, 2024. 7 The annual Public Safety Benefit Contribution may be used for the following services: (1) police protection services; (2) fire protection services; (3) ambulance and paramedic services; and (4) acquisition of land and construction of public safety facilities.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-95 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX RCFD is included in the Development Agreement for the proposed project. While additional staff is requested, this change would not result in an adverse physical environmental impact as it would not require the construction of a new facility or alteration of an existing one.

On April 24, City representative attended a conference call with RCFD representatives to discuss RCFD concerns related to the proposed project, including funding for additional fire response equipment. See Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-5.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-7
The comment notes that while DIF would apply to the proposed project, these fees provide initial one-time capital support. The comment encourages the City to review options potential ongoing fiscal support, such as a Development Agreement for a community service district.

RCFD is included in the Development Agreement for the proposed project. See Response to RCFD-5.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-8
The comment states that throughout the document, “CAL Fire” should be replaced with Riverside County Fire Department” when referring to the services provided for the proposed project.

CAL FIRE is referenced in the document in direct quotes of General Plan policies (for example, General Plan CSSF 1.5 in Section 3.7 Geology and Soils, or General Plan CSSF 1.25 in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, or in quoting the Rio Vista Specific Plan on page 3.9-21), in quotes from the California Health and Safety Code (for example, Section 13100.1 in Section 3.15 Public Services), and in quotes from the Rio Vista Specific Plan (for example, pages 3.9-21 and 3.9-22 in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials). It is also referenced when discussing fire hazards, in the general discussion in Section 3.15 Public Services (Introduction and Environmental Setting), page

3.15-1, and in Section 3.20 Wildfire (when referring to federal regulations).

CAL FIRE would be removed from the Draft EIR in the two locations listed below, and as shown in the Errata section:
• Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Cumulative Impacts, page 3.9-24: In addition, a provision will be required to ensure that adequate fire protection service through agreements with Riverside Fire Department, CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department, and local law enforcement and fire departments.
• Section 3.15 Public Services, Threshold PUB-1 Impact Analysis, page 3.15-11: According to CAL FIRE RCFD, “Station 38 is approximately a 5-minute response from the Rio Vista project site.” Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-9
This comment lists corrections to a paragraph on page 3.15-11 that references Fire Station 38 response time, City General Plan requirements, mitigation, and Program CSSF 2.2.

The information regarding Fire Station 38 response time was provided by RCFD. The paragraph on page 3.15-11 referenced in the comment does not list additional mitigation measures but rather compliance with existing requirements. Please also refer to Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-12.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-96 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-10
The comment requests updates to the Cumulative Impacts discussion of Fire Protection Facilities based on the updates to the paragraph on page 3.15-11 requested in Comment CALFIRE-RCFD-9.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-11
The reference to a 4-minute response time is not the applicable City threshold for the proposed project. Further, the response time from Station 38, stated by the commenter, is incorrect and based on the incorrect assumption that the station is more than double its actual distance to the project site (see Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-2). The City’s local significance threshold related to fire protection specifically states that a project would have a potential significant impact if a project would increase response times in the project area “to the degree that new or altered fire facilities are required to meet the response times” (Draft EIR, 3.15-9). The increase in response times related to the proposed project does not create, nor does the comment allege, an adverse impact to the physical environment requiring the construction of a new or altering an existing facility would create.

City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State University (2015) 242 CA4th 833, 943. As explained in Section 3.15, the City would require the proposed project to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and local fire codes, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes. In addition, the proposed project would comply with Municipal Code Chapter 3.75 and pay the City’s DIF to ensure that the proposed project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional public services, including equipment and personnel for fire protection services, that the proposed project would utilize. The addition of equipment to Station 38 could be accommodated within the existing facility and does not require the alteration or construction of new facilities. As such, construction of new or physically altered facilities would not be required Draft EIR, 3.15-11.

Therefore, the conclusion of the Impact Analysis on page 3.17-22 (Section 3.17 Transportation, Threshold TRANS-4) is correct, and the requested revision to the Draft EIR is not required.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-12
Section 3.20 Wildfire, Environmental Setting, Fire Protection and Riverside County discussion will be modified as shown below to address the project site’s annexation into the Rubidoux CSD. See Also Errata section.

Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
Southern California and Riverside County
CAL FIRE is responsible for fire protection and stewardship of over 31 million acres of California’s privately owned wildlands. CAL FIRE also provides varying levels of emergency services in 36 of California’s 58 counties via contracts with local governments. In Riverside County, fire protection services are provided by RCFD, in cooperation with CAL FIRE. Because of the Department’s size and major incident management experience, it is often asked to assist or take the lead in disasters. In December 2017, a series of wildfires occurred in Southern California, resulting in extensive property damage. In July 2018, the Cranston Fire wildfire occurred in Riverside, burning over 13,000 acres and destroying 12 structures. In 2020, the Southern California Apple Fire and El Dorado Fire wildfires resulted in extensive burned areas and damage to structures.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-97 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX City of Jurupa Valley
According to the General Plan, the Riverside County Fire Department, in cooperation with CAL FIRE, provides fire protection services to the City. This includes full-service municipal and wildland fire protection, emergency medical response, technical rescue services, and response to hazardous materials discharges. Riverside County Fire Department consists of 15 battalions that staff and operate 101 fire stations.

Project Site
The project site is vacant and undeveloped with no existing fire protection or emergency medical services facilities on-site. As shown in Table 3.15.1 (refer to Section 3.15 Public Services), Riverside County Fire Department operates four fire stations within the City. Fire Stations 18 and 38, operated by Battalion 14, are the nearest to the project site.

The project site would be annexed into the Rubidoux Community Services District (Rubidoux CSD), which is the responsible entity for providing fire protection services to the project site.

Rubidoux CSD contracts services with Riverside County Fire Department and funds the equipment and staffing located at Fire Station 38 exclusively.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-13
Increase in response time does not create an environmental impact such as the construction of a new or altering an existing facility could create. See Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-3. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts related to public services, as shown on page 5-32 (Chapter 5 alternatives to the proposed project) is correct, and the requested revision to the Draft EIR is not required.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-14
The concluding paragraph, which provides contact information for the Deputy Fire Marshall, does not require a response.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-15
See Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-9.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-16
See Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-10.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-17
See Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-11.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-18
See Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-12.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-19
The requested replacement of “CAL FIRE” with RCFD cannot be made as this is a direct quote from the General Plan; General Plan policy cannot be modified in the EIR. See Response to CALFIRE-RCFD8.

Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-20
See Response to CALFIRE-RCFD-13.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
From: Kelly Reed Daulton
To: Jim Pechous
Cc: Amanda Smith; Dana Tryde; Angela Moskow
Subject: Please plan protections for the Jurupa Oak
Date: Friday, December 8, 2023 8:48:48 AM
City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department
Jim Pechous, Principal Planner
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 Submitted via email to: [email protected] Dear Mr. Pechous:

We are writing you to express our deep concern with the current land-use plan and mitigation measures included in the recently released Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Rio Vista Specific Plan. This Specific Plan proposes to develop the natural landscape surrounding the Jurupa (Hurungna) Oak, an ancient tree which is estimated to be over 13,000 years old, making it the oldest known tree/shrub in California and among the oldest on earth.

Furthermore, the hilltop where the ancient Jurupa oak stands is designated as a sacred land site by the Tongva people. The DEIR states that development for “light industrial” will occur within “259 feet” of the western side of the small hilltop on which the oak stands. Mitigation measures described in the DEIR restrict construction equipment to a mere “150 feet” from the oak. This inconsistency in buffer distance is problematic and the distances are insufficient.

Neither a “259 feet” nor a “150 feet” buffer pays acceptable respect to the ancient oak and sacred nature of the site or to the long-term survival of the Jurupa Oak.

We are requesting that the City reassess the current landscape plan and identify alternative project options that ensure better protection for our state’s oldest oak and respect for Tongva sacred lands. Specifically, we encourage the City to work with local conservation groups and Tribal members to 1) remove or relocate the 146-acre light industrial/business park component of the Specific Plan and retain this area as conserved land to connect the surrounding ridgelines and protect the oak’s groundwater connections, 2) designate this area as the “Jurupa (or Hurungna) Oak Preserve,” and 3) to take measures to ensure the oak’s protection from people, pets, etc.

Please incorporate our comments in the official record for this project.

Thank you,
Kelly Reed Daulton
Amanda Smith
Dana Tryde
for the Central Coast Heritage Tree Foundation in Templeton, CA 93465 Central Coast Heritage Tree Foundation
Founded 2018
We are a fiscally sponsored non-profit organization
www.centralcoastheritagetreefoundation.org
CCHTF

1 2
3 4
CCHTF

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-101 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Organizations
Central Coast Heritage Tree Foundation (CCHTF)
Response to CCHTF-1
The comment expresses general concern that the proposed project would develop the natural landscape surrounding the on-site Palmer’s oak.

See Master Response 2, the natural landscape around the Palmer’s oak would be protected. See Master Response 4, Degree of specificity required for response to general comments.

Response to CCHTF-2
The comment states that the hilltop where the Palmer’s oak grows is designated a sacred land site by the Tongva people.

See Master Response 3, Native American Tribal consultation was completed by the City consistent with CEQA’s requirements.

Response to CCHTF-3
The comment refers to alleged inconsistency and insufficient buffer distance.

See Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient, and Master Response 2, The natural landscape around the Palmer’s oak would be protected.

Response to CCHTF-4
The comment states that the on-site Palmer’s oak area is sacred land.

See Master Response 3, The City worked with Native American Tribes to address protections for sacred lands. The Native American Tribal consultation was completed by the City and Tribal representatives.

The comment suggests the 146-acres of proposed Light Industrial/Business Park be relocated and the area remain undeveloped in order to protect the tree and its surrounding ridgeline and groundwater connections.

The Light Industrial/Business Park is located over 300 feet from the tree, complying with Draft EIR MM BIO-5, Palmer’s Oak. The area surrounding the on-site Palmer’s oak would be designated as OSC, which precludes development. This designation, along with implementation of MM BIO-5 Palmer’s Oak, the tree would be protected.

As discussed in the Draft EIR, Section 3.4 Biological Resources, the on-site Palmer’s oak is not supported by groundwater. See Response to USFWS-CDFW-11.

The comment also suggests the consideration of alternatives to the proposed project where the 146- acre light industrial component of the proposed project is removed and replaced with the creation of a “Jurupa Oak Preserve.” Although alternatives to a project must be considered even if they would impede, to some degree, the attainment of project objectives or be more costly (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(b)), the range of alternatives addressed in an EIR need not be exhaustive and is governed by City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-102 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX a “rule of reason,” which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Of the alternatives considered, the EIR need examine in detail only those that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. An alternative that eliminates light industrial and business park uses and replaces it with a “conserved land” would not meet four of the project objectives. It would not provide for a mixture of residential, light industrial, and business park land uses that are marketable and financially feasible within the City’s evolving economic profile; it would not provide economic growth and employment opportunities with the City by authorizing the development of light industrial and business park land uses at a sufficient scale to attract financially stable, long-term tenants and fund the necessary proposed critical infrastructure improvements that will serve Rio Vista and the greater Jurupa Valley community; it would not provide a Specific Plan that allows for a range of industrial uses, research and development uses, business park, and other nonresidential uses that would encourage private capital investment sufficient to support the significant public infrastructure improvements proposed on the project site. The comment also suggests designating the area surrounding the tree as a preserve.

Designating the area around the tree as a preserve would not provide any additional protection for the resource (see Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient). The project site is already located within the area covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The nearest MSHCP-conserved lands are located in the Jurupa Hills approximately

1.03 miles to the west of the project site and are not contiguous with the project site. Finally, the comment suggests that measures are taken to ensure the tree is protected from people and pets.

The Draft EIR discussion under Threshold BIO-6 (page 3.4-50) states that exclusion fencing to control human and domestic animal access into open space areas “would adhere to MSHCP requirements, would be permanent, and would be maintained in perpetuity.” As noted above, the area around the on-site Palmer’s oak would be designated as OS-C, which precludes development. Additionally, management of “edge effects” under the MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines would reduce and minimize indirect impacts, such as those associated with the introduction of domesticated animals, to the extent possible. (See Draft EIR, page 3.4-44.) It is reasonable to assume that these requirements, as well as other applicable laws, such as requiring pets to be leashed, would be enforced, protecting the tree from pets. Moreover, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act establishes a misdemeanor for unlawfully and maliciously excavating upon, removing, destroying, injuring, or defacing a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (PRC § 5097.993).

Additionally, other measures (such as fencing or signage) that would typically be used to protect a biological resource, could, in this instance, result in greater harm to the cultural significance of the resource by alerting bad actors to its location. The City has committed to maintaining the confidentiality of the tree’s location, which necessarily precludes certain measures such as fencing or signage.

CFBD

1 2
3 CFBD

3 CONT
4 5
6 7
8 CFBD

12 8
CONT
11 10
9 CFBD

12 CONT
13 14
15 16
CFBD

16 CONT
17 18
19 20
21 CFBD

21 CONT
22 23
CFBD

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-111 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Center for Biological Diversity (CFBD)
Response to CFBD-1
The introductory paragraph, describing the commenting agency and its purpose, does not raise any specific environmental issues related to the Draft EIR or proposed project; as such, no further response is required.

Response to CFBD-2
The comment describing the history of the Rio Vista Specific Plan is noted and does not require a response.

The comment’s claim that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze or mitigate the proposed project’s impacts are addressed below.

Response to CFBD-3
The comment’s statement regarding the on-site Palmer’s oak’s uniqueness and estimated age and the need to protect the tree is noted. No response is required.

Response to CFBD-4
The comment states that the proposed avoidance and minimization measures in the Draft EIR for the proposed project falls well short of what is needed to protect on-site Palmer’s oak in perpetuity.

MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) requires that open space areas on-site would be deed restricted and ownership would be transferred to a City-approved local conservation entity. As such, the conservation easement would ensure protection of the tree in perpetuity.

Furthermore, the Draft EIR discussion under Threshold BIO-6 (page 3.4-50) states that exclusion fencing to control human and domestic animal access into open space areas “would adhere to MSHCP requirements, would be permanent, and would be maintained in perpetuity.” Response to CFBD-5
The comment’s statement regarding potential threats to the on-site Palmer’s oak is noted. No response is required.

Response to CFBD-6
The comment states that while the Draft EIR analyzed construction impacts, it did not identify or analyze operational impacts well. The comment further lists several potential operational impacts that should be addressed in a revised EIR. These potential impacts are addressed below. • Increased air pollution. Operational air quality is discussed in Section 3.3 Air Quality of the Draft EIR, concluding that even with implementation of MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-1d, the impacts would be significant and unavoidable. However, the Palmer’s oak is located on a hill, above from the proposed light industrial and business park uses, and even farther from proposed residential uses with medium density or higher. • Potential water pollution from modification of on-site drainage. Water quality is discussed in Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, concluding that project impacts would be less than significant. Specifically, the analysis under Threshold HYD-1 Surface and Groundwater Quality concludes impacts would be less than significant.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-112 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX • Recreation, including off-road vehicles, bouldering, and even pruning of this world-famous oak for souvenirs. These activities are illegal regardless of the proposed project. See, e.g., Public Resources Code Section 5097.993. (Unlawfully and maliciously excavating, removing, destroying or defacing Native American historic, cultural or scared site is a misdemeanor and punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both.) It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that laws would continue to be enforced and would be more likely to be enforced after approval and development of the proposed project, where access will be more restricted and more heavily monitored. Recreation is discussed in Section 3.16 Recreation of the Draft EIR, concluding that project impacts would be less than significant.
• Ongoing trash dumping. Trash dumping is prohibited in the City and punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or 6 months in jail, or both, for repeat offenses.

Municipal Code Section Sec. 11.70.010. Unauthorized illegal trash dumping cannot be controlled or predicted and may occur even without project development. Furthermore, as part of a planned development, trash receptacle and trash enclosures would be available for residential, light industrial, and business park uses.
• Increased introduction of non-native invasive species. As required by MM BIO-1e (Invasive Plants), invasive plant species would not be allowed for landscaping, and none of the approved landscaping materials would be species that are listed in the California Invasive Plant Council Inventory (cal-ipc.org), Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, or Table 6-2 of the MSHCP. • Increased fire frequency from on and off-site activities. Wildfire risks are analyzed in Section

3.20 Wildfire of the Draft EIR, concluding that project impacts would be less than significant.

Non-project-related off-site activities are not controlled by the proposed project and do not require analysis in the Draft EIR.

Response to CFBD-7
The comment states that it is unclear how the buffer would provide adequate protection to the onsite Palmer’s oak, particularly during the most ecologically/geologically destructive phase of the development when earthmoving is occurring.

The Draft EIR includes a vibration prediction study, provided in Appendix D5. This study concluded that heavy equipment vibrations from the largest piece of equipment at a distance of 259 feet from the tree would not impact the subsurface bedrock that supports the tree. See Master Response 2, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient, for further discussion of the buffer distance.

Furthermore, the tree location and its surrounding area would be designated Open Space and no construction—including earthmoving activities—would occur there.

Response to CFBD-8
The on-site Palmer’s oak is located on a hill in an area designated as Open Space under the proposed project. No grading is proposed in this Open Space-designated area. With no development in this area, hydrology patterns would not be altered by the proposed project. Furthermore, the hydrogeological investigation determined that groundwater at this location is greater than 90 feet City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-113 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX below ground surface and that this water is not likely to be sufficient to support the oak tree.

Impacts to the watershed would not affect the water source for the tree as it is not dependent on groundwater. With respect to the Palmer’s oak, construction and operation of the proposed project would not adversely impact the subsurface bedrock collection basin that collects water to support the tree (see further discussion on the collection basin in Response to USFW-CDFW-11).

A project alternative or mitigation measure that protects the watershed in which the tree is located would not reduce any identified significant impacts and, therefore, lacks the required nexus to require the creation of an endowment.

The comment also suggests that a conservation area be designated around the tree and that should be managed by “an experienced conservation organization and funded by a robust endowment created through the proposed project entitlement process.” MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) would ensure that all areas on the project site designated as Open Space, including the area surrounding the tree, would be deed restricted and ownership would be transferred to a City-approved conservation entity.

Response to CFBD-9
Consistency with General Plan Policies COS 1.2 and COS 1.3 is demonstrated in the Draft EIR in Table

3.11-5: General Plan Consistency Analysis. The discussion of COS 1.3 in the Draft EIR is updated to clarify that the on-site Palmer’s oak is located within the preserved area (see Errata section of this EIR).

Response to CFBD-10
Potential indirect impact on the on-site Palmer’s oak from fugitive dust is addressed in MM AIR-1a (Draft EIR pages 3.3-40 and 3.3-41), which lists measures to reduce construction-related criteria pollutant emissions, including limitations on grading activity to reduce fugitive dust. In addition, and as discussed in the Draft EIR on page 3.3-44, the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust.” Rule 403 requires implementing best available dust control measures during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earthmoving and stockpiling activities, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads. Finally, MM BIO-1d (Wildlife Hazards) (Draft EIR page 3.4-34), includes the provision to limit vehicle travel on unpaved roads within the project site to 15 miles per hour (mph), contributing to the reduction in fugitive dust (see SCAQMD Rule 403 discussion in the Draft EIR, Section 3.3 Air Quality, page 3.3-28).

Response to CFBD-11
Economic benefit is not an environmental consideration. Under Public Resources Code Sections 21100 and 21151, an EIR is required for projects that "may have a significant effect on the environment." The phrase "significant effect on the environment" is limited to substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse changes in physical conditions within the area as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21060.5. In Section 21060.5, "environment" is defined as the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. See also CEQA Guidelines Section 15360. As a result of this statutory mandate, effects that are subject to City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-114 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX review under CEQA must be related to a change to the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15358(b)). Therefore, a discussion of the possible economic benefits of open space is not required in an EIR. However, this comment is part of the record and will be considered by the decision-makers.

Response to CFBD-12
The comment states that the project site includes Delhi Sands habitat and that DSF was found there in 2005. Surveys for DSF on the project site in 2015/2016 were negative. The most recent USFWS 5- year review for DSF8 notes possible occupancy of lands not identified as DSF habitat (not mapped as such in existing databases).

The information regarding DSF habitat and survey results is stated in the BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, pages 58 and 59) and in the Draft EIR (page 3.4-17–3.4-19).

The referenced USFWS (2021)9 was reviewed to address Comments CFBD-12 through CFBD-15. The sentence immediately after the passage quoted in the comment in USFWS (2021) states: “However, the available Delhi Sands soil GIS layers are generally considered incomplete or inaccurate in places and flies have been found outside of its boundaries. . . .” Therefore, USFWS (2021) concluded that occurrences of DSF outside of identified DSF habitat is attributed to incomplete or inaccurate mapping of Delhi Sands soil. The 2015/2016 DSF survey conducted by L&L included a habitat assessment for DSF. The assessment found that suitable habitat for DSF on the project site was consistent with the mapped extent of Delhi soils. Areas of the project site outside of mapped Delhi soils do not provide habitat to support DSF.

Response to CFBD-13
The comment states that the findings in USFWS (2021) (see Comment CFBD-12) indicate that adjacent Open Space areas which may not be the DSF’s habitat may still provide important benefits to the fly. The comment alleges that development in and around DSF habitat is a threat to the species.

As noted in Response to CFBD-12, occurrences of DSF outside of identified DSF habitat is attributed to incomplete or inaccurate mapping of Delhi Sands soil. The 2015/2016 DSF survey conducted by L&L included a habitat assessment for DSF. The assessment found that suitable habitat for DSF on the project site was consistent with the mapped extent of Delhi soils. Areas of the project site outside of mapped Delhi soils do not provide habitat to support DSF.

It is acknowledged that development in DSF habitat may impact the species. However, the project site is within the covered area of the MSHCP and DSF is a covered species under the MSHCP and associated take permits. The MSHCP has established requirements for conservation of DSF: “Once two years of surveys have been conducted, no further surveys shall be required. If the project site is determined to be occupied, 75 percent of the mapped Delhi soils on-site will be conserved.” (MSHCP page 9-31). Moreover, the proposed project would adhere to MSHCP requirements. 8 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. 5-Year Review: Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis). Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Website: https://ecosphere-documents-productionpublic.s3.amazonaws.com/sams/public_docs/species_nonpublish/3499.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2024. 9 Ibid.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-115 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Although DSF surveys in 2015/2016 were negative, the Draft EIR includes MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space), which conserves open space on the project site, including DSF habitat. Over 75 percent of the mapped Delhi soils on the site and over 77 percent of the 2005 DSF-occupied habitat will be deed restricted with ownership transferred to a City-approved conservation entity. This is consistent with MSHCP requirements. Accordingly, the Draft EIR appropriately concludes that impacts are less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-1b, which would create a deed restriction of any avoided habitat to prevent future impacts and species-specific conservation goals for DSF under the MSHCP.

Response to CFBD-14
The comment quotes some recommendations from USFWS (2021) to protect remaining DSF habitat, explore methods to restore/enhance habitat, and minimize habitat degradation.

As noted in Response to CFBD-13, the proposed project’s mitigation will conserve the majority of the potential DSF habitat on the site, consistent with MSHCP requirements. The land will be transferred to a conservation entity and this entity would then be responsible for managing the habitat. The conservation entity would be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including addressing any recommendations from USFWS and other regulatory agencies.

The conservation entity would follow standard professional land conservation practices.

Response to CFBD-15
The comment states that the proposed project should avoid the remaining Delhi Sands and incorporate mechanisms to restore habitat and reintroduce DSF back onto the site.

As noted in Response to CFBD-13, the proposed project would conserve the majority of potential DSF habitat on the site, consistent with MSHCP requirements. The land would be transferred to a conservation entity and this entity would then be responsible for managing the habitat. With implementation of MM BIO-1b, which would create a deed restriction of any avoided habitat to prevent future impacts and species-specific conservation goals for DSF under the MSHCP, project impacts to DSF would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Response to CFBD-16
The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze direct and indirect impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee and alleges that the Draft EIR fails to identify the amount of habitat that will be disturbed. The comment alleges that the Draft EIR needs to include avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts as well as additional analyses of indirect impact. The comment further requests a revised EIR to include this information.

The BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, Table 6, page 76) contains the information regarding acreage requested by the commenter. It lists and quantifies the vegetation communities present on the project site, including the acreages that will be disturbed and avoided. MM BIO-1k (Crotch’s Bumble Bee) includes avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee, including surveys and incidental take permitting and associated mitigation as required by CDFW. MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) conserves 366 acres of sage scrub and approximately 38 acres of non-native grasslands that are potentially suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee. This information was available during the public comment period and a revised EIR is not required.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-116 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX As stated in Response to USFWS-CDFW-41, no Crotch’s bumble bees were observed on-site during the 2023 surveys. However, there is potential for this species to occur at the project site, so potential impact could occur. MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) would ensue the conservation of 510.8 acres and would reduce potential impacts to this species through conservation of habitat. MM BIO-1k (Crotch’s Bumble Bee) requires pre-construction surveys. If this species in found on-site during these surveys, CDFW would be involved and provide direction, and an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) may be required.

Furthermore, the Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFW includes several measures regarding Crotch’s bumble bee to ensure the protection of this species from impacts. Specifically, Measure

2.11.5 includes provisions in the event an overwintering or dead Crotch’s bumble bee is observed on-site during vegetation removal and ground clearing activities, including immediately stopping work and establishing a 100-foot Environmentally Sensitive Area boundary.

Response to CFBD-17
The comment states that the Draft EIR is deeply flawed in concluding that impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee are less than significant.

The Draft EIR’s conclusion is based on substantial evidence in the record. MM BIO-1k (Crotch’s Bumble Bee) includes avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to Crotch’s bumble, bee including surveys and incidental take permitting and associated mitigation as required by CDFW.

MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) conserves 366 acres of sage scrub and approximately 38 acres of non-native grasslands that are potentially suitable habitat for this species. With implementation of these measures, impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be less than significant.

Response to CFBD-18
The comment states that it is unclear how much habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher is present on the project site. The comment alleges that the Draft EIR needs to include additional conservation goals and objectives, including a conservation easement mechanism and endowment for management, in order to maintain the coastal sage habitat for the California gnatcatcher and other rare species that rely on this habitat type.

The BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, Table 6, page 76) lists and quantifies the vegetation communities present on the site including 714 acres of sage scrub. The Draft EIR (page 3.4-17) states that the proposed project avoids 363 acres of coastal sage scrub. MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) in the Draft EIR conserves open space on the project site, including 363 acres of coastal sage scrub.

Open space will be deed restricted with ownership transferred to a City-approved conservation entity. This entity would then be responsible for managing the habitat.

Coastal California gnatcatcher is a covered species under the MSHCP and associated take permits.

The MSHCP conserves habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher in the MSHCP Reserves and allows take of habitat for development projects that are in compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP. The proposed project would adhere to MSHCP requirements.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-117 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to CFBD-19
The comment states that the MSHCP requires 930 acres of coastal sage scrub and 180 acres of grasslands to be conserved in Rough Step Unit 1, which includes the project site. As of 2021, only 491 acres of coastal sage scrub and 10 acres of grasslands have been conserved. As such, it is unclear that the proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP.

Rough Step is a tool used to measure the performance of the MSHCP and ensure that conservation efforts are in balance with development within potential areas of conservation. The 2022 Annual Report for the MSHCP (RCA 2022; the most recent annual report available)10 states that all vegetation categories and Delhi soils in Rough Step Unit 1 are “in” Rough Step (i.e., consistent with conservation requirements). Since the area that includes the project site is “in” Rough Step, it is consistent with the MSHCP.

Response to CFBD-20
The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project on the environment. The City must look at avoidance, minimization, and reasonable mitigation measures to avoid impacts in the Draft EIR but failed to do so here.

The Draft EIR provides an analysis of impacts and reasonable mitigation measures for biological resources present or potentially present on the site consistent with MSHCP and CEQA requirements.

The comment alleges generally that the City must consider reasonable mitigation measures; however, the comment does not suggest any specific mitigation measures for analysis. A lead agency need not respond to general suggestions for mitigating an environmental impact that are not concrete or specific to the proposed project. Santa Clarita Org. for Planning the Env't v. City of Santa Clarita (2011) 197 CA4th 1042.

Response to CFBD-21
The comment states that no burrowing owls were identified on the project site but suitable burrowing owl habitat is present. The Draft EIR should require that burrowing owl surveys be conducted no more than 14 days before initiation of site preparation or grading activities and a second survey completed within 24 hours of the start of site preparation or grading activities. If burrowing owls are located on-site, a Burrowing Owl Translocation plan should be required and 3:1 acres of conserved:impacted mitigation be required.

Results of burrowing owl surveys are stated in the BRA (Appendix D1 of the Draft EIR, page 69) and the Draft EIR (page 3.4-24).

Burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSHCP and associated take permits. MM BIO-1i (Burrowing Owl) requires a pre-construction survey within 30 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance. If burrowing owls are present, the measure includes additional mitigation as required by the MSHCP including preparation of a mitigation plan. This mitigation is consistent with the requirements of the MSHCP (see Response to USFWS-CDFW-33). 10 Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). 2022. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Annual Report 2022. Website: https://www.wrc-rca.org/document-library/annual-reports/. Accessed May 16, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-118 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Response to CFBD-22
The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to provide connectivity between the project site and Criteria Cells 21, 22, and 55 (1,600 feet to the east of the project site), Criteria Cells 11 and 55 [sic] (800 feet to the west of the project site), and the Santa Ana River and Criteria Cell 187.

The MSHCP identifies connectivity areas through designation of Criteria Cells. There are no Criteria Cells on the project site and therefore no MSHCP requirement to provide connectivity between cells.

There is also no feasible opportunity for connectivity between conserved open space areas on the project site and the Criteria Cells noted in the comment.

A review of the MSHCP Information Tool (https://www.wrc-rca.org/rcamaps/) finds that Criteria Cells 21, 22, and 55 are separated from the project site by existing development, including residential areas, a solar facility, and Rubidoux Boulevard. In addition, all three of these cells are developed and have little or no remaining native habitat.

Cells 11 and 50 (not 55) are to the west of the site in Cell Group G. These cells are separated from the project site by existing residential areas. Cell 50 is entirely developed with no remaining native habitat. Cell 11 is about 50 percent developed with native habitat remaining in the northern portion.

The MSHCP criteria for this Cell Group (consisting of Cells 8, 9, 11, 48, 49, 50, and 80) are conservation of coastal sage scrub habitat with connectivity to Cell Group F to the west (the project site is to the east of this Cell Group) and conservation of 10 to 20 percent of the Cell Group focusing in the northwestern portion of the Cell Group. Cell 11 is in the northeastern portion of the Cell Group; although native habitat is present in this cell, it does not require conservation under the MSHCP criteria for the Cell Group.

Cell 187 and the Santa Ana River are over 4,000 feet from the project site. This area is mostly occupied by existing residential and industrial developments and SR-60.

Response to CFBD-23
The comment’s concluding statement that the Draft EIR fails to provide comprehensive analyses of the impacts or adopt alternatives that mitigate those impacts is addressed in responses to Comments CFBD-4 through CFBD-22.

From: Brendan Wilce
To: Jim Pechous
Cc: Nicholas Jensen
Subject: Rio Vista Specific Plan DEIR
Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 9:49:14 AM
Dear Mr. Pechous,
I am writing to request a redacted version of Appendix D of the Biological Resources Supporting Information regarding the ancient Palmer's oak on the Rio Vista Specific Plan. The DEIR states that the images and location of the oak have been made confidential to protect the tree, however all information regarding the potential impacts to the oak and an analysis showing that the proposed buffers for the oak have also been redacted from the DEIR. While we understand the confidentiality of the location, there is no president for the redaction of the analysis of the oak that would help us determine if sufficient analysis was done to ensure the avoidance of impacts, or that a 150' buffer would be sufficient for the protection of the oak. Please provide a copy of Appendix D of the Biological Resources Supporting Information, I am not requesting that the location or images of the Palmer's oak be included. If the images and location cannot be easily removed from the appendix we would treat this information as confidential, the mission of our organization is the protection of California's native flora, and we understand the risk of making location data of special status plants generally available. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
Brendan Wilce (He/Him)
Conservation Program Coordinator
California Native Plant Society
2707 K Street, Suite 1
Sacramento, CA 95816
1 CNPS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-121 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
Response to CNPS-1
The comment states that while redacting the location of the on-site Palmer’s oak from Appendix D of the Draft EIR is understood, information regarding the potential impacts to the tree and analysis showing that the proposed buffers should be made available. The comment requests a copy of Appendix D.

See Master Response 5, CEQA prohibits the inclusion of confidential information in an EIR. In addition, please note the availability of the following information.

The publicly circulated Appendix D of the Draft EIR includes the following documents and omissions:
• Appendix D.1, Biological Resources Assessment, is included in full, with the exception of its own Appendix D which includes a map and photographs of the Palmer’s oak. This portion of the BRA must remain confidential as it could disclose the location of a Tribal resource.

However, the omission of the location and photographs of the tree does not affect the completeness of the analysis.
• Appendix D.2, Jurisdictional Delineation, is included in full (although it is understood that this appendix is not challenged).
• Appendix D.3, Hydrogeologic Investigation, is redacted from the Draft EIR because it contains multiple location references, photographs, and other materials which could disclose the location of a Tribal resource. However, the findings of this appendix are listed in the Draft EIR Section 3.4 Biological Resources, page 3.4-45. See also Response to USFWS-CDFW-11. • Appendix D.4, Biological Review of Palmer’s Oak, is redacted from the Draft EIR because it contains multiple location references, photographs, and other materials which could disclose the location of a Tribal resource. However, the findings of this appendix are listed in the Draft EIR Section 3.4 Biological Resources, page 3.4-45. See also Response to USFWS-CDFW-11. • Appendix D.5, Vibration Prediction Study, is included in full, with the exception a map that identifies the location of the study. This map must remain confidential as it could disclose the location of a Tribal resource. However, the omission of the location of the tree does not affect the completeness of the analysis.

Please note that the 150-foot buffer referenced in the comment is inaccurate, see Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 Jim Pechous January 4, 2024
City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Submitted Electronically to [email protected]
Re: Rio Vista Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Pechous,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the for the Rio Visita Specific Plan . The
following comments are submitted on behalf of the Riverside/San Bernardino Chapter of California CNPS is a non-profit environmental organization with 13,000 members in 35 Chapters across California it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, communities, and local planners to advocate for wellinformed policies, regulations, and land management practices.

In our review of the DIER, we offer the following comments, questions, and recommendations:

1. Land Use Plan Rationale
Prior to our offering of questions and comments pertinent to specific sections of the DEIR, it is important to establish a chronological record to provide a proper context and timeline for the comments that will be offered. The Rio Visita Specific Plan traces its roots back over 30 years and we highlight key significant events that occurred within this span of time below:
1992 - Prior to the formation of the City of Jurupa Valley, the Rio Vista Specific Plan was adopted and development entitlements granted by the County of Riverside. 1998 A local botanist, Mitch Provance, discovered (or rediscovered) the Jurupa known member of the species (Quercus palmeri) to occur within a 25-mile radius.
2009 After years of study and interest, the oak became known as the Jurupa Oak and it was determined to be approximately 13,000 18,000 years old, making it the oldest living plant in California and the 4th oldest clonal tree in the world.1 2011 - The City of Jurupa Valley officially incorporated 2023 The City of Jurupa Valley released the current version of the Rio Vista Specific Plan DEIR, 31 years after the original approval and 25 years after the Jurupa Oak s discovery. In DEIR, the Jurupa Oak is referred to simply no hint to its exceptional status.

The chronological bulleted list of events above offers revealing insight as to how the current proposed land use designation has come to be and the planning oversights that have resulted. 1 May, M, et al. A Pleistocene Oak Persisting in Southern California. PLoS One, 2009. Accessed from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796394/
Riverside/ San Bernardino Chapter

CNPS-RSB

1 2
2 Specifically, we highlight that the 1992 land use concept was put forward prior to the discovery and age determination of the Jurupa Oak which occurred in 1998 and 2009 respectively.

However, the land use concept for which the current DEIR has been created, more or less mirrors the impact footprint of the 1992 plan with no additional considerations made despite the incredibly important discovery of the Jurupa Oak. The total lack of incorporation of open space preservation in the areas immediately surrounding the oak or inclusion of an additional buffer is altogether shortsighted given the cultural, biological, and aesthetic resource that is the Jurupa Oak. Did the City/Project Applicant consider amending the project footprint around the Jurupa oak rather than continuing forward with a similar development footprint as the 1992 plan ? Why was there no explanation about the
discovery of this extraordinary resource and no attempt to provide a specific project alternative that would provide superior protection the Jurupa Oak?

2. Failure to Adequately address Impacts to the Jurupa Oak and MM BIO - 5 MM BIO 5 of DEIR includes the following two statements in support of the assertion that, The oided in accordance with MM- BIO-5: (1) No project-related construction activities may occur within the tree's mapped limit and the 200-foot buffer and (2) In addition, no heavy equipment may operate within 259 feet of the mapped. (DEIR p. 3.4-46).

For visual reference 200 feet is the equivalent length of 80 walking steps or approximately 12 midsize cars lined up along a curb. Though the DEIR states that hydrogeologic investigations related to the water source that is sustaining the Oak were conducted, nowhere in the DIER is it stated how this buffer distance was determined nor is there any scientific justification for the buffer determination. It is important to note that water source is only one of a multitude of factors that possibly contribute to the continued survival. These factors may include mechanisms related to fungal mycorrhizal relationships, changes in the cracks and fissures in rocks traversed by deep roots that could affect extraction of rock water, effect of microclimate (which would be altered by introducing light reflecting white warehouse rooftops), and so on. The DEIR actually makes the following omission with regard to Special-status plants (though the DEIR incorrectly discounts the Jurupa Oak as special status in this context because Quercus palmeri, as a species is not listed:

Indirect Impacts to Special-status Plants
No special-status plant species are known to occur within the avoided portions of the survey area or immediately adjacent to the survey area; however, if a previously unknown special-status botanical species were present, impacts could potentially occur as a result of chemical emissions, fugitive dust, human presence, and invasive species.

Increases of chemical emissions and fugitive dust during clearing would be temporary.

Release of chemical emissions from vehicles and machinery would increase during clearing; however, due to the size of the project site and open area, emissions would disperse. Impacts of chemical emissions after clearing are not expected to increase substantially over current levels. (DEIR p. 3.4-29)
What is the rationale for the buffer distance determination? Is the 200-foot buffer distance solely based on vibration and hydrogeologic studies or does this number also include indirect impacts associated with proximity to development (invasive species of plants, pathogenic fungi and bacteria, etc), altered fire regime and so on? Considering the 30-year history of this development plan, it appears that the buffer distance was determined in 1992 (prior to the

CNPS-RSB

3 4
3 knowledge of the Jurupa Oak s existence) with the original land use maps and then incorporated post-hoc into the current land use plan of this DEIR. Did the consultant merely work backwards from the pre-conceived development footprint to arrive at this buffer distance? Again, the subject here is biological anomaly; the oldest living plant in California and the fourth oldest clonal tree on the planet. Does the 200-foot buffer guarantee the continued existence of the oak in the face of all foreseeable direct and indirect risks associated with the development? Given the great importance of the Jurupa Oak, its estimated age, its continued survival as a relict species, the geographic context of the project, the complicated subterranean hydrological interactions, and potential other unknown associations, it is our conclusion that the 200-foot buffer is clearly arbitrarily derived and insufficient. Supplemental versions of the DEIR should draw a much larger buffer distance that is supported with a guaranteed absence of direct, indirect, and associated potential impacts. Using a watershed boundary for example, rather than an arbitrary footage, would be a substantially less capriciously derived buffer distance.

3. Insufficient Disclosure of Environmental Studies
Section D.4 Vibration Prediction Study
were removed from the publicly available version of the DEIR. The DEIR states in sections D.4 and D.4 of the Biological Technical Section that, a copy of confidential Appendix D is on file with the City of Jurupa Valley and is available to qualified professionals upon request. Several requests were made to the City for full or redacted versions of the documents by several different individuals affiliated with the California Native Plant Society to no avail. Email and verbal correspondence with City of Jurupa Valley staff indicated that a redacted version would be available for review, however, at the close of this comment period, no such documents have been made available for review nor has the City made any clear attempt to make redacted versions available. Under CEQA, the City will be required to make these documents available and re-circulate the DEIR.

4. Insufficient Project Alternatives Analysis
The DEIR identifies and makes assessments of three alternatives in Chapter 5 of DEIR: (1) no project, (2) no project, develop the approved specific plan alternative {approved by Riverside County in 1992} Specific and (3) develop the 2017 land
use plan alternative.

The primary legal purpose of an EIR natives and mitigation measures under CEQA is to identify ways to minimize or avoid potential significant environmental impacts and not to simply put forward different alternatives with no reference to specific impacts of concern. (See Laurel Heights Improvement ). The DEIR has essentially put forward two no-project alternatives (one of which cannot even be considered an alternative under CEQA which will be discussed below) and none of which address potential significant impacts in any kind of meaningful way with respect to the Jurupa Oak or any significant impacts of concern at all. The preparers of the DEIR simply put forward older versions of this project as alternatives to the current project, rather than assess actual impacts of the proposed project

CNPS-RSB

4 CONT
5 6
4 and determine alternatives in a forward direction. The prepares of the DEIR were driving in the wrong direction down a one-way street with respect to alternatives analysis.

To more directly address the No Project, develop the 1992 Specific Plan Alternative, the following paragraphs explain why this alternative does not constitute an actual alternative under CEQA:

The 1992 Specific Plan is a different plan, but it cannot be considered an alternative under CEQA Guidelines because it does not aim to mitigate or avoid significant impacts of the proposed project that were assessed in the current version of the DEIR. To the contrary, the 1992 plan is an environmentally inferior proposal altogether (see table 5.2 of the DEIR). Logically, how could a project proposed in 1992 address impacts that were identified in the most recent environmental studies (2023), other than in a happenstance, post-hoc fashion? CEQA and the Guidelines are replete with references to the need for a discussion of project alternatives. Section 21002.1, subdivision (a) provides, "The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." [Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 400 (Cal. 1988)].

The DEIR also incorrectly asserts that the 1992 Specific Plan could be developed with no further analysis of its own. In discussing the 1992 Approved Plan as an alternative, Section 5.3 of the DEIR is excerpted as follows:

Under the No Project, Develop the Approved Specific Plan Alternative, the project site would be developed in accordance with the existing Rio Vista Specific Plan No. 243 that was approved by the County of Riverside on April 14, 1992 (1992 Specific Plan). Under this scenario, up to 1,697 homes, a 5-acre commercial site, two elementary schools, three neighborhood parks, and a 14- acre equestrian center would be developed. An area of natural open space, encompassing 405 acres would be included as well. (DEIR 5-13) As was previously mentioned, but worth reiterating, the approved 1992 Specific Plan is now 31 years old, was adopted prior to the discovery and age determination of the Jurupa Oak, and was never approved by the City of Jurupa Valley. In California, the transfer of land use authority from a county to a newly incorporated city can have implications for previously approved entitlements. Generally, when a new city is formed and incorporates an area that was previously under county jurisdiction, it assumes responsibility for land use planning and entitlements within its boundaries and clearly the City inherits the planning authority over the project area. There is a serious legal question surrounding the validity of the 1992 entitlement that will need to be determined should the City adopt th
Not only did the DEIR fail to propose any actual project alternatives, but also failed to elaborate on alternatives, not previously proposed projects, that were considered.

CEQA requires that, the EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were

CNPS-RSB

6 CONT
5 considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.6(c). Unfortunately, the DEIR is completely vacant of any additional considerations on this point constituting a further legal failure of CEQA compliance with respect to project alternatives.

Given that the proposed project is planned to be built alarmingly close to the Jurupa Oak, a unique one of a kind, cultural, biological, and aesthetic resource, why was there no alternative(s) that discussed a larger (greater than 200 feet) buffer distance which would without question mitigate significant concerns about the long-term viability of the Oak and cultural impacts with respect to Indigenous Americans and Sacred Lands within the Project Area?

5. Failure to Identify Significant Environmental Impacts The Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix of the DEIR summarizes all significant impacts and mitigation measures that were identified during the study and preparation of the DEIR. A sample excerpt from the DEIR displaying the first rows of the table is pasted below for reference.
the
preparers used the Appendix G Checklist2for determination of thresholds of significance for potential environmental impacts identified during the preparation of an EIR. To clarify the an initial study and determining whether to adopt a negative declaration or to prepare an EIR.

Appendix G criteria should not be necessarily be appealed to in rationalizing thresholds of significance (See Romnger v. County of Colusa (2014) 229 Ca4th 690, 713. San Francisco ). Though Appendix G criteria 2
CEQA Appendix G, https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/ab52/final-approved-appendix-G.pdf

CNPS-RSB

6 CONT
7 8
8 CONT
6 can be a useful reference for navigating thresholds of significance, it is not the end all be all to determining significant impacts. The opening note of CEQA Appendix G reads:
impacts that are not listed on this form must also be
considered. The sample questions in this form are intended to encourage thoughtful Significance standards are subject to reasonable arguments and science-based approaches and in this case the DEIR failed to identify a number of substantial environmental impacts including aesthetic, biological, and cultural impacts. The Rio Vista Specific Plan project area provides haven to the oldest living plant in California and the simple application of applying Appendix G criteria to determine impacts does not suffice.

If there is substantial evidence in the record to support that the project would have a substantial impact and a fair argument can be made, then the impact is considered significant. Using too narrow of or arbitrary versions of standards of significance with respect to biological as well as other categories of impact has already been determined to be adequate grounds for legal challenge and should be avoided. (See Endangered Habitats League v County of Orange (2005) 131 CA4th 777, 793)
6a. Significant impacts associated with building light industrial buildings within proximity to As has already been discussed, this project intends to construct light industrial buildings within 259 feet of the Jurupa Oak, the oldest known plant in the state of California, the fourth oldest living clonal tree on the planet, and a one-of-a-kind biological marvel. In assessing significant impacts to the Jurupa Oak and the natural lands that surround the Oak, the preparers of the DEIR make reference to Appendix G criteria and two City policies (COS 1.2 and COS 1.3) that . The resulting determination in the DEIR stated that
a 259- to the Jurupa Oak
In this very unique case, a fair argument standard is a far more appropriate mechanism for determining significance as opposed to Appendix G, the shortcomings of which have already been discussed. We contend that the removal of the broader natural landscape surrounding the oak (beyond the 259-foot buffer) consisting of native plants, large rock outcroppings, indigenous sacred lands, and archaeological remains existence and the inherent biological, cultural, education, aesthetic, and historical value that it has to the people of California as well as the people of Jurupa Valley. To further develop the immediate lands to west of the Jurupa Oak will strand this plant to a small hilltop amongst a sea of warehouse and business park rooftops. We recommend that significance thresholds for impacts to the natural lands surrounding the oak be re-assessed and mitigation measures incorporated to ensure that the
tree be protected for future generations.
6b. Significant impacts associated with aesthetics
The DEIR entirely fails to adequately assess aesthetic impacts. The proposed development footprint travels across and over one of the major unobstructed ridgelines connecting in Jurupa Valley (See photos

CNPS-RSB

8 CONT
9 10
7 below). However, the DEIR concludes that The
following paragraph is excepted from the DEIR:

Scenic vistas as seen from publicly accessible areas within the project site would change in that lower-lying areas, outside the OS-C designated areas, would be developed with various land uses and densities. Development within the project site area would be regulated by the Rio Vista Specific Plan Design Guidelines and the Municipal Code regarding building height limitations and would therefore not include new development that would obstruct views from Rattlesnake Mountain and on-site publicly accessible trails, this development would be consistent with other -lying hillside areas. Furthermore, views of the
development would be viewed at a distance and as a part of, and consistent with, the overall mix of urban and undeveloped lands typical in the City. For these reasons, scenic views from on-site trails would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project.

Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct scenic views or scenic vistas as viewed from the project site and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR p. 3.1-13) Table ES-1 from the DEIR that summarizes four identified potential impacts and Appendix G thresholds is excerpted below:

The following is also excerpted from the DEIR and highlights several conflicts with current General Plan:

Enhancing aesthetic experiences for residents and visitors to the City and to Riverside County is essential to preserving the visual character of Jurupa Valley. The General Plan considers the following to be valuable open space resources in the City:

1. Santa Ana River and adjacent riparian corridors with natural banks and vegetation.

2. Natural and manmade creeks, arroyos, lakes, groundwater, and other water bodies.

3. Wetlands and vernal pools.

CNPS-RSB

10 CONT
11 8

4. Jurupa Mountains and Pedley Hills.

6. Grassland communities and woodlands.

7. Wildlife habitat and corridors for the health and mobility of individuals and of the species.

8. Habitats of species listed as threatened or endangered by State or federal governments.

9. Prime agricultural soils and economically viable farmland.

10. Hills, ridgelines, box canyons, scenic rock outcroppings, and other significant land features.

11. Unique plant and animal communities, including 3
The DIER puts forward visual simulations in Appendix B that showcase visual impacts while standing in proximity to the project area; however, there is no consideration or simulation provided that discusses visual impacts to other areas of the City or Riverside County for that matter. Clearly (with reference to our photos below), visual impacts to scenic resources were not properly identified, analyzed, or discussed, nor adequate mitigation measures incorporated. This project is also clearly in conflict with the City general plan with respect to several of the bullet points above (especially #s 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10).

We recommend revising this section of the DEIR to make a more thorough assessment of visual impacts across the southwestern neighborhoods, roadways, and recreation areas of Jurupa Valley.

CONTINUE TO NEXT PAGE
3 City of Jurupa Valley. 2017. Jurupa Valley General Plan. Website: https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/217/2017- Master-General-Plan-PDF. Accessed December 1, 2021.

CNPS-RSB

11 CONT
12 9
Above/Below: Photos showing visual impact footprint from surrounding areas southwest of the project area. This project footprint which was georeferenced using GIS imagery maps clearly impacts a visual ridgeline.

CNPS-RSB

12 CONT
10 Above: The development footprint from open space areas within the project that are set aside to provide recreational opportunities.

Again, given the prominence of this ridgeline we cite the City general plan which was also included in the text of the DEIR:

Scenic resources in the City generally include natural areas that are visible to the public, natural landmarks, hills and mountain peaks, ridgelines, floodplains and stream channels, agricultural fields, mature trees and agricultural windbreaks, riparian woodlands, and other prominent or unusual landscape features. Scenic backdrops include hillsides and ridges that rise above or adjacent to urban or rural areas or highways. Scenic vistas are points or corridors that are accessible to the public and that provide a view of scenic areas and/or landscapes.4
6c. Significant and Cumulative Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species The most recent biological surveys documented 10 special status wildlife species present throughout the project area and one (1) special status plant species. The Biological Appendix D additionally stated that the project would significantly impact wildlife corridors, nesting bird habitat and breeding (through removal of 426 acres of natural nesting habitat), as well as the only two known populations of the rare (and beautiful) Calochortus plummerae)(photo included below), East of Sierra Ave within the Pedley and Jurupa Hills. This project would remove both documented populations from the area and constrict the overall range of this species. The proposed mitigations measures to address these impacts in MM Bio4 City of Jurupa Valley. 2017. Jurupa Valley General Plan. Website: https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/217/2017- Master-General-Plan-PDF. Accessed December 1, 2021.

CNPS-RSB

12 CONT
13 11
1a- 1k are inadequate and the DEIR lacks a thorough analysis of cumulative and permanent impacts to critical wildlife and plant species. For example MMBIO- 1b reads:

MM BIO-1b Conserve Open Space
Prior to recordation of the final map, those areas of the project site not impacted by the proposed project footprint, including Riparian/Riverine and Delhi sands, shall be designated as open space. The open space areas shall be deed restricted, and ownership shall be transferred to a City-approved local conservation entity prior to recordation of the final map.

This mitigation measure is incredibly vague and fails in several respects:
(1) MM-Bio 1 fails to identify the total acreage that will be designated for wildlife habitat and the quality of that habitat to support species.
(2) MM -Bio 1 also fails to incorporate adequate conservation measures. In addition to deed restricting the land designated as open space, endowment funding should be provided for perpetuity maintenance and management of conserved open spaces and management should be carried out under a Long-Term Management Plan by a qualified conservation entity. Simply transferring the land to another entity does not provide adequate mitigation for impacts because it does not ensure that the habitat quality and ability to support species is maintained in perpetuity. Why not require recording of a Conservation Easement? Again, we reiterate that the determination of significant biological impacts need not be restricted by Appendix G criteria.

Below: Plummers Mariposa Lily documented within the project footprint

CNPS-RSB

13 CONT
12 Thank you for the opportunity to make comments on this project. We look forward to working with you in helping to create more vibrant and well planned communities.

Sincerely,
Aaron Echols, Conservation Chair, Riverside/San Bernardino Chapter, California Native Plant Society
Arlee M. Montalvo, Chapter President, Riverside/San Bernardino Chapter, California Native Plant Society

CNPS-RSB

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-135 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX California Native Plant Society, Riverside/San Bernardino Chapter (CNPS-RSB) Response to CNPS-RSB-1
This introductory comment does not raise any environmental issues concerning the Draft EIR or the proposed project; therefore, no further response is necessary.

Response to CNPS-RSB-2
This comment sumarizes a series of events. None of these events raise any specific concerns or issues related to the proposed project or the Draft EIR and no further response is required. Please see Master Response 4 regarding responses to general comments.

Response to CNPS-RSB-3
This comment also questions the proposed project design and asks whether an alternative that considers a greater buffer around the Palmer’s aak was considered. Please refer to Master Response 1 regarding the buffer. With mitigation, impacts to the tree would be less than significant. As explained in Master Response 1 and in the Draft EIR, a greater buffer would not offer any additional protections or further mitigation for the Palmer’s oak. Furthermore, the tree is located in an area that would be surrounded by several acres designated as Open Space. Finally, while the comment refers to the 1992 land use concept, the analysis in the Draft EIR is based on current data and studies and does not refer in any way to 1992 data.

Response to CNPS-RSB-4
Please refer to Master Response 1 regarding the buffer. With mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. As explained in that response and in the Draft EIR, a greater buffer would not offer any additional protections or further mitigation for the Palmer’s oak.

Establishing a public space, such as a preserve where the public would have access to the area closer to the tree, would provide less protection than the 200-foot buffer required under MM BIO-5.

Therefore, there is no reasonable relationship or nexus to support using the entire watershed as a buffer as suggested in the comment. The Draft EIR, including all supporting documents in the adminsitrative record, adequately address potential impacts to the Palmer’s oak and associated mitigation. As discussed in the Draft EIR Section 3.4 Biological Resources, three studies were undertaken to understand potential project effects on the Palmer’s oak. See Response to CFBD-8 and Response to USFWS-CDFW-11.

The comment also suggests that introducing light reflecting off white warehouse rooftops may be a potential factor that could impact the tree's survival. This is entirely speculative and the commenter does not provide any basis for the suggestion. There is no evidence that oak trees are affected by glare or increased light from development. Oaks are known to sunburn when new areas are exposed to sun following trimming or limb shedding,
11 which would not occur under the proposed project. In addition, the Palmer’s oak is on a north-facing slope and the development is west and south of the hill where it is located, further reducing the potential for light and glare impact from project elements on the tree. The proposed project would be required to comply with standards and 11 Johnson, S. G. and Gustafson, S.S., California Oak Foundation. Undated. Oak Tree Care Website:
https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=3802. Accessed April 18, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-136 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX requirements in the most recent version of the California Building Standards Code (CBC) to prevent light spillover effects.

The comment questions whether indirect impacts associated with proximity to development, such as invasive plant species and pathogenic fungi and bacteria, were considered in determining the buffer distance. Oak trees can become infected with fungi through insects or wounds to the trees12 and susceptibiliy can be increased during drought (note that too much water can cause problems as well). There is no indication that the proposed project would contribute to drought or an increase in water. It is unclear how land development to the west and south of the hill where the tree is lcoated could contribute to fungi infestation.

Regarding invasive species, the MSHCP prohibits the use of invasive species within or adjacent to open space/Conservation Areas. In addition, the Draft EIR MM BIO-1e (Invasive Plants) prohibits installaion of invasive species in landscaping throughout the proposed proejct and requires complinace with the MSHCP guidelines and requirements related to invasive plant species.

Furthermore, the on-site Palmer’s oak is located on a north-facing slope and the development is primarily west or south of it. Winds in the project site area blow primarily from the north and those winds traverse largely developed lands to the north and east of the hill and the tree. It is therefore unlikely that invasive plant species would increase near the tree to any great degree as a result of the proposed project.

The comment does not provide any specific information or evidence to support the claims that would warrant a more detailed response than what is provided here.

Response to CNPS-RSB-5
This comment requests access to confidential documents. Please refer to Master Response 5. CEQA protects against disclosure of confidential information regarding Tribal Cultural Resources. An EIR may not include or publicly disclose information that is protected against disclosure under the California Public Records Act and these confidentiality restrictions have been held to take precedence over CEQA's full disclosure policies.

Response to CNPS-RSB-6
This comment alleges that the alternatives analysis is insufficient and that Alternative 2 is not adequate because it does not reduce any impacts compared to the proposed project. This is inaccurate.

First, it is appropriate to consider an approved plan as a no-project alternative. When a project involves a proposed change to an existing specific plan, a decision to reject the project would leave the existing plan in place. In such a situation, it is appropriate to define the no-project alternative as a continuation of the approved plan. The EIR's discussion of the no-project alternative then compares the impacts of the change that would result from approval of the proposed project with the impacts that would occur if the existing plan remained unchanged (State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(3)(A)). Moreover, Alternative 2 does reduce potential signficant impacts as complared 12 Pavlik, B.M., P.C. Muick., S.G. Johnson, and M. Popper. 2002. Oaks of California. Pages 70–71. Cachuma Press and the California Oak Foundation.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-137 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX to the proposed project, even if it does not reduce those impacts to below a level of significance. As explained in the Draft EIR, compared with the proposed project, air quality emissions may be reduced under Alternative 2, the No Project, Develop the Approved Specific Plan Alternative, largely due to reduced mobile emissions generated by the reduced amount of commercial and industrial uses. See Draft EIR, Chapter 5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page 5-15; Table 5-1: Summary of Project Alternatives. Operation of this alternative may also have a somewhat reduced energy usage and emissions because of the reduced commercial/industrial uses the emissions estimated to occur from this alternative which would translates to a significant reduction in truck trips. Finally, as discussed in the Draft EIR, potential impacts associated with Alternative 2 consider the existing baseline (as of 2021), including the Palmer’s oak, and not limited to the analysis associated with the prior certified 1992 EIR. Therefore, Alternative 2 is appropriately discussed as a potential alternative to the proposed project.

Response to CNPS-RSB-7
The comment suggests that an alternative considering a larger buffer be considered. Please refer to Master Response 1. As explained in Master Response 1 and the Draft EIR, the tree is fully protected with the buffer identified in MM BIO-5 and a greater buffer will not provide any additional protection for the tree.

Response to CNPS-RSB-8
This comment raises general objections to using Appendix G as a basis for thresholds of significance.

In accordance with Section 15064.7, the City of Jurupa Valley adopted local CEQA Guidelines. The City’s local CEQA Guidelines are based, in part, on the CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. This is consistent with established practice and supported by caselaw. Many lead agencies use the standards in Appendix G as a basis for defining standards of significance in an EIR. See Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. & Infrastructure (2016) 6 CA5th 160, 192; City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State Univ. (2015) 242 CA4th 833, 841; Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 CA4th 884, 896; and Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov't v.

City of Eureka (2007) 147 CA4th 357.

Response to CNPS-RSB-9
While compliance with MM BIO-5 would theoretically allow construction of project elements in the 250–259 feet range, the project design (Draft EIR, Exhibit 2-7, Conceptual Land Use Plan) does not include construction of light industrial buildings within 259 feet of the on-site Palmer’s oak.

Accordingly, the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding visual character is accurate. As noted in this section, the proposed project does not propose development in the OS-C areas and would retain the existing unimproved character. This is consistent with General Plan Policy ME 8.37 and therefore does not result in a significant impact. See discussion under Threshold AES-3 in the Draft EIR.

Response to CNPS-RSB-10
This comment alleges possible aesthetic impacts and quotes from the Draft EIR. However, this general comment does not raise any specific concerns related to the analysis in the Draft EIR or explain the existence of a specific significant impact. Please refer to Master Response 4. The Draft EIR throughly addressed potential impacts related to ridgelines in the evaluation under Thresholds AES-1 through AES-4. Draft EIR, 3.1-9–3.1-26. Furthermore, scenic resources listed in the General City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-138 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.DOCX Plan, such as ridgelines and floodplains, are not present in the project site and would, therefore, not be impacted. Draft EIR, 3.1-27. No further response is required.

Response to CNPS-RSB-11
This comment identifies an exerpt from the Draft EIR and does not idenify any specific concerns related to the proposed project or the Draft EIR. No further response is required.

Response to CNPS-RSB-12
The comment states that visual simulations were done from locations close to the project site and did not consider impacts to other areas of the City or Riverside County.

The selected locations for the visual simulation were intended to give an overview of the proposed project. The selected view simulation locations were intended to display the relationship between the existing surrounding communities and the development. In addition, locations were selected to show where the Rio Vista community would be visible from public roads that would be more heavily traveled.

The comment’s assertion that the proposed project would impact Rattlesnake and Pepe’s peaks and ridgelines is incorrect. As shown in the Draft EIR Appendix B and discussed in the Draft EIR Section

3.1 Aesthetics, Threshold AES-1, urban development proposed as a part of the project would be situated in lower elevation areas, avoiding the prominent on-site peaks, including Rattlesnake Mountain and Pepe’s Peak. In addition, the proposed project would not substantially block or alter public views of the project site as seen from City-designated scenic corridors or roadways identified by General Plan Figure 4-23 because of distance from and intervening features between the scenic corridors and roadways and the preservation of undeveloped lands within the project site.

Further, the current General Plan and Specific Plan accounted for development a larger area than the proposed project impacts. The proposed project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan policies related to project design, visual character, scenic quality, and scenic vistas is provided in Table 3.1-1.

Draft EIR, Section 3.1 Aesthetics, pages 3.1-17–3.1-23.

Response to CNPS-RSB-13
The comment states that proposed MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1k are inadequate and that the Draft EIR lacks a thorough analysis of cumulative and permanent impacts to critical wildlife and plant species. The comment gives MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) as an example.

While the language of MM BIO-1b does not identify the acreage to be conserved, it does state that the measure applies to all Open Space. The Draft EIR includes multiple references to the area to be designated OS-C as 510.8 acres—for example, Chapter 2 Project Description, Table 2-1: Specific Plan Land Use Summary (page 2-3); and Section 3.4 Biological Resources, Threshold BIO-2 (page 3.4-39), among others. In fact, the Threshold BIO-2 discussion specifically states the acreage subject to MM BIO-1b. (Note that the acreage in the Threshold BIO-2 discussion erroneously states the acreage to be 510.5 acres instead of 510.8 acres. This minor typographical error is clarified in the Errata section). See Master Response 4 regarding responses to general comments.

Janet Miller Wall
Conejo Oak Tree Advocates
1901 Tamarack St.

Thousand Oaks, CA 91361-1841
[email protected]
November 21, 2023
City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department
Jim Pechous, Principal Planner
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Submitted via email to: [email protected] Dear Mr. Pechous:

Conejo Oak Tree Advocates, Thousand Oaks, CA advocates for all heritage oak trees in our wonderful country. Trees that have survived for centuries deserve so much respect from us. It is our responsibility to care and protect them in every way possible.

Therefore, I am writing you to express deep concern with the current land-use plan and mitigation measures included in the recently released Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Rio Vista Specific Plan. This Specific Plan proposes to develop the natural landscape surrounding the Jurupa (Hurungna) Oak, an ancient tree which is estimated to be over 13,000 years old, making it the oldest known tree/shrub in California and among the oldest on earth. Furthermore, the hilltop where the ancient Jurupa oak stands is designated as a sacred land site by the Tongva people. The DEIR states that development for
of the small hilltop on which the oak stands. Mitigation measures described in the DEIR restrict construction equipment to a This inconsistency in buffer distance is problematic and the distances are insufficient. Neither a a buffer pays acceptable respect to the ancient oak and sacred nature of the site or to the long-term survival of the Jurupa Oak.

I am requesting that the City reassess the current landscape plan and identify alternative project options that ensure better protection for our state s oldest oak and respect for Tongva sacred lands.

Specifically, I encourage the City to work with local conservation groups and Tribal members to 1) remove or relocate the 146-acre light industrial/business park component of the Specific Plan and retain this area as conserved land to connect the surrounding ridgelines and groundwater connections, 2) (or Hurungna) Oak Preserve, and 3) Please incorporate my comments in the official record for this project.

Very truly yours,
Janet Miller Wall
for Conejo Oak Tree Advocates
COTA