Jurupa Valley City Council
September 5, 2024

1 2
3 4
5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-141 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 Conejo Oak Tree Advocate (COTA)
Response to COTA-1
The introductory comment identifies COTA as advocating heritage oak trees. No response is required.

Response to COTA-2
See Master Response 1 and Master Response 2, the natural landscape around the Palmer’s oak would be protected.

Response to COTA-3
See Master Response 3, Native American Tribal consultation was completed by the City.

Response to COTA-4
See Master Response 1, the buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient.

Response to COTA-5
See Response to CCHTF-4.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EHL

EHL

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-145 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 Endangered Habitat League (EHL)
Response to EHL-1
The introductory comment identifies EHL as a Southern California regional conservation group. No response is required.

Response to EHL-2
This comment expresses general opposition to the proposed project. See Master Response 4, Degree of specificity required for response to general comments.

The Palmer’s oak is discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. The Palmer’s oak would be avoided in accordance with MM BIO-5, Palmer’s Oak. Moreover, the Palmer’s oak is located in an area designated as an Open Space Conservation area, approximately 200 feet away from the area designated for development. See also Master Response 3, Native American Tribal consultation was completed by the City consistent with CEQA’s requirements. In addition, based on a vibration prediction study prepared for the area of the Palmer’s oak (Appendix D), and as required by MM BIO-5, heavy equipment would not be operating within 259 feet of the tree to prevent potential impact from equipment vibration to the subsurface bedrock that supports the ancient tree. See Draft EIR, Section 3.4 Biological Resources, page 3.4-15, and pages 3.4-44–3.4-46. As discussed in the Draft EIR Section 3.4 Biological Resources, three studies were undertaken to analyze the Palmer’s oak and potential project effects on it. See Response to USFWS-CDFW-9 and USFWS-CDFW-11 and Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient for discussion of the 200- and 259-foot buffers.

Response to EHL-3
This comment does not identify any potential environmental concerns with the project or the Draft EIR. See Master Response Master Response 3, Native American Tribal consultation was completed by the City.

Response to EHL-4
Potential impacts to the Palmer’s oak would be avoided by designation of the area around it as Open Space-Conservation (OS-C), which does not allow construction, and by implementation of MM BIO-5 which would establish a buffer around the tree. Furthermore, cultural and historic impacts are discussed in the Draft EIR Section 3.5 Cultural Resources; Tribal cultural impacts are discussed in the Draft EIR Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources; and Aesthetics impacts are discussed in the Draft EIR Section 3.1 Aesthetics. See also Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient.

Response to EHL-5
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.

Response to EHL-6
The comment raises a concern regarding unmitigated impacts to the Palmer’s oak and regarding Tribal interests.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-146 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 MM BIO-5 is intended to mitigate impacts to the Palmer’s oak. See Master Response 3, Native American Tribal consultation was completed by the City.

Response to EHL-7
Historic and cultural resources, including associated mitigation, are discussed in the Draft EIR Section

3.5 Cultural Resources. 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.

Barriers to protect the Palmer’s oak during construction are addressed by MM BIO-1a (Flag or Fence Impact Area) which would require all designated conservation areas within the project site boundary to be clearly flagged or fenced prior to grading or vegetation clearing to prevent incursion into sensitive habitats. This would be required for all areas that are identified as OS-C on Exhibit 2-7 of the Draft EIR, which includes the area surrounding the tree. Once the project is built, and as discussed in the Chapter 2 Project Description, page 2-8, fences and walls would generally be installed along the perimeter boundaries of residential PAs that interface with open space, roads, parks, or off-site land uses. This would provide additional protection to the OS-C area surrounding the tree. Please refer to Master Response 1 for additional discussion regarding the buffer.

The hydrogeological Investigation prepared for the location of the on-site Palmer’s oak concluded that groundwater at that location is at 90 feet below ground surface. The Biological Review of Palmer’s Oak memorandum identifies the subsurface bedrock collection basin that holds water to support the tree. See Response to USFWS-CDFW-11. Implementation of MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak) would provide protection for this basin.

Response to EHL-8
The Draft EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives. The Draft EIR evaluates alternatives (and the No Project Alternative), which aim to reduce significant impacts of the proposed project while meeting most of the basic objectives of the project. The creation of a formal preserve would result in similar impacts to those described in the No Project Alternative.

The Palmer’s oak is located in an area designated under the proposed project as OS-C. MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) requires that on-site open space areas 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. The proposed project would also be required to follow applicable MSHCP requirements.

GSEJA

1 2
GSEJA

2 CONT
3 GSEJA

3 CONT
4 5
GSEJA

5 CONT
6 7
8 9
GSEJA

9 CONT
10 GSEJA

11 GSEJA

12 GSEJA

12 CONT
GSEJA

12 CONT
13 GSEJA

13 CONT
14 GSEJA

15 GSEJA

15 CONT
GSEJA

15 CONT
16 GSEJA

16 CONT
17 18
19 GSEJA

20 21
22 23
GSEJA

23 CONT
24 25
26 27
28 GSEJA

28 CONT
29 30
GSEJA

31 32
GSEJA

32 CONT
33 34
GSEJA

34 CONT
35 36
37 GSEJA

38 39
40 41
42 43
GSEJA

43 CONT
44 GSEJA

44 CONT
45 46
GSEJA

47 48
GSEJA

48 CONT
49 GSEJA

49 CONT
50 GSEJA

51 53
52 GSEJA

53 CONT
GSEJA

53 CONT
GSEJA

53 CONT
GSEJA

53 CONT
GSEJA

54 55
56 GSEJA

57 GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
GSEJA

57 CONT
Green Jobs & Clean Communities
P.O. Box 79222
Corona, CA 92877
March 12, 2024
Jim Pechous
City of Jurupa Valley
[email protected]
Re: Rio Vista Specific Plan Project, SCH Number 2018121005 Dear Mr. Pechous:

On behalfofthe Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance ("GSEJA"), I am writing to you regarding the Rio Vista Specific Plan Project, SCH Number 2018121005 (the "Project").

GSEJA is withdrawing its comment letter and opposition to the Project. The Project's developer has addressed GSEJA's concerns about environmental mitigation.

Sincerely,
geoi
D' �ector

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-201 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 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA)
On March 12, 2024, Joe Bourgeois, Executive Director of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA), submitted a letter withdrawing the prior letter dated December 4, 2023. The letter states that GSEJA is withdrawing its comment letter and opposition to the proposed project because GSEJA's concerns regarding environmental mitigation had been addressed. Although GSEJA’s concerns have been addressed, and no further issues have been identified, the prior comment letter is part of the record and proceedings, and responses to the prior comments are provided below.

Response to GSEJA-1
Please see Master Response 4 regarding general comments. The introductory paragraph does not raise any specific environmental issues related to the project and does not require a response. See Master Response 4, Degree of specificity required for response to general comments.

Response to GSEJA-2
The comment reiterates Project Description detail from the Draft EIR. No response is required.

Response to GSEJA-3
This comment alleges that the Draft EIR should be recirculated to include the Rio Vista Specific Plan and Development Agreement as attachments.

CEQA requires a project description to identify, to the extent known by the lead agency, the permits and other approvals required to implement the project (CEQA Guidelines § 15124). It does not, however, require the applications for such approvals or documents associated with such approvals to be included in, or attached to, an EIR. (Native Sun/Lyon Communities v. City of Escondido (1993) 15 CA4th 892, 909: "it was not necessary for the Development Agreement to be analyzed in the environmental impact report since CEQA does not require that an analysis be made of each and every activity carried out in conjunction with a project"; listing agreement as proposed approval was adequate.) See also, East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 CA5 281, 291 [EIR is sufficient if it makes reference to a required Development Agreement to alert persons interested in the document to its relevance, but need not include the Development Agreement]. Additionally, even where a lead agency fails to include reference to, or discussion of, a Development Agreement, that error is not prejudicial. See Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v.

City of Rialto (2012) 208 CA4th 899.

Here, both the Notice of Availability and Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR expressly identify the required approvals and permits, including the Development Agreement. Consistent with the court’s finding in Native Sun, the EIR gave adequate notice of the existence of the Development Agreement and provided a means for determining the terms of that document. To the extent the Specific Plan and/or the Development Agreement, or other approvals or permits, could result in physical impacts to environment, those effects are analyzed in the Draft EIR. Impacts related to permitted uses and development standards such as maximum height, and floor area ratio are discussed in Section 3.11 Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. Case law recognizes that parking impacts are not necessarily environmental impacts (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 CA4th 656, 697). There is no evidence that parking would contribute to City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-202 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 environmental effects; therefore, the comment related to parking is not applicable to the CEQA analysis.

Moreover, it is important to note that the Development Agreement is a contract between the City and Developer entered into as a condition of project approval and has not yet been finalized.

Accordingly, the terms of a Development Agreement are routinely negotiated concurrently with the environmental review process and finalized prior to project approval, making inclusion of such a contract that is still being negotiated in the Draft EIR speculative.

Response to GSEJA-4
The comment refers the readers to the attachments to the GSEJA letter for a complete technical commentary and analysis.

The comments in the attachments are addressed in Response to GSEJA-47 through Comment GSEJA57. No additional response is required.

Response to GSEJA-5
The comment is incorrect in stating that the EIR does not include analysis of relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. Specifically, in response to the comments made about ozone, diesel particulate matter, and truck traffic’s contribution to these impacts, these are addressed in detail in Section 3.3 Air Quality of the Draft EIR.

The comment is correct in describing the characteristics of the site with respect to CalEnviroScreen scores, which is not intended to determine the level of impact to the environment for CEQA purposes. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed CalEnviroScreen as part of California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) environmental justice program. CalEnviroScreen is being used to identify communities that face multiple burdens of pollution and socioeconomic disadvantage. This information helps Cal/EPA to prioritize its work in the State’s most burdened communities.

As stated by Cal/EPA,13 CalEnviroScreen is used for:
• Identifying California’s most environmentally burdened and vulnerable communities. • Assisting Cal/EPA’s boards and departments with decisions, such as prioritizing resources and cleanup activities. Disadvantaged communities in California are targeted for investment of proceeds from the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program. Cal/EPA designated census tracts with the highest CalEnviroScreen scores as disadvantaged communities for investing cap-and-trade proceeds.
• Guiding Cal/EPA’s Environmental Justice Task Force and other State entities in allocating grants and in other decisions.
13 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Factsheet. Website:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/fact-sheet/ces30factsheetfinal.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-203 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 it applies to CEQA, Cal/EPA advises that:
• The CalEnviroScreen Tool scoring results are not directly applicable to the cumulative impacts analysis required under CEQA.
• Information provided by this tool cannot be used as a substitute for an analysis of the cumulative impacts of any specific project for which an environmental review is required by CEQA.
• The tool assesses environmental factors and effects on a regional or community-wide basis and cannot be used in lieu of performing an analysis of the potentially significant impacts of any specific project.14
A lead agency under CEQA must determine independently whether a proposed project's impacts may be significant under CEQA based on the evidence before it, using its own discretion and judgment. The tool's results are not a substitute for this required analysis. This tool considers some social, health, and economic factors that may not be relevant when doing an analysis under CEQA.

The tool’s output should not be used as a focused risk assessment of a given community or site. It cannot predict or quantify specific health risks or effects associated with cumulative exposures identified for a given community or individual.

For the reasons stated above, the CalEnviroScreen scores are not considered as thresholds of significance adopted per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7. Notwithstanding, the Draft EIR addresses all applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including the impacts on disadvantaged communities. (Refer to Draft EIR Sections 3.3 Air Quality, 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, 3.11 Land Use and Planning, 3.13 Noise, 3.17 Transportation, and 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems, Chapter 4 Other CEQA Considerations, and Chapter 5 Alternatives.)
Response to GSEJA-6
The comment expresses an understanding of the CalEnviroScreen score for contaminated drinking water and is informational in nature. It does not raise a concern regarding the adequacy of the EIR.

No further response is necessary.

Response to GSEJA-7
The comment expresses an understanding of the data presented in CalEnviroScreen for solid waste and hazardous waste facilities and is informational in nature. It does not raise a concern regarding the adequacy of the EIR. No further response is necessary. 14 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2013. Cal/EPA Releases Nation’s First Comprehensive Statewide Screening Tool-CalEnviroScreen 1.0. April 23. Website: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/press-release/press-releasecalenviroscreen/calepa-releases-nations-first. Accessed April 25, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-204 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 GSEJA-8
The comment expresses an understanding of the data presented in CalEnviroScreen for cleanup sites and is informational in nature. It does not raise a concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

No further response is necessary.

Response to GSEJA-9
The first part of the comment describes an understanding of the data presented in CalEnviroScreen for diverse communities and is informational in nature. No further response is necessary.

The part of the comment regarding Senate Bill (SB) 535, the Draft EIR Exhibit 3.3-1 CalEnviroScreen Attributes for Project Site, describes the pollution burden for the project site for informational purposes. The following clarifying text is added for context and will be included in the Errata section:

As shown in Exhibit 3.3-1, the CalEnviroScreen identifies the project site as “High PollutionLow Population” and describes the level of pollution burden by a scoring system used to identify communities that face multiple burdens of pollution and socioeconomic disadvantage. This information helps Cal/EPA to prioritize its work in the State’s most burdened communities. This score is not intended to be used for CEQA purposes.

With respect to the part of the comment about the project site being under a SB 535 designation, as stated by the OEHHA, “Disadvantaged communities in California are specifically targeted for investment of proceeds from the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program. These investments are aimed at improving public health, quality of life and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities, and at the same time, reducing pollution that causes climate change. The investments are authorized by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32, Nunez 2016)”. 15 As detailed in the consistency analysis for impacts on disadvantaged communities, please refer to Sections 3.3 Air Quality, 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, 3.11, Land Use and Planning, 3.13 Noise, 3.17 Transportation, and 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems, Chapter 4 Other CEQA Considerations, and Chapter 5 Alternatives, which address the proposed project impacts under adopted CEQA thresholds of significance that apply to SB 535 communities as well as the City as whole.

Response to GSEJA-10
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform to calculate construction and operational emissions from land use development projects. CalEEMod was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts. The model is a comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects located throughout California and can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary, such as preparing CEQA or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, conducting pre-project planning, and verifying compliance with local air quality rules and regulations.16 CalEEMod was 15 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2022. SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (2022 Update). Website:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535. Accessed May 15, 2024. 16 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). CalEEMod User Guide. Page 1. Website:
https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/01_User%20Guide.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-205 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 updated in 2022 and includes the gas and electric utility emissions factors pursuant to the location of the proposed project, as well as building energy zones. The 2022 CalEEMod update generates default electricity and natural gas consumption that consider Title 24 standards.17 California Building Energy Code Compliance (CBECC) software is approved specifically for Title 24 compliance; however, it is used to confirm that a final building design (with detailed information included in its construction drawings) is Title 24 compliant. The final designs and construction drawings are not available for the proposed project and are not typically prepared until after a proposed development project is approved/entitled.

Accordingly, the Draft EIR and underlying technical studies correctly use CalEEMod to estimate energy demand based on average intensity factors for similar land use types. Since the occupants of the proposed project’s buildings are unknown at this time, and information about the future building users’ energy use is also not available at this time, it is appropriate to rely upon the CalEEMod default assumptions which have been derived by CAPCOA. There is no requirement in CEQA to show specific compliance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards based on conceptual building designs that are proposed at the entitlement stage of a project’s approval process. This will be a requirement pursuant to State law prior to issuance of each building permit and verified by the City’s Building and Safety Department. No further response is needed.

Response to GSEJA-11
The proposed project is not inconsistent with State Housing Element Law.

The proposed project would provide needed housing options in the City to support planned population growth. The proposed project includes 11 PAs for residential development. Within these PAs, the proposed project would provide up to 1,697 housing units, including very low density, medium density, medium high density, and very high-density housing products, which would help to support the housing needs of the City consistent with City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Consistent with the Housing Element Update, the Draft EIR projects that by 2029, approximately 60 percent, or 1,081 of the proposed 1,697 housing units would be built. Of these proposed 1,081 housing units, 578 are expected to be in the RHNA “Above Moderate Income” category, and 440 are expected to be in the RHNA “Moderate Income” category.

However, the proposed project is not required to mandate development of moderate income housing. RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth but rather allows communities to anticipate growth so that collectively the region and subregion can grow in ways that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promotes transportation mobility, and addresses social equity and fair share housing needs. As such, there is no requirement in RHNA that requires individual development projects to provide affordable housing.
17 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). CalEEMod User Guide Appendix D Technical Source Documentation for Emissions Calculations. Page D-11. Website: https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/05_Appendix%20D.pdf.

Accessed April 18, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-206 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 GSEJA-12
The proposed project is consistent with the Housing Element and no amendments are required. It is important to note that the proposed project was anticipated and evaluated in the Housing Element rather than the approved Specific Plan. See Housing Element Table 5.40: Proposed Rio Vista Specific Plan Amendment (2021) Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2029 and Table 5.46: Progress in Meeting 6th Cycle Regional Housing Need Allocation. PA 11 as identified in the Housing Element (see e.g., Figure A-3), is PA 9 in the proposed project (see Figure II-1).

Response to GSEJA-13
The comment misleadingly focuses on only the proposed project’s PA’s 4 and 11 in identifying potential dwelling unit target numbers. The proposed project includes 11 PA’s planned for residential development, including PA 9, which was identified as PA 11 in the Housing Element. To appropriately compare the proposed project to the Housing Element, at a minimum, PA 9 must be included.

The proposed project includes five residential densities, as described below:
• Very Low Density Residential–VLDR (Target Density: 0.8 dwelling units per acre (du/acre); Maximum Density 2.0 du/acre; Total Acres: 6.4): The proposed project provides for a target of 5 homes at a density of 0.8 du/acre and a maximum of 5 homes at a density of 2.0 du/acre within PA 10 and PA 11.
• Medium Density Residential–MDR (Target Density: 4.5 du/acre; Maximum Density 5.0 du/acre; Total Acres: 58.7): The proposed project provides for a target of 265 homes at a density of 4 du/acre and a maximum of 295 homes at a density of 5.0 du/acre within PA 1, PA 2, and PA 7.
• Medium High Density Residential–MHDR (Target Density: 6.9 du/acre; Maximum Density 8.0 du/acre: Total Acres: 59.0): The proposed project provides for a target of 408 homes at a density of 6.9 du/acre and a maximum of 472 homes at a density of 8.0 du/acre within Planning Areas 3 and 8.
• High Density Residential–HDR (Target Density: 10.2 du/acre; Maximum Density: 14.0 du/acre; Total Acres: 58.6): The proposed project provides for a target of 599 homes at a density of

10.2 du/acre and a maximum of 1,021 homes at a density of 14.0 du/acre within Planning Areas 4, 5, and 6.
• Highest Density Residential–HHDR (Target Density: 19.4 du/acre; Maximum Density; 25.0 du/acre; Total Acres: 21.7): The proposed project provides for a target of 420 homes at a density of 19.4 du/acre and a maximum of 543 homes at a density of 25.0 du/acre within PA 9.

Notably, PA 9 alone identifies a target of 420 units with a HHDR designation, which is identical to the target identified in the Housing Element where the same area was previously identified as PA 11.

Therefore, the proposed project is in alignment with the Housing Element. When the capacity assumptions and targets for all Planning Areas are considered, the proposed project has adequate sites to meet the City’s RHNA.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-207 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 GSEJA-14
The proposed project does not result in a revision of the Housing Element’s sites available to meet RHNA. Please refer to Response to GSEJA-13. Additionally, the Housing Element specifically considered the proposed project rather than the approved Specific Plan when evaluating housing.

See Chapter 5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page 5-70, Housing Element, 2021-2029.

Response to GSEJA-15
Perfect consistency is not required in an EIR’s evaluation of land use plans. When evaluating a proposed project’s consistency with applicable plans, CEQA does not require strict consistency with every policy or with all aspects of a plan. The Draft EIR is only required to discuss potential inconsistencies that are related to physical environmental issues. Courts have consistently recognized that a lead agency has significant discretion when evaluating consistency. "[G]eneral and specific plans attempt to balance a range of competing interests. It follows that it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan. . . . It is enough that the proposed project will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the applicable plan" (emphasis added, Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 CA4th 1490, 1510-1511). It also follows then, that even though a project may– or likely will– deviate from some particular provisions of a plan, if it remains consistent with that plan as demonstrated on an overall basis, the lead agency is within its discretion to make a consistency finding and courts will defer to the lead agency’s regarding any determination.

The Draft EIR meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d). For the proposed project, the Draft EIR focused on consistency with policies that would be potentially impacted by the proposed project as detailed in Table 3.11-5. Consistency with relevant General Plan and other land use policies are discussed in Section 3.11 Land Use and Planning and demonstrated in Table 3.11-5.

Identified Goals are generally citywide expressions of community values, and as such, are not typically implemented at a project level. Policies are specific statements that guide decision-making.

Accordingly, individual projects are more likely to demonstrate consistency with applicable policies.

As shown in Table 3-1, below, the proposed project is consistent with all applicable policies. While the comment lists several goals and policies, it fails to identify any specific grounds for conflict or identify any potential environmental issues. Nonetheless, as demonstrated in Table 3-1, below, the proposed project is consistent with each of the policies identified by the commenter. Additionally, the proposed project does not interfere with any of the citywide goals included in the General Plan.

Table 3-1: Response to GSEJA-15
Element
Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
Air Quality Goal AQ 1 Works with regional, subregional, and State agencies to protect and
improve air quality and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.

Consistent: As explained above,
Goals are general statements of the
City’s values and are not applicable
on a project level. However, the
proposed project would further this
Goal. The proposed project requires
the implementation of Plans,
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-208 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 Element
Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
Policies, and Programs (PPP) to
reduce impacts related to air
quality. PPP 3.3-1 – PPP 3.3-6 are
designed to demonstrate
compliance with various South
Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) and State
regulations and initiatives related to
air quality.

Goal AQ 2 Helps protect its residents, and
especially senior citizens, youth and
other sensitive receptors, from
toxic air pollution.

Consistent: As explained above,
Goals are general statements of the
City’s values and are not applicable
on a project level. However, the
proposed project would further this
Goal. The proposed project includes
PPP 3.3-2, which requires
compliance with California Code of
Regulations Title 13, Division 3,
Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025,
“Regulation to Reduce Emissions of
Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of
Nitrogen and Other Criteria
Pollutants from In-Use Heavy-Duty
Diesel-Fueled Vehicles” and
California Code of Regulations Title
13, Division 3, Chapter 10, Article 1,
Section 2485, “Airborne Toxic
Control Measure to Limit DieselFueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.”
The proposed project design
includes buffers and setbacks
between residential areas and
other land uses, such as schools and
parks where sensitive receptors
may be located and proposed
commercial or industrial land uses
in the planning area. High-density
residential neighborhoods located
near transit and the support of
alternative modes of
transportation, reduce Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) on a per
capita basis, helping to reduce the
exposure of sensitive receptors to
emissions from mobile sources.

Furthermore, the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (Draft
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-209 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 Element
Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
EIR) includes mitigation measures
to reduce emissions of and
exposure to toxic air contaminants
from construction and operation,
including MM AIR-1a through MM
AIR-1i and MM AIR-3a through MM
AIR-3c. Refer to Section 3.3 Air
Quality for further discussion.

Goal AQ 3 Works to reduce emissions from
stationary and mobile sources.

Consistent: As explained above,
Goals are general statements of the
City’s values and are not applicable
on a project level. However, the
proposed project would further this
Goal. The project design includes
high-density development that
would help reduce VMT per capita.

This project would reduce air
quality impacts by reducing mobile
source emissions associated with
the proposed project's operation.

Additionally, the General Plan
would apply to the proposed
project, including policies aimed at
reducing VMT and/or direct
emissions. For example: General
Plan Policy ME 3.36, Bicycle
Improvements Conditionally
Required requires the construction
or rehabilitation of bicycle facilities
improvements as a condition of
approving new development, per
Zoning Ordinance standards; AQ 2.2
Pollution Control Measures strongly
encourage the use of pollution
control measures such as
landscaping, vegetation and other
materials that trap particulate
matter or control pollution; AQ 3.4
Emissions Mitigation requires every
project to mitigate any of its
anticipated emissions that exceed
allowable levels as established by
the SCAQMD, the EPA, and
California Air Resources Board
(ARB), to the greatest extent
possible; and EJ 2.14 Truck Idling
seeks the necessary funding and
resources to enforce the Statewide
idling limit of five minutes for
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-210 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 Element
Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
heavy-duty diesel vehicles with a
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more.

Policy AQ 4.3 Electric Service Units. Require the
installation and use of electric
service units at truck stops and
distribution centers for heating and
cooling truck cabs, and particularly
for powering refrigeration trucks, in
lieu of idling of engines for power.

Consistent: This Draft EIR evaluates
project-related operational
emissions and incorporates relevant
General Plan policies that will
reduce air quality impacts in the
operational analysis. Refer to
Section 3.3 Air Quality for further
discussion.

Policy AQ 2.1 Site Plan Designs. Require City land
use planning efforts and site plan
designs to protect people and land
uses sensitive to air pollution, using
barriers and/or distance from
emissions sources, and protect
sensitive receptors from polluting
sources, wherever possible.

Consistent: The proposed project
sets forth development standards
and design guidelines that include
measures to promote land use
compatibility between different
land uses and reduce exposure to
air pollution. Refer to Section 3.3
Air Quality for further discussion.

Policy AQ 3.4 Emissions Mitigation. Require
every project to mitigate any of its
anticipated emissions that exceed
allowable levels as established by
the South Coast Air Quality
Management District [SCAQMD],
the [United States Environmental
Protection Agency] EPA, and
[California Air Resources Board]
ARB, to the greatest extent
possible.

Consistent: This Draft EIR evaluates
project-related construction and
operational emissions and sets
forth mitigation measures to reduce
impacts. Refer to Section 3.3 Air
Quality for further discussion.

Policy AQ 6.12 Housing Types. Provide for a variety
of housing types that support a
local market for a skilled
professional and management labor
pool when approving new
residential developments.

Consistent: The proposed project
would develop up to 1,697 dwelling
units including very low density,
medium density, medium high
density, and very high-density
housing products.

Environmental
Justice
Element
City of Jurupa
Valley
Community
Values
Statement
Environmental Justice. We value
the health, well-being, safety, and
livability of all our communities and
strive to distribute public benefits
and resources equitably. We
endeavor to enhance underserved
communities so that all residents
can thrive and share in a high
quality of life.

Consistent: The proposed project
would facilitate new housing
options, including very low density,
medium density, medium high
density, and very high-density
housing products, employment,
educational, and recreational
opportunities while also providing
essential infrastructure. This would
promote regional economic
prosperity through new capital
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-211 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 Element
Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
investment, expansion of the tax
base, and the creation of new jobs.

Primary Goal Ensure environmental equity for all
persons, regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, and
establish and maintain an open and
inclusionary public decision-making
process.

Not applicable on a project level.

Goal EJ 1 Ensure an open and transparent
public process that improves the
quality of life relative to a cleaner
and healthier environment.

Not applicable on a project level.

Goal EJ 3 Ensure a reduction in
disproportionate environmental
burdens affecting low-income and
minority populations.

Not applicable on a project level.

Goal EJ 5 Ensure healthy and affordable
housing opportunities for all
segments of the community.

Consistent: The proposed project
would support healthy and
equitable communities by including
a mix of use and densities (e.g.,
residential, light industrial, business
park, school, recreation, etc.) that
provide housing, employment,
education, and recreational
opportunities.

Policy EJ 2.1 Separation of Land Uses. Require
that proposals for new sensitive
land uses are located adequate
distances from freeways and major
roadways based on an analysis of
physical and meteorological
conditions at the project site.

Consistent: Future development
under the proposed project would
be subject to the latest adopted
edition of the California Building
Standards Code (CBC). Additionally,
future development would comply
with the General Plan and Specific
Plan design guidelines.

Policy EJ 2.2 Sensitive Land Use Buffers. Require
that proposals for new sensitive
land uses incorporate adequate
setbacks, barriers, landscaping, or
other measures as necessary to
minimize air quality impacts.

Consistent: The proposed project
sets forth development standards
and design guidelines that include
measures to promote land use
compatibility between different
land uses. Additionally, the
proposed project design includes
buffers and setbacks between
residential areas and other land
uses, such as schools and parks
where sensitive receptors may be
located, and proposed commercial
or industrial land uses in the
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-212 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 Element
Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
planning area. High-density
residential neighborhoods located
near transit and the support of
alternative modes of
transportation, reduce VMT on a
per capita basis, helping to reduce
the exposure of sensitive receptors
to emissions from mobile sources.

Policy EJ 2.3 School Buffers. Provide adequate
buffers between schools and
industrial facilities and
transportation corridors.

Consistent: The proposed project
sets forth development standards
and design guidelines that include
measures to promote land use
compatibility between different
land uses. The proposed project
would locate the light industrial and
business park uses adjacent to
existing uses along 20th Street and
Rubidoux Boulevard. The residential
and school uses would be located
away from these uses and buffered
by open space and other uses.

Policy EJ 2.5 Residential Buffers. Require that
zoning regulations provide
adequate separation and buffering
of residential and industrial uses.

Consistent: The proposed project
would locate light industrial and
business park uses adjacent to
similar existing uses along 20th
Street and Rubidoux Boulevard. The
proposed project sets forth
development standards and design
guidelines that include measures to
promote land use compatibility
between different land uses.

Policy EJ 2.8 Separation of Uses. Build new
sensitive land uses with sufficient
buffering from industrial facilities
and uses that pose a significant
hazard to human health and safety.

The California ARB recommends
that sensitive land uses be located
at least 1,000 feet from hazardous
industrial facilities.

Consistent: The proposed project
sets forth development standards
and design guidelines that include
measures to promote land use
compatibility between different
land uses.

Policy EJ 4.2 Air Pollution. Require new housing
proposals in areas subject to
unhealthful air quality to
incorporate setbacks, barriers,
landscaping, ventilation systems, or
other measures to ensure that air
pollution does not affect the
residents.

Consistent: MM Air-3a shall require
minimum distances (i.e., setbacks)
between potentially incompatible
land uses. Refer to Section 3.3 Air
Quality for further discussion.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-213 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 Element
Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
Housing Goal HE 1 Encourage and, where possible,
assist in the development of quality
housing to meet the City’s share of
the region’s housing needs for all
income levels and for special needs
populations.

Consistent: As explained above,
Goals are general statements of the
City’s values and are not applicable
on a project level. However, the
proposed project would further this
Goal. Five categories of residential
development intensity are
proposed which provide a range of
housing options at multiple income
points.

Goal HE 2 Conserve and improve the housing
stock, particularly housing
affordable to lower income and
special housing needs households.

Consistent: As explained above,
Goals are general statements of the
City’s values and are not applicable
on a project level. However, the
proposed project would further this
Goal. Five categories of residential
development intensity are
proposed which provide a range of
housing options at multiple income
points.

Policy HE 1.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Changes to the General Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance and Map shall
provide and/or maintain sufficient
land at appropriate densities to
meet the City’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation for the 2021-2029
Planning Period.

Consistent: As shown in Table 3.14-
4, the City’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) Allocation
determined that there is a need for
4,497 housing units in order to
meet the City’s housing needs. The
proposed project would provide up
to 1,697 housing units, which would
help to support the housing needs
of the City consistent with City’s
RHNA Allocation.

Policy HE 1.4 Housing Diversity. Encourage the
development of diverse housing
types and housing densities to best
meet the needs of the community.

Consistent: See Table 2-1: Specific
Plan Land Use Summary. The
proposed project provides a range
of home types to appeal to a variety
of family sizes, household incomes,
and lifestyle preferences. Planning
Areas 1 through 9 provide for the
residential neighborhoods,
consisting of attached and detached
single-family/multi-generational
homes with target densities ranging
from 4.1 dwelling units per acre
(du/acre), in PA 7, to 19.4 du/acre,
in PA 9. Additionally, Planning Areas
10 and 11 provide for homes with
minimum 1.0-acre lots, at a target
density of 0.8 du/acre.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-214 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 Element
Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
Policy HE 1.6 Availability of Suitable Sites.

Ensure the availability of suitable
sites for the development of
affordable housing to meet the
needs of all household income
levels, including special needs
populations.

Consistent: Guiding principles of
the proposed project include
providing for a mix of housing
options at all income levels.

Additionally, the proposed project
includes Mixed-Use land use
designations, with residential areas
located near existing transit, service
amenities, areas of employment,
and recreational areas.

Policy HE 1.14 Development Within Density
Range. Encourage development at
the upper limits of the applicable
general plan density range to
increase housing choice in the City.

Consistent: The proposed project
provides for up to 1,697 dwelling
units (du) on 204.4 acres, which
matches the existing Rio Vista
Specific Plan No. 243, yielding an
average density of 1.8 du/acre. The
majority of the residential Planning
Areas target development at the
upper limits of the density range.

See Table 2-1.

Mobility Policy ME 1.1.2 Mobility Corridors. Require that the City’s mobility corridors: (2)
Maintain at least a Level of Service
(LOS) D or better at all
intersections, except where
flexibility is warranted based on a
multimodal LOS evaluation, or
where LOS E is deemed appropriate
to accommodate complete
streets/multimodal facilities.

This policy is not applicable to the
Draft EIR. LOS is no longer
applicable in a CEQA context as it is
no longer considered an
environmental impact. In December
2018, Senate Bill (SB) 743 (State
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3) was
implemented. Under SB 743, as of
July 1, 2020, localities are required
to rely on VMT instead of traffic
delay as the primary metric for
evaluating transportation impacts
in CEQA documents.18
Policy ME 2.1.2 Roadway System. Require that the
City’s mobility corridors: (2)
Maintain at least a Level of Service
(LOS) D or better at all
intersections, except where
flexibility is warranted based on a
multimodal LOS evaluation, or
where LOS E is deemed appropriate
to accommodate complete
streets/multimodal facilities.

This policy is not applicable to the
Draft EIR. LOS is no longer
applicable in a CEQA context as it is
no longer considered an
environmental impact.

Policy ME 2.3 Development Project Impacts.

Require development projects to
Consistent: This Draft EIR evaluates
VMT and impacts to transit, bicycle,
18 The existence of automobile delay impacts, or the adequacy of an Level of Service (LOS) analysis, is not a basis under CEQA for challenging an EIR (Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43CA5th 609, 624).

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-215 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 Element
Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
analyze potential off-site traffic
impacts and related environmental
impacts through the CEQA process
and to mitigate adverse impacts to
less than significant levels.
and pedestrian facilities. This Draft
EIR sets forth mitigation as
appropriate. Refer to Section 3.17
Transportation for further
discussion.

Response to GSEJA-16
The comment states that Appendix J includes Table 36: Specific Plan Project Impact Summary identifying all of the intersections that will operate at deficient levels per the applicable thresholds.

Additionally, Table 37: Specific Plan Fair Share identifies the percentage of trips at the deficient intersections attributed to the proposed project.

This comment is informative in nature and does not bring up any deficiencies in the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Response to GSEJA-17
The comment states that in lieu fees/fair share payments in outlaying jurisdictions outside of the City of Jurupa Valley’s control cannot prove that mitigation will actually be implemented. Therefore, the mitigation measures are not adequate as there is no evidence that the mitigation measures within the adjacent jurisdictions would be implemented.

SB 743 was passed in 2013, stating that transportation impacts analyzed in CEQA are to utilize Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to determine the level of significance and environmental impacts. SB 743 also stated that Level of Service (LOS) and other similar metrics will no longer constitute a significant environmental effect under CEQA. The recommended improvements in Table 36 and Table 37 specifically relate to maintaining an acceptable LOS at the deficient intersections. As these deficiencies are no longer considered an environmental impact in a CEQA context, these are not considered mitigation measures. The mitigation measures proposed from Section 3.17 Transportation, page 3.17-19 to page 3.17-20 are related to VMT, the appropriate metric for analyzing transportation environmental impacts, and are all within the jurisdictional power and responsibilities of the City. Therefore, no changes to the Draft EIR would be required and recirculation would not be required.

Response to GSEJA-18
The comment states that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated to include LOS as a cumulatively considerable significant impact because the project conflicts with Transportation Impact Threshold A and Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold B and General Plan Policy ME 1.1.2 Mobility Corridors.

SB 743 was passed in 2013, stating that transportation impacts analyzed in CEQA are to utilize VMT to determine the level of significance and environmental impacts. SB 743 also stated that LOS and other similar metrics will no longer constitute a significant environmental effect under CEQA.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-216 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 Therefore, including LOS deficiencies as a cumulatively considerable significant impact would be inappropriate and inconsistent with SB 743 and Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the Draft EIR would not require an update and recirculation would not be required.

Response to GSEJA-19
The comment continues the argument that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated to include LOS as a cumulatively considerable significant impact and states the language from General Plan Policy ME 2.1.2 Roadway System.

See Response to GSEJA-18.

Response to GSEJA-20
The comment continues the argument that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated to include LOS as a cumulatively considerable significant impact and states the language from Policy ME 2.1.2 Roadway System.

See Response to GSEJA-18.

Response to GSEJA-21
Contrary to the commenter’s assertions, the proposed project’s impacts related to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), SCAQMD greenhouse gas (GHG) thresholds, and SB 743 are discussed thoroughly in Section 3.3 Air Quality, Section 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Section 3.17 Transportation. These sections also discuss the mitigation measures in place to reduce these impacts. The proposed mitigation measures would not reduce project impacts to less than significant; therefore, the Draft EIR appropriately identified these impacts as significant and unavoidable.

The CEQA Guidelines do not mandate a specific location in the EIR for the plan inconsistency analysis. See Section 15125(b). Accordingly, it is within the Lead Agency’s discretion to determine an appropriate approach to analysis. As explained in Section 1.3 Organization of the Draft EIR, the Land Use and Planning chapter addresses the potential land use impacts associated with division of an established community and consistency with relevant adopted plans, including the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan and City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. The Draft EIR specifically explains that consistency with AQMP, SCAQMD GHG thresholds, and SB 743 are addressed in their respective sections and readers are referred to those sections (See Section 3.11 Land Use and Planning, page

3.11-5 Approach to Analysis), while Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning focuses on land use plans that are not already addressed elsewhere.

Therefore, the Draft EIR provided meaningful analysis related to the proposed project’s consistency with AQMP, SCAQMD GHG thresholds, and SB 743. No further response is needed.

Response to GSEJA-22
The Connect SoCal Plan outlines several performance measures along with a “plan vs. no plan” analysis to evaluate whether it will reach the stated goals while also accommodating economic and population growth. The “plan vs. no plan” (baseline) analysis determines how well the Connect SoCal Plan will do to connect transportation, land use and sustainable communities to meet overall City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-217 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 goals of the plan (such as reducing GHG’s and improving air quality) and compares how the region would perform with or without implementation of the Connect SoCal Plan. The analysis shows that implementation of the Connect SoCal Plan would reduce VMT per capita, reduce travel delays per capita, and would improve public health as opposed to business-as-usual development of the region.

According to the baseline analysis, the efficiencies of the Connect SoCal Plan– including reductions in VMT and travel delays– would result in reductions of reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5) emissions, as well as meeting GHG reduction goals for 2020 and 2035.19 These reductions would occur with land development and economic/population growth by implementing development that is more efficient, walkable, and transit oriented in nature.

As noted in the Draft EIR, the proposed project demonstrates consistency with the Connect SoCal Plan to accommodate growth in a sustainable manner and promote reductions in per capita VMT and GHG emissions and general improvements in air quality over business-as-usual by: (1) locating jobs next to housing; (2) locating schools and recreational opportunities next to housing; (3) completing the missing link in 20th Street, allowing for shorter and more direct trips; and (4) developing new buildings that adhere to the latest adopted energy efficiency standards. See Draft EIR, Section 3.11 Land Use and Planning, pages 3.11-7–3.11-12, and Table 3.11-3. As described in Table 3.11-2, the proposed project is consistent with the Connect SoCal Goals. Specifically, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 5 because it would promote reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and improvements in air quality. The proposed project would be consistent with Goal 6 because it would include a mix of use and densities (e.g., residential, light industrial, business park, school, recreation, etc.) that provide housing, employment, education, and recreational opportunities while supporting sustainable communities. The proposed project would address Goal 7 by preserving the most rugged areas as open space, not placing new development in flood plains, and developing new buildings that adhere to the latest adopted energy efficiency standards. The Connect SoCal Plan does not assume zero-emission development in its analysis and does not hold development projects to that standard to demonstrate consistency.

Furthermore, demonstrating consistency with every goal of the Connect SoCal Plan is not a requirement of CEQA, and there is no justification validating the commenter’s statement that the significance findings of the EIR must be revised. No further response is needed.

Response to GSEJA-23
The commenter suggests that the cumulative analysis is in error because future projects could include general plan amendments. However, the detail required for a cumulative impact analysis is based on reasonableness and practicality. CEQA does not require the EIR to speculate about whether a General Plan Amendment would be proposed in the future as part of a cumulative project that has not yet been proposed. To the extent any amendments are incorporated as part of any past, present or reasonably foreseeable cumulative project, those amendments are reflected in the cumulative projects and the lead agency would be required to demonstrate the project’s overall consistency 19 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy. Page 188-189. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final-complete040424.pdf?1712261565. Accessed April 18, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-218 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 with planning documents. However, future projects that may include an unknown amendment are too speculative to address.

CEQA also affords discretion to a lead agency to determine consistency with its own planning documents. Under the Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code §§ 65000–66499.58), strict conformity with all aspects of a general plan is not required. A lead agency may determine that a proposed project is consistent with the local general plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. Land use plans reflect a range of competing interests and include provisions for approving amendments when necessary. A project should be compatible with the plan's overall goals and objectives but need not be in perfect conformity with every plan policy.

Accordingly, a lead agency is within its discretion to determine that a General Plan Amendment included as part of a project would not result in a conflict with the general plan.

Response to GSEJA-24
The commenter alleges that the proposed project results in a significant and unavoidable impact to land use and planning because the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change that establish consistency with both the General Plan and the Municipal Code. However, the comment fails to explain how the proposed project is inconsistent with any plan, policy, or regulation “adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect” as required by threshold LU-2 for a finding of significance. Instead, the proposed project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, would futher project objectives to “Protect valuable scenic resources within large expanses of open space, thereby preserving Rio Vista’s character and identity and the surrounding region.” As discussed in Section 3.11 Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, and as shown in Table 3.11-4, approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment would actually reduce the area within the project site that is designated for residential uses from 512.8 acres to 204.4 acres while increasing public uses area (open space and public facilities) from 399.7 acres to 572.6 acres.

Accordingly, the Draft EIR appropriately determined that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to land use plans, policies and regulations. Environmental impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation are fully evaluated as seperate topics and are discussed in Section 3.3 Air Quality, Section 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Section 3.17 Transportation of the Draft EIR, respectively.

The comment suggests that because the Draft EIR considers implementation of policies and actions to amend the General Plan as part of the project considered in the environmental analyses, significant impacts are not adequately disclosed. Considering a General Plan Amendment as part of a project is no different that considering any other design features of a project such as incorporation of open space or specific amenities. Essentially, these comments appear to suggest that the Draft EIR should have analyzed the proposed allowed development seperately from the policy framework.

This approach would ignore essential elements of the proposed project associated with implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment and zoning updates and would have ignored the environmental reduction achieved by proposed policies. This runs contrary to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15004(b), and the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) General Plan Guidelines regarding integration of CEQA into the planning processes and, specifically, development of general plan policies.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-219 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 GSEJA-25
In contrast to the comment’s statement that project-level and cumulative impacts related to Historic Resources, Archaeological Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources, these are fully addressed in the Draft EIR.

Historic Resources and Archaeological Resources are discussed in Section 3.5 Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR. Specifically, project-level impacts are discussed in Section 3.5.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, page 3.5-26–35; cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 3.5.6 Cumulative Impacts, page 3.5-35 and 3.5-36.

Tribal Cultural Resources are discussed in Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR.

Specifically, project-level impacts are discussed in Section 3.18.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, page 3.18-15–21; cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 3.18.6 Cumulative Impacts, page 3.18-21–23.

Response to GSEJA-26
The commenter does not identify an specific information that would require significant revisions of the Draft EIR. See Master Response 6, Recirculation is not required.

Response to GSEJA-27
As indicated in Section 4.2 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Draft EIR, the California Employment Development Department (EDD) estimated that the combined labor force for the City of Jurupa Valley and the adjacent City of Riverside totaled 212,500 as of August 2022. This indicates that the local labor force is sufficiently large for construction and to fill the proposed project’s new employment opportunities of 2,700 (see Section 3-14 Population and Housing) without needing to attract workers from outside the region.

Furthermore, the proposed project’s light industrial and business park uses would buildout over a period of years, if not decades. Thus, there would not be a sudden need for workers for construction or to fill the new employment opportunities. The current unemployment rate as of February 2024 in the Riverside County is 5.6 percent, or approximatley 65,000 individuals being unemployed.20 Based on the above unemployment data, the proposed project’s demand for short-term construction employees throughout the buildout of the Specific Plan would be filled by the local labor pool and no further analysis is required. The General Plan Housing Element (incorporated by reference into the Draft EIR, Section 1.4) contains detailed information regarding jobs by industry and by occupation in the City (e.g., City of Jurupa Valley Housing Element, Table 5.8).

The environmental effects (i.e., air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with VMT for worker trips) associated with employees have been accounted for throughout the Draft EIR—for example within the proposed project’s air quality and greenhouse gas emission analyses. In this case, because the exact locations of where workers trips would originate are too speculative to identify precicely, the analyses assumed a default worker trip as detailed in Appendix J, Transportation Supporting Information. The proposed project does not involve any specialized construction methods that 20 California Employment Development Department (EDD). 2024. Riverside County Profile. Website:
https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSResults.asp?selectedarea=Riverside+County&selectedinde x=33&menuChoice=localAreaPro&state=true&geogArea=0604000065&countyName=. Accessed April 18, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-220 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 would require specialized construction workers to be sourced outside of the region, nor are specialized employment opportunities anticipated at buildout.

Additionally, the number of jobs identified in the Draft EIR is an estimate as the exact future endusers are unknown and cannot be known at this time. Thus the number of jobs that the proposed project would generate cannot be precisely determined. Based off these employment generation estimates, the Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project could generate approximately 3,786employees, which is line with growth projections in the City’s General Plan and SCAG 2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategey (RTP/SCS). Draft EIR, Section

3.3 Air Quality, page 3.3-39. These growth projections were based on existing and planned land use patterns, which assumed that the project site would be developed, in part, for industrial and employment generating uses. Moreover, the City has long been identified as an area having a low jobs-to-housing ratio (i.e., an area that has more potential workers living in a community than there are jobs for them), resulting in high numbers of residents commuting out of the region for work.

Although these conditions can be attributed to a number of factors, the most notable variable in the jobs-to-housing ratio is the lack of job growth in the region. AllTransit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. As detailed in the Housing Element of the General Plan, Jurupa Valley has an AllTransit Performance Score of 3.6 (out of 10), indicating a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit. According to AllTransit, 44,758 jobs are accessible within a 30- minute transit commute on average for households and 33,103 workers accessible within a 30- minute transit commute of an employer in Jurupa Valley. In comparison, Riverside County has an AllTransit Performance Score of 3.3, indicating an even lower combination of trips per week and number of employment opportunities accessible to transit. General Plan Goal AQ-4 states that the City seeks to employ measures to improve the jobs/housing balance and reduce commuting time. A low jobs-to-housing ratio can result in adverse environmental and economic effects on local communities. For example, long-distance commutes result in increased traffic and air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. By developing an employment generating use, the proposed project would further Goal AQ-4, provide job opportunities for those living in the area that may currently commute out of the area for work, and/or help to reduce the commute time of Jurupa Valley residents by providing new opportunities closer to home.

Moreover, the applicable threshold of significance with regard to population and housing raises the question whether a project would result in substantial unplanned population growth such that new housing would be required and the construction of such housing would result in environmental effects. Given the size of the available workforce and the current unemployment numbers in the City and the region, there is no evidence that the proposed project would necessitate the construction of more housing units than anticipated as a result of employment opportunities associated with the project. Furthermore, as of 2021, the housing vacancy rate in the City was 4.7 percent, or approximately 1,337 vacant housing units.21 As such, the Draft EIR adequately and accurately 21 Southern Association of Governments (SCAG). 2021. Pre-certified Local Housing Data for the City of Jurupa Valley. April. Website:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/jurupa-valley-he-0421.pdf?1620795795. Accessed April 19, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-221 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 describes potential environmental effects associated with construction workers and construction of the project as well as operation.

Response to GSEJA-28
See Response to GSEJA-27. As explained above, the City finds that there are sufficient workers in the local labor pool to meet the proposed project’s demands, as such the proposed project would not be growth inducing. Accordingly, there is no requirement to discuss the housing vacancy rate in the City.

Response to GSEJA-29
The comment does not raise a concern related to a potential adverse physical impact to the environment. See Response to GSEJA-1.

Response to GSEJA-30
The Draft EIR did not identify unplanned employment growth, even if it is large and represents a high percentage of the City’s total employment growth. See further discussion in Response to GSEJA-31 below.

Response to GSEJA-31
This comment expresses a concern regarding the Draft EIR’s cumulative impact analysis. Riverside County adopted the existing Rio Vista Specific Plan in 1992, which was incorporated into the 2017 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan after incorporation of the planning area into the City boundaries.

The land use assumptions and associated population and employment forecasts that were included in the 1992 Rio Vista Specific Plan were included in the General Plan. Draft EIR, 3.3-39. Therefore, these projects constructed since 2017, as well as the projects identified in Table 3-1, are considered in the cumulative analysis. The Draft EIR addressed findings of significance with regard to the proposed land use changes in the Land Use and Planning chapter of the Draft EIR and within Chapter 4 Other CEQA Considerations. Cumulative impacts were discussed for each resource topic and a comprehensive list of cumulative projects was compiled. While the proposed project would generate a substantial number of jobs, an increase in employment does not necessarily result in environmental impacts. The County’s jobs-to-housing ratio demonstrates there are insufficient jobs for the number of residents residing in the local area.22 See Riverside County General Plan– Environmental Impact Report–Volume 1, Table 5.B–Jobs-to-Housing Ratios. Implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to help improve the jobs-to-housing ratio, thereby reducing the need for County residents to travel outside of the region for employment. Thus, it is not anticipated that the jobs that would be created by the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in unplanned growth within the City or County. Furthermore, under existing conditions the project site is planned for development with urban level uses. The Draft EIR made the appropriate findings regarding the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impact determinations and feasible mitigation measures were applied where available. While the Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed project would generate a substantial number of jobs, this comment does not identify any deficiencies in the analysis that was presented in the Draft EIR that would result in potentially 22 See, e.g., County of Riverside Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2019-2024 Five Year Plan 2023 Annual Update ”This region is experiencing rapid population growth, and the development of quality jobs is needed to increase the jobs-to-housing balance.” Website: https://rivcoed.org/sites/g/files/aldnop126/files/2023- 04/2023%20COUNTY%20OF%20RIVERSIDE%20COMPREHENSIVE%20ECONOMIC%20DEVELOPMENT%20STRATEGY.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-222 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 significant environmental impacts. Moreover, on March 12, 2024, the commenter withdrew its comment letter stating that, “The Project's developer has addressed GSEJA's concerns about environmental mitigation.” Finally, there is no requirement under CEQA to geographically locate potential future employees or residents for any proposed development projects. As this comment does not identify any specific deficiencies with the analysis presented in the Draft EIR that would result in potential environmental impacts, no revisions have been incorporated as part of this Draft EIR pursuant to this comment.

Response to GSEJA-32
The comment states that Appendix J includes Table 36: Specific Plan Project Impact Summary, identifying all of the intersections that will operate at deficient levels per the applicable thresholds.

Additionally, Table 37: Specific Plan Fair Share identifies the percentage of trips at the deficient intersections attributed to the proposed project.

This comment is informative in nature and does not bring up any deficiencies in the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Response to GSEJA-33
The comment states that in lieu fees/fair share payments in outlaying jurisdictions outside of the City’s control cannot prove that mitigation will actually be implemented. Therefore, the mitigation measures are not adequate as there is no evidence that the mitigation measures within the adjacent jurisdictions would be implemented.

SB 743 was passed in 2013, stating that transportation impacts analyzed in CEQA are to utilize VMT to determine the level of significance and environmental impacts. SB 743 also stated that LOS and other similar metrics will no longer constitute a significant environmental effect under CEQA. The recommended improvements in Table 36 and Table 37 specifically relate to maintaining an acceptable LOS at the deficient intersections. As these deficiencies are no longer considered an environmental impact in a CEQA context, these are not considered mitigation measures. The mitigation measures proposed from page 3.17-19 to page 3.17-20 are related to VMT, the appropriate metric for analyzing transportation environmental impacts, and are all within the jurisdictional power and responsibilities of the City. Therefore, no changes to the EIR would be required and recirculation would not be required.

Response to GSEJA-34
The comment states that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated to include LOS as a cumulatively considerable significant impact because the proposed project conflicts with Transportation Impact Threshold A and Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold B and with General Plan Policy ME 1.1.2 Moblilty Corridors, Policy ME 2.1.2 Roadway System, and Policy ME 2.3 Development Project Impact.

See Response to GSEJA-18.

Response to GSEJA-35
Th comment states that the Draft EIR underestimated trips due to the fact that the Traffic Study analyzed 559,310 square feet of business park uses and that the project description states the City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-223 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 project proposes 1,428,768 square feet of business park uses, not leading to meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents.

The business park use is proposed for PA 14, PA 15, and PA 16, with the Trade School (inclusive of the business park use) potentially proposed for PA 14 and PA 16 (Draft EIR, Section 2.0 Project Description), leaving just PA 15 for the rest of the business park land use. Utilizing the 0.4 floor area ratio (FAR) allowed for business park use for PA 15 (39 percent of the acreage of Planning Areas 14- 16), the proposed Business Park land use would total 559,310 square feet (Appendix J1, page 1), with the rest of the area utilized by the Trade School.

Response to GSEJA-36
The comment states that the Draft EIR has underreported the quantity of VMT generated by the proposed project operations. The comment provides speculative narrative absent supporting analysis contending that “[t]he project’s actual VMT generated is more significantly inconsistent with the significance threshold VMT.”
The statements in this comment are incorrect. To comply with CEQA, the City has adopted and implemented Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines–Methodologies and Requirements for General Plan Compliance Analysis and CEQA VMT Analysis (November 2020) (1) (City Guidelines).23 Note that these Guidelines take truck/trailer and delivery van trips into consideration. The City Guidelines comply with and support the intent and purpose of SB 743. Under California Code of Regulations Section 15064.3. (b)(4): “A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s VMT and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence.” Trip generation estimates and VMT analyses presented in the Draft EIR have been completed consistent with the City’s VMT methodologies and protocols.

Substantial evidence supporting the proposed project’s potential VMT impacts is presented in the Draft EIR Section 3.17 Transportation and Appendix J Transportation Supporting Information, J.2– Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis. In contrast, the comment’s unsupported narrative does not comprise substantial evidence. See CEQA Guidelines 15384 (a) SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative . . . does not constitute substantial evidence.” It is noted further that, as provided at CEQA Guidelines Section 15204, “CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors [such as the analysis requested by the commentor]. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” Here, the City, in its capacity as the Lead Agency, has made such an effort at full disclosure of the proposed project’s traffic/transportation impacts. The analysis is supported by the City’s professional experience with similar developments and is substantiated by quantified analysis provided by the proposed project traffic engineering experts. 23 Rio Vista Specific Plan Amendment Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Urban Crossroads). May 31, 2023. EIR Appendix J. 2.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-224 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 Based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIR and the discussions presented in this response, the proposed project complies with CEQA and SB 743 VMT analysis mandates and guidelines. The proposed project would not result in VMT impacts substantially different from or greater than those considered and addressed in the Draft EIR. Findings and conclusions of the Draft EIR are not affected.

No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response to GSEJA-37
In contrast to the comment’s statement that the Draft EIR has not adequately analyzed the proposed project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses or the proposed project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access, the Draft EIR addresses these items in Section 3.17 Transportation, Threshold TRANS-3. Specifically, the Draft EIR states that precise design and alignment of the proposed project’s roadways would be determined with implementation of Tentative Tract Maps and would be reviewed for consistency with applicable Improvement Standard Drawings for Road Standards (maintained by the Public Works Department) at that time. As a part of future individual project approval within the project site, the City Traffic Engineering Division would conduct a review, ensuring that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced. Future project compliance with the proposed Rio Vista Specific Plan would ensure hazards would not occur due to incompatable uses. Furthermore, in contrast to the comment’s statement that there are also no exhibits depicting EVA, Exhibit 2-7 Conceptual Land Use Plan identifies the three proposed EVA points.

Response to GSEJA-38
In contrast to the comment’s statement that the Draft EIR has not provided any analysis of the available horizontal and vertical sight distance at the intersections of the project driveways and adjacent streets, the Draft EIR states in Section 3.17 Transportation, Thresohld TRANS-3, that the precise design and alignment of the proposed project’s roadways would be determined with implementation of Tentative Tract Maps and would be reviewed for consistency with applicable Improvement Standard Drawings for Road Standards (maintained by the Public Works Department) at that time and that the the City Traffic Engineering Division would conduct a review, ensuring that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced.

Response to GSEJA-39
This has been addressed in Response to GSEJA-10.

Response to GSEJA-40
The Draft EIR includes ample evidence supporting the statement that the proposed project would use energy efficiently and would not result in wasteful use of energy. Section 3.6 Energy of the Draft EIR outlines the measures and policies applicable to the proposed project to reduce energy consumption, including required compliance with the City’s energy efficiency standards based on California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Energy conservation measures as part of the City’s energy efficiency standards include required solar systems on low-rise residential buildings, as well as a broad set of efficiency requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. The Draft EIR also outlines the numerous emission reduction measures included in the City’s General Plan–which development projects are required to comply City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-225 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 with–as well as the Western Regional Council of Governments Subregional Climate Action Plan, which apply to the proposed project and reinforce the State standards, including measures to promote increased densities, mixed use, electric vehicle usage, and improved circulation to reduce VMT and energy consumption. Finally, the Draft EIR states that: “Additionally, plans submitted for building permits of development projects in the project area would be required to include verification demonstrating compliance with the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time building permits are issued. The proposed project would also be required to adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (beyond the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. Furthermore, compliance with recommended mitigation for potential air quality and GHG impacts included as part of this EIR would reduce energy usage from the proposed project by requiring energy efficiency measures that go beyond the Title 24 and CALGreen standards, including the use of energy efficient building design and materials and EV infrastructure. Even though the proposed project would increase the consumption of electricity and natural gas resources, the proposed project would not increase demand such that Southern California Edison (SCE) or Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) would need to plan for new regional electricity or natural gas facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects” (Draft EIR, Section 3.6 Energy, page 3.6-12).

Therefore, the Draft EIR properly concluded the proposed project’s impact related to efficient energy use would be less than significant. No further response is needed.

Response to GSEJA-41
This comment raises general allegations of insufficiencey. See Response to GCEJA-1. The proposed project throughly discusses all potential environmental impacts. Please refer to Responses to GSEJA24 and GSEJA-25.

Response to GSEJA-42
This comment serves as an introduction to Comment GSEJA-43. Cumulative impacts are addressed throughout the Draft EIR. See, e.g., 3.3-39, 3.3-44 through 3.3-51, 3.3-62, and 3.3-67. Consistency with the AQMP is thoroughly analyzed in the Draft EIR. Please refer to Response to GSEJA-21 and Response to GSEJA-43. Potential air quality impacts associated with full buildout of the proposed project are evaluated and disclosed in the Draft EIR Section 3.8. The Draft EIR discloses that because other projects within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) also have the potential to conflict with the AQMP, the proposed project’s impacts due to a conflict with the AQMP would be cumulatively considerable. As noted in the Draft EIR, compliance with MM AIR-1a and MM AIR-1d would assist in reducing emissions from construction equipment associated with the buildout of the proposed project. Implementation of MM AIR-1e through MM AIR-1i, as well as MM GHG-1a, MM GHG-1b, and MM GHG-1c, will help to reduce cumulative GHG impacts from future project operations to the extent feasible. No further response is needed.

Response to GSEJA-43
Riverside County adopted the existing Rio Vista Specific Plan in 1992, which was incorporated into the 2017 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan, after incorporation of the planning area into the City boundaries. The land use assumptions and associated population and employment forecasts that City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-226 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 were included in the 1992 Rio Vista Specific Plan were included in the General Plan (Draft EIR, Section 3.3 Air Quality, page 3.3-39). Therefore, these projects constructed since 2017, as well as the projects identified in Table 3-1 (Draft EIR, Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, pages 3-7–3-10) are considered in the cumulative analysis. Given unemployment in the County, a more robust employment growth does not result in significant impact. Increasing job opportunities would reduce VMT as people would be able to work close to their homes and not commute outside the City.

Furthermore, increasing job opportunities within the City would allign with General Plan Policy AQ-4, which aims to improve the jobs/housing balance and recue commuting time. This would be an overall project benefit to the City.

Response to GSEJA-44
Riverside County adopted the existing Rio Vista Specific Plan in 1992, which was incorporated into the 2017 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan after incorporation of the planning area into the City boundaries. The land use assumptions and associated population and employment forecasts that were included in the 1992 Rio Vista Specific Plan were included in the General Plan. Draft EIR, Section 3.3 Air Quality, page 3.3-39. Accordingly, anticipated growth associated with the Rio Vista Specific Plan was considered in the General Plan. One of the project objectives, as identified by the City, is to provide employment opportunites. The proposed project is in alignment with General Plan Policy AQ-4, which aims to improve the jobs/housing balance and reduce commuting time. As stated in Response to GSEJA-43, a more robust employment growth does not result in significant impact.

See Response to GSEJA-35 for discussion of alleged discrepancies in square footage.

Response to GSEJA-45
The comment claims that the Draft EIR fails to discuss an adequate number of alternatives. No set number of alternatives is necessary to constitute a legally adequate range of alternatives in an EIR.

California courts have consistently held that the lead agency has the discretion to determine how many alternatives will constitute a reasonable range. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 C3d 553, 566; Save Our Access–San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conserv. Auth. (2021) 68 CA5th 8, 32; San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City & County of San Francisco (2018) 26 CA5th 596, 636; Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Ctr. v. County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 CA4th 184, 199.

The commenter does not propose any specific alternatives for consideration. Instead a general suggestion is made to consider “development of the site with a project that eliminates all of the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant levels, and a project with a thoughtfully designed mix of uses that provides affordable housing and local-serving commercial uses that results in less than significant VMT, GHG, and Air Quality impacts.” However, to reduce all impacts to less than significant levels, the area of project ground disturbance would have to be reduced to such a small scale that none of the project objectives could be achieved. For example, with MM AIR-1a through 1d, the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD’s project-level ROG and GHG project-level significance thresholds by 3 times and 30 times, respectively. To avoid these impacts, the proposed project would need to drastically scale down by 30 times to avoid GHG impacts and 5 times to avoid air quality impacts.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-227 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 small scale project that avoids all VMT, GHG and Air Quality impacts would not provide economic growth and employment opportunities 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. Moreover, such a small project would not be financially feasible for a developer or be compatible with the General Plan’s vision for City development and growth.

Response to GSEJA-46
This comment provides concluding remarks and requests that the City add the commenter to the City’s public interest list. The comment is noted and the City has added the commenter to its list of parties to be notified regarding the proposed project. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.

Response to GSEJA-47
The comment serves as an introduction to the attached Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) letter, purports to summarize the proposed project, and summarizes the conclusion of the letter. The comment does not raise any specific issues concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Please refer to Response to GSEJA-1 regarding the level of response required for general comments.

Response to GSEJA-48
The comment notes that the proposed project’s operational air quality emissions would be significant and unavoidable according to the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR incorporated all feasible mitigation measures in combination with existing General Plan policies and programs that also apply to the project; however, air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. No further response is required.

Response to GSEJA-49
The comment claims that the Draft EIR’s conclusion that operational air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable is unsubstantiated because the Draft EIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce significant and unavoidable impacts. However, the commenter does not propose or identify any feasible mitigation measures that are not already included in the Draft EIR as mitigation or as relevant General Plan policies that also apply to the proposed project. The commenter did not provide justification for the claim that the Draft EIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures. See Response to GSEJA-53 for further discussion.

Response to GSEJA-50
Commenter notes that the proposed project’s operational GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable according to the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR incorporated all feasible mitigation measures in combination with existing General Plan policies and programs that also apply to the project; greenhouse gas impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. No further response is required.

Response to GSEJA-51
Commenter claims that the Draft EIR’s conclusion that operational GHG impacts are significant and unavoidable is unsubstantiated because the Draft EIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce significant and unavoidable impacts. However, the commenter does not propose or identify any feasible mitigation measures that are not already included in the Draft EIR as mitigation or as City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-228 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 relevant General Plan policies that also apply to the proposed project. The commenter did not provide justification for the claim that the Draft EIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures. See Response to GSEJA-53 for further discussion.

Response to GSEJA-52
Commenter claims that the proposed project would result in potentially significant air quality and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. The commenter provided a list of mitigation measures. However, the commenter did not identify or propose any mitigation measures that are not already encompassed in the Draft EIR as feasible mitigation measures or as General Plan policies that also apply to the proposed project and are therefore included in the emissions analysis. The commenter did not provide justification for the claim that the air quality and GHG impacts can or should be mitigated further.

Also, the City notes that CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable feasible mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (PRC § 21002). In reviewing CEQA cases, courts have explained that a lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 CA3d 1502, 1519). “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR” (ibid.). Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 CA4th 342, 365). As discussed, the mitigation measures suggested by commenter are already included in the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR.

No further response is needed.

Response to GSEJA-53
Table 3-2, below, details the suggested mitigation measures and reasons why commenter-suggested mitigation could not be feasibly implemented and/or would not substantially lessen any identified significant impact, as applicable.

Table 3-2: Response to GSEJA-53
No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures–PMM-AQ-1
a) Minimize land disturbance. The proposed project would preserve 510.8 acres of open space which would not be disturbed. The
proposed project is required to comply with the
provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management
District Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust.” Rule 403 requires
implementing best available dust control measures
during construction activities that generate fugitive
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-229 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation dust, such as earthmoving and stockpiling activities,
grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads.

Several specific control measures in Rule 403 directly
relate to minimizing land disturbance, such as: 01-1;
01-02; and 04-01. Therefore, this suggested
mitigation measure is not considerably different from
existing regulation and mitigation measures already
evaluated in the Draft EIR.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt. The proposed project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management
District 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.

Control measure 09-01 directly relates to covering
trucks when hauling materials. Therefore, this
suggested mitigation measure is not considerably
different from existing regulation and mitigation
measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not
removed immediately.

The proposed project is required to comply with the
provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management
District 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.

Several specific control measures in Rule 403 directly
relate to stabilizing surfaces, such as: 02-01; 02-02;
02-03; and 14-1. Therefore, this suggested mitigation
measure is not considerably different from existing
regulation and mitigation measures already evaluated
in the Draft EIR.
e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces
and stabilize any temporary roads.

The proposed project is required to comply with the
provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management
District 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.

Control measure 19-2 in Rule 403 directly relates to
limiting vehicular travel to established unpaved
surfaces and 19-1 requires soil stabilization.

Therefore, this suggested mitigation measure is not
considerably different from existing regulation and
mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft
EIR.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-230 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and
machinery activities.

This measure is not specific enough to include as a
mitigation measure in the Draft EIR and as such
would not be feasible. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that in the ordinary course of construction,
vehicular and machinery activities would be as
efficient as possible for financial reasons. The
suggested mitigation would not clearly lessen any
significant environmental impacts.
g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day
where there is evidence of dirt that has been
carried on to the Roadway.

The proposed project is required to comply with the
provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management
District 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.

Control measure 03-2 in Rule 403 requires the use of
sweeping and water spray to clear forms (of fugitive
dust). The proposed project is also required to comply
with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 1186 “PM10 Emissions from
Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations.”
Therefore, this suggested mitigation measure is not
considerably different from existing regulation and
mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft
EIR.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including
vehicular paths created during construction
to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.

The proposed project is required to comply with the
provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management
District 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.

Control measure 10-1 in Rule 403 directly relates to
landscaping as a means of stabilizing soils, materials
and slopes. Therefore, this suggested mitigation
measure is not considerably different from existing
regulation and mitigation measures already
evaluated in the Draft EIR.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is
properly tuned and maintained
Construction equipment is subject to emission
standards established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
California Air Resources Board (ARB).24 Further, as
part of MM AIR-1d, the project applicant shall submit
documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley that
demonstrates that all off-road construction
equipment in excess of 50 horsepower is equipped
24 California Air Resources Board. Fact Sheet: Added Vehicle Restrictions and Tier Phase-Out Requirements. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-added-vehicle-restrictions-and-tier-phase-out-requirements. Accessed April 18, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-231 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation with engines meeting the EPA Tier IV Final off-road
engine emission standards or cleaner. This measure is
not specific enough to include as a mitigation
measure in the Draft EIR, and as such would not be
feasible. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that in the ordinary course of construction, construction
equipment would be keep in proper conditions to
ensure they run as efficiently as possible for financial reasons. The suggested mitigation would not clearly
lessen any significant environmental impacts.
m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at
all times. Use watering trucks to minimize
dust; watering should be sufficient to
confine dust plumes to the project work
areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per
day where there is evidence of dirt that has
been carried on to the roadway
The proposed project is required to comply with the
provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management
District 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.

Several specific control measures in Rule 403 directly
relate to watering surfaces to minimize dust, such as:
01-01, 01-02, 01-03, 05-01, 05-02, 12-1, 12-2, and 12-

3. Therefore, this suggested mitigation measure is not
considerably different from existing regulation and
mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft
EIR.
n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power
poles) or clean fuel generators rather than
temporary power generators
The proposed project involves land use designation
changes and does not propose or approve any
individual development. Although the general
location and type of development within the plan
area can be anticipated, until the City receives a
development application, the exact location, type of
development, and potential impacts are too
speculative to be determined. Therefore, it is
speculative to assume that existing power sources
would be available adjacent to all construction-site or that it would be a feasible mitigation measure to be
applied to all future implementing projects.
p) As appropriate require that portable engines
and portable engine-driven equipment units
used at the project work site, with the
exception of on-road and off-road motor
vehicles, obtain ARB Portable Equipment
Registration with the State or a local district
permit. Arrange appropriate consultations
with the ARB or the District to determine
registration and permitting requirements
prior to equipment operation at the site
This measure is not specific enough to include as a
mitigation measure in the Draft EIR, and as such
would not be feasible. Also, the commenter did not
explain how this is a feasible mitigation measure that
would clearly lessen any significant environmental
impacts.
r) Projects located within the South Coast Air
Basin should consider applying for South
Coast AQMD “SOON” funds which provides
All implementing projects would comply with the
State’s requirements regarding electrification of
Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) fleets. The ARB regulates
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-232 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of
commercially available low-emission heavyduty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel
vehicles.
emissions from HHD vehicles at the State level to
meet the State’s emission goals. Trucks used for
operations would be required to meet EPA and ARB
regulatory requirements that will put more
alternatively fueled and clean trucks onto the road.

The trucks which meet the new ARB Heavy-Duty Low
NOX Omnibus Regulation, and new federal HeavyDuty Engine and Vehicle Standards will have significantly decreased particulate emissions from
today’s diesel trucks. Likewise, all on-site service
equipment will meet applicable Statewide
regulations. The suggested mitigation would not
clearly lessen any significant environmental impacts.
s) Projects located within AB 617 communities
should review the applicable Community
Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for
additional mitigation that can be applied to
individual projects.

The proposed project is not located within an
Assembly Bill (AB) 617 community and this measure
is therefore not applicable.
t) Where applicable, projects should provide
information about air quality related
programs to schools, including the
Environmental Justice Community
Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger
Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality
Matters programs,
The commenter did not justify or explain how this
measure is applicable to the proposed project or how
this measure would substantially lessen
environmental impacts. No further response is
required.
u) Projects should work with local cities and
counties to install adequate signage that
prohibits truck idling in certain locations
(e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors).

MM AIR-1f requires that industrial projects in the
planning area shall place signs that identify the ARB
anti-idling regulations prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for each industrial building.

At a minimum, each sign shall include: (1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use;
(2) instructions for trucks drivers to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped,
the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged; and (3) telephone numbers
of the building facilities manager and ARB to report
violations. Project applicants shall submit plans (1)
identifying the location of the signs, (2) required
details of the signs that meets this mitigation
measure, and (3) dimensions of the sign prior to the
issuance of any building permit for each industrial
building.

The project is also required to comply with California
Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1,
Article 4.5, Section 2025, “Regulation to Reduce
Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of
Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants from In-Use
Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles” and California
Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 10,
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-233 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation Article 1, Section 2485, “Airborne Toxic Control
Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor
Vehicle Idling.”
Therefore, this suggested mitigation measure is not
considerably different from existing regulation and
mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft
EIR.
y) Projects that will introduce sensitive
receptors within 500 feet of freeways and
other sources should consider installing high
efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such
as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
(MERV) 13 or better. Installation of
enhanced filtration units can be verified
during occupancy inspection prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit.

New construction is subject to the latest CBC which
require heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) with MERV-13 filters or more efficient.

Therefore, all residential projects implemented under
the proposed Specific Plan would include MERV-13
filters.

This suggested mitigation measure is not
considerably different from existing regulation.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection,
and maintenance program for the MERV
filters.

The proposed project involves land use changes and
does not propose or approve any individual
development. It is unknown whether the future
residential units would be rental or for-sale units. For for-sale units, neither the lead agency nor the future
project applicants have the control to require
ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance
program for MERV filter that could require entering
the occupants’ private properties. This suggested
mitigation measure is too speculative to include as a
feasible mitigation measure.
aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice
Toolbox for potential measures to address
impacts to low-income and/or minority
communities.

The commenter did not justify or explain how this
measure is applicable to the proposed project or how
this measure would substantially lessen
environmental impacts. No further response is
required.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel
emissions shall be implemented on by
individual project sponsors as appropriate
and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on-site for more
than 10 total days shall have either (1)
engines that meet EPA on road emissions
standards or (2) emission control
technology verified by EPA or ARB to
reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85
percent.
- Diesel generators on-site for more than
10 total days shall be equipped with
emission control technology verified by
EPA or ARB to reduce PM emissions by a
minimum of 85 percent.

The suggested measure is not materially different
from an identified mitigation measure in the Draft
EIR, nor would it clearly lessen the significant
environmental impact.

MM AIR-1d requires, as part of a standard grading
permit submittal, that the project applicant submit
documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley that
demonstrates that all off-road construction
equipment in excess of 50 horsepower is equipped
with engines meeting the EPA Tier IV Final off-road
engine emission standards or cleaner. The
construction contractor shall maintain records
concerning its efforts to comply with this requirement
during construction, including equipment lists. If
engines that comply with Tier IV Final off-road
emission standards are not commercially available,
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-234 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation - Nonroad diesel engines on-site shall be
Tier 2 or higher.
- Emission control technology shall be
operated, maintained, and serviced as
recommended by the emission control
technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment,
and generators on-site shall be fueled
with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or
a biodiesel blend approved by the original
engine manufacturer with sulfur content
of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain
a list of all diesel vehicles, construction
equipment, and generators to be used onsite. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name
and address, plus contact person
responsible for the vehicles or
equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment
manufacturer, equipment serial
number, engine manufacturer,
engine model year, engine
certification (Tier rating),
horsepower, engine serial number,
and expected fuel usage and hours
of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology
installed: technology type, serial
number, make, model,
manufacturer, EPA/ARB verification
number/level, and installation date
and hour-meter reading on
installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator
sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles
waiting to load or unload material on-site.

Such zones shall be located where diesel
emissions have the least impact on
abutters, the general public, and
especially sensitive receptors such as
hospitals, schools, daycare facilities,
elderly housing, and convalescent
facilities.
- The contractor shall maintain a monthly
report that, for each on road diesel
vehicle, nonroad construction equipment,
or generator on-site, includes:
then the construction contractor shall use the next
cleanest piece of off-road equipment (e.g., Tier IV
Interim) available.

The project is also required to comply with California
Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1,
Article 4.5, Section 2025, “Regulation to Reduce
Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of
Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants from In-Use
Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles” and California
Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 10,
Article 1, Section 2485, “Airborne Toxic Control
Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor
Vehicle Idling.”
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-235 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation i. Hour-meter readings on arrival onsite, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment
or emission controls.
iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for
the time period that identify:

1. Source of supply

2. Quantity of fuel

3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur
content (percent by weight)
cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building
Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards
(California Building Standards Code). The
following measures can be used to increase
energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network
improvements, such as interconnected
street network, narrower roadways and
shorter block lengths, sidewalks,
accessibility to transit and transit shelters,
traffic calming measures, parks and public
spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers.
- Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
i. Marked crosswalks
ii. Count-down signal timers
iii. Curb extensions iv. Speed tables
iv. Raised crosswalks
iv. Raised intersections
v. Median islands
vi. Tight corner radii
vii. Roundabouts or mini-circles
ix. On-street parking
x. Chicanes/chokers
- Create urban non-motorized zones
- Provide bike parking in nonresidential and
multi-unit residential projects
- Dedicate land for bike trails
- Limit parking supply through:
i. Elimination (or reduction) of
minimum parking requirements
ii. Creation of maximum parking
requirements
iii. Provision of shared parking
- Require residential area parking permit.
- Provide ride sharing programs
i. Designate a certain percentage of
parking spacing for ride sharing
vehicles
The suggested measure is not materially different
from an identified mitigation measure in the Draft
EIR, nor would it clearly lessen the significant
environmental impact.

The proposed project design includes high-density
development and alternative transportation
infrastructure, such as bicycle and pedestrian paths,
that would reduce VMT and reliance on fossil fuel
burning vehicles. Energy efficiency measures included
in Project Design Features (PDFs) and Plans, Policies,
and Programs (PPPs), and utilization of renewable
energy sources such as solar on residential buildings,
will serve to reduce GHG emissions from the
proposed project. Specifically, PPP 3.8-1 requires that the City’s Building and Safety Department ensure that
the proposed project is designed, constructed, and
operated to meet or exceed the incumbent CCR Title
24 Energy Efficiency Standards and Title 24 CALGreen
Standards, which will serve to reduce GHG emissions
from the proposed project. Furthermore, PPP 3.8-2
City of Jurupa Valley requires that the proposed
project comply with the water efficient landscaping
requirements included in the City’s Municipal Code,
which reduces GHGs associated with watering
landscaping.

MM TRANS-2a which would require a transportation
demand management program to reduce VMT, MM
TRANS-2b, which would require a school carpool
program, and MM TRANS-2c and MM TRANS-2d,
which would require street and transit access
improvements.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-236 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation ii. Designating adequate passenger
loading and unloading and waiting
areas for ride sharing vehicles
iii. Providing a web site or messaging
board for coordinating rides
iv. iv. Permanent transportation
management association
membership and finding
requirement.

SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures–PMM-GHG-1 b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects
through implementation of project features,
project design, or other measures, such as
those described in Appendix F of the State
CEQA Guidelines
The suggested measure is not materially different
from an identified mitigation measure in the Draft
EIR, nor would it substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact.

MM GHG-1a requires future implementing projects
that are subject to CEQA to perform detailed GHG
emissions impact analysis and, if project impacts
exceed latest SCAQMD GHG thresholds, implement
mitigation measures to the maximum extent feasible.

Furthermore, MM GHG-1b requires buildings in the
project area shall be designed to provide CALGreen
Standards with Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED®) features for potential
certification and will employ energy and water
conservation measures in accordance with such
standards.

In addition, MM GHG-1c requires all major appliances
(dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and
dryers) within proposed buildings to be
provided/installed are Energy Star-certified
appliances or appliances of equivalent energy
efficiency.
c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a
project’s emissions.

Because of the programmatic nature of the proposed
project, it is not feasible to calculate the off-site
measures needed to offset the proposed project’s
GHG emissions.

MM GHG-1a requires future development projects to
identify project-level GHG impacts and reduce the
impacts to the greatest extent feasible. Off-site
measures may be used as a feasible mitigation
strategy at that time, if needed and deemed feasible
and necessary.
d) Measures that consider incorporation of
Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
during design, construction and operation of
The suggested measure is not materially different
from an identified mitigation measure in the Draft
EIR, nor would it substantially lessen the significant
environmental impact.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-237 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation projects to minimize GHG emissions,
including but not limited to:
i. Deployment of zero- and/or near
zero-emission technologies;
ii. Use lighting systems that are energy
efficient, such as LED technology;
iii. Use the minimum feasible amount of
GHG-emitting construction materials;
iv. Use cement blended with the
maximum feasible amount of flash or
other materials that reduce GHG
emissions from cement production;
v. Incorporate design measures to
reduce GHG emissions from solid
waste management through
encouraging solid waste recycling and
reuse;
vi. Incorporate design measures to
reduce energy consumption and
increase use of renewable energy;
vii. Incorporate design measures to
reduce water consumption;
viii. Use lighter-colored pavement where
feasible;
ix. Recycle construction debris to
maximum extent feasible;
x. Plant shade trees in or near
construction projects where feasible;
and
xi. xi. Solicit bids that include concepts
listed above.

Furthermore, the following PPPs apply to the
proposed project and are considered in the
operational GHG emissions analysis:

PPP 3.8-1 Before issuing a building permit, the
Building and Safety Department will ensure that the
proposed project is designed, constructed, and
operated to meet or exceed applicable CCR Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24
CALGreen Standards.

PPP 3.8-2 As required by Municipal Code Section

9.283.010, Water Efficient Landscape Design
Requirements, before the approval of landscaping
plans, the project proponent shall prepare and
submit landscape plans that demonstrate compliance
with this section.

MM GHG-1a requires future implementing projects
that are subject to CEQA to perform detailed GHG
emissions impact analysis and, if project impacts
exceed latest SCAQMD GHG thresholds, implement
mitigation measures to the maximum extent feasible.

Furthermore, MM GHG-1b requires buildings in the
project area shall be designed to provide CALGreen
Standards with LEED® features for potential
certification and will employ energy and water
conservation measures in accordance with such
standards.

In addition, MM GHG-1c requires all major appliances
(dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and
dryers) within proposed buildings to be
provided/installed are Energy Star-certified
appliances or appliances of equivalent energy
efficiency.
e) Measures that encourage transit use,
carpooling, bike-share and car-share
programs, active transportation, and parking
strategies, including, but not limited to the
following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation
coordinated strategies;
ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on
transit and rail vehicles;
iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and
services, such as groceries, schools, and
day care;
v. Incorporate affordable housing into the
project;
The proposed project design includes high-density
development and alternative transportation
infrastructure, such as bicycle and pedestrian paths,
that would reduce VMT and reliance on fossil fuel
burning vehicles.

MM TRANS-2a would require a transportation
demand management program to reduce VMT, MM
TRANS-2b would require a school carpool program,
and MM TRANS-2c and MM TRANS-2d would require
street and transit access improvements.

The suggested measure is not materially different
from an identified mitigation measure in the Draft
EIR, nor would it clearly lessen the significant
environmental impact.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-238 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric
vehicle network;
vii. Orient the project toward transit,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle
networks, or transit service;
ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. xiv. Implement or provide access to
commute reduction program.
f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities
into project designs, maintaining these
facilities, and providing amenities
incentivizing their use; and planning for and
building local bicycle projects that connect
with the regional network.

The proposed project design includes high-density
development and alternative transportation
infrastructure, such as bicycle and pedestrian paths,
that would reduce VMT and reliance on fossil fuel
burning vehicles. The suggested measure is not
materially different from an identified mitigation
measure in the Draft EIR.
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus
routes by incentives for construction and
transit facilities within developments, and/or
providing dedicated shuttle service to transit
stations.

The proposed project design includes high-density
development and alternative transportation
infrastructure, such as bicycle and pedestrian paths,
that would reduce VMT and reliance on fossil fuel
burning vehicles.

MM TRANS-2a would also require a transportation
demand management program to reduce VMT which
addresses the comments.

The suggested measure is not materially different
from an identified mitigation measure in the Draft
EIR, nor would it clearly lessen the significant
environmental impact.
h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures
to reduce employee trips such as vanpool
and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip
facilities, and telecommuting programs
including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and
ride sharing programs;
ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single-occupancy vehicle trips to
carpooling or vanpooling, for example
providing ride matching services;
iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that
increase that use of modes other than
single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide employee transportation
coordinators at employment sites;
MM TRANS-2a which would require a transportation
demand management program to reduce VMT.

The suggested measure is not materially different
from an identified mitigation measure in the Draft
EIR, nor would it clearly lessen the significant
environmental impact.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-239 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation vi. vi. Provide a guaranteed ride home
service to users of non-auto modes.
i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for
ride sharing vehicles or high-occupancy
vehicles, and provide adequate passenger
loading and unloading for those vehicles.

MM TRANS-2a would require a transportation
demand management program to reduce VMT.

The suggested measure is not materially different
from an identified mitigation measure in the Draft
EIR, nor would it clearly lessen the significant
environmental impact.
j) Land use siting and design measures that
reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields
sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use
developments near transit;
iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and
vegetation, and planting new canopy
trees;
iv. Measures to reduce GHG emissions
from solid waste management through
encouraging solid waste recycling and
reuse.

The suggested measure is not materially different
from existing regulation, Project Design Features, and
identified mitigation measures in the Draft EIR.

The proposed project would develop a
master planned community on an infill site within the
city limits consisting of residential uses of various
densities, light industrial uses, a public K-8
educational facility, open space and recreation areas,
and circulation improvements. The proposed project
promotes infill and mixed-use development.

In addition, the General Plan Land Use Element policy
LUE 11.11 requires development projects to include
landscaping in all site areas, including street trees,
parking lots, setback areas, open spaces, and other
exterior use areas. Landscaping shall include trees,
shrubs and ground covers, and an automatic, waterconserving irrigation system, and shall be designed and maintained in accordance with City Landscape
Standards. In addition, a priority should be placed on
preserving mature trees in place wherever possible.

Where mature trees must be removed, they shall be
replaced with an equivalent number of large trees of
the same or compatible species.

Furthermore, several regulations govern diversion of
solid waste, such as SB 1383 (Statewide reduction of
organic waste disposal by 75 percent by January
2025) and AB 341 (requires all businesses and public
entities that generate four or more cubic yards of
garbage per week and multi-family dwellings with
five or more units to recycle).
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice
Toolbox for potential measures to address
impacts to low-income and/or minority
communities. The measures provided above
are also intended to be applied in low
income and minority communities as
applicable and feasible.

The commenter did not justify or explain how this
measure is applicable to the proposed project or how
this measure would substantially lessen
environmental impacts. No further response is
required.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative
work schedules, such as:

MM TRANS-2a requires a transportation demand
management program to reduce VMT. The suggested
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-240 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 No. Commenter–Suggested Mitigation Measure Measure or Policy that Addresses Comment/Explanation i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. iii. Compressed work weeks
measure is not materially different than identified
mitigation measures in the Draft EIR.
n) Implement commute trip reduction
marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip
reduction and alternative mode options
ii. Event promotions
iii. iii. Publications
MM TRANS-2a requires a transportation demand
management program to reduce VMT. The suggested
measure is not materially different than identified
mitigation measures in the Draft EIR.
p) Implement school pool and bus programs MM TRANS-2a requires a transportation demand management program to reduce VMT. The suggested
measure is not materially different than identified
mitigation measures in the Draft EIR.
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its
employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate
pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited
guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and
transportation allowances; and
v. v. Educating employees about available
alternatives.

MM TRANS-2a requires a transportation demand
management program to reduce VMT. The suggested
measure is not materially different than identified
mitigation measures in the Draft EIR.

Response to GSEJA-54
This comment states the proposed project should not be approved without considering the feasibility of on-site renewable energy production based on the States targets for renewable energy production for 2045. The EIR considered feasibility of renewable energy production on the project site. MM AIR-1h would require electric vehicle charging to be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. MM AIR-1f would require the construction of all buildings to facilitate sufficient electric charging for trucks to plug in, in anticipation of future technology that allows trucks to operate partially or completely on electricity.

Further, MM GHG-1 requires future residential development to shall install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable energy generation on-site, or otherwise acquire energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, that would provide 100 percent of the expected building load.

This comment does not identify any deficiencies in the analysis for the proposed project. No further response is required.

Response to GSEJA-55
This comment provides concluding remarks summarizing previous comments regarding mitigation measures. As explained above, the Draft EIR incorporates all feasible mitigation measures and recirculation is not required. Please see Master Response 6, Recirculation is not required.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-241 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 GSEJA-56
This comment provides a disclaimer claiming limited knowledge of the proposed project and the limits of SWAPE’s analysis. The City notes that during the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices and documents incorporated by reference, were available for review at several City facilities. The Draft EIR and technical appendices were also available online throughout the public review period. The comment does not address any inadequacies of the EIR and not further response is required.

Response to GSEJA-57
The comment, which includes the resumes of the consultants which provided the technical support for this letter, does not require a resposne.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
January 5, 2024
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]
Re: Comments on Rio Vista Specific Plan Draft EIR
Dear Mr. Pechous:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Rio Vista Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The following comments are submitted on behalf of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), the California Oaks Program of California Wildlife Foundation, the International Oak Society, Endangered Habitats League, the Wildlands Conservancy, the CNPS Channel Islands Chapter, the Center for Biological Diversity, Angeles Chapter of Sierra Club, and Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI).

CNPS is a non-profit environmental organization with over 12,500 members in 36 Chapters native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. We work closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land 1 2

MULT-BIO

Coalition Comments on Rio Vista Specific Plan Draft EIR 2 management practices.

California Wildlife Foundation is committed to conserving, restoring, and maintaining habitats and corridor linkages throughout the state to ensure the biological diversity of s to
conserve oak ecosystems because of their critical role in sequestering carbon, maintaining healthy watersheds, providing plant and wildlife habitat, and sustaining cultural values.

The International Oak Society is a nonprofit organization dedicated to collaboration for the conservation, study, and appreciation of oaks (genus Quercus) around the world. The society was founded in 1992 and has since grown to become a global network of oak enthusiasts, including scientists, academics, conservationists, horticulturists, and amateurs who share a passion for these magnificent trees and shrubs and their essential roles in natural ecosystems and the human landscape.

Endangered Habitats League is a Southern California conservation group dedicated to The Wildlands Conservancy is the West Coast's largest private non-profit conservation land management organization, managing 25 preserves comprising more than 200,000 acres in California, Oregon and Utah all free and open to the public. practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

Botanic Gardens Conservation International is a membership organization representing a network of more than 850 botanic gardens in over 120 countries, including the largest and most influential gardens in the sector. Our mission is to accelerate effective conservation of global plant diversity. BGCI coordinates a suite of Global Conservation Consortia, which catalyze groups of institutions and experts to collaboratively develop and implement comprehensive strategies to prevent extinction of priority threatened plant groups such as Oaks. Primary objectives include coordinated in situ and ex situ conservation efforts and dissemination of species recovery knowledge.

The Channel Islands Chapter of the California Native Plant Society covers Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and represents approximately 360 primary members.

The Center for Biological Diversity has 1.7 million members and supporters worldwide, believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law, and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters, and climate that species need 2 CONT

MULT-BIO

Coalition Comments on Rio Vista Specific Plan Draft EIR 3 to survive. We want those who come after us to inherit a world where the wild is still alive.

Our organizations are writing primarily to communicate deficiencies of the DEIR regarding assessment of project impacts on the (Quercus palmeri), which is also known as the Jurupa oak or Hurunga oak, growing on the project site. This oak is of international, historic, environmental, and cultural importance. Our work builds on efforts to secure protection for the oak begun by T. Robert Przeklasa, PhD, who collaborated with the research team that calculated that the tree is at least 13,000 years old1. As a result of these efforts, the oak and surrounding and was designated as a sacred site by the California Native American Heritage Commission as a sacred site. Unfortunately, these important Tribal lands are now threatened by development proposed in this project.

The DEIR does not meet the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it does not analyze alternatives that would lessen the potential environmental and cultural impacts of the project on the ancient oak. Further, the DEIR clearly states (e.g., ES5) that future development will likely result in significant cultural impacts on the oak. All information regarding the impacts to the Pleistocene project site has been redacted, which does not allow us to evaluate potential project impacts on this tree. We strongly urge the planning department to release a supplementary or revised DEIR containing additional alternatives and any analysis done to show that the proposed mitigation would be sufficient to
Jurupa oak analyses are incomplete
The Palmer oak that is found on the project site is a relict of the plant communities that were present in this area thousands of years ago. It is one of the few s in the area. Since the last ice age warmer and dryer climatic conditions have driven this species to cooler and wetter habitats than are now found in Jurupa Valley. The conditions that have allowed this individual to persist for over 13,000 years are largely unknown and the risk of any disturbance to the unique environment that supports this tree is of great concern.

The discussion in the DEIR of the hydrogeologic investigation of the sources and the hypothesis that the oak is not supported by groundwater but instead by water stored in near-surface fractures is speculative and should be supported by much greater analysis.

It is not infeasible for a 13,000-year-old tree to have deep roots and adaptation strategies to access deep water. Oaks can have very deep roots and are known to hydraulically redistribute deep groundwater to shallow soils. Our team has been in communication with the University of California researchers who published the PLOS ONE and
colleagues of theirs (University of California, Riverside [UCR] Professor Louis Santiago and UCR Professor Michael Allen). They argue that the only scientifically defensible method to determine if the tree is using groundwater is to conduct an isotope source water study using 2H and 180 isotope analyses. Further, we contacted Melissa M. Rohde, PhD, Principle of Rohde Environmental Consulting, who suggests that the isotope source water study should be conducted over multiple seasons for 1-3 years because groundwater reliance can vary over time.

The DEIR indicates that the location and images of the oak were omitted to ensure that the tree 1 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, 4(12), p.e8346. 2 CONT
3 4
5 6
7 MULT-BIO

Coalition Comments on Rio Vista Specific Plan Draft EIR 4 remains protected. However, as discussed above, in addition to the location, all information regarding the oak and the analysis of potential impacts have been redacted, not allowing experts, or the public the ability to provided comments or recommendations regarding the impacts to the oak or measures to reduce these impacts. We have requested that this appendix be provided to us, with the location and images redacted, to aid in our analysis of the project impacts to the . As of December 19th, the City was still working with Tribes to determine whether providing redacted biological information is possible. While we support the confidentiality of Appendix E oak, we feel that the analysis used to determine that the proposed mitigation would be sufficient to protect the oak should be disclosed. As this information was not made available by the close of the comment period, we would request that the supplemental or revised DEIR include Appendix D of the Biological Resources Supporting Information with the location and images redacted.

The project design features indicate that the project would include 510.8 acres of preserved open space and that transferring this open space to a City-approved conservation entity would ensure the pr This statement is misleading, as the protected area proposed for the oak is 27.7 acres and would not be connected to the remaining 483.1 acres of preserved open space, but instead would be encroached upon by proposed light industrial, business park, and medium-density residential development. The 200-foot buffer area proposed oak described in MM BIO-5 appears to allow ground disturbance that could affect the slope that the oak is found on. We recommend the development and analysis of an additional alternative that would provide a larger buffer around oak, including the 44-acre sacred site designated by the California Native American Heritage Commission and the interconnection of open space preserves to allow wildlife movement and genetic flow in a supplemental or revised DEIR. To preserve the oak and the associated Tribal cultural resources, the area surrounding the oak should not have public access and should have a robust protection plan.

The language in the DEIR allows for many different entities to be considered to manage the open spaces. Mitigation measure BIO-1b does not offer clear guidance of the requirements for a conservation agency to take over ownership of the open spaces. We recommend that requirements for City-approved conservation entities be outlined in the supplemental or revised DEIR. When considering an irreplaceable one-of-a-kind botanical resource, the task to manage the open spaces and protect the Palmer
demonstrated the ability to manage land and protect sensitive botanical and cultural resources.

Specifically, we are concerned that a Homeowners Association, as suggested in MM BIO-2 of the Biological Resources Supporting Information, may not be an appropriate entity to manage the protection of this resource.

Alternatives
The DEIR should have included the analysis of alternatives that would have reduced the environmental and cultural impacts of this project on the ancient oak. An alternative that allowed eastern portion of the project area should have been analyzed to determine if this lower impact alternative could achieve the objectives of the project. Additionally Alternative 3 is not a viable alternative as it would not be possible to approve a land use plan that was not previously analyzed. CEQA requires that an EIR examines a reasonable range of alternatives, see Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
functions . . . is to ensure that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are thoroughly According to CEQA § 21002.1 (a) The purpose of an
environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, 7 CONT
8 9
10 MULT-BIO

Coalition Comments on Rio Vista Specific Plan Draft EIR 5 to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. We do not feel that the alternatives included in this analysis meet the purpose of an EIR.

We recommend an open space alternative be analyzed. This alternative would include the proposed land use designations for medium and high density residential, and for other land use designations, but would amend the conceptual land use plan to designate lands proposed for light industrial, business park, and very low-density housing as protected land use. The 20th Street access to the east side of the property could be replaced with a gated access route intended for emergency ingress/egress. This alternative would provide connectivity between the open spaces on the project
oak.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1b should be amended to require that open space preserves in the project area are interconnected to other open spaces. This should also include criteria for selecting a conservation agency that would take over management of the open space and include management requirements for the open spaces and th
MM BIO-1b should be amended to require that recipient sites for salvaged material and propagules be monitored in perpetuity.

MM BIO-1e should include the list of native landscaping materials recommended for use within the project site and not defer the development of this list until after project approval.

MM-BIO-1e should be amended to require that any erosion control planting or seeding shall consist of native plant seed collected on or adjacent to the project site, or plants grown in a nursery setting from this seed.

Organization of the DEIR
Much of the relevant information needed to analyze this project was not incorporated adequately into the body of the DEIR, requiring the reader to go back and forth between the DEIR and the appendices to determine the baseline conditions used for environmental analysis, See generally San Joaquin Raptor Rescue (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 659 (EIR should not force public and appendices needs to be included in the DEIR, the supplementary or revised DEIR for this project should include sufficient information to understand the existing conditions and potential impacts of the project without the need to reference the appendices.

In conclusion, we recommend that a supplemental or revised DEIR be prepared for this project, containing additional analysis of
alternatives to include interconnected protected land to oak, and to ensure that the water source sustaining the oak and any other potential impacts to the oak are adequately analyzed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
10 CONT
11 12
13 14
15 16

MULT-BIO

Coalition Comments on Rio Vista Specific Plan Draft EIR 6 Brendan Wilce
Conservation Program Coordinator
California Native Plant Society
[email protected]
Janet Cobb
Executive Officer
California Wildlife Foundation
[email protected]
g
Dan Silver Dr. Timothy Krantz
Executive Director Conservation Director
Endangered Habitats Leage The Wildlands Conservancy/Oak Glen Preserve [email protected] [email protected]
Ellen Dean Dr. Carly Cowell
Secretary Director of Conservation Policy and Practice
CNPS Channel Islands Chapter Botanic Gardens Conservation International [email protected] [email protected]
Ileene Anderson Joan Licari, D. Env.

Senior Scientist Chair, San Gabriel Valley Task Force
Center for Biological Diversity Angeles Chapter of Sierra Club [email protected] [email protected] Roderick Cameron
President
International Oak Society
[email protected]

MULT-BIO

17 MULT-BIO

17 CONT

MULT-BIO

17 CONT

MULT-BIO

17 CONT

MULT-BIO

17 CONT

MULT-BIO

17 CONT

MULT-BIO

17 CONT

MULT-BIO

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-257 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 Multiple Biological Resources Organizations (MULT-BIO)
Response to MULT-BIO-1
This comment provides information regarding the commenter and does not raise any issues related to the Draft EIR or the proposed project. No further response is required.

Response to MULT-BIO-2
This comment provides information regarding the commenter and does not raise any issues related to the Draft EIR or the proposed project. No further response is required.

Response to MULT-BIO-3
This comment indicates the commerter’s general objections. Please see Master Response 4.

Response to MULT-BIO-4
This comment provides a general summary of the issues and concerns raised in the letter. Please see Response to MULTI-BIO-6 through Response to MULTI-BIO-15.

Response to MULT-BIO-5
This comment describes the Palmer’s oak and does not raise any issues related to the Draft EIR or the proposed project. No further response is requried.

Response to MULT-BIO-6
This comment concerns the hydrogeologic investigation in the Draft EIR. The Hydrogeologic Investigation that concluded that groundwater at the site of the Palmer’s oak is 90 feet below ground surface was conducted by Stetson Engineers, Inc., an engineering firm with over 65 years of experience as water resources specialists. This study is summarized in the Draft EIR and in Response USFWS-CDFW-11. See Draft EIR, 3.4-45. The comment further states that the conclusion that the tree is supported by water stored in a subsurface basin is speculative. On the contrary, the conclusion is supported by facts. This conclusion is based on a GPR study that is summarized in the Draft EIR and in Response USFWS-CDFW-11. Furthermore, the comment’s claim that the oak tree could have deep roots that reach groundwater is speculative and is not substantiated in the comment. As described in the hydrogeologic investigation, groundwater at the location of the tree is found at 90 feet below ground level; however, the soil beneath the tree at a depth of 35 to 700 feet below ground level is granite. It is unlikely that tap roots could penetrate through bedrock to reach the groundwater.

Regardless of the water source–and even in the unlikely and highly speculative event that groundwater is delivered to the tree via roots that penetrate bedrock through 90 feet or via water stored in a near-surface catch basin–the proposed project, with the buffer limitation imposed by MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak), would not impact the tree’s water supply. In fact, the 259-foot buffer where heavy equipment operations would be prohibited, would also protect the speculative deep roots from vibration and impact in the unlikely event that they might have penetrated through cracks in the bedrock. Because the proposed project would not impact the tree’s water source, an isotope water source study is unnecessary. CEQA does not require that an agency conduct every recommended test and perform all recommended research in evaluating a project’s environmental impacts (State CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). CEQA recognizes that the lead agency has the responsibility and discretion to decide the appropriate way to investigate and evaluate the project's City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-258 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 significant environmental impacts. See, e.g., Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 CA4th 1099 (A lead agency is not required to accept a regulatory agency’s recommendation that further studies be undertaken); Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 C3d 376, 410, 415 (“A project opponent or reviewing court can always imagine some additional study or analysis that might provide helpful information” . . . however, “It is not for them to design the EIR”); Tiburon Open Space Comm. v. County of Marin (2022) 78 CA5th 700, 754–55; Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (2013) 217 CA4th 503, 524. Bay Area Citizens v. Association of Bay Area Gov’ts (2016) 248 CA4th 966, 1017; Society for Cal. Archaeology v. County of Butte (1977) 65 CA3d 832; see also Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 CA4th 1383, 1396; Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 CA4th 74, 102; and Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 CA4th 1428, 1447. Accordingly, assertions that impacts might be analyzed a different way or that other studies might provide additional information do not provide a basis for challenging the EIR. Although further investigation might be helpful, that does not make the requested study legally necessary.

Testimony or reports by experts supporting a finding that a project's impacts will be insignificant constitutes substantial evidence supporting the agency's conclusions. State CEQA Guidelines 15063(a)(3). See Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 CA5th 877, 889; Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 CA4th 949; Uhler v. City of Encinitas (1991) 227 CA3d 795, 805. Professional knowledge and judgment was applied in preparing these studies.

The analysis in a CEQA document is not required to be perfect, and disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate. Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines states that “an EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.

An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” The City has the discretion to weigh the evidence when considering the adequacy of an EIR and to decide whether to accept it. It is within the City’s discretion to adopt the environmental conclusions reached by the experts that prepared the EIR even though others may disagree with the underlying data, analysis, or conclusions. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 C3d 376, 408; State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 CA4th 674, 795. Discrepancies in results arising from different methods for assessing environmental issues do not undermine the validity of the EIR's analysis as long as a reasonable explanation supporting the EIR's analysis is provided. Planning & Conserv. League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 CA4th 210, 243.

Response to MULT-BIO-7
The comment acknowledges the importance of protecting the confidentiality of information related to the location of the Palmer’s oak, but requests access to additional information. The City cannot provide information to the public that would disclose the location of a cultural resource. Please see Master Response 5.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-259 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 MULT-BIO-8
This comment suggests the development of an alternative with a larger buffer. As discussed in the Draft EIR, environmental impacts to the Palmer’s oak are fully mitigated with implementation of the buffer required by MM BIO-5, and there is no scientific reason to support an increased buffer. Please see Master Response 1, Response to EHL-8, and Response to MULT-BIO-11.

As described in 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), the buffer area and Open Space designation in the area around the tree are sufficient for protection of the tree. Furthermore, there are no marked trails in the proximity of the tree.

Response to MULT-BIO-9
This comment suggests revision to MM BIO-2 (Conserve Open Space), as set forth Appendix D of the Draft EIR, regarding requirements for a conservation agency. Please see Response to MULTI-BIO-11.

Note that the MM BIO-2 in the BRA (Appendix D) is MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) in the Draft EIR.

Response to MULT-BIO-10
This comment requests discussion of an “open space alternative” and states that the commenter does not feel that the alternatives included in the analysis meet the purpose of an EIR. Please see Response to SUFME-9.

Response to MULT-BIO-11
The comment states that MM BIO-1b should be amended to require that open space Preserves in the project site area are interconnected to other open spaces. This should also include criteria for selecting a conservation agency that would take over management of the open space and include management requirements for the open spaces and the Palmer’s oak.

The proposed project is within the area covered by the Western Riverside MSHCP. The MSHCP identifies connectivity areas through designation of Criteria Cells. There are no Criteria Cells designated on the project site and therefore no MSHCP requirement to provide connectivity between cells. Open space areas on the project site are isolated from other conserved open space by existing or planned development and there is no opportunity for connectivity.

MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) requires that ownership of open space areas on the project site be transferred to a local conservation entity approved by the City (Draft EIR, Section 3.4 Biological Resources, page 3.4-33). The mitigation measure in the Draft EIR does not designate the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) as owner or manager of the open space areas.

Response to MULT-BIO-12
The comment states that MM BIO-1b [sic] should be amended to require that recipient sites for salvaged material and propagules be monitored in perpetuity.

It is assumed that this comment refers to MM BIO-1c (Special-status Plants) rather than MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space). Monitoring is intended to determine whether salvaging plants or propagules has been successful. The applicable plants are mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula), a City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-260 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 perennial herb, and Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii), an annual herb.

Monitoring of herbaceous plants is typically done annually for 5 years and this is sufficient to determine whether the plant or propagule salvage has been successful or if adaptive management or other measures are warranted to fulfill mitigation requirements.25 There is no justification for monitoring in perpetuity.

Response to MULT-BIO-13
The comment states that MM BIO-1e should include the list of native landscaping materials recommended for use within the project site and not defer the development of this list until after project approval.

As stated in MM BIO-1e (Invasive Plants), native landscaping materials shall be selected for their compatibility with the unique natural environment in the area and will exclude invasive plant species listed in the California Invasive Plant Council Inventory (cal-ipc.org) or Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.

The purpose of this mitigation is to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plants. Including a list of native landscaping materials in the mitigation measure is unnecessary to achieve this mitigation. Such a list would be extremely long. It would be up to the landscape architect to determine the species to be planted, as long as they are not on the MSHCP or the cal-ipc lists stated above.

Response to MULT-BIO-14
The comment states that MM BIO-1e should be amended to require that any erosion control planting or seeding shall consist of native plant seed collected on or adjacent to the project site or plants grown in a nursery setting from this seed.

MM BIO-1e (Invasive Plants) states that any erosion control planting or seeding shall consist of native species, native seed mix, or other ecologically appropriate, non-invasive plants. The purpose of this mitigation is to avoid and minimize the introduction and spread of invasive plants. Using only seeds collected from the site is unnecessary to achieve this mitigation.

Response to MULT-BIO-15
The comment alleges that information from the appendices is not adequately incorporated into the Draft EIR; however, it does not provide any specific examples. Baseline conditions are thoroughly explained in Section 3.4.3 Environmental Setting of the Draft EIR.

Response to MULT-BIO-16
This comment provides concluding remarks and summarizes prior comments addressed above. No further response is required.
25 Environmental Planning Group, LLC. 2021. Special-status Plant Salvage and Relocation Plan. March. Website:
https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/aspen/elm/plans/special-status_plant_salvage_and_reloc_plan_508.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2024.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-261 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 MULT-BIO-17
This comment includes a 2009 scientific article by Michael R. May et al. This article was reviewed as part of preparation of the Biological Review of the Palmer’s Oak memorandum and is heavily cited in this report. No further response is required.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
- -
- -

-
-
SIERRA

1 2
- - -
-
-
SIERRA

2 CONT
3 6
5 4
SIERRA

7 8
-
SIERRA

9 10
11 12
15 14
13 City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-267 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 Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter(SIERRA)
Response to SIERRA-1
This comment provides information regarding the commenter and does not raise any issues related to the Draft EIR or the proposed project. No further response is required.

Response to SIERRA-2
This comment summarizes the commenters understanding of the project and is noted.

Response to SIERRA-3
This comment acknowledges that the City extended the public comment period beyond the CEQA required 45 days. No response is required.

Response to SIERRA-4
This comment states that the buffer around the Palmer’s oak is insufficient and that impacts should be further discussed. Please see Master Response 1 regarding the sufficency of the buffer required by MM BIO-5. Please see Response to USFWS-CDFW-9 and Response to USFWS-CDFW-11 regarding hydrogeology and potential impacts to the Palmer’s oak.

Response to SIERRA-5
This comment acknolwedges that Appendix D and Appendix E are confidential and asserts that CEQA requires their disclosure. However, CEQA specifically does not require the disclosure of confidential information. Please see Master Response 5.

Response to SIERRA-6
Please see Response to USFWS-CDFW-9 and Response to USFWS-CDFW-11 regarding hydrogeology and potential impacts to the Palmer’s oak. As explained in Master Response 5, the information requested by commenter is confidential and, as such, cannot be shared with the public.

Response to SIERRA-7
Please see Responses to USFWS-CDFW-9 and USFWS-CDFW-11 regarding hydrogeology and potential impacts to the Palmer’s oak. As explained in Master Respoonse 5, the information requested by commenter is confidential and, as such, cannot be shared with the public.

Response to SIERRA-8
The comment asserts that the project was released as a Specific Plan rather than an EIR. A project is seperate from its environmental review. The City both proposed a Specific Plan and, separately, prepared an EIR to evaluate the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan does not purport to be an EIR, nor does the EIR purport to be a Specific Plan, as alleged by commenter. The Draft EIR is a separate environmental document. The Draft EIR contains all the elements required by CEQA and complied with noticing and posting requirements. The public comment period was noticed for 45 days as required by CEQA, beginning October 19, 2023, and, originally closing at 5:00 p.m. on December 4, 2023. Subsequently, the City voluntarily extended the public comment period to January 5, 2024, for a total public comment period of 78 days.

Both documents, the Rio Vista Speicific Plan and the Draft EIR that evaluates its potential impacts, are available to the public at City Hall as well as at the following website in the folder labeled “MA16045 Rio Vista Specific Plan”: https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-268 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 SIERRA-9
This comment alleges that the Draft EIR is deficient because it does not include a “no action” alternative. “No action” is a term used with respect to NEPA and as such does not directly apply to this project under CEQA. Rather CEQA requires an analysis of a “no project” alternative. State CEQA Guidelines 15126.6. Two different “no project” alternatives were discussed in the Draft EIR, both of which fully comply with CEQA’s requirements. Alternative 1, the No Project, No Build Alternative discusses what would happen if the proposed project does not move forward and no development of any kind occurs. Alternative 2, No Project, Develop Approved Specific Plan, discusses what would happen if the project site were developed in accordance with the existing plans. Accordingly, the Draft EIR fully complies with CEQA’s requirements.

Response to SIERRA-10
This comment requests copies of confidential appendixes. Please see Master Response 5.

Response to SIERRA-11
This comment states that the Draft EIR should be reissued to address the concerns expressed in Responses to SIERRA-1 through SIERRA-10. See Master Response 6, which clarifies why recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

Response to SIERRA-12
As indicated in the published Public Notice of Preparation (NOP), a public Scoping Meeting was held on December 14, 2021. Notice of this meeting was made in accordance with all applicable requirements. On November 26, 2021, the City published notification in the local newspaper, The Press-Enterprise, of the availability of the NOP and of the Scoping Meeting. Additionally, notification of the NOP availability was mailed on November 26, 2021 (distribution list is included in Appendix N of this Final EIR), and notification of the Scoping Meeting was mailed on December 3, 2021. As such, the NOP complied with noticing and posting requirements. The public comment period was noticed for 30 days as required by CEQA, beginning December 6, 2022, and closing at 5:00 p.m. on January 4, 2022.

No agencies or members of the public attended the meeting, and three comment letters were received from State agencies. (No comment letters were received from members of the public.) See Appendix A to the Draft EIR.

Response to SIERRA-13
This comment suggests that the Draft EIR should be resubmitted, including Appendices D and E, and that a public comment period should be designated. See Master Response 6, which clarifies why recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required, and Master Response 5, which explains that CEQA prohibits the inclusion of confidential information in an EIR.

Response to SIERRA-14
The comment suggests inclusion of an alternative that would eliminate development in the vicinity of the Palmer’s oak.

Under the proposed project, the area surrounding the oak tree would be designated OS-C; no development would take place in this area. Additionally, the Draft EIR considered the No Project, No City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-269 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 Build Alternative, under which the elements of the proposed Rio Vista Specific Plan would not be constructed on the project site and no other development would be approved. Under the No Project, No Build Alternative, the existing 17 vacant parcels would remain vacant and the proposed roads and additional infrastructure, such as water and sewer improvements, would not be developed. Additionally, all existing vegetation and riparian/riverine habitat would remain on-site and grading would not take place. See Draft EIR, Section 5.5, Alternative 1—No Project, No Build.

Accordingly, this alternative provides an analysis of conditions if no development were to occur in the vicinity of the Palmer’s oak.

Response to SIERRA-15
The comment states that management of the open space by an HOA is not acceptable.

The Draft EIR does not include any reference to an HOA as managing the open space. As stated in MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space), MM BIO-1f (Urban/Wildlands Interface), and MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak), responsibility for the preservation and management of the OS-C areas, including where the Palmer’s tree is located, would be transferred to a City-approved conservation entity. The City would be required to consider eligibility (see below) of the potential conservation agency to hold a conservation easement prior to assigning it. Note that the MM BIO-2 in the BRA (Appendix D) is MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) in the Draft EIR.

Civil Code Section 815, et seq. authorize the voluntary transfer of conservation easements to qualified nonprofit organizations for the purposes of retaining land predominantly in its natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open space condition. Civil Code Section 815.3 identifies the entities and organizations that are authorized to hold conservation easements. A conservation easement over the land in question may only be conveyed to an organization or entity identified in Civil Code Section 815.3.

Note that MM BIO-1b states that the Open Space would be managed by a “City-approved local conservation agency” (Draft EIR, Section 3.4 Biological Resources, page 3.4-33). The City determined that the conservation agency to hold the conservation easement is not required to be a local one, and the word “local” in this context has been removed from the Draft EIR in several locations as identified in the Errata section of this Final EIR.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3 2
1 SUFME

3 CONT
4 5
6 7
2 8
9 SUFME

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 SUFME

17 SUFME

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-275 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 Stand Up for Mother Earth (SUFME)
Response to SUFME-1
The comment states that the proposed project would not protect the on-site Palmer’s oak. It further indicates that the significance of this tree was not known when the 1992 EIR was approved, so must be analyzed anew.

As discussed in the Draft EIR Sections 3.1 Aesthetics, 3.4 Biological Resources, and in Appendix D Biological Resources Supporting Information, and in accordance with CEQA’s requirements, three studies were undertaken to understand potential project effects on the Palmer’s oak; see Response to USFWS-CDFW-11. The baseline used for the analysis of environmental impacts under CEQA reflects the conditions present at the time the NOP)for this Draft EIR was published on December 6, 2021. The potential impacts of the proposed project are compared against the existing baseline conditions for each environmental resource. Potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the Palmer’s oak are evaluated in the Draft EIR and administrative record, the analysis does not depend on the prior 1992 certified EIR, and, accordingly, neither Public Resources Code 21166 nor State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are applicable.

Response to SUFME-2
The comment states that because of the Palmer’s oak’s uniqueness, it must be protected, but that the proposed project would not fully protect it.

Potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the Palmer’s oak are evaluated in the Draft EIR Section 3.3. Under the proposed project, the area surrounding the Palmer’s oak would be designated as OS-C, which precludes development. In addition, implementation of MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak) would ensure construction and operation buffers around the tree to ensure its protection. Please refer to Master Response 1 for more discussion regarding the buffers.

Response to SUFME-3
See Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient.

Response to SUFME-4
The comment raises a concern regarding grading of hilltops adjacent to the Palmer’s oak and states that this concern was not addressed in the Draft EIR.

As discussed in the Draft EIR Section 3.4, Biological Resources, a vibration study concluded that potential impacts from heavy equipment operations during construction, including grading activities, would be less than significant if a 259 feet distance from the tree is maintained. Implementation of MM BIO-5 would ensure this buffer is maintained.

As discussed in the Draft EIR Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the on-site Palmer’s oak is not supported by groundwater so would not be affected by geological changes that are not directly underneath it. See Response to USFWS-CDFW-11
Response to SUFME-5
The comment states that the Draft EIR’s vibration calculations and its conclusion that the tree does not depend on groundwater are speculative.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-276 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 vibration study was conducted by Qtative Development Solutions, a consulting firm with expertise in grading analysis and construction management, among others, and with Engineers on its staff. The data is presented in Appendix D.5 of the Draft EIR and is summarized in Response USFWSCDFW-11.

The Hydrogeologic Investigation that concluded that groundwater at the site of the Palmer’s oak is 90 feet below ground surface was conducted by Stetson Engineers, Inc. and engineering firm with over 65 years of experience as water resources specialists. This study summarized in Response USFWS-CDFW-11.

Testimony or reports by experts supporting a finding that a project’s impacts will be insignificant constitutes substantial evidence supporting the agency’s conclusions (State CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)(3)). See Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 CA5th 877, 889; Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 CA4th 949; Uhler v. City of Encinitas (1991) 227 CA3d 795, 805. Professional knowledge and judgment was applied in preparing these studies.

Response to SUFME-6
The comments states that the Draft EIR does not analyze a reasonable range of project alternatives and that it does not consider a feasible alternative that would avoid or limit impacts to the Palmer’s oak.

No set number of alternatives is necessary to constitute a legally adequate range of alternatives in an EIR; see Response to GSEJA-45.

As discussed in the Draft EIR Chapter 5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project, under the No Project, No Build Alternative, the proposed project would not be developed. The existing 17 vacant parcels would remain vacant, and no development of any kind would occur. The informal, unpaved trails and dirt roads located throughout the site would remain in their current condition, and no changes to land use designation would take place and there would be no significant unavoidable impacts to cultural or Tribal resources. Alternatives 2 and 3, as discussed in Chapter 5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project, as well as the proposed project, designate the area surrounding the tree as Open Space, precluding project development in that area.

Response to SUFME-7
The comment states that Alternative 2 cannot be considered a sufficient alternative since the uniqueness of the Palmer’s Oak was unknown in 1992 when that Specific Plan was approved, which means it did not include special protection for the tree.

Any project, whether the proposed one or Alternative 2, would be required to comply with all applicable policies and regulations. This would include mandatory compliance with General Plan Policy COS 1.2 Protection of Significant Trees, Policy COS 1.3 Other Significant Vegetation. AS discussed in the Draft EIR Section 3.4 Biological Resources, Impact Analysis for Threshold BIO-5, the on-site Palmer’s oak tree qualifies for protection under these policies. Additionally, 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. See Response to SUFME-2.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-277 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 SUFME-8
The comment states that Alternative 3 does not mention the Palmer’s oak. Although Alternative 3 does not explicitly discuss the Palmer’s oak, it does state that while there would be more open space under this alternative, development would still require ground-disturbing activities, tree removal, and clearing of vegetation, similar to that of the proposed project. Accordingly, the Draft EIR discloses that, “the mitigation measures that would be implemented under the proposed project to reduce these impacts would also need to be implemented under this alternative” (Draft EIR, Chapter 5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page 5-27). Therefore, potential impacts and mitigation under Alternative 3 are addressed in the discussion of the proposed project’s impacts.

Additionally, any project, whether the proposed one or Alternative 3, would be required to comply with all applicable policies and regulations, including those that protect significant trees and significant vegetation. See Response to SUFME-7.

Response to SUFME-9
The comment states that Alternatives 2 and 3 are too similar to the current proposed project to contribute to a “range” of alternatives and were both rejected because they did not meet the objectives of inclusion of light industrial and business park land uses. The Draft EIR should have included an alternative that included those land uses and that fully protects the Palmer’s oak.

The Draft EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives. The Draft EIR evaluates alternatives (and the No Project Alternative), which aim to reduce significant impacts of the proposed project while meeting most of the basic objectives of the project (See Response to EHL-8, Response to CCHTF-4, and Response to GSEJA-45). Alternative 2 is an appropriate consideration, in part, because it represents an approved land use plan and it reduces potential significant impacts as compared 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. Therefore, Alternative 2 is appropriately discussed as a potential alternative to the proposed project.

Alternative 3 reduces potential air quality, GHG, hydrology and water quality, transportation, and utilities and service systems impacts as compared to the proposed project. Specifically, it would reduce air quality and transportation impacts to below a level of significance (Draft EIR Chapter 5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page 5-15, Table 5-1: Summary of Project Alternatives). As evaluated in the Draft EIR in Chapter 5, these alternatives present a range of different land uses and designs.

The comment is incorrect when it alleges that no alternative fully protects the Palmer’s oak. Under the proposed project, the Palmer’s oak would be avoided, preserved, and protected in accordance with MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak). Based on the current design of the proposed project, the Palmer’s City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-278 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 oak is located in an area designated as an Open Space-Conservation area, approximately 200 feet away from the area designated for development. Additionally, under the No Project, No Build Alternative, there would be no development or ground-disturbing activity and the Palmer’s oak would not be impacted. For Palmer’s oak protection, see Responses to SUFME-7 and SUFME-8.

Response to SUFME-10
The comment states that the selected alternative should be the one that best protects the Palmer’s oak, even if it is more costly or does not attain some of the proposed project’s objectives.

As explained in Master Response 1, the tree is fully protected with the buffer identified in MM BIO-5 and an alternative that precludes development, such as Alternative 1, No Project, Bo Build, would not provide additional protection for the tree.

With the designation of the area surrounding the Palmer’s oak as OS-C and implementation of MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak), the proposed project would offer the same protection of the tree as would Alternatives 2 and 3.

Response to SUFME-11
The comment alleges that it is confusing to use “Palmer’s oak” for the biological analysis and “Hurunga Oak” for cultural resources analysis and that the conclusions of the two analyses are different.

The two terms are used to refer to two different focuses of analysis. Palmer’s oak is the common name for the oak species scientifically referred to as Quercus palmeri. The analysis in the Draft EIR Section 3.4 Biological Resources uses this term and focuses on potential adverse physical impacts to a specific individual tree specimen. “Hurunga Oak” is the cultural name of the same individual tree, and this term is used in Section 3.5 Cultural Resources and Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.

The Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources analyses consider not only the tree itself but the entire Hurunga Oak sacred site, which is over 4 acres (and including the approximately 70-by-40- foot area comprising the mapped limits of the individual tree specimen discussed in Section 3.4).

While MM BIO-5 would protect the tree and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, development of the proposed project would encroach into the sacred site and would result in unmitigatable impacts. Because of the two different and distinct areas of focus (an individual tree specimen versus a larger cultural area) evaluated in the Draft EIR, it is reasonable and supported to have different conclusions.

Additionally, the proposed project would offer the same protection as the No Project alternative assuming all federal, State, and local regulations are adhered to.

Response to SUFME-12
See Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient.

Furthermore, a 3,000-foot buffer, as suggested by the comment, would not provide any additional protection to the Palmer’s oak. In contrast, the proposed project has extensively evaluated the potential impacts to the tree and identified feasible and adequate mitigation.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-279 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 SUFME-13
The comment states that the fact that the proposed project was approved in 1992 cannot bar compliance with the provisions of CEQA concerning alternatives and that the City decision-makers cannot merely rubber stamp the current proposed project in its similarities to the prior approved project or arbitrarily reapprove the 1992 plan.

The commenter’s opposition to the 1992 Rio Vista Specific Plan is noted. Potential impacts of implementing the 1992 Specific Plan are addressed in the Draft EIR and are not limited to the analysis in the certified 1992 EIR. 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. See Response to SUFME-2.

Response to SUFME-14
The comment states that the visual simulations prepared for the proposed project identify impacts to views from residential neighborhoods.

Appendix B of the Draft EIR provides visual simulations from adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Simulations from the viewpoints listed in the comment (viewpoints 1, 2, and 3) show that visual resources, as identified by the General Plan, are not degraded. The Draft EIR Section 3.1 Aesthetics, Impact Analysis for Threshold AES-1, concludes that the proposed project’s urban development would be situated in lower elevation areas, avoiding the prominent on-site peaks including and other prominent visual features.

Response to SUFME-15
The comment states that the visual simulations prepared for the proposed project did not analyze impacts to views locations that are discussed in the Draft EIR, specifically 20th Street, SR-60, Canal Street, and Armstrong Road.

The General Plan identifies scenic resources relevant to the project site to include hills and mountain peaks and ridgelines. Based on this identification, City-designated scenic resources located within the project site include Rattlesnake Mountain (1,604 feet) and Pepe’s Peak (1,739 feet).

Furthermore, as shown on Exhibit 2-7, approximately 510 acres of the project site would be designated as OS-C, including Rattlesnake Mountain and Pepe’s Peak. Therefore, both would be preserved and views of these peaks would not be impeded by the proposed project (Draft EIR Section 3.1 Aesthetics, page 3.1-21).

Response to SUFME-16
The comment states that the negative impact to the views could be improved by moving the project further west, away from the residential area, and that this would also allow more area for protection of the Palmer's oak.

The area immediately west of the project site is already developed. Consideration of alternative sites must take into consideration the feasibility of acquiring and developing these alternate sites.

Undeveloped land within the City is either designated as Open Space Conservation or is already approved for development of specific approved projects. Furthermore, no other undeveloped location in the City is large enough to accommodate the proposed project.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-280 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 SUFME-17
The comment states that the proposed project should be revised to correct the deficiencies described in the letter.

As discussed in Response to SUFME-2 through SUFME-16, potential project impacts have been fully analyzed in the Draft EIR and appropriate mitigation offered, and sufficient alternatives have been discussed.

January 5, 2024
Jim Pechous
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,
Please find detailed below these comments submitted on behalf of The Wildlands Conservancy on the Rio Vista Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The Wildlands Conservancy is private, non-profit land conservation organization, maintaining 25 preserves comprising more than 200,000 acres of natural lands throughout the State, as well as in Oregon and Utah. TWC maintains preserves in San Diego, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, hosting tens of thousands of visitors each year. All preserves are open free to the public. TWC also operates the largest outdoor education program in the State, hosting more than 20,000 K-12 students annually.

Personally, aside from my position as Conservation Director for The Wildlands Conservancy, I am a professional botanist, with more than 45 years of experience working with rare, threatened and endangered species. I served on the San Bernardino County Planning Commission for six years and have worked in the environmental planning industry for most of my professional life, including several years as a Senior Environmental Scientist with Michael Brandman Associates the predecessor environmental consulting firm to what is now FirstCarbon Solutions the preparers of the Rio Vista Specific Plan DEIR . I am a Professor Emeritus at the University of Redlands, where I taught botany and life science courses, as well as Environmental Impact Assessment focusing on implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 25 years.

Our comments are focused on the presence of the Jurupa Oak on the Rio Vista Specific Plan property and the inadequacy of the DEIR to fully assess potential adverse impacts to this ancient specimen, and the failure of the DEIR to consider project alternatives that could reduce those impacts to nonsignificant levels. 1 TWC

The Jurupa Oak, a clonal specimen referred to simply as oldest living organism at 13,000-18,000 years old (May et al. 2009). The age of the Jurupa Oak has been determined by means of detailed allozyme genetic analysis, positively identifying the clone of shrubby oaks as a single individual, which has spread via vegetative sprouts since the end of the last Ice Age.

Using dendrochronological evidence of 10 dead stems and one live branch of comparable dendrochronologies of Palmer oaks from the Garner Valley and Aguanga areas, an average growth rate of 0.96mm per year was established. Applying that growth rate to the long axis of the clone, an age range of 13,000-18,000 years was estimated. (ibid.) It should be noted that the older estimate is based on the slower growth rate of the Jurupa oak itself, at 0.8mm/year, which is plausible given the drier, warmer site conditions at the Jurupa site compared with the Garner Valley and Aguanga locations. Using the more conservative age estimate, at 13,000 years old, the Jurupa Oak is nearly three times older than the ancient Methuselah bristlecone pine the oldest known non-clonal organism on Earth for which reliable age has been established.

Redaction of the Environmental Assessments pertaining to the Jurupa Oak While it is not without precedent to redact specific location data of sensitive resources from public documents, the redaction of any information or environmental assessments of the Jurupa Oak renders review of the adequacy of mitigation measures pertaining to the oak very difficult. Despite requests by several highly qualified professional scientific organizations, such as the California Native Plant Society, not even botanical professionals or other academic institutions have been allowed to review the redacted materials, rendering independent assessments of the adequacy of mitigation measures impossible.

It is our position that the City should designate a group of professional botanists and environmental scientists to independently review the redacted materials pertaining to the Jurupa Oak (excluding sensitive Cultural Resources materials or reports).

Development of the Specific Plan, as proposed, conflicts with Policies COS 1.2 and COS 1.3 of the City General Plan
The DEIR gives the , and goes
on to acknowledge the fact that the oak meets the criteria of significance General Plan in accordance with policies COS 1.2 Protection of Significant Trees; and COS 1.3 Other Significant Vegetation (pgs. 254-255), concluding that development of the Specific Plan could result in [adverse] impact
2 3
4 TWC

Proposed Mitigation Measure BIO-5 in the DEIR does not reduce potential impacts of the Project on the Jurupa Oak to Levels of Non-significance.

The DEIR then proposes Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, a its mapped limits No project-related construction activities may occur 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.

Establishment of an open space lot with a minimum setback of 200 feet does not render potential adverse impacts to less than significant levels. There is no analysis of potential adverse impacts resulting in alteration of the hydrology or geohydrology that has sustained the Jurupa Oak for millennia, let alone indirect impacts of increased temperatures from adjacent rooftops and pavement, fugitive dust which reduces photosynthesis, or invasive species on disturbed soils in and around the Open Space lot. The placement of the Open Space lot boundary almost exactly circumscribes the 200-feet setback from the oldest living organism in North America.

The City must designate a Responsible Conservation Entity to Oversee Area.

The DEIR continues in MM-BIO-5: A City-approved local conservation entity shall be responsible for maintenance of the natural open space
preserve with limited public access. In addition, no heavy equipment may operate within 259 feet of the mapped limits of the tree.

TWC is concerned that the conservation entity must be well qualified to assess, monitor and maintain suitable habitat conditions to sustain the Jurupa Oak. We are concerned when we read in the Biological Assessment Report, Appendix D, prepared by L&L Environmental, Inc., open space areas shall be deed restricted prior to issuance of a grading permit, and ownership will be transferred to the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), City-approved local conservation entity, tion (HOA) [emphasis added] at the time of the recordation of the final map. If transferred to the HOA, the HOA shall manage the open space areas according to the Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions, which shall restrict future impact and uses of open space areas.
5 6
TWC

HOAs are ill-equipped and lack any biological resource management expertise to adequately oversee sensitive resources, such as the Jurupa Oak. It is our recommendation that a special Land Trust entity, including botanical authorities from nearby academic institutions, such as U.C. Riverside and Pomona College/California Botanic Garden, must be established to oversee the Jurupa Oak Open Space lot prior to Final Recordation of the Specific Plan.

The DEIR does not present a range of Project Alternatives that may adequately reduce adverse impacts on the Jurupa Oak, while still maintaining the overall goals of the City General Plan.

As required under the auspices of the CEQA, an EIR must present and analyze project alternatives that may reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project. The No Project Alternative is a standard one in any environmental impact assessment. In this DEIR, the No Project No Build Alternative is evaluated, but generally declined because it does not meet development goals of the General Plan:
alternative would only meet the objective of protecting valuable scenic resources within large expanses However, this open space would not be managed or available for public use. Therefore, this alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed project. (pg. 683) The DEIR presents only two other alternatives: Alternative 2 No Project, Develop the Approved Specific Plan, and Alternative 3 Develop the 2017 Proposed Land Use Plan. Under Alternative 2, 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. This plan would still allow development of 1,697 homes, five acres of Commercial, an Equestrian Center and other amenities; but this plan was adopted prior to the discovery of the Jurupa Oak and does not address potential adverse impacts of the project on the oak or other sensitive biological resources. Furthermore, Specific Plan No. 243 is so long out of date that a revised DEIR would be required in any case if the plan were to go forward.

Alternative 3 development of the 2017 proposed land use plan is also not a reasonable alternative in that the plan was never approved and never went through a CEQA environmental assessment process.

Clearly, a range of other project alternatives can be conceived that would not represent significant adverse environmental impacts to the Jurupa Oak, while still meeting the overall objectives of the 6 CONT
7 8
TWC

General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan by providing a range of residential and other land use amenities to the City and community of Jurupa Valley. These alternatives should include the following:

Consideration of joining the Open Space designation around the Jurupa Oak with the main Open Space designations along the Rio Vista ridge.

Consideration of an alternative that would provide additional setbacks from the Jurupa Oak Open Space area, more than just the 200-feet minimal buffer presently proposed.

In any development scenario, the land management entity that will ultimately oversee the monitoring and maintenance of the oak and its surrounding habitat must include professional biological resource managers. We strongly recommend that a Conservation Easement be recorded over the Jurupa Oak Open Space area, and have it conveyed to a responsible land management entity, such as the local Resource Conservation District, together with an adequate endowment to ensure monitoring and preservation of the oak in perpetuity.

Finally, we hope that the City of Jurupa Valley shares our concern and appreciation for the unique oak organism having survived freezing post-Ice Age
times to fires and droughts and yet it persists, tucked into the rocks of the Jurupa Hills one of the oldest living beings on Earth. The Jurupa Oak should be an emblem of the City of endurance and perseverance as it looks out over its namesake valley.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the Rio Vista Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Sincerely,
Dr. Timothy Krantz
Conservation Director

THE WILDLANDS CONSERVANCY/OAK GLEN PRESERVE
39611 Oak Glen Road, Building 12
Oak Glen, CA 92399
(909) 797-8507
[email protected]
8 CONT
9 10
TWC

OUR DUAL MISSION
To preserve the beauty and biodiversity of the earth and to provide programs so that children may know the wonder and joy of nature.

This email is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise required to be protected from disclosure. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete it as well as all copies or backups of it entirely from your email system and notify me that you received this email in error. - A L B E R T S C H W E I T Z E R
TWC

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-287 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 Wildland Conservancy (TWC)
Response to TWC-1
The introductory paragraphs describe The Wildlands Conservancy’s mission, detail their Conservation Director’s professional background, and state that the organization’s comments on the Draft EIR focus on the on-site Palmer’s oak. No response is required.

Response to TWC-2
The comment’s summary of the on-site Palmer’s oak’s age does not raise any issues related to the proposed project or the Draft EIR; no response is required.

Response to TWC-3
See Master Response 5, CEQA prohibits the inclusion of confidential information in an EIR.

Response to TWC-4
This comment repeats the Draft EIR statement that the on-site Palmer’s oak is subject to General Plan Policies COS1.2 and COS 1.3. No response is required.

However, contrary to the comment’s characterization that the tree is given only a “brief mention” in the Draft EIR, on page 225 (Section 3.4 Biological Resources, page 3.4-15), a detailed discussion on pages 3.4-44 through 3.4-45 describe the three investigations that were conducted to evaluate potential impacts to the tree, leading to the substantiated conclusions that impacts to the tree would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak).

Response to TWC-5
See Response to USFWS-CDFW-11 for discussion of geology and hydrogeology and the reasoning behind the determination of the buffers listed in MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak). See Master Response 1 for discussion of the adequacy of the proposed buffer.

Response to TWC-6
During preparation of the Draft EIR, the City determined that the HOA is not qualified to hold and maintain the open space on-site. Therefore, the mitigation proposed in the BRA was revised, and the Draft EIR states that the responsibility for the preservation and management of the OS-C areas, including where the Palmer’s tree is located, would be transferred to a City-approved local conservation entity (MM BIO-1b, MM BIO-1f, and MM BIO-5). The City would be required to consider eligibility and of the potential conservation agency to hold a conservation easement prior to assigning it. Note that the MM BIO-2 in the BRA (Appendix D) is MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space) in the Draft EIR.

Response to TWC-7
This comment lists the three project alternatives discussed in the Draft EIR. Potential impacts of implementing the Alternative 2, No Project, Develop the Approved Specific Plan, are addressed in the Draft EIR and are not limited to the analysis in the certified 1992 EIR. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the land uses identified in the approved Specific Plan were used as the basis for describing this alternative; however, 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. See Response to SUFME-2. Additionally, the fact that Alternative 3, Develop the City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-288 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 2017 Proposed Land Use Plan, did not complete a prior environmental review does not impact its effectiveness as an alternative to the proposed project. CEQA does not require that alternatives undergo separate environmental review or be an approved plan. Alternative 3 is evaluated for potential environmental impacts in Section 5.7 of the Draft EIR.

Response to TWC-8
The Draft EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives. See Response to EHL-8, Response to CCHTF-4, and Response to GSEJA-45.

Response to TWC-9
The comment’s suggestion that a conservation easement be recorded and conveyed to a responsible land management entity is noted. As stated in the Draft EIR (MM BIO-1b, MM BIO-1f, and MM BIO5), OS-C areas, including where the Palmer’s oak tree is located, would be transferred to a Cityapproved local conservation entity. The City would be required to consider eligibility and of the potential conservation agency to hold a conservation easement prior to assigning it.

Response to TWC-10
The concluding paragraph reiterates the uniqueness of the on-site Palmer’s oak. No response is required.

From: Santos Amaya
To: Chris Barajas; Jim Pechous; Rod Butler
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT
Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 2:31:25 PM
Hello All,
I am someone who is from the Inland Empire and I have seen how much development has happened without much care to preserving the natural landscape around us and cohabitating with it. I understand that the money coming from development and warehouse companies is appealing, but it is important to balance this with environmental preservation. 250 FEET BETWEEN THE OAK AND DEVELOPMENT IS NOT ENOUGH. This is California’s oldest living tree. That is something special deserving to be celebrated and highlighted in Jurupa’s heritage, not something destroyed. I urge you not to only protect this tree, but to also consider keeping the natural landscape in the designs you are approaching. There are so many resources on California Native Landscaping and water wise landscaping that you can find and if you implement the current landscape you’d save yourself to much money and continue to protect California’s biodiversity. I urge you to make the correct choice and have Jurupa be known for more than just development and habitat destruction. 1 2
AMAYA

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-291 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 Individuals
Santos Amaya (AMAYA)
Response to AMAYA-1
See Master Response 1, the buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient. See Master Response 4, Degree of specificity required for response to general comments, regarding commenter’s general opposition to the proposed project.

Response to AMAYA-2
See Master Response 2, the natural landscape around the Palmer’s oak would be protected.

The Rio Vista Specific Plan (SP 16001) includes specific landscape design guidelines and standards for both public and private areas. These would include use of native and appropriate non-native drought-tolerant species, use of invasive plants would be prohibited, installation of underground irrigation system, compliance with the City of Jurupa Valley Ordinance Chapter 9.283, Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirements where aboveground irrigation system is required, and encouragement of the use of water-conserving systems such as drip irrigation and moisture sensors.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
From: [email protected]
To: Jim Pechous
Subject: CA OLDEST living oak
Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 5:55:03 PM
The city of Jurupa Valley intends on stranding the OLDEST living tree/shrub in California,the Jurupa Palmer's Oak, on a small hilltop to be surrounded by warehouses with unknown impacts.

The Jurupa Oak is estimated to be 13,000 years old, is designated as a Sacred Land Site of the Tongva People, and is the only individual of its species for over 25 miles in all directions.

I am writing to let you know that the proposed 259 foot distance between the oak and the Rio Vista development edge I'd not nearly enough. We owe much more to our states OLDEST living oak.

Thank you
Virus-free.www.avast.com
1 2
D.HUMBERTO

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-295 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 Humberto D. (D.HUMBERTO)
Response to D.HUMBERTO-1
The comment states that the on-site Palmer’s oak would be stranded by being located on a small hilltop surrounded by warehouses with unknown impacts.

Under the proposed project, the area immediately surrounding the tree would be designated as Open Space-Conservation. As shown in the Draft EIR Chapter 2 Project Description, Exhibit 2-7, Conceptual Land Use Plan, the surrounding land uses would be Very Low Density Residential, Business Park, and Light Industrial. The edge of the proposed Light Industrial, which may include the development of warehouses, is located approximately 380 feet from the tree, complying with Draft EIR MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak). Potential project impacts have been discussed in detail in the Draft EIR Sections 3.1 through 3.20.

See Master Response 3, Native American Tribal consultation was completed by the City regarding the Native American reference in the comment.

Response to D.HUMBERTO-2
See Master Response 1, the buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 2
3 4
IYER.B

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-299 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 Barbara Iyer (IYER.B)
Response to IYER.B-1
The comment introduces a general concern about water availability, which is discussed in detail below in Responses to IYER.B-2 and IYER.B-3.

Response to IYER.B-2
The comment states that the water usage rate cited in the Draft EIR does not include potential use by the proposed project.

RCSD can extract groundwater from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin without restrictions until the combined water storage credit of the Colton, Riverside North, and Riverside South Groundwater Basins are depleted. It was anticipated that the cost of the replenishment would be allocated to all groundwater extractors, including RCSD(Draft EIR, Section 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems, page

3.19-1). As stated in the Draft EIR on page 3.19-2, “[e]ven after the available credit is depleted, RCSD [Rubidoux Community Services District] can continue to extract groundwater from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin; however, RCSD could be subject to payment of its share of the cost of groundwater replenishment to maintain pumping to meet future water demand.” This quote from the Draft EIR is based on Appendix K to the Draft EIR, page III-9.Furthermore, as stated in the Draft EIR impact analysis for Threshold UTIL-1 (pages 3.19-11 through 3.19-12), the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the proposed project estimated the proposed project’s demand for water to be approximately 963.86 acre-feet per year (AFY). The analysis further states that “[t]he area designated for the proposed project was identified in RCSD’s 2020 UWMP [Urban Water Management Plan] with an annual water demand of approximately 2,000 AFY, which exceeds the currently estimated demand of the proposed project, which is less than 1,000 AFY.” Therefore, the Draft EIR takes into account future potential water use by the proposed project.

Response to IYER.B-3
The proposed project is planned and accounted for in the City’s General Plan and other planning documents such as RCSD 2020 UWMP. Future potential changes in climate, reduced snowfall, and water scarcity would need to be addressed on a larger regional, or even State, level. Climate change is addressed in the General Plan Draft EIR, Section 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. Climate change is also discussed in the Draft EIR, Section 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Water analysis and future multiple dry years is addressed in the Draft EIR, Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality.

Response to IYER.B-4
The concluding paragraph does not raise any environmental issues regarding the proposed project or the Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 2
4 5
3 IYER.J

5 CONT
6 7
8 9
IYER.J

9 CONT
10 11
IYER.J

11 CONT
12 IYER.J

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-305 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 Jennifer Iyer (IYER.J)
Response to IYER.J-1
No response is required for the introductory paragraph.

Response to IYER.J-2
See Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient. Please refer to Master Response 5 for an explanation of CEQA’s prohibition against disclosing confidential information.

Response to IYER.J-3
The vibration study was conducted by Qtative Development Solutions, a consulting firm with expertise in grading analysis and construction management, among others, and with Engineers on its staff. It is reasonable to assume that professional knowledge and judgment was applied in preparing the study. Their analysis determined that based on the locations of grading and blasting, and the distances of those activities from the environmentally sensitive site of the Palmer’s oak, the proposed project would not cause vibration that will impact the environmentally sensitive site. They determined that assuming the conservative 150-pound charge weight and using the closest distance of 259 lineal feet, blasting would create a peak partial velocity to 1.21 inches per second (ips), which is well under the U.S. BLM 8507 standards for safe vibrations of 2 ips.26 The data is presented in Appendix D.5 of the Draft EIR.

According to the hydrogeologic investigation, Cretaceous-aged tonalite and granodiorite (granite) intruded the metamorphic complex approximately 100 million years ago (mya) and predominate the region today. Within the vicinity of the project site, tonalite is a part of the basement complex and is considered non-water bearing; although it may transmit water through secondary porosity developed from fractures that occur after emplacement. A thin veneer of Pleistocene-aged (less than 2 mya) old alluvial fan deposits overlie the tonalite sequence throughout much of the project area. The old alluvial fan deposits are described as sandy to pebbly and cobbly, containing clay, and are reportedly underlain by unconsolidated cobbly alluvium. The Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits within the project site may be water bearing based on local rainfall and hydrologic conditions.27 This report contains multiple location identifiers that could disclose the location of the tree, which is considered a Tribal Cultural Resource, and was therefore not included with the Draft EIR.

Response to IYER.J-4
See Master Response 5, CEQA prohibits the inclusion of confidential information in an EIR.

Response to IYER.J-5
The map originally included with Qtative’s report could not be included in the Draft EIR as it would identify the location of the Palmer’s oak. See Master Response 5, CEQA prohibits the inclusion of confidential information in an EIR. However, under the proposed project, the area where the tree is located would be designated OS-C, which would prohibit development, and no grading would occur in that area. Additionally, the Geotechnical Review determined that compliance with the recommendations provided in the report would reduce potential rockfall impacts to below a level of 26 Qtative Development Solutions. 2023. Rio Vista Grading and ESA Preservation. May 3. 27 Stetson Engineers, Inc. 2022. Technical Memorandum 11192021, Hydrogeologic Investigation at Rio Vista Project Site, City of Jurupa Valley, California. January 18.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-306 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 significance (Draft EIR, Section 3.7 Geology and Soils, page 3.7-13). In addition, compliance with existing regulations would further reduce potential impacts. For example, Municipal Code requirements identified in the Geotechnical Review include provision of debris catchment basins where canyons and reentrants descend to the area of the development, as well as construction of debris deflection/impact walls or earthen berms at the base of natural slopes adjacent to the development. The design and construction of the improvements at the project site would also be subject to the mandatory requirements and standards of the City of Jurupa Valley’s building code, which establishes specific site investigation requirements for hillside development to reduce risks from landslides, rock falls, and debris flows (Draft EIR, Section 3.7 Geology and Soils, page 3.7-13).

The City also requires geological and geotechnical investigations for any structures whose damage could cause secondary hazards in areas with potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction, landslides, or settlement. 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.

Therefore, the Draft EIR concluded that with adherence to the California Building Code (as stated in PPP 3.7-1 and as required by Municipal Code Section 8.70.070), impacts would be less than significant.

Response to IYER.J-6
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 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 USFWS-CDFW-11.

Appendix D.5, Vibration Prediction Study, is included in full, with the exception of 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.

See also Master Response 5, CEQA prohibits the inclusion of confidential information in an EIR.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-307 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 IYER.J-7
Alternative 3 is based on a previous proposed version of the Rio Vista Specific Plan, one that was not pursued further, and the description of the Alternative is sufficient to evaluate the potential impacts.

Regardless, and as requested in the comment, a map of this alternative is presented in Figure 2. The details of this alternative are described in the Draft EIR Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page 5-25 (Section 5.7, Alternative 3—Develop the 2017 Proposed Land Use Plan). An EIR's discussion and analysis of alternatives need not be exhaustive. Text discussing the alternatives selected for evaluation, along with a comparative matrix, is sufficient. Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 CA4th 523, 547. Additionally, courts have held that an EIR's evaluation of an alternative does not require the preparation of design plans or architectural drawings of alternatives, and it is appropriate to rely on estimates of square footage. Los Angeles Conservancy v. City of W. Hollywood (2017) 18 CA5th 1031, 1038.

Response to IYER.J-8
The comment suggests that evaluation of project alternatives should take project objectives into consideration. There is no requirement that EIR evaluate the necessity or appropriateness of the project objectives identified by a lead agency.

Instead, the identification and formulation of a proposed project’s underlying purpose is the role of the decision-makers. CEQA recognizes that a lead agency has broad discretion to formulate project objectives. California Oak Found. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2010) 188 CA4th 227, 276 ("CEQA does not restrict an agency's discretion to identify and pursue a particular project designed to meet a particular set of objectives"). While a lead agency may not provide an artificially narrow definition of the project's objectives, "a lead agency may structure its EIR alternatives analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal." In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Envt'l Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 C4th 1143, 1166. Here, the underlying purpose of the proposed project is to “establish a mixture of residential and employment generating land uses arranged in a functional and efficient manner which complements the surrounding community and provides convenient access to the nearby regional circulation system.” This cannot be achieved by shifting employment opportunities to another area. Doing so would fundamentally change the underlying purpose of the proposed project.

Objections regarding the underlying purpose and objectives of the proposed project will be part of the record considered by the decision-makers in evaluating whether to approve the proposed project.

Response to IYER.J-9
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources are listed in the Draft EIR as having significant unavoidable impacts in multiple locations:

Executive Summary, pages ES-5 and ES-6.

Executive Summary Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix, pages ES-13 and ES-21.

Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, Impact Analysis for Threshold CUL-1, pages 3.5-27 and 3.5-29.

Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, Impact Analysis for Threshold CUL-2, pages 3.5-30 and 3.5-33.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-308 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 3.5 Cultural Resources, Cumulative Impacts, page 3.5-36.

Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, Impact Analysis for Thresholds TCR-1 and TCR-2, pages 3.18- 17, 3.18-18, and 3.18-21.

Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, Cumulative Impacts, pages 3.18-22 and 3.18-23.

Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, 5.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts, pages 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4.

Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, Table 5-2: Summary of Alternative Impacts, pages 5- 35 and 5-36.

The listing of Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources in Chapter 4 as having less than significant impact is corrected in the Errata section.

Response to IYER.J-10
The comment alleges that using “Palmer’s oak” for biological resources analysis and “Hurunga Oak” for cultural resources analysis is confusing and that the conclusions of the two analyses are different.

See Response to SUFME-11.

The comment also provides an excerpt from MM CUL-1a. The full language of MM CUL-1a provides steps to be taken to ensure the continued existence of the tree (by which decay or death would be avoided). Development within the surrounding area of the on-site Palmer’s oak may negatively affect the tree. However, the proposed project would designate that area as OS-C, precluding any development around the tree. Furthermore, implementation of MM BIO-5 would ensure a buffer is always maintained around the tree.

Response to IYER.J-11
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. The study referenced in MM CUL-1a is one of three studies used to formulate mitigation related to the Palmer’s oak. See Response to USFWSCDFW-11.

Response to IYER.J-12
As stated in the comment, the Draft EIR provides background information on the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation Mitigation. The Draft EIR is intended as a guidance documents for City decision-makers to evaluate environmental impacts of the proposed project. Cultural and historical background of the Native American Tribe is not needed for this evaluation beyond what is provided in the Draft EIR.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-309 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 2: Alternative 3 (2017 Proposed Land Use Plan)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
From: Arne Johanson
To: Jim Pechous
Subject: Jurupa/Hurunga Oak
Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 12:08:34 PM
City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department
Jim Pechous, Principal Planner
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
November 21, 2023
Dear Mr. Pechous,
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 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.

Oak trees are very susceptible to injury and death from soil disturbance and/or hydrology changes. The proposed industrial area /business park can make either or both possible. Why would anyone take that risk with such a unique and special tree?! I want 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. It is no coincidence that people from around the nation are concerned with the DEIR which 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. This is a national and world treasure and should be treated as such!
Please incorporate my comments in the official record for this project.

Arne Johanson
600 Meadowlark Road
Jackson, Wyoming 83001
858-759-4769
1 2
3 4

JOHANSON

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-313 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 Arne Johanson (JOHANSON)
Response to JOHANSON-1
The comment requests that the City reassess the current landscape plan and identify alternative project options that ensure better protection of the on-site Palmer’s oak and respect for Tongva sacred lands.

The proposed project involves the development of a mixed-used community under a Specific Plan.

As such, detailed site plans, including landscaping plans, would be prepared as each PA is being planned for development. However, as shown in the Draft EIR Exhibit 2-7 Conceptual Land Use Plan, the Palmer’s oak is located in an area that would be designated OS-C. OS-C areas would remain undeveloped and would therefore not include landscaping.

With designation of the area surrounding the tree as OS-C, which does not permit development, and with implementation of MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak), the tree would be protected. Furthermore, project alternatives are discussed in the Draft EIR Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

See Master Response 3, Native American Tribal consultation was completed by the City.

Response to JOHANSON-2
See Master Response 3, Native American Tribal consultation was completed by the City regarding consultation with Tribal representatives.

The project site is 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.

The Light Industrial/Business Park is located approximately 380 feet from the tree, complying with Draft EIR MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak).

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 area surrounding the on-site Palmer’s oak would be designated as OS-C, which precludes development. This designation, along with implementation of MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s Oak), the tree would be protected.

It is reasonable to assume that laws, such as requiring pets to be leashed, would to be enforced, protecting the trees from pets. See Response to CCHTF-4 for additional discussion regarding protections in existing laws.

Response to JOHANSON-3
The comment states that the proposed industrial area/business park could result in soil disturbance and/or hydrology changes that could impact the tree.

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. Implementation of MM BIO-5 (Palmer’s City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-314 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 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.

See Response to USFWS-CDFW-11.

Response to JOHANSON-4
See Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient.

From: [email protected]
To: Jim Pechous
Subject: Rio Vista Specific Plan DEIR
Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 6:46:33 PM
Dear Mr. Pechous:

I would like to voice support for the conservation of the Palmer's oak that is threatened by the Rio Vista development. Not only is the oak part of a sacred site to the Gabrielino, it is living history. Americans have been trampling on the history of Native Americans, as well as tearing down trees and forests without a thought, for far too long. Please do the right thing and provide this tree and sacred site the respect and courtesy of at least 1500 feet of buffer for the oak, as well as restricted development to protect its growth.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Lockhart
PO Box 521
Montrose, CA 91020
1 LOCKHART

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-317 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 Elizabeth Lockhart (LOCKHART)
Response to LOCKHART-1
See Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient.

See Master Response 2, The natural landscape around the Palmer’s oak would be protected.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
From: Emily O"Neill
To: Chris Barajas; Jim Pechous; Rod Butler
Subject: California’s oldest living oak
Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 11:37:04 AM
The city of Jurupa Valley intends on stranding the OLDEST living tree/shrub in California, the Jurupa Palmer's Oak, on a small hilltop to be surrounded by warehouses with unknown impacts.

The Jurupa Oak is estimated to be 13,000 years old, is designated as a Sacred Land Site of the Tongva People, and is the only individual of its species for over 25 miles in all directions.

I am writing to let you know that the proposed 259 foot distance between the oak and the Rio Vista development edge is not nearly enough. We owe much more to our states OLDEST living oak.

Thank you
Emily O’Neill
Sent from my iPhone
1 2
3 ONEILL

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-321 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 Emily O’Neill (ONEILL)
Response to ONEILL-1
See Response to D.Humberto-1.

Response to ONEILL-2
See Master Response 3, Native American Tribal consultation was completed by the City.

Response to ONEILL-3
See Master Response 1, The buffer established in the Draft EIR is consistent and sufficient.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-1 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx SECTION 4: ERRATA
The following are revisions to the Draft EIR for the Rio Vista Specific Plan Project. These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document, and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft EIR. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken (stricken).

4.1 - Changes in Response to Specific Comments
Executive Summary, Table ES-1 Executive Summary Matrix
Page ES-12, Section 3.4—Biological Resources
As described below for Section 3.4 Biological Resources, and in response to Comment USFWS-CDFW55, the following mitigation is added.

Impacts
Level of Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After
Mitigation
Section 3.5—Cultural Resources
Threshold BIO-1: Would
the proposed project
have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or United States
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially significant
impact.

MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b,
MM BIO-1c, MM BIO-1d,
MM BIO-1e, MM BIO-1f,
MM BIO-1g, MM BIO-1h,
MM BIO-1i, MM BIO-1j,
and MM BIO-1k, and MM
BIO-1l.

Less than significant
impact.

Page ES-13, Section 3.5—Cultural Resources
As described below for Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, and in response to the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians comments as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, several mitigation measures are removed as shown below.

Impacts
Level of Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After
Mitigation
Section 3.5—Cultural Resources
Threshold CUL-2: Would
the proposed project
Potentially significant
impact.

Implement MM CUL-1a,
MM CUL-1b, MM CUL-1c,
Significant and
unavoidable impact.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-2 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Impacts
Level of Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After
Mitigation
cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
and MM CUL-1d. MM
CUL-2a, MM CUL-2b, MM
CUL-2c, MM CUL-2d, MM
CUL-2e, MM CUL-2f, MM
CUL-2g, and MM CUL-2h.

Threshold CUL-3: Would
the proposed project
disturb human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?
Potentially significant
impact.

MM CUL-3a and MM CUL3b. Significant and
unavoidable impact.

Cumulative Impact Potentially significant
impact.

Implement MM CUL-1a,
MM CUL-1b, MM CUL-1c,
and MM CUL-1d, MM
CUL-2a, MM CUL-2b, MM
CUL-2c, MM CUL-2d, MM
CUL-2e, MM CUL-2f, MM
CUL-2g, MM CUL-2h, and
MM CUL-3a, and MM
CUL-3b.

Significant and
unavoidable impact.

Page ES-21, Section 3.18—Tribal Cultural Resources
As described below for Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, and in response to the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians comments as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, several mitigation measures are removed as shown below. In addition, please note that the Tribal Cultural Resources sections was misnumbered in the Draft EIR and are now corrected.

Impacts
Level of Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After
Mitigation
Section 3.173.18—Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold TCR-1: Would
the proposed project
cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource that is
listed or eligible for listing
in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or
in a local register of
historical resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)?
Potentially significant
impact.

Implement MM CUL-1a,
MM CUL-1b, MM CUL-1c,
and MM CUL-1d, MM
CUL-2a, MM CUL-2b, MM
CUL-2c, MM CUL-2d, MM
CUL-2e, MM CUL-2f, MM
CUL-2g, MM CUL-2h, and
MM CUL-3a, and MM
CUL-3b. MM TCR-1a, MM
TCR-1b, MM TCR-2, MM
TCR-3, MM TCR-4, MM
TCR-5, MM TCR-6, MM
TCR-7, MM TCR-8, MM
TCR-9, MM TCR-10, MM
Significant and
unavoidable impact.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-3 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Impacts
Level of Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After
Mitigation
TCR-11, MM TCR-12, MM
TCR-13, and MM TCR-14.

Threshold TCR-2: Would
the proposed project
cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource
determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion
and supported by
substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1?
Potentially significant
impact.

Implement MM CUL-1a,
MM CUL-1b, MM CUL-1c,
and MM CUL-1d, MM
CUL-2a, MM CUL-2b, MM
CUL-2c, MM CUL-2d, MM
CUL-2e, MM CUL-2f, MM
CUL-2g, MM CUL-2h, and
MM CUL-3a, and MM
CUL-3b. MM TCR-1a, MM
TCR-1b, MM TCR-2, MM
TCR-3, MM TCR-4, MM
TCR-5, MM TCR-6, MM
TCR-7, MM TCR-8, MM
TCR-9, MM TCR-10, MM
TCR-11, MM TCR-12, MM
TCR-13, and MM TCR-14.

Significant and
unavoidable impact.

Cumulative Impact Potentially significant
impact.

Implement MM CUL-1a,
MM CUL-1b, MM CUL-1c,
and MM CUL-1d, MM
CUL-2a, MM CUL-2b, MM
CUL-2c, MM CUL-2d, MM
CUL-2e, MM CUL-2f, MM
CUL-2g, MM CUL-2h, MM
CUL-3a, and MM CUL-3b.

MM TCR-1a, MM TCR-1b,
MM TCR-2, MM TCR-3,
MM TCR-4, MM TCR-5,
MM TCR-6, MM TCR-7,
MM TCR-8, MM TCR-9,
MM TCR-10, MM TCR-11,
MM TCR-12, MM TCR-13,
and MM TCR-14.

Significant and
unavoidable impact.

Page ES-22, Section 3.17—Transportation
Inaccurate numbering to the Transportation section in Table ES-1 is corrected.

Impacts
Level of Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance After
Mitigation
Section 3.183.17—Transportation
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-4 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Section 2.2.1 Proposed Project, Open Space

As part of Response to SIERRA-8, the City determined that the conservation agency to hold the conservation easement is not required to be a local one, and the word “local” in this context is removed:

The project site would contain approximately 510.8 acres of open space, consisting of a combination of natural open space, revegetated manufactured slopes, and regraded and revegetated slopes. Many of the existing informal trails would remain, and no new trails into the open space would be created. A City-approved local conservation entity would be responsible for maintenance of the natural open space areas, which are currently designated as Open Space Conservation Habitat and Open Space Recreation (Section 2.1.5 above and Exhibit 2-5), and under the proposed project would be designated Open Space Conservation (Exhibit 2-7).

Section 3.1, Air Quality, 3.3.3 Existing Air Quality Conditions

In response to Comment GSEJA-9, the following clarifying text is added for context:

As required by General Plan Policy EJ 1.11 Environmental Screening, Exhibit 3.3-1 shows the existing CalEnviroScreen attributes related to Ozone, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and diesel particulate matter (DPM).

As shown in Exhibit 3.3-1, the CalEnviroSceen identifies the project site as “High PollutionLow Population” and describes the level of pollution burden by a scoring system used to identify communities that face multiple burdens of pollution and socioeconomic disadvantage. This information helps Cal/EPA to prioritize its work in the State’s most burdened communities. This score is not intended to be used for CEQA purposes.

Section 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.4.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold BIO-1, Page 3.4-33
MM BIO-1b has been revised to clarify the land use designation of open space that is subject to this mitigation. Other references in the Draft EIR to this mitigation measure or to the 510.8 acres to be subject to this mitigation identify the area as having a land use designation of Open SpaceConservation (OS-C). This revision is a minor typographical clarification to the document and does not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions.

In addition, as part of Response to SIERRA-8, the City determined that the conservation agency to hold the conservation easement is not required to be a local one, and the word “local” in this context is removed.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-5 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx 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 Open Space-Conservation (OS-C). The open space OS-C areas shall be deed restricted, and ownership shall be transferred to a City-approved local conservation entity prior to recordation of the final map.

Section 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.4.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold BIO-1, Page 3.4-35
As part of Response to SIERRA-8, the City determined that the conservation agency to hold the conservation easement is not required to be a local one, and the word “local” in this context is removed.

MM BIO-1f Urban/Wildlands Interface
As the approximately 510.8 acres of open space may be transferred to a Cityapproved local conservation entity, the project shall incorporate design measures to ensure compliance with Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines and requirements. These measures, as listed in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, shall address Drainage, Toxics, Lighting, Noise, Barriers, Access, Pets, and Grading/Land Development.

Section 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.4.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold BIO-1, Page 3.4-35
MM BIO-1g has been revised to include additional details in response to environmental impacts already identified in the Draft EIR. The addition of the requested language does not change the significance conclusions previously disclosed. Accordingly, the revisions to the existing mitigation measure may be adopted without triggering recirculation (14 CCR § 15088.5(a)).

In response to Comment USFWS-CDFW-39, the language of MM BIO-1g (Nesting Birds) is revised as follows:

MM BIO-1g Nesting Birds
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 Division and the project applicant shall adhere to the following:

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-6 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx

1. The project 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, a Nesting Bird Plan shall be developed and implemented avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by the Designated Biologist and approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, based on their best professional judgment 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 Designated 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. The nesting bird plan prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. to 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.

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 Designated 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 City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-7 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx 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 Designated 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 Designated 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.

Section 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.4.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold BIO-1, Page 3.4-36
In response to Comment USFWS-CDFW-49, the language of MM BIO-1h (Biological Monitoring and Clearance Surveys) is revised as shown below. The addition of the requested language does not change the significance conclusions previously disclosed. Accordingly, the revisions to the existing mitigation measure may be adopted without triggering recirculation (14 CCR § 15088.5(a)).

Note that as discussed in Section 3 Response to Written Comments, revisions are made with the exception of requiring the Designated Biologist to possess a handling permit.

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), 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 should be conducted so that 100 percent coverage of City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-8 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx 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.

Monitors shall also conduct The City in consultation with the Designated Biologist should prepare a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training prior to implementation of project ground-disturbing activities. Biological 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 Species of Special Concern (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 shall be incorporated into the construction effort. The qualified Biologist should communicate to workers that upon encounter with an 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 on-site 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.

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 City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-9 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx 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, a 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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (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 Database (CNDDB) forms and maps to the CNDDB within 5 working days of the sightings. Additional avoidance and minimization measures may need to be developed with the CDFW/USFW.

Where applicable, wildlife should be protected, allowed to move away on its own (noninvasive, 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. 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 the CDFW/USFWS to prepare speciesspecific protocols for proper handling and relocation procedures. Only a USFWS approved Biologist should be authorized to capture and relocate Endangered Species Act-listed species. A relocation plan should be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and comment prior to implementing project-related grounddisturbing activities.

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 City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-10 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx 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 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 proposed 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 All monitoring reports and communications shall be retained in project files to allow review by the lead agency and wildlife agencies, if requested Wildlife Agencies.

Section 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.4.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold BIO-1, Page 3.4-37
MM BIO-1i has been revised to include additional details in response to environmental impacts already identified in the Draft EIR. The addition of the requested language does not change the significance conclusions previously disclosed. Accordingly, the revisions to the existing mitigation measure may be adopted without triggering recirculation (14 CCR § 15088.5(a)).

In response to Comment USFWS-CDFW-33, the language of MM BIO-1i (Burrowing Owl) is revised as follows:

MM BIO-1i Burrowing Owl
a) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Planning Division 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 Division Department and to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (jointly referred to as the 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 City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-11 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx the 30-day pre-construction burrowing owl survey shall 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 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 (MSHCP) 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 pre-construction 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 present burrowing owls are detected by the pre-construction survey, the Biologist shall notify the Planning Division Department and consult with local and State agencies, as appropriate, and develop a mitigation plan. A copy of the plan shall be provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division Department, the CDFW, and the 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 on-site qualified Biologist shall 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 Division.

The mitigation plan 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 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.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-12 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx

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

4.2. 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 shall 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 shall be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval within 2 weeks of detection and no project activities shall 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 shall be submitted to the City and the Wildlife Agencies within 30 days of completion of the survey for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-13 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Section 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.4.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold BIO-1, Page 3.4-38
In response to Comment USFWS-CDFW-44, the language of MM BIO-1k (Crotch’s Bumble Bee) is revised as shown below. The addition of the requested language does not change the significance conclusions previously disclosed. Accordingly, the revisions to the existing mitigation measure may be adopted without triggering recirculation (14 CCR § 15088.5(a)).

Note that as discussed in Section 3 Response to Written Comments, revisions are made with the exception of replacing floral resources with management in perpetuity.

MM BIO-1k Crotch’s Bumble Bee
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 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (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 could result in disturbance or potential take, the qualified Biologist, in coordination with the 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.

Section 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.4.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold BIO-1, Page 3.4-38
In response to Comment USFWS-CDFW-55, new mitigation measure MM BIO-1l (Noise Plan) is added as follows. The addition of the requested mitigation does not change the significance conclusions previously disclosed. Accordingly, the additional mitigation measure may be adopted without triggering recirculation (14 CCR § 15088.5(a)(3)).

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-14 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx MM BIO-1l Noise Plan
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 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.

Section 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.4.5–Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold BIO-2, Page 3.4-39
The area to be protected under MM BIO-1b was erroneously referred to as 510.5 acres instead of 510.8 acres in the impact discussion regarding sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat. This revision is a minor typographical clarifications to the document, and does not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions.

Sensitive Natural Communities Implementation of the proposed project would result in the permanent loss of approximately 477 acres of habitat. The 477 acres of impacted habitat add to the reduction in availability of nest/den sites and foraging habitats for species that utilize shrublands, grasslands, and disturbed habitats. With implementation of MM BIO-1b (Conserve Open Space), approximately 510.5 510.8 acres of habitat would be preserved as open space, managed by a City-approved conservation entity, and deed restricted as open space and would be available to support plant and wildlife species that utilize the site. MM BIO-1a (Flag or Fence Impact Areas) and MM BIO-1h (Biological Monitoring and Clearance Surveys) would ensure that construction activities do not encroach on avoidance areas. With implementation of MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, and MM BIO-1h, impacts to common vegetation communities on the project site would be adverse, but less than significant.

Section 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.4.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold BIO-5, Page 3.4-46
As part of Response to SIERRA-8, the City determined that the conservation agency to hold the conservation easement is not required to be a local one, and the word “local” in this context is removed.

MM BIO-5 Palmer’s Oak
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, a lettered open space lot shall be identified to avoid the Palmer’s oak and a minimum of 200 feet beyond its mapped City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-15 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx limits, as mapped in the Revised Updated Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation, Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Narrow Endemic Plant, Burrowing Owl Breeding Season, and Two-year Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Focused Surveys for Rio Vista, Specific Plan 16001, Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California, prepared by L&L Environmental, Inc. in December 2016 and most recently updated in September 2023. No project-related construction activities may occur 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. A City-approved local conservation entity shall be responsible for maintenance of the natural open space areas, which includes the area of the Palmer’s oak, and it would monitor the health of this tree. The area surrounding the Palmer’s oak would be designated as a preserve with limited public access. In addition, no heavy equipment may operate within 259 feet of the mapped limits of the tree.

Section 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.4.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold BIO-6, Page 3.4-46
As part of Response to SIERRA-8, the City determined that the conservation agency to hold the conservation easement is not required to be a local one, and the word “local” in this context is removed.

The project site contains Riparian/Riverine and Delhi sands habitat. Impacts to these habitats may require compensatory mitigation under MSHCP requirements. However, with the implementation of MM BIO-1b, which requires the project applicant to set aside portions of the project site as conservation land, the majority of the Riparian/Riverine and Delhi sands habitat present on-site shall be designated as open space, which would not be impacted by future development. These open space areas shall not be developed, but rather be preserved as open space, managed by a City-approved conservation entity, and placed under a deed with restrictions from future development. The did restriction would be established prior to issuance of a grading permit, and responsibility for managing this area would be entrusted to a City-approved local conservation entity which shall manage the open space areas and shall restrict future impact and uses of open space areas. With the implementation of these avoidance and preservation measures, the development of the project site would have a less than significant impact.

Section 3.4 Biological Resources, 3.4.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold BIO-6, Conservation Areas/Reserve Assembly, Page 3.4-47 As part of Response to SIERRA-8, the City determined that the conservation agency to hold the conservation easement is not required to be a local one, and the word “local” in this context is removed.

The project site contains Riparian/Riverine and Delhi sands habitat. Impacts to these habitats may require compensatory mitigation under MSHCP requirements. However, with City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-16 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx the implementation of MM BIO-1b, which requires the project applicant to set aside portions of the project site as conservation land, the majority of the Riparian/Riverine and Delhi sands habitat present on-site shall be designated as open space, which would not be impacted by future development. These open space areas shall not be developed, but rather be preserved as open space, managed by a City-approved conservation entity, and placed under a deed with restrictions from future development. The did restriction would be established prior to issuance of a grading permit, and responsibility for managing this area would be entrusted to a City-approved local conservation entity which shall manage the open space areas and shall restrict future impact and uses of open space areas. With the implementation of these avoidance and preservation measures, the development of the project site would have a less than significant impact.

Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, 3.5.2 Environmental Setting Ethnographic Setting, Pages 3.5-8 through 3.5-13
In response the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ comments, provided as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, the following edits are made in the Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR.

Ethnographic Setting
Cahuilla
The ethnohistory of the Cahuilla Indians is documented in academic studies, mission records, and major published sources. The San Gorgonio Pass, Coachella Valley, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto mountains were occupied by the Cahuilla people at the time of Spanish arrival in 1769. By the early 1800s, the Cahuilla had expanded into northern Riverside County. The Cahuilla were organized into at least 12 differed patrilineal clans, which owned large spans of territory that included multiple ecological zones at high and low elevations. This allowed the Cahuilla people to exploit a wide range of plant and animal resources in different seasons. Cahuilla groups are often distinguished by the topographic region (i.e., desert, mountain, and pass) in which they established permanent settlements.

Desert Cahuilla settlements congregated around the shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla as well as near the mouth of canyons and valleys in areas that could supply many of their food resources within a 5-mile area. As the lake receded, the Cahuilla moved their villages and adapted their subsistence practices. Pass Cahuilla also established settlements in or near the mouths of canyons and valleys. Mountain Cahuilla occupied settlements between 3,000 and 5,000 feet in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains.

Cahuilla clans operated within a hierarchical politico-religious structure, each with one or more ceremonial units that served as a “symbolic representation of the sociopolitical reality of the group.” These groups were part of a ritual congregation connecting autonomous groups to the broader sociopolitical, religious, and economic networks.

The Cahuilla were hunter-gatherers for the most part and may have incorporated agriculture into their subsistence foci prior to European contact. Among the animals the Cahuilla hunted were Pronghorn sheep, mule deer, rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, desert tortoise, rats, and mice. The City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-17 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Cahuilla often organized communal rabbit hunts prior to ceremonial gatherings to provide food for guests and participants. When available, the Cahuilla also hunted fish and birds along the shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla.

Cahuilla material culture included an array of utilitarian and ceremonial objects. Cahuilla were well known for their woven baskets. They were also expert potters and used ceramics to craft many different items for storage, cooking, and other uses. Stone and wood implements were integral to daily Cahuilla life. Wooden mortars and pestles were used to process mesquite beans and other seeds and plant materials as were stone manos and pestles used with stone mortars, metates, and bedrock slicks. Cryptocrystalline and microcrystalline silicates, metavolcanics, and obsidian, among other stone materials, were worked into knives, blades, scrappers, and projectile points to tip wood arrows. Wood was utilized for bow construction, pestles and mortars, arrow shafts, throwing sticks, digging sticks, and flutes. The Cahuilla also utilized various parts of animals (e.g., bone and tendons) and plants (e.g., mescal fiber sandals) in everyday life. Ceremonial objects included shell beads, feathers, gourd rattles, crystals, wands, and various items that made up the ceremonial bundle.

Gabrieleño
The arrival of Spanish explorers and the establishment of missions and outposts during the eighteenth century ended the prehistoric period in California. At this time, traditional Gabrieleño society fragmented in the face of foreign diseases and extrication of local Native American groups into the Spanish Missions at San Gabriel and San Juan Capistrano. Bean and Smith believe the Gabrieleño population is impossible to accurately estimate at the time of Spanish arrival but suggest there may have been more than 100 mainland villages, with an average population of 50-200 people per village (i.e., 5,000 to 20,000 people). By 1800, many Gabrieleño people had died or were subjugated under Spanish rule.

The Gabrieleño were one of the most influential and powerful Native American groups in Southern California. They were a chief-oriented society of semisedentary to sedentary hunter-gatherers. The society exhibited ranked individuals, possibly chiefs, who possessed a much higher level of economic power than unranked persons. Influenced by coastal and interior environmental settings, their material culture was quite elaborate and consisted of well-made wood, bone, stone, and shell items.

The Inland Gabrieleño lived in primary villages occupied year-round, supplemented by seasonal gathering camps. Their living structures were large, domed, and circular thatched rooms that may have housed multiple families. Other structures included sweathouses and ceremonial structures.

The subsistence economy included a variety of plants and animals, including deer, piñon nuts, and acorns. Acorns were used as trade items for marine resources acquired by coastal groups and other goods, such as obsidian, offered by desert groups.

Luiseño
The term Luiseño originated as a description of the native peoples associated with Mission San Luis Rey near Oceanside who shared a similar language, culture, and religious worldview. The Luiseño refer to themselves as Payómkawichum, meaning people of the west (R. Basquez, personal communication April 1, 2014) derived from the word Payómkawic (i.e., westerner [Harrington 1933]). They were distinguished by name from their neighbors west of the Santa Ana Mountains who were brought under the influence of Mission San Juan Capistrano (i.e., Juaneños or City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-18 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Acjachemen; 'Axátcmeyam) but shared closely related dialects, culture, and religious customs, leading others to argue that the Payómkawichum and 'Axátcmeyam represented one ethnic nationality. As succinctly stated in recent ethnographic work among the Luiseño, the “anthropological characterization of Luiseño history and geography . . . differs considerably from the Luiseño’s own understanding of their origins as explained by the Luiseño Origin Story, or story of creation.”
The Luiseño were a patrilineal society, meaning property, rights, and leadership positions were inherited through the father. The Luiseño also practiced a form of patrilocality, in which related males lived in clusters within a village, while females were either married in or married out of the family. The Luiseño did not maintain moieties, at least not the Coyote and Wildcat moieties common among neighboring groups like the Cahuilla and Serrano, although White suggested that a type of ceremonial moiety system was in place prior to Spanish arrival.

Luiseño territory was divided into a system of village complexes, village territories, and villages. The village complex, which was like a city, contained multiple villages or neighborhoods, each with their own village territory. The Pechanga Tribe has identified several large village complexes in neighboring areas, including Sóovamay centered in Diamond and Domenigoni valleys; Qaxáalku, southeast of Lake Matthews; Paxávxa in Temescal Canyon; Páayaxchi at Lake Elsinore; and Téemeku in Temecula.

Areas within a village territory were connected by trails and pathways, all of which communicated information, both public and private, to the Luiseño. A similar system of trails connected village territories and village complexes to one another and emphasized important concepts of community and commonwealth. Oxendine, White, and others recognized the existence of Luiseño settlement land use patterns within historic village territories; future archaeological research in the project site region may determine just how far back these patterns can be traced into prehistory.

The Luiseño were, for the most part, hunters, collectors, and harvesters who utilized available resources within their village territories while also maintaining usufruct rights to gather from other village territories. Most food resources were gathered within close proximity to the village, but during certain seasons the family group would move to the coast for marine resources or into the mountains for acorns and deer. This allowed the Luiseño to obtain resources from a variety of ecological zones, which supplied food in all seasons. Environmental niches of particular importance within the project site would have included Riversidian sage scrub and riparian plant communities.

The Luiseño hunted small and large game, including various hare and rabbit, woodrat, mice, ground squirrels, quail, doves, ducks, and other birds, and both antelope and deer. Tree squirrels, most reptiles, and predators such as coyotes, mountain lions, and bobcats were avoided as food resources, except possibly during lean times. Insects were also available as food resources. Luiseño hunting technology employed for small and large game included throwing sticks; the bow and arrow, typically with a wood or bone point; snares; traps; slings; decoys; disguises; and hunting blinds. Fire also assisted in communal rabbit drives. Many villages also had access to creeks and rivers, and nets, traps, spears, hooks and lines, and poisons were used to catch fish.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-19 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx As in most of California, acorns were a major staple, but the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruit of many other plants also were used. Roots and shoots of various types were gathered from marshes and wetlands. Seeds from various grasses and scrub plants such as buckwheat also played an important role in the aboriginal diet and were available for harvest from summer through fall. Certain mushrooms and tree fungi supplemented the diet and were considered delicacies. Teas were made from a variety of floral resources and were used for medicinal cures as well as for beverages.

Tobacco and datura were sacred plants used for rituals and medicine.

Plant and animal processing activities required portable and/or stationary ground stone tools.

Bedrock mortars (BRMs) were fixed locations on the landscape utilized in communal, family, and private resource processing settings. They were most populated with slicks, but also contained basin metates and mortars that were worked into the outcrop surface or placed within natural depressions. BRMs were used in tandem with manos and pestles. Portable ground stone tools are sometimes found in association with BRMs but are more commonly associated with village sites, other habitation sites, and resource processing locations that did not contain bedrock outcrops (i.e., complex lithic scatters).

Most Luiseño houses were conical and partially subterranean; however, during the nineteenth century some had rectangular houses. The dwellings were made of locally available material, such as reeds, brush, or bark. Occupants entered using a door at the side of the shelter, which was sometimes accessed through a short tunnel. Smoke from a central fireplace rose through a hole in the center of the roof. Domestic chores, such as cooking, eating, and social interaction, often occurred under a brush-covered ramada that stood near the house. Earth-covered sweat houses for purification and curing rituals, ceremonial houses with fenced areas, and granaries for food storage were found in most villages.

Serrano
The history of the Serrano Indians is retained in the oral history of their surviving members. It is also documented in ethnographic studies, historic diaries, mission records, and published sources. The following is a summary of Serrano ethnohistory.

The Serrano refer to themselves collectively as Maringayam in Morongo dialect, which included the Tumukvayam in Banning Water Canyon and Tamianutcem at Twentynine Palms, or Maara’yam in the dialect of the San Manual Indian Reservation in Highland, California. Serrano Traditional Use Area encompasses the San Bernardino Mountains extending south into the Yucaipa Valley, west to the Antelope Valley, east to Twentynine Palms and north of Barstow. The Serrano argued the limits of their traditional territory in a Claims Case against the United States in the 1950s. While Bean and Vane note the territorial description was and remains controversial, they opted to use the description in their study of ethnohistory in Joshua Tree National Park because it was agreed upon by the tribes themselves. The Serrano traditional territory identified in the Claims Case against the United States did not include the Jurupa area, though the Serrano may have occupied the area during the Mexican Period succeeding the Gabrieleño and/or Luiseño.

The Serrano were organized into two territorial exogamous totemic moieties known as Tuktum (Coyote) and Wahilyam (Wildcat) and were composed of more than a dozen autonomous clans City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-20 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx divided into smaller patrilineal bands that occupied defined territories. The Serrano sociopolitical, religious, and ceremonial institutions, including exogamous marriage between clans/moieties and the periodic mourning ceremony, promoted reciprocity between clans. Trade and exchange were also important and allowed for resources available in one ecological zone to be distributed to another. The Serrano’s practice of reciprocity and the distribution of resources from one ecological zone operated within a broader mutual interdependence network that promoted group unity and survivability.

The Serrano practiced a semisedentary lifestyle moving among occupation sites to take advantage of seasonally available resources. Principal villages where larger corporate groups gathered were occupied in the winter, and in some cases year-round, with seasonal camps occupied by smaller bands during the spring, summer, and fall. Many of the principal villages correspond to place names provided by Serrano Indians and recorded in the Franciscan mission sacramental registers.

Serrano dwellings were used primarily for sleeping and included a central hearth for heat. Most cooking and other residential chores occurred outside in the open or under a ramada-like structure.

Serrano material culture included tools and implements for hunting, gathering, and processing food as well as food storage. Common tools included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, knives, scrapers, bows and arrows tipped with stone, bone, and wood tips, ceramic and stone bowls, baskets, and bone implements (e.g., spoons, awls, or stirrers). Other items of Serrano material culture included musical instruments such as rattles and flutes, pipes, strands of shell, stone, and bone beads, abalone shell compacts, and shell and stone pendants.

Flora utilized by the Serrano included acorns, seeds, piñon nuts, bulbs, tubers, shoots, roots, chia, berries, cacti fruit, and mesquite. Game animals primarily exploited by the Serrano included mountain sheep, antelope, deer, rabbits, small rodents, birds, among which quail were the most desired, and sometimes fish. Bow and arrow were the most common hunting implements but curved throwing sticks, traps, snares, and deadfalls were also used. Communal hunts for deer and rabbits were sometimes held, often in association with Serrano ceremonies. Meats were generally baked in earthen ovens or boiled in watertight baskets containing water, meat, and hot stones. Meat was sometimes parched by tossing it along with hot coals in shallow trays. Bones were often boiled to extract nutritious marrow and blood was consumed hot or cold. Surplus meats were dried for future use. Serrano men were primarily responsible for the hunting.

The Spanish incursion devastated indigenous populations in Southern California, but some Serrano survived for many years. This was due to a combination of the ruggedness of the terrain in the far eastern San Bernardino Mountains and Mojave Desert and their dispersed populations. During the Mexican Period and into the American Period, Serrano Indians and their neighbors were often targeted and attacked in retribution for the attacks on livestock and ranches by bands of marauders.

In 1866, three cowboys were murdered at Las Flores Ranch by a group of Chemehuevi or Paiute Indians. In retaliation, a group of American settlers living in the San Bernardino Valley formed a militia and attacked the neighboring Serrano Indians. During a 32-day campaign, most of the Native Americans living in the valley, foothills and mountains were driven from their homes or killed. Some Serrano followed Chief Antonio Sever and worked for the local ranchers in the valley while most City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-21 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx followed Yuhaaviatam clan leader Santos Manuel out of the mountains and into the foothills near Highland. This location became the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Reservation, which was established by Presidential Order in 1891.

Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, 3.5.2 Environmental Setting Native American Heritage Commission Record Search, Page 3.5-18 In response the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ comments, provided as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, the following edits are made in the Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR.

Native American Heritage Commission Record Search
L&L submitted a Sacred Lands File Search request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 11, 2019. The NAHC responded on April 29, 2019, stating the results were positive for Sacred Sites and recommended the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation be contacted for more information. Furthermore, the NAHC recommended contacting additional local tribes who may have information on Native American cultural resources in the project site and provided a list of names. On March 5, 2015, six scoping letters were sent to the Tribes and individuals originally identified by the NAHC. On May 1, 2019, an additional 20 scoping letters were sent to Tribes and individuals. For additional information about tribal consultation, please refer to Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.

Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, 3.5.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold CUL-1, Pages 3.5-27 through 3.5-29
In response the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ comments, provided as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, the following edits are made to Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1a Protection of the Hurunga Oak
The Hurunga Oak, also known as the Palmer’s oak (Quercus palmeri), is both a historic resource and a historic tribal cultural resource, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21074 (a) (1) (A). It is called the “Hurunga Oak” by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation. Direct or indirect impacts to the Hurunga Oak, located within a portion of the Native American sacred area (MRN 45), resulting from the proposed project that may lead to its decay or death would constitute a significant impact on the environment that may not be mitigated or reduced to a level less than significant. To ensure the continued existence of the Hurunga Oak Native American sacred area, the following steps shall be taken in accordance with City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Policy COS 7.1:
• The project proponent shall design the project to avoid direct impacts to the Hurunga Oak Native American sacred area as delineated on the Sacred Lands File by in coordination with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation.

Additionally, because the Hurunga Oak (aka Palmer oak) is also a sensitive biological resource, the avoidance area shall include the area identified in MM City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-22 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx BIO-5. If complete avoidance of the area delineated on the Sacred Lands File is not feasible, the project proponent shall minimize impacts within the boundary of the sacred area through project design (e.g., reducing or limiting the construction footprint) and prepare a Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (CRIMP) to include specific actions for this Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) [See MM CUL-8]. The project design and CRIMP shall be developed in coordination with the City and Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation. • Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall complete a scientific assessment of the Hurunga Oak Native American sacred area to determine, the project’s potential to disturb or disrupt, though direct or indirect impacts, the unique conditions that have allowed the oak tree to survive in this location for more than 10,000 years. A scientific specialist with qualifications approved by the City, shall perform the assessment using noninvasive methods to avoid or minimize direct or indirect impacts to the Hurunga Oak during the assessment. The specialist shall delineate the area contributing to the support of the Hurunga Oak; including, as appropriate, hydrology, topography, root system, microhabitat, etc. The project proponent shall avoid impacts within the boundary of the delineated area through project design (e.g., reducing or limiting the construction footprint). A CRIMP will be developed by the project Archaeologist to include specific actions for avoidance of this Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) [See MM CUL-8]. The CRIMP shall be circulated to the City and Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation for review and comment.

MM CUL-1b Rattlesnake Mountain (Junā’av) Park Site
The following measures/conditions will be required to reduce the project’s potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on Rattlesnake Mountain (Junā’av) Ethnographic Area in accordance with the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Policies COS 7.1, COS 7.2, COS 7.5, COS 7.7, COS 7.8, COS 7.9, and Program COS 7.1.4. • The project proponent shall name one of its dedicated open space parks Junā’av Park and commission the production of an informational kiosk that will be installed in the park. Installation shall occur prior to the approval/sign off of the landscape and irrigation systems within the park. The kiosk shall include photos and/or illustrations and a narrative description of the Rattlesnake Mountain (Junā’av) Ethnographic Area and its contribution to the cultural heritage of the local indigenous population. The information presented on the kiosk shall be developed in coordination with the City and the consulting Native American Tribes.

MM CUL-1c California Department of Parks and Recreation 523D District Record Form for Junā’av Ethnographic Area
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall hire a qualified Archaeologist identified on the County of Riverside’s Cultural Resource Consultant City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-23 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx List which is used by the City of Jurupa Valley (Project Archaeologist), to prepare provide evidence that a California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523D District Record Form for Junā’av Ethnographic Area has been completed that identifies contributing and noncontributing resources, describes its historic function or use, and includes a narrative description and narrative statement of significance in accordance with pertinent guidelines. This measure shall be done in conjunction with MM CUL-2b.

MM CUL-1d Rattlesnake Mountain [Junā’av], Jurupa Hills [Sokáva], etc. Educational Booklet Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall hire a qualified Archaeologist identified on the County of Riverside’s Cultural Resource Consultant List which is used by the City of Jurupa Valley (Project Archaeologist), to conduct archival research and prepare an educational booklet for the public that describes Jurupa (Hurúpa/ Hurú’ŋa/ Húutsuvaxpa’/Haránka) and its various ethnographic areas (e.g., Rattlesnake Mountain [Junā’av], Jurupa Hills [Sokáva], etc.) that contribute to the cultural heritage of indigenous population(s) and Jurupa’s local history. The project proponent shall circulate the booklet to the Native American Tribes who participated in the AB 52 consultation process for review and comment prior to publication if requested. The project proponent shall make the booklet available to the City of Jurupa Valley, and provide the local public libraries, government buildings, etc., with copies and potentially on the City’s website.

Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, 3.5.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold CUL-2, Pages 3.5-30 through 3.5-33
In response the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ comments, provided as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, the following edits are made to Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-2a Photogrammetric Documentation and Viewshed Analysis Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall hire a qualified Archaeologist identified on the County of Riverside’s Cultural Resource Consultant List which is used by the City of Jurupa Valley (Project Archaeologist), to provide evidence that a close range photogrammetric documentation and viewshed analysis (i.e., direct line of sight and 180-degree viewsheds) of all prehistoric sites within the project’s direct impact area through the completion of field work. The results of the analysis, including all photos and figures, shall be presented in a technical report attached to the data recovery report. Final reports must be submitted by the Project Archaeologist to the City, project proponent, consulting Native American Tribes, the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located on the campus of the University of California, Riverside, and the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton prior to final building City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-24 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx inspection and approval (see MM CUL–2f below). The reports shall be transmitted by U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.

MM CUL-2b Archaeological Phase II Testing and Data Recovery Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall hire a qualified Archaeologist identified on the County of Riverside’s Cultural Resource Consultant List which is used by the City of Jurupa Valley (Project Archaeologist), to conduct Phase II testing and a data recovery program, if avoidance is not feasible, through the completion of field work to City of Jurupa Valley standards. Based on the current project design, the testing and data recovery (as needed) will apply to 13 impacted archaeological resources within the project’s direct impact area, and any additional resources within 100 feet of the project impact limits. In addition, surface collection of the four prehistoric isolates that fall within the project’s direct impact area (33- 024196 [MRN 33], 33-024772 [MRN 36], 33-024774 [MRN 38], and 33-024775 [MRN 39]) shall be included in the data recovery plan. If the project design changes, the sites that are impacted may correspondingly change (see MM CUL-2h below).

The Phase II testing and data recovery program shall include preparation of a testing and data recovery plan, completion of testing and data recovery field work, archival research, lab analysis of artifacts recovered, preparation of a data recovery report, and curation of archaeological materials in a local museum or repository or an agreement that artifacts/materials shall be buried within a designated conservation area within the project area limits. The data recovery plan must include an archaeological research design for prehistoric archaeological resources that presents specific research domains/themes of interest, offer questions that shall be investigated through archaeological research and analysis, and identify data requirements necessary to address those questions. The plan shall also include, at a minimum, the following: site descriptions, background contexts, field methods, lab methods, reporting requirements, and a curation agreement with a local repository or a repatriation agreement with consulting tribal groups Native American Tribes.

The plan shall be prepared by the project Project Archaeologist and circulated for review and comment to the consulting Native American tribe Tribes and the City prior to implementation.

MM CUL-2c If the proposed development is located within waters of the US, the project archaeologist acting on behalf of the proponent shall consult with the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) under Section 106. The project archaeologist shall provide the city with a letter report that includes documentation by the USACE that waters of the US are not present within the project site or that known resources are not present within mapped waters of the US.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-25 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx MM CUL-2d Cultural Resources Management Plan
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall hire a qualified Archaeologist identified on the County of Riverside’s Cultural Resource Consultant List which is used by the City of Jurupa Valley (Project Archaeologist), to prepare, in consultation with the consulting Native American Tribes, the contractor, and the City, a Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Management Plan (CRIMPCRMP), to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and Tribal cultural activities that shall occur on the project site include specific actions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), that applies to the entire project area. A consulting Native American Tribe is defined as a Tribe that initiated the AB 52 Tribal consultation process for the project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and is engaged in or has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB 52.

Details in the The CRMP shall include: a brief description of the cultural resources present, standards and specifications for ESA and the avoided archaeological sites (14 sites currently lie outside of the project design impact area), as well as any resources that fall within 100 feet of the project impact limits. The CRIMP shall reference the Project Specifications, maps and figures and depict the location of ESA and avoided site(s). The CRIMP shall detail the fencing to be required in relation to all avoided culturally sensitive areas, the project’s direct impact area and installation location of the fencing. These along with specific treatment measures will ensure the project shall have no impact on the avoided resources. a) Project description and location;
b) Project grading and development scheduling;
c) Roles and responsibilities of individuals on the proposed project; d) The pre-grading meeting and Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training details;
e) The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, consulting Native American Tribe(s) and Project Archaeologist shall follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, human remains/cremations, sacred and ceremonial items, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. f) The type of recordation needed for inadvertent finds and the stipulations of recordation of sacred items.
g) Contact information of relevant individuals for the proposed project.

Also included shall be a discussion of key personnel and their specific roles and responsibilities, archaeological monitoring requirements and methods, preconstruction field surveys to identify known and unknown cultural resources, a discussion of archaeological resource classes that may be encountered during construction, and protocols for identifying, evaluating, treating, and curating archaeological resources that may be encountered. The plan submitted to the City City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-26 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx and consulting Native American tribe(s) via email or other electronic format for review and comment.

MM CUL-2e Archaeological Monitoring During Ground Disturbance Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any permit authorizing ground disturbance, the project proponent shall provide a copy an engagement letter with a A qualified Archaeologist, identified on the County of Riverside’s Cultural Resource Consultant List which is used by the City of Jurupa Valley (Project Archaeologist), will to oversee implementation of the Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (CRIMP) archaeological and Native American monitoring (per MM TCR-1a and MM TCR-1b).

This includes archaeological and Native American monitoring on a full-time basis for all grading and ground-disturbing activities until the project Project Archaeologist in coordination with the consulting Tribe(s) and the City determines that resources are not likely to be encountered. The Archaeologist shall also oversee the cultural resource sensitivity training for construction personnel (i.e., Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]). Should any cultural resources be discovered during ground disturbance implementation of the CRIMP, the Monitor(s) shall be authorized to temporarily halt all construction-related activities within a 100-foot radius of the discovery while the resource is recorded onto appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms and evaluated for significance per the Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP). in consultation with the qualified Archaeologist. If the resource is determined significant, the qualified Archaeologist shall identify measures that shall be implemented to treat cultural resources in accordance with the protocols developed in the CRIMP. No further grading shall occur in the discovery area until the City is notified by the qualified Archaeologist that treatment has been completed.

MM CUL-2Ff Final Archaeological Reports
Prior to final building inspection and approval, the project proponent shall provide the City of Jurupa Valley with a draft Phase II testing and data recovery report, draft archaeological monitoring report, draft California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523D District Record Form for the Junā’av Ethnographic Area including the photogrammetric documentation and viewshed analysis, draft educational booklet for Jurupa (Hurúpa/ Hurú’ŋa/ Húutsuvaxpa’/Haránka), and one or more of the following, (1) a receipt of payment to a local museum or repository for the curation of archaeological materials generated during implementation of the data recovery program and/or monitoring program, (2) an agreement that artifacts/materials will be buried within a designated conservation area within the project area limits or (3) a Tribal repatriation agreement. The Phase II testing, data recovery report and archaeological monitoring report should follow Archaeological Resource Management Report (ARMR) format and content guidelines developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). They shall, at a minimum, present the results of field work, lab analysis, archival research, special studies, and City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-27 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx identify the final disposition of artifacts. The project proponent shall provide a final testing, data recovery and monitoring reports. Reports shall address comments from the City, project proponent, and/or consulting Native American Tribe(s). Final reports will shall be submitted to the City, project proponent, consulting Native American Tribe(s), the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located on the campus of the University of California, Riverside, and the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton. The reports shall be transmitted by the project proponent or their designee via US Mail return receipt requested.

MM CUL-2g Resurvey of Site 33-003494 (MRN 3) and Site 33-003497 (MRN 6) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall hire a qualified Archaeologist identified on the County of Riverside’s Cultural Resource Consultant List which is used by the City of Jurupa Valley (Project Archaeologist), to resurvey the project site and sites 33-003494 (MRN 3) and 33-003497 (MRN 6). These previously recorded archaeological resources were not found during the current study and may have been obscured. These resources fall within the current direct impact area.

Should the previously recorded resources be found, they would be subject to the same treatment measures placed on other prehistoric archaeological sites to reduce potentially significant impacts resulting from the project. The results of this survey shall be reported by the project Project Archaeologist in a letter report and provided to the City by the project proponent at or before grading permit issuance.

MM CUL-2h Project Design Modifications
The following steps shall be taken to reduce potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources resulting from project design modifications:

If at any time, the Rio Vista Specific Plan development footprint is modified, project impacts to cultural resources shall be reviewed by an Archaeologist identified on the County of Riverside’s Cultural Resource Consultant List which is used by the City of Jurupa Valley (Project Archaeologist) to determine whether additional studies may be required prior to issuance of the grading permit, or prior to any project-related disturbances. The Project Archaeologist in coordination with the City of Jurupa Valley, shall determine whether an update of existing literature searches, consultation, or coordination with the NAHC and the Consulting Tribal entities consulting Native American Tribes, survey work, Phase II testing, data recovery and/or other work is necessary based upon the nature of the proposed project and resultant impacts to cultural resources or Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). If a new application is submitted to the City or new/revised Specific Plan is submitted to the City, the City shall follow the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation and/or Senate Bill (SB) 18.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-28 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Project modifications may include, but are not limited to, an increase in development impact acreage beyond what is addressed in this report Draft EIR, newly identified impacts to any resources described in this report or within 100 feet of any resources, and/or the addition of recreational trails, trailheads utilizing existing dirt paths, or any other development that may increase public accessibility and the potential for vandalism or disturbance to cultural resources in areas proposed as open space.

Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, 3.5.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold CUL-3, Page 3.5-35
In response the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ comments, provided as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, the following edits are made to Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures.

MM CUL-3a Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains
There is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. In the event that human or potential human remains are encountered, the following steps shall be taken to reduce potential impacts to inadvertent discoveries of human remains:

In the event of discovery of human bone, potential human bone, or a known or potential human burial or cremation, all ground-disturbing work within 100-feet of the discovery shall halt immediately and the County Coroner and the Lead Agency shall be immediately notified. California State Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and PRC Section 5097.98. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours and guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in treatment and disposition of the remains. The Lead Agency shall also retain a professional Archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the find and consult with the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, the Archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the MLD, including excavation and removal of the human remains. The Lead Agency shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and PRC Section 5097.98. The project contractor shall implement approved mitigation measure(s), to be verified by the Lead Agency, prior to resuming ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered.

MM CUL-3b During the development of the CRIMP and Data Recovery Plan, the proponent or the archaeologist hired to prepare the documents will coordinate with the Consulting Native American tribe. Consistent with MM CUL 6 and 8, Project archaeologist shall develop the draft plan and transmit the plans to the consulting Native American City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-29 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx tribes, The Tribe(s) shall have 45 days to respond with any comments or information they wish to provide. The Tribal comments shall be addressed in the plan and copies of the transmittal letter and the Tribal responses shall be attached to the plan.

Evidence of coordination with a tribe shall be included in the plan (e.g. certified letter or email.

Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 3.9.6 Cumulative Impacts