Environmentalists are taking legal action against Jurupa Valley’s approval of a development near the Jurupa oak, a Palmer’s oak located in the Jurupa Hills that’s estimated to be at least 13,000 years old. The lawsuit filed Friday, Oct. 4, in Riverside County Superior Court by the Center for Biological Diversity alleges Jurupa Valley’s environmental review for the project that combines housing and other land uses violated state law, the nonprofit conservation organization said in a news release. If a judge agrees, the center seeks an injunction to prevent the development from moving forward. “We are hoping for a 100-acre preserve on the west side of the Jurupa oak,” lead attorney for the group, Meredith Stevenson, said in a phone interview Friday. “So our lawsuit is not intending to actually stop the development completely.” The land parcels nearest the ancient plant, however, are intended to be used for industrial and business park development, which could be “extremely harmful” to the oak, Stevenson said. The Center for Biological Diversity wants those areas to remain undeveloped, and seeks to create a 100-acre preserve there to protect the Jurupa oak. The Jurupa Valley City Council voted in early September to approve the Rio Vista Specific Plan, which would bring  homes as well as commercial and industrial development to the area near the oak. As approved, the plan allows for a 450-foot buffer around the plant. Jurupa Valley city officials were not immediately available for comment Friday. Officials have said the Rio Vista development would bring in more than $20 million in revenue for the city. The development is designed to span more than 900 acres and include nearly 1,700 residences, an elementary school and several community parks, sports fields and open trails, according to city officials. Environmental advocates have argued the oak requires a buffer of at least 550 feet. The oak is also estimated to be the third- or fourth-oldest living organism in the world and the oldest in California, according to the center’s lawsuit. “I just think it’s important because it is so incredibly old,” Stevenson said. “It’s just a beautiful being that has been there for 13,000 to 18,000 years, and I just feel that putting a warehouse right next to it is unnecessary.” In addition to denying the request for a larger buffer, the city “failed to consider other alternatives that would better protect the oak and other wildlife,” the center said in its news release. The site is home to other creatures, including the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Crotch’s bumblebee, and sensitive birds such as the California gnatcatcher, Northern harrier, Costa’s hummingbird and Bell’s sage sparrow, according to the center. In addition, by overlooking threats to the Jurupa oak’s watershed, the city failed to analyze the project’s “wildfire risks, greenhouse gas emissions, wildlife harms, water supply concerns and other environmental consequences,” the center alleges in its suit. “We think the city violated (the California Environmental Quality Act) by not properly assessing the harm to the Jurupa oak,” Stevenson said. “The city has only done just a handful of studies,” she added. “We actually have not even been able to receive them because they haven’t been disclosed to the public.” Related Articles Environment | Lower percent of eligible Southern California voters are registered now than in 2020. Get on it, people! Environment | Riverside taps Steve McKinster to lead Fire Department Environment | Here are the county, city and school candidates on the Nov. 5 ballot in Riverside County Environment | Chino Valley school board to vote on ‘no deception’ rule some say targets LGBTQ+ students Environment | Court dismisses Moreno Valley mayor’s restraining order against critic Though the center is unsure which studies have been completed, a 450-foot buffer around the oak, as the city approved, is “incredibly insufficient,” Stevenson said. “I mean, we don’t even know how far the Jurupa oak roots extend,” Stevenson added. “Using the precautionary principle, it’s just too risky to the oak. And the developer and the city need to know for sure what the impacts will be on the Jurupa oak, and they don’t know that — admittedly, they don’t know that.”