Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members press JCSD over Eastvale Community Park plan and a disputed $500,000 water device
Summary
Councilmember Bridal told the council that JCSD declined to partner on a citrus‑property feasibility study and that JCSD plans to place an above‑ground water device — described in the transcript as a “hella hydrant” — near Eastvale Community Park, a move Bridal said could cost about $500,000 and may not align with community priorities. Councilmembers urged better coordination; JCSD did not appear and gave no response at the meeting.
Councilmember Bridal used the council‑communications period on March 11 to criticize the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) for declining a city invitation to partner on a feasibility study for the citrus property and to object to a planned above‑ground water device repeatedly referred to in the meeting transcript as a “hella hydrant.”
Bridal said JCSD’s justification for declining to partner was that its timeline did not match the city’s; Bridal told the council staff never shared the city’s timeline with JCSD and said that rationale was therefore insufficient. "We don't know how long that person's gonna live there," Bridal said when discussing a neighbor near the park and argued the community of roughly 70,000 people should not have park planning delayed for a single property owner.
On the planned water device, Bridal said the installation would cost about $500,000 and questioned the siting at Eastvale Community Park, saying the device would “spot design” the park and that grant funds might instead better support youth‑oriented amenities. "It's $500,000 for this hella hydrant," Bridal said. Bridal said staff would pursue a meeting with JCSD officials and other electeds but expressed skepticism the district would change course.
A council member with WRCOG ties echoed concerns, suggested alternative locations (including a flood zone off Hellman) and urged the city to consider buying strategic land to ensure park design aligns with city priorities. That councilmember said park fees in lieu from developments could be used toward acquisition and future park construction.
No JCSD representative spoke at the meeting to respond to the claims. Council discussion concluded with staff follow‑up planned to request additional information and attempt a meeting with JCSD representatives.
The council did not take formal action on JCSD’s plans during the meeting.
