Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council agrees to swap Castellano Road equestrian trail for a deposit, with conditions to benefit Crestmore Heights
Summary
Council debated a staff proposal to accept a developer deposit instead of on-site construction of a Castellano Road equestrian trail (staff estimate $665,000) and ultimately directed modifications: a $700,000 deposit, funds to be used in Crestmore Heights, and a community meeting to determine how money will be spent.
The Jurupa Valley City Council on Tuesday considered a request to amend the Agua Mansa Commerce Park Specific Plan and a related permit to allow the developer to pay a deposit rather than construct a 1,550‑foot equestrian trail along Castellano Road.
Planning staff said the deposit was estimated at $665,000 based on consultant cost estimates for design and construction of the trail. The proposed change was recommended by the Planning Commission and staff noted that prior environmental review covers the change (no additional CEQA review required).
Council members raised concerns about whether the trail as designed would meaningfully serve nearby residents, the accuracy of the $665,000 estimate, and whether the money could be used somewhere else — potentially to better serve affected residents. Several councilmembers said they wanted assurances the funds would benefit Crestmore Heights residents rather than be diverted elsewhere.
CT Realty representative Mark Bellomini (the applicant) said the developer had been prepared to build the trail under a design‑build contract and had provided cost documents to staff; he said the city had marked up the developer’s contractor price during staff review.
After discussion, Councilmember Chris Barajas moved to modify the condition so the developer would provide $700,000 to the city (in place of constructing the Castellano Road trail), that the funds be used in Crestmore Heights and that staff hold a community meeting to determine resident priorities; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote. Council directed staff to consult the applicant about any potential cost escalation and to ensure language keeps the funds benefiting the nearby community.
Councilmembers asked staff to provide clearer cost documentation and options (what would be built for the funds) before finalizing agreements. The applicant declined to accept an open‑ended escalator provision; the council settled on $700,000 with the requirement the funds impact Crestmore Heights and that staff convene a community meeting to determine use.
Staff will return with language reflecting council direction and with follow‑up steps for public engagement and implementation.
