Jurupa Valley City Council
September 5, 2024

In response to Comment CALFIRE-RCFD-8, and to provide clarification, “CAL FIRE” is removed from the Draft EIR as shown below:

Cumulative impacts related to emergency response and evacuation plans would be less than significant. Riverside County and local law enforcement and fire departments conduct evacuation exercises annually to prepare for emergency situations. Evacuations in the project site area are an emergency support function that local law enforcement organizes and coordinates with Riverside County. Larger regional and statewide impacts would be regulated by State agencies to address larger-scale statewide issues. For these reasons, cumulative impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation plans would be less than significant. Moreover, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to these less than significant cumulative impacts would not be significant. The proposed project would not conflict with or impair an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, because it consists of various roadway improvements and improved circulation and would not result in any impairment to access roads. In addition, while the proposed project is located in a high fire severity zone, the proposed project would be required to comply with minimum fire safety standards as defined in the City Building or Fire Codes, or by City zoning, or as dictated by the Building Official of the Transportation Land Management Agency based on building type, design, occupancy, and use. To ensure a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts, development consistent with the Rio Vista Specific Plan would be required to implement all applicable policies during the design review process. As the City receives development applications, those applications will be reviewed by the City for compliance with the applicable policies. In addition, a provision will be required to ensure that adequate fire protection service through agreements with Riverside Fire Department, CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department, and local law enforcement and fire departments. The proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact related to emergency response plans, emergency evacuation plans, or wildland fire hazards.

Section 3.11 Land Use and Planning, 3.11-5 General Plan Consistency Analysis

In response to Comment CFBD-9, the Consistency Determination for General Plan Policy COS 1.3 is revised:

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-30 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 Element
Policy
No. Text Consistency Determination
Conservation
and Open Space
Policy COS 1.3 Other Significant Vegetation.

Maintain and conserve superior
examples of vegetation, including:
agricultural wind screen plantings,
street trees, stands of mature native
and non-native trees, and other
features of ecological, aesthetic, and
conservation value.

Consistent: The proposed project
would preserve 510.8 acres
(approximately 55 percent of the
project site) as open space. This
area includes significant
vegetation. The on-site Palmer’s
oak is located within the 510.8
acres designated as Open Space
and to be preserved.

Section 3.11 Land Use and Planning, 3.11.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold LU-2, Page 3.11-40
In response to Comment LAFCO-2, the consistency analysis with the Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) required documents is revised to clarify that receipt of the items identified in Table

3.11-6 would not constitute an automatic approval of the annexation to RCSD, but rather would allow the annexation application to be deemed complete.

Rubidoux Community Services District
On March 17, 2022, the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) informed the applicant that the request to annex the proposed project into the service area of the Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) is approved, pending completion of several outstanding approvals. With the assumption that the proposed project, i.e., the new Rio Vista Specific Plan, would be adopted by the City, consistency with the outstanding items are evaluated in Table 3.11-6 below.

The majority of the items are pending adoption of the proposed project (i.e., the new Rio Vista Specific Plan) and certification of the EIR by the City. With the assumption that these two documents would be adopted by the City, the proposed project would be able to provide the required documents to LAFCo, allowing the annexation application to be deemed complete and RCSD would complete the annexation.

Section 3.15 Public Services, 3.15.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold PUB-1, page 3.15-11
In response to Comment CALFIRE-RCFD-8, “CAL FIRE” would be removed from the Draft EIR and replaced with “RCFD” as shown below:

According to CAL FIRERCFD, “Station 38 is approximately a 5-minute response from the Rio Vista project site.”
City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-31 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, 3.18.1 Introduction

In response the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ comments, provided as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, the following edits are made in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR.

This section describes the existing tribal cultural resources setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Information in this section is based on a Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) prepared by L&L Environmental, Inc. (L&L) on September 18, 2017, and last revised on December 21, 2021,1 (Appendix D), and subsequent consultation with tribal representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who may have interest in or additional information on tribal cultural resources that may be impacted by project development. For the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) may be broadly defined as follows:
• Tribal Cultural Resources: Tribal cultural resources include sites, features, places, or objects that are of cultural value to one or more California Native American Tribes.

More specifically, TCRs may be understood as resources that have been formally recognized by a lead agency and/or are listed or determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 4852). TCRs may also include archaeological and historic resources (see Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, for discussion and analysis of impacts relating to archaeological and historic resources). It is notable that the fact that a resource is not yet identified as a TCR or found eligible for the CRHR does not preclude a lead agency from determining that said resource is a TCR pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. Under CEQA, a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR would constitute a significant effect on the environment.

One public comment letter was received during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping period related to tribal cultural resources:
• The NAHC recommended Tribal consultation as well as record searches pursuant to CEQA and State and federal laws.

Confidentiality
With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of TCRs submitted by a California Native American Tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code Section 6254 (r) and Section 6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American Tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the Tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the 1 L&L Environmental, Inc. 2019. Cultural Resources Assessment, Rio Vista Specific Plan 16001, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California. June 12. Most recently updated: December 21, 2021.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-32 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 disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (PRC § 21082.3 (c)(1)). Therefore, this section relies, in large part, on the government-to-government consultation process required by SB 18—Protection of Tribal Cultural Places and AB 52—Effects on Tribal Cultural Resources.

Tribal Expertise
CEQA Guidelines Section 21080.3.1(s) notes that “the legislature finds and declares that California Native American Tribes. . . may have expertise concerning their tribal cultural resources.” Based on guidance from the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), substantial evidence that may support the lead agency’s determination may include Tribal elder testimony, oral history, Tribal government archival information, the testimony of a qualified Archaeologist certified by the relevant Tribe, testimony of an expert certified by the Tribal government, official Tribal government declarations or resolutions, formal statements from a certified Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, and historical notes or other anthropological records. As such, the analysis in this section considers the information obtained during the government-to-government Tribal consultation process that the City engaged in with the Tribes who consulted under AB 52 and SB 18.

Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, 3.18.1 Introduction

In response the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ comments, provided as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, the following edits are made in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR.

Native American Background
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 that 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.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-33 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx 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 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 City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-34 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 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 Acjachemen; 'Axátcmeyam) but shared closely related dialects, culture, and religious customs (Harrington 1933), 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 City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-35 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx 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.

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.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-36 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 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 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 City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-37 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx 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 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.

Records Searches to Identify Existing Tribal Cultural Resources NAHC Sacred Lands File Search and Tribal Correspondence L&L submitted a Sacred Lands File Search request to the NAHC on February 19, 2015, and an updated request was sent on April 11, 2019. The NAHC responded initially on March 3, 2015, and an updated respond was received on April 29, 2019. These responses stated that 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. Follow-up emails, telephone calls, letters, and field visits were completed between May 2, 2019, and September 28, 2020. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Cahuilla Band of Indians, the Los Coyotes Band of Indians, and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation have responded to requests for information.

The Los Coyotes Band provided updated contact information for their Environmental Director but did not comment on the proposed project. The Agua Caliente Band deferred comment to other Tribes in the area and stated they wanted to conclude their consultation efforts for the proposed project. The Cahuilla Band stated that the project site was within the Cahuilla traditional use area and was concerned over the possibility that cultural resources may be unearthed during project construction.

The Cahuilla Band requested Tribal Monitors from Cahuilla be present during all ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project.

The Morongo Band requested the incorporation of the Tribe’s Standard Development Conditions relating to the discovery of human remains and Native American cultural resources. In addition, the Tribe requested a copy of the Eastern Information Center (EIC) records search, an update on the results of the Phase I survey, and monitoring. Further, the Morongo Band indicated that they might provide additional information to the lead agency during the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation process.

The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation identified an ancient oak tree and 44-acres of land in the Jurupa Mountains (i.e., Rattlesnake Mountain) as a Sacred Site (N-RIV-123). Furthermore, they stated the ancient oak was nominated as the Sacred Oak of the Kizh (aka Gabrieleño). The ancient oak is sacred and of extreme importance to the tribe. Chairman Andy Salas provided L&L confidential maps and records depicting the location of the ancient oak and other known sites in the project site vicinity.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-38 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 NAHC’s Sacred Lands Inventory is a confidential catalog of Native American sacred and cultural sites on public and private lands. It is authorized in statute by Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 (a), which authorizes the NAHC “to identify and catalog places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans, and known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands,” and Public Resources Code Section 5097.95, which authorizes the NAHC to “prepare an inventory of Native American sacred places that are located on public lands.” CEQA lead agencies that are conducting an environmental review of a proposed project prior to granting a permit or license for that project typically request a search of the Sacred Lands Inventory as part of the CEQA environmental review process to determine whether a project has an impact on Native American cultural resources. If a Sacred Lands Inventory search reveals that a Native American cultural resource is in a project area (called “positive”) the NAHC does not provide the name or location of the sites. Instead, the NAHC provides the requesting party a list of the California Native American Tribes on its AB 52/SB 18 Tribal Consultation Lists that are traditionally and culturally affiliated to the project area so that the CEQA lead agency may consult with the Tribes to discuss avoidance, preservation in place, or mitigation of impacts to any Native American cultural resources in a project area. The NAHC maintains a confidential Sacred Lands File (SLF) database which contains resources of traditional, cultural, or religious value to the Native American community. The NAHC was contacted on October 7, 2021, to request a search of the SLF. The NAHC responded to the request in a letter dated November 19, 2021, indicating that the results were positive. The response letter did not provide details on resources within the project site.

Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, 3.18.3 Regulatory Framework Jurupa Valley2017 General Plan, Page 3.18-13
In response the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ comments, provided as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, the following edits are made in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR.

COS 7.7 Qualified archaeologist present: Cease construction or grading activities in and around sites where substantial archaeological resources are discovered until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American cultures can determine the significance of the resource and recommend alternative mitigation measures.

Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, 3.18.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Thresholds TCR-1 and TCR-2, Page 3.18-16
In response the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ comments, provided as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, the following edits are made in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR.

Impact Analysis
L&L submitted a Sacred Lands File Search request to the NAHC on February 19, 2015, and an updated request was sent on April 11, 2019. The NAHC responded initially on March 3, 2015, and an updated respond was received on April 29, 2019. These responses stated that the results were positive for Sacred Sites in the project site. The L&L CRA identified 26 cultural resources within the direct impact area, 13 of which are recommended eligible for the CRHR individually and/or as contributors to the significance of a district and are considered historical resources for the purposes City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-39 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx of CEQA. These resources include 10 archaeological sites, one prehistoric component of a mixed component site, and two historically significant areas (Hurunga Oak and Rattlesnake Mountain (Junā’av)). All 13 eligible sites are associated with tribes and may be considered eligible TCRs pursuant to CEQA.

Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, 3.18.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Thresholds TCR-1 and TCR-2, Page 3.18-17
In response the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ comments, provided as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, the following edits are made in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR.

The City issued SB 18 Notices in 2016 and AB 52 Notices on February 14, 2022. The results of both the AB 52 and SB 18 processes are shown on Table 3.18-1.

Table 3.18-1: Summary of AB 52 and SB 18 Consultation Process Tribe AB 52 Notice SB 18 Notice Result
Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians–Kizh Nation
X X City accepted incorporated Tribes
proposed mitigation measures
Soboba Band Luiseño Indians X X City accepted incorporated Tribes proposed mitigation measures
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
X X No response
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
X X No response
Pala Band of Mission Indians X X Stated that the project is outside their culturally affiliated area
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation X X Stated they did not wish to participate Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
X X No response
As indicated in Table 3.18-1 above, only the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation (Gabrieleño) and the Soboba Band Luiseño Indians (Soboba) expressed interest in participating in AB 52/SB 18 consultation. During the Tribal consultation process, the City held several meetings with the Gabrieleño and Soboba representatives and received proposed mitigation measures from both entities. The Gabrieleño and the Soboba provided the City with proposed mitigation measures. The Gabrieleño also prepared a Tribal Cultural Resource Identification Report for the project site (Appendix E). The City agrees with the findings and accepts the proposed mitigation measures. The Soboba is preparing a Tribal Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Place Analysis which is not completed as of the date of this analysis. However, based on consultation with Soboba, they have submitted mitigation measures that take into account the anticipated TCRs that are located on the project site.

These resources will be included in the CRMP required by MM CUL-2d.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-40 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 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, 3.18.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Thresholds TCR-1 and TCR-2, Pages 3.18-18 through 3.18-21 In response the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians’ comments, provided as part of AB 52 Tribal Consultation, the following edits are made to the Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures.

Mitigation Measures
Implement MM CUL-1a, MM CUL-1b, MM CUL-1c MM CUL-1d, MM CUL-2a, MM CUL-2b, MM CUL2c, MM CUL-2d, MM CUL-2e, MM CUL-2f, MM CUL-2g, MM CUL-2h, and MM CUL-3a, and MM CUL3b.

MM TCR-1a Multiple Consulting Tribes Tribal Resources Component of the Cultural Resources Management Plan
Prior to issuance of grading permit, or excavation, trenching, cleaning, grubbing, tree removals, grading and trenching, 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), in consultation with the consulting Native American Tribes, the contractor, and the City, shall include in the Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) required by MM CUL-2d, the following components regarding Native American Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) as provided for in Public Resources Code Section 21084.3: the Developer/Permit Applicant shall engage each of the consulting tribe(s) regarding Native American Monitoring. The Developer/Permit Applicant shall provide evidence to the City that they have reached an agreement with each consulting tribe(s) regarding the following:

1. The treatment of known cultural resources.

2. The treatment and final disposition of any tribal cultural resources, sacred sites, human remains, or archaeological and cultural resources inadvertently discovered on the Project site.

3. Project grading, ground disturbance (including but not limited to excavation, trenching, cleaning, grubbing, tree removals, grading and trenching) and development scheduling; and

4. The designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Tribal Monitor(s) during grading, excavation, and ground disturbing activities. a) Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-41 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx b) Treating the resources with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the Tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
1) Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resources. 2) Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
3) Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c) Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
d) Protecting the resource.

If the Developer/Permit Applicant and the consulting Tribe(s) are unable to reach an agreement, the mitigation measure shall be considered satisfied if the Developer/Permit Applicant provides sufficient documented evidence that they have made a reasonable reasonably good faith effort to reach an agreement, as determined by the City, with the consulting Tribes with regards to items a-d, as listed above.

If, after conducting consultations in good faith and within the spirit of the definition, the Tribe or local government cannot reach agreement on preservation or mitigation of any impact to a California Native American cultural place, neither party is required to take any action.

MM TCR-1b Native American Component of the Cultural Resources Management Plan Consistent with the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 which recognizes that California Native American Tribes may have expertise with regard to their Tribal history and practices, which concern the Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) with which they are traditionally and culturally affiliated, Tribal knowledge about the land and TCRs at issue shall be considered for inclusion in the Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) as requested by the consulting Tribes.

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Mitigation
MM TCR-2 Preparation of a Soboba Band Tribal Cultural Resource Management Plan (TCRMP) developed in close consultation with the Soboba Band and approved by the City. The TCRMP shall detail the proposed approach of the Soboba Band’s tribal monitoring of ground-disturbing activities for the Project. The TCRMP will provide the appropriate protocol to follow for any unanticipated tribal and/or archaeological finds uncovered during ground-disturbing activities for the Project. The TCRMP also will discuss the timing and reporting responsibilities for TCR-2 through TCR-10.

Avoidance and Preservation of Significant Resources and Locations Prior to the issuance of grading permits, efforts shall be devised in consultation with the consulting Native American Tribes, to avoid specific locations based on City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-42 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 substantial evidence provided by a consulting Native American Tribe so as to protect the cultural and natural context of the resource through project redesign, and the designation of open space where significant resources are located.

MM TCR-3 Recognizing that the entire TCR cannot be avoided, the Soboba Band requests avoidance, to the greatest extent possible, of the most significant places within the TCR—namely the place where one of their three cycles of Cahuilla Wi’kik’mal Taxmu’a end, as part of creation for the Cahuilla people. Additionally, all significant archaeological sites, geologic features, water resource features, and native plants traditionally used by the Soboba Band should be avoided when possible. The Soboba Band proposes to meet with City Planners and to the greatest extent possible redesign the land use plan to avoid critical areas within the TCR .

Conservation Areas
Permanent conservation easements or restrictive covenants shall be required and created in consultation with the project applicant, the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division, and the consulting Native American Tribes for all open space avoidance areas based on substantial evidence provided by a consulting Native American Tribe.

Any and all conservation easements shall be transferred, managed, or maintained only by a third-party entity as approved by the City.

MM TCR-4 Avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred method for all Soboba Band Cultural and natural elements. If avoidance and preservation is considered not feasible, a feasibility study may be required for final determination regarding the need for avoidance. If the City determines that the study has adequately demonstrated that preservation is not feasible, a Data Recovery/Treatment Plan for the resource shall be drafted and subject to review by the City and the Soboba Band prior to implementation.

Long-Term Management Plan for Tribal Cultural Resources A Tribal Cultural Resources Long-Term Management Plan (TCR TLMP) shall be created in consultation with the project applicant, the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division, and the consulting Native American Tribes, for significant locations based on substantial evidence provided by a consulting Native American Tribe which are avoided in open space areas. The TCR TLMP shall address periodic maintenance, such as any necessary fuels modification, natural deterrents for unauthorized access, etc., in a manner that is culturally appropriate management criteria for the purpose of preserving or utilizing the resources or places, as described in Public Resources Code Section 21084.3(b).

MM TCR- 5 Soboba Band Cultural and natural elements of the TCR that cannot be avoided shall be photo documented using high resolution photography (at least 300 pixels per inch [dpi]).

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-43 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4340/43400004/EIR/4 - Final EIR/43400004 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Documentation and Relocation of Significant Tangible Elements For significant locations based on substantial evidence provided by a consulting Native American Tribes the Project Archaeologist shall submit photo documentation of contributing elements (cultural and natural) of any Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) that cannot be avoided. The resources shall be photo documented using high resolution (at least 300 pixels per inch [dpi]). Bedrock Milling Features (BRMs) that cannot be avoided shall be captured in three-dimensional (3D) images for the creation of 3D models and shall be relocated to mutually agreed upon areas within the 917.3-acre Specific Planning Area. These areas must be placed in a conservation easement so they are preserved in perpetuity.

MM TCR-6 Archaeological sites within the TCR that cannot be avoided shall be captured in three-dimensional (3D) images for the creation of 3D models.

MM TCR-7 Tangible Soboba Band cultural resources within the TCR that cannot be avoided shall be relocated to multiple mutually agreed upon areas within the 917.3-acre Project Area. These areas must be identified by the City as open areas that will be preserved in perpetuity so that no future disturbances will occur. Additional measures including stabilization of the relocated resources, security, and long-term preservation, will be described in a Long-Term Management Plan, which shall be drafted and reviewed by the City and the Soboba Band prior to final approval.

MM TCR-8 Incorporate a connectivity trail (Soboba Band TCR corridor) at the developers cost, within the Project to connect areas (i.e., open space, plateau) within the TCR.

MM TCR-9 Where feasible, at the developer cost, use a drone and/or Google Earth Pro to create a visual simulation of the path walked by Cahuilla ancestors as they travelled along the Peet’ Wi’kik’mal to the Jurupa Hills, and then beyond as they travelled to the next destination.

MM TCR-10 At the plateau on Jurupa Hills, at the developers cost, photo document the 360- degree viewshed using high resolution photographs.

MM TCR-11 Preparation of a cultural landscape study to fully document the Soboba Band TCR within the Project Area (the TCR extends beyond this, but for management purposes the TCR will be defined as the Jurupa Hills).

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation Mitigation MM TCR-13 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects(Non-Funerary/NonCeremonial)

1. Upon discovery of any Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-44 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 resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh Monitor and/or Kizh Archaeologist. The Kizh will coordinate with the landowner or the relevant governmental agency (as applicable) regarding treatment and curation of these resources recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

Note that no revisions are made to MM TCR-12 and TCR-14.

Section 3.20 Wildfire, 2.20.2 Environmental Setting

In response to Comment CALFIRE-RCFD-12, and to provide additional context, the Fire Protection and Riverside County discussion will be modified as shown below to address the project site’s annexation into the Rubidoux Community Services District (Rubidoux CSD). The addition of the requested information does not change the significance conclusions previously disclosed.

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

City of Jurupa Valley
According to the General Plan, the Riverside County Fire Department, in cooperation with CAL FIRE, provides fire protection services to the City. This includes full-service municipal and wildland fire protection, emergency medical response, technical rescue services, and response to hazardous materials discharges. Riverside County Fire Department consists of 15 battalions that staff and operate 101 fire stations.

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

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-45 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 would be annexed into the Rubidoux Community Services District (Rubidoux CSD), which is the responsible entity for providing fire protection services to the project site.

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

Chapter 4 Other CEQA Considerations, 4.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts

In response to Comment IYER.J-9, and to address a minor typographical error, the list of significant unavoidable impacts and the list of less than significant or less than significant with mitigations impacts are revised as follows:

The proposed project was analyzed for potentially significant impacts related to each of the environmental issues discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.20. The results of the analysis indicate that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the following environmental topics:
• Air Quality
• Cultural Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
The following environmental topics addressed in the Draft EIR were determined to be less than significant, or could be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Chapter 5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project, 5.7 Alternative 3—Develop the 2017 Proposed Land Use Plan
Following Page 5-35
In response to Comment IYER.J-7, Figure 5-1, Alternative 3 – Develop the 2017 Proposed Land Use Plan, is added after the conclusion of the analysis of Alternative 3 and before the discussion of the environmentally superior alternative.

City of Jurupa Valley—Rio Vista Specific Plan Project
Errata Final EIR
4-46 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 Figure 4-1: Alternative 3–Develop the 2017 Proposed Land Use Plan ATTACHMENT 5
Draft Rio Vista Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
See the following link:
www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/3206/Jurupa-Valley-Rio-Vista-Specific-PlanProject-EIR

ATTACNMENT
6 Tentative Tract Map 37074

ATTACHMENT 7
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38639

FINANCE MAP

ATTACHMENT 8

ALTERNATIVE EDITED PAGES TO RIO

VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
IV. OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS & DESIGN GUIDELINES
SP 16001 Page IV-2

1. RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
This section sets forth objective design standards for the detached and attached residential architecture of RIO VISTA. These objective design standards establish a consistent architectural expression to reflect the community’s “Scenic Southern California” theme.

Developers, builders, engineers, architects, landscape architects, and other design professionals reference these objective design standards in order to maintain design continuity throughout the community. Community Development Department and Public Works Department utilize these objective design standards to evaluate new residential projects during the discretionary permit process for compliance with the objective design standards. a. Residential Architectural Elements
Variety in building forms provides diversity and visual interest to the neighborhood street scene.

The following shall be incorporated into the design of residential developments:
i. Building Mass and Scale
1) For all detached single family residential lots in Planning Areas 1, 2, 7, 8, 10 and 11 that have a minimum lot size of 3,800 square feet or larger, at least 15% of these lots shall have a single-story or “pop-top” homes. The minimum lot size is identified on the Tentative Tract Map. “Pop top” homes shall be designed to appear as single-story homes from the front facing façade. The pop top home includes an improved attic space on less than 40% of the home’s first floor footprint and functions as a second story.

Examples of permitted pop top homes are provided below. 1 2) Provide one-story elements along the front elevation for a minimum of 20% of detached single-family dwellings in Medium Density Residential (MDR) areas (Planning Areas 1,2, & 7), Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) (Planning Areas 3 & 8) and High Density Residential (HDR) areas (Planning Areas 4, 5 & 6). At least one of the following street scene enhancement features need to be provided:
• Incorporate significant variation in massing and composition (in addition to finishing materials) of the buildings along the street, such as:
o Single-story elements, including but not limited to arches, patios, beams, and windows, on a minimum of 30 percent of the buildings facing a public/private street.
o Varying the upper-story massing offsets on a minimum of 30 percent of the buildings in one of the following ways:

IV. OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS & DESIGN GUIDELINES
SP 16001 Page IV-3
▪ The massing offsets shall be a minimum of three (3) feet deep and span a minimum of one-third of the width of the home.
▪ Upper-story massing offsets shall be a minimum of three (3) feet deep and include balconies with roofs, open decks, or trellis elements
2 3) Provide massing breaks and articulation features on elevations facing a public street or a park by incorporating at least two of the following features:
• Varying setback distances by at least two feet at least once on the elevation facing the public street or park,
• Doors and windows recessed by a minimum of two inches, • Architectural projections of two feet or more in any direction. 3 4) Each group of four adjacent buildings shall include at least one building where the front setback differs from those of adjacent buildings by a minimum of four feet. 4 5)Minimum front setback requirements may be reduced by up to two feet, provided the average front setback of buildings on the block shall be no less than the required front setback for the respective Planning Area.
ii. Building Materials and Colors
1) A minimum of three different architectural styles and three different color schemes are required to encourage diversity and variation within neighborhoods. 2) No more than three different cladding materials on the same elevation is allowed, Vinyl and aluminum siding shall be prohibited.
3) A base treatment shall be provided at the ground floor consisting of a material such as stone, concrete masonry, or other material distinct from the remainder of the façade and projecting at least one inch from the wall surface of the remainder of the building. 4) Material changes shall occur at inside corners or undersides of massing. Where there is no inside corner or logical point to terminate the material, the material must wrap the outside corner of the building a minimum of two feet before terminating. Materials changes may not occur at outside corners.
5) Color changes shall occur at inside corners, undersides of massing, trim elements, gable ends or accent panels. Colors shall not change at outside corners. Stucco surfaces shall be float, light lace or smoother finishes, consistent with the corresponding architectural style.
6) Stucco trim, stucco eaves, and banding shall be smooth, sand, light lace or dash finish. 7) Materials other than stucco (such as siding, stone, stone veneer, or brick) shall comprise a minimum of 25% of each elevation.
iii. Roof Materials, Forms and Styles
1) The following requirements apply to roof forms for detached residential structures:

Roofs must be designed to incorporate a minimum of two varying roof heights and types (hip, gable, shed, flat, etc.).

ATTACHMENT 9
Planning Commission
Staff Reports
6/26/24, 7/10/24 & 7/26/24
Page | 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 26, 2024
TO: CHAIR NEWMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOE PEREZ, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIRECTOR
BY: JIM PECHOUS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO.16045 (GPA16001, SP16001, DA16001, & TTM 37074 AND TTM 38639) PROJECT:

CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS,

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR “RIO VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN” THAT WOULD PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 1,697 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS; 1,269,774 SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE, 1,428,768 SQUARE FEET OF BUSINESS PARK LAND USE; 510.8 ACRES OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE; 14.3 ACRES OF PARK AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AND 13.4 PUBLIC SCHOOL SITE.

PROJECT LOCATION: GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF STATE ROUTE (SR) 60, SOUTH OF CITY’S NORTHERN BOUNDARY LINE, AND BETWEEN ARMSTRONG ROAD AND RUBIDOUX BOULEVARD (APNS: 175-160-001, 177- 030-014, 177-040-002, 177-040-008, 175-080-101, 175-090-001, 171-090-003, 175- 090-004, 177-060-012, 175-160-007, 175-160-005, 175-100-005, 175-100-006, 175- 150-002, 175-100-003)
APPLICANT: RICHLAND PLANNED COMMUNITIES, INC.

RECOMMENDATION
By motion, adopt Resolution No. PC-2024-15, recommending that the City Council 1) certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program; 2) approve General Plan Amendment No. 16001; 3) approve Specific Plan No. 16001 to provide for a new Rio Vista Specific Plan for the project site and the alternative pages (Attachment No. 6); 4) repeal Rio Vista Specific Plan 243 (SP-243) from the project site; 5) approve Development Agreement No.16001; 6) approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38639 to allow the subdivision of 26 large lots on 907.28 acres for finance purposes; and (6) approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 37074 to further subdivide the project site to allow the development of up to 425 residential lots, open space and recreation areas, street and infrastructure, and future industrial and business park, school in accordance with the Rio Vista Specific Plan No. 16001.

ITEM NO. 6
Page | 2

PROPOSAL
Project Location: The project site is located north of State Route (SR) 60, south of the City’s northern boundary line, and between Armstrong Road and Rubidoux Boulevard. The project site is approximately 917.3 acres and is shown in Figure 1 Vicinity Map below. Regional access to the site is available off SR-60 from the south, via Armstrong Road and Rubidoux Boulevard. Interstate 10 (I10) also provides regional access to the site from the north via Sierra Avenue and Cedar Avenue.

The project site includes the following 17 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 175-080-010 and -021, 175-090-001, -002, -003, -004, and -005, 175-100-003, -005, and -006, 175-150-002, 175-160-001 and -005, 177-030-012 and -0014, and 177-040-002 and -008.

Existing Site Conditions: The project site covers 917.3 acres and consists of 17 undeveloped vacant parcels of land. It has no existing buildings and features numerous informal, unpaved trails and dirt roads. There have been instances of trespassing for illegal dumping and off-road vehicles and motorcycles in the past, although increased security measures and Sheriff presence have reduced this activity. The site's elevation ranges from around 900 feet at the southern corner to approximately 1,739 feet at Pepe's Peak in the central area. The topography is diverse, including steep hillsides, rolling hills, rocky outcrops, low-relief canyons, and relatively flat areas. The project site is outside the 100- and 500-year flood zones, reducing flood risk. Development around the site includes residential to the west, south and east and industrial to the east (Figure 2).

Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 SP Surrounding Land Use
Page | 3
Proposed Specific Plan: The County of Riverside approved the Rio Vista Specific Plan No. 243 on April 14, 1992. When the City of Jurupa Valley was incorporated in 2011, the RVSP Area was included within the City’s boundaries. The proposed project involves a new Rio Vista Specific Plan No. 16001 to replace the existing Specific Plan approved by the County of Riverside in 1992. The proposed Specific Plan would create a master-planned community consisting of up to 1,697 residential units of various densities and housing types, Light Industrial and Business Parks, a public Figure 3: Proposed Land Use Map
Page | 4
K-6 educational facility, open space and recreation areas, and circulation improvements. The proposed Specific Plan includes the following major land use components on the 917.3-acres project site:
• Residential Development: The project plans to build up to 1,697 dwelling units on 204.4 acres, resulting in an average density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre. The residential units will comprise a mix of attached and detached housing.
• Light Industrial and Business Park: The project allocates 1,269,774 square feet of light industrial building space on 58.3 acres and 1,428,768 square feet of business park building space on 82.0 acres. These areas will support commercial and industrial uses. • Natural Open Space: Approximately 510.8 acres are designated for natural open space, which preserves the environment and provides recreational opportunities. • Recreational Amenities: The project includes 14.3 acres of recreational amenities, which will enhance the quality of life for residents.
• Public Elementary School: 13.4 acres of land are available to accommodate a new public K6 educational facility.

Required Entitlements: The proposed Project includes the following entitlement applications:
• General Plan Amendment No. 16001 to make the Specific Plan and General Plan land uses consistent with one another.
• Specific Plan No. 16001 replaces the existing Rio Vista Specific Plan No. 243 with a new Specific Plan which consists of new land planning areas, objective design and development standards and development plans.
• Development Agreement No. 16001 to enter into an agreement between the applicant and the City that sets the required community benefits the applicant will provide and the flexibility in the Municipal Code and protection of the approvals through the duration of the development agreement.
• Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 37074 would subdivide 425 residential lots for PAs 4, 5, and 6, the parcel for the school site, park area, drainage basin, water tank area, open space and areas reserved for future development.
• Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38639 that subdivides individual residential lots for Planning Areas (PA) 4, 5 and 6 and creates a financing map for the Specific Plan area.

Page | 5

BACKGROUND OF PROJECT SITE
Existing Specific Plan: The Rio Vista Specific
Plan (SP-243) was adopted by Riverside County in
1992, before the City’s incorporation. The Rio
Vista Specific Plan was envisioned as a masterplanned community with residential, recreational, and commercial land uses. The existing Specific
Plan currently allows for the development of the
following land uses (Figure 4):
• Up to 1,697 homes: 1,078 detached single
family, 60 townhomes, and 388
apartments
• 5.0-acre commercial site
• 2 elementary schools
• 3 neighborhood parks
• 14.0-acre equestrian center
• 405 acres of open space

BACKGROUND OF ENTITLEMENT PROCESS
City Council Business
November 7, 2019, City Council meeting: The City
Council reviewed the applicant's preliminary
request for warehouse distribution use on their
project site, as outlined in Exhibit A. The City
Council conveyed the following feedback:
• The City Council did not support a
warehouse and distribution use for this project site.
• There was concern about a potential increase in truck traffic in nearby residential areas, particularly the proximity to the Crestmore Heights community. • It was suggested that a more commercially focused approach be considered instead of an industrial one.

April 2, 2020, City Council meeting: The applicant considered the City Council's comments from the November 7, 2019 meeting, and revised their conceptual land use plan in response. Notably, the proposal eliminated warehouse and distribution use. While retaining the originally proposed residential component, the revised project incorporates a self-storage facility, a business park, and an industrial park. The City Council supported the revised conceptual land use plan.

Planning Commission Study Session
On December 14, 2022, the proposed Specific Plan project was presented to the Planning Commission as a Study Session item. The Planning Commission received a presentation that Figure 4 Rio Vista SP # 243 Land Use Map
Page | 6
covered various components of the land use plan, open space, trail network, circulation plan, development standards and permitted uses, signage, freeway gateways, landscaping. Additionally, a presentation of the status of the Environmental Impact Report was provided.

A summary of the Planning Commission feedback is outlined in Table 1 below:

Table 1 – Summary of Responses to PC Study Session Feedback Planning Commission Feedback Response
The city needs to require the placement of
signage to deter trucks from using the roundabout.

Recommended Condition No. 4.24.9 would require
appropriate signing and striping.

Equestrian center and two elementary schools in
the existing SP.

1. Why are we going from two schools to
one?

2. Why is there no Equestrian Center? What
recreation amenity is going to take its
place?
Schools. The two school sites in the 1994 Specific Plan are approximately 7 acres each. Currently, the school
district requires a higher amount of acreage to site a
school. JUSD determined that one school on a larger
property is preferred. JUSD has reviewed the
proposed school site location and has no concerns with
the proposed site.

Equestrian Center (PA 7). The equestrian center use
with trailhead was approved in 1992 as an equestrian
park. At that time, one company owned the entire
Specific Plan area. The SP was based on the plan to
connect the equestrian center with the County of
Riverside trail system. Currently, PA 7, the area
designated for the Equestrian Center, is under
separate ownership from the rest of the Rio Specific
Plan area, which is owned by Richland Communities.

JARPD has confirmed that an equestrian center is not
needed in this location, as the regional plans have
changed, and the connection is no longer desired.

JARPD’s focus is on improvements to existing
equestrian facilities which the applicant would
contribute via the proposed Development Agreement.

We need to account for vehicle access on
Rubidoux Blvd. Freeway access on State Route
60 (SR60) is already congested, and access to the
on- and off-ramps is only becoming more
congested. There are long delays and trucks
impact the condition of the roads and street
congestion. How is this going to be addressed?
The Rubidoux interchange is identified in the City’s
Capital Improvement Program and is currently in the
Project Approval and Environmental Document
(PA/ED) phase. Developments within the Specific
Plan, along with other recently approved projects and
existing traffic, would have cumulative impacts on the
interchange. The impacts of future developments
within the proposed Rio Vista Specific Plan to the
interchange would be addressed by a series of fair
share contributions, TUMF, and DIF which would fund
a portion of the interchange improvement project cost.

What safeguards can be implemented to ensure
that roads, landscape and infrastructure work five
years down the road?
The ongoing maintenance for the project is outlined
under the proposed Maintenance Plan in the proposed
Rio Vista Specific Plan. The Plan identifies the
maintenance agency (property owners, HOAs, and
others) responsible for the maintenance of an area in
perpetuity. As part of the proposed Development
Agreement, the developer would agree to contribute
to a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund the
Page | 7
Environmental Justice/Community Meeting
On November 21, 2023, an information session was held in compliance with the General Plan's Environmental Justice Element on the proposed RVSP. The meeting was held at a location near the project site (2625 Avalon St.) for the residents in the neighborhood, which 12 people attended. The information session included an overview of the Project and the entitlement process. This includes the environmental review requirements for the Project and how citizens can participate in the process.

At the meeting, residents made the following comments:
• Taxes and revenue generated for the project should stay local. • Concerns about pollution from development on vacant land. • There is a need for affordable housing.
• Question whether a middle school is needed.
ongoing maintenance of public infrastructure
associated with the project. This ensures long-term
maintenance of the entire project.

Would like to see a buffer between homes in
Crestmore Heights and the proposed Business
Park. There needs to be enough distance to
mitigate any potential pollution coming from the
business park. 200 feet is not enough protection.

There is a proposed 300-foot-wide buffer between
Crestmore Heights and the Business Park in PA 15.

There is also a grade difference between PA 15 and
Crestmore Heights that ranges from 50 – 80 feet. The
slope within the buffer area would also be generously
landscaped with trees, shrubs and ground cover as
illustrated in Figure IV-23 of the SP. In addition, the proposed uses permitted in Business Park PA are not
industrial-oriented. Further, a Site Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit for new buildings and uses
would include further assessment of any potential
impacts to Crestmore Heights at that time.

Recommended Condition of Approval No. 17 would
require a buffer of 300 feet between any of the
business park building and the closest residential
building. The completion of the buffer is required prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a building in PA 15.

Provide information on how the project complies
with inclusionary housing requirements.

The project is required to comply with Chapter 9.267,
Inclusionary Housing and Affordable Housing in-Lieu
Fee. Seven percent of the total housing units are
required to be rented or sold at affordable housing
rates or pay an in-lieu housing fee of $2.50 a square
foot for all market-rate units. The full in-lieu fee shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the residential development project.

What types of solar panels are proposed for
housing and charging stations in garages?
Currently, California Title 24, which sets standards for energy efficiency and conservation in new and existing
homes, requires all new single-family homes and lowrise multifamily buildings to have solar photovoltaic (PV) systems installed. The type of solar panel is not
known at this time and would be selected by the builder of the homes. Similarly, charging stations are required.

City approval would be required prior to installation of these items.

Page | 8
• An additional fire station should be built with the project. • Questions concerning the protection of the Jurupa Oak and the buffer area. • Trails should provide access to the public not just the future residents of Rio Vista.

ANALYSIS

SPECIFIC PLAN
The proposed Specific Plan document (Attachment No. 1, Exhibit C) is divided into six sections as outlined below:

I. Introduction
II. Specific Plan
III. Permitted Uses and Development Standards
IV. Design Guidelines
V. Specific Plan Administration
VI. Implementation
The report will cover the main sections of the Specific Plan: Specific Plan, Permitted Uses and Development Standards, Design Guidelines, and Specific Plan Administration.

Section II – Specific Plan: This section provides the land use plan for the Specific Plan area and defines the land use designations for the Specific Plan. It also includes plans for Circulation, Open Space and Recreation, Drainage, Water and Sewer, storm drain, Grading and Project Phasing. The circulation, street improvements, infrastructure and utilities, emergency access, grading, and public services plans are to guide future development and infrastructure improvements.

Land Use Summary: The proposed Specific Plan contains 21 Planning Areas (PA) as shown in the Land Use Plan (Figure 3) and described in the Land Use Summary table (Table 2). The density range of each land use for residential is also included.

Table 2: Specific Plan Land Use Summary
PA Land Use Acres
Target
Dwelling
Units
Maximum
Dwelling
Units
Target
Density
Density
Range1
1 Medium Density Residential (MDR) 24.9 113 125 4.5 2.0-5.0 2 Medium Density Residential (MDR) 22.7 107 114 4.7 2.0-5.0 3 Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) 19.4 149 155 7.7 5.0-8.0 4 High Density Residential (HDR) 18.2 225 455 12.4 8.0-14.0 5 High Density Residential (HDR) 13.3 116 186 8.7 8.0-14.0 6 High Density Residential (HDR) 27.1 258 379 9.5 8.0-14.0 7 Medium Density Residential (MDR) 11.1 45 56 4.1 2.0-5.0 8 Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) 39.6 259 317 6.5 5.0-8.0 9 Highest Density Residential (HHDR) 21.7 420 543 19.4 21.0-25.0 10 Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) 2.6 2 2 0.8 2.0
Page | 9
Table 2: Specific Plan Land Use Summary
PA Land Use Acres
Target
Dwelling
Units
Maximum
Dwelling
Units
Target
Density
Density
Range1
11 Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) 3.8 3 3 0.8 2.0
12 Light Industrial 38.1 – – – –
13 Light Industrial 20.2 – – – –
14 Business Park Area 31.9 – – – –
15 Business Park Area 32.1 – – – –
16 Business Park Area 18.0 – – – –
17 Public Facility–Water Tanks (PF) 1.4 – – – –
18 Public Facility–School (PF)2 13.4 56 67 3.8 2.0-5.0
19 Open Space–Recreation (Parks and Trails) 14.3 – – – – 20 Open Space–Water (Basin) 9.0 – – – –
21 A-E Open Space Conservation (Natural, Slopes) 510.8 – – – – – Expanded Parkway (Trails) (OS-R) 4.1 – – – –
– Circulation 19.6 – – – –
Project Totals 917.3 1,697 N/A 1.8 –
Land Use Designations:

Five categories of residential development intensity are proposed:

Very Low Density Residential: PAs 10 and 11 (6.4 acres) in the eastern portions of the Specific Plan area and south of 20th Street are proposed to have a density range of 2 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 5 du/acre which will allow a maximum of 5 units.

Medium Density Residential: PAs 1, 2, and 7 (58.7 acres) in the northwestern and southwestern portions of the Specific Plan area are proposed with a density range of 2 to 5 du/acre. The MDR category would allow a total maximum of 295 du.

Medium High-Density Residential: PAs 3 and 8 (58 acres) in the northern and central portions of the Specific Plan area are proposed with a density range of 5 to 8 du/acre; this category would allow a maximum of 472 du.

High Density Residential: PAs 4, 5, and 6 (58.6 acres) in the western portion of the Specific Plan area are proposed with a density range of 8 to 14 du/acre; this category would allow a maximum of 1,020 du.

Highest Density Residential: PA 9 (21.7 acres) in the central portion of the Specific Plan area is proposed with a density range of 21 to 25 du/acre; this category would allow a maximum of 543 du.

Light Industrial and Business Park Development: This would provide for the development of an Industrial and Business Park commerce center on a total of 140.3 acres located in the Page | 10
eastern portion of the site. Light Industrial uses (PAs 12 and 13) on approximately 58.3 acres, with a maximum of 1,269,774 square feet of building space, and Business Park uses (PAs 14, 15, and 16) on 82 acres, with a maximum of 1,428,768 square feet of building space. The Light Industrial and Business Park are intended to accommodate light industrial, light manufacturing, research and development, self-storage, professional and retail services to serve the City and the new residents that would live within the RVSP Area. In the Development Agreement, the City would retain the right of first refusal to purchase Planning Area 14 should the Inland Empire Technical Trade Center move forward.

School: PA 18 would be reserved for the Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD) to develop a K-6 school. If the JUSD does not choose to pursue the development of the school by the 800th residential unit, the 13.4-acre parcel would be available to be developed for recreational, religious, commercial or other use, subject to an approved Conditional Use Permit, to add amenities to the community. If it is determined that these uses are not feasible, residential development for up to 56 units under the MDR development standards can be considered subject to approval of the City. There would be no increase to the 1,697 units permitted within the Specific Plan should JUSD not purchase the school site and it is instead built with residential uses.

Open Space: The proposed project would include approximately 529.2 acres (58% of the Project area) of Open Space and Recreational land uses. In addition, a bike path and softsurface trail would be provided within a 30-foot-wide easement along 20th Street in the central area of the project site. The project site would contain approximately 510.8 acres of natural open space, revegetated manufactured slopes, and regraded and revegetated slopes. Many 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 the maintenance of the natural open space areas, which are currently designated as Open Space Conservation Habitat and Open Space Recreation, and under the proposed project would be designated Open Space Conservation.

Circulation: The Circulation Plan establishes a hierarchy of streets within a specific plan with the primary function to service traffic within the project area. The extension of 20th Street will be a 4-lane divided roadway providing a continuous connection from Sierra Avenue to Rubidoux Boulevard and serving as the backbone street of the Rio Vista Specific Plan. Interior intersections will be improved with a roundabout, three traffic signals, and one enhanced trail crossing. Due to topographic features, Planning Areas 7, 10, and 11 will be accessed via Armstrong Road, Rorimer Drive, Alicante Avenue, and Andalusia Avenue. Industrial Collector Roads link 20th Street to the Light Industrial and Business Park areas, while Collector and Local Roads connect various neighborhoods within Rio Vista Specific Plan. Implementing projects shall construct interior streets in conformance with the Specific Plan street standards and ensure that backbone infrastructure is constructed to serve the development.

Additionally, 20th Street may serve as a bus route, with future bus stops meeting City and RTA standards.

In terms of emergency vehicle access, Figure 5 details the routes to provide accessibility to PA1, PA7, and PA10 and is further discussed in a later section of this staff report.

As shown in Figure 6, the project has connectivity to State Route 60 (SR-60) via Armstrong Road, Rubidoux Boulevard, and Market Street. The project will access SR-60 via interchanges at Valley Way, Rubidoux Boulevard and Market Street. Truck travel to and from the industrial and commercial land uses wiII be only via 20th Street from Rubidoux Boulevard. Heavy trucks are prohibited from using 20th Street, west of the roundabout.

Page | 11
Additional details are provided in the following section of this staff report.

Figure 5 Circulation Plan
Page | 12
Truck Circulation: Due to the mix of industrial, commercial, and residential land uses, measures to direct heavy truck traffic away from residential uses are incorporated into the Specific Plan.

Industrial land uses generate 814 actual daily trips (1,958 passenger car equivalent trips) of truck traffic. To manage this traffic, specific truck route restrictions and necessary improvements have been outlined. Truck access will be limited to the Rubidoux Boulevard/20th Street access point, providing a direct connection to other industrial uses and Interstate 10 (I-10) and SR-60. Various measures, including roundabouts and signage, will be implemented to prevent trucks from heading west, beyond the roundabout and through residential areas.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): Due to the mix of industrial, commercial, and residential land uses, measures to direct heavy truck traffic away from residential uses are incorporated into the Specific Plan. The industrial land uses generate 814 actual daily trips (1,958 passenger car equivalent trips) of truck traffic. To manage this traffic, specific truck route restrictions and necessary improvements have been outlined. Truck access will be limited to the Rubidoux Boulevard/20th Street access point, providing a direct connection to other industrial uses and Interstate 10 (I-10) and SR-60. Various measures, including roundabouts and signage, will be implemented to prevent trucks from heading west, beyond the roundabout and through residential areas.

Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) is the metric used to identify transportation impacts in accordance Figure 6 Project Freeway Connectivity
Page | 13
with CEQA.

An analysis was prepared, and it was determined that the project’s residential component would exceed the City’s VMT threshold while the impact of the industrial uses would be below the City’s threshold. Mitigation measures are required for the Project to reduce the project’s VMT for the residential component. These measures are based on coordination with the City staff and the recommendations contained within the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) TDM Strategies Evaluation Memo. A summary of the VMT mitigation measures is provided below:
• Construct 12.5 miles of sidewalk within the project’s study area and connect to the adjacent network.
• Construct 1.08 miles of bike trails and equestrian trails. Bicycle facilities shall be either Class I, II, or IV.
• Implement a school pool (ridesharing for school children) program. • Provide four bus shelters subject to the approval of Riverside Transit Agency. • Install signal interconnect along 20th Street between Sierra Avenue and Rubidoux Boulevard, and if deemed infeasible, the developer shall pay cash in-lieu to install an equivalent length of signal interconnect within the City, at the discretion of the City Engineer.

All future projects in the Specific Plan area will incorporate the following design improvements as applicable, which include, but are not limited to, improving streets with curb, gutter sidewalk, and landscaping; traffic calming devices; and multi-use pedestrian trails and bike paths/lanes.

Implementing the mitigation measures listed above reduces the transportation impact of the Specific Plan’s residential component, but it does not completely mitigate it. The project’s impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Roadway Sections: The Circulation Plan (Figure 5) includes the roadway sizes and classifications described below and illustrated in Figures and - Roadway Cross-Sections. 20th Street includes 4 Sections, Sections #1 and #2 (130’ ROW) is described as follows:
• Section #1: 26 feet of curb-to-curb paving in each direction, along with a 12-foot-wide landscaped median designed for traffic calming and safety, 48-foot-wide parkway that includes a Class I bikeway, equestrian trail and sidewalk. • Section #2: In this section, the landscaped median is replaced with a painted one that Figure 7 - Section 1 – 20th
Page | 14
runs through PAs 12 and 14, allowing for better truck maneuverability. An 18-foot-wide landscape parkway and meandering 5-foot sidewalk, accompanied by 13 feet of landscape on one side of the road and a 48-foot parkway on the opposite side, which includes a 10-foot paved Class I bikeway.
• Section #3: Features a 26-foot paved section in each direction, along with a 12-foot-wide raised landscape medium. This section includes 18-foot-wide landscaped parkway with a meandering 5-foot sidewalk on both sides.
• Section #4: Features two lanes in each direction along a painted medium. This section includes an 18-foot-wide landscaped parkway with a meandering 5-foot sidewalk on one side and landscape parkway with a 5-foot curb adjacent sidewalk on the opposite side.

Roundabout: Heavy commercial truck traffic is not allowed to enter or exit the western segment of 20th Street. To discourage such traffic from exiting Rio Vista SP to the west towards Shadow Rock and accessing PA 3, a roundabout is proposed along with signage and circulation design elements.

Industrial Collector Roads (78’ ROW): Industrial Collectors, which link 20th Street to the Light Industrial and Business Park areas of Rio Vista SP, are established between PAs 12 and 13, and extend into PAs 12 through 16. These collectors consist of 56 feet of curb-to-curb pavement, including a 12-foot-wide painted median. Moreover, they feature 5-foot-wide sidewalks separated from the curb and 6 feet of landscaping on both sides of the roadway.

Figure 9 Industrial Collector
Page | 15
Collector Roads (74’ ROW): Local Collector Roads connect 20th Street to the local neighborhood roads. Local Collector Roads consist of 44 feet curb-to-curb with 15’ wide parkway on both sides.

The parkway consists of 5’ wide sidewalks with landscaping on both sides of the sidewalk.

Local Roads (56’-59’ ROW): Local Roads provide neighborhood access and may either be 56’ ROW or 59’ ROW (within PA 8 only).
• The 56-foot ROW consists of 36 feet curb-to-curb with a 10-foot-wide parkway. The parkway consists of a 6-foot-wide landscaped area next to the curb and a 4-foot-wide sidewalk on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted on one side of the road. • The 59-foot ROW, which accommodates utilities within the ROW, consists of 39 feet curb-tocurb with 5-foot-wide landscape area and a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on both sides of the street, which allows for parking on both sides of the street.

Emergency Vehicle Access Roads (24’ ROW): Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) roads in the Rio Vista development are designed to have all-weather surfaces and must adhere to specific width and grade requirements that are consistent with Riverside County Fire Department (CAL FIRE) standards [ ňě╩╗¾ك ‭‭كx→ðÏ Γك→ •Ï ×╛
Figure 10 Collector Road
Page | 16
and Specific Plan. See Figure 5 Vehicular Circulation Plan for locations of EVA. There is a total of three proposed Emergency Access Roads:

1. PA 1 EVA Road: The first Emergency Vehicle Access Road would connect the southwestern part of Rio Vista through PA 1 (MDR) to Paramount Drive by Paramount Estates. This road provides access for emergency vehicle access and as an evacuation route for residents in emergencies.

2. PA 7 EVA Road: The second Emergency Vehicle Access Road would only connect PA 7 (MDR) to Rorimer Drive and Armstrong Road. Due to topography, only residents of PA 7 can utilize this EVA road.

3. PA 10/15 EVA Road: This EVA road would provide a connection through PAs 10 (VLDR) and 15 Business Park to Alicante Avenue near Crestmore Heights. However, it will only be constructed when PA 10 is developed.

Open Space and Recreational Plan: The Rio Vista development provides open space and recreation with 510.8 acres of natural open space, a 14.3-acre Community Park, and five Neighborhood Parks, constituting approximately 58% of the site. The recreational components include:
• Open Space: The natural open spaces in the proposed Rio Vista SP, spanning 510.8 acres, offer scenic views and recreational opportunities; it provides 106 acres more natural open space than the existing Rio Vista Specific Plan No. 243. These areas are designated as Open Space-Conservation, preserving hillside terrain and helping with fire protection. • Community Park: Located centrally in PA 19 (See Figure 12), the Community Park covers

14.3 acres and offers various recreational facilities, including sports fields, open turf areas, sports courts, a tot lot playground, and picnic amenities. The Community Park shall be completed by the 600th Dwelling Unit.

Figure 12 Community Park
• Neighborhood Parks: Rio Vista features smaller parks ranging from 0.75 to 1.0 acres, with five parks distributed throughout the Specific Plan in PAs 1 through 6 (see Figure 13). Park amenities include benches, seating areas, and open lawn spaces. These parks will be Page | 17
developed with the project build-out and must be constructed before the 75th percentile home in a PA receives a Certificate of Occupancy.
• Trails: An integrated trail system for equestrians, bicyclists, and pedestrians includes hard and soft-surface paths, as depicted in the Open Space and Recreation Plan (Figure 13) would be available for residents and for public use. These trails link the Rio Vista community, complementing existing trails from the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District. Erosion control and terrain restoration plans would be established during the implementation of projects. The trail system includes two public trailheads that provide community access. • Highest Density Residential Recreational Areas: Private recreational amenities, such as community pools, will be included in PA 9.

Figure13 Open Space and Recreation Plan
Page | 18
Drainage Plan: The Master Drainage Plan for Rio Vista involves stormwater management, combining in-street catch basins and storm drains. These systems consolidate stormwater into basins, the specifics of which will be determined during the implementation of projects.

These basins will treat and mitigate the 100-year storm event before it is discharged into onesite and off-site facilities.

There are two major drainage areas, comprising five sub-drainage areas Through a series of basins (for water quality, mitigation, and debris), storm drain lines, runoff from Rio Vista will discharge to five points of connections and will ultimately discharge to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (RCFC & WCD) Sunnyslope Channel and Belltown Market Street Storm Drain.

Implementing projects and coordinating with RCFC & WCD will determine the timing and specific details of these improvements, which will provide flood protection from 100-year storm events and ensure adequate downstream facility security. Erosion control and terrain restoration plans will also be established as part of these projects.

Water and Sewer Plan:

Water Plan Description: A water supply assessment was previously prepared, and Rio Vista will annex into and receive its water supply from the Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) (see Figure11). It is within two future RCSD's pressure zones. Master infrastructure improvements as identified in RCSD's Water Master Plan will be constructed by and serve the Rio Vista Specific Plan developments, including three reservoirs in Planning Area 17, pressure reducing valves, pipelines, and a pressure booster station On-site facilities will be sized in accordance with RCSD criteria by implementing projects (see Figure 14 Water and Sewer Plan).

Page | 19
Sewer Plan Description: Rio Vista will annex into RCSD and receive sewer service from RCSD, with wastewater treatment occurring at the Riverside Regional Water Quality Treatment Plant in Riverside. Wastewater is conveyed through the on-site sewer system to three points of connection with existing sewer mains at the project boundaries (see Figure 14).to provide water and sewer service which cannot be completed until after the Rio Vista Specific Plan is approved by the City.

Project Phasing Plan: The development of Rio Vista Specific Plan is organized into four phases, each scheduled to align with market demand and to ensure the extension of roadways, public utilities, and infrastructure. PAs within a particular phase can be developed out of sequence or in smaller increments, provided that the necessary infrastructure and services are available at the time of development to ensure proper access to and from the RVSP.

The 14.3-acre Community Park within PA 19 shall be developed as part of Phase 1. The Community Park shall be accessible to the public prior to the completion of the 600th Dwelling Unit. On-site Neighborhood Parks will be developed in conjunction with the Project build-out of each PA, as shown on the Conceptual Phasing Plan, and shall be substantially constructed prior to the completion of the 75th percentile home within the PA.

Recommended Condition of Approval No. 29 would require the substantial construction of 170 residential units (Planning Areas 1 – 9) prior to issuing any Certificate of Occupancy for light industrial development within Planning Areas 12 or 13. Figure 15, Conceptual Phasing Plan, provides a visual representation of the phases of development within Rio Vista Specific Plan.

Maintenance Plan: The effective operation of Homeowners Associations (HOA), Property Owners Associations (POA), and other maintenance organizations is crucial in preserving the design and appearance standards of Rio Vista Specific Plan. The determination of ownership and maintenance responsibilities for each aspect of Rio Vista Specific Plan would be made in conjunction with the approval of implementing projects. Below is a summary of potential ownership and maintenance Figure 15 Conceptual Phasing Plan
Page | 20
entities and their respective service areas and functions:
• Property Owner: Responsible for private lots and local street parkways. • Master Homeowners' Association (HOA): Maintains parkway areas outside the right-of-way, common areas and facilities, slope areas, open spaces, and private recreation facilities. • Master Property Owner’s Association (POA): Responsible for common area landscape improvements and private driveways within the Light Industrial and Business Park PAs. • Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD): Provides water and wastewater services and maintains the infrastructure such as water pipes, sewer pipes, and pressure release valves. • Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD): Manages PA 18 if developed with school facilities. • Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District (JARPD): Maintains the Community Park (PA 19) and other recreational facilities they accept, including recreational open space and trails. • City of Jurupa Valley: Responsible for maintaining public facilities including streets, detention basins, water quality basins, debris basins, traffic signals, and street signs. • Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD): Regulates drainage resulting from development and manages flood control structures and floodplain facilities.
• Local Conservation Organization(s): May be responsible for maintaining natural open space areas within PA 21A through 21E. The Development Agreement includes a $250,000 endowment for a future conservation entity to maintain open space areas.

Grading Plan: The RVSP involves grading the site, which features rolling hills sloping from higher northern to lower southern elevations. The development plan includes standard residential grading for single-family and multi-family residential lots and adjacent streets, mass grading for the industrial and business park areas, and limited localized grading for the park development. The grading aligns with existing drainage patterns and aims for a balanced rough graded condition. It involves approximately 9 million cubic yards of cut, 9.2 million cubic yards of fill, and an import requirement of 199,772 cubic yards. The grading process adheres to geotechnical engineering recommendations, NPDES regulations, and the City's regulations including grading, dust, and erosion control standards.

Use of any heavy grading equipment is required to stay a minimum of at least 259 feet away from the Palmer Oak tree, see the Palmer Oak tree discussion in the EIR section of the report for more details.

Grading may be conducted in phases, each requiring grading plans subject to the approval of the City.

Public Safety: CalFire and the Riverside County Fire Department provide fire services for the City of Jurupa Valley. Four fire stations serve the City, with the closest one being Rubidoux Fire Station #38, located about 0.5 miles south of Rio Vista Specific Plan. Riverside County Fire Station #18 is the second nearest fire station, approximately 2.0 miles west of Rio Vista Specific Plan.

The County of Riverside Sheriff's Department provides police services for the City of Jurupa Valley.

The Jurupa Valley Sheriff's Station is two miles west of Rio Vista Specific Plan at 7477 Mission Boulevard, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509. The nearest police service station is about 2.4 miles southeast of RVSP at 7477 Mission Blvd. Jurupa Valley, CA 92509.

Section III - Permitted Uses and Development Standards: The RVSP provides five residential land use designations and seven non-residential land use designations. This section identifies the standards for each land use designation, including permitted land uses, minimum lot sizes, building setbacks, building height, and other development standards. In cases where no standard is provided, the City of Jurupa Valley municipal code would govern.

A. Residential Development Standards: RVSP includes five residential land uses for a maximum of 1,697 dwelling units ranging in density from very low-density residential (1 unit per acre) to Page | 21
highest-density residential (25 units per acre). Residential development within the Specific Plan area would be subject to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirement and Affordable Housing InLieu Fee Ordinance (see the Affordable Housing section in this report).

Very Low-Density Residential Standards: Very Low-Density Residential applies to PAs 10 and

11. Although PAs 10 and 11 are within the Specific Plan area, the locations are unique because they are located within Crestmore Heights. Access to PA 10 would be provided by Alicante Avenue, and access to PA 11 would be provided by Andalusia Avenue. The vision is to develop large lots of single-family detached homes. The proposed Specific Plan provides for a target of 5 homes at a density of 2.0 du/ac within PAs 10 and 11. The development criteria are provided in Table 3, and the Plotting Diagram is shown in Figure 16.

Table 3 Low-Density Residential Standards
Development Standards Planning Areas 10 and 11
Typical Lot (Minimum)
Lot Size 1.0 Acre
Lot Depth 80’
Lot Width 80’
Lot Coverage1 (Maximum)
One-Story Home 30%
Two-Story Home 25%
Front Setbacks (Minimum)
Habitable Space 25’
Front-Entry Garage 30’
Side-Entry Garage 20’
Useable front porch 15’
Side Setbacks (Minimum)
Interior Side 10’
Corner Side/Street Side 15’
Rear Setbacks (Minimum)
Habitable Space 20’
Porch/Covered Patio/California Room 10’
Building Height (Maximum) 35’
Parking Requirement 2 Garage Spaces (9’ x 20’ each)
Page | 22
Medium Density Residential Standards: Medium Density Residential (MDR) standards apply to PAs 1 and 2. The vision is for single-family detached homes or a six-pack cluster with a minimum lot size of 3,375 square feet. MDR amounts to 14.6% of the 1,697 total target units. The development criteria are provided in Table 4, and the Plotting Diagram is shown as Figure 17. The target is 265 homes at a density of 4.5 du/ac.

Table 4 Medium Density Residential Development Standards Development Standards Planning Areas 1 and 2
Typical Lot (Minimum)
Lot Size 3,375 SF
Lot Depth 75’
Lot Width 45’
Frontage on Knuckles or Cul-de-sacs 30’
Lot Coverage2 (Maximum)
One-Story Home 65%
Two-Story Home 65%
Front Setbacks (Minimum)
Habitable Space to Property Line 13’
Front-Entry Garage 18’
Side-Entry Garage3 10’
Front Porch 10’
Side Setbacks (Minimum)
Interior Side4 8’ aggregate, minimum 3’ (zero-foot interior side yard setback is permitted on one side with
minimum 8’ on the other side)
Key
Map
Figure 16 Plotting Diagram Low-Density Residential
Page | 23
Table 4 Medium Density Residential Development Standards Development Standards Planning Areas 1 and 2
Street Side 10’
Rear Setbacks (Minimum)
Habitable Space to Property Line 15’ typical, but no less than 10’ for a maximum of 50% of the home width
Porch/Covered Patio/California Room 8’
Building Height (Maximum) 30’
Parking Requirement
Guest Parking
2 Garage Spaces (9’ x 20’ each)
Tandem parking is permitted and shall be limited to
a maximum of two cars in depth.
1 Street Guest Parking Space per home.

Medium High-Density Residential Standards: The target for Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) is 408 homes at a 6.9 du/ac density in PAs 3 and 8. The minimum lot size is 1,665 square feet for six-pack and eight-pack development of townhomes or cluster condominium homes. MHDR amounts to under 24% of the 1,697 total target units.

The development criteria are provided in Table 5, and the Plotting Diagram is Figure 18.

The plotting diagram shows the conceptual plotting illustrations for homes on a minimum lot size of 1,665 square feet.

Figure 17 Plotting Diagram Medium Density Residential
Page | 24
Table 5 Medium High-Density Residential Standards
Development Standards Planning Area 3 Planning Area 8
Typical Lot (Minimum)
Lot Size 1,665 SF1 3,000 SF
Lot Depth 37’ 50’
Lot Width 45’ 60’
Lot Coverage 1 (Maximum)
One-Story Home 70% 75%
Two-Story Home 65% 70%
Front Setbacks (Minimum)
Habitable Space to Property Line 5’ 5’
Front-Entry Garage 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater Side-Entry Garage 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater Front Porch 1’ 1’
Side Setbacks (Minimum)
Interior Side2 0’ 0’
Street Side 5’ 5’
Corner Side 5’ 5’
Rear Setbacks (Minimum)
Habitable Space 5’ 5’
Porch/Covered Patio/California
Room
5’ 5’
Separation (Minimum)
Garage to Garage Separation 26’ 26’
Driveway Apron to Garage 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater Building Height (Maximum) 35’ 35’
Parking Requirement
Guest Parking
2 Garage Spaces (9’ x 20’)
Tandem limited to 2 cars depth.
1 Guest Parking Space for 5 DUs.
2 Garage Spaces (9’ x 20’)
Tandem limited 2 cars depth.
1 Guest Parking Space for 5 DUs
Page | 25
High-Density Residential Standards: High-Density Residential (HDR) Standards apply to PAs 4, 5, and 6. The target is 599 homes at a density of 10.2 DU/AC within PAs 4, 5, and 6. The minimum lot size is 1,665 square feet to be also developed with six- and eightpack product types (townhomes, and cluster condominium homes). HDR amounts to 35% of the 1,697 total target units. The development criteria are provided in Table 6, and the Plotting Diagram with Development Standards in Figure 19.

Table 6 High Density Residential Development Standards
Development Standards Planning Area 4 Planning Areas 5 and 6 Typical Lot (Minimum
Lot Size 1,665 SF 1,600 SF
Lot Depth 37’ 37’
Lot Width 45’ 45;’
Lot Coverage (Maximum)
One-Story Home 70% 75%
Two-Story Home 65% 70%
Setbacks (Minimum)
Habitable Space to Property Line 5’ 0’
Front-Entry Garage 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater Side-Entry Garage 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater Front Porch 1’ 0’
Figure18 Plotting Diagram Medium High-Density Residential Page | 26
Table 6 High Density Residential Development Standards
Development Standards Planning Area 4 Planning Areas 5 and 6 Side Setbacks (Minimum)
Interior Side3 0’ 0’
Street Side 5’ 5’
Corner Side 5’ 0’
Rear Setbacks (Minimum)
Habitable Space 5’ 0’
Porch/Covered Patio/California Room 5’ 0’
Separation (Minimum)
Driveway Apron to Garage 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater 1’-7’ for short or 18’ or greater Garage to Garage Separation 26’ 26’
Building Height (Maximum) 35’ 45’
Parking Requirement
Guest Parking
2 Garage Spaces (9’ x 20’
each). Tandem parking is
permitted and shall be
limited to two cars in depth.
1 Space for every 5 units
2 Garage Spaces (9’ x 20’
each). 1 tandem space is
permitted per unit and shall be
limited to two cars in depth.
1 Space for every 5 units
Figure 19 Plotting Diagram High-Density Residential
Page | 27
Highest Density Residential Standards: Highest Density Residential (HHDR) standards apply to PA 9. The target for HHDR is 420 homes at a density of 19.4 DU/AC.

HHDR amounts to under 25% of the 1,697 total units in the Specific Plan, and multi-family dwelling units are permitted in PA 9. The development criteria are provided in Table 7, and the Plotting Diagram is shown as Figure 20.

Table 7 Highest Density Residential Development
Development Standards Planning Area 9
Setbacks1 (Minimum)
Habitable Space to Property Line 10’
Porch/Covered Patio/California Room 5’
Interior Side 0’
Corner Side to Public/Private Street 5’
Corner Side to Private Alley 5’
Separation
Habitable Space to Habitable Space 15’
Driveway Apron to Garage 3’-8’ for short or 18’ or greater Garage to Garage Separation 30’
Building Height (Maximum) 45’
Private Alley Width 24’
Interior Walkway Width 4’
Parking Requirement
Guest Parking
1 Bedroom – 1 covered space + 0.5
uncovered space 2+ Bedrooms – 2
covered spaces
Guest Parking – 0.20 per DU
Figure 20 Plotting Diagram Highest Density Residential
Page | 28
Residential Allowed Uses: The following permitted uses are allowed in PAs 1 - 9:

1. Residential Use

2. Home Occupation upon ministerial approval

3. Religious Institutions upon Conditional Use Permit approval

4. In-home beauty shops upon Site Development Permit approval

5. Parks and Recreational facilities upon ministerial approval

6. Temporary sales office and model homes upon Site Development Permit approval

7. Planned Residential Development – Title 7 and Title 9 Section 9.240.060 or 9.240.070 For PAs 10 and 11, with a minimum lot size of one acre, the proposed permitted land uses are similar to those allowed in Residential Agricultural (R-A) zone, and with the abutting neighboring properties.

Some of the permitted land uses are detached single-family homes and a variety of agricultural uses.

Examples include farm operations, keeping of animals including horses, pigs and chickens and cultivation of crops.

Business Park and Industrial Standards and Use: There are a total of five (5) PAs designated as Light Industrial (PAs 12 and 13) and Business Park (PAs 14 through 16) which totals 140.3 acres.

These PAs would be developed as a commerce center. The 58.3 acres of Light Industrial would allow a maximum of 1,269,774 square feet of building space, and 82 acres of Business Park would allow a maximum of 1,428,768 square feet of building area. Table 9 provides the development standards for the Light Industrial land uses, and Table 10 provides development standards for Business Park.

Table 9 Development Standards for Light Industrial
Site Requirements
Minimum Lot Area 20,000 S.F.

Minimum Average Lot Width 100 Feet
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1 0.5 FAR
Minimum Landscape Coverage 15% of the site area.

Minimum Setback Requirements
(As measured between the building line to the property line or permanent access easement.) Front
Adjacent to 20th Street – 50 feet (with 25 feet
landscaped) I
Adjacent to any other public street – 25 feet (10 feet
landscaped)
Rear 15 feet
Side
Adjacent to 20th Street – 50 feet (with 25 feet
landscaped)
Adjacent to any other public street – 25 feet (10 feet
landscaped)
All other instances 5 feet
Page | 29
Minimum Setback Requirements at Interior Side Yards (As measured between the building line to the property line or permanent access easement.)
Building 5 feet
Drive Aisle and Passenger Car and Truck Parking 5 feet
Screened Loading and Storage Yards 0 feet
Minimum Drive Aisle and Parking Space Separation Requirements Adjacent to building office element 10 feet
Adjacent to solid building wall or screen wall/fence,
and not within a screened/enclosed yard.
5 feet
Adjacent to solid building wall or screen wall/fence,
and within a screened/enclosed yard.
0 feet
Other Development Standards
Maximum Building Height 50 feet, unless a height up to seventy-five (75) feet is approved pursuant to Section 9.240.370.

Ground and Roof-Mounted Equipment Shall be screened adjacent public roadways or residential areas and painted a neutral color.

Table 10 Development Standards for Business Park
Site Requirements
Minimum Lot Area 20,000 S.F.

Minimum Average Lot Width 100 Feet
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) 1 0.40
Minimum Landscape Coverage 2 15% of the site area;
18% required for total Business Park area.

Minimum Setback Requirements (As measured between the building line to the property line or permanent access easement.)
Front
Adjacent to 20th Street – 50 feet (with 25 feet
landscaped)
Adjacent to any other public street – 25 feet (10
feet
Landscaped)
All other instances:
a. When front yard adjoins a lot zoned
residential, setback is 20ft. A minimum 10ft
landscaped.
b. When front yard adjoins a lot other than
residential, 0’ setback.
c. When front yard adjoins a public or private
street, setback is 25ft. The setback area may
Page | 30
be used for driveways, fleet parking, loading
or landscaping.

Rear
15 feet
If a building is less than 75,000 square feet in
building space - 0 feet
All other instances:
a. When rear yard adjoins a lot zoned
residential, setback is 20ft. A minimum 10ft
landscaped.
b. Where rear yard adjoins a lot other than
residential, 0’ setback.
c. Where the rear yard adjoins a public or
private street, setback is 25ft. The setback
area may be used for driveways, fleet
parking, loading or landscaping.

Side
Adjacent to 20th Street – 50 feet (with 25 feet
landscaped)
Adjacent to any other public street – 25 feet (10 feet
landscaped)
All other instances:
a. When side yard adjoins a lot zoned
residential, setback is 20ft. A minimum 10ft
landscaped.
b. Where side yard adjoins a lot other than
residential, 0’ setback.
c. Where the side yard adjoins a public or
private street, setback is 25ft. The setback
area may be used for driveways, fleet
parking, loading or landscaping.

Minimum Setback Requirements at Interior Side Yards (As measured between the building line to the property line or permanent access easement.)
Building 5 feet
Drive Aisle and Passenger Car and Truck Parking 5 feet
Screened Loading and Storage Yards 5 feet
B. Light Industrial and Business Park:
a. Allowed Uses: The proposed Light Industrial (PAs 12 & 13) and Business Park (PAs 14-16) allows industrial, manufacturing, and research and development uses upon an approved Site Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit approval. Provided below is a summary of the proposed land uses.

Page | 31
• Industrial Uses: Allows various industrial Manufacturing and Research and Development types uses.
• Storage: Storage completely within a building: no salvage vehicle storage or auctions are allowed.
• Transportation and Utilities: Allows transit stops, antenna/ telecommunication and similar uses.
• Eating and Drinking Establishments: Allows breweries, restaurants and similar facilities. • Open Space and Recreation: Natural open space, parks, trails and passive recreational facilities.
• Office, Retail, Service, and Educational Uses: Allows various office, retail, services and educational uses.

In addition, various ancillary uses to the allowed principal use for both Light Industrial and Business Park are allowed. Examples include enclosed and outdoor storage, fleet maintenance, and other uses necessary for the operations of the principal use. Ancillary uses are reviewed and approved with the review of the Site Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit for the principal use.

Warehouse distribution use is not included as an allowed use within this Rio Vista Specific Plan. The project site is not within a General Plan designated Warehouse and Distribution Center Overlay. New uses proposed would require a Site Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit and would be evaluated to ensure that warehouse distribution uses are not approved. In addition, any change of uses and business registration applications would be reviewed to ensure such uses are not approved or established. b. Parking Requirements: Table 11 provides the proposed parking requirements for the Light Industrial and Business Park. In addition, projects must comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) which requires specific parking requirements for bicycle parking, designated parking for clean air vehicles, EV charging stations, and other parking requirements.

Table 11 NON-RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Parking Requirements Special Conditions

LI GHT INDUS TR IAL USE S
Industrial Buildings
1 space per 4,000 SF storage area;
1 space per 250 SF of office area;
1 space per 500 SF of fabrication
area
One (1) tractor-trailer space
is required per every four
(4) dock-high doors
Manufacturing Buildings
1 space per 500 SF of building area ;
Plus 1 space per every
company vehicle
Mini-Warehouses/Self Storage Buildings 1 space per 2,000 SF Manufacturing with Storage and Shipping
1 space per 1,000 SF for the
first 20,000 SF;
Plus 1 space per 2,000 SF for
that portion over 20,000 SF
One (1) tractor-trailer space
is required per every four
(4) dock high doors

OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL USES
Page | 32
Table 11 NON-RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Community Park
1 space per 8,000 SF of active
recreational space within a park or
playground;
Plus 1 space per one (1) acre of
passive recreational area within a
park or playground
Pocket/Neighborhood Parks 2 on-Street parking provided along adjacent local streets.

BUS I NES S PAR K AND OTHER USE S
Business Park Buildings 1 space per 500 SF of building area ; Plus 1 space per every
company vehicle
Professional Office/Medical Office/Clinics or
Laboratories 4 spaces per 1,000 SF
All Other Uses Refer to Section 9.240.120 of the
Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

Note: A reduction or modification in parking for light manufacturing and Business Park uses may be granted through shared parking analysis pursuant to Section 9.240.120 B (4)v of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

Section IV – Design Guidelines: The guidelines for RVSP encompass the design concept, physical character, and theme of the area. They consist of two main components: Landscaping Design Guidelines, and Architectural Design Guidelines. The Landscaping Design Guidelines cover various aspects of the community, including monuments, streetscapes, transitions between different land uses, community walls and fences, parks, and trails. They also include a Plant Palette, which specifies a list of plants that align with the community's design theme and the local environment. In addition, these proposed plant palettes in the landscape standards have been selected for their appropriateness to climatic conditions, soil conditions, and concern for maintenance and water conservation. The Architectural Design Guidelines define the characteristics of the built environment in RVSP. These include architectural theme, building size and proportions, materials, colors, and site planning.

Page | 33

1. Residential Objective Design Standards and Design Guidelines: All residential projects would be required to be consistent with the proposed RVSP objective architectural and landscape design standards, which include the following proposed Architectural styles:

American/Modern Farmhouse, Bungalow, California Ranch, Craftsmen, and Traditional Spanish. Each residential neighborhood must have at least three architectural styles to encourage diversity. The objective standards also require quality building materials, colors, and textures in conjunction with architectural features (e.g., roofs, windows, doors, façades, trim) and design that reduce the appearance of the mass of the building. In addition, the landscape design requires a five-foot parkway between the curb and sidewalk with street trees for the front yard landscape to be drought tolerant. Furthermore, this section also includes residential design guidelines that complement the objective standards; although not required, they provide architects and designers with additional guidelines that may be used to supplement the objective design standards. For example, the residential design guidelines provide details on elements of different architectural styles, including Craftsmen, Bungalows, and Traditional Spanish.

Figure 21 Examples of proposed architectural styles and details Page | 34

2. Industrial Park and Business
Park Design Guidelines:

The architectural style of the
commerce center within
RVSP emphasizes a
contemporary style and
reduces massing with the
use of structural articulation.

See Figure 22 as an
example. The guidelines
provide provisions for
building form, colors and
materials, windows and
doors with emphasis on a
well-designed entry,
screening and design for
truck docks and storage and
amenities for employees. A
minimum of 15% for the Light Industrial and Business Park sites are required to be landscaped.

The landscape guidelines emphasize drought tolerant landscape; the landscape along the street will be consistent with the streetscape and create a strong sense of arrival. Emphasis is also placed on landscaping used to screen loading and storage areas.

3. Landscape Design Guidelines: The design guidelines, see Figure 23, would create a unified landscape concept on the following areas:
a. Entry Monumentation - Address the design and placement of monuments that can serve as focal points or markers of significance.
b. Streetscape Landscaping - Provide visually appealing and cohesive street design that is compatible with the community design.
c. Landscape Interfaces - Define how different areas or zones within the community should transition or interact with one another, creating harmonious connections between spaces.
d. Community Walls and Fences—Guidelines for the design, materials, and placement of walls and fences that enhance privacy and aesthetics. e. Parks - The guidelines cover the design and development of parks within the community, including elements like play areas, seating, and landscaping. f. Trails - The guidelines cover trail signage, trailheads, fences, scenic viewpoints, multiuse trails, trail surfaces, and connectivity between residential neighborhoods, parks, and the school site.

Figure 22 Design Guidelines Contemporary Architectural
Design
Page | 35
Section V – Specific Plan Administration: Provides guidance on modifications to the Specific Plan, implementing projects and density transfers within the Specific Plan area. • Minor Modifications to the Specific Plan: Allow minor changes that do not significantly alter the plan's intent or content, including but not limited to adjustments related to design, building sizes, infrastructure, and landscape elements. These changes must align with the plan's guidelines and are subject to review by the Community Development Director to ensure they remain consistent with the plan's design and purpose.
• Amendments to the Specific Plan: A Specific Plan Amendment is required for modifications Figure 23 Examples of Landscape Guidelines
Figure 24 Landscape Design Guidelines Examples
Page | 36
that do not meet the criteria of Substantial Conformance or are deemed by the Director to require a Specific Plan Amendment. A change in the number of dwelling units within a PA that exceeds the maximum density or total 1,697 dwelling unit limit triggers the need for a Specific Plan Amendment.
• Implementing Projects: Describes the framework for implementing projects within the plan, including the types of permits and reviews required for various development activities. • Density Transfers: Establishes a target number of dwelling units for the Specific Plan area and outlines conditions under which deviations from the "Target DUs" are allowed without requiring a Specific Plan Amendment.

Section VI – Implementation: This section outlines the implementation action plan for the RVSP. It highlights the legal basis for creating specific plans under the California Government Code and specifies the required content. The plan details the distribution of land uses, essential facilities, development standards, and implementation measures. The Specific Plan acts as a regulatory document, ensuring that development within Rio Vista aligns with the General Plan and complies with City regulations. In cases where the Specific Plan is silent on certain regulations, the applicable City regulations take precedence. The document also would set site-specific design requirements to guarantee compliance with environmental safety, infrastructure, and site planning standards.

GENERAL PLAN
The project proposes a GPA to change the underlying General Plan land use designations associated with the existing RVSP (SP 247) to proposed General Plan land use designations that align with the proposed land uses in the proposed Specific Plan No. 16001 (Figure 25).

The primary differences between the old and proposed land uses include:
• Incorporates Business Park and Light Industrial Use into the Specific Plan • Maintains the total number of residential dwelling units at 1,679 in less area by increasing the density. It provides a more diversified range of five residential products, from single-family, townhomes, and apartments, which provide greater affordability. • The proposed land uses increase the amount of open space and parks from 405 acres to 510 acres.

Figure 25 and Table 12 show the differences in the existing Specific Plan (SP243) General Plan land uses to the proposed Specific Plan (SP16001) land uses.

Page | 37
Table 12 Comparison of SP 243 and SP 16001 General Plan Land Uses

GP LAND USE
1992 APPROVED

SPECIFIC PLAN
(SP243)
DU
2024 PROPOSED

SPECIFIC PLAN
(SP16001)
DU
Rural Neighborhood (VLDR) - - 6.4 AC 5
Med. Density Res. (MDR) 457 AC 1,249 58.7 AC 265
Med. High Density Res. (MHDR) 14 AC - 59.0 AC 408
High-Density Res. (HDR) 5 AC 60 58.6 AC 599
Very High-Density Res. (VHDR) 24 AC 388 - -
Highest Density Res. (HHDR) - - 21.7 AC 420
RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 500 AC 1,697 DU 204.4 AC 1,697
DU
Commercial Retail (CR) 5 AC - -
Public Facilities/Institutional (PF) - 14.8 AC -
Business Park (BP) - 82.0 AC -
Light Industrial (LI) - 58.3 AC -
Figure 25 Existing & Proposed General Plan Land Use
Page | 38
NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 5 AC 155.1 AC
Open Space, Recreation (OS-R) 7 AC 18.4 AC
Open Space, Conservation (OS-C) 405 AC 510.8 AC
Open Space, Water (OS-W) - 9.0 AC
OPEN SPACE/AMENITIES TOTAL 412 AC 538.2 AC
Circulation 19.6 AC
TOTAL 917 AC 917.3 AC
Findings for Approval of a General Plan Amendment:

Per Section 9.30.40 of the JVMC Section (F) (2), a Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment and a City Council resolution approving a General Plan Amendment shall include the following findings:

1. The proposed change does not involve a change in or conflict with the City’s Vision; any General Planning Principle set forth in the General Plan.

The General Plan amendment allows for implementation of the Specific Plan which demonstrates strong consistency with the policies outlined in the General Plan. It adheres to the overarching vision and goals of the General Plan by integrating a diverse mix of land uses, including residential, industrial, open space, recreational, and educational facilities. The project's detailed planning frameworks, which encompass Land Use, Design, Circulation, and Infrastructure/Public Facilities, align with the State law and General Plan requirements.

Furthermore, it places a strong emphasis on preserving sensitive habitat and species, undergrounding utilities to minimize environmental impact, and adhering to stringent hillside development limitations, which are all key components of the General Plan's environmental and land use preservation objectives.

2. The proposed amendment would either contribute to the purposes of the General Plan or, at a minimum, would not be detrimental to them.

The proposed Specific Plan demonstrates strong consistency with the policies outlined in the General Plan. It adheres to the overarching vision and goals of the General Plan by integrating a diverse mix of land uses, including residential, business parks, light industrial, open space, recreational, and educational facilities. It also provides provisions to ensure compatibility between land uses, including buffering and screening requirements associated with business park/light Industrial from residential uses. The project's detailed planning frameworks, which encompass Land Use, Design, Circulation, and Infrastructure/Public Facilities, align with the State law and General Plan requirements. Furthermore, it places a strong emphasis on preserving sensitive habitat and species, undergrounding utilities to minimize environmental impact, and adhering to stringent hillside development limitations, which are all key components of the General Plan's environmental and land use preservation objectives.

The Rio Vista Specific Plan is identified in the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element’s site inventory. The Housing Element identifies that the Rio Vista Specific Plan will construct 1,018 dwelling units, with 440 moderate units and 578 above-moderate units. The project proposes 1,697 residential units. The unit breakdown will be 265 Medium Density Residential (MDR) units, 408 Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) units, 599 High Density Residential Page | 39
(HDR) units, 420 Highest Density Residential (HHDR) units, and 5 Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) units.

As noted above, the project proposes 420 units at the HHDR designation which allows up to 25 dwelling units per acre. The same designation in the City’s General Plan provides the opportunity to provide housing meeting the Extremely/Very Low and Low income categories.

The High Density Residential (HDR) designation allows up to 14 dwelling units per acre. This designation provides the opportunity for moderate income units. The project proposes 599 units in that land use designation. By providing a mix of residential densities, including higherdensity categories, the proposed General Plan Land Use Designation amendments for the Rio Vista Specific Plan contribute to and align with the City's General Plan and Housing Element goals, particularly those related to housing affordability, diversity, and meeting regional housing needs.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE:

Here, there will not be a reduction in the overall residential density of the Specific Plan as a whole.

The Housing Element identifies that Specific Plan No. 243 has a residential capacity of 1,018 units with 440 units identified for moderate income households and 578 units for above moderate households. Specific Plan No. 16001 has a residential capacity of 1,697 units. This 1,697 unit count is broken down as follows: 6.4 acres (5 units) of Rural Neighborhood (VLDR), 58.7 acres (265 units) of Medium Density Residential (MDR), 59 acres (408 units) of Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), 58.6 acres (599 units) of High Density Residential (HDR), and 21.7 acres (420 units) of Highest Density Residential (HHDR). The HHDR land use designation allows for 21 to 25 dwelling units per acre. 420 units are allocated to HHDR which, based on the Housing Element and the density allowed, could meet the lower income category for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”).

As noted above, under Specific Plan No. 243 no units are allocated to the lower income household category and therefore, the General Plan Amendment will increase the residential capacity for lower income households from what was identified in the Housing Element. The HDR land use designation allows for 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre. 599 units are allocated to the HDR land use designation which, based on the Housing Element and the density allowed, could meet the moderate income category for the RHNA. As noted above, 440 units are identified for moderate income households in Specific Plan No. 243 which is lower than the 599 units that could meet the moderate income household category under Specific Plan No. 16001. As such, the General Plan amendment will result in an increase in 159 units of residential capacity from what was identified in the Housing Element. 265 units are allocated to the MDR land use designation, which based on the Housing Element and the density allowed, could meet the above market category for RHNA. Specific Plan No. 16001 has 270 above moderate income units which is less than the 578 above moderate units identified in Specific Plan No. 243. This leaves a deficit of 308 above moderate units. The City has taken an inventory of its recently entitled projects and determined that there is a surplus of 826 above moderate income units. Therefore, the 308 unit deficit in above moderate units is accommodated by these previously entitled projects.

Residential development within the Specific Plan area will be subject to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirement and Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Ordinance. The developer is required to provide affordable units on-site, within the project, or pay the applicable in-lieu fee or other methods allowed in the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Specific Plan.

Page | 40
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38639 AND 37074:

Tentative Tract Map No. 38639 (TTM
38639) is a Finance Map that
subdivides land solely to convey title to
the land but doesn't create any legal
building sites. TTM38639 creates 26
large lots on 907.28 acres for finance
purposes, and there are no
improvements related to the Finance
Map. All improvements for the site
shall be constructed in conjunction
with TTM37074 and future subdivision
maps.

Tentative Tract Map No. 37074 (TTM
37074) would be recorded after the
recordation of the Finance Map. The
tentative Tract Map proposes to
subdivide 907.28 acres into 425
single-family residential lots, 11.1
acres of multifamily housing, 13.42
acres for a school site, 14.72 acres of
park area, 4.98 acres for a basin, 5.12
acres for water tanks, 46.12 acres of
open space, and 742.19 acres
reserved for future development.

Further subdivision is required for the
establishment of legal lots for
Business Park and Light Industrial
PAs 12-16.

TTM37074 is a subdivision that does not currently have a Site Development Permit application accompanying this project, which would typically provide a site plan landscaping and architectural design for the residential units. The applicant plans to sell the subdivision to a home builder who would be responsible for designing and obtaining a Site Development Permit, and any subsequent approvals to implement the project(s). Figure 25 illustrates a possible arrangement of residential units on a specific set of lots (220-225) created by TTM37074. As a condition of approval of TTM37074, a Site Development Permit is required prior to the development of the 425 residential lots. The purpose of a site development permit for PAs 4, 5, and 6 is to ensure project conformance to the City’s General Plan and the Rio Vista Specific Pan requirements. Under the Site Development Permit, City would review the site design and layout of the residential project, including building placement, access and circulation, landscaping, signage, parkway, parking, and overall project design.

Figure 26 TTM 38639 (Finance Map)
Page | 41
The TTMs comply with all applicable
provisions of the City subdivision regulations
(Title 7) and the Subdivision Map Act for
standards, process, and findings. The 425
lots created for PAs 4, 5, and 6 are
consistent with the Specific Plan standards
for High-Density Residential, including
minimum lot size, street frontage, and lot
width and depth.

Furthermore, the Engineering Department
has reviewed TTM38639 and TTM37074 for
the project's access, circulation, grading,
and drainage. The recommended conditions
address areas such as subdivision,
circulation, access, grading, drainage, and
water quality.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:

The proposed Development Agreement (DA) provides the Owner vested rights to proceed with the development of the Project Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the DA. By entering into the DA, the City is securing certain public benefits that enhance public health, safety, and welfare.

The purposes of the DA are as follows:
• Ensuring high-quality development in accordance with comprehensive plans; • Reducing uncertainty in the development approval process that might otherwise result in a waste of resources, discourage investment, and escalate the cost of development to the consumer;
• Strengthening City’s comprehensive planning process to provide for the most efficient use of public and private resources by encouraging private participation in the comprehensive planning process;
• Assuring Owners of land that upon approval, they may proceed with their development projects in accordance with defined policies, rules, regulations, and conditions of approval; • Providing for the financing and/or construction of necessary public facilities and services; • Provide for: (a) employment growth anticipated to result from the development of the Property, both during construction and use; (b) an increase in tax revenues anticipated to result from the development of the Property; (c) a stimulant to economic growth in the community surrounding the Property; (d) educational opportunities with the potential development of an elementary school and potential Inland Empire Technical Trade Center and (e) the achievement of the goals and directives of its General Plan; and • Employment and increased revenue for City.

Term & Approvals. The proposed term of the DA is for 20 years. The GPA does not have an approval period. Once it becomes adopted and effective, the GPA would not change until the City Council amends the land use map for the site again. The DA allows the approval period for both tentative maps to extend beyond the initial 3 years.

Community Benefits. Table 11 is a summary of several proposed community benefits that the Figure 25 Example Residential Site Plan
Page | 42
applicant would provide to the City. The estimated total benefit amount, based on a 20-year projection (discounted at net present value), is $21,926,000.

Table 11 – PROPOSED COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Type of
Community
Benefit
Purpose Amount of Payment
1st Year 20 Year

1. City of Jurupa Valley
Citywide CFD
a. Facilities Special Tax
b. 20 yr Maint. Special
Tax
c. Public Safety Special
Tax
The City is in the process of
forming a new city-wide CFD
that will include three separate
special taxes. The final rates will
be adopted by the Council.
a. $494,486
b. TBD
c. $557,178
a. $7,957,000
b. TBD
c. $11,753,000
$19,710,000

2. General Municipal
Services Contribution
Fees used for general municipal
purposes at City Council’s
discretion; Due prior to issuance
of building permit.
$1,391,300 $1,391,300

3. Equestrian Facilities
(included by City)
The developer shall construct
public equestrian facilities
including a tie-up area and
watering station, and provide
$125,000 for Equestrian
improvements in Rubidoux Area
$125,000 $125,000

4.Recreation & Cultural
Contribution
One-time contribution to
recreational and/or cultural
activities and facilities, payable
upon issuance of 1st building
permit
$200,000 $200,000

5. Master Planning Activities One-time contribution to master planning activities in the
Rubidoux Area, payable in full at
issuance of 1st building permit
$200,000 $200,000

6. 5-Year First Right of
Refusal for PA14 (included
by City)
City has first right of refusal for
five years on PA14 (Business
Park) for the potential trade
school or other City economic
development project.

NA NA

7. Commercial Truck
Enforcement
The owner and lessees of nonresidential properties in the Project must take responsibility to
NA NA
Page | 43
ensure trucks servicing their
buildings comply with the City’s
Truck Ordinances. Owners and
lessees would be jointly liable
with trucking companies and
truck drivers for violations, and
subject to administrative
citations.

7. Palmer’s Oak Land and
Endowment
The developer shall convey open
space containing the Palmar’s
Oak and $250,000 to a Cityapproved conservation entity. $250,000 $250,000

8. Administration Fee One-time $50,000 admin fee
paid 30 days after the
Agreement’s effective date
$50,000 $50,000
Total $3,136,708 $21,926,000

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this Project, with the City acting as the Lead Agency. The EIR document includes a description of the proposed Project and evaluates the physical environmental effects that could result from Project implementation. The City determined that the scope of the EIR should cover the following subject areas:
• Aesthetics,
• Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service
Systems
• Wildfire
The scope was determined through the City’s independent judgment and in consideration of public comments received by the City in response to the EIR’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the EIR scoping meeting.

The proposed project presents significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality, historic and archaeological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and tribal cultural resources, both at the project level and are summarized as follows:

1. Air Quality: Air Quality plan standards would not be met, and there would be project-specific and a cumulative net increase of critical pollutants. Nine mitigation measures (construction-related air quality impacts analysis for proposed development projects subject to CEQA, low VOC paint, high volume low-pressure spray equipment, and Tier IV equipment for construction; and long-term Page | 44
operational-related air quality impacts analysis for proposed development projects subject to CEQA, anti-idling signage, electric-power equipment in nonresidential buildings, EV charging stations and bicycle parking, and nonresidential buildings improvements) are proposed, but significant and unavoidable impacts would be anticipated. Future development under the proposed project could contribute incrementally to air emissions affecting sensitive receptors.

Three mitigation measures (Health Risk Assessment, notification to future residents, and evaluation of new development proposals for new commercial land uses that include gasoline fueling pumps) are proposed, but significant and unavoidable impacts would be anticipated. See Section 3.3 of the EIR for more information.

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Greenhouse gas emissions would be significant. Four mitigation measures (GHG impacts analysis for proposed development projects subject to CEQA, building energy efficiency, and energy-efficient appliances) are proposed, but significant and unavoidable project-specific and cumulatively considerable impacts would be anticipated. See Section 3.8 of the EIR for more information on Vehicle Miles Traveled: The project would lead to increased vehicle miles traveled per capita, exceeding the City's threshold, indicating significant unavoidable transportation-related impacts. Four mitigation measures (transportation demand management program, school pool program, transit access improvements, and improvement of street connectivity) are proposed, but significant and unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts would be anticipated. See Section 3.17 of the EIR for more information.

3. Historic and Archaeologic Resources: The project would alter or damage historically significant areas and archaeological sites, resulting in substantial adverse changes to these resources. This impact would have significant unavoidable impacts both at the project level and cumulatively, potentially affecting resources eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources.

Mitigation measures (e.g. protection of the Palmer’s oak, dedication of open space at the Rattlesnake Mountain), recordation of the Junā’av Ethnographic Area viewshed analysis of all prehistoric sites, preparation and submittal of Final Archaeological with the proposed mitigation measures, there are significant and unavoidable impacts. See Section 3.5 of the EIR and the Errata Section of the EIR for more information.

4. Tribal Cultural Resources: The development would alter or destroy cultural resources, including archaeological sites and historically significant areas, with significant unavoidable adverse impacts on Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). Cumulatively, these impacts could further exacerbate the loss or alteration of TCRs within the geographic scope. Twenty-one mitigation measures are proposed, including tribe-specific mitigation, but significant and unavoidable impacts would be anticipated. See Section 3.18 and the Errata Section of the EIR for more information. The City has been in consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians during the Rio Vista Specific Plan review process, which originated in 2016. Through the consultation process, the tribes provided tribal cultural resource mitigation measures, which the City used in the development of the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). A copy of the tribal cultural resource mitigation measures was provided to each tribe on May 23, 2024.

PRESERVATION MEASURES FOR THE PALMER OAK TREE (JURUPA OAK). The Palmer Oak is a shrub or small tree that grows in certain areas of California and Baja. It typically stands 2-3 meters tall but can reach up to six meters. It reproduces sexually through acorns and asexually through clonal growth. This oak is found in various regions, primarily in the Pacific Coast Ranges and areas around Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Unlike other oak species in the region, it thrives in diverse ecological conditions.

A very rare and significant Palmer Oak, known locally as the “Jurupa Oak,” exists within the Page | 45
boundaries of the Rio Vista Specific Plan. This particular Palmer Oak is estimated to be over 13,000 years old, making it one of the oldest known organisms in California and the third oldest on Earth.

This Palmer Oak grows in a rocky area with relatively high temperatures and low rainfall. Despite these conditions, it has survived and thrived. The tree at this site grows in clusters, suggesting it reproduces mainly through asexual means.

Due to this tree's local and regional significance, a series of studies have been conducted to understand how the tree survives in its environment and to ensure the proposed project will not negatively impact the tree. These studies included:

1. Hydrogeologic Investigation:

Conducted in January 2022, this investigation aimed to identify the water source sustaining the tree's growth, particularly because groundwater level maps suggested the regional groundwater levels were too low to sustain the tree through the summer months. Field investigations surmised that water stored in near-surface fractures of the bedrock captured rainwater that likely sustains the tree.

2. Biological Review:

This review, conducted in July 2023, included a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) study. The GPR study confirmed planar or basin-shaped depressions in the subsurface bedrock, indicating water collection areas that could sustain the tree during dry periods.

3. Vibration Prediction Study:

Conducted in May 2023, this study assessed the impact of equipment vibrations on the tree and concluded that vibrations from the largest equipment, even at a distance of 259 feet from the tree, would not harm the subsurface bedrock supporting the tree.

A buffer zone has been established around the Palmer Oak to protect it. The project mitigation measures require no construction activities within the tree's mapped limit and a 200-foot buffer.

Additionally, heavy equipment must stay at least 259 feet away. In addition, the Palmer Oak tree is located approximately 150 feet higher in elevation than the nearest development pad. These measures are necessary to preserve the tree's root system and branches while respecting its surroundings. In addition, there are requirements in both the DA and project conditions of approval that create the process of selecting a non-profit entity to convey the land with a $250,000 endowment for the long-term maintenance and preservation of the Oak.

Public Review of the Draft EIR (DEIR). The original DEIR 45-day public review period (beginning on October 19, 2023) was extended through January 5, 2024. During this time, The City received comment letters from the following Federal, State, and local agencies, and organizations, as well as individuals and has provided responses to those comments:

Page | 46
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (joint
letter with CDFW)
• California Department of Transportation,
District 8
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(joint letter with USFWS)
• Riverside Local Agency Formation
Commission
• Cal Fire – Riverside Unit, Riverside County
Fire Department
• Environmental Justice Alliance (Rescinded)
• Central Coast Heritage Tree Foundation
• Center for Biological Diversity
• California Native Plant Society
• California Native Plant Society, Riverside/San
Bernardino Chapter
• Conejo Oak Tree Advocates
• Endangered Habitats League
• Joint letter: California Native Plant Society,
California Wildlife Foundation, Endangered
Habitats League, The Wildlands
Conservancy/Oak Glen Preserve, CNPS
Channel Islands Chapter, Botanic Gardens
Conservation International, Center for
Biological Diversity, Angels Chapter of Sierra
Club
• Sierra Club Angeles Chapter
• Stand Up for Mother Earth
• The Wildland Conservancy
• Seven comments from Individuals
These comments and City’s responses are included in the Final EIR (Exhibit).

EQUESTRIAN CENTER
Existing Requirement of SP243. The existing SP243 includes a 14-acre equestrian center which is located in PA 1. The equestrian center location in PA 1 provides access from Armstrong Road, which is more convenient for public use of the center. At the time, the equestrian center was designed to complement the County of Riverside Master Planned equestrian trails. The center was intended to provide boarding and training facilities for horses and serve as a trailhead with access to pedestrian and equestrian trails, a parking area, a cool-down area, and a horseshoe pit.

In the proposed SP, the equestrian center site is PA 7, the only land owned separately by a different owner. The owner of PA 7 has determined that an equestrian center is not a viable use for the site and has proposed a residential development. In lieu of the equestrian center, the proposed RVSP would provide 18.3 acres of recreational open space, including a 14.3-acre community park and over 510 acres of open space and multipurpose trails. In addition, the proposed Development Agreement Page | 47
includes $125,000 to be used toward improvements to the Rubidoux area's equestrian facilities.

RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN
Two recommended changes to the Rio Vista Specific Plan concern the definition of lot coverage and the requirement for signal-story residential homes.

1. Definition of Lot Coverage
The Draft Specific Plan defines lot coverage as follows:
“Lot coverage is defined as the percentage of the lot occupied by the footprint of structures, excluding covered patios, porches, and California room.”
This definition contrasts with the Zoning Code’s lot coverage definition, which includes covered patios and California rooms:
“The percentage of the lot area that may be covered by all buildings or roofed structures. This includes garages, accessory buildings, balconies, covered patios, decks, covered entryways, California rooms, and any similar structures that reduce the amount of area open to the sky.” The applicant provided the following explanation on the proposal to exclude covered outdoor spaces from the lot coverage calculation: “Southern California, providing covered outdoor spaces is crucial for homeowners to enjoy outdoor activities while protecting children from the sun and socializing with neighbors. Incorporating such spaces into master-planned communities at various scales encourages new families to settle, but counting California rooms in lot coverage calculations may discourage Figure 26 Planning Area 1 - Equestrian Center of SP243 (existing SP) Page | 48
builders from including them, impacting community and health benefits, especially for smaller lots aimed at first-time buyers and families. To address this, it’s proposed that California rooms open on two or more sides would not count towards lot coverage, simplifying sales process and ensuring the inclusion of these beneficial outdoor spaces.”
It is recommended that the Specific Plan use the same lot coverage definition in the Zoning Code to include those areas. It is important that the residential units have some usable yard areas. If the builders wish to include covered outdoor spaces in the home design, they can reduce the building coverage or increase the lot size to accommodate California rooms or similar outdoor covered spaces. The proposed lots within the SP vary from 1800 square feet for cluster homes to one acre in size for very low-density residential. Edits to incorporate the Municipal Code definition for “Lot Coverage” is provided in Attachment 6

2. Objective Design Standards - Building Mass and Scale The proposed Specific Plan does not include a standard to require a certain number of units to be onestory homes. It is recommended that the Specific Plan include a requirement of a minimum of 20% of all single-family units to be one-story on lots 3,800 square feet or larger. Attachment 6, “Recommended alternative edited pages to the Rio Vista Specific Plan,” adds the following objective standard that requires one-story homes:
“For all detached single-family residential with lots that have a net usable area of 3,800 square feet or larger, provide a mix of one-story and two-story detached housing units. At least 20% of these lots shall be one-story homes.”
This recommended requirement is intended to provide a variation in building mass along the street and enhance community character. Because there could be odd-shaped or irregular lots, which could make it harder to maximize the unit size that would result in a small house, the recommended requirement is 20% of the total lots be one story.

For context, the City’s Traditional Neighborhood Design Standards, which is typically applied to larger size lots than 3,800 square-feet, require 75% of the residential units to be one story. Rio Vista SP, however, is proposing a higher-density residential product. Therefore, the recommended one-story requirement would only apply to detached single-family units on lots of 3,800 square-feet or larger; it would not apply to the proposed attached multi-family products such as apartment complex projects or attached cluster six and eight-pack designs. Figure 27 provides an example of how a project would meet this requirement.

It shows a 2,000 square-foot detached one-story single-family home with a 400 square-foot two-car garage on a 3,825 square-foot lot. Thus, it is possible to meet this standard.

Figure 27 Example single-story house on a 3,825-sf lot
Page | 49

NOTIFICATION PROCESS
The Planning Division mailed a detailed project information sheet with the required public hearing notices in both English and Spanish to (1) property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the project site, (2) property owners and occupants within the Belltown neighborhood, and (3) to all those who requested notification through the process. Notices were mailed at least 10 days prior to the public hearing date. The radius map of the notified area is provided as an Attachment

7. Additionally, a legal advertisement was published in the Press Enterprise on June 2, 2024. As of the date of this staff report, no comment letters have been received. As of the date of this staff report, 2 comment letters have been received from (1) Monte Vista Homes, and (2) California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Monte Vista Homes expressed support for the project by email (Attachment 8).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife submitted comments by email (Attachment 9), regarding compliance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and reiterated comments that were previously provided in a letter dated December 4, 2023.

Attachment 2 Final EIR (pages 3-53 to 3-70) includes the City’s responses to their comments.

CONCLUSION
The Rio Vista Specific Plan provides a long-range planning approach to ensure that future projects develop in an organized and cohesive manner. It incorporates rules and requirements for the development of land use, circulation, safety, and infrastructure, including drainage, sewer, and water facilities, in accordance with the General Plan. Specific Plan also sets the guidelines relating to architecture, urban design, and landscaping to ensure an attractive and cohesive design throughout the project. The Rio Vista Specific Plan aims to transform the project site into a planned community with a mix of residential, recreational, and business park/light industrial uses. It assists the City in meeting its housing goals and reflects anticipated market needs and public demand by providing a diverse range of homes. It provides a range of industrial uses, research and development uses, and business parks that would encourage private capital investment, provide jobs for the residents of Jurupa Valley, and support the significant public infrastructure improvements proposed with the development of the project. The design with project mitigation measures is sensitive to the environment and is aesthetically pleasing. The community includes a design that complements the land’s topography by respecting and preserving the geology, rock formations, and basic landforms which help protect valuable scenic resources. It provides a potential JUSD school site, community park, and neighborhood parks to serve the needs of Rio Vista SP and the surrounding area. It provides guidelines for architecture, landscaping, entry treatments, walls, fencing, parks, and trails that reinforce this community’s identity and its relationship to the City of Jurupa Valley.

Prepared by: Submitted by:

Jim Pechous Joe Perez
Principal Planner Assistant City Manager/Community
Development Director
Page | 50
Reviewed by:
//ss// Maricela Marroquin
Maricela Marroquin

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. PC-2024-15
a. Exhibit A General Plan Amendment (GPA) Land Use Map
b. Exhibit B General Plan Amendment Tables 1.3 & 2.6
c. Exhibit C Rio Vista Specific Plan No. SP16001
d. Exhibit D Development Agreement No. 16001
e. Exhibit E Conditions of Approval for TTM 37074 & TTM 38639 f. Exhibit F EIR CEQA Findings
g. Exhibit G Statement of Overriding Considerations
h. Exhibit H Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

2. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

3. Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

4. Tentative Tract Map No. 37074

5. Tentative Tract Map No. 38639

6. Recommended Alternative (edited) pages to the Rio Vista Specific Plan

7. Public Notice Map

8. Monte Vista Homes PA 7 landowner support email

9. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comments
1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 10, 2024
TO: CHAIR NEWMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOE PEREZ, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIRECTOR
BY: JIM PECHOUS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO.16045 (GPA16001, SP16001, DA16001, & TTM 37074 AND TTM 38639) PROJECT: CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING

FINDINGS, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR “RIO VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN” THAT WOULD PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 1,697 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS; 1,269,774 SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE, 1,428,768 SQUARE FEET OF BUSINESS PARK LAND USE; 510.8 ACRES OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE; 14.3 ACRES OF PARK AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AND 13.4 PUBLIC SCHOOL SITE.

PROJECT LOCATION: GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF STATE ROUTE (SR) 60, SOUTH OF CITY’S NORTHERN BOUNDARY LINE, AND BETWEEN ARMSTRONG ROAD AND RUBIDOUX BOULEVARD (APNS: 175-160-001, 177-030-014, 177-040-002, 177-040-008, 175-080-101, 175-090-001, 171-090- 003, 175-090-004, 177-060-012, 175-160-007, 175-160-005, 175-100-005, 175- 100-006, 175-150-002, 175-100-003)
APPLICANT: RICHLAND PLANNED COMMUNITIES, INC.

RECOMMENDATION
Some of the information items requested by the Planning Commission at the June 26, 2024 meeting is still being prepared. Therefore, it is recommended that the public hearing on this item be continued to July 24, 2024.

BACKGROUND
At the June 26, 2024 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the Rio Vista Specific Plan and two Tentative Tract Maps. Prior to the public hearing, over 100 public comments were submitted expressing concerns about the preservation of the Jurupa Oak. Approximately 30 people spoke during the hearing; some supported the project for the job opportunities it would provide to the community, while others raised concerns about the preservation of the Jurupa Oak. 2 During the deliberation, the Planning Commission discussed mitigation measures and decided to continue the public hearing to July 10, 2024. The Planning Commission requested more information for the next hearing, including:

1. Update the nonprofit entity's status, identifying the structure of an agreement between the developer and tribe for the conservation area

2. Update on JARPD community recreational trails survey and their feedback on the types and locations of proposed recreational amenities identified in the Development Agreement (DA)

3. Recommendations on the Applicant’s request to modify conditions 8, 15, 26 and 4.24-4.40

4. Expanding the buffer zone around Palmer Oak

5. Review and consider how State Attorney General Warehousing mitigation measures may apply to the project

6. Root structure for the Palmer Oak

7. Potential heat island effect on the Palmer Oak

8. Review City’s ability to release technical studies regarding the Palmer Oak.

ANALYSIS
Since the June 26, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, we have been working with the City’s environmental consultant, First Carbon Solutions (FCS) and the Applicant to provide the information requested by the Planning Commission. It should be noted that FCS is under contract with and works directly for the City. Provided below is the information that has been gathered thus far, and the status of the remaining items:

1. Nonprofit entity's status and the structure of an agreement between the developer and tribe for management of the conservation area
As discussed at the June 26, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant has been working with representatives of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh) on the terms of an agreement for the Kizh to be the “Conservation Entity” in fulfillment of draft Condition of Approval (COA) No. 26. COA 26 currently includes specific milestones prior to development occurring in the Planning Areas adjacent to the Palmer Oak tree that require the Conservation Entity to be selected.

Time was given to establish the agreement with the Conservation Entity because the final agreement requires an approved project that defines the conservation areas and creates lots upon which the agreement will be based. In the interim, the Applicant and Kizh have drafted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that clearly outlines the terms of the eventual agreement that will establish the Kizh as the Conservation Entity. The main points of the MOU (Attachment 2) regarding the transfer of conservation land are as follows:
• Transfer of Land: The Applicant agrees to transfer land surrounding the Palmer Oak in fee title or conservation easement to the Kizh for permanent preservation at no cost prior to grading in the closest Planning Area to the Palmer Oak.
• Maintenance Costs: The future Rio Vista Homeowner’s Association (HOA) will cover maintenance costs for the conservation land, including the health of the Palmer Oak. • Monitoring and Preservation: The Kizh will conduct cultural and biological monitoring during construction activities within 1,000 feet of the Palmer Oak, and the Applicant will prepare a Palmer Oak Preservation Plan.
3 • Access and Easements: The Applicant and the HOA will have access to the conservation land for maintenance and fulfillment of the Specific Plan, mitigation monitoring program and required conditions of approval.

2. JARPD community recreational trails survey and feedback on recreational amenities in the Development Agreement (DA)
JARPD indicated that the community recreational trails survey results will be presented to the JARPD board on July 23, 2024. Once the final report is available, it will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The Applicant will make payment to JARPD in the amount of $325,000 for the improvement of new/existing parks or equestrian amenities and/or for youth activities that directly impact the communities of Rubidoux and Sunnyslope. This will replace the two community benefits regarding equestrian amenities and arts/recreation benefits.

3. Recommendations on the Applicant’s request to modify conditions 8, 15, 26 and 4.24 - 4.40 The Community Development Department reviewed the Applicant’s proposed changes and has the following recommendations:

Condition 8 Ownership and Maintenance of Common Areas
Requires the CC&Rs identify all the common areas in the Tract and who is responsible for maintenance. The Applicant suggested modification to the list of items to be included in each common area, however, not every item on the list always applies. Therefore, the Applicant requests that the items on the list only be applied when applicable. The Community Development Department agrees with this change.

Condition 15 Planning Review of Grading Plans
To provide greater clarity as to how to comply with the condition, the Applicant suggested verbiage making it clear that the slopes and grades of the grading plan will be reviewed for consistency with the Specific Plan and tract map. The Community Development Department agrees with this change.

Condition 26 Open Space and Preservation
This condition of approval requires that the conservation entity be identified by the Applicant before receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for the 170th residential unit. The Applicant requested changing the timing requirement to before grading Planning Areas 13 and 15, which are zoned Light Industrial and Business Park, as they are the development areas closest to the Palmer Oak.

Instead of replacing the trigger that requires identifying a nonprofit entity before issuing the Certificate of Occupancy for the 170th residential unit with the Applicant's proposed change, it is recommended to include both the Applicant’s and the original trigger. The revised condition is as follows:
“Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 170th residential unit of the Specific Plan or a grading permit for an Industrial Building in Planning Areas 13 or 15, whichever occurs first, a local nonprofit conservation entity or a similar entity approved by the City Manager shall be identified by the Applicant.”
The Applicant also proposes to add wording requiring the Applicant to maintain and provide security around the Palmer Oak area until the conservation entity is identified. The Community Development Department agrees with this addition.
4 Condition 4.24 – 4.40 In-Tract Improvements
The current condition does not provide clear timing of when the infrastructure needs to be installed.

The proposed text will require a phasing plan that will delineate the timing and consider when the adjoining tracts are being built. The Public Works Department supports this change.

New Condition 31 Palmer Oak Preservation Plan
The Applicant is proposing that a Palmer Oak Preservation Plan be added to the conditions approval.

The Plan would include a pre-construction assessment survey, setting up construction fencing that delineates buffers, construction work environmental awareness training, monitoring during construction, and a post-construction assessment survey. The Community Development Department supports the adding of this condition of approval.

See attachment 1 the red line conditions of approval for the all the proposed changes to the conditions of approval.

4. Expanding the buffer zone around Palmer Oak
The Applicant proposes a 275-foot open space buffer area where no project-related construction activities are allowed. The Applicant also proposes a 300-foot buffer for use of any heavy equipment, compared to the current 259 feet of the mapped limits of the Palmer Oak. Additionally, the Applicant proposes a 350 foot buffer to any hardscape and 450-foot buffer between the drip line of the Palmer Oak and the closest building in Planning Areas (PAs) 13 and 15. Truck parking and loading docks are prohibited in the buffer area; however, storage, driveways, roads for internal circulation, vehicle parking lots and landscaping maybe included. The table below shows the current Specific Plan buffers, the Applicants previous proposed buffers and their current proposal:

Open Space/Buffer Area
Existing Specific
Plan No. 243
Draft Specific Plan
Buffers Revised July 2024
Open Space Parcel
Planning Area (21-D)
12 acres 27.7 acres 27.7 acres
Construction Buffer No Buffer 200 Feet per biologists’
recommendations
275 Feet
Heavy Equipment Buffer No Buffer 259 Feet per vibration study and biologists’
recommendations
300 Feet
Closest Hardscape No Buffer No plans submitted to
City but concept plans
prepared showed truck
parking & truck docks
facing PA 21-D
350 Feet – to
hardscape
Closest building No Buffer No plans submitted to
City but concept plans
prepared showed truck
docks facing PA 21-D
450 Feet – closest
building with truck
docks on the side of
building facing away
from PA 21-D
5 The City supports a larger buffer area but is concerned that the proposed expansion is insufficient. A sufficient buffer size limiting public access and development is necessary for Palmer Oak’s protection.

Therefore, the City recommends a 450-foot open space buffer area where no project-related construction activities are allowed and a 550-foot limit be applied to the closest building in PAs 13 and 15. Consequently, it is recommended that the following condition of approval be added:

32. PALMER OAK BUFFER: A minimum 450-foot natural open space buffer from the drip line of the Palmer Oak shall be provided. No project-related activities, including but not limited to construction, grading, and staging, will be allowed. Fuel modification is allowed within the buffer subject to Riverside County Fire and Community Development Review.

A minimum of a 550-foot buffer from the drip line of the Palmer Oak and any building is required.

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Planning Areas (PAs) 13 and 15, a plan demonstrating compliance with this condition and the Specific Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director.

5. State Attorney General Warehousing mitigation measures Although the project does not include warehouse use, business park and light industrial developments generate truck traffic. For this reason, the Planning Commission requested that the City review the State Attorney General’s “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act “(Updated September 2022) to determine if any of the suggestions could be applied to the business park and light industrial planning areas to reduce impacts. First Carbon Solutions' Air Quality team is currently reviewing these suggestions for warehouse mitigation measures and will make recommendations on which measures could be applied to this project. Although, this information will not be completed to include in the July 10, 2024 staff report. It will be presented at the July 24, 2024 Planning Commission hearing.

6. Palmer Oak root mapping
The City consultant First Carbon Solutions (FCS) biologist is reviewing the availability of technology to map the roots of the onsite Palmer Oak in a non-invasive way. In addition, FCS is conducting a literature review of what is currently known about the root system of this species, in case a noninvasive method cannot be identified. This information will be presented at the July 24, 2024 Planning Commission hearing.

7. Heat island effect
First Carbon Solution is researching the potential of any heat island effect on the Palmer Oak and available recommendations for reducing any possible impacts that could apply to this project in terms of geography and land uses. In addition, the Applicant is reviewing California Building Standards Code required materials (paint, roofing, glass, etc.) that could reduce heat island effect and additional practices (such as landscaping) that could further reduce potential heat island impacts. This information will be presented at the July 24, 2024 Planning Commission hearing.

8. City’s ability to release the Palmer Oak technical reports The City received confidential information from Native American tribes through the tribal consultation process. After receiving comments from the public requesting the release of the Biological Resources Appendix and Cultural Resources Appendix, the City contacted the tribes to determine if redacted versions of these documents could be released to the public. One or more tribes requested that the City not disclose these documents. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c) the City 6 cannot release this information without the express written consent of the tribes. As that consent was not given, the City is prohibited by law from releasing these documents.

The City will present information regarding the methodologies and conclusions of these reports in the staff report to the Planning Commission for the July 24, 2024, Planning Commission meeting.

Prepared by: Submitted by:

Jim Pechous Joe Perez
Principal Planner Assistant City Manager/Community
Development Director
Reviewed by:
//ss// Maricela Marroquin
Maricela Marroquin

ATTACHMENTS

1. Redline Conditions of Approval for TTM 37074 & TTM 38639

2. Draft land conservation MOU with Kish Nation
1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 24, 2024
TO: CHAIR NEWMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOE PEREZ, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIRECTOR
BY: JIM PECHOUS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO.16045 (GPA16001, SP16001, DA16001, TTM37074 AND TTM38639) PROJECT: CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING

FINDINGS, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR “RIO VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN” THAT WOULD PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 1,697 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS; 1,269,774 SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE, 1,428,768 SQUARE FEET OF BUSINESS PARK LAND USE; 510.8 ACRES OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE; 14.3 ACRES OF PARK AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AND 13.4 PUBLIC SCHOOL SITE.

PROJECT LOCATION: GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF STATE ROUTE (SR) 60, SOUTH OF CITY’S NORTHERN BOUNDARY LINE, AND BETWEEN ARMSTRONG ROAD AND RUBIDOUX BOULEVARD (APNS: 175-160-001, 177-030-014, 177-040-002, 177-040-008, 175-080-101, 175-090-001, 171-090- 003, 175-090-004, 177-060-012, 175-160-007, 175-160-005, 175-100-005, 175- 100-006, 175-150-002, 175-100-003)
APPLICANT: RICHLAND PLANNED COMMUNITIES, INC.

RECOMMENDATION
By motion, adopt Resolution No. PC-2024-15, recommending that the City Council 1) certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program; 2) approve General Plan Amendment No. 16001; 3) approve Specific Plan No. 16001 adopting a new Rio Vista Specific Plan for the project site and the alternative pages (Attachment No. 6); 4) repeal Rio Vista Specific Plan No. 243 (SP-243) from the project site; 5) approve Development Agreement No.16001, with revised language regarding park and equestrian amenities; 6) approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38639 with the modifications to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment 2, to allow the subdivision of 26 large lots on 907.28 acres for finance purposes; and (6) approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 37074 to further subdivide the project site to allow the development of up to 425 residential lots, open space and recreation areas, 2 street and infrastructure, and future industrial and business park, school in accordance with the Rio Vista Specific Plan No. 16001.

BACKGROUND
At the June 26, 2024 meeting, the Planning Commission requested additional information, including updates on the status of the nonprofit entity that would be charged with the preservation of the open space area where the Pamer Oak is located, Jurupa Area Recreational Park District (JARPD) recreational goals, the Applicant's request to modify recommended conditions of approval, and information related to Palmer Oak.

At the July 10, 2024 meeting, the staff report and presentation provided information regarding a draft memorandum of agreement (MOA) between Kizh Nation and the Applicant, a change to the Development Agreement based on JARPD input, the Community Development's recommendations regarding the Applicant’s proposed changes to the Conditions of Approval, and potential expansion of the buffer for the Palmer Oak. Additionally, an update was provided on the status of the root structure of the Palmer Oak, the potential heat island effect on the Palmer Oak, and the City’s ability to release the technical studies regarding the Palmer Oak.

During the public comment period, six members of the Kizh Nation spoke about their desire to work with the Applicant to preserve their Native American cultural resources. Four speakers commented on the preservation of the Jurupa Oak.

During the deliberation, the Planning Commission discussed the following topics:
• Addition of "and/or" language to the Development Agreement related to equestrian and recreational facilities
• How to ensure the protection of the Palmer Oak conservation area prior to the establishment of an HOA
• List of qualifications of FirstCarbon Solutions, biologists, and technical experts • Follow-up on the possible release of redacted versions of the technical reports • Information on warehouse mitigation measures, Palmer Oak root system, potential heat island effect.

After their deliberation, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the July 24, 2024 Planning Commission meeting.

ANALYSIS
This analysis addresses the Planning Commission’s questions and comments at the June 26, 2024 and July 10, 2024 meetings and provides recommendations for moving forward.

1. Revised Development Agreement - Recreation Community Benefit For clarity and flexibility on how the $325,000 of recreational funds allocated in the Development Agreement are earmarked, the Planning Commission requested the wording “and/or” be added to the requirement to read as follows:

Improvements to new and existing parks, and/or equestrian amenities, and/or youth activities in Rubidoux and Sunnyslope communities.

2. FirstCarbon Solutions Qualifications
FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) environmental services has been in business for nearly four decades preparing legally defensible, research-supported California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Their services also include program management, regulatory compliance, and technical 3 expertise areas, such as biological resources, cultural resources, air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise. Each document prepared by FCS undergoes a thorough review process by a Director or Vice President and a rigorous legal review to ensure maximum legal defensibility.

Numerous municipalities and counties, land developers, and private organizations are among their clients. The FCS Statement of Qualifications for Southern California is included as Attachment A of Attachment 1.

FCS Senior Biologist, Michael Tuma, PhD, has over 30 years of experience as a professional scientist in academic settings, agency positions, and as an environmental consultant. Dr. Tuma’s detailed qualifications are included as Attachment B of Attachment 1 of the staff report.

3. Methodology of Supporting Studies
Hydrogeologic Investigation at Rio Vista Project Site, City of Jurupa Valley, California Stetson Engineering, Inc.; January 18, 2022
Stetson Engineering, Inc. is a qualified engineering firm. Their qualifications are presented in Attachment C of Attachment 1. The methodology for preparing the Hydrogeologic Investigation report included the following tasks:
• Summary of regional geology
• Preparation of two geologic cross-sections
• Review of two publicly available well completion reports with geologic logs • Review of two regional-scale groundwater level maps in the vicinity of the project site • Field investigation (conducted on November 3, 2021) to observe geology and identify potential water features at and around the project site
The Hydrogeologic Investigation report concluded that regional groundwater levels in the alluvium and surficial deposits are much lower than the elevation of the project site and the surrounding hill, and thus are unlikely to support the tree. The field investigation found that vegetation in the tonalite (igneous rock) is likely supported by annual rainfall and water stored in near-surface fractures, as the groundwater depth in the fractured tonalite at this location is greater than 90 feet below ground surface and insufficient to support the Palmer Oak.

This report was peer-reviewed by Ninyo & Moore, Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants, who issued a Peer Review letter on August 3, 2022. The letter did not recommend any revisions that would substantively affect the report's conclusions.

Biological Review of Palmer’s Oak FirstCarbon Solutions, Inc.; July 25, 2023 FCS qualifications are discussed above and presented in Attachment A of Attachment 1. The Groundpenetrating Radar (GPR) study was conducted by Scott Byram, PhD, an Affiliate Researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, Archaeological Research Facility. Examples of his work are presented in Attachment H of Attachment 1.

The methodology for the Biological Review included:
• Field visit at the location of the Palmer Oak on August 5, 2022 • Literature review, including herbarium records, peer-reviewed articles, and other relevant sources pertaining to occurrences of Palmer Oaks in Southern California • Ground-penetrating Radar (GPR) study conducted on November 19, 2022 4 The GPR technique sends pulses of radar energy from a surface antenna into the ground, and a receiving antenna records waves reflected off buried objects, features, or strata as the unit moves along a transect. GPR Viewer software generated profile “radargrams” depicting the shapes of subsurface features. The GPR imagery was georeferenced over publicly available aerial imagery of the site by matching photos of the transect start and end points to landmarks visible in the aerial imagery. Although high winds prevented the use of a drone to capture aerial images, on-the-ground photographs of each transect point matched with visible landmarks ensured accurate positioning of the GPR imagery.

The GPR study detected planar or basin-shaped depressions in subsurface bedrock to a depth of approximately 2 meters in several locations within the study area. These features appear to confirm that the shape of subsurface bedrock collects and perches water, providing a saturated water layer above the groundwater table to sustain the on-site Palmer Oak through periods of drought.

Rio Vista Grading and ESA Preservation Qtative Development Solutions; May 3, 2023 Qtative Development Solutions qualifications are presented in Attachment I of Attachment 1. The methodology for the Grading and ESA Preservation study, also referred to as the Vibration Prediction Study, included:
• Assumption of blast strength of 2 inches per second (in/sec) • Assumption of an explosive charge weight of 150 pounds (greater than the anticipated charge weight needed for this proposed project)
• Largest piece of equipment would be a CAT D10 Bulldozer The analysis concluded that with a conservative 150-pound charge weight and a distance of 259 linear feet, blasting would create a peak particle velocity of 1.21 in/sec, well under the United States Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 8507 (USBM RI 8507) standards for safe vibrations of 2 in/sec. The study determined that equipment vibrations from the largest piece of equipment at a distance of 259 feet from the tree would not impact the subsurface bedrock supporting the tree.

4. Palmer Oak Root Mapping
FCS prepared a Palmer’s Oak Root Extent Estimation and Review of Noninvasive Root Mapping Techniques Memorandum (Root Mapping Memorandum), which is included as Attachment E of Attachment 1. The Root Mapping Memorandum surveys known methods for root mapping and explains the shortcomings of each method. The Root Mapping Memorandum concludes that, currently, there is no known noninvasive technique that can effectively map the root system of this species. A literature review, summarized in the Root Mapping Memorandum, concluded that the Palmer Oak on the project site (1) likely has a root system that is 3–6 times the biomass of the aboveground portion of the clone and most of it is contained within the relatively shallow root crowns; (2) roots of the clone are likely closely associated with the underlying bedrock, with roots growing along the bedrock-soil interface and within cracks in the bedrock; (3) roots of the clone may extend to a depth of approximately 9 meters (approximately 30 feet); and (4) lateral roots may extend to 5 meters (approximately 16 feet) beyond the aboveground extent of the clone.

In summary, technical studies recommend a minimum buffer of 200 feet within which development is prohibited for the protection of the Palmer Oak and a minimum of 259 feet buffer (based on the vibration study) where heavy equipment is prohibited during the construction phase for the protection of underlying rock formation. Based on the literature review of the Palmer Oak root system and recommendations from the FCS Principal Biologist, the 350-foot buffer proposed by the applicant is more than adequate for the Palmer Oak’s root systems protection. The Root Mapping Memorandum 5 concludes that the 350-foot buffer is expected to prevent construction-related impacts to the Palmer Oak.

Beyond the technical report recommended buffer and the distance proposed by the Applicant, the Community Development Department is recommending a “no construction” buffer of 450 feet and 550 feet to the closest building. In discussions with the City, the Applicant has agreed to provide this larger buffer distance, and asked that in order to accomplish this the allowance for flexibility of buildings in PA 13, 14 and 15 to cross the PA boundaries and request the following language be added to the Specific Plan.

Construction of buildings across abutting Planning Area (PA) boundaries 13, 14, and 15 is permitted, subject to the proposed use in the building(s) being permitted in both Business Park and Light Industrial land uses pursuant to Chapter III, Permitted Uses and Development Standards, and Chapter IV, Design Guidelines, of this Specific Plan. Buildings constructed across PA boundaries shall not, by themselves, trigger the requirement for a Substantial Conformance.

The Community Development Department supports this language change which allows for a greater buffer area for the project.

5. Availability of Redacted Technical Studies
The City continues to work with the tribes to determine if members of the public will be permitted to review a redacted version of the technical studies. The City’s renewed request to allow for redacted revisions of the report to be disclosed is currently being reviewed by the tribes.

6. Heat Island Effect
Based on concerns expressed at the June 26, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested additional information be provided about the proposed project's potential urban heat island effect and its possible impact on native species at the project site. The Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) describes higher temperatures in urban and suburban areas compared to rural surroundings due to solar heat absorbed by buildings, roads, parking lots, and machinery like cars and air-conditioners.

UHI is an issue that can largely be solved by considering heat equity and cool building technologies.

Temperature Study and Findings
L&L Environmental, Inc. conducted a field study to compare temperatures at the Palmer Oak location and an adjacent commercial/industrial area. On July 4, 2024, temperatures at the Palmer Oak site were 70-75°F (air) and 81-102.9°F (surface of bedrock). At the commercial/industrial site, temperatures were 80°F (air) and 114.4°F (surface of asphalt). L&L concluded that the surface temperature of bedrock around Palmer Oak could exceed 120°F in summer, while asphalt could reach 120-150°F. The additional heat from project infrastructure, being over 350 feet away, would likely have an insignificant effect on the area surrounding the Palmer Oak.

Condition of Approval regarding potential UHI
The site is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) and governed by the South Coast Air Quality District (SCAQMD), which does not offer guidance on reducing urban heat island impacts. In addition, the City Environmental Review Guidelines do not provide a threshold for UHI. However, recommendations from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SacMetro), although from a different region, can be applied to this project to address extreme heat and improve heat resilience.

SacMetro’s Recommended Cool Pavement Strategies were reviewed for the proposed project, and the Applicant has agreed to comply with the following condition of approval for future Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit applications:
6 1. Concrete or roller-compacted concrete (solar reflectance 40–70%): Blacktop asphalt pavement absorbs solar radiation throughout the day, which absorbs then releases heat. This heat gets released back into the surroundings, making the parking lot area hotter. Using lighter-colored concrete with a higher albedo reflects more sunlight and absorbs less heat.

This helps to keep the parking lots cooler.

2. Landscaping and Open Space Provisions: The Rio Vista Specific Plan includes a minimum requirement that at least 15% of the development areas in the Light Industrial Planning Areas (PAs 12 and 13) must be landscaped. The plan also proposes over 510 acres of open space, which is 59.2% of the overall Specific Plan area, an increase of 105 acres from the approved plan. Open space and landscaping are effective measures to reduce any potential heat island effect.

3. Recommendations for Native Plantings: The project plans to use native California plants in landscaped areas, including trees such as Coastal Live Oak, Western Sycamore, and Fremont’s Cottonwood, which provide shade for buildings and parking lots and keep temperatures cooler. Each individual development application within the Specific Plan will require a Site Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit and will be reviewed to ensure compliance with minimum landscaping requirements.

In summary, while the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact the urban heat island effect, measures such as the use of concrete, substantial landscaping, cool roofs, and open space provisions are being implemented with all future projects through entitlements to minimize potential impacts.

5. State Attorney General’s Recommended Best Practices & Mitigation Measures for Warehouse Projects
The Rio Vista Specific Plan does not allow warehouse as a principal use; however, the Planning Commission requested that the California Attorney General’s document for Warehouse use be reviewed because Business Park and Light Industrial Uses generate truck trips. The California Attorney General's document on warehouse projects provides recommendations for best practices and mitigation measures, but these are not legally binding requirements. The Air Quality Section 3.3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rio Vista SP project includes mitigation measures that address air quality impacts from Light Industrial and Business Park uses.

The EIR incorporates existing policies, regulations, and proposed mitigation measures to reduce potential air quality impacts on sensitive receptors from future project operations. It also considers guidance from the California Department of Justice's document on warehouse projects.

A key component of the EIR is Mitigation Measure AIR-1e, which requires future industrial uses necessitating CEQA review to consider mitigation measures from the 2021 California Department of Justice guidance. This approach allows for project-specific implementation of applicable measures.

The Applicant prepared a memorandum evaluating the Attorney General's recommendations. This memo lists each recommended mitigation and whether or not it applies and has been included in the project mitigation measures. It concludes that the EIR adequately addresses most of the recommendations listed in the guidance document (See Attachments D, D1, and D2 of Attachment 1). FCS peer-reviewed the Applicant’s memo and concurred with its conclusions.

The proposed Specific Plan also incorporates several measures aligned with the Attorney General's recommendations. These include provisions for separating industrial uses from sensitive receptors, reducing lighting and noise impacts, managing transportation and traffic, and engaging with the community. Two measures have been included in the proposed condition below, which the Applicant agrees with their inclusion as a new condition of approval:
7 33. Business Park and Light Industrial Planning Areas: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any future development in PAs 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, all standby emergency generators shall be powered by non-diesel fuel. All facility operators shall train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary truck queuing and idling.

Overall, the existing requirements and mitigation measures in the EIR are considered sufficient to address potential environmental impacts, without the need for substantial additional measures from the Attorney General's guidance. This change is included in Attachment 4, Alternative Edited Pages to the Specific Plan.

6. Protection of Palmer Oak Conservation Area Prior to the Establishment of an HOA The Planning Commission expressed concern that there needs to be measures in place that ensure the protection of the Palmer Oak and the open space area in the interim until the conservation entity is established and funding is in place, whether the funding be through an HOA or an endowment. To address this concern, it is recommended to modify Condition of Approval No. 26 as shown below:

26. OPEN SPACE AND PRESERVATION.
a. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first residential unit of the Specific Plan, Applicant shall record on Planning Areas 21 A – E, or as approved by the City Manager, an open space deed restriction limiting the use of the property to open space and preservation of the Palmer’s Oak. The documents imposing the deed restrictions on the Open Space Property shall be approved by the City Manager in writing prior to recordation. b. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 170th residential unit of the Specific Plan or grading permit for an Industrial Building in Planning Areas 13 or 15 whichever occurs first, a local non-profit conservation entity or similar entity approved by the City Manager shall be identified by the Applicant, subject to the written approval of the City Manager, which shall be responsible for the maintenance and conservation of the Planning Area 21-D and the Palmer’s Oak (“Conservation Entity”). Within two weeks of the approval of the Conservation Entity, or as extended by the City Manager, Applicant shall convey (land dedication, conservation easement or other means) Planning Area 21-D to the conservation entity free of liens and encumbrances other than the restriction limiting the use of the property to open space and preservation of the Palmer’s Oak. Until such time that PA 21-D is conveyed to Conservation Entity, the Applicant shall continue to maintain, preserve and provide security services for PA 21-D. The documents conveying the Open Space Property to the Conservation Entity shall be approved by the City Manager in writing prior to recordation.
c. Prior to or upon issuance of a Grading Permit for PA 13 or PA 15 conveyance of the property the applicant shall convey PA 21-D to the Conservation Entity and prior to or upon conveyance of PA 21-D to the Conservation Entity, the Applicant shall pay to the Conservation Entity the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) or other funding mechanism approved by the City Manager to be used as an endowment for the preservation, maintenance, and conservation of the Open Space Property and the Palmer’s Oak subject to such terms as may be approved by the City Manager.

7. EIR Alternatives
At the July 10, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, a comment was made that the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) alternatives should have included an alternative directly addressing the Palmer Oak. The analysis below provides a summary of how the EIR complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for project alternatives. 8 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the Draft EIR provided decision-makers and the general public with a reasonable range of feasible project alternatives that could attain most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or reducing any of the project’s significant adverse environmental effects. Thus, impacts that have been determined to result in “no Impact,” “less than significant Impact,” or less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated” are not included in an alternative analysis.

Additionally, important considerations pertaining to alternatives are:
• An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; • Reasons for rejecting an alternative include:
- Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; - Infeasibility; or
- Inability to avoid significant environmental effects.

The Draft EIR identified the following impacts related to the Palmers’ oak:

1. Biological Resources Impact (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures, such as prohibiting grading within a certain distance and preserving the tree via an open space lot maintained in perpetuity by a conservation entity, would result in a less than significant impact. Thus, under CEQA, an alternative for biological resource impacts to the Palmer’s oak is not required.

2. Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resource Impact (Significant and Unavoidable) Although the Palmer Oak, of and by itself, is a significant historic/tribal cultural resource, the setting of the tree (the entire Rio Vista Specific Plan area) also contributes to its significance.

The only alternative that would reduce the impact to less than significant for historic/tribal cultural resources is one that prohibits the development of the project. Such an Alternative is not required because it fails to attain any of the Project’s fundamental objectives.

CONCLUSION
The analysis presented in this report addresses the key concerns raised by the Planning Commission regarding the Rio Vista Specific Plan. It covers several critical aspects, including the revised Development Agreement, qualifications of environmental consultants, methodology of supporting studies, Palmer Oak root mapping and preservation, mitigation of urban heat island effects, and consideration of State recommendations for warehouse projects. The report demonstrates that:

A. Extensive technical studies have been conducted to ensure the protection of the Palmer Oak, with buffer zones exceeding recommended distances.

B. Measures are being implemented to mitigate potential urban heat island effects, including the use of reflective materials and extensive landscaping.

C. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adequately addresses air quality concerns and incorporates relevant recommendations from the California Attorney General's guidance on warehouse projects.

D. Steps are being taken to protect the Palmer Oak conservation area prior to the establishment of a conservation entity and funding for maintenance and preservation.

E. The existing EIR and its alternatives have been thoroughly reviewed and deemed sufficient to address potential environmental impacts.
9 In light of the additional information, it is recommended that the Planning Commission consider moving forward with the approval process for the Rio Vista Specific Plan, subject to the implementation of the proposed mitigation monitoring program and conditions of approval.

Prepared by: Submitted by:

Jim Pechous Joe Perez
Principal Planner Assistant City Manager/Community
Development Director
Reviewed by:
//ss// Maricela Marroquin
Maricela Marroquin

ATTACHMENTS

1. Response to comments and Planning Commission Information Request A: FCS Statement of Qualifications for Southern California.

B: Qualifications for Michael Tuma, PhD.

C: Letters sent to the Planning Commission June 26, 2024 Public Hearing.

D: Review Attorney General’s Warehouse Best Practices and Mitigation D1. Rio Vista Specific Plan: Incorporation of the Attorney General’s Warehouse Projects Best Practices and Mitigation Measures prepared by EDP Solutions, Inc.

D2. FirstCarbon Solutions Peer Review of EPD Solutions, Inc. memorandum E: Palmer’s Oak Root Extent Estimation and Review of Noninvasive Root Mapping F: Specific Data Collection and Assessment of the Jurupa Oak, prepared by L&L Environmental, Inc.

G: Qualifications for Stetson Engineering
H: Qualifications for Scott Byram, PhD
I : Qualifications for QTative

2. Redline Conditions of Approval for TTM 37074 & TTM 38639

3. Resolution No. PC-2024-15
A. Exhibit A General Plan Amendment (GPA) Land Use Map
10 B. Exhibit B General Plan Amendment Tables 1.3 & 2.6 C. Exhibit C Rio Vista Specific Plan No. SP16001
D. Exhibit D Development Agreement No. 16001
E. Exhibit E Conditions of Approval for TTM 37074 & TTM 38639 F. Exhibit F EIR CEQA Findings
G. Exhibit G Statement of Overriding Considerations
H. Exhibit H Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

4. Alternative Edited Pages of the Specific Plan
ATTACHMENT 10
Monte Vista Homes PA 7
Landowner E-MAIL of Support
From: Jeff Patty
To: Vivian Ventura
Cc: Joe Perez; Dianne Guevara; Annette Tam Chyan; Jim Pechous; Maricela E. Marroquin; Erika Soriano Subject: Re: Public Hearing Notice - Rio Vista Specific Plan Date: Wednesday, June 5, 2024 9:42:11 AM
Attachments: Outlook-vodmybp3.png
Hello Jurupa Valley staff,
I wanted to inform you that an entity controlled by Monte Vista Homes recently completed the acquisition of 15 vacant acres located on Armstrong Road, 11 acres of which fall within the boundary of the Rio Vista Specific Plan. Monte Vista supports the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and will be in attendance at next week's meeting to voice our support.

We are in the formative stages of putting together a development application for the 15 acres and will be in contact with the City soon on this matter.

Thanks, and we look forward to working with you!
Jeff Patty
VP of Land
Monte Vista Homes
760.468.1625
[email protected]
www.montevistahomes.us
Preserve the Jurupa Oak and the rare wildlife who call it home Jym Dyer <[email protected]> Thu 8/29/2024 9:29 AM
To:Brian Berkson <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor Pro-tern Brian Berkson,
The proposed Rio Vista development threatens one of the oldest living organisms on Earth: the Jurupa Oak. Please delay your decision on the Rio Vista project until additional independent studies and a comprehensive conservation plan can fully identify its needs.

Understanding the needs of the Jurupa Oak is necessary to design conservation measures that allow this ancient plant to survive.

Careful consideration of one of the planet's oldest living beings is important not only for Jurupa Valley residents but for the rest of us.

The needed studies include a comprehensive understanding of the existing watershed that supports the oak, including hydrology and geology. The environmental impact report for the Rio Vista project recognizes that essential scientific information on the oak is lacking - so avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures can't ensure that the proposed conservation efforts will be successful.

A comprehensive plan for the Jurupa Oak will also benefit other listed and sensitive species - including Delhi Sands flower-loving flies, coastal California gnatcatchers, burrowing owls, and Plummer's mariposa lilies - as well as more common local wildlife. The plan can also provide additional conserved open space and make the city of Jurupa \(alley a model for a balanced approach to development and conservation.

I urge the Jurupa Valley City Council to delay its decision on the Rio Vista development until a comprehensive conservation plan for the oak is crafted.

There's only one Jurupa Oak on Earth. It's existed for more than 13,000 years and deserves our reverence and protection.

Sincerely,
Jym Dyer
CA 94117-2718
Attachment 11
Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Jennifer Iyer <[email protected]>
Sunday, August 11, 2024 3:52 PM
Guillermo Silva; Brian Berkson; Chris Barajas; Leslie Altamirano; Armando Carmona; CityClerk-WebContact
Letter regarding regarding item 16.C on Aug. 15 agenda
LetterJ-lyer.pdf
Buenos tardes Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please see my attached letter regarding item 16.C on the agenda for Thursday's Jurupa Valley City Council meeting.

Thank you for everything you do for our city,
Jenny Iyer
Cell: 951-321-0878
flickr.com/i iyer
i .
. . .
1 Attachment 12
Jennifer Iyer
Red Mesa Dive
Jurupa Valley
Aug. 11, 2024
City Council
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Ave.

Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Re: Aug. 15 Agenda Item No. 16.C
My name is Jenny Iyer and I am a lifelong resident of our Jurupa Valley. I am also a voter (District 3), small business owner, property owner, tax payer, and volunteer here.

Below are some points to consider if you decide to take up the Rio Vista project on Sept. 5:

Dangerous unknowns
We do not know where the Hurunga Oak's ancient roots are located.

We do not know all the places where the oak could be getting its water.

We do not know how the urban heat island effect could harm the oak.

We do not know how diesel soot could harm the oak.

We do not know how invasive species and pathogens could harm the oak.

We do not know how a warming climate will affect the oak.

Essential Questions
When the third oldest living plant on the planet starts to wither and die do we really want to be the ones standing around saying "oops, gosh we didn't think of that consequence"?
And for what? Two and a half million square feet of mundane industrial and business park buildings of which there is no lack in our city.

We COULD know all these things before we make a decision on the size of a buffer around an oak that is at least 13,000 years old.

Having all the information would be the prudent thing to do. If Richland Communities is in a hurry and can't be bothered with prudent, let us at least err on the side of caution with a 1,000 foot buffer that protects the drainage to the ground water below the oak.

Dream big
Visionary elected officials would kill for the placemaking opportunity the Hurunga Oak provides us.

We are a new city with an old soul.

How about honoring the oak's deep roots, ancient knowledge and resilient spirit on our city logo which the city is already in the process of changing.

The oak could be a Unesco World Heritage site like the Redwoods (much younger). It could have a federal government-sponsored visitor center like the Bristlecone pines (much younger). It could have a state park like Torrey Pines (also way younger).

In 2006 the U.S. Postal Service honored the second oldest known plant on the planet (Pando the aspen clone) with a stamp.

Imagine that for our dusty little city.

Richland Community's vision is uninspired.

Consider Roble Vista instead of Rio Vista.

I would love to kick back at the Ancient Oak Brewery as the oak glows in the fading dusk and raise a glass with all of you, toasting the oak and a job well done protecting something sacred and ancient.

Perhaps we could then walk over to a museum in the Encino Viejo Business Park and learn more about the oak, and what this land looked like when it first sprouted including the saber tooth cats and Columbian mammoths. Perhaps a cultural center would tell the stories of all the First Peoples of this area, and what these hills have meant to them for millennia, and how the name of our city likely comes from their language. I bet there's a way to get grant funding for such endeavors. I'd be honored to help.

What business park tenant wouldn't pay more to be able to gaze out the window and derive inspiration from one of the oldest known living beings on the planet? Everyone thinks we are "Riverside" or worse yet, "that place with the toxic waste dump," if they think of us at all. Let's celebrate something uniquely us that we can be proud of.

Do not rob our community of the opportunity to grow deep roots by letting the Hurunga Oak be destroyed by insufficient planning.

Security and public discourse
If Richland Communities respected us they would have put a fence around the oak, some cameras, and signs reading "sacred land, please respect" and "area protected by video surveillance."
Eight years they have been working on Rio Vista and could have done the right thing, but haven't.

Take the oak out of Richland's hands. I bet there are grants the city could use to purchase the land.

If Richland did anything to keep the oak safe, we could have an open and free discussion about how close the planned 300,000 square foot light industrial building is to the oak.

If the oak were safe the City could hold scoping meetings to invite residents, all local indigenous peoples, scientists, and plant lovers to weigh in on how to protect and celebrate this treasure.

Instead of hiding it away, don't you want to know what voters might think of having the third oldest living being on the planet in their backyard? Public scoping meetings are a hallmark of good planning for projects with way less on the line.

Richland never asked the community what we thought, though their proposal threatens a being that can shape our past, present and future.

Concerns about the back room deals with the Kizh Nation Much as I love the Land Back movement, I hope City staff have vetted the Kizh Nation and not just fallen in love with the romanticized idea of a tribe protecting the site.

The First Peoples of our home have been good stewards of this land for millenia, for which I am humbly grateful.
- Do the Kizh have any recent experience in local biological restoration keeping native habitat alive despite modern Inland Empire stressors such as our warming, drying climate; air pollution; invasive species and pathogens such as Sudden Oak Death and the Gold-Spotted Oak Borer; and the urban heat island effect?
Do the Kizh have the capacity to take care of such an important being, and the full 510 acres of open land on top of that?
I can't find much information about any Kizh resume online in city files nor on the tribe's website. Talking to them after the last two Planning Commission meetings did not bring about much information, except that they take care of one other property, a cultural site, which is not local.

Also, putting funding for maintenance of one of the oldest living beings on the planet in the hands of a HOA is foolhardy. What if the HOA board changes their mind and finds other ways to get in the way of proper care? The best way to ensure proper funding for oak maintenance in perpetuity is through a non-wasting endowment. Ask any experienced conservation organization.

Studies
The Environmental Impact Report is a flawed tool to protect something as unique as this oak, and the Rio Vista EIR is particularly deficient.

For the fourth time, I ask that the City require the isotopic discriminant study that was recommended by federal and state wildlife agencies in their EIR comment letter dated Dec. 4, 2023. The fog drip/condensation study recommended by the same agencies would also provide useful information.

The consultant dismissed the need for these studies in the Final EIR because the studies that were not released to the public found a different water source. Is it not possible that the oak uses multiple water sources in this hot, dry region known for prolonged droughts?
It is imperative we figure out all the places the oak gets its water, especially as our climate warms and dries.

If the oak's roots go down to groundwater, Richland should not be allowed to build industrial and business park buildings and impervious surfaces such as roads and parking lots on top of the drainage that feeds the groundwater basin.

There should be a multitude of studies conducted to make sure we don't kill this ancient and sacred being. I know we are not a wealthy city and don't have money for studies.

I'm willing to bet there are researchers who would love to help with this, or grants the city could get to pay for such work.

Next steps
We must:
1) Pause Rio Vista
2) Find a way to get the oak out of private hands and secure its safety while we tell the world about this treasure
3) Invite studies on how to protect the oak
4) Ask our community how to proceed
If the city is not interested in doing what's prudent, at least err on the side of caution with a 1,000-foot buffer which would protect the drainage to the groundwater under the oak.

Don't squander the opportunity the Hurunga Oak provides. Jurupa Valley won't get another one like it.

Jennifer S. Iyer
Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2024 4:02 PM
To: Erika Soriano; Jim Pechous; Dianne Guevara; Annette Tam Chyan Subject: Fwd: Comment regarding the Rio Vista Development and the Jurupa Oak Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: K Ochoa <[email protected]>
Date: August 11, 2024 at 3:19:16 PM PDT
Subject: Comment regarding the Rio Vista Development and the Jurupa Oak Hello,
I am a resident of Riverside county, and am concerned about the Rio Vista development and the health of the Jurupa Oak. I am concerned that the current proposed buffer will not be enough.

Please do not approve the development.

Thank you,
Kirstin Ochoa
92505
1 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2024 4:42 PM
To:

Subject:

Erika Soriano; Jim Pechous; Dianne Guevara; Annette Tam Chyan Fwd: Save The Jurupa Oak
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Tyler Monsein <[email protected]>
Date: August 11, 2024 at 4:31 :02 PM PDT
To: Armando Carmona <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Rod Butler <[email protected]> Subject: Save The Jurupa Oak
Dear City Council,
The Jump a Oak has been here for 13,000 - 18,000 years. As the third oldest living thing on earth, it is both an extremely rare and valuable source of information for our planet's history and foture.

If given a 100 acre preserve as we are demanding, it will likely outlive all of us, too. If a developer builds too closely, it will die.

This is not an inconvenience. This is a lifeline for our species, our entire human culture. It should be celebrated that such a historic organism is in your city. It should be protected.

It is not your job to decide what dies. It is your job to protect what lives. This tree will outlive you. The houses or warehouse you approve will probably not. Your term in office will definitely not. You must give this ancient and precarious organism a 100 acre preserve, not because it's politically helpfol, but because this issue is exponentially larger than all ofus: this is our only planet, and our only Jurupa Oak.

TYLER MONSEIN
101(813) 230 2301
1 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2024 4:43 PM
To:

Subject:

Erika Soriano; Dianne Guevara; Jim Pechous; Annette Tam Chyan Fwd: No to the Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Crying Clover Candles <[email protected]> Date: August 11, 2024 at 4:21:57 PM PDT
To: Armando Carmona <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Rod Butler <[email protected]> Subject: No to the Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan It would be an absolute egregious act to allow this plan to go forward and kill the 13,000 year old Jurupa oak!
No the the plan!
C
C
(oV
eR
Confidentiality Notice: This email (including uttachmcnts) ("Email'') is intemded for the sole and e,wlus!ve use of the e:wh of the persons/entities to whom this Emm1 is addressed (''Addresseeb·'?, mid contains proprietary, privileged and/or confidential illformadon protected from disclosure by the Electronic Commmiications Privacy Act (18 USC§§ 2510-2521) and/or s!milur acts or Jews in other judsdlctlons. Furthennow, this Email's sender and its Addressees have reaso11.ible expectations of priwicy concerning this Email's trnnsmlttril and co11tent, Accordingly, any ummfhorlzed use, duplication and/or dlssemln.ation of this Email (01· any poi·tion theceof) ai·e strictly p,:ohlblted. If you have received this Email in en-or, ple:.ise notify the sender and delete this E1m11l immediately, Thankyo11.
1 Roel Butler! City Manager
CITY OF JlJRUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.6464 IC: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupnvalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I lnstagram I Twitter
From: Ezekiel Sanchez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 7:53 AM
To: Armando Carmona <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>: Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Rod Butler <[email protected]> Subject: Jurupa oak
Good morning,
I hope this email finds you all well. I am emailing today because of the concern regarding the ancient Jurupa oak that is endangered by land development. I implore you all to talce into account the lives this oak has sustained throughout history, human and animal alike. Money should not be driving force for us to potentially destroy and harm vital species in our state. I hope your consideration for this tree will influence your decisions.

Thank you for your time.
5 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Monday, August 12, 2024 8:46 AM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Stop the Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan
Rod Butler! City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.64641 C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Ji.uupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: heidi y <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 8:20 AM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Cc: heidi y <[email protected]>
Subject: Stop the Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan Stop the Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan and protect the Jurupa Oak by giving the land back to the Gabrielefios. 45 acres as discussed before.
#landback
heidi
6 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler I City Manager
Rod Butler
Monday, August 12, 2024 8:44 AM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Comments Regarding the Rio Vista Specific Plan
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY J T: 951.332.6464 J C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 [email protected] I jurupavalley.org Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I lnstagram I Twitter
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Rhodes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 8:41 AM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: Comments Regarding the Rio Vista Specific Plan Hello,
To even have to write this message to advocate for an incredibly precious and invaluable natural resource that is at risk of destruction is quite unfortunate.

The Jurupa Valley Oak, besides being one of the oldest living organisms on earth and being an important natural and cultural resource, is also registered as a sacred site by the Gabrielef\o Tongva. This tree is living proof of climatic resilience and can provide invaluable information to researchers and enthusiasts in the wake of climate change and ecological collapse.

I strongly oppose the Rio Vista Specific plan. The current acreage of a buffer for the tree is incredibly far from sufficient.

All of you here have a responsibility for an important natural and cultural resource - please make the right decision and stop this development from happening.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Best,
Ian Rhodes
7 Vicki Wasko
From: Erika Soriano
Sent:

To:

Monday, August 12, 2024 9:14 AM
Vicki Wasko
Subject: Fw: Jurupa Oak
Hi Vicki,
Please see below Public Comment for the Rio Vista project.

Thank you.

Erika Soriano I Executive Assistant
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY I T: 951.332.6464 x134 I F: 951.332.6995 8930 Llmonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I iurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook J lnstagram I .ii
From: Joe Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2024 1:45 PM
To: Erika Soriano <[email protected]>; Jim Pechou, <[email protected]>; Ernie Perea <[email protected]>; Dianne Guevara <[email protected]>; Annette Tam Chyan <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Jurupa Oak
Erika ... please include this as part of the public record ... thx! Joe
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Oli Kooner <[email protected]>
Date: August 11, 2024 at 1:08:18 PM PDT
To: Joe Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Jurupa Oak
Please please please protect the Jurupa Oak.

This is the OLDEST tree in California and the third oldest on the planet!!!! This is everyone's history not just Californians.

Aside from protecting natural spaces and habitats, it's been proven that replaces natural spaces with manmade spaces increases temperatures for the surrounding communities.

Let's for one take care of our planet and our people and do not let consumerism and capitalism destroy any more of beautiful natural environment.
2 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Hi Vicki,
Erika Soriano
Monday, August 12, 2024 9:14 AM
Vicki Wasko
Fw: Public Comment - 8/15 Meeting - Oppose Rio Visita Specific Plan I received the below public comment for the Rio Vista project.

Thank you.

Erika Soriano I Executive Assistant
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY I T: 951.332.6464 x134 I F: 951.332.6995 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook J lnstagram I
From: Jennifer Ho <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2024 12:43 PM
To: Erika Soriano <[email protected]>
Cc: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment - 8/15 Meeting - Oppose Rio Visita Specific Plan Dear City Council,
As a community member who would like to see better public health outcomes and community-led stewardship ofour lands. Please vote against approval of this project.

Instead of building on this land, I am in favor of a land use plan the protects and respects this land that houses the oldest living oak on the Earth.

Sincerely,
Jennifer H.
3 Vicki Wasko
From:
'Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Monday, August 12, 2024 4:01 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Oppose Rio Vista/ Save the Jurupa Oak
Rod Butler! City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.6464 IC: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I J1.111.1pa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I iurupavalley,org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I lnstagram I Twitter
From: Brent Armendinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 9:18 AM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose Rio Vista/ Save the Jurupa Oak
Dear City Council,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the Rio Vista Specific Plan which threatens the survival of the Jurupa Oak, the oldest living thing in California and the oldest living oak on the planet. Instead of developing the land around the Jurupa Oak, it should be protected with a wilderness preserve. The city should be proud of the Jurupa Oak and do everything in its power to protect it.

Respectfully,
Brent Armendinger
Los Angeles, CA
21 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Vicki--Here is another one.

Rod Butler
Jurupa Valley City Manager
Rod Butler
Monday, August 12, 2024 11 :46 AM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Sent via the Samsung Galaxy SI 0, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable srnartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Mandie Carter <[email protected]>
Date: 8/12/24 10:52 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Dear Mr. Butler, Mr. Perez, Mr. Silva, Mr. Berkson, Mr. Barajas, Ms.

Altamirano, Mr. Cannona,
My name is Mandie Carter, and I am a concerned archaeologist in Southern California writing to strongly oppose the Rio Vista Specific Plan development in Jnrupa Valley due to its potential to harm the irreplaceable Jurupa Oalc, or Hurungna Oak.

This ancient tree is not only a biological rarity, it is a sacred site for the Gabrielefio Band of Mission Inclians. Biologists warn the proposed 450-foot buffer is insufficient to protect its delicate water source, root system, and surrounding ecosystem. Additionally, the heat island effect from the development could further endanger this natural treasure, robbing current residents and future generations of its biodiversity and cultural significance.

I urge you to reconsider the plan and work with both, Biologists who seek to protect the tree's biodiversity, and The Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians who regard this tree as a sacred site. I ask that you consider their requests to establish a preserve that protects this living monument. The Hurungna Oak is crucial to our community's environmental and cultural heritage and worthy of protection.

Thank you for your attention to tl)is important issue.

Kind regards,
1 Pronouns: She/!Ier
I acknowledge that I am living and working on the 1mceded ancestral lands of the Kmneyaay Nation. I strive to be a good steward of the landscape and to give back to those communities.
2 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Monday, August 12, 20241:21 PM
To:

Subject:

Vicki Wasko; Erika Soriano; Jim Pechous; Dianne Guevara; Annette Tam Chyan Fwd: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: elizabeth vasquez <[email protected]>
Date: August 12, 2024 at 12:31 :40 PM PDT
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The llurungna Oak Dear Mr. Butler, Mr. Perez, Mr. Silva, Mr. Berkson, Mr. Barajas, Ms. Altamirano, Mr. Carmona, My name is Eli Vasquez and I am a concerned archaeologist writing to strongly oppose the Rio Vista Specific Plan development in Jurupa Valley due to its potential to harm the irreplaceable Jurupa Oak, or Hurungna Oak.

This ancient tree is not only a biological rarity, it is a sacred site for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians. Biologists warn the proposed 450-foot buffer is insufficient to protect its delicate water source, root system, and surrounding ecosystem. Additionally, the heat island effect from the development could further endanger this natural treasure, robbing current residents and future generations of its biodiversity and cultural significance.

I urge you to reconsider the plan and work with both, Biologists who seek to protect the tree's biodiversity, and The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians who regard this tree as a sacred site. I ask that you consider their requests to establish a preserve that protects this living monument.

The Hurungna Oak is crucial to our community's environmental and cultural heritage and worthy of protection.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,
Eli Vasquez
29 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Monday, August 12, 2024 3:08 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Comment opposing the Rio Vista Specific Plan
Rod B11tlerl City Ma11ager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.6464 IC: 951.934.8441 8930 Limoaite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavallev,org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: Mary Chitjian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 11:51 AM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Buller,
My name is Mary Chitjian and I am a Southern California archaeologist writing to strongly oppose the Rio Vista Specific Plan development in Jurupa Valley due to its potential to harm the irreplaceable Jurupa Oak, or Hurungna Oak.

This ancient tree is not only a biological rarity, it is a sacred site for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians.

Biologists warn the proposed 450-foot buffer is insufficient to protect its delicate water source, root system, and surrounding ecosystem. Additionally, the heat island effect from the development could further endanger this natural treasure, robbing current residents and future generations of its biodiversity and cultural significance.

I urge you to reconsider the plan and work with both, Biologists who seek to protect the tree's biodiversity, and The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians who regard this tree as a sacred site. I ask that you consider their requests to establish a preserve that protects this living monument. The Hurungna Oak is crucial to our community's environmental and cultural heritage and worthy of protection.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,
Mary Chitjian
22 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Monday, August 12, 2024 2:53 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Rod Butler! City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.6464 IC: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I lnstagram I Twitter
From: Dash F. Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 1:20 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Dear Mr. Butler, Mr. Perez, Mr. Silva, Mr. Berkson, Mr. Barajas, Ms. Altamirano, Mr. Carmona, My name is Dash F. Harris, and I am a concerned archaeologist, writing to strongly oppose the Rio Vista Specific Plan development in Jurupa Valley due to its potential to harm the irreplaceable Jurupa Oak, or Hurungna Oak.

This ancient tree is not only a biological rarity, it is a sacred site for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians.

Biologists warn the proposed 450-foot buffer is insufficient to protect its delicate water source, root system, and surrounding ecosystem. Additionally, the heat island effect from the development could further endanger this natural treasure, robbing current residents and future generations of its biodiversity and cultural significance.

I urge you to reconsider the plan and work with both, Biologists who seek to protect the tree's biodiversity, and The Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians who regard this tree as a sacred site. I ask that you consider their requests to establish a preserve that protects this living monument. The Hurungna Oak is crucial to our community's environmental and cultural heritage and worthy of protection.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,
Dash F Harris
25 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Monday, August 12, 2024 3:06 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Another one calling it the Hurunga Oak.

Rod Butler! City Manager
CITY OF .TURUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.64641 C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: elizabeth vasquez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 12:31 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Dear Mr. Butler, Mr. Perez, Mr. Silva, Mr. Berkson, Mr. Barajas, Ms. Altamirano, Mr. Carmona, My name is Eli Vasquez and I am a concerned archaeologist writing to strongly oppose the Rio Vista Specific Plan development in Jurupa Valley due to its potential to harm the irreplaceable Jurupa Oak, or Hurungna Oak.

This ancient tree is not only a biological rarity, it is a sacred site for the Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians.

Biologists warn the proposed 450-foot buffer is insufficient to protect its delicate water source, root system, and surrounding ecosystem. Additionally, the heat island effect from the development could further endanger this natural treasure, robbing current residents and future generations of its biodiversity and cultural significance.

I urge you to reconsider the plan and work with both, Biologists who seek to protect the tree's biodiversity, and The Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians who regard this tree as a sacred site. I ask that you consider their requests to establish a preserve that protects this living monument. The Hurungna Oak is crucial to our community's environmental and cultural heritage and worthy of protection.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,
Eli Vasquez
23 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Monday, August 12, 2024 3:05 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Oak Preserve in Rio Vista project area
Rod Butler! City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.64641 C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I lnstagram I Twitter
From: kelly reed daulton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 12:41 PM
To: Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]>; Rod Butler <rbutler@ju rupava lley.org>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Oak Preserve in Rio Vista project area
Dear City Co,mcil,
I have lived in California all my life (50 years) and had not heard of Jurupa Valley until I heard about your ancient oak. That tree is irreplaceable in our lifetimes and an example for our children.

Development will not be diminished when it is planned with respect for the oldest members of the community.

Your Jurupa Oalc deserves the highest level of care and giving it will benefit the people who live there.

I am requesting that the City remove three development designations and replace them with a 100-acre preserve around the Jumpa Oak to ensure adequate protection and appropriate respect for our planet's oldest Oak.

It can be done.

Thanks for doing better,
Kelly Reed Daulton
24 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 5:13 PM
To:

Subject:

Vicki Wasko; Dianne Guevara; Jim Pechous; Annette Tam Chyan; Erika Soriano Fwd: Oak tree
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Karen J Moore <[email protected]>
Date: August 12, 2024 at 3 :31 :06 PM PDT
To: Joe Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Oak tree
Hello,
My name is KJ Moore and I work with an Indigenous-run organization which works to steward the land and care for the environment.

I recently read about a housing development project which could harm one of the oldest living plants in America, maybe even the world.

I would like to add niy voice in support of giving more space to this incredible life & respecting the land on which is grows.

Old growth forests are being decimated by wildfires & climate change across the planet. Losing another ancient plant neighbor would be a tragedy which we cannot remedy in our lifetime.

Please protect the land. Please protect the trees.

Thank you for your time,
KJMoore
43 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 5:13 PM
To:

Subject:

Vicki Wasko; Erika Soriano; Dianne Guevara; Annette Tam Chyan; Jim Pechous Fwd: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Date: August 12, 2024 at 2:47:59 PM PDT
To: Vicki Wasko <[email protected]>
Cc: Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Dianne Guevara <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak It's funny that in this organized letter writing campaign they can't even get the name of the plant right.

They are calling it the Hurunga Oak instead of the Jurupa Oak.

Rod Butler! City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.64641 C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
• -Connect-with-us on-social-media: ·
Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: Gabby P <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Dear Mr. Butler, Mr. Perez, Mr. Silva, Mr. Berkson, Mr. Barajas, Ms. Altamirano, Mr. Carmona, My name is Gabrielle Perez, and I am a citizen and student plant biologist writing to strongly oppose the Rio Vista Specific Plan development in Jurupa Valley due to its potential to harm the irreplaceable Jurupa Oak, or Hurungna Oak.

This ancient tree is not only a biological rarity, it is a sacred site for the Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians. Biologists warn the proposed 450-foot buffer is insufficient to protect its delicate water source, root system, and surrounding ecosystem. Additionally, the heat island effect from the development could further endanger this .natural treasure, robbing current residents and future generations of its biodiversity and cultural significance. 19 I ufg<'i yeu to reeorrsldew tha plan and work with l:Joth, •l:Jiologlsts wno seek to prote,otth& tree's biodiversity, and The Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians who regard this tree as a sacred site. I ask that you consider their requests to establish a preserve that protects this living monument.

The Hurungna Oak is crucial to our community's environmental and cultural heritage and worthy of protection.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,
Gabrielle Perez
20 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Monday, August 12, 2024 5:53 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Rod Butler[ City Manager
CITY OF JlJRUPA VALLEY [ T: 951.332.6464 [ C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limon:ite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jumpavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: Zachary Higgins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 5:29 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <bberl<[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Dear recipient,
My name is Zach Higgins, a resident of Cypress, California, writing to strongly oppose the Rio Vista Specific Plan development in Jurupa Valley due to its potential to harm the irreplaceable Jurupa Oak, or Hurungna Oak.

Honest question to ask yourself: do you seriously believe that developers would stop themselves from developing past the environmental point ofno return? Even if you dispute where that line is, it's a fact that there is a number of plants that can be destroyed such that not enough oxygen is able to be produced for the earths population. That mm1ber is real. But do you believe any decision maldng apparatus of any development industry would make the choice itself to halt development? No, of course it would not. And that's proof the enterprise is insane. Those ofus who exercise conscience and political power have the responsibility to make that decision since we all know, the administrators of these companies WOULD NEVER. The almighty buck and the cycle of revenue is their religion and obsession, and we all know that is true.

This ancient tree is not only a biological rarity, it is a sacred site for the Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians.

Biologists warn the proposed 450-foot buffer is insufficient to protect its delicate water source, root system, and surrounding ecosystem. Additionally, the heat island effect from the development could further endanger this natural treasure, robbing current residents and future generations of its biodiversity and cultural significance.

I urge you to reconsider the plan and work with both, Biologists who seek to protect the tree's biodiversity, and The Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians who regard this tree as a sacred site. I ask that you consider their requests to establish a preserve that protects this living monument. The Hurungna Oak is crucial to our comnnmity's environmental and cultural heritage and worthy of protection. 17 Thallk yITTr for your attentroo to this important 18:.ue.

Sincerely,
Zachary C Higgins
18 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 7:53 AM
To:

Subject:

Vicki Wasko; Dianne Guevara; Annette Tam Chyan; Erika Soriano; Jim Pechous Fwd: Preservation for the Jurupa Oak in Rio Vista Specific plan: Item 16C Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Kelly Reed Daulton <[email protected]>
Date: August 13, 2024 at 7:28:15 AM PDT
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Amanda Smith <[email protected]>, Dana Tryde <[email protected]>
Subject: Preservation for the Jurupa Oak in Rio Vista Specific plan: Item 16C Dear City Council,
Your Planning Commission has evidently done its required due diligence in collecting information about the Jurupa Oak in the Rio Vista specific plan. However, you do not have to approve this project, even though that may be their recommendation.

Our concern, here at the Central Coast Heritage Tree Foundation, is that unintended cumulative impacts from a development of this size have never been shidied on a tree like this.

What we do know, is that old trees:
*have adapted over hundreds of years to withstand threats, not over a matter of months to withstand fundamental changes to their landscape.
*communicate with other trees for miles and humans have limited knowledge of how affecting the oldest tree will affect trees within the network -- but we know that it does. *are a cultural and environmental resource that create their own microclimate and habitat that cannot be duplicated by people.

If you feel, as we do, that you have something unique in Rio Vista, please do not get pressured or bullied into doing what will mal<e development easy or fair. At a minimum, please create a supplemental EIR for the oak, and recirculate it with the findings. This tree deserves to be treated with the utmost care.

Sincerely,
Amanda Smith
Dana Tryde
9 central coast Heritage Tree Foundation
Founded 2018
We are a fiscally sponsored non-profit organization
• ' ·
'
WE'RE HERE FOR THE TREES • :' :
www. centra!coastheritaqetreefoundation. orq
10 CCHTF -·
r,; ·
Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Tuesday, August 13, 2024 8:44 AM
Vicki Wasko
Joe Perez
FW: Stop the Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan
Rod Butler[ City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.64641 C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurnpavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: Hunter Ahuero <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 5:34 AM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Stop the Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan Hello I hope this email finds you well. I am writing you in regards to one of the OLDEST LIVING CREATURES on our beautiful planet. This tree should have a 50 acre space to live in. Thing about the tourism you small town could get if you opened a viewing deck for the tree and I'm sure your kids will actually thank you for saving this tree.
7 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 7:54 AM
To:

Subject:

Vicki Wasko; Jim Pechous; Erika Soriano; Dianne Guevara; Annette Tam Chyan Fwd: Stop the Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Hunter Ahuero <hunterl [email protected]>
Date: August 13, 2024 at 5:35:40 AM PDT
To: Joe Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Stop the Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan Hello I hope this email finds you well. I am writing you in regards to one of the OLDEST LIVING CREATURES on our beautiful planet. This tree should have a 50 acre space to live in.

Thing about the tourism you small town could get if you opened a viewing deck for the tree and I'm sure your kids will actually thank you for saving this tree. 8 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Tuesday, August 13, 2024 8:56 AM
Vicki Wasko
Joe Perez
FW: Please Halt Rio Vista Plan
Rod ButlerJ City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY J T: 951.332.6464 JC: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: Madeline Christian <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 2:23 AM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Halt Rio Vista Plan
Dear City Manager Butler,
Hi! My name is Maddie and I'm personally writing to you to ask you to please vote against the Rio Vista Plan. I am extremely opposed to this project and am instead in favor of a plan that explicitly protects and respects one of the oldest known living plants on Earth.

The Jurupa Oak is one of the best things about Riverside county. Its estimated to be between 13,000 and 18,000 years old and its the only individual of its species in the entire 1,700 square miles of the Santa Ana Valley Watershed. This tree has been known and seen as sacred by the Shiishogna Tongva Nation, the Corona Band of Gabrieleiio Indians and the Kizh Nation, Gabrieleiio Band of Mission Indians, who have also lived in the Santa Ana River Basin for millennia.

While I understand that the plans state that this tree will not be touched and be surrounded by 27 acre buffer, I ask that more testing on this tree and its surrounding environment be done before even considering approving any type of development plan. There is a reason that this individual is the only one of its species in the entire watershed - oaks typically require cooler and more moist environments in order to thrive. To be so high up and in such a drier and rockier area tells me and others that its roots must be far reaching both deep and wide in order to thrive for so long as it has. And as far as I can see, mapping of this trees roots has not been conducted, nor as any direct water sources been identified.

Furthermore, please consider the urban heat island effect that all of this development will have on this tree. UHI effect can bring up to 7 degrees higher in temperature due to all of the concrete, metal, glass, and other industrial materials. All of these materials could block this tree's roots from accessing the water and nutrients it needs, or potentially fry it via proximity altogether. The loss of its surrounding ecosystem could spell a slow death for this oak, as CA native plants largely assist oalcs by keeping water in the ground year-round via their very long taproots. Annuals like CA wildflowers and perennials like bunchgrasses and shrubs directly help the oaks help the rest of the ecosystem. Oaks themselves are ecological powerhouses and some species can support up to over 400 species of insects, birds, and mammals.

There's an unending amount of development in Southern California, but there's only 1 13,000+ year old tree. 3 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Tuesday, August 13, 2024 8:44 AM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Rod Butler[ City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY [ T: 951.332.6464 [ C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: Allison Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 6:26 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Dear Mr. Butler, Mr. Perez, Mr. Silva, Mr. Berkson, Mr. Barajas, Ms. Altamirano, Mr. Carmona, My name is Allison Johnson, and I am an anthropologist and archaeologist writing to strongly oppose the Rio Vista Specific Plan development in Jurupa Valley due to its potential to harm the irreplaceable Jurupa Oak, or Hurungna Oak.

This ancient tree is not only a biological rarity, it is a sacred site for the Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians.

Biologists warn the proposed 450-foot buffer is insufficient to protect its delicate water source, r<lQt system, @d surrounding ecosystem. Additionally, the heat island effect from the development could farther endanger this natural treasure, robbing current residents and foture generations of its biodiversity and cultural sign ificance.

I urge you to reconsider the plan and work with both, Biologists who seek to protect the tree's biodiversity, and The Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians wlio regard this tree as a sacred site. I ask that you consider their requests to establish a preserve that protects this living monument. The Hurungna Oak is crucial to our community's environmental and cultural heritage and worthy of protection.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
5 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Rod Butler
Tuesday, August 13, 2024 11 :49 AM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Urgent Appeal for Preservation of the Hurunga Oak and Cultural Heritage Jurupa Oak.docx - Google Docs.pdf
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S'I 0, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Communications Gabrielenotongva <[email protected]> Date: 8/13/2411:44 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Cc: Mona Recalde <[email protected]>, Grizelda Reed <[email protected]> Subject: Urgent Appeal for Preservation of the Hurunga Oak and Cultural Heritage Dear City Manager Rod Butler,
The purpose of the email is to advocate for the protection of Hurunga Oak. Attached to this email is aletter tliat
requests your attention and support for preserving one of the oldest remaining trees in Southern California.

Lastly, for your convenience, the letter is copied in this email.

The purpose of this letter is to bring attention and request assistance regarding the preservation of the Hurunga Oak, an extraordinary tree estimated to be between 13,000 and 18,000 years old. This tree, unique in Southern California, has survived and stands as a testament to our natural heritage.

The J urupa Planning Commission is poised to vote on a new development project that threatens not only the Hurunga Oak but also numerous archaeological, historical, and cultural resources in the area. The current proposal includes buffer zones of only 250 feet, which are insufficient to protect these invaluable assets.

Our tribe, the Gabrieleno San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, holds a profound connection to this land. We were the first tribe listed on the Native American Heritage Commission, and our members were recognized as the first Most Likely Descendants in the 1980s. This tree and its surrounding area are officially protected, with the Environmental Impact Report (BIR) identifying 13 significant cultural resources within the project's direct impact area. The proposed development would lead to substantial adverse changes to these resources, which are deemed significant and unavoidable imder Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Given the profound importance of these cultural resources, our Tribal Council respectfully requests that the City and the project applicant ensure that the Jurupa Planning Commission engages in comprehensive consultation with the Gabrieleno San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians and other relevant stakeholders before the certification of this project. Furthermore, upon certification, we assert our role as the chosen conservation 22 entity to safeguard our ancestral land.

As the original inhabitants of this land, we possess invaluable knowledge and insights into the cultural and historical significance of these resources. It is imperative that our perspectives are fully considered before any final decisions are made. The proposed project poses substantial adverse changes to historical and archaeological resources, impacts that are significant and unavoidable. The cumulative effect of the project further underscores the necessity for meticulous consideration and robust mitigation measures.

The San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians implores the Jurupa Planning Commission to recognize the gravity of this decision. By establishing adequate buffer zones and engaging in meaningful consultation with the First People of this land, we can ensure the harmonious coexistence of development and the preservation of our rich cultural heritage. Let us honor the legacy of the Hurunga Oak and the ancestral knowledge of the Gabrieleno Tongva, paving the way for a future that respects and cherishes our history.

Sincerely,
Chief Anthony Redblood Morales
Communications from San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians- Gabrieleno/Tongva
https://linktr.ee/GabrielenoTongya
e: [email protected]
23 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Erika Soriano
Tuesday, August 13, 2024 2:45 PM
Vicki Wasko
Fw: Public comment: Jurupa Oak
Erika Soriano I Executive Assistant
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY I T: 951.332.6464 x134 I F: 951.332.6995 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I lnstagram I
From: Lila Higgins <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 12:16 PM
To: Erika Soriano <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comment: Jurupa Oak
Dear Jurupa Valley Officials,
I am writing to oppose the Rio Vista plan.

For 15 years I lived in Fontana & Riverside and often hiked in the Jurupa Hills. I am a scientist and environmental educator, with degrees from UCR (B.S. Entomology) & CSUSB (M.A. Environmental Education). I currently serve on the City ofLA,s Biodiversity Expert Council, and recently stepped down from the City's Community Forestry Advisory Committee. I worked briefly at the Mary Vagle Nature Center and sometimes did field work at the Jurupa Mountain Discovery Center while working for the CA Department of Food and Agriculture, both of which are located in the Jurupa Hills. I currently work at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, as the head of Community Science within the Research and Collections department.

I am making this comment today as a private citizen and former Jurupa Hills community member. The Jurupa Hills are in a biodiversity hotspot, one of only 36 in the entire world (as defined by Conservation International).

This means we are on par with places like the island of Madagascar and the Tropical Andes!!! There are plants and animals that live here in California, and in the Jurupa Jills, and NOWHERE else on the planet. We've already lost 70% of the habitat in our hotspot (the California Floristic Province), We need to stop destroying the small amount of habitat we have left and protect it. We particularly need to protect this 13,000 year old oak colony, and all of the biodiversity it harbours. Looking at iNatuarlist data, there are over 1,500 observations of wildlife documented in the hills, representing 664 species. There are CA endemic species-meaning those found here and nowhere else on the planet here in the J urupa Hills. There are populations of critically imperiled & imperiled shoulderband snails Helminthoglypta traskii & Helminthoglypta tudiculata respectively and also endangered Crotch's bumblebees. There are countless other species that are beautiful and not listed as imperiled or endangered, and they matter too! This place must be protected! All the future generations of plants, animals, fungi, and hmnans will thank us!
1 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Tuesday, August 13, 2024 8:09 PM
Vicki Wasko; Joe Perez
FW: Rio Vista Specific Plan
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S 10, an AT&T SG Evolution capable smmtphone -------- Original message --------
From: Shea Millan <[email protected]>
Date: 8/13/24 7:32 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Rio Vista Specific Plan
Dear City Council,
I am opposed to the Rio Visita Specific Plan and ask that you oppose it as well. Please protect the world's oldest living oak tree by designating a 100 acre preserve around it instead. By building "light industrial" and a "business park" at the base of the hill near the Jurupa Oak is unethical and will be a decision we and future generations will look back on and question for all time. We should celebrate and cherish this oak, not strand it amongst a sea of development and sprawl. Please vote against the approval of this project.

Thank you,
Shea Millan
1 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Barbara Iyer
Red Mesa Dr.

Jurupa Valley
August 13, 2024
City Council of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Ave.

Jurupa Valley, CA92509
Dear Council members
[email protected]
Tuesday, August 13, 2024 8:57 PM
Guillermo Silva; Brian Berkson; Chris Barajas; Leslie Altamirano; Armando Carmona; CityClerk-WebContact
Rio Vista item No. 16c
As a long time resident of Jurupa Valley (District 3 ) I have several concerns about the planned 1,697 home Rio Vista Project.
1) Shortage of water
Due to global warming we are faced with more droughts and even in years of plenty rain water comes all at once and it is hard to capture all of it with our current water systems.

In order to deal with drought and uneven water supplies, new water regulations approved by the California State Water Resources Board require water suppliers to reduce the amount of water they provide to customers over the next 15 years or they could be fined as much as $10,000 a day. Locally RCSD and JCSD would be required to reduce our water by 20-30% over the next 15 years. If approved by the office of Administrative Law the regulation will come into effect by Jan 1, 2025.

By the time the houses are fully built our water suppliers will be forced to reduce our water by 20-30% and we will have more people sharing less water.
1 2) Because the development is next to wild lands the fire danger will be greater. Will the homeowners be able to get fire insurance?
3) The light industrial component may affect the water used by the Jurupa Oak. We need some expert botanical advice about how it gets its water and how to sustain it. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had some suggestions and also the state. With a university campus nearby and an active chapter of the California Native Plant Society there should be local expertise and a report that scientists can vet and we all can read.

I recognize that for thousands of years Native Americans sustained the habitat the oak is part of, but there were fewer people and no large industries then. I feel that the conservation entity that manages the oak should have oak expertise. Perhaps cultural conservation could be a separate entity.

There should be some way to protect the oak meanwhile.

Thank you for your attention to this.

Sincerely,
Barbara Iyer
2 Vicki Wasko
From: Rod Butler
Sent:

To:

Wednesday, August 14, 2024 8:35 AM
Vicki Wasko
Subject: FW: Friends of the Jurupa Oak
Rod Butler/ City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY I T: 951.332.6464 I C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue / Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 [email protected] / jurupavalley.org Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I lnstagram I Twitter
-----Original Message-----
From: David A Lanshaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:50 AM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Friends of the Jurupa Oak
Dear Madam/Sir, please know that as a resident of our community I support the Friends of the jurupa oak and share their concerns regarding this issue.

Regards, David Lanshaw
18 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Thursday, August 15, 2024 8:33 AM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Ris Vista Project
Roel Butler! City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.6464 IC: 951.934.8441 8930 Limouife Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 8:44 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Ris Vista Project
I am writing to ask you to deny the Ris Vista project until adequate steps have been take to ensure the protection and continued viability of the Jurupa Oak. Adequate protection in this case is something morn than a 400' buffer between the Jurupa Oak and the boundary of the project.

The Jurnpa Oak is a Palmer Oak and the only of its kind in the entire 1700 square miles of the Santa Ana Valley Watershed. Its estimated to be between 13k-18k years old. This tree has been !mown and seen as sacred by local Indigenous peoples who have also lived in the Santa Ana River Basin for millennia This oak is an incredibly unusual anomaly as its in a much drier and rockier area than most oaks grow - they typically require cooler and wetter conditions. This leads to speculation that its root systems are vast and are acquiring water somewhere nearby. Its age wasnt known ti! 2009 yet its root systems nor its direct water sources have been identified. The urban heat island effect is very real and all of the introduced concrete metal and glass can increase an areas temperature up to 7
°F/4
°C. This could fry it altogether.

The loss of its surrounding ecosystem could spell a slow death for this oak. CA native plants assist oaks by keeping water in the ground year-round via their long taproots. Oaks of all kinds are ecological powerhouses and some can support up to over 400 species of insects birds and mammals.

Please do the right thing. Preserve the Jurnpa Oalc.

Madison M. Christian
Simi Valley, CA
Yahoo Mail: Search. Organize. Conquer
10 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

See the public comment below.

Jim Pechous
Wednesday, August 14, 2024 8:36 PM
Erika Soriano; Vicki Wasko
Joe Perez; Dianne Guevara
FW: RIO VISTA PROJECT CONCERNS
From: Mary White <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 4:57 PM
To: Jim Pechous <[email protected]>
Subject: RIO VISTA PROJECT CONCERNS
Our Concerns about the proposed Rio Vista Project are:

1. Air quality due to increased auto emissions; this area has poor air quality daily.

2. Additional traffic on the main street which is 20th St.

3. Potential increase in crime due to the unhoused and motor homes parking alongside streets.

4. High density housing will bring many cars for each residence, the same as in the Shadow Rock communities; each house will have at least 2 autos, but up to 5 or 6 as we see in Shadow Rock. If there were 4 autos per residence in Rio Vista, this equates to approximately 6800 cars being added to this community in addition to what Shadow Rock already has.

5. Transportation issues in case of a mass evacuation due to natural disasters with the proposed plan. The proposed plan has only 1 exit out of this community for 1697 residences with at least 2 cars; this provides approximately 3400 cars in addition to the Shadow Rock Communities; the only exit is 20th St. This Rio Vista Projects need other exits for safety and daily transportation. 13 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler/ City Manager
Rod Butler
Wednesday, August 14, 2024 8:36 AM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY / T: 951.332.6464 / C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue / Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 [email protected] / jurupavalley.org Connect with us on social media:

Facebook / lnstagram / Twitter
-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 10:07 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva. <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <1,a/[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: Comment opposing the Rio Vista development around The Hurungna Oak Dear Mr. Butler, Mr. Perez, Mr. Silva, Mr. Berkson, Mr. Barajas, Ms. Altamirano, Mr. Carmona, My name is Sarah Parker, and I am a concerned citizen, writing to strongly oppose the Rio Vista Specific Plan development in Jurupa Valley due to its potential to harm the irreplaceable Jurupa Oak, or Hurungna Oak.

This ancient tree is not only a biological rarity, it is a sacred site for the Gabriele no Band of Mission Indians. Biologists warn the proposed 450-foot buffer is insufficient to protect its delicate water source, root system, and surrounding ecosystem. Additionally, the heat Island effect from the development could further endanger this natural treasure, robbing current residents and future generations of its biodiversity and cultural significance.

I urge you to reconsider the plan and work with both, Biologists who seek to protect the tree's biodiversity, and The Gabriele no Band of Mission Indians who regard this tree as a sacred site. I ask that you consider their requests to establish a preserve that protects this living monument. The Hurungna Oak is crucial to our community's environmental and cultural heritage and worthy of protection.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
1 Slnc11rr11rly,
Sarah Parker
2 Vicki Wasko
From: Rod Butler
Sent:

To:

Wednesday, August 14, 2024 6:38 PM
Vicki Wasko
Subject: FW: Jurupa Oak and Rio Vista development
Rod Butler/ City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY / T: 951.332.6464 / C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 [email protected] / jurupavalley.org Connect with us on social media:

Facebook / lnstagram / Twitter
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Roberts <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 4:55 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Jurupa Oak and Rio Vista development
I encourage you to postpone the vote on the Rio Vista development until a thorough environmental study is completed and can be used to make the important decisions. The Jurupa Oak is a world gem and needs to be preserved for the world.

Sent from my iPhone
15 Vicki Wasko
From: Rod Butler
Sent:

To:

Wednesday, August 14, 2024 6:39 PM
Vicki Wasko
Subject: FW: Protect the Tree
Rod Butler I City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY I T: 951.332.6464 I C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 [email protected] I jurupavalley.org Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I lnstagram I Twitter
-----Original Message-----
From: Sierra Juncaj <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 4:21 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Protect the Tree
Hello. I am a concerned citizen and there are thousands of people who do not want to harm this oak. You must think of your actions and how they will affect the next generations. We do not need to keep building more developments we need to be fixing the ones we have and taking care of them! Everywhere is dirty and polluted. We must clean up our streets now. It will create so many jobs and also look better for everyone. The Earth is a living thing and we must protect it. It's not meant to be built on top of every inch!
Sent from my iPhone
14 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Thursday, August 15, 2024 8:26 AM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Protect your ancient and irreplaceable Jurupa Oak
Rod Butler! City Manager
CITY OF JlJRUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.6464 IC: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavallev.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: Becky Escalante <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 11:37 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: Protect your ancient and irreplaceable Jurupa Oak I have been wanting to visit the Palmer's oalc that is threatened by the Rio Vista Specific Plan for years now since I read about its isolated location and impressive age. Tbis humble, shrublike species of oak is always interesting to see and I understand that this particular individual has survived an estimated 13,000-18,000 years.

Unfortunately, human development too close to the oalc would almost certainly kill it whether by increasing wildfire frequency, disturbing groundwater or soil, introducing invasive pests and diseases or one of the many other unforeseen ways that developments have killed oak trees in the past.

Please don't allow that to happen. If you put another run-of-the-mill industrial park or housing development next to the oalc and it dies then you will have destroyed an important part of your city's heritage forever. Your city is home to this miraci1lously old being and that's something you should cherish and celebrate. Please listen to the concerned citizens and scientists who propose creating a preserve around the oak. I would love to visit someday.

J 0 ""'t Virus-free. WWW.avg .com
11 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Jim Pechous
Thursday, August 15, 2024 3:22 PM
Vicki Wasko; Erika Soriano
Subject: Fwd: Rio Vista Specific Plan - Information about the 1992 Plan Alternative See the public comment below
From: Aaron Echols <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 20241:59 PM
To: Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Cc: Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Jim Pechous <[email protected]> Subject: Rio Vista Specific Plan - Information about the 1992 Plan Alternative Greetings Honorable Mayor and City Council,
With reference to tonight's agenda and the Rio Vista Project. I am aware that you are not expected to take a vote tonight, but I nonetheless am writing you to provide context to what is lilrnly to be presented.

I would like to draw attention to the words of your own City Attorney when the question arose during planning commission hearings about the viability of the approved 1992 approved specific plan which was adopted in 2017 general plan update, but never approved at any level by any other entity than Riverside County in 1992. The applicant has repeatedly presented the 1992 plan as the only alternative to a yes vote on the current 2023 Rio Vista Specific Plan. This is a false choice and misleading tactic that is being used to put 1mdue pressure on you, the ultimate decision makers. The framing has been put in such words as, A vote for the new "good project" would be a vote against the alternate "bad project". This is a false choice for a few reasons.

The first reason is that the 1992 plan would unquestionably need to go through supplemental environmental review due to the "new information" standard of CEQA. During the July 24th planning commission public hearing at minute 43:00, the City staff attorney responded indicating as much when asked about the viability of the 1992 plan. He stated, "We'd have to look at what the developer was proposing under the original {1992} specific plan and what permits would be required."
And then,
8 "The planning staff would need to go forward and review it and have a limited environmental review and determine if further environmental review would be required" I strongly encourage you to review this exchange on the record. The City qlearly has discretionary approvals and permits that would need to be issued for the 1992 plan and if the City were to grant those approvals without requiring a new BIR, we would immediately file litigation under Cal. Pub. Resources Code§ 21166(c). Thus, if the 1992 plan alternative went forward, we would be in the same position we are today, assessing a new, updated BIR.

I also strongly encourage you to review the June 26th Planning commission public hearing at minute 2:38:50. Where EDP Solutions explains why the 1992 project has not been built. Jenney Krout explains,
"You have a very singular or uniform development with ahnost the same residential type throughout the project. It just is virtually impossible to make up the cost that need to be fronted at the beginning to allow for the first home is built so it just is not a feasible project under these current market conditions"
These are the developers words early on in the process where they state very clearly that the 1992 approved plan is not financially feasible.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Aaron
Aaron Echols
Conservation Chair
California Native Plant Society Riverside-San Bernardino Chapter 9 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Erika Soriano
Thursday, August 15, 2024 4:37 PM
Vicki Wasko
Fw: Rio Vista Specific Plan and the Jurupa Oak
Rio Vista City Council Comments_081524.pdf
Erika Soriano I Executive Assistant
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY J T: 951.332.6464 x134 I F: 951.332.6995 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook J lnstagram I 2!
From: Krantz, Tim <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 4:32 PM
To: Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Cc: Erika Soriano <[email protected]>
Subject: Rio Vista Specific Plan and the Jurupa Oak
Honorable Members of the Jurupa Valley City Council:

Please find attached these comments on the Rio Vista Specific Plan and the potential impacts of the project on the Jurupa Oak. Thank you for your consideration of these very important matters concerning this ancient tree-the oldest oak tree on Earth.

Respectfully submitted,
Tim Krantz
Dr. Timothy Krantz
Professor Emeritus, Environmental Studies Program
University of Redlands
1200 E. Colton Avenue, Lewis Hall 121
Redlands, CA 92374
tim [email protected]
Reverence for Life. - Albert Schweitzer
1 August 15, 2024
Subject: Comments on the Rio Vista Specific Plan and the Jurupa Oak ATTN: City Council
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jnrupa Valley, CA 92509
CC: Mr. Jim Pechous,
City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department
Submitted Electronically to [email protected]
Honorable Members of the Jurupa Valley City Council:

Please append these comments for the record regarding the Rio Vista Specific Plan ( the Project). These comments supplement my comments submitted previously on January 5, June 26 and July 24, 2024; and my public testimony given on June 26 and July 24, 2024, presented to the Planning Commission. Together with a broad coalition of enviromnental groups, botanical experts, enviromnentaljustice organizations and Native American Tribes, we are concerned that the Rio Vista developers have only agreed to a very minimal setback from the Jurupa Oak-the oldest living oak tree on Earth, estimated to be 13,000-18,000 years old.

To be clear, I am not opposed to the Rio Vista Specific Plan development proposal as a whole, nor are most of the members of the Jurupa Oak coalition. Rather, we are only concerned about the Plan Areas immediately uphill and adjacent to the oak tree. The Plan Areas involved are the two Light Industrial Plan Areas 12 and 13, and the western half of Business Park Plan Area 15. Even here, the focus of our concern is the setback from the oak tree in Open Space Plan Area 21D. The Planning Commission recommendation is for a minimum construction setback of only 450 feet from the tree itself, with a minimum distance to the nearest buildings of just 550 feet. We believe this is inadequate to avoid significant adverse enviromnental impacts to the tree due to increased temperatures from adjacent pavement, buildings and rooftops ( the urban heat island effect) and reduction of grmmdwater recharge that drains toward and sustains the tree caused by uphill development of impervious surfaces rn the aforementioned Plan Areas.

The Jurupa Oak a Symbol of Endurance
Having sprouted from its acorn an estimated 13,000-18,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age, when mastodons, saber-toothed cats and giant ground sloths still roamed the Southern California foothills and valleys, the Jurupa Oak endures (May et al. 2009). Growing from a rocky outcrop overlooldng Jurupa Valley, it is the last surviving member of its kind-a Palmer's oak (Quercus palmeri')-in the Santa Ana River watershed. Like many oak species, Palmer's oaks can resprout from their stumps after fires. Thus, the Jurupa Oak has survived countless fires by resprouting time and again, its crown now a cluster of 70 or so branches, its 1200 East Colton Avenue • P.O. Box 3080 • Lewis Hall, Room 121 • Redlands, CA 92373-0999 tel: 909-748-/,590 • fax, 909-335-4068 • http,//www.recllands.edu canopy spreading to 70-feet long by 40-feet wide, its "trunk" and roots penetrating deeply into the rocky crevices to reach groundwater below.

Development of Plan Areas 12, 13 and the Western Half of Plan Area 15 Represent Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts to the Jurupa Oak Having endured fires, drought and climate change for thousands of years, the Jurupa Oak is now threatened by the Rio Vista Specific Plan development, calling for construction of 1,697 residential units, 1,269,774 square feet of Light Industrial and 1,428,768 square feet of Business Park development. Most of the development does not represent a threat to the ancient oak, but the Industrial development and a portion of the proposed Business Park would extend to within 450 feet of the tree itself-literally to the base of the rocks from which the tree grows.

Construction of l .3Msf of Light Industrial development in the plan areas immediately uphill from the oak represents a significant threat to the tree regarding impervious surfaces of pavement and rooftops reducing groundwater recharge that sustains the tree and from increased temperatures-the urban "heat island" impacts-with temperatures exceeding l 50°F on asphalt on summer days.

The Root System Analysis ofthe Jurupa Oak is Inconclusive and Fundamentally Flawed First Carbon Solutions (PCS) conducted a "Palmer's Oak Root Extent Estimation and Review of Noninvasive Root Mapping Techniques Memorandum (Root Mapping Memorandum)" to analyze the potential impacts of development of2.7Msf of Industrial/Business Park on the Jurupa oak and the potential for such extensive impervious rooftops and paving surfaces to lower the groundwater recharge that supports the tree.

Before they present their analysis and conclusions regarding the Jurupa oak's root characteristics, the Memorandum states that, "there is no known noninvasive technique that ctin effectively map the root system of this species." This is true. There is no noninvasive way to measure the actual root zone of an oak tree, let alone one that is rooted into a rocky outcrop that stands 200 feet above the surrounding soil plane; and certainly not for estimating an oak tree that is more than 13,000 years old.

Nonetheless, the Root Mapping Analysis goes on to postulate that the Jurupa oak, based on other typical scrub oaks, "likely" ( emphasis added) "has a root system that is 3-6 times the biomass of the aboveground portion of the clone and most of it is contained within the relatively shallow root crowns; (2) roots of the clone are likely closely associated with the 1mderlying bedrock, with roots growing along the bedrock-soil interface and within cracks in the bedrock; (3) roots of the clone may extend to a depth of approximately 9 meters (approximately 30 feet); and (4) lateral roots may extend to 5 meters (approximately 16 feet) beyond the aboveground extent of the clone." All of this is complete guesswork.

This is not a typical oak tree or clone of "scrub oaks". Oaks typically sprout from their acorns and quickly send their taproots down to groundwater, which sustains them during droughts through their lifetimes. This is a 13,000-18,000 year-old tree that has been growing on its rocky outcrop since the last Ice Age. The crown of the tree is 70 X 40 feet across, its branches all connected to a trunk and root system that penetrate deeply into the rocky crevices below it to 1200 East Colton Avenue • P.O. Box3080 • Lewis Hall, Room 121 • Redlands, CA 92373-0999 tel, 909-748-8590 • fa. , 909-335-4068 • http,//www. redlands.edu reach groundwater several hundred feet beneath the surface of its crown. If the Jurupa oak's roots only grew an inch a year, which is slow for a typical oak tree, its root system would still be hundreds of feet deep--easily reaching groundwater to sustain it over the millenia.

The root mapping analysis concludes that the "350-foot buffer proposed by the applicant is more than adequate for the Palmer Oak's root systems protection." But just to be sure, the City's own Community Development Department "is recommending a 'no construction' buffer of 450 feet and 550 feet to the closest building," and the Applicant has agreed to provide this larger buffer distance from the tree.

Environmental Data Collected by L&L Environmental. Inc., is Biased and Inaccurate ln response to the potential environmental impact issues raised during the Planning Commission review and hearings, L&L Environmental, lnc.-the biological consultants for the developer-performed a "Specific Data Collection and Assessment of [the] Jurupa Oak," measuring air and surface temperatures on a hot day on the 4 th of July to evaluate the potential
"urban heat island" effects on the tree. They conducted thirteen temperature readings between the hours of 7:30 to 9:00 in the morning and, not surprisingly, recorded relatively modest air temperatures ranging from 70°F to 75 °F. A final temperature reading was taken at 9:40AM, recording an increase to 80 °F! Even at these early morning hours the consultants recorded surface temperatures on the rocks and nearby street pavement ranging from 80-102.9°F. It should be noted that the consultant admitted in the hearing that they have been working with the developer since 2013.

Infrared digital temperature readings taken just two days later at 2:30 in the afternoon recorded an ambient air temperature of 103.7°F with temperatures on the asphalt on the street adjacent to the Jurupa Oak outcrop of 151 °F. Multiply this times 2.7 million square feet of Industrial/Business Park rooftops and pavement and one clearly sees that the urban heat island impacts represent a very real and significant adverse impact to the survival of the tree, especially if it is also drought-stressed from lower groundwater levels.

For the City Council's reference, I have attached a hydrological map of the Rio Vista watershed catchment relative to Plan Areas 12, 13 and 15. The general watershed and groundwater recharge area extends from the ridgeline west of the tree, generally draining south and east toward the Open Space Plan Area 21D. One can see that the 250-feet buffer is still well up within the rock outcrop-an area that is not buildable in any case; and that the 550-feet setback for the nearest actual building is virtually at the foot of the rocks themselves. Dr.

Hillary Jenkins-a geohydrologist at the University of Redlands-prepared the watershed drainage analysis (Figure attached).

Redaction of the Environmental Assessments Pertaining to the Jurupa Oak The City continues to withhold information associated with the Jurupa Oak, despite numerous requests from the public for disclosure. The withheld documents include parts of Appendix D.1 - Biological Resources Assessment and D.5 - Vibration Prediction Study; as well as all ofD.3 Hydrogeologic Investigation, D.4 - Biological Review of Palmer's Oak; E.l 1200 East Colton Avenue • P.O. Box 3080 • Lewis Hall. Room 121 • Redlands, CA 92373-0999 tel: 909-748-13590 • fa.'< 909,335-4068 • http//www.redlands.edu Cultural Resources Assessment, and E.2 - Tribal Cultural Resources Identification Report. More than seven months have passed since Lead Planner Jim Pechous assured concerned parties in a December 20, 2023, email that "we are working collaboratively with the tribes on the preparation of a redacted version of Appendix D," yet nothing has been produced.

The City's redaction of environmental assessments pertaining to the Jurnpa Oak tree is based on the claim by the Kizh (Los Angeles-based) Band of Gabrieleno Indians that the tree is of cultural heritage importance. Yet, the same information has been withheld from the Shiishongna (Corona-based) Band of Gabrieleno Indians. In fact, the California Code of Regulations Section 15120 does not prohibit disclosure here. Rather, Section 15120's pertinent provision prohibits only disclosure _of "information about the location of archaeological sites and sacred lands." (Cal. Code Regs. § 15120.) This could have authorized the City to withhold the Oak's location; however, California Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c)(2) does not require the City to withhold "data or information that are or become publicly available[.]" (Cal.

Pub. Resources Code,§ 21082.3, subd. (c)(2).) Since the Oak's location is publicly known and available, Section 15120 is irrelevant here.

Further documentation of the legal basis and limitations of disclosure or non-disclosure of information pertaining to the Jurupa Oak is detailed in the Attachment to this letter.

Cone! usions
The redaction of the biological section of the DEIR renders informed decision making and assessment of environmental alternatives and mitigation measures difficult, if not impossible. It is totally understandable to redact location-specific information based on the cultural significance of the Jurupa oak, but to redact that information from one Tribe and not another is wrong and fundamentally unfair.

Furthermore, we----the environmental scientists and professional organizations represented in this coalition to conserve the Jurupa oak-and other concerned members of the community have a right to review the environmental impact assessments and potential measures to protect the sacred tree.

Therefore, we ask that the City Council to make the following determinations:

I) Continue consideration of the Rio Vista Specific Plan to a later date to be determined; 2) Establish a select committee to review the sensitive information concerning the Jurupa oak.

The members of the select committee should include Tribal representatives of all Tribes in the region that may consider the Jurupa oak to be a sacred tree of cultural si gn ificance; a select group of environmental scientists and professional representatives; representatives for the Applicant and the City. Members of the Select Committee could sign non-disclosure agreements to maintain the geographical security of the location of the tree ( although the actual location is not difficult to determine, given that the tree is noted on Wikipedia and other social media venues, and is common knowledge an1ong local residents). 1200 fast Colton Avenue• P.O. Box3080 • Lewis Hall, Room 121 • Redlands, CA 92373-0999 td: 909-748-8590 • fa. : 909-335-4068 • http//www.redlands.edu 3) The Select Committee would then be able to openly review the environmental assessments concerning the tree and work together to develop reasonable setbacks and mitigation measures to ensure the conservation of the tree.

Finally, I would like to reemphasize that I/we are not opposed to the Rio Vista Specific Plan development as a whole; we are only concerned about the impacts of the Plan Areas immediately above and adjacent to the tree. We ask that you give us the opportunity to sit down together and work out a compromise that allows development to go forward and also provides real and permanent protections for this ancient organism-the Jurupa Oak. Indeed, the Jurupa oak is an emblem of endurance and perseverance since the Ice Age, enduring droughts and fires and climate change, yet persisting in its rocky crags overlooking Jurupa Valley.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments relative to this most unique and precious resource that is the Jurupa Oak.

Sincerely,
Dr. Timothy Krantz
Professor Emeritus, Environmental Studies Program
University of Redlands
1200 E. Colton Avenue, Lewis Hall 121
Redlands, CA 92374
tim krantz@l'edlands.edu
1200 East Colton Avenue • P.O. Box 3080 • Lewis Hall, Room 121 • Redlands, CA 92373-0999 tel: 909-748-8590 • fax, 909-335-4068 •http://www.redlands.edu Proposed Jurllpa Oak Se b8Cks and Hyd_r,ology
lofler0ri:le:251l(lletwt1aek
""- $:'. ,>_.:•;; ;--:
=
= i]
Oul_�ente-,=�50/eet��,w::k· '·

0.1 0.2
1200 East Colton Avenue • P.O. Box 3080 • Lewis Hall, Room 121. • Redlands, CA 92373,0999 tel: 909,748-8590 • fax: 909,335,4068 • http,//www. redlands.cdu l• Featu1e 1
0 PA l'./..13, 14 le 1
Legend

0.4Miles
I
,,
'I
Cl
Attachment:

Regarding Redaction of Environmental Assessments Pertaining to the Jurupa Oak The City continues to withhold information associated with the Jurupa Oak, despite numerous requests from the public for disclosure. The withheld documents include parts of Appendix D.l - Biological Resources Assessment and D.5 - Vibration Prediction Study; as well as all ofD.3 Hydrogeologic Investigation, D.4 - Biological Review of Palmer's Oak; E.l Cultural Resources Assessment, and E.2 - Tribal Cultural Resources Identification Report. More than seven months have passed since Lead Planner Jim Pechous assured concerned parties in a December 20, 2023, email that "we are working collaboratively with the tribes on the preparation of a redacted version of Appendix D," yet nothing has been produced.

Withholding vital information, especially considering the resource at hand, cuts against CEQA' s legislative intent and purpose. These studies would presumably inform the public on impacts to the 13,000+ year old Jurupa Oak, missing from the FEIR, including 1) changes in microclimate (the heat island effect) through paving over evergreen native vegetation with concrete, 2) impacts to the Oak's extended root structure, and 3) potential plant disease transmission. These studies undoubtedly informed the City's refusal to include an additional buffer to protect the Oak, as numerous commenters requested. Given the Jurupa Oak's utmost importance, the public must have an opportunity to review and comment on studies that informed the City's decisions.

Further, the City lacks a legal basis for withholding this information. The FEIR asserts that the City may withhold the documents under several provisions, including State CEQA Guidelines Section 15120(d); California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 7927.000 & 7927.005); and California Public Resources Code Section21082.3(c)(l). (FEIR at 2- 6-7.) However, none of these provisions authorize the City to withhold scientific studies on a known biological resource, completed by a third-party consultant.

Among those listed, the most pertinent provision here is California Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c)(l), which provides:
"Any information, including, but not limited to, the location, description, and use of the tribal cultural resources, that is submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Sections 7927.000 and 7927 .005 of the Government Code, and subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, without the prior consent of the tribe that provided the information."
(Cal. Pub. Resources Code,§ 21082.3, subd. (c)(l) [emphases added].) In other words, this provision only requires the City to withhold information (1) a tribe submits, and (2) in a manner consistent with Sections 7927.000 and 7927.005 of the Government Code, and subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 1200 East Colton Avenue • P.O. Box3080 • lewis Hall, Room 121 • Redlands, CA 92373-0999 tel: 909-748./3590 • fux: 909,335-4068 • http://www. redlands.edu On the first note, the tribe itself did not submit the Biological Resources Assessment, Vibration Prediction Study, Hydrogeologic Investigation, or Biological Review of Palmer's Oak.

Rather, L&L Consulting provided this information, rendering this provision inapplicable. But even if the tribe had submitted the information, the City only needs to withhold information consistent with Sections 7927.000 and 7927.005 of the Government Code, and subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. And nothing in any of these provisions requires the studies' withholding.

First, California Code of Regulations Section 15120 does not prohibit disclosure here.

Rather, Section 15120's pertinent provision prohibits only disclosure of"information about the location of archaeological sites and sacred lands." (Cal. Code Regs. § 15120.) This could have authorized the City to withhold the Oak's location; however, California Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c)(2) does not require the City to withhold "data or information that are or become publicly available[.]" (Cal. Pub. Resources Code,§ 21082.3, subd. (c)(2).) Since the Oak's location is publicly known and available, Section 15120 is irrelevant here.

Second, California Public Records Act, Government Code Sections 7927.000 and 7927.005 do not mandate withholding here. Section 7927.005 applies only to archaeological sites, while Section 7927.000 does not forbid disclosure of scientific studies at all. Rather it simply "does not require disclosure of any of the following:
(a) Records ofNative American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places. (b) Records of Native American places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code, which are maintained by, or in the possession of, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency."
(Cal. Public Records Act, Government Code§ 7927.000 [emphasis added].) And even if Section 7927.000 required withholding, neither of the two provisions it references apply under CEQA. (See Cal. Public Resources Code§ 5097.9 ["The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to limit the requirements of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)."].); (see also id.§ 5097.993 ["This section does not apply to any of the following ... An act taken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000))."].)
Finally, California Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(c)(2) specifically exempts from withholding requirements data and information "lawfully obtained by the project applicant from a third party that is not the lead agency, a California Native American tribe, or another public agency." (Cal. Pub. Resources Code,§ 21082.3, subd. (c)(2).) This describes the information sought here: studies and data produced by the third party, L&L Consulting, which the City must provide to the public.

The City's only remaining excuse then is that a tribe objects to the City releasing redacted Appendices. (FElR at 2-7.) But even if these provisions required the City to withhold certain information here, which they do not, nothing prevents the City from redacting that information and providing the rest for public review. In other words, no provision prevents the City from releasing a redacted Appendix, nor does the City even attempt to cite authority for its refusal to do so.
1200 East Colton Avenue • P.O. Box3080 • Lewis Hall, Room 121 • Redlands, CA 92373-0999 tel, 909-748-!3590 • fax, 909-335-4068•http//www.redlands.edu Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

To Whom It May Concern:

Please see the attached.

Thank you,
Sarah Lynch
Paralegal
Sarah Lynch <[email protected]>
Friday, August 16, 2024 12:08 PM
Vicki Wasko
Rio Vista Specific Plan
Jurupa Valley Letter (final).pdf

VOGT I RESNICK J SHERAK, LLP
4400 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 900
P.O. Box 7849
Newport Beach, CA 92658-7849
P. 949.851.9001
F. 949.833.3445
www.vrslaw.net
ATTORNEY-CLIENT/WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES: This e-mail and any attachments thereto are intended solely for the use by the persons or entities identified above. Its contents are to remain absolutely confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you have received this e-mail and are not the intended recipient(s) or his/her agent, be advised that any disclosure, use, review, copying, selling, dissemination, publication or distribution of this email and any attachments thereto are unauthorized and prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify Vogt I Resnick I Sherak, LLP by telephone at (949) 851-9001 and permanently delete this e-mail and all attachments without making a copy.

Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations, Vogt I Resnick J Sherak, LLP is now required to inform you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication is not intended nor written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting marketing or recommending to another party any tax related matters addressed herein. 1 August 16, 2024
6001 20th St. LLC
4400 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 900
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-851-9001
Sent via Email to: [email protected]
City of Jurupa Valley
City Council
8930 LimoniteAvenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Re: Rio Vista Specific Plan: Need for Additional Traffic Analysis at 20th Street/Caterpillar Court
Mayor and Members of the City Council:
6001 20th St. LLC. owns the property located at 6001 20th Street, just to the east of the proposed Specific Plan Boundary closest to future "Driveway 5" and as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Our property is developed and occupied by an industrial user that manufactures cement products.

The purpose of this letter is to express concerns regarding future traffic impacts to the 20th Street between the eastern boundary of the Rio Vista Specific Plan to Rubidoux Boulevard. This segment along with the Intersection of Caterpillar Court were not analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis dated February 15, 2023 ("TIA"). Our concerns are focused on two important components: 1) Traffic Safety and 2) General Plan Buildout roadway classifications as discussed below. 1) Traffic Safety
Under existing conditions, 20th Street ends just to the west of our property. However, 20th Street will be extended in conjunction with development of the Specific Plan. Under future conditions, the Specific Plan is projected to generate 39,775 daily Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips 1, and as stated on page 55 of the TIA, "All truck trips would travel using Rubidoux Boulevard/20th Street to travel to the 1-10 and SR-60 Freeways." This volume will result in a substantial amount of heavy truck and other vehicle traffic along our property frontage on 20th Street, and will create a safety hazard for trucks attempting to exit onto 20th Street from our property and from Caterpillar Court via a left-hand turn.

Yet, this roadway segment and the 20th Street/Caterpillar Court intersection were inexplicably not analyzed within the TIA. The geographic scope of traffic impacts is not confined to an arbitrary line on a map. While our property technically lies outside of the proposed Specific Plan boundaries, 1 EPD Solutions. Traffic Impact Analysis. Februaiy 15, 2023. Table 19. 499 l 7991.1/099506.0002
it is close enough and will experience similar impacts to the other future street/driveway intersections, such that it should have been evaluated within the TIA.

Mitigation is necessary to ensure that trucks and other vehicles leaving our property can safely turn left onto 20th Street under future conditions, particularly given that it is closest to the Specific Plan areas proposed for Light Industrial use, which will generate the majority of Specific Plan truck traffic.
2) General Plan Buildout/Roadway Classifications
The existing portion of 20th Street is classified as a Local Street between east of Caterpillar Court and Rubidoux Boulevard, but is categorized as a Major Street west of Caterpillar Court ( and would continue as a wider, Major Street throughout the Specific Plan area). Other segments of 20th Street within the Specific Plan area will be classified as "Arterial" to accommodate the heavy volumes oftraffic.2
The TIA included the roadway segment from Driveway 5 to Rubidoux Boulevard as Roadway Segment #24, but did not account for the bottleneck of traffic that will occur when the roadway suddenly transitions from a Major to Local Street. Table 27 of the TIA indicate there is "No Change" to the designation of this segment, and no mitigation or improvements, such as widening, are recommended. However, as previously stated, "All truck trips would travel using Rubidoux Boulevard/20th Street to travel to the 1-10 and SR-60 Freeways". Logically, widening of this segment of 20th Street will likely be necessary to avoid serious traffic congestion. In sum, further analysis is required from both a CEQA/traffic hazards standpoint and in terms of evaluating future Level of Service along this segment.

Conclusion
We respectfully request that no approval of the Specific Plan take place until traffic safety concerns at this intersection and along the segment between Driveway 5 and Rubidoux Boulevard are properly analyzed and addressed, including, but not limited to, requiring mitigation such as future installation of a traffic signal and widening of 20th Street between Caterpillar Court and Rubidoux Boulevard.

We welcome the opportunity to work with the City and project applicant to reach a mutually acceptable solution. Please reach out to either Barry Resnick at [email protected] or Charles Walden at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Barnet Resnick
2 Id. at Table 29.
49917991.1/099 506 .0002

EXHIBIT A
49917991. 1/099506.0002
Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Monday, August 19, 2024 S:59 PM
Vicki Wasko
Joe Perez; Dianne Guevara
FW: Rio Visita Specific Plan comment
Rod Butler! City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.6464 IC: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: Daniel Hetzel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 5:47 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Rio Visita Specific Plan comment
Dear Jurupa Valley City Council,
My name is Daniel Hetzel. I am a naturalist, community scientist, and lifelong student and lived in the Riverside area for over a decade. I frequently hike in the Inland Empire and love to help others to also come to love our surrounding natural ecosystems. I am completely opposed to the Rio Visita Specific Plan. We are in the midst of a worldwide biodiversity crisis, and this plan contributes to that. There is very little natural habitat left in the area of the Inland Empire, and this project would devastate one of the only remaining tracts of nature that we all have here. This is a decision that foture generations will look back on with shock and sadness. The City of Jun1pa general plans clearly states that one of your goals is to "conserve large intact habitat areas consisting of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grasslands". This area is one of the largest of such areas, and there are endangered species living here, including the California Gnatcatcher. And, as you know, there is an ancient individual that has been living here for 13,000 to 18,000 years, since the last Ice Age. The Jun1pa Oak lives in this area and undoubtedly would be affected by this project, even possibly killed. We do not know what the impacts would be to it. This tree deserves to not only be protected, but also to have it's surrounding natural landscape protected, just like so many of the country's revered National Parks do. No one questions whether or not 3,000 year old Giant Sequoia trees should be conserved along with their surrounding forest, so why is it acceptable for this national treasure to be stripped of its surrounding natural scrubland ecosystem? This is a grave mistake and you have the power to stop this project and thereby preserve this unique and rare resource for generations to come. Please, please vote against approval of this project. 4 Vicki Wasko
From: Rod Butler
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, August 20, 2024 4:26 AM
Vicki Wasko
Subject: FW: Jurupa Oak
Sent via the Samsung Gala,"Xy S10, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Jeanine Little <[email protected]>
Date: 8/19/24 9:51 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Jurnpa Oak
Dear City Council,
I am opposed to the Rio Visita Specific Plan and in favor of a land use plan the protects and respects the oldest living oal: on the Earth. Building "light industrial" and "business park" at the base of the hill from which the Oak looks out over the undeveloped landscape is unethical and will be a decision the people will look back on and question for all time. We should do our best to protect arid cherish this being not strand it amongst a sea of development. Please vote against approval of this project.

Jeanine Little
3 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Tuesday, August 20, 2024 7:30 PM
Vicki Wasko; Joe Perez; Dianne Guevara
FW: Reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan
Sent vi.a the Samsung Galaxy S 10, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smmtphone -----·-- Original message --·-----
From: Taylor Jackson Ross <[email protected]>
Date: 8/20/24 6:41 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Reject 1he Rio Vista Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Butler,
I urge the Jurupa Valley City Council to make the historic decision to reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan and protect the Jurupa Oak on September 5th, 2024.

While it is logical for city leaders to make plans to provide infrastructure for its citizens to thrive, to do so at the expense of this irreplaceable living organism would bring shame to city representatives and to California as a whole. Plans for the Rio Vista project treat the Oak as an obstacle. This tree is possibly the third oldest tree on the planet. It is not an inconvenience, but a truly magnificent and fragile wonder of the world. Therefore, any plans for development must actively prioritize stewardship of the tree and the surrounding environment.

The Rio Vista plans include schools for young children. At present, it is far too likely that these students will grow up watching the Jurupa Oak dwindle and disappear as a result of surrounding development. However, if the Jurupa Valley City Council is successful in protecting the Oak, then students all over the city can grow up to take pride that this prehistoric tree is a part of their hometown.

Jurupa Valley is a small place that has the power to make a global impact. Again, I urge you to reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan at the City Council meeting on September 5th.

Thank you for the hard work you put into caring for your city. 1 Sincerely,
Taylor Jackson Ross
(310) 200 - 5677
[email protected]
2 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
"'
•
Op JUR P,\ VAL
Rod Butler
Wednesday, August 21, 2024 5:13 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Rio Vista/Jurupa Oak Comment
Rod Butler! City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY IT: 951.332.64641 C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
From: Robert K <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:57 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: Rio Vista/Jurupa Oak Comment
Dear City Council,
I wanted to reach out and share my opposition to the proposed Rio Vista Specific plan. The Jurupa Oak is a living marvel and the fact that one of the oldest living organisms on the planet is located right here in Southern California is something that we should be celebrating, much like Pando in Utah. I urge you not only to protect this natural area but to embrace it so that more people can be aware that something so special is a part of the community.

Thank you,
Robert Klewer
1 Vicki Wasko
From: Rod Butler
Sent:

To:

Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:08 AM
Vicki Wasko
Subject: FW: Please protect the Jurupa Oak and nature!! Rod Butler I City Manager
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY I T: 951.332.6464 I C: 951.934.8441 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 [email protected] I jurupavalley.org Connect with us on social media:

Facebook j lnstagram I Twitter
-----Original Message-----
From: Emily H <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 7:40 AM
Subject: Please protect the Jurupa Oak and nature !!
Dear City Council,
Please reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan. Please create a land use plan the protects and respects the oldest living oak on the Earth and the important nature around it!
Environmental studies on impacts to the Oak have not been thoroughly studied and the safest option to ensure the Oak's survival for all time would be to designate as large of a buffer distance between the Oak and large scale development as possible. 350 feet is not nearly enough. The Oak's root system and water source(s) are not well understood, nor is the effect of the changes in microclimate that will result from replacing the surrounding natural landscape with concrete and asphalt.

Without a sound scientific understanding of the impacts, Rio Vista could be a death sentence for the Jurupa Oak. You need to be certain that the potential impacts are mitigated for before approving a project that has worldwide implications.

We should do our best to protect and cherish this being not strand it amongst a sea of development.

Please vote against approval of this project!!!
Best,
EmilyH
1 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Friday, August 23, 2024 1 :34 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: PROTECT the Jurupa Valley Oak
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S 10, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Tiffany Varcados <[email protected]>
Date: 8/23/241:29 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: PROTECT the Jurupa Valley Oak
To whom it may concern,
I firmly believe there should not be construction near the Jurupa Oak as to avoid any stress to the enviromnent around it and potential damage the plant. The buffer zone is not big enough and encourages people to get near it, people who may want to cause harm for the sake of it which unfortunately has been seen with other natural sites. Even people simply visiting the plant destroys the surrounding environment by creating a trail or leaving litter behind, this is why Hyperion's location is hidden (world's tallest tree located in Redwood National Park, CA).

The biological, hydro geologic, and vibration prediction studies should also be available to the public and not hidden behind culturally sensitive information. Science is for everyone and should not be restricted ..

I hope you reconsider allowing this plan to go through, at the very least it needs much revision and more studies to avoid as much impact to the area as possible.

It is an honor to have such an old specimen in our town, to endanger it for a warehouse is short-sighted and shameful.

Tiffany Varcados (she/her)
University of California, Davis Alum
1 Vicki Wa�ko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Joe Perez
Friday, August 23, 2024 3:40 PM
Vicki Wasko; Erika Soriano; Dianne Guevara; Annette Tam Chyan; Jim Pechous FW: save the jurupa oak!
Joe Perez I Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY I T: 951.332.6464 I F: 951.332.6995 8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] I jurupavalley.org
Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I lnstagram I Twitter
From: Brendan Coates <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 3:38 PM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: save the jurupa oak!
Hi there, I'm writing just to encourage you to vote no on the Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan.

You have a treasure in your backyard. One of the oldest living things on earth. A landmark of evolution, providing food and habitat for 600 human generations. It was there at the end of the last ice age; it saw 500-pound ground sloths and sabre-tooth cats.

And now you want to enclose it inside of an industrial office park. How near are your horizons? How small is your world? That you would even consider such a proposal instead of laughing it out of town is already egregious.

But, I guess oak trees don't pay you. Developers pay you. If you had any sense you'd recognize that oak trees are the single best thing that can be planted for wildlife in this region. You'd preserve this marvel in all of its glory. You'd understand that your duty to your community extends beyond the human community and to all of the life that surrounds you and supports you.

There's a good chance that this tree was here before people were here, that there has never been a time when a person in this region couldn't see this tree. Instead of imperiling it, you could keep this tree safe for generations to come.

Best,
Brendan
1 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Friday, August 23, 2024 5:23 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Protect the Jurupa Valley Oak
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S10, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable srnartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Kevin Fistanic <[email protected]>
Date: 8/23/24 4:26 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez [email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Protect the Jurupa Valley Oak
Hello,
I am writing in opposition of the proposed Rio Vista specific plan as it now stands. The proposed 275 ft construction buffer provided to the Jurupa Oak is not nearly sufficient. This plant is one of the oldest living things on Earth, and deserves much more distance between it and the proposed industrial development.

Furthermore, additional indirect and external impacts have been severely under-analyzed in the recently released Final Environmental Impact Report and the studies have not been released to the public, local scholars, scientists, or professionals.

A pause on the discussion should be granted until the Final Environmental Impact Report is published with enough time allowed for the public to carefully read through it and the construction buffer should be pushed back at least double its currently proposed distance, if not further.

Thank you,
Kevin Fistanic
Cell: (310) 433-4503
[email protected]
1 Vicki Wasko
From: Rod Butler
Sent:

To:

Saturday, August 24, 2024 11 :OS AM
Vicki Wasko
Subject: FW: Rio vista public comment
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy SlO, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smattphone -------- Original message --------
From: Allyssa <allyssarosel 11 [email protected]>
Date: 8/24/24 11 :01 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Rio vista public comment
Dear City Council,
Please reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan. Environmental studies on impacts to the Oak have not been thoroughly studied and the safest option to ensure the Oak's survival for all time would be to designate as large of a buffer distance between the Oak and large scale development as possible. 350 feet is not nearly enough. The Oak's root system and water source(s) are not well understood, nor is the effect of the changes in microclimate that will result from replacing the surrounding natural landscape with concrete and asphalt. Without a sound scientific understanding of the impacts, Rio Vista could be a death sentence for the Jurupa Oak. You need to be certain that the potential impacts are mitigated for before approving a project that has worldwide implications. Ignoring the cultural and biological effects this development has is not a good look for you all on city council and this is also not a decision the indigenous people of the area would support. Given that your city is literally named after the special ecosystem that the oak resides in. Please reconsider. You all should care a bit more about what is at stake when developing. Thanks, Alison 1 Vicki Wasko
From: Rod Butler
Sent:

To:

Saturday, August 24, 2024 2:12 PM
Vicki Wasko
Subject: FW: Please Save The Jurupa Oak
Sent vfa the Samsung Galaxy SlO, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: RODB1964 <[email protected]>
Date: 8/24/24 1:03 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Please Save The Jurupa Oak
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Date: 8/24/24 12:15 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Please Save The Jurnpa Oak
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S IO, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Haley Hopkins <[email protected]>
Date: 8/24/24 11:27 AM (GMT-08:00)
To:

Cc: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]> Subject: Please Save The Jurupa Oalc
1 Hi there,
I am writing to urge you to PLEASE stand on the right side of history and work to protect one of the oldest living organisms on Earth- the Jurupa Oak. The fact that it is even being considered to allow a negligent development to encroach on and heavily endanger, while also reducing public access, to such an important, historical and sacred living organism is insanity. Your lives as politicians are a blink of an eye compared to the history this oak has witnessed. How dare you consider using this short time you have here to be an instrument for the hands of death and destruction. DO BETTER. AND DO IT WHILE YOU STILL CAN. Please, we are begging you, use your position for good and protect what is sacred. Serve the people you represent and the planet we all share, not a greedy developer.

Thank you,
Haley Hopkins
2 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:08 AM
To:

Subject:

Vicki Wasko; Erika Soriano; Jim Pechous; Dianne Guevara; Annette Tam Chyan Fwd: Reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Taylor Jackson Ross <[email protected]>
Date: August 20, 2024 at 6:43 :45 PM PDT
To: Joe Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Perez,
I urge the Jurupa Valley City Council to make the historic decision to reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan and protect the Jurupa Oak on September 5th, 2024.

While it is logical for city leaders to make plans to provide infrastructure for its citizens to thrive, to do so at the expense of this irreplaceable living organism would bring shame to city representatives and to California as a whole. Plans for the Rio Vista project treat the Oak as an obstacle. This tree is possibly the third oldest tree on the planet. It is not an inconvenience, but a truly magnificent and fragile wonder of the world.

Therefore, any plans for development must actively prioritize stewardship of the tree and the surrounding environment.

The Rio Vista plans include schools for young children. At present, it is far too likely that these students will grow up watching the Jurupa Oak dwindle and disappear as a result of surrounding development. However, if the Jurupa Valley City Council is successful in protecting the Oak, then students all over the city can grow up to take pride that this prehistoric tree is a part of their hometown.

Jurupa Valley is a small place that has the power to make a global impact.

Again, I urge you to reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan at the City Council meeting on September 5th.

Thank you for the hard work you put into caring for your city. 1 Sincerely,
Taylor Jackson Ross
(310) 200 - 5677
[email protected]
2 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Sunday, August 25, 2024 7:15 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: For Mother Earth
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy SlO, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smmtphone -------- Original message --------
From: Eric Allen <[email protected]>
Date: 8/25/24 5:24 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: For Mother Earth .

Dear City Council,
I am opposed to the Rio Visita Specific Plan and in favor of a land use plan the protects and respects the oldest living oak on the Earth. Building "light industrial" and "business park" at the base of the hill from which the Oak looks out over the undeveloped landscape is unethical and will be a decision the people will look back on and question for all time. We should do our best to protect and cherish this being not strand it amongst a sea of development. Please vote against approval of this project.

Eric Ogle
1 Vicki Wasko
From: Rod Butler
Sent:

To:

Monday, August 26, 2024 6:36 PM
Vicki Wasko
Subject: FW: Rio Vista Plan
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S 10, an AT&T 50 Evolution capable smartphonc -------- Original message --------
From: SaunielnDiego <[email protected]>
Date: 8/26/24 6:27 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Rio Vista Plan
I oppose this project for a number of cultural and biological reasons, but most importantly because the oldest living organism in our State deserves to be respected and preserved in it's natural context to the greatest extent possible, not surrounded by white-topped industrial-manufacturing warehouses and business park. Please protect Jurupa Oak, for my children, and our children's children.

Thank you,
Saundra Holloway
California
1 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Monday, August 26, 2024 7:53 AM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Please reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan
Sent via the Smnsung Galaxy S l 0, an AT&T 50 Evolution capa�le smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: [email protected]
Date: 8/26/24 7:46 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Please reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan
Dear City Council,
I am opposed to the Rio Vista Specific Plan and in favor of a land use plan the protects and respects the oldest living oak on the Earth. Building "light industrial" and "business park" at the base of the hill from which the Oak looks out over the undeveloped landscape is unethical and will be a decision the people will look back on and question for all time. We should do our best to protect and cherish this being not strand it amongst a sea of development. Please vote against approval of this project.

Elizabeth Herring
1 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 8:11 PM
To:

Subject:

Vicki Wasko; Erika Soriano; Dianne Guevara; Jim Pechous; Annette Tam Chyan Fwd: Rio Vista Specific Plan
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: SaunielnDiego <[email protected]>
Date: August 26, 2024 at 6:27:00 PM PDT
To: Joe Perez <[email protected]>
Subject: Rio Vista Specific Plan
I oppose this project for a number of cultural and biological reasons, but most importantly because the oldest living organism in our State deserves to be respected and preserved in it's natural context to the greatest extent possible, not surrounded by white-topped industrialmanufacturing warehouses and business park. Please protect Jurupa Oak, for my children, and our children's children.

Sincerely,
Saundra Holloway
California
1 Vicki Wasko
From: Rod Butler
Sent:

To:

Tuesday, August 27, 2024 8:39 AM
Vicki Wasko
Subject: FW: Save the Jurupa Oak
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S 10, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Serena Myjer <[email protected]>
Date: 8/26/24 9:51 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Save the Jurupa Oak
Dear City Council,
Please reject the Rio Vista Specific Plan. Environmental studies on impacts to the Oak have not been thoroughly studied and the safest option to ensure the Oak's survival for all time would be to designate as large of a buffer distance between the Oak and large scale development as possible. 350 feet is not nearly enough.

The Oak's root system and water source( s) are not well understood, nor is the effect of the changes in microclimate that will result from replacing the surrounding natural landscape with concrete and asphalt.

Without a sound scientific understanding of the impacts, Rio Vista could be a death sentence for the Jurupa Oak. You need to be certain that the potential impacts are mitigated for before approving a project that has worldwide implications.

Please think of our children and their children. They have a right to see the Jurupa Oak someday.

Serena Myjer
1 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Wednesday, August 28, 2024 6:40 AM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Comment on Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Plan Proposal
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Sl0, an AT&T 50 Evolution capable smartphonc -------- Original message --------
From: Jose Flores <[email protected]>
Date: 8/28/24 12:19 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Plan Proposal I have family that lives near here and I ask that you reconsider the proposal to destroy the little natural beauty we have left around here and instead infill the already urbanized area with more tax productive zoning that will help increase values and taxes for the city without sacrificing the eternal beauty the jurupa oak and surrounding native flora can provide for us.
1 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Wednesday, August 28, 2024 6:43 AM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Religious concerns re: proposed Rio Vista project
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S10, an AT&T 50 Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Kenzy Fox <[email protected]>
Date: 8/28/24 3:22 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Religious concerns re: proposed Rio Vista project Henscil
The Ancestors believed, as I do, today, that we humans, in our wisdom, must serve as stewards of the land that gives us life, and gives life to all of our relatives- that we owe the land that much, in defference for the lives that its bounty has allowed us to live; and that, if we wish that same opportunity to be given to our children and grandchildren, that we must take caution to conserve the land that has conserved us. The proposed Rio Vista project threatens to disrupt an important cultural site for our great state- a site that only California can lay claim to, and which houses one of our oldest relatives on this planet, whose immense lifespan should put our own lifelong ambitions into perspective.

It's undeniable that the Rio Vista project will bring Jurupa Valley a financial boon by inviting entrepreneurial industry and new jobs to the area. But must it come at the risk of harming or even ending the life of one of our oldest relatives? The real material change that such a project can bring to Jurupa Valley cannot be understated, and there are plenty of people who can speak up for the dollar, and for business, and for politicking- but who will speak for the trees? Current studies can't determine what impact this will have on the ancient Oaks who have helped shape California for thousands of years. Is it not worth even researching? Should we really shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to such a unique wonder for our beautiful state? Are there no alternative locations for such a project? If there's any doubt that we could lose such an incredible bounty for our state, is it not worth even a second consideration?
Mvto- thank you for your time
Kenzy Fox
1 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 3:18 PM
To:

Subject:

Vicki Wasko; Erika Soriano; Jim Pechous; Annette Tam Chyan; Dianne Guevara Fwd: Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Susan Liebes <[email protected]>
Date: August 27, 2024 at 2:28:44 PM PDT
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan
Hello,
I am writing to encourage you to oppose the Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan, unless it includes a buffer distance of at least 200' to 450' from the ancient Jurupa Oak. Better yet, stop the development completely and create an open space preserve instead of approving more development in rapidly decreasing habitat.

Thanks,
SusanLiebes
1 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 9:20 AM
To:

Subject:

Vicki Wasko; Erika Soriano; Jim Pechous; Dianne Guevara; Annette Tam Chyan Fwd: Protect Palmer oak
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Hilah Johnson <[email protected]>
Date: August 28, 2024 at 7:00:24 AM PDT
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Protect Palmer oak
Dear City Council Members,
As stewards of Jurupa Valley, I ask you to use your power to protect the thirteen-thousand year old Palmer Oak from damage by development. Please continue to demand an expanded buffer zone, a minimum 550-foot natural open space buffer from the drip line of the Palmer Oak which would allow no project-related activities, including but not limited to construction, grading, or staging.

Thank you for.your service to the Jurupa community and the state of California.

Hilah Johnson
YouTube
HilahCooking
1 Vicki Wasko
From: Joe Perez
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 1 :23 PM
To:

Subject:

Vicki Wasko; Erika Soriano; Dianne Guevara; Annette Tam Chyan; Jim Pechous FW: Protect Jurupa Palmer Oak
Joe Perez I Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY I T: 951.332.6464 I F:
951.332.6995
8930 Limonite Avenue I Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 [email protected] I jurupavalley.org Connect with us on social media:

Facebook I lnstagram I Twitter
-----Original Message-----
From: Alicia Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 10:21 AM
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>; Joe Perez <[email protected]>; Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>; Brian Berkson <[email protected]>; Chris Barajas <[email protected]>; Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>; Armando Carmona <[email protected]> Subject: Protect Jurupa Palmer Oak
Dear City Council Members,
As stewards of Jurupa Valley, I ask you to use your power to protect the thirteen-thousand year old Palmer Oak from damage by development. Please continue to demand an expanded buffer zone, a minimum 550-foot natural open space buffer from the drip line of the Palmer Oak which would allow no project-related activities, including but not limited to construction, grading, or staging. Thank you for your service to the Jurupa community and the state of California.

I am writing as a former resident of Riverside and a current traitor California. We all need to do our part to protect California's resources.

Thanks,
Alicia
Sent from my iPhone
-------
1 Vicki Wasko
From: Rod Butler
Sent:

To:

Wednesday, August 28, 2024 3:03 PM
Vicki Wasko
Subject: FW: COMMENTS for September 5th Meeting
Sent vb the Samsung Galaxy S lO, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Shelly Ma <[email protected]>
Date: 8/28/24 12:47 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: COMMENTS for September 5th Meeting
Dear Esteemed City Council Members,
I am frightened to know a future where a thirteen thousand year old Palmer Oak is threatened by potential development proposed in the Jurupa valley rio Vista Specific plan. As a scientist and a steward of Jurupa Valley, I ask you to use your power to protect the thirteen-thousand year old Palmer Oak from damage by development. Please continue to demand an expanded buffer zone, a minimum 550-foot natural open space buffer from the drip line of the Palmer Oak which would allow no project-related activities, including but not limited to construction, grading, or staging. As human beings, we have no right to impose on such a unique and valued existence that has profound impacts on our scientific understanding of nature ands the ecosystems around us. Thank you for your service to the Jurupa community and the state of California.

All the best,
Shelly Ma
1 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Wednesday, August 28, 2024 3:09 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S 10, an AT&T 50 Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: josh gallagher <[email protected]>
Date: 8/28/24 12:25 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Jurupa Valley Rio Vista Specific Plan
Dear City Council Members,
As stewards of Jurupa Valley, I ask you to use your power to protect the *thirteen*-*thousand* year old Palmer Oak from damage by development. Please continue to demand an expanded buffer zone, a minimum 550-foot natural open space buffer from the drip line of the Palmer Oal( which would allow no project-related activities, including but not limited to construction, grading, or staging. Thank you for your service to the Jurupa community and the state of California. Do the right thing for the future of all your constituents. Don't endanger or destroy this resource for all the generations that come after us.

Sincerely yours,
JoshG.
1 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rod Butler
Wednesday, August 28, 2024 3:16 PM
Vicki Wasko
FW: Please protect the thirteen-thousand year old Palmer Oak from damage by development!
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy SlO, an AT&T SG Evolution capable smartphone -------- Original message --------
From: Hannah Laszlo-Rath <[email protected]> Date: 8/28/24 3:09 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Rod Butler <[email protected]>, Joe Perez <[email protected]>, Guillermo Silva <[email protected]>, Brian Berkson <[email protected]>, Chris Barajas <[email protected]>, Leslie Altamirano <[email protected]>, Armando Carmona <[email protected]>
Subject: Please protect the thirteen-thousand year old Palmer Oak from damage by development! Dear City Council Members,
As stewards of Jurupa Valley, I ask you to use your power to protect the thirteen-thousand year old Palmer Oak from damage by development. Please continue to demand an expanded buffer zone, a minimum 550-foot natural open space buffer from the drip line of the Palmer Oak which would allow no project-related activities, including but not limited to construction, grading, or staging. Thank you for your service to the Jurupa community and the state of California.

Hannah Laszlo-Rath
1 Vicki Wasko
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Pete Dangermond < [email protected]>
Thursday, August 29, 2024 7:43 AM
CityClerk-WebContact
Rio Vista Specific Plan comments
Hello City Clerk, Victoria Wasko
Can you please distribute copies of the attached letter to the City Manager and the City Council members. I tried to do it directly but evidently had the wrong email addresses.

Thank you very much,
Pete Dangermond
Dear Jurupa Valley City Manager, and members of
the Jurupa Valley City Council
I am writing concerning the Rio Vista Specific
Plan and its relationship to the amazing Jurupa
Oak.

I say amazing because it is the ultimate rare
species and individual plant in California. The only
other, same species, individual plant, is many
miles away, located on the desert side of the San
Bernardino mountains behind BigBear Lake.

Also amazing is the age of the Jurupa Oak. It's
older then the oldest known Sequoia and
Bristlecone Pine trees, older then the time of
Christ, even older then the pyramids of Egypt.

It wouldn't be there except for the fact that it is
located in a very unique location that has allowed
it to survive these thousands of years. Truly it
deserves to have reasonable and adequate,
undisturbed surroundings, on the ground, in the air,
and particularly vital, below ground.

Realistically, why would anyone think it was
possible to develop on a mountain reportedly
having the hardest rock on the entire West Coast of
the US? The stated solution to make it possible is
to "blast and grade", but does the proponent really
think that it would be possible to develop
contoured roads, home sites, and pads for other
structures after simply blasting and grading the
rock? It would more likely require significant and
costly exportation of the broken up rock and
importation of soil in order to make it possible.

But the key area of concern is the proposed "light
1 industrial" area immediately downslope from the
Oak. The concern is about the significant blasting
that would be necessary to level that huge pad.

Undoubtedly the reason that the oak tree has
survived for many thousands of years in that
location is that its roots must reach down into some
water basin, because, without very reliable water,
it never would have survived.

Please don't make the mistake of assuming no
cracks would develop, allowing its water to seep
away. One only has to look at the Stringfe1low
Quarry. It was assumed that the blasting for the
Quarry had not created any cracks in the bedrock
and that it was possible to dispose of toxic waste in
that location. Many people were sickened and then
Millions of do11ars spent trying to remedy that past
mistake.

There's an old saying that "With Knowledge
comes Responsibility."
Wouldn't the responsible thing to do be to instead
work together and find a way to create an adequate
preserve around the oak andlet it live and continue
to amaze our children and children's-children ofits
tenacity and resilience?
Sincerly,
Pete Dangermond.

President, Two Canyons Conservancy
2 Page | 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: PAUL TOOR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.C
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION;
DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION; AND APPROVING

FORMATION AND LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. PS 2024-007
(PUBLIC SAFETY, TROY COURT) GENERALY LOCATED AT THE

SOUTH END OF TROY COURT AND NORTH OF VAN BUREN

BOULEVARD

RECOMMENDATION
1) Requested Action: That the City Council open the public hearing and take testimony, if any.
2) Following the public hearing, staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-93, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF FORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, TO ESTABLISH CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITEIS DISTRICT NO. PS 2024-007 (PUBLIC SAFETY,

TROY COURT), TO ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT THEREFORE,

TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN, AND TO SUBMIT

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT AND THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS THEREOF; AND
3) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-94, entitled:

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,

CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION AND SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED

ELECTORS OF CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. PS 2024-007 (PUBLIC SAFETY, TROY COURT)

PROPOSITIONS REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT AND THE ANNUAL LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT; AND
4) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-95, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,

CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2024-007 (PUBLIC SAFETY, TROY COURT) AND DIRECTING THE RECORDING OF A NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN; AND
5) That the City Council conduct a first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2024- 20, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,

CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTICT NO. PS 2024- 007 (PUBLIC SAFETY, TROY COURT) AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A

SPECIAL TAX THEREIN

BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2024, the City Council took the first step in the process of forming CFD No.

PS 2024-007 (Public Safety, Troy Court) ("CFD No. PS 2024-007"), composed of proposed three (3) commercial buildings totaling 191,311 square feet. At that time the City Council approved a Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 2024-74, to form CFD No. PS 2024-007 and to authorize the levy of a special tax. At that meeting, the City Council set September 5, 2024 as the date for the public hearing.

The State legislature enacted the Mello-Roos Act of 1982 (the "Act") to assist public agencies in financing certain public services. The legal property owner, Troy Court Industrial Owner, requested that the City assist them in forming a district in order to cover the costs associated with providing law enforcement protection services.

The CFD will set up a special tax to generally cover costs associated with providing law enforcement protection services, including but not limited to:
• The costs of contracting services;
• Equipment, vehicles and supplies;
• The salaries and benefits of City staff that directly provide law enforcement services;
• City overhead costs associated with providing such services within the District; • All other services necessary or useful for, or in connection with, the authorized services listed above, including building a reserve fund for replacement and maintenance and for anticipated operating cost shortfalls.

Page | 3

ANALYSIS
The proposed CFD will have a Maximum Special Tax for base year 2024 of:

SPECIAL TAX
Single Family Residential Property (D/U) $220.00
Multifamily Residential Property (D/U) $180.00
Commercial Retail Property (Building Square Feet) $0.126 Commercial Other Property (Building Square Feet) $0.094 Business Park Property (Building Square Feet) $0.084
Industrial Property (Building Square Feet) $0.044
These rates will increase based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area, with a maximum annual increase of 6% and a minimum annual increase of 2% of the Maximum Special Tax in effect in the previous fiscal year. The owners have filed a petition representing their willingness to move forward.

OTHER INFORMATION
City Council initiated proceedings for the formation on July 18, 2024. (Resolution No. 2024-74).

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The individual property owners are responsible for the annual payments of special taxes.

The City will work with the County concerning the filing of the annual special tax to the County Auditor-Controller. At base year the estimated maximum annual assessment for CFD PS 2024-007 is expected to be $8,417.68, as summarized below:

APN Description
Tax per
Taxable Unit
Square
Footage
FY 24-25
Assessment
167-110-035 Industrial $0.044 48,435 $2,131.14
167-110-036 Industrial $0.044 62,619 $2,755.24
Page | 4
167-110-037 Industrial $0.044 80,257 $3,531.31
TOTAL $8,417.68
The property owners have posted a deposit with their application to form CFD No. PS 2024-007, in order to cover City costs incurred in connection with the formation. Approval of the actions set forth in this staff report do not in any way commit the City to any financial contribution or liability by CFD No. PS 2024-007. The City's cost to administer CFD No.

PS 2024-007 annually will be reimbursed through the special taxes charged to property owners.

The revenue and expenses will be part of the City's FY 2024-2025 Adopted Budget, and there are no additional fiscal impacts.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Take no action.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
************************** SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE **************************

Page | 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: PAUL TOOR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.D
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION;
DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION; AND APPROVING

FORMATION AND LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. PS 2024-004
(PUBLIC SAFETY, TRACTOR SUPPLY) GENERALY LOCATED AT THE

SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SIERRA AVENUE AND ARMSTRONG
ROAD

RECOMMENDATION
1) Requested Action: That the City Council open the public hearing and take testimony, if any.
2) Following the public hearing, staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-96, entitled:

RESOLUTION OF FORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, TO ESTABLISH CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITEIS DISTRICT NO. PS 2024-004 (PUBLIC SAFETY,

TRACTOR SUPPLY), TO ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT

THEREFORE, TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN, AND

TO SUBMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT AND THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS THEREOF; AND
3) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-97, entitled:

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,

CALIFORNIA, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION AND SUBMITTING TO THE

QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. PS 2024-004 (PUBLIC SAFETY, TRACTOR

SUPPLY) PROPOSITIONS REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT AND THE ANNUAL LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT; AND
4) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-98, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,

CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2024-004 (PUBLIC SAFETY, TRACTOR SUPPLY) AND DIRECTING THE RECORDING OF A NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN; AND
5) That the City Council conduct a first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2024- 21, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,

CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTICT NO. PS 2024- 004 (PUBLIC SAFETY, TRACTOR SUPPLY) AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A

SPECIAL TAX THEREIN

BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2024, the City Council took the first step in the process of forming CFD No.

PS 2024-004 (Public Safety, Tractor Supply) ("CFD"), composed of proposed three (3) commercial buildings totaling 24,010 square feet. At that time the City Council approved a Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 2024-75, to form CFD No. PS 2024-004 and to authorize the levy of a special tax. At that meeting, the City Council set September 5, 2024 as the date for the public hearing.

The State legislature enacted the Mello-Roos Act of 1982 (the "Act") to assist public agencies in financing certain public services. The legal property owner, Tractor Supply Company West, requested that the City assist them in forming a district in order to cover the costs associated with providing law enforcement protection services.

The CFD will set up a special tax to generally cover costs associated with providing law enforcement protection services, including but not limited to:
• The costs of contracting services;
• Equipment, vehicles and supplies;
• The salaries and benefits of City staff that directly provide law enforcement services;
• City overhead costs associated with providing such services within the District; • All other services necessary or useful for, or in connection with, the authorized services listed above, including building a reserve fund for replacement and maintenance and for anticipated operating cost shortfalls.

Page | 3

ANALYSIS
The proposed CFD will have a Maximum Special Tax for base year 2024 of:

SPECIAL TAX
Single Family Residential Property (D/U) $220.00
Multifamily Residential Property (D/U) $180.00
Commercial Retail Property (Building Square Feet) $0.126 Commercial Other Property (Building Square Feet) $0.094 Business Park Property (Building Square Feet) $0.084
Industrial Property (Building Square Feet) $0.044
These rates will increase based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area, with a maximum annual increase of 6% and a minimum annual increase of 2% of the Maximum Special Tax in effect in the previous fiscal year. The owners have filed a petition representing their willingness to move forward.

OTHER INFORMATION
City Council initiated proceedings for the formation on July 18, 2024. (Resolution No. 2024-75).

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The individual property owners are responsible for the annual payments of special taxes.

The City will work with the County concerning the filing of the annual special tax to the County Auditor-Controller. At base year the estimated maximum annual assessment for CFD PS 2024-004 is expected to be $3,025.26, as summarized below:

APN Description
Tax per
Taxable Unit
Square
Footage
FY 24-25
Assessment
174-340-042 Commercial $0.126 3,080* $388.08**
174-340-042 Commercial $0.126 2,130* $268.38**
Page | 4
174-340-044 Commercial $0.126 21,880 $2,756.88
TOTAL $3,025.26
*Estimated proposed square footage for proposed drive-thru restaurant **Estimated amount based on proposed square footage
The property owners have posted a deposit with their application to form CFD No. PS 2024-004, in order to cover City costs incurred in connection with the formation. Approval of the actions set forth in this staff report do not in any way commit the City to any financial contribution or liability by CFD No. PS 2024-004. The City's cost to administer CFD No.

PS 2024-004 annually will be reimbursed through the special taxes charged to property owners.

The revenue and expenses will be part of the City's FY 2024-2025 Adopted Budget, and there are no additional fiscal impacts.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Take no action.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
************************** SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE **************************

Page | 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: PAUL TOOR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.E
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION;
DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION; AND APPROVING

FORMATION AND LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. PS 2022- 003 (PUBLIC SAFETY, SEQUANOTA HEIGHTS) GENERALY
LOCATED NORTH OF STATE ROUTE 60, SOUTH OF CANAL

STREET, EAST OF OPAL STREET AND WEST OF PACIFIC AVENUE

RECOMMENDATION
1) Requested Action: That the City Council open the public hearing and take testimony, if any.
2) Following the public hearing, staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-99, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF FORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, TO ESTABLISH CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITEIS DISTRICT NO. PS 2022-003 (PUBLIC

SAFETY, SEQUANOTA HEIGHTS), TO ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATIONS

LIMIT THEREFORE, TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX

THEREIN, AND TO SUBMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT AND THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS THEREOF; AND
3) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-100, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION AND

SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. PS 2022-003 (PUBLIC

SAFETY, SEQUANOTA HEIGHTS) PROPOSITIONS REGARDING THE

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

ESTABLISHMENT OF AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT AND THE ANNUAL

LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT; AND
4) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-101, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL

ELECTION IN CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 2022-003 (PUBLIC SAFETY, SEQUANOTA HEIGHTS) AND DIRECTING THE RECORDING OF A NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN; AND 5) That the City Council conduct a first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2024- 22, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE

BODY OF CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTICT NO. PS 2022-003 (PUBLIC SAFETY, SEQUANOTA HEIGHTS)

AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN

BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2024, the City Council took the first step in the process of forming CFD No.

PS 2022-003 (Public Safety, Sequanota Heights) ("CFD"), composed of proposed 48 single family residences and one detention basin at build-out. At that time the City Council approved a Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 2024-80, to form the CFD and to authorize the levy of a special tax. At that meeting, the City Council set September 5, 2024 as the date for the public hearing.

The State legislature enacted the Mello-Roos Act of 1982 (the "Act") to assist public agencies in financing certain public services. The legal property owner, Tractor Supply Company West, requested that the City assist them in forming a district in order to cover the costs associated with providing law enforcement protection services.

The CFD will set up a special tax to generally cover costs associated with providing law enforcement protection services, including but not limited to:
• The costs of contracting services;
• Equipment, vehicles and supplies;
• The salaries and benefits of City staff that directly provide law enforcement services;
• City overhead costs associated with providing such services within the District; • All other services necessary or useful for, or in connection with, the authorized services listed above, including building a reserve fund for replacement and maintenance and for anticipated operating cost shortfalls.

Page | 3

ANALYSIS
The proposed CFD will have a Maximum Special Tax for base year 2024 of:

SPECIAL TAX
Single Family Residential Property (D/U) $220.00
Multifamily Residential Property (D/U) $180.00
Commercial Retail Property (Building Square Feet) $0.126 Commercial Other Property (Building Square Feet) $0.094 Business Park Property (Building Square Feet) $0.084
Industrial Property (Building Square Feet) $0.044
These rates will increase based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area, with a maximum annual increase of 6% and a minimum annual increase of 2% of the Maximum Special Tax in effect in the previous fiscal year. The owners have filed a petition representing their willingness to move forward.

OTHER INFORMATION
City Council initiated proceedings for the formation on August 1, 2024. (Resolution No. 2024-80).

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The individual property owners are responsible for the annual payments of special taxes.

The City will work with the County concerning the filing of the annual special tax to the County Auditor-Controller. At base year the estimated maximum annual assessment for the CFD is expected to be $10,560.00, as summarized below:

APN Description
Tax per
Taxable Unit
Single Family
Residence
Units
FY 24-25
Assessment
177-130-007 Residential $220 39 $8,580.00
Page | 4
174-142-018 Residential $220 9 $1,980.00
TOTAL $10,560.00
The property owners have posted a deposit with their application to form the CFD, in order to cover City costs incurred in connection with the formation. Approval of the actions set forth in this staff report do not in any way commit the City to any financial contribution or liability by the CFD. The City's cost to administer the CFD annually will be reimbursed through the special taxes charged to property owners.

The revenue and expenses will be part of the City's FY 2024-2025 Adopted Budget, and there are no additional fiscal impacts.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Take no action.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
************************** SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE **************************