The Shops at Jurupa Valley Project Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#2020100167
Lead Agency
City of Jurupa Valley 8930 Limonite Avenue Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
June 16, 2021
All files are available at the following links: https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68 (see folder labeled MA20035 Shops at Jurupa Valley)
Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQAnet Web Portal at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/ Enter "2020100167" in the search box and find under "MA20035 The Shops at Jurupa Valley."
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Project Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#2020100167
Lead Agency
City of Jurupa Valley 8930 Limonite Avenue Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 Contact: Patty Anders, AICP, Senior Planning Consultant [email protected]
Prepared By
City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department Ernest Perea, CEQA Administrator [email protected]
Applicant
Panorama Properties, Inc. 2005 Winston Ct. Upland, CA 91784
June 16 July 2, 2021
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR Table of Contents
Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Format of the Final EIR ...... 2 1.3 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses ...... 2 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ...... 2 1.0 CLARIFICATGIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ...... 12
Page i
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.).
According to the CEQA Guidelines, §15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the DEIR.
. Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary.
. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR.
. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the Shops at Jurupa Valley Project during the public review period, which began February 27, 2021, and closed April 2, 2021. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency (City of Jurupa Valley). This document and the circulated DEIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, §15132.
1.2 FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR
This document is organized as follows:
Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR.
Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR, copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments.
Section 3. Revisions to the DEIR. This section contains revisions/clarifications to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received as described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review.
Page 1
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. City of Jurupa Valley staff and technical expert consultants have reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.
1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be:
“. . . on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.”
2.0 Response to Comments
15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City of Jurupa Valley to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses.
This section provides all written comments timely received on the DEIR and the City of Jurupa Valley’s responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in bold text for additions
Page 2
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR and strikeout for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period.
A. Kim Jarrell Johnson, Jurupa Valley Resident and Historian, March 9, 2021. B. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
Page 3
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
A. COMMENTS FROM KIM JARRELL JOHNSON
City of Jurupa Valley Attn: Patty Anders, Senior Planning Consultant RE: Comments on Draft EIR for the Shops at Jurupa Valley
Ms. Anders,
Please see below my comments on the Cultural Resources Report (report) and Draft EIR (EIR) prepared for the Shops at Jurupa Valley. Corrections needed are in bold.
1. The generally agreed upon spelling is Louis Robidoux, not Rubidoux. While the mountain and community adopted the Rubidoux spelling, this is not the spelling given to the man. Please correct throughout the EIR and the cultural resources report.
Response: The Cultural, Tribal, Historic, Paleontological Records Check and Survey of The Shops at Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California, December 29, 2020” by SRS INC, (“Cultural Report “), was revised to correct the spelling of “Rubidoux” for Louis Robidoux throughout the report as suggested. The EIR did not use the incorrect spelling, so no changes are required.
2. The report states in more than one place that DE Anza crossed the Santa Ana River by the Union Bridge at Jurupa Heights. The bridge is today properly called the Union Pacific Bridge. Jurupa Heights is a long ago, no longer used name for a portion of the Pedley area. The proper name for where the De Anza party crossed the river is the Pedley Narrows, which is what that area of the Santa Ana River is called. De Anza crossed there twice because the river narrows in that area, making the crossing shorter and less problematic. Please correct the place names where they appear in report and EIR.
Response: The Cultural Report was revised to change the name for the crossing of the Santa Ana River from De Anza to Pedley Narrows. The EIR did not use the incorrect spelling, so no changes are required.
3. The walking survey of the property found numerous sections of water canals, called in photos and a map “Lateral 3” on pages 29-34 of the report. These were the only in situ structures found on the property. Yet, the report is silent on the history of the canal system in Jurupa Valley and particularly the canal system on this property. Further confusion is added when on page 39 the report mentions that portions of the West Riverside Canal are often found in this area. This is the first mention of that name, yet the report goes on as if it is clear the canal features previously referred to almost exclusively as the unexplained “Lateral 3” are also the West Riverside Canal. Without background and history, the report does not have any basis by which to evaluate the significance of the canals and therefore does not do that evaluation. Report needs information added which explains the history of the canal system on the property in question, and how that
Page 4
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR relates to the overall history of the canal system in Jurupa Valley. The report also needs to properly evaluate the significance of the canal structures found.
The report also seems to confuse water canal facilities with flood control facilities, saying on page 22 that Lateral 3 captures flow from a stream in Pyrite Canyon. Yet figure 7 on page 22 states, “Riv. and Jurupa Canal (Lateral No. 3).” The canal system in Jurupa Valley was designed to carry water from the Santa Ana River, not catch intermittent flow from other sources. Section needs to be corrected to properly discuss the canal system and how it was used. One suggested reference on this matter is “Scott, M.B.1977 Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California, 1810–1968.”
Response: The Cultural Report was revised to address the canal located on the adjacent parcels to the east of the property and how it related to the overall history of the canal system in Jurupa Valley. The remnants were evaluated in the context of this historical sketch and their condition in comparison to known portions of the canal system recorded as historic artifacts in the immediate vicinity. Additional information will be added to the EIR as shown in Section 3.0, Clarifications and Revisions. The addition of the information does not change the EIR’s significance conclusions or findings of a less than significant impact.
4. Page 11, Last Paragraph – This paragraph is missing citations for some statements made. Specifically, please include citations for the following statements: (a)‘Jurupa’ has been known since at least the 1850s as a Native place name of the Serrano people who inhabited a large area including all of the San Bernardino Mountains and associated lowlands. (b) ‘Hurungna’ is the Gabrielino form of Jurupa
Response. The Cultural Resources Report was revised to include references for Jurupa and Hurungna.
5. Page 12 of the report mentions Bandini receiving the land grant in 1838 and Robidoux buying it in 1844. There is one if not two ownership changes of the Jurupa Rancho land that Robidoux bought after Bandini’s ownership. Additional information needs to be added to the report and EIR to address this history.
Response. The Cultural Resources Report was revised to provide more information on the ownership changes on the Jurupa Rancho land grant. Additional information will be added to the EIR as shown in Section 3.0, Clarifications and Revisions. The addition of the information does not change the EIR’s significance conclusions or findings of a less than significant impact.
6. Page 14, Mount Rubidoux name spelled incorrectly. Please correct.
Response. The Cultural Report was revised to correct the spelling for Mount Rubioux.The EIR did not use the incorrect spelling, so no changes are required.
Page 5
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
7. Why is there a section of the report devoted to Native place names in the city of Riverside, when this project is not located in Riverside?
Response. A clarification was made to the Cultural Report to explain that Native placenames for Riverside were requested by Native American consultants to this project making it easier for them to put this project area in context.
8. Page 15 The timeline in the report for the history of Jurupa Valley stops at 1870 and begins again in the 1950s. Almost 100 years of history is ignored, including development and the construction of water canals (the latter of which is also addressed in Comment 3 and Comment 12 ) that directly affect this property. Please fill in the gap of this important era of Jurupa Valley history. Also, the 1950s to 2000s section just says, “Jurupa Districts” and lists names of communities found in Jurupa Valley. As a matter of fact, some of those communities were founded long before the 1950s, with some being in existence as early as the late 1800s. This section/timeline needs to be expanded and corrected.
Response. Additional information will be added to the EIR as shown in Section 3.0, Clarifications and Revisions. The addition of the information does not change the EIR’s significance conclusions or findings of a less than significant impact.
9. First line on page states, “ The 1907-1913 Assessor Map (see Figure 4) indicates that J.R. Johnston and family owned a sizeable amount of property in Riverside.” However, the map is clearly of the area in question, which is located in Jurupa Valley. Correct this misstatement.
Response. The Cultural Report was revised to change the misstatement on Figure 4. The EIR does not contain Figure 4, so no changes are required.
10. Page 22, Jurupa Avenue is now Jurupa Road. Please correct.
Response. The Cultural Report was revised to change Jurupa “Avenue” to Jurupa “Road.” The EIR does not contain this error, so no changes are required.
11. Page 39 is the conclusions and recommendations section. Conclusions and recommendations cannot be made concerning the canals on the property as the report itself did not examine the history of the canals or determine their significance. See No. 3 above for needed corrections.
Response. Refer to the Response #3 above.
12. The third paragraph states that an “EIC Records Check showed that portions of the West Riverside canal are frequently found in the vicinity (of the property in question) and examination of the site and report records indicate that those local finds are in better condition than those on the property.” While the report does not then give a clear conclusion and recommendation concerning the canals, this statement seems to at least imply that the canals are not significant.
Page 6
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
The report did not provide any discussion of the condition of the canals on this property. Furthermore, the reports from the EIC were written in 1991 – 2014. Given that the findings on other canal segments in the vicinity were made anywhere from seven to 30 years ago, and the report did not indicate that an effort was made to see if those canal segments were even still in existence let alone in better condition than those on the property in question, it seems impossible to reach any conclusion that compares the condition of the canals on the property in question with other canal segments. A clear conclusion and recommendation concerning the canals on the property based on the history of the canals both on this property and in Jurupa Valley in general, must be included in the report. In addition, if the recommendation concerning the canals is going to be based on the condition of other canal segments in the area, then those other canals must be examined, their current condition assessed and compared to the canals on this property, and a determination made as to whether or not they are preserved or threatened with removal.
Response. Refer to the Response #3 above.
13. Page 41 – Title of book “Jurupa” by Kim Jarrell Johnson is misspelled. Please correct Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR and the accompanying Cultural Resources Report. If you have any questions regarding my comments, I can be reached at [email protected].
Response. The Cultural Report was revised to correct the misspelling of Jurupa. The EIR does not contain this error, so no changes are required.
Page 7
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
B. COMMENT FROM SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
From: Ryan Nordness
Hello Patty, Thank you for sending over the notice for the draft EIR. After a review of the cultural, tribal, historic, and paleontological records check and survey report. The SMBMI cultural department concurs with the findings and that an Archaeological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (AMMP) should be developed in coordination with local Native American tribes and the City of Jurupa Valley. Additionally, we suggest a presence/absence testing program. Testing efforts would determine whether the SMBMI cultural department would necessitate tribal monitoring efforts.
CUL-1
Archaeological Monitoring and Testing
Due to the heightened cultural sensitivity of the proposed project area, an archaeological monitor with at least 3 years of regional experience in archaeology shall be present for all ground-disturbing activities that occur within the proposed project area (which includes, but is not limited to, tree/shrub removal and planting, clearing/grubbing, grading, excavation, trenching, compaction, fence/gate removal and installation, drainage and irrigation removal and installation, hardscape installation [benches, signage, boulders, walls, seat walls, fountains, etc.], and archaeological work). A sufficient number of archaeological monitors shall be present each work day to ensure that simultaneously occurring ground disturbing activities receive thorough levels of monitoring coverage. A Monitoring and Treatment Plan that is reflective of the project mitigation (“Cultural Resources” and “Tribal Cultural Resources”) shall be completed by the archaeologist and submitted to the Lead Agency for dissemination to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI). Once all parties review and approve the plan, it shall be adopted by the Lead Agency – the plan must be adopted prior to permitting for the project. Any and all findings will be subject to the protocol detailed within the Monitoring and Treatment Plan.
Additionally, at least one archaeologist with at least 3 years of regional experience in archaeology and a Tribal monitor representing the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians shall conduct subsurface archaeological testing on the project site via the employ of a number of subsurface investigative methods, including shovel test probes, remote sensing, and/or deep testing via controlled units or trenching of appropriate landscapes, with a sample size of at least 25% of the area of concern dug and dry-sifted through 1/8-inch mesh screens, prior to any ground-disturbing activity. A Testing Plan shall be created by the archaeologist and submitted to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) and the Lead Agency for review at least 10 business days prior to implementation, so as to provide time to review/modify the Plan, if needed. The Plan shall outline the protocol of presence/absence testing and contain a Treatment Plan detailing that 1) no collection of artifacts or
Page 8
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR excavation of features shall occur during testing, and 2) all discovered resources shall be properly recorded and reburied in situ. If the results of testing, as approved by SMBMI, are positive, then SMBMI and the Lead Agency shall, in good faith, consult concerning appropriate treatment of the finding(s), guidance for which is outlined in TCR-1. If the results of testing, as approved by SMBMI, are negative, then SMBMI will conclude consultation unless any discoveries are made during project implementation. Any and all discoveries made during project implementation shall be subject to the Treatment Plan outlined within the Testing Plan, as well as the treatment guidelines within TCR-1.
TCR-1 Tribal Monitoring
Due to the heightened cultural sensitivity of the proposed project area, Tribal monitors representing the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians shall be present for all ground-disturbing activities that occur within the proposed project area (which includes, but is not limited to, tree/shrub removal and planting, clearing/grubbing, grading, excavation, trenching, compaction, fence/gate removal and installation, drainage and irrigation removal and installation, hardscape installation [benches, signage, boulders, walls, seat walls, fountains, etc.], and archaeological work). A sufficient number of Tribal monitors shall be present each work day to ensure that simultaneously occurring ground disturbing activities receive thorough levels of monitoring coverage. A Monitoring and Treatment Plan that is reflective of the project mitigation (“Cultural Resources” and “Tribal Cultural Resources”) shall be completed by the archaeologist, as detailed within CUL-1, and submitted to the Lead Agency for dissemination to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI). Once all parties review and agree to the plan, it shall be adopted by the Lead Agency – the plan must be adopted prior to permitting for the project. Any and all findings will be subject to the protocol detailed within the Monitoring and Treatment Plan.
TCR-1-Treatment of Cultural Resources
If a pre-contact cultural resource is discovered during archaeological presence/absence testing, the discovery shall be properly recorded and then reburied in situ. A research design shall be developed by the archaeologist that shall include a plan to evaluate the resource for significance under CEQA criteria. Representatives from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI), the archaeologist/applicant, and the Lead Agency shall confer regarding the research design, as well as any testing efforts needed to delineate the resource boundary. Following the completion of evaluation efforts, all parties shall confer regarding the archaeological significance of the resource, its potential as a Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR), avoidance (or other appropriate treatment) of the discovered resource, and the potential need for construction monitoring during project implementation. Should any significant resource and/or TCR not be a candidate for avoidance or preservation in place, and the removal of the resource(s) is necessary to mitigate impacts, the research design shall include a comprehensive discussion of sampling strategies, resource processing, analysis, and reporting protocols/obligations. Removal of any cultural resource(s) shall be conducted with the presence of a Tribal monitor representing the Tribe, unless otherwise decided by SMBMI. All plans for analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the applicant and SMBMI prior to implementation, and all removed material shall be temporarily curated on-site. It is the preference of SMBMI that removed cultural material be reburied as close to the original find location as possible. However, should reburial within/near the original find location during project implementation
Page 9
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR not be feasible, then a reburial location for future reburial shall be decided upon by SMBMI, the landowner, and the Lead Agency, and all finds shall be reburied within this location. Additionally, in this case, reburial shall not occur until all ground-disturbing activities associated with the project have been completed, all monitoring has ceased, all cataloguing and basic recordation of cultural resources have been completed, and a final monitoring report has been issued to Lead Agency, CHRIS, and SMBMI. All reburials are subject to a reburial agreement that shall be developed between the landowner and SMBMI outlining the determined reburial process/location, and shall include measures and provisions to protect the reburial area from any future impacts (vis a vis project plans, conservation/preservation easements, etc.).
Should it occur that avoidance, preservation in place, and on-site reburial are not an option for treatment, the landowner shall relinquish all ownership and rights to this material and confer with SMBMI to identify an American Association of Museums (AAM)-accredited facility within the County that can accession the materials into their permanent collections and provide for the proper care of these objects in accordance with the 1993 CA Curation Guidelines. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository shall be developed between the landowner and museum that legally and physically transfers the collections and associated records to the facility. This agreement shall stipulate the payment of fees necessary for permanent curation of the collections and associated records and the obligation of the Project developer/applicant to pay for those fees.
All draft records/reports containing the significance and treatment findings and data recovery results shall be prepared by the archaeologist and submitted to the Lead Agency and SMBMI for their review and comment. After approval from all parties, the final reports and site/isolate records are to be submitted to the local CHRIS Information Center, the Lead Agency, and SMBMI.
TCR-2 -Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains/Funerary Objects
In the event that any human remains are discovered within the project area, ground disturbing activities shall be suspended 100 feet around the resource(s) and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. The on-site lead/foreman shall then immediately who shall notify SMBMI, the applicant/developer, and the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency and the applicant/developer shall then immediately contact the County Coroner regarding the discovery. If the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner shall ensure that notification is provided to the NAHC within twenty-four (24) hours of the determination, as required by California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 (c). The NAHC- identified Most Likely Descendant (MLD), shall be allowed, under California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 (a), to (1) inspect the site of the discovery and (2) make determinations as to how the human remains and funerary objects shall be treated and disposed of with appropriate dignity. The MLD, Lead Agency, and landowner agree to discuss in good faith what constitutes "appropriate dignity" as that term is used in the applicable statutes. The MLD shall complete its inspection and make recommendations within forty-eight (48) hours of the site visit, as required by California Public Resources Code § 5097.98.
Page 10
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
Reburial of human remains and/or funerary objects (those artifacts associated with any human remains or funerary rites) shall be accomplished in compliance with the California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 (a) and (b). The MLD in consultation with the landowner, shall make the final discretionary determination regarding the appropriate disposition and treatment of human remains and funerary objects. All parties are aware that the MLD may wish to rebury the human remains and associated funerary objects on or near the site of their discovery, in an area that shall not be subject to future subsurface disturbances. The applicant/developer/landowner should accommodate on-site reburial in a location mutually agreed upon by the Parties.
It is understood by all Parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code § 6254 (r).
Ryan Nordness CULTURAL RESOURCE ANALYST Email: [email protected] O: (909) 864-8933 x50-2022 Internal: 50-2022 M: 909-838-4053 26569 Community Center Dr Highland California 92346
Response: Prior to the release of the Draft EIR on February 19, 2021, the San Manuel had previously indicated that the Project site was outside the Serrano ancestral territory and consultation was not required.
Hello,
Thank you for contacting the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) regarding the above- referenced project, the documentation for which was received by the CRM Department on 25 June 2020. The proposed project is located just outside of Serrano ancestral territory and, as such, SMBMI does not elect to consult on this project.
Best,
Jessica Mauck DIRECTOR OF CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT O: (909) 864-8933 x3249 M: (909) 725-9054 26569 Community Center Dr Highland California 92346
Page 11
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
3.0 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS
This section contains revisions to the DEIR based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures, if needed, to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the DEIR.
This section includes recommended clarifications and revisions to the Draft EIR. This section is organized by respective sections of the Draft EIR. Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is in underlined bolded text.
Section 4.4 – Cultural Resources 1. Page 4.4.1, History, is hereby modified as follows to provide additional information on the history of Jurupa Valley.
History of Jurupa Valley
In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769– 1821), the Mexican Period (1821–1848), and the American Period (1848–present). One of the first non- Native Americans to travel through the area currently known as Riverside County was Juan Bautista de Anza, who led an expedition in 1774. In the late 1700s, three Spanish mission fathers (one each from the San Gabriel, San Juan Capistrano, and San Luis Rey Missions) began to colonize land and use the valley of Riverside County for growing grain and raising cattle. Beginning in 1834, the missions and mission lands were secularized and transferred as “grants” to Californians who were citizens of Mexico. When California became a territory of the United States in 1848, a steady flow of settlers began coming into the area now known as Riverside County, and the County was officially formed in May of 1893.
The 44-square-mile city of Jurupa Valley was incorporated on July 1, 2011 (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017a). The name “Jurupa” is of Gabrielino origin, meaning “sagebrush-place” (LSA, 2020f). The city of Jurupa Valley is currently a mix of high- and low-density residential development, rural farming and other agricultural activities, and a mix of commercial retail and industrial activity.
“The Story of Riverside County,” written by historian W.W. Robinson in 1964 as shown in the summary below, shows that the first 100 years of the history of the Riverside City area were dominated by events at Jurupa. Spanish explorer Juan Bautista de Anza crossed the Santa Ana River at Pedley Narrows near Union Pacific Bridge in 1776. Riverside County’s Rancho Period began when Juan Bandini received a grant for Rancho Jurupa in 1838. According to Gunther (1984:260):
Page 12
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
Bandini sold ‘about one league and a half’ of Jurupa Rancho to Benjamin D. Wilson, an American for $1000 on May 6, 1843. Wilson then sold half of his land for $500 to another American, Louis Robidoux on May 6, 1846. On December 13, 1849, Isaac ‘Julian’ Williams (still another American and owner of the neighboring Rancho del Chino, who had bought half of Wilson’s Jurupa land at some previous date, sold that half together ‘with the house and corrals, now existing thereon’ to Robidoux for $3,000 and 200 fanegas (about 320 bushels)...Thus came into existence the Jurupa (Robidoux) Rancho confirmed to Louis Robidoux....
. 1769: Spain occupies California, with the title to the land becoming vested- under the provisions of the Laws of the Indies- in the King of Spain.
. 1772: Captain Pedro Fages crosses Riverside County
. 1774-1776: The Anza Party, opening a land route from Sonora (Mexico) to Monterey (California), crosses Riverside County. Site is near Union Pacific Bridge, Pedley Narrows
. 1818-1819: Settlement of Riverside County’s area by Spanish-Californians begins, their neighbors being Indians who had preceded them at least by centuries.
. 1822: California becomes Mexican territory.
. 1824: With the establishment by priests from Mission San Gabriel of an outpost in San Gorgonio Pass, the extension of Missionary influence in the Riverside County area is climaxed.
. 1838: Juan Bandini receives a grant of Rancho Jurupa and with it, Riverside County’s rancho period begins.
. 1842: Three horsemen make a tour of Jurupa, resulting in the purchase by one of them of a portion later known as ‘Rubidoux Rancho’ and in the establishment by one other of Agua Mansa colony.
. 1844: Louis Robidoux, Riverside County’s best-known pioneer, enters the picture.
. 1848: California ceded to the United States.
. 1853: A railroad survey is made through the San Gorgonio Pass and the desert beyond.
. 1858: Butterfield stages begin operations.
. 1862: A destructive flood sweeps down the Santa Ana River.
. 1870: A Southern California colony is planned, a portion of Rancho Jurupa is bought,
Page 13
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
the town of Riverside is laid out- the modern period of Riverside County’s history begins.
. 1870’s-1890’s: Railroad trains supplant stagecoaches and mule freighters, bringing an increase population to the Inland Empire.
. 1880’s: Riverside incorporates, area northwest of the Santa Ana River (including the communities of Rubidoux and Glen Avon) becomes known as West Riverside.
. 1887: North Riverside Ditch (formation of water system leading into Glen Avon) is built.
. 1893: Riverside County is born.
. 1899: water system extension leads to name change from North Riverside Ditch to North Riverside and Jurupa Canal.
. 1908/1909: residents decided to name the current community of Glen Avon; JR Johnston donates acreage for Glen Avon’s first school.
. 1916: North Riverside and Jurupa Canal changes name to West Riverside Canal.
. 1941: The Colorado River Aqueduct is completed, to take care of the water necessities of the cities and districts which since 1928 have become members of the Metropolitan Water District.
. 1951: township of West Riverside given permission to change its name to Jurupa.
. 1950’s-2000s: Over time, Jurupa districts included: Jurupa Hills, Mira Loma, Glen Avon, Indian Hills, Belltown, Sunnyslope, Crestmore Heights, and Rubidoux (note: many communities preceded the town’s name change in 1951).
. 2011: City of Jurupa Valley incorporated in July as 28th City in Riverside County and 482nd City in California.
The Project site has been a vacant lot since at least 1994. Current disturbances include foot traffic, off-road driving, and minor trash dumping. The northeastern corner of the Project site lies on a gently sloping spur that descends from the foothills of the Jurupa Mountains. The Project area is bounded on the north by State Route (SR) 60, on the south by Mission Boulevard, on the west by Pyrite Street, and on the east by vacant land, a truck lot, California pepper trees (Schinus mole), and a residence.
Page 14
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
Section 4.4 – Cultural Resources 2. Page 4.4.5, Pedestrian Field Survey, is hereby modified as follows to provide additional information on the West Riverside Canal.
Pedestrian Field Survey Results
The Project site was surveyed on June 18 and June 19, 2020. The objective of the field survey was the visual detection of prehistoric remains, including lithic debris and artifacts, midden deposits, cultural features, and/or Historic-era foundations or refuse. All exposed terrain and fortuitous exposures, such as rodent burrows, excavated holes, or cleared areas were thoroughly inspected for cultural resources.
The field survey revealed the physical components of a historic-period water distribution system, dating to the formation of Riverside County. These resources include above ground and buried pipelines, concrete channels, and a water basin. Four Historic-era artifacts were collected, including a drilling tool, a bullet shell casing, and a rusted railroad spike, and an amethyst or purple glass bottleneck fragment. Three of these newly discovered artifacts, the shell casing, railroad spike, and glass bottle fragment, date to the early twentieth century. In addition to these specimens, one prehistoric artifact was found in the northeastern corner of the Project site. The prehistoric artifact is an isolate and probably has been removed from its original context since it was found in with the historic items and therefore also lacks integrity.
Although associations of all these historic amenities are interesting, they are not considered significant as a ‘unique resource’ under CEQA due to a lack of integrity and no known subsurface historic deposits.
In the 1880s, the Inland Empire saw a boom in agricultural development. However, the semi- desert landscape and years of drought required creativity among residents and farmers in the Riverside area. Like neighboring Riverside, Jurupa Valley’s extensive canal system was designed to carry water from the Santa Ana River and its tributaries for agricultural irrigation purposes. More specifically, the West Riverside Canal—initially known as the North Riverside Ditch in 1887 and the North Riverside and Jurupa Canal in 1899—was originally designed to pull water from the Santa Ana River and its tributaries through a complex system of flumes, tunnels, and open ditches.1 At its inception, the Canal delivered water to individual land owners. However, later it delivered water to organized companies.2
In the 1880s, a ditch [known as the North Riverside Ditch] was built 12 feet deep, pulling water from the Peters and Warren sloughs. In an easterly direction, the ditch followed along the base of the bluff, crossed over the Riverside Upper Canal, and then crossed the Santa Ana River in a flume supported on a trestle. On the north side of the mesa bluff, a flume ran for two miles and then connected with a tunnel that ran 4,000 feet in length. From there the tunnel
1 Scott, 84. 2 Scott, 85.
Page 15
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR connected to an open ditch three miles long which ran toward the Jurupa mesa lands and present-day Glen Avon.3 Scott notes that the open ditch extension was comprised of three laterals constructed leading into the main flume. By 1900 the ditches were lined with concrete.4 As it extended and grew in the 1890s, the North Riverside and Jurupa Canal system pulled water from Agua Mansa, Salazar, and the head of the canal.5 By 1916, the canal system carried water for five companies: Agua Mansa Water Co., Salazar Water Co., Jurupa Water Co., La Sierra Water Co., and West Riverside Water Co. Twin Buttes Water Co. utilized the West Riverside Canal system when it was organized in 1917.6 By 1967, the 6 companies were still delivering water via the canal. At that point in time, Scott’s report indicates that the source of the water was ground water which was pumped into the canal via wells.7
The original ditch was constructed under the leadership of the North Riverside Land and Water Company but was transferred to its subsidiary-company, the Jurupa Land and Water Company, incorporated one year later in 1888. The Jurupa Land and Water Company ran the canal system until the turn of the century. In the early 1900s, C.W. Rogers, the Owner of Rogers Development Co. took over operation of the Canal system. Rogers operated the system until 1916, when a flood destroyed the canal flume that crossed the Santa Ana River.8 When the West Riverside Canal Company purchased the canal in 1916, the name of the Canal was changed, but it continued as a water-carrying agency.
Lateral #3
The open ditch irrigation system located near the northeast corner of the property is part of today’s West Riverside Canal, Lateral #3—likely one of the three laterals constructed in the 1880s noted above. Today, Lateral #3 is one of three laterals that extends off the Canal, heading northwest along the base of the Pyrite and Johnson Canyons in the Jurupa Mountains. Lateral #2 and #3 branch off of the Canal at the junction of present-day Valley Way and Jurupa Road while Lateral #1 extends off of the canal further east. It is not clear if Lateral #3 is recognized as one of the “open ditches” of the Canal that were paved in concrete in 1900 [see above].
Based on the field survey, the irrigation features associated with the West Riverside Cana are located to the east of the subject property provide interesting evidence of the past land use of the region. Although interesting, based on the findings from the Phase-1 reconnaissance program, when compared with Federal and State Regulatory Guidelines, it can be concluded that the project should have No Effect on any "significant" Cultural Resources, historic or prehistoric. The canal water features are not located on the subject property and the historic materials on the property are surface scatters in a disturbed context.
3 Wm. Ham. Hall, Irrigation in California (Southern): The Field, Water-Supply, and Works, Organization and Operation in San Diego, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties (Sacramento: State Office – J.D. Young, Supt. State Printing, 1888), 290. 4 Scott, 84. 5 Scott, 85. 6 Scott, 86. 7 Ibid. See Figure 27 in the report. 8 Scott, 85.
Page 16
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
Section 4.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Page 4.6.8, Stringfellow Acid Pits Site Analysis, is hereby modified as follows to provide clarification on possible contamination from the Stringfellow Acid Pits:
Stringfellow Acid Pits Site Analysis
There is the potential for contamination from the nearby Stringfellow Acids Pits (Stringfellow) to be impacting the site. Several groundwater wells used to monitor the Stringfellow volatile organic compound (VOC) plume are located on the site and VOC groundwater contamination beneath the Site could represent a vapor intrusion risk to future building occupants.
Based on the Limited Soil Vapor Investigation (Appendix H) and the Opinion Letter (Appendix I) conducted for the Project, the results of the investigation indicate the presence of soil vapor impacts related to a past release of VOCs, likely resulting from transport in groundwater from the upgradient Stringfellow Acid Pits Superfund site. However, none of the reported soil vapor concentrations detected exceed the calculated screening levels. In addition, in all locations where multi-depth soil vapor concentrations were reported (predominantly south of State Route 60) there is a marked attenuation of concentrations in the upward direction, indicating a lack of significant exposure risk to future site users.
As noted earlier, in 2018, DTSC started a soil gas screening investigation to evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion due to Site contaminants, specifically trichloroethene (TCE) from groundwater. Two rounds of soil gas sampling were conducted in June 2018 (dry season) and February 2019 (wet season). The samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Current data indicates that the majority of chemicals in groundwater underneath the Project site have been significantly removed by the existing extraction system, especially TCE and chloroform that are currently detected at levels that pose little to no risk to human health or the environment.9
DTSC will collect and analyze additional soil gas samples from wells where VOC concentrations exceeded residential screening levels. To further evaluate the source of chloroform in soil gas detected in the vicinity of Lone Trail road, DTSC is proposing additional sampling and analysis to determine whether chloroform detected along Lone Trail road is “urban type”, or whether it is “industrial type” related to the Stringfellow site. DTSC will use these data to further evaluate vapor intrusion risk from VOCs, including TCE and chloroform, on nearby residents and will use the information to guide future investigation activities. These areas are not located within the Project site.
DTSC Project Managers: Peter Bailey, Unit Chief, (916) 255-6552, [email protected] and USEPA Project Manager: Daewon Rojas-Mickelson, (415) 947-4191, Rojas-
9 https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/deliverable_documents/9305178582/3%202019-9- 26%20Final%20Community%20Fact%20Sheet_English_PDF.pdf
Page 17
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
[email protected] have been contacted to inform them of the site-specific testing conducted on the property and to share information about the construction schedule for the Project site.
At the local level, oOn June 16, 2021, DEH issued a NO FURTHER ACTION DETERMINATION letter to the City as part of the Site Development Permit entitlement process indicating that the site does not pose a threat to human health based on commercial/industrial levels and no further action is necessary with respect to the investigation of pesticides and shallow BTEX constituents detected at the project site.
2. page 4.6-8, Agricultural Use Analysis, is hereby modified as follows to clarify impacts from past agricultural use of the property.
The historical records reviewed indicate that the subject property was historically agricultural (orchards, row crops) land from at least as early as 1931 until circa 1974. It has been vacant, graded land since 1975. The surrounding area was originally agricultural and aggregate mining land that became developed with residential and commercial buildings and yards. The use of the subject property as farmland during the organochlorine pesticide use era including Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) qualifies as a Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition of the subject property since the pesticides (and other agricultural chemicals) were (presumably) applied to the subject property in accordance with manufacturers specifications and government regulations in effect at the time. Additionally, no agricultural chemical mixing sheds or yards were observed on the subject property in the historical aerial photos. None of the reported soil vapor concentrations detected exceed the calculated screening levels. Hazardous compounds from pesticides are degraded through naturally occurring processes and generally do not persist in soil at significant concentrations. Based on the amount of time that has elapsed since the Site has been in agricultural use, concentrations of pesticide compounds representing a health risk are unlikely to be present. Although the amount of hazardous materials residue remaining on the site is less than screening levels, However to reduce impacts from the potential future exposure to occupants of the Project site to the maximum extent feasible, and to ensure that DTSC monitoring probes are not displaced, the following mitigation measures are required:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Vapor Barriers. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, building plans shall demonstrate sub-slab liners made of a minimum of 40 to 60 mil high-density polyethylene (HDPE) are installed before the slab for each building is poured. The membranes should be durable enough (at least 30 mil) to prevent damage during placement, building construction, remodeling, or maintenance, or to resist failure due to earth movement and age.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2. Abandonment or Relocation of Wells. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project proponent shall provide written verification from the Department of
Page 18
The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that any existing monitoring wells on site that are to be abandoned or relocated have been authorized by the DTSC.
Page 19