RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
8 of 21
MSHCP CONSERVATION MEASURE. All proposed MSHCP Conservation Lands associated with the project will be placed into MSHCP conservation with the RCA prior to receiving a grading permit.
RESTORATION OF UPLAND TEMPORARY IMPACTS MEASURE. An HMMP will be prepared and submitted to the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading or construction permit.
f. Reserve Assembly: As mentioned above, the project site is located in seven independent Cells, two Cells in Cell Group E, and areas that are not a part of the Cell Criteria.
Conservation within Cell 311 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23 and will range from 5% to 15%, focusing on the southern portion of the Cell. The project site is located in the southern portion of the Cell. Using the conservation mid-range (10%), the area described for conservation in this approximate 160-acre Cell is 16 acres. To date, 0 acres have been conserved in this Cell, meaning 16 acres are still needed for conservation. With approximately 1.28 acres of existing developed lands in this Cell, there are still approximately 163.36 undeveloped acres in this Cell potentially available for conservation. The Applicant proposes to conserve622.7 acres in OS-N (Refer to BTR, Exhibit 3). This acreage not in southern portion of cell and doesn’t contribute to PCL 23, but does avoid 1.7 acres of riparian/riverine impacts. Acreage goals and linkage function are maintained in Cells 411, 412 and 417 (see below). Acreage south of Sandalwood and Street “B” may also be accepted for conservation.
Conservation within Cell 323 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23, and will range from 5% to 15%, focusing on the southern portion of the Cell. Using the conservation mid-range (10%) in this Cell, the area described for conservation is 16 acres. To date, 0 acres have been conserved in this Cell, meaning 16 acres are still needed for conservation. With approximately 20.78 acres of existing developed lands in this Cell, there are still approximately 146.59 undeveloped acres in this Cell potentially available for conservation. The Applicant proposes to conserve728.1 acres in OS-N (Refer to BTR, Exhibit 3; Portions of PA 49 and 50). This acreage doesn’t contribute to PCL 23, but does avoid
2.3 acres riparian/riverine impacts. Acreage goals and linkage function are maintained in Cells 411, 412 and 417 (see below).
Conservation within Cell 326 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23, and will be approximately 5% focusing on the southern portion of the Cell. Using the 5% conservation estimate in this Cell, the area described for conservation is 8 acres. To date, 0 acres have been conserved in this Cell. With approximately 137.11 acres of existing developed lands in this Cell, there are approximately
24.54 undeveloped acres potentially available for conservation. The Applicant proposes to conserve
1.96 3.07 acres. The Cell goal cannot be met, but the additional acreage adds to linkage functionality. 6 Original JPR used the term conserve to be either avoidance or proposed MSHCP conservation.
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
9 of 21
Conservation within Cell 396 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23, and will range from 55% to 65%, focusing on the central portion of the Cell. Using the conservation mid-range (60%), the area described for conservation is 96 acres. To date, 137.03 acres have been conserved in this Cell. Using the high end of the conservation range (104 acres), there are 33 acres in excess of the Cell goal. The conservation goal has already been met due to greater acquisition in the northern and southern portions of the Cell. The additional 3.37 5.14 acres conserved by the Applicant would contribute to PCL 23.
Conservation within Cell 411 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23, and will range from 30% to 40%, focusing on the northern portion of the Cell. Using the conservation mid-range (35%), the area described for conservation is 56 acres. To date, 17.5 acres have been conserved in this Cell, meaning 38.5 acres are still needed for conservation. With approximately 36.14 acres of existing developed lands in this Cell, there are approximately 100.32 undeveloped acres potentially available for conservation. The Applicant proposes to conserve 10.83 11.61 acres. The Cell goal cannot be met, but the additional acreage adds to linkage functionality.
Conservation within Cell 412 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23, and will range from 35% to 45%, focusing on the northern portion of the Cell. Using the conservation mid-range (40%), the area described for conservation is 64 acres. To date, approximately 74 acres have been conserved in this Cell. Using the high end of the conservation range (72 acres), there are 2 acres in excess of the Cell goal. The conservation acreage goal has been met due to greater acquisition in the central and southern portions of the Cell. The additional 23.18 26.32 acres conserved by the Applicant would contribute to PCL 23 and to minimum linkage width.
Conservation within Cell 417 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23, and will range from 25% to 35%, focusing on the northern portion of the Cell. Using the conservation mid-range (30%), the area described for conservation is 48 acres; at the high-end range (35%), the area described for conservation is 56 acres. To date, 55.43 acres have been conserved in this Cell. The conservation goal has been met due to greater acquisition in the central portion of the Cell. The additional 15.42 18.04 acres conserved by the proposed project would contribute to PCL 23 and to minimum linkage width.
Conservation within Cell Group E (Cells 225 and 302) will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 6 and Proposed Linkage 12. The area of the project that encroaches into these two Cells are only small slivers located on the farthest west boundary of the project site. These slivers are designated as project avoidance areas and will not be discussed further.
Based on the Criteria identified in the MSHCP for Cells 311, 323, 326, 396, 411, 412, and 417, the combined total acreage range of these Cells targeted for PCL 23 is approximately 256 to 352 acres. To date, approximately 283.7 acres has been acquired for conservation in Cells 396, 411, 412, and 417. Although the Project site is not associated with Cells 479 and 480, lands have also been conserved in these Cells to support the assembly of PCL 23. Including Cells 479 and 480 in this analysis, the MSHCP range goals for conservation are 376 to 504 acres, with approximately 437.35 acres conserved to date. The project proposes
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
10 of 21
to conserve an additional 54.76 64.2 acres contributing to PCL 23 for a total of 492.11 approximately 501.5 acres for the portion of PCL 23 from I-10 to San Timoteo Creek, which is nearly at the high-end goal range targeted by the MSHCP (see summary table below).
Summary of Proposed Conservation for PCL-23
Criteria Cell
Existing
Conservation
for PCL-23
(Acres)
Proposed
Conservation
for PCL-23
(Acres)
Total
Conservation
for PCL-23
(Acres)
MSHCP
Goal Range
for PCL-23
(Acres)
311 0 0 0 8 – 24
323 0 0 0 8 – 24
326 0 1.96 3.07 1.96 3.07 8
396 137.01 3.37 5.14 140.38 142.15 88 – 104
411 17.50 10.83 11.61 28.33 29.11 48 – 64
412 73.80 23.18 26.32 96.98 100.12 56 – 72
417 55.40 15.42 18.04 70.82 73.44 40 – 56
479 77.80 N/A 77.80 88 - 104
480 75.84 N/A 75.84 32 - 48
Total 437.35 54.76 64.2 492.11
501.52
376 - 504
There are 10.3 acres of additional lands that are proposed for MSHCP conservation that were proposed for development by the previous JPR (Exhibit F). These 10.3 acres of new conservation are generally located along the edges of conservation associated with Garden Air Wash (PCL-23), Criteria Cells 326, 396, 411, 412, and 417, and facilitate its use as movement and live-in habitat for MSHCP Covered Species.
Additionally, the previous JPR proposed 0.8 acre of conservation within Cell 411, that is now designated as new permanent development associated with Roberts Road and is situated along development for this planned roadway. The replacement of this 0.8 acres of previous JPR MSHCP conservation with additional proposed MSHCP land provides a net gain of 9.5 acres that contributes to PCL-23, does not change the functionality of the linkage and provides an equivalent or superior configuration.
Therefore, the proposed project would not impede the conservation goals for Proposed Constrained Linkage 23 nor result in fragmentation issues along this linkage. The proposed project is consistent with the Reserve Assembly goals of the MSHCP.
Other Plan Requirements
Data:
Section 6.1.2 – Was Riparian/Riverine/Vernal Pool Mapping or Information Provided? Yes. There are riparian/riverine areas on the project site. No vernal pools or other suitable fairy shrimp habitat occur on the project site. Habitat present on the proposed project site is not suitable for riparian birds.
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
11 of 21
Section 6.1.3 – Was Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Information Provided? Yes. The majority of the project site is located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area #8 (NEPSSA) for Marvin’s onion (Allium marvinii) and many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis).
Section 6.3.2 – Was Additional Survey Information Provided? Yes. The portion of the project site is located within a Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area #6 (CAPSSA) for Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii), smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), and round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla). The site is also located in an Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Area for burrowing owl.
Section 6.1.4 – Was Information Pertaining to Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines Provided? Yes. The property is located adjacent to existing Conservation areas and areas described for future Conservation.
Other Plan Requirement Comments:
a. Section 6.1.2: The following discusses each requirement under this policy.
Riparian/Riverine. A jurisdictional waters delineation was conducted on the project site in 2022 by Dudek. in 2014. According to the GLA. The proposed project will permanently impact (i.e. culvert lengthening and fuel modification) a total of 0.89 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine resources (0.89 acre on site and less than
0.01 acre off site). Additionally, the proposed project will temporarily impact 0.12 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine resources on site. In the areas subject to the JPR amendment, there are 0.31 acre of new impacts; of which within Criteria Cells there are 0.01 acre of permanent impacts (drainages NWW-5B, NWW-8C, and NWW-8F; Analysis, Figure 7 Series) and 0.12 acre of temporary impacts to MSHCP riparian/riverine resources. Outside of Criteria Cells permanent impacts total 0.19 (drainages NWW-5A and NWW-5B; Analysis, Figure 7 Series) and less than 0.01 temporary impacts. 0.62 acre of riparian/riverine areas on site, including 0.09 acre of riparian habitat and 0.53 acre of unvegetated riverine areas. In addition, off-site road improvements associated with the project will permanently impact another 0.43 acre of riparian/riverine areas, including 0.39 acre of riparian habitat and 0.04 acre of unvegetated riverine areas.
Combining both on-site and off-site impacts, the proposed project will result in permanent, unavoidable impacts to a total of 1.05 acres of riparian/riverine areas, including 0.48 acre of riparian areas and 0.57 acre of unvegetated riverine areas. In addition to the permanent impacts, the project will result in temporary impacts to less than 0.01 acre of riparian/riverine areas, none of which supports riparian habitat.
The impacts to riparian and unvegetated riverine areas are divided amongst several areas of the site (Refer to BTR, Exhibits 9A-C Analysis, Figure 7 Series), with the majority occurring on-site within the
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
12 of 21
development footprint. associated with bridge crossings and other road improvements (both on-site and off-site). According to the Analysis, the majority of the avoidance is associated with Drainage Complex 1 NWW-5, NWW-5A, and NWW-5B which is a direct tributary to San Timoteo Creek, and Drainage Complex 2 NWW-8 which is a tributary to the Garden Air Wash. Impacts to these drainage complexes consist primarily of bridge crossings designed to minimize impacts to the drainage features. Internal road crossings of the avoided drainage features will be achieved with five span bridges. The project includes construction of one clear-span bridge across the tributary to San Timoteo Creek designed to avoid MSHCP riparian/riverine resources. As a result, the overall functions of these drainage complexes will be preserved as it pertains to habitat avoidance and hydrologic conveyance to downstream resources. The majority of the impacts to unvegetated riverine areas (0.219 acres) are associated with Drainage Complex 3 (0.019 acre) and Drainage Complex 4 (0.20 acre). There are no riparian impacts associated with Drainage Complex 3 or 4. These complexes drain to the north (Complex 3) and west (Complex 4) before ultimately joining San Timoteo Creek. Impacts are a result of the development footprint, fuel modification activities, or culvert lengthening from road widening activities. According to GLA Dudek, the proposed project has been designed to include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to maintain the hydrology leaving the site such that flows will not be adversely affected. The project will use on-site detention basins to reduce peak storm water flow rates to levels that are less than or equal to existing condition peak flow rates prior to their discharge to areas located downstream of the proposed project. Each basin would include erosion control features at the basin outlet (e.g., engineered riprap) to diffuse the flows prior to contacting natural soils downstream, thereby reducing the potential for erosion or scour. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the MSHCP riparian/riverine resources downstream of the proposed detention basins. The basins also ensure flows reaching the tributaries downstream of the site have been cleaned and replicate natural conditions. BMPs will also be implemented during construction to minimize erosion and to control the conveyance of sediment and pollutants to downstream receiving waters. The project is avoiding and preserving4.816.2 acres of riparian/riverine on site as well as maintaining a minimum 500-foot setback buffer from Garden Air Wash. However, given that the project is not avoiding all of the riparian/riverine areas, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is required (Refer to BTR, Section 8.0). According to GLA the DBESP permanent impacts to 0.89-acre riparian/riverine areas will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio and include a minimum of a 1:1 ratio of establishment or re-establishment and a 1:1 ratio of rehabilitation (refer to RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MITIGATION MEASURE below for details) through purchase of credits from the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) or other approved. Further details regarding on-site mitigation can be found in the DBESP.
Temporary impacts to 0.12 acre of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian/riverine resources shall be restored in place (i.e., at a 1:1 ratio; refer to RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MITIGATION MEASURE below for details).
All proposed temporary impacts to MSHCP riparian/riverine resources will be included in the Avoidance Area once restoration is complete. Following completion of the restoration program for temporary
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
13 of 21
impacts, the restored areas shall be protected via a deed restriction (refer to RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AVOIDANCE MEASURE below for details).
Indirect impacts will be addressed with the implementation of Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines per Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP and implementation of Appendix C of the MSHCP, both of which are described below.
RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MITIGATION MEASURE. Permanent impacts to 0.89 acre of riparian/riverine resources will be mitigated on site at a 2:1 combined mitigation ratio (1:1 reestablishment and 1:1 rehabilitation) within NWW-5B (Criteria Cell 311). A HMMP and LTMP will be drafted and reviewed and approved by the RCA, CDFW, and USFWS as well as any applicable water-regulating entities (e.g., Regional Water Quality Control Board) in accordance with the received permits. Following successful completion (as confirmed by the above entities) of the restoration program (HMMP), the restored areas shall be protected via a conservation easement that includes an endowment to fund a qualified long-term manager approved by RCA, CDFW, and USFWS. If on-site mitigation of 1.8 acres is not viable, permanent impacts will be offset by the purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank (e.g., Riverpark Mitigation Bank) at a 2:1 ratio, including establishment or re-establishment credits at 1:1 ratio, and rehabilitation credits at 1:1 ratio. Temporary impacts to 0.12 acre will be restored in place at a 1:1 ratio and will be addressed in a HMMP. All temporary impacts will occur in long-term avoidance areas and as such must be placed into a Deed Restriction.
RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AVOIDANCE MEASURE. All Section 6.1.2 resources proposed for avoidance and are not serving as mitigation must be placed in a protective mechanism (i.e., Deed Restriction). If the 1.8-acre on-site establishment and rehabilitation mitigation described in RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MITIGATION MEASURE described above is not viable, the 1.8 acres must be returned to pre-project condition and placed under a protective mechanism (i.e., Deed Restriction).
Vernal Pool/Fairy Shrimp. The project site was surveyed for the presence of vernal pools, and in general seasonal pools with the potential to support listed fairy shrimp. The site was surveyed numerous times by GLA beginning in the latter part of late winter into the spring 2014. According to the GLA and Dudek’s Analysis, vernal pools were determined to be absent based on the lack of depression wetlands, including natural depressions lacking a combination of wetland hydrology, soils, and vegetation. For fairy shrimp habitat assessments, the site was assessed for all seasonal pools, including artificially created features such as road ruts, and none were observed with the potential to support the Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) or vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). The project is not located in the area that Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae) occurs.
Riparian Birds. The proposed project will impact approximately 0.48 0.05 acre of riparian habitat divided between several different areas, including 0.09 acre on site and 0.39 acre from off-site improvements. All
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
14 of 21
of the riparian impacts are associated with road improvements. including an on-site proposed bridge crossing and off-site road improvements. According to Dudek, this riparian habitat is lacking the species composition and habitat structure (i.e., not suitable) to support MSHCP riparian bird species, including least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). According to GLA, at these locations, the vegetation does not provide suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo (LBV) due to a combination of factors, including the small amount of riparian vegetation at each location, the lack of appropriate vegetative structure to support LBV (including appropriate vertical structure), and the isolation/lack of connectivity from larger areas of suitable habitat. Riparian impacts largely include sparse mulefat and/or oaks, cottonwoods, and other trees that lack the appropriate density or necessary understory structure to support LBV. Furthermore, per GLA, the riparian areas to be impacted do not provide the appropriate thicket density, width, plant species makeup, hydrology and/or overall size to support breeding southwestern willow flycatcher or western yellow-billed cuckoo.
Based on the information provided by GLA and Dudek, the project demonstrates compliance with Section
6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
b. Section 6.1.3: NEPSSA Plants. The eastern third of the project site is located within a NEPSSA for the following target species: Yucaipa onion (Allium marvinii) and many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), both of which are associated with clay soils. The soils at the site are generally characterized as sandy loam soils without any clay soil series mapped for the site (Refer to BTR, Exhibit 8). Dudek conducted focused special-status plant surveys in April 2022, May 2022, and May 2023 and the target species were not detected within the project site. According to GLA, neither species is expected to occur within the overlapping NEPSSA due to a lack of suitable soils. Nonetheless, GLA biologists performed focused plant surveys on April 18 and May 28, 2014, and the target NEPSSA species were not detected on site. For many-stemmed dudleya, reference populations were confirmed elsewhere in Western Riverside County around the same time that focused surveys were conducted at the project site, specifically, GLA biologists detected many-stemmed dudleya at the Corona 720 property located in Riverside County at multiple times in April and May 2014. There are no viable reference populations of the Yucaipa onion. Based on the information provided by GLA and Dudek, the project demonstrates compliance with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.
c. Section 6.3.2. Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The following described Additional Survey Needs and Procedures applicable to the proposed project:
CASSA Plants: A small portion of the project site is located within a CAPSSA for the following target species: Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii), smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), and round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla). Dudek conducted focused special-status plant surveys in April 2022, May 2022, and May 2023 and the target species were not detected within the project site. As with the NEPSSA surveys, focused CAPSSA surveys were also conducted on April 18 and May 28, 2014 by GLA. According to GLA, the three target species were not detected on site. Nevin’s barberry is a
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
15 of 21
perennial, evergreen shrub, and was considered absent from the site. Smooth tarplant and round-leaved filaree are not expected to occur in the CAPSSA on the project site due to a lack of suitable soils. Smooth tarplant is associated with alkaline soils and round-leaved filaree is associated with clay soils, neither of which is represented at the site. Furthermore, according to GLA, smooth tarplant was known to be present and flowering in many areas of Western Riverside County around the same time as the surveys were conducted at the site.
The project is located within the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Area for burrowing owl.
Surveys were conducted in accordance with survey guidelines described in the 2006 MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions. A Step I burrowing owl habitat assessment, a Step II-A focused burrow survey, and Step II-B focused burrowing owl surveys were completed to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owl within the project site. As part of the original project, GLA conducted The focused burrow surveys was conducted on May 19, 2014. Subsequent focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted on May 28, and June 5, 13, and 20, 2014. Surveys were conducted by Dudek from April to July 2022 for the on-site portion of the JPR amendment area and from April to July 2023 for the off-site portion of the JPR amendment area. All surveys were conducted at the appropriate times of day and during the appropriate weather conditions. Surveys were conducted by walking meandering transects throughout areas of suitable habitat, including suitable burrows identified during the focused burrow survey. Transects were spaced between 7m and 20m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density, in order to provide adequate visual coverage of the survey areas. At the start of each transect, and at least every 100 m along transects, the survey area was scanned for burrowing owls using binoculars. All suitable burrows were mapped and inspected for diagnostic owl sign (e.g., pellets, prey remains, whitewash, feathers, bones, and/or decoration) in order to identify potentially occupied burrows. According to the GLA BTR and the Dudek survey results, no burrowing owls were detected on the project site. A pre-construction presence/absence burrowing owl survey within 30 days prior to site disturbance is required. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of construction, the project proponent should immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies and the Western Riverside Regional Conservation Association (RCA) and would need to coordinate further with RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance.
BURROWING OWL MEASURE. Due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat, a 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owls is required prior to initial ground-disturbing activities (including vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding the ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately inform the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the Wildlife Agencies and will need to coordinate further with RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey will
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
16 of 21
again be necessary to ensure burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owl is found, the same coordination described above will be necessary.
Based on the information provided by GLA and Dudek, the project demonstrates consistency with Section
6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
d. Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines: According to the GLA BTR, none of the riverine areas to be impacted by the project are part of an identified MSHCP Linkage area. Although the project will avoid a large on-site drainage system (Drainage Complex 1) that is tributary to San Timoteo Creek (Proposed Linkage 12) and a smaller portion of the project associated with PCL 23 containing the Garden Air Wash the project is adjacent to extensive areas of existing and described conservation lands As such, the adjacent existing and described conservation areas would be subjected to edge effects by the project.
Future and existing MSHCP Conservation Areas are adjacent to the project site. Additionally, the project proposes conservation that will contribute to these MSHCP Conservation Areas. To preserve the integrity of both existing and future MSHCP Conservation Areas the following guidelines in Section 6.1.4 would apply to the project and shall be implemented accordingly. Specifically, the Permittee should include as project conditions of approval the following measures:
SECTION 6.1.4 MEASURE
i. Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into MSHCP Conservation Areas. Any water quality or other drainage discharges must be reviewed by RCA prior to conveyance into the MSHCP Conservation Area. This condition is applicable to areas either already dedicated to conservation or those described for conservation.
ii. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, Habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff.
iii. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased.
Night lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species from direct night lighting. Post-project ambient light levels within the MSHCP Conservation Area shall not exceed that of pre-project conditions as a result of light spill from the project site. A responsible party, such as a Homeowners Association or other legally recognized entity, will be assigned prior to occupancy and will be responsible for maintaining the lighting in perpetuity. Any lighting issues adjacent to RCAPage 614 of 1216 RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
17 of 21
owned MSHCP conservation lands will be addressed within 30 days of receiving input from the RCA Land Management team.
iv. Proposed noise-generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. v. Consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP in approving landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features.
INVASIVE SPECIES MEASURE. For the duration of construction, if areas are left bare and not under active ground disturbance for a period of 30 days or greater, these areas will be inspected by a qualified biologist for growth of stinknet (Oncosiphon pilulifer). If detected, this species shall be removed by a qualified landscape contractor with experience in native ecosystems by mechanical means (e.g., mowing, string trimming) or via application of herbicide by a California licensed applicator within 5 days of detection. These removal efforts will focus on removal prior to seed setting/development. All material from these species will be bagged, removed, and disposed of off-site.
vi. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate, in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into the MSHCP Conservation Areas. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms.
Fencing/Walls shall be designed to prevent access to the MSHCP Conservation Area by unauthorized public access, domestic animals, and illegal trespass or dumping. This shall include, at a minimum, barriers with a minimum height of 6 feet with no greater than 2-inch openings (i.e., tubular steel fencing with tines set on 2-inch centers, block wall, chain link fence or other barrier impermeable to domestic animals and wildlife) and shall include a metallic or masonry component (i.e. concrete footing or wire mesh cloth) buried to a minimum depth of 12 inches below ground surface level to prevent domestic animals from gaining access to the MSHCP Conservation Area by digging under. This fencing shall be installed at the interface with the MSHCP Conservation Area, as well as other portions of the project where access to the MSHCP Conservation Area could be achieved. A responsible party, such as a Homeowners Association or other legally recognized entity, will be assigned prior to occupancy and will be responsible for maintaining the fencing in perpetuity. Any fencing issues adjacent to RCA-owned MSHCP conservation lands will be fixed within 30 days of receiving input from the RCA Land Management team.
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
18 of 21
vii. Manufactured slopes associated with the proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.
viii. Weed abatement and fuel modification activities are not permitted in the Conservation Area.
According to GLA the proposed project has been designed so that no additional take of potentially conserved habitat will be necessary for fuel modification purposes. e. Appendix C. The following best management practices (BMPs), as applicable, shall be implemented for the duration of construction:
APPENDIX C MEASURE.
i. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished.
ii. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements.
iii. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. iv. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work.
v. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern.
vi. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian species identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7.
vii. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments off site. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
19 of 21
when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream.
viii. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat.
Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, FWS, and CDFG [CDFW], RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.
ix. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. x. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint. xi. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species.
xii. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible.
xiii. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).
xiv. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas.
xv. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including these BMPs.
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
20 of 21
WW/CT/TC
RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07-01-08-01
Date: AMENDED 07/11/25 9/8/16
21 of 21
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Rough Step 2
EL CASCO
LAKE
EL CASCO
LAKE
CALIMESA BLVD
SINGLETON RD
CALIMESA BLVD
LIVE OAK CANYON RD
ROBERTS RD
WOODHOUSE RD
City of Calimesa
233 225
300 301 302
311 323 326
388 387 383 384 396 410 407 412 417 411
474 475 476 477 478 479 480
565 570 571 568 566 567 569 572
§¨¦10
Cell Group E
Cell Group F
Cell Group G
Cell Group T
Cell Group U
Maxar
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2024; County of Riverside 2024; Esri Basemap 2024. Map created on 3/6/2025.
I
Amended JPR Log No. 07-01-08-01- Regional 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
r14560
Permittee: City of Calimesa
Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2
G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2007\JPR07010801_Revised\JPR07010801_FindingsExhibits.aprx Orange
County
San Diego
County
San Bernardino County
Eastern
Riverside
County
Western
Riverside
County
Amended JPR Proposed Project Boundary
Proposed Development
Proposed Public Project
Proposed MSHCP Conservation
Avoidance Area
MSHCP Conserved ARL (Land)
MSHCP Conserved Public/Quasi-Public Land
MSHCP Covered Road
Rough Step Unit
Cell Group
Criteria Cell
City Boundary
Water Body
Highway
Centerline
EXHIBIT A
!!! !!! !
!!! !!
!! ! !! !
!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!"#$10
!"#$10
!"#$15
!"#$15
!"#$15
!"#$15
!"#$15
!"#$215
!"#$215
!"#$215
·|þ}111
·2|þ}43
·2|þ}43
·2|þ}47
·3|þ}71
·|þ}60
·|þ}60
·|þ}60
·|þ}71
·|þ}74
·|þ}74
·|þ}74
·|þ}74 ·|þ}74
·|þ}74
·|þ}79
·|þ}79
·|þ}79
·|þ}91
·|þ}91
16 20
3 21
6 5
8 1
15 6
6 20
18 1
14 8
4 5
2 1
17 9
7 1
2 1
22 10
15 11
14 4
11 1
17 13
11 24
19 18
14 7
7 16
9 12
10 12
3 4 23
13 8
D
D
K
B
E
B
E
A
L
A M
I
A
A B
A
K
C
F
A
G L
H
D
J
B
K
C
B
B
C
1 2 3
4 3
5 4
7 1
2 6
1 2
4 7
6 5
3 5
6 7
7 Amended JPR Log No. 07-01-08-01 - Vicinity Map with MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRC-RCA). Map created on 3/6/2025 r14560
Permittee: City of Calimesa
Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2
G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2007\JPR07010801_Revised\JPR07010801_FindingsExhibits.aprx !(
^
JPR Log No. 07-01-08-01
Proposed Linkages
Constrained Linkage
Linkage
!!!
!!!
Existing Channel
Existing Cores & Linkages
Constrained Linkage
Core
Linkage
Noncontiguous Habitat Block
Proposed Cores & Habitat Blocks
Core
Proposed Extension of Existing Cores
Noncontiguous Habitat Block
I
0 2 4
Miles
EXHIBIT B
ROUGHSTEP 2 SANDALWOOD DR
CALIMESA BLVD
CALIMESA BLVD
225
302
311
323
326
383 384
396
412 417 411
476 477 478 479 480
§¨¦10
Amended JPR Log No. 07-01-08-01- MSHCP 1994 Baseline Vegetation SOURCE: WRC-RCA MSHCP Baseline Vegetation (1994). Map created on 3/6/2025.
I
0 500 1,000
Feet
r14560
Permittee: City of Calimesa
Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2
G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2007\JPR07010801_Revised\JPR07010801_FindingsExhibits.aprx
EXHIBIT C
*Vegetation type that occur within the JPR Proposed Project Boundary Amended JPR Proposed Project Boundary
Area Not Within Criteria Cell
Vegetation Types
Agricultural Land
Chaparral*
Coastal Sage Scrub*
Developed or Disturbed Land*
Grassland*
Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest*
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
Woodland and Forest*
Rough Step Unit
Criteria Cell
Highway
Centerline
§¨¦10
SANDALWOOD DR
COUNTY LINE RD
AVENUE L
MYRTLEWOOD DR
5TH ST
CALIMESA BLVD
AVENUE B
CALIMESA BLVD
H
O
L
LY
LN
7 T
H
P
L
AVENUE K
CROW ST
PARK AVE
7TH ST
SHADY
BROOK
RD
ERWIN ST
EL CASCO
RD
THOMPSON AVE
C
H
E
R
RY
LN
BURNS AVE
MESA RD
WOODHOUSE RD
225
302
311
323
326
383 384
396
412 417 411
476 477 478 479 480
I Amended JPR Log No. 07-01-08-01- Soil
0 500 1,000
Feet
r14560
Permittee: City of Calimesa
Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2024; County of Riverside 2024; USDA/NRCS Soils 2022 G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2007\JPR07010801_Revised\JPR07010801_FindingsExhibits.aprx
EXHIBIT D
*Soil type that occur within the JPR Proposed Project Boundary Amended JPR Proposed Project Boundary
Area Not Within Criteria Cell
Soil Types
Badland*
Buren loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded*
Chino silt loam, drained
Gorgonio gravelly loamy fine sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes* Greenfield sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded* Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded*
Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes*
Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded* Metz gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes
Metz loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 15 percent slopes*
Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes*
Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes*
Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, severely eroded* Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded*
Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, severely eroded Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded*
Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Ramona sandy loam, moderately deep, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded* Ramona sandy loam, moderately deep, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded* Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded* Ramona very fine sandy loam, moderately deep, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded* Riverwash
San Emigdio fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded* San Emigdio fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded* San Emigdio loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
San Emigdio loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded*
San Timoteo loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes, eroded*
San Timoteo loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, eroded*
Saugus sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes*
Terrace escarpments*
Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes*
Criteria Cell
Highway
Centerline
City of
Calimesa SANDALWOOD DR
COUNTY LINE RD
AVENUE L
MYRTLEWOOD DR 5TH ST
CALIMESA BLVD
CALIMESA BLVD
H
O
LLY
LN
7TH PL
AVENUE K
CROWS
T
PARK AVE
7TH ST
SHADY
BROOK
RD
THOMPSON AVE
C
H
E
RRY
LN
BURNS AVE
MESA
R D
WOODHOUSE RD
225
302
311
323
326
383 384
396
412 417 411
476
477 478 479 480
§¨¦10
Maxar
Amended JPR Log No. 07-01-08-01- Project Detail
G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2007\JPR07010801_Revised\JPR07010801_FindingsExhibits.aprx I 0 500 1,000
Feet
r14560
Permittee: City of Calimesa
Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2024; County of Riverside 2024; Esri Basemap 2024. Map created on 3/10/2025.
Amended JPR Proposed Project Boundary
Area Not Within Criteria Cell
Proposed MSHCP Conservation
Avoidance Area
Development Impact
Off-Site Permanent
Off-Site Temporary
On-Site Temporary
On-Site Permanent
MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Mitigation Establishment
MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Mitigation Rehabilitation
MSHCP Conserved ARL (Land)
MSHCP Conserved Public/Quasi-Public Land
MSHCP Covered Road
Cell Group
Criteria Cell
Parcel Boundary
Centerline
EXHIBIT E
City of
Calimesa
SANDALWOOD DR
AVENUE L
MYRTLEWOOD DR 5TH ST
CALIMESA BLVD
COUNTY LINE RD
CALIMESA BLVD
H
O
LLY
LN
7TH PL
AVENUE K
CROWS
T
PARK AVE
7TH ST
SHADY
BROOK
RD
THOMPSON AVE
C
H
E
RRY
LN
BURNS AVE
MESA
R D
WOODHOUSE RD
225
302
311
323
326
383 384
396
412 417 411
476
477 478 479 480
§¨¦10
Maxar
Amended JPR Log No. 07-01-08-01- Amendment Detail Index G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2007\JPR07010801_Revised\JPR07010801_FindingsExhibits.aprx I 0 500 1,000
Feet
r14560
Permittee: City of Calimesa
Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2024; County of Riverside 2024; Esri Basemap 2024. Map created on 3/10/2025.
Amended JPR Proposed Project Boundary
Area Not Within Criteria Cell
Development (No Change)
Change from Avoidance to New Development (Permanent Impact) New Addition - Temporary Impact
Proposed Conservation (No Change)
Change from Development to New Conservation
New Proposed Conservation (Temporarily Impacted)
Previous JPR Conservation (New Temporary Impact)
Avoidance (No Change)
Change from Development to Avoidance (New, Deed Restriction) Change from Development to New Avoidance (Temporarily Impacted, Deed Restriction) Change from Avoidance to Avoidance Temporary Impact (Deed Restriction) Change from Avoidance to New MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Mitigation Establishment Change from Avoidance/Development to New MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Mitigation Rehabilitation MSHCP Conserved ARL (Land)
MSHCP Conserved Public/Quasi-Public Land
MSHCP Covered Road
Cell Group
Criteria Cell
Centerline
EXHIBIT F
City of
Calimesa
COUNTY LINE RD
225
302
311
383
384
396
Maxar
412
Amended JPR Log No. 07-01-08-01- Amendment Detail (Sheet 1 of 2) G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2007\JPR07010801_Revised\JPR07010801_FindingsExhibits.aprx I 0 500 1,000
Feet
r14560
Permittee: City of Calimesa
Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2024; County of Riverside 2024; Esri Basemap 2024. Map created on 3/10/2025.
Amended JPR Proposed Project Boundary
Area Not Within Criteria Cell
Development (No Change)
Change from Avoidance to New Development (Permanent Impact) New Addition - Temporary Impact
Proposed Conservation (No Change)
Change from Development to New Conservation
New Proposed Conservation (Temporarily Impacted)
Previous JPR Conservation (New Temporary Impact)
Avoidance (No Change)
Change from Development to Avoidance (New, Deed Restriction) Change from Development to New Avoidance (Temporarily Impacted, Deed Restriction) Change from Avoidance to Avoidance Temporary Impact (Deed Restriction) Change from Avoidance to New MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Mitigation Establishment Change from Avoidance/Development to New MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Mitigation Rehabilitation MSHCP Conserved ARL (Land)
MSHCP Conserved Public/Quasi-Public Land
MSHCP Covered Road
Cell Group
Criteria Cell
Centerline
EXHIBIT F
County of San Bernardino,
Maxar
City of
Calimesa
SANDALWOOD DR
AVENUE L
MYRTLEWOOD DR 5TH ST
COUNTY LINE RD
AVENUE B
CALIMESA
BLVD
7 T
H
P
L
AVENUE K
CROW ST
PARK AVE
7TH ST
SHADY
BROOK
RD
ERWIN ST
C
H
E
RRY
LN
BURNS AVE
311
323
326
396
411
412
417
§¨¦10
Maxar
Amended JPR Log No. 07-01-08-01- Amendment Detail (Sheet 2 of 2) G:\RCA\JOINT_PROJECT_REVIEW\JPR_FILES_2007\JPR07010801_Revised\JPR07010801_FindingsExhibits.aprx I 0 500 1,000
Feet
r14560
Permittee: City of Calimesa
Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2024; County of Riverside 2024; Esri Basemap 2024. Map created on 3/10/2025.
Amended JPR Proposed Project Boundary
Area Not Within Criteria Cell
Development (No Change)
Change from Avoidance to New Development (Permanent Impact) New Addition - Temporary Impact
Proposed Conservation (No Change)
Change from Development to New Conservation
New Proposed Conservation (Temporarily Impacted)
Previous JPR Conservation (New Temporary Impact)
Avoidance (No Change)
Change from Development to Avoidance (New, Deed Restriction) Change from Development to New Avoidance (Temporarily Impacted, Deed Restriction) Change from Avoidance to Avoidance Temporary Impact (Deed Restriction) Change from Avoidance to New MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Mitigation Establishment Change from Avoidance/Development to New MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Mitigation Rehabilitation MSHCP Conserved ARL (Land)
MSHCP Conserved Public/Quasi-Public Land
MSHCP Covered Road
Criteria Cell
Centerline
EXHIBIT F
County of San Bernardino,
Maxar
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CALIMESA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT (GPA) 23-01, AMENDING THE LAND USE,
TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY AND OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND
RECREATION, FAULT ZONES, AND EVACUATION ROUTE FIGURES
OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA GENERAL PLAN ON 1,436.1 GROSS
ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST
PORTION OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA, WEST OF INTERSTATE 10 (I10) (APNs: 411-210-010, 411-210-028, 413-030-025, 413-040-013, 413- 040-017, 413-040-018, 413-040-020, 413-040-023, 413-160-011, 413-200- 003, 413-200-040, 413-200-042, 413-200-044 and 413-200-048) The Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa hereby finds and determines that:
WHEREAS, Mesa Verde Owners, LLC (the “Applicant”), submitted an application to the City of Calimesa (“City”), General Plan Amendment No. 23-01 (“GPA 23-01”) for approval of amendments to the Land Use, Transportation and Mobility and Open Space, Parks and Recreation Elements of the Calimesa General Plan for consistency with amendments made to the Mesa Verde Specific Plan under Specific Plan Amendment No. 23-01 on 1,436.1-gross acres of real property located in the northwest portion of the City of Calimesa, west of Interstate 10 (I10) on Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNS): 411-210-010, 411-210-028, 413-030-025, 413-040- 013, 413-040-017, 413-040-018, 413-040-020, 413-040-023, 413-160-011, 413-200-003, 413- 200-040, 413-200-042, 413-200-044 and 413-200-048; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has also requested approval of the following applications approvals, which along with GPA-23-1 are referred to collectively herein as the “Project”:
(1) Environmental Assessment 23-02 (“EA” 23-02), certifying a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Project (SCH# 2004071045), and Environmental Assessment 25-3 (“EA 25- 3, approving a Consistency Checklist for the Mesa Verde implementing projects); and (2) SPA 23-01 would replace the previously approved 2017 Specific Plan for the 1,463.1-acre property to provide for the orderly development of a property through compliance with site-specific development standards that are consistent with the intent and policies of the amended General Plan. ZC 23-01 proposes to modify the City’s official zoning map as it applies to the 1,436.1-acre project site including redistribution and development standards of the Residential, Mixed-Use, Public/Quasi-Public Facilities, Open Space, Elementary School, and Calimesa Public works zone districts and creation of a new Commercial zone and Business Park zone; and provision of updated development standards accordingly; and (3) DA 25-4 proposes an agreement between the City and the Applicant that specifies the respective development and financial obligations of both parties; and
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-21
GPA 23-01
(4) DPR 24-06 and CUP 24-05 for Planning Area 2/Building 2 – Design review and conditional use permit for a proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 717,230 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 53.91-gross acres within Planning Area 2 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017, 411-210- 028, 413-200-040, 413-200-044 and 413-160-011); and
(5) DPR 24-07 and CUP 24-06 for Planning Area 4/Building 4 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately an approximately 702,120 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 37.68-gross acres within Planning Area 4 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017 and 413- 160-011); and
(6) DPR 24-08 and CUP 24-07 Planning Area 5/Building 5 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 700,150 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 34.49-gross acres within Planning Area 5 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017 and 413-160-011); and (7) DPR 24-09 and CUP 24-08 for Planning Area 6/Building 6 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 717,600 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 37.46-gross acres within Planning Area 6 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017 and 413-160-011); and (8) DPR 24-10 and CUP 24-09 for Planning Area 7/Building 7 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 614,300 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 32.06-gross acres within Planning Area 7 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-160-011 and 413-040-020); and (9) DPR 24-11 and CUP 24-10 for Planning Area 8/Building 8 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 654,400 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 27.31-gross acres within the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-020 and 413-040-018); and (10) TTM 33931 Rev 2 provides for the subdivision of property 1436-acres into 114 lots and public streets, including easements for utilities and ingress/egress, for finance and conveyance purposes; and
(11) TTM 39086 is a proposed tract map to subdivide approximately 17.1 acres into 112 single-family lots with a density of 6.5 DUs/ac within Planning Area 13 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(12) TTM 39087 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 19.5 acres into 76 single-family lots with a density of 3.9 DUs/ac within Planning Area 14 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(13) TTM 39088 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 16.6 acres into 84 single-family lots with a density of 5.0 DUs/ac within Planning Area 15 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-21
GPA 23-01
(14) TTM 39089 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 15.9 acres into 84 single-family lots with a density of 5.3 DUs/ac within Planning Area 16 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(15) TTM 39090 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 10.7 acres into 60 single-family lots with a density of 5.6 DUs/ac within Planning Area 18 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(16) TTM 39091 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 21.4 acres into 133 single-family lots with a density of 6.2 DUs/ac within Planning Area 19 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, GPA 23-01 amends the General Plan to (1) change Figure LU-1, Land Use Map, to reflect the new land use designation changes; (2) change Figure TM-1, Circulation Map, to reflect the new roadway configuration and categorization changes; (3) change Figure OSPR1, Existing Public Parks and Open Space Areas, to reflect the new public parks; (4) change Figure OSPR-2, Trails Master Plan, to reflect the new trails system; (5) change Figure SAF-1, Fault Zones, to indicate that the fault depicted within the Mesa Verde Specific Plan area has been determined to be inactive pursuant to geotechnical studies performed on-site, (6) change Figure SAF-7, Evacuation Routes, to show evacuation routes from the Mesa Verde Specific Plan area along County Line Road, Sandalwood Drive and Roberts Road and (7) update references to the “Mesa Verde Estates” Specific Plan to reflect “Mesa Verde” (the Specific Plan Amendment), which are collectively set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to EA 23-02, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) and EA 25-3, Consistency Checklist, have been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and as set forth in Resolution No. 2026-18 recommending approval of EA 23-02 and EA 25-3, the SEIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project in compliance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Calimesa Planning Department on June 26, 2026 caused to be published a legal notice in the Yucaipa News Mirror, a local paper of general circulation, indicating the date, time and location of the public hearing on the proposed Project, and WHEREAS, not less than 20 days prior to the public hearing, the City also distributed copies of the Public Hearing Notice to servicing utilities, adjacent public agencies, Native American Tribes; and in addition, copies of the Notice were distributed via United States Postal Service (USPS) to local agencies, property owners within a 600-foot radius of the Project site in accordance with state law, and other interested parties; and the Public Hearing Notice was also posted on the City’s website, at City Hall, and at the Calimesa library, and five 6’x6’ public hearing signs were posted at conspicuous locations on the property; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for the Project and following the receipt of all testimony, closed the public hearing; and
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-21
GPA 23-01
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa finds, determines and declares as follows:
Section 1. The Planning Commission finds that the recitals contained in this Resolution and the General Plan Figures and information contained in the attached Exhibit A are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Planning Commission considered the Mesa Verde Specific Plan SEIR (SCH# 2004071045), including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, prior to making its decision on the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 23-01), and determined in its independent judgment that the SEIR complies with CEQA and recommended certification thereof, as set forth in Resolution 2026-18.
Section 3. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the proposed GPA 23-01 is consistent with the textual portions of the General Plan, and the proposed amendments are internally consistent with other portions of the General Plan as required by law.
Section 4. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the proposed GPA 23-01 is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, and will not result in any internal inconsistencies with the General Plan or the General Plan Land Use Map.
Section 5. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the proposed GPA 23-01 will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare of the City.
Section 6. Based on the findings contained in Sections 1 through 5 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby further recommends that the City Council approve GPA 23-
01. Section 7. The Planning Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause it be published and recorded in a manner required by law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 10th day of August 2026.
Mike Barron, Chairman
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-21
GPA 23-01
ATTEST:
I, Yaiza Benson, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa, California; that Resolution 2026-21 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the Calimesa Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of August 2026.
Yaiza Benson, Secretary to the Planning Commission
Exhibit A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 23-01)
Revised General Plan Figures
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CALIMESA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DRAFT ORDINANCE
FOR THE “MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2, AMENDMENT 2”
(SPA 23-01) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 23-01) FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
APPROXIMATELY 1,436.1 GROSS ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED ON IN THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE CITY OF
CALIMESA, WEST OF INTERSTATE 10 (I-10) (APNs: 411-210-010, 411- 210-028, 413-030-025, 413-040-013, 413-040-017, 413-040-018, 413-040- 020, 413-040-023, 413-160-011, 413-200-003, 413-200-040, 413-200-042, 413-200-044 and 413-200-048)
The Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa hereby finds and determines that:
WHEREAS, Mesa Verde Owners, LLC (the “Applicant”), submitted a Specific Plan Amendment (“SPA 23-01”) application to the City of Calimesa (“City”), for approval of amendments to the Mesa Verde Specific Plan No. 2, Amendment No. 1 and Zone Change “(ZC 23-01”) 23-01 on 1,436.1-acres for certain real property located on Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNS): 411-210-010, 411-210-028, 413-030-025, 413-040-013, 413-040-017, 413-040-018, 413-040-020, 413-040-023, 413-160-011, 413-200-003, 413-200-040, 413-200-042, 413-200- 044 and 413-200-048 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has also requested approval of the following applications approvals, which along with SPA 23-01 and ZC 23-01 are referred to collectively herein as the “Project”:
(1) Environmental Assessment 23-02 (“EA” 23-02), certifying a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Project (SCH# 2004071045), and Environmental Assessment 25-3 (“EA 25- 3”), approving a Consistency Checklist for the Mesa Verde implementing projects); and (2) GPA 23-01 amends the City’s existing General Plan to (a) modify Figure LU-1, Land Use Map, to reflect the new land use designation changes; (b) modify Figure TM-1, Circulation Map, to reflect the new roadway configuration and categorization changes; (c) modify Figure OSPR-1, Existing Public Parks and Open Space Areas, to reflect the new public parks; (d) modify Figure OSPR-2, Trails Master Plan, to reflect the new trails system; (e) modify Figure SAF-1, Fault Zones to indicate that the fault depicted within the Mesa Verde Specific Plan area has been determined to be inactive pursuant to geotechnical studies performed on-site; (f) modify Figure SAF-7, Evacuation Routes to show evacuation routes from the Mesa Verde Specific Plan area along County Line Road, Sandalwood Drive and Roberts Road and (g) update references to the “Mesa Verde Estates” Specific Plan to reflect the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment; and
(3) DA 25-4 proposes an agreement between the City and the Applicant that specifies the respective development and financial obligations of both parties; and
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-22
SPA 23-01 and ZC 23-01
(4) DPR 24-06 and CUP 24-05 for Planning Area 2/Building 2 – Design review and conditional use permit for a proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 717,230 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 53.91-gross acres within Planning Area 2 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017, 411-210- 028, 413-200-040, 413-200-044 and 413-160-011); and
(5) DPR 24-07 and CUP 24-06 for Planning Area 4/Building 4 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately an approximately 702,120 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 37.68-gross acres within Planning Area 4 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017 and 413- 160-011); and
(6) DPR 24-08 and CUP 24-07 Planning Area 5/Building 5 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 700,150 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 34.49-gross acres within Planning Area 5 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017 and 413-160-011); and (7) DPR 24-09 and CUP 24-08 for Planning Area 6/Building 6 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 717,600 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 37.46-gross acres within Planning Area 6 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017 and 413-160-011); and (8) DPR 24-10 and CUP 24-09 for Planning Area 7/Building 7 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 614,300 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 32.06-gross acres within Planning Area 7 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-160-011 and 413-040-020); and (9) DPR 24-11 and CUP 24-10 for Planning Area 8/Building 8 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 654,400 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 27.31-gross acres within the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-020 and 413-040-018); and (10) TTM 33931 Rev 2 provides for the subdivision of property 1436-acres into 114 lots and public streets, including easements for utilities and ingress/egress, for finance and conveyance purposes; and
(11) TTM 39086 is a proposed tract map to subdivide approximately 17.1 acres into 112 single-family lots with a density of 6.5 DUs/ac within Planning Area 13 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(12) TTM 39087 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 19.5 acres into 76 single-family lots with a density of 3.9 DUs/ac within Planning Area 14 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(13) TTM 39088 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 16.6 acres into 84 single-family lots with a density of 5.0 DUs/ac within Planning Area 15 of the Mesa Verde Specific
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-22
SPA 23-01 and ZC 23-01
Plan; and
(14) TTM 39089 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 15.9 acres into 84 single-family lots with a density of 5.3 DUs/ac within Planning Area 16 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(15) TTM 39090 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 10.7 acres into 60 single-family lots with a density of 5.6 DUs/ac within Planning Area 18 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(16) TTM 39091 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 21.4 acres into 133 single-family lots with a density of 6.2 DUs/ac within Planning Area 19 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, SPA 23-01 includes 1) revised number of lots with residential land use designations 2) elimination of the Very Low Residential land use designation 3) revised acreages for the non-residential land use designations 4) revised roadway classification for Street B (from Street E to Street D) from Collector to Divided Collector 5) revised roadway classification for Street D (from Street A to Street B) from Collector to Divided Collector 6) revised roadway classification for Street F from Divided Collector to Collector 7) revised roadway classification for 7th Street from Modified Collector to Local 8) revised roadway classification for Roberts Road (from North of Sandalwood Drive to 7the Street) from Modified Secondary to Local; and WHEREAS, ZC 23-01 proposes to modify the City’s official zoning map as it applies to the 1,436.1-acre project site including redistribution and development standards of the Residential, Mixed-Use, Public/Quasi-Public Facilities, Open Space, Elementary School, and Calimesa Public works zone districts and creation of a new Commercial zone and Business Park zone; and provision of updated development standards accordingly; and WHEREAS, in October 2007, pursuant to Resolution 2007-59, the City Council of the City of Calimesa certified a program Environmental Impact Report for the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan Amendment (SCH#2004071045) (herein referred to as the “Mesa Verde Estates EIR”), and approved a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and statement of overriding considerations as part thereof, for the Summerwind Ranch Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the Mesa Verde Estates EIR evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan Amendment Plan and related General Plan amendments and zoning code amendments, and determined that the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan Amendment project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in the category of air quality, land use and planning, population and housing, and traffic and circulation; and
WHEREAS, in 2017, pursuant to Resolution 2017-37, the City Council of the City of Calimesa adopted an Addendum to the previously certified 2007 Mesa Verde Estates EIR (SCH#2004071045), for a subsequent amendment to the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-22
SPA 23-01 and ZC 23-01
WHEREAS, pursuant to EA 23-02, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) to the previously certified 2007 Mesa Verde Estates EIR has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, and pursuant to Resolution No. 2026-18, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council certify the SEIR and approve the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and statement of overriding considerations as part thereof, for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2, Amendment No. 2, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the City of Calimesa Planning Department on June 26, 2026 caused to be published a legal notice in the Yucaipa News Mirror, a local paper of general circulation, indicating the date, time and location of the public hearing on the proposed Project in compliance with state law, and
WHEREAS, not less than 20 days prior to the public hearing, the City also distributed copies of the Public Hearing Notice to servicing utilities, adjacent public agencies, Native American Tribes; and in addition, copies of the Notice were distributed via United States Postal Service (USPS) to local agencies, property owners within a 600-foot radius of the Project site in accordance with state law, and other interested parties; and the Public Hearing Notice was also posted on the City’s website, at City Hall, and at the Calimesa library, and five 6’x6’ public hearing signs were posted at conspicuous locations on the property; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2026 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for the Project and following the receipt of all testimony, closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa finds, determines and declares as follows:
Section 1. The Planning Commission finds that the recitals contained in this Resolution and the Specific Plan Amendment in the attached Exhibit A is true and correct, and incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. Pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission considered the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2, Amendment 2 SEIR (SCH# 2004071045), including the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and statement of overriding considerations, prior to making its decision on the proposed SPA 23-01, and ZC 23-01.
Section 3. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the proposed SPA 23-01 and ZC 23-01 will help to provide local job opportunities for residents in Calimesa. Employment, including commercial, office, light industrial and public facility will be within close proximity to existing and future residents of Mesa Verde, and to Calimesa residents as a whole. The non-residential uses provide for an increased opportunity for employment in close proximity to housing and shopping areas in the commercial core and assists in the City’s objectives of proving more job opportunities within the housing rich / jobs deficient City of
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-22
SPA 23-01 and ZC 23-01
Calimesa.
Section 4. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the site is physically suitable for type and density of development because all structures and related improvements can be accommodated on the subject site consistent with the City of Calimesa Development Code.
Section 5. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the proposed SPA 23-01 and ZC 23-01 is in the public interest in that the adoption of the land use regulations contained within the Mesa Verde Specific Plan No. 2, Amendment No. 2 will provide for comprehensive and cohesive land use and development within the project area.
Section 6. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that through the proposed SPA 23-01/ZC 23-01 will protect public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City.
Section 7. Based on the findings contained in Sections 1 through 6 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby further recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance for SPA 23-01/ZC 23-01, a Specific Plan Amendment modifying land use acreages, land use locations, circulation roadway classifications to provide for the orderly development of a property through compliance with site-specific development standards that are consistent with the intent and policies of the General Plan on approximately 1,436.1 gross acres of real property located on in the northwest portion of the City of Calimesa, west of interstate 10 (i-10).
Section 8. The Planning Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause it be published and recorded in a manner required by law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 10th day of August 2026.
Mike Barron, Chairman
ATTEST:
I, Yaiza Benson, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa, California; that Resolution 2026-22 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the Calimesa Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of August 2026.
Yaiza Benson, Secretary to the Planning Commission
Exhibit A
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 23-01/ZONE CHANGE 23-01
MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2, AMENDMENT 2
Electronic Copies available on the City of Calimesa website:
https://www.calimesa.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=456
Exhibit B
Draft Ordinance
Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment 2
12459-0051\3272195v1.doc
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 425
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CALIMESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 23-01 AND
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 23-01 AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP AND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 2017 SPECIFIC
PLAN FOR THE 1,463.1-ACRE PROPERTY TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPERTY THROUGH
COMPLIANCE WITH SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND POLICIES OF THE
GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, Mesa Verde Owners, LLC (the “Applicant”), submitted a Specific Plan Amendment (“SPA 23-01”) application to the City of Calimesa (“City”), for approval of amendments to the Mesa Verde Specific Plan No. 2, Amendment No. 1 and Zone Change “(ZC 23-01”) 23-01 on 1,436.1-acres for certain real property located on Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNS): 411-210-010, 411-210-028, 413-030-025, 413-040- 013, 413-040-017, 413-040-018, 413-040-020, 413-040-023, 413-160-011, 413-200- 003, 413-200-040, 413-200-042, 413-200-044 and 413-200-048 (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has also requested approval of the following applications approvals, which along with SPA 23-01 and ZC 23-01 are referred to collectively herein as the “Project”:
(1) Environmental Assessment 23-02 (“EA” 23-02), certifying a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Project (SCH# 2004071045), and Environmental Assessment 25-3 (“EA 25-3”), approving a Consistency Checklist for the Mesa Verde implementing projects); and
(2) GPA 23-01 amends the City’s existing General Plan to (a) modify Figure LU-1, Land Use Map, to reflect the new land use designation changes; (b) modify Figure TM-1, Circulation Map, to reflect the new roadway configuration and categorization changes; (c) modify Figure OSPR-1, Existing Public Parks and Open Space Areas, to reflect the new public parks; (d) modify Figure OSPR-2, Trails Master Plan, to reflect the new trails system; (e) modify Figure SAF-1, Fault Zones to indicate that the fault depicted within the Mesa Verde Specific Plan area has been determined to be inactive pursuant to geotechnical studies performed on-site; (f) modify Figure SAF-7, Evacuation Routes to show evacuation routes from the Mesa Verde Specific Plan area along County Line Road, Sandalwood Drive and Roberts Road and (g) update references to the “Mesa Verde Estates” Specific Plan to reflect the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment; and
(3) DA 25-4 proposes an agreement between the City and the Applicant that specifies the respective development and financial obligations of both parties. (4) DPR 24-06 and CUP 24-05 for Planning Area 2/Building 2 – Design review and conditional use permit for a proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 717,230 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately
12459-0051\3272195v1.doc 2
53.91-gross acres within Planning Area 2 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413- 040-017, 411-210-028, 413-200-040, 413-200-044 and 413-160-011); and (5) DPR 24-07 and CUP 24-06 for Planning Area 4/Building 4 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately an approximately 702,120 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 37.68-gross acres within Planning Area 4 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017 and 413-160-011); and (6) DPR 24-08 and CUP 24-07 Planning Area 5/Building 5 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 700,150 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 34.49- gross acres within Planning Area 5 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040- 017 and 413-160-011); and
(7) DPR 24-09 and CUP 24-08 for Planning Area 6/Building 6 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 717,600 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 37.46-gross acres within Planning Area 6 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017 and 413-160-011); and
(8) DPR 24-10 and CUP 24-09 for Planning Area 7/Building 7 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 614,300 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 32.06-gross acres within Planning Area 7 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-160-011 and 413-040-020); and
(9) DPR 24-11 and CUP 24-10 for Planning Area 8/Building 8 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 654,400 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 27.31-gross acres within the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040- 020 and 413-040-018); and
(10) TTM 33931 Rev 2 provides for the subdivision of property 1436-acres into 114 lots and public streets, including easements for utilities and ingress/egress, for finance and conveyance purposes; and
(11) TTM 39086 is a proposed tract map to subdivide approximately 17.1 acres into 112 single-family lots with a density of 6.5 DUs/ac within Planning Area 13 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(12) TTM 39087 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 19.5 acres into 76 single-family lots with a density of 3.9 DUs/ac within Planning Area 14 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(13) TTM 39088 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 16.6 acres into 84 single-family lots with a density of 5.0 DUs/ac within Planning Area 15 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
12459-0051\3272195v1.doc 3
(14) TTM 39089 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 15.9 acres into 84 single-family lots with a density of 5.3 DUs/ac within Planning Area 16 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(15) TTM 39090 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 10.7 acres into 60 single-family lots with a density of 5.6 DUs/ac within Planning Area 18 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
(16) TTM 39091 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 21.4 acres into 133 single-family lots with a density of 6.2 DUs/ac within Planning Area 19 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, SPA 23-01 includes 1) revised number of lots with residential land use designations 2) elimination of the Very Low Residential land use designation 3) revised acreages for the non-residential land use designations 4) revised roadway classification for Street B (from Street E to Street D) from Collector to Divided Collector 5) revised roadway classification for Street D (from Street A to Street B) from Collector to Divided Collector 6) revised roadway classification for Street F from Divided Collector to Collector 7) revised roadway classification for 7th Street from Modified Collector to Local 8) revised roadway classification for Roberts Road (from North of Sandalwood Drive to 7the Street) from Modified Secondary to Local; and WHEREAS, ZC 23-01 proposes to modify the City’s official zoning map as it applies to the 1,436.1-acre project site including redistribution and development standards of the Residential, Mixed-Use, Public/Quasi-Public Facilities, Open Space, Elementary School, and Calimesa Public works zone districts and creation of a new Commercial zone and Business Park zone; and provision of updated development standards accordingly; and
WHEREAS, in October 2007, pursuant to Resolution 2007-59, the City Council of the City of Calimesa certified a program Environmental Impact Report for the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan Amendment (SCH#2004071045) (herein referred to as the “Mesa Verde Estates EIR”), and approved a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and statement of overriding considerations as part thereof, for the Summerwind Ranch Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the Mesa Verde Estates EIR evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan Amendment Plan and related General Plan amendments and zoning code amendments, and determined that the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan Amendment project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in the category of air quality, land use and planning, population and housing, and traffic and circulation; and
WHEREAS, in 2017, pursuant to Resolution 2017-37, the City Council of the City of Calimesa adopted an Addendum to the previously certified 2007 Mesa Verde Estates EIR (SCH#2004071045), for a subsequent amendment to the Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
12459-0051\3272195v1.doc 4
WHEREAS, pursuant to EA 23-02, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) to the previously certified 2007 Mesa Verde Estates EIR has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, and pursuant to Resolution No. 2026-XX, the City Council certified the SEIR and approved the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and statement of overriding considerations as part thereof, for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2, Amendment No. 2, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the City of Calimesa Planning Department on Month XX, 2026 caused to be published a legal notice in the Yucaipa News Mirror, a local paper of general circulation, indicating the date, time and location of the public hearing on the proposed Project in compliance with state law, and
WHEREAS, not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, the City also distributed copies of the Public Hearing Notice to servicing utilities, adjacent public agencies, Native American Tribes; and in addition, copies of the Notice were distributed via United States Postal Service (USPS) to local agencies, property owners within a 600-foot radius of the Project site in accordance with state law, and other interested parties; and the Public Hearing Notice was also posted on the City’s website, at City Hall, and at the Calimesa library, and five 6’x6’ public hearing signs were posted at conspicuous locations on the property; and
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for the Project and following the receipt of all testimony, closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on Month XX, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for the Project and following receipt of all testimony, closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council hereby adopts Ordinance No. 425 approving Zone Change 23-01 and Specific Plan Amendment 23-01. ZC 23-01 amends the Calimesa Municipal Code Official Zoning Map, as shown in Exhibit A attached and incorporated hereto. SPA 23-01 amends the previously approved 2017 Specific Plan for the 1,463.1- acre property to provide for the orderly development of a property through compliance with site-specific development standards that are consistent with the intent and policies of the General Plan, as shown in Exhibit B attached and incorporated hereto.
Section 2: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the diction of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or the remaining portions of this
12459-0051\3272195v1.doc 5
ordinance. The City Council of the City of Calimesa hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions were to be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 3: Effective Date; Publication
This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage, and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary hereof to be published and or posted as required by law and by the City’s ordinances and resolutions.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED UPON FIRST READING by title only, upon the following roll call vote, this ___ day of _____ 2026:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _____ 2026 upon the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
JEFF CERVANTEZ, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
DARLENE GERDES, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________________
STEVEN FLOWER, CITY ATTORNEY
12459-0051\3272195v1.doc 6
EXHIBIT A
MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
LAND USE PLAN
12459-0051\3272195v1.doc 7
EXHIBIT B
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
ELECTRONIC COPY AVAILABLE AT:
https://www.calimesa.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=456
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CALIMESA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) NOS. 39086 THROUGH 39091 TO
SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY WITHIN THE MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN
LOCATED ON REAL PROPERTY IN THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE CITY, WEST OF INTERSTATE 10 (I-10) (APNs: 413-040-018 and 413-040-020) The Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa hereby finds and determines that:
WHEREAS, Mesa Verde Owners, LLC (the "Applicant") has submitted an application to the City of Calimesa (“City”) for the subdivision of 17.1 acres into 112 single-family lots with a density of 6.5 DUs/ac within Planning Area 13, for the subdivision of 19.5 acres into 76 single-family lots with a density of 3.9 DUs/ac within Planning Area 14, for the subdivision of 16.6 acres into 84 single-family lots with a density of 5.0 DUs/ac within Planning Area 15, for the subdivision of 15.9 acres into 84 single-family lots with a density of 5.3 DUs/ac within Planning Area 16, for the subdivision of 10.7 acres into 60 singlefamily lots with a density of 5.6 DUs/ac within Planning Area 18, for the subdivision of 21.4 acres into 133 single-family lots with a density of 6.2 DUs/ac within Planning Area 19 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan, as amended by the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2, Amendment No. 2 (SPA 23-01), on certain real property located in the northwest portion of the City, west of Interstate 10 (APNs: 413-040-018 and 413-040-020); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has also requested approval of the following applications approvals, which along with TTMs 39086 through 39091 are referred to collectively herein as the “Project”:
(1) Environmental Assessment 23-02 (“EA” 23-02), certifying a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Project (SCH# 2004071045), and Environmental Assessment 25-3 (“EA 25- 3, approving a Consistency Checklist for the Mesa Verde implementing projects); and (2) GPA 23-01 amends the City’s existing General Plan to (a) modify Figure LU-1, Land Use Map, to reflect the new land use designation changes; (b) modify Figure TM-1, Circulation Map, to reflect the new roadway configuration and categorization changes; (c) modify Figure OSPR-1, Existing Public Parks and Open Space Areas, to reflect the new public parks; (d) modify Figure OSPR-2, Trails Master Plan, to reflect the new trails system; (e) modify Figure SAF-1, Fault Zones to indicate that the fault depicted within the Mesa Verde Specific Plan area has been determined to be inactive pursuant to geotechnical studies performed on-site; (f) modify Figure SAF-7, Evacuation Routes to show evacuation routes from the Mesa Verde Specific Plan area along County Line Road, Sandalwood Drive and Roberts Road and (g) update references to the “Mesa Verde Estates” Specific Plan to reflect the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment; and
(3) SPA 23-01 would replace the previously approved 2017 Specific Plan for the 1,463.1-acre property to provide for the orderly development of a property through compliance with site-specific development standards that are consistent with the intent and policies of the amended General Plan. ZC 23-01 proposes to modify the City’s official zoning map as it applies to the 1,436.1-acre project site including redistribution and development standards of the
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-23
TTMs 39086 through 39091
Residential, Mixed-Use, Public/Quasi-Public Facilities, Open Space, Elementary School, and Calimesa Public works zone districts and creation of a new Commercial zone and Business Park zone; and provision of updated development standards accordingly; and (4) DA 25-4 proposes an agreement between the City and the Applicant that specifies the respective development and financial obligations of both parties. (5) DPR 24-06 and CUP 24-05 for Planning Area 2/Building 2 – Design review and conditional use permit for a proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 717,230 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 53.91-gross acres within Planning Area 2 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017, 411-210- 028, 413-200-040, 413-200-044 and 413-160-011); and
(6) DPR 24-07 and CUP 24-6 for Planning Area 4/Building 4 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately an approximately 702,120 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 37.68-gross acres within Planning Area 4 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017 and 413- 160-011); and
(7) DPR 24-8 and CUP 24-07 Planning Area 5/Building 5 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 700,150 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 34.49-gross acres within Planning Area 5 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017 and 413-160-011); and (8) DPR 24-09 and CUP 24-08 for Planning Area 6/Building 6 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 717,600 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 37.46-gross acres within Planning Area 6 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-017 and 413-160-011); and (9) DPR 24-10 and CUP 24-09 for Planning Area 7/Building 7 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 614,300 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 32.06-gross acres within Planning Area 7 of the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-160-011 and 413-040-020); and (10) DPR 24-11 and CUP 24-10 for Planning Area 8/Building 8 – Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for proposed Business Park development consisting of an approximately 654,400 square foot warehouse facility building on approximately 27.31-gross acres within the amended MVSP (portions of APNs 413-040-020 and 413-040-018); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and State CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Assessment 25-3, a Consistency Checklist examined the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and evaluated whether the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed TTMs were adequately addressed within the scope of Environmental Assessment 23-02, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to the previously certified Mesa Verde Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2004071045) including the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), statement of overriding considerations and subsequent addendums prepared for the
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-23
TTMs 39086 through 39091
Project, and, in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the proposed TTM Nos. 39086 through 39091 would allow for the development of 549 single-family lots with a density range of 3.9 to 6.5 DUs/ac within Planning Areas 13 through 16 and 18 through 19 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan; thereby, allowing for housing development for the City of Calimesa; and
WHEREAS, the City of Calimesa Planning Department on June 26, 2026, caused to be published a legal notice in the Yucaipa-Calimesa News Mirror, a local paper of general circulation, indicating the date, time, and location of the Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed Project and made findings regarding these applications; and WHEREAS, not less than 20 days prior to the public hearing, the City also distributed copies of the Public Hearing Notice to servicing utilities, adjacent public agencies, Native American Tribes; and in addition, copies of the Notice were distributed via United States Postal Service to local agencies, property owners within a 600-foot radius of the Project site in accordance with state law, and other interested parties; and the Public Hearing Notice was also posted on the City’s website, at City Hall, and at the Calimesa library and five 6’x6’ public hearing signs were posted at conspicuous locations on the property; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed TTM Nos. 39086 through 39091, and determined that the full scope of the Project was reviewed in accordance with CEQA and at that time adopted Resolution No. 2026-18 recommending certification of the SEIR and approval of the Consistency Checklist to the City Council, following the receipt of all testimony, closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa finds, determines and declares as follows:
Section 1. The Planning Commission finds that the recitals contained in this Resolution and the information contained in the attachments are true and correct, and incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. Pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the previously certified EIR (SCH# 2004071045) prepared for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan, including the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, statement of overriding considerations and subsequent addendums, the SEIR prepared for the Project’s associated GPA, SPA and second revision to TTM 33931 and the Consistency Checklist prepared for the subject TTMs, DPRs and CUPs and the implementing projects for the Business Park areas of the Specific Plan prior to making its decision on the proposed Tentative Tract Map Nos. 39086 through 39091. The Planning Commission determined in its independent judgment that the SEIR and Consistency Checklist analyzed all the impacts of the subdivisions proposed by TTM Nos. 39086 through 39091 and otherwise complies with CEQA and recommended certification
Exhibit A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 39086
11/21/25
42" SD
36" SD
18"
30" SD
24" SD
24" SD
18"
18"
24" SD
24" SD
18" SD
24" SD
30" SD SEE SHEET 3
24" SD
18" SD SEE SHEET 2
Resolution 2026-23 Exhibits
Exhibit B
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 39087
11/21/25
42" SD
42" SD
42" SD
18" SD
24" SD
42" SD SEE SHEET 3
42" SD
42" SD
36" SD
18"
30" SD
24" SD
24" SD
18"
18"
24" SD
18" SD SEE SHEET 2
Resolution 2026-23 Exhibits
Exhibit C
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 39088
11/21/25
30" SD
30" SD
18" 18" 36" SD
36" SD
18"
36" SD
60" SD
60" SD 18" SD 54" SD
54" SD 18"
54" SD
Resolution 2026-23 Exhibits
Exhibit D
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 39089
11/21/25
42" SD
42" SD
36" SD
18"
30" SD
24" SD
18"
18"
24" SD 18" SD
24" SD
30" SD
30" SD
18"
18"
36" SD
18"
Resolution 2026-23 Exhibits
Exhibit E
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 39090
11/21/25
48" SD
18" SD18"
18"
30" SD
60" SD
18"
30" SD 24" SD
30" SD
48" SD 24" SD
60" SD
60" SD
48" SD
48" SD
24" SD
24" SD
48" SD 48" SD 24" SD
18" 18"
42" SD
24" SD
18"
18"
42" SD
24"
42" SD
Resolution 2026-23 Exhibits
Exhibit F
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 39091
11/21/25
30" SD
30" SD 24" SD
30" SD
18"
18"
36" SD
36" SD
18"
36" SD
60" SD
60" SD 18"
18"
60" SD
60" SD 18" SD
54" SD
Resolution 2026-23 Exhibits
Exhibit G
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO APPLY TO
TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 39086 THROUGH 39091
# Conditions of Approval Department
1.01 Term: The term of these Tentative Tract Maps shall be in accordance with Development Agreement, Section 3, General Terms, Subsection B, Term. Planning
1.02 Tentative Tract Maps 39086 through 39091 are applied for in conjunction with Environmental Assessments 23-02 and 25-3, which are incorporated by reference. All applicable mitigation measures and project design features contained with Planning Commission Resolution 2026-18 are incorporated by reference.
Planning
1.03 Details shown on the Tentative Tract Map are not necessarily approved. Any details that are inconsistent with City subdivision ordinance or these conditions of approval must be specifically approved in the Final Tract Map or on the improvement plans. However, the proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted Tentative Tract Map recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on July 13, 2026, which is on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, during plan check if such modifications are in substantial conformance to the approved Tentative Tract Map and consistent with the provisions of the Calimesa Municipal Code and/or other applicable regulations.
Planning
1.04 Approval of Tentative Tract Maps 39806 through 39091 is contingent upon the property owner and applicant signing and returning to the Community Development Department the "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form at the end of this exhibit.
Planning
1.05 As a condition of approval of Tentative Tract Map 39086, the developer agrees to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City, and agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes or action, proceeding, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney's fees and disbursements (collectively, "Claims") arising out of or in any way relating to the issuance of the entitlement, any actions taken by the City related to this entitlement or the environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., for this entitlement and related actions.
Planning
1.06 Any proposed phasing of project components shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department and the City Engineer. Planning
1.07 Any fees due to the City of Calimesa for processing this project shall be paid to the City within thirty (30) calendar days of final action by the approval authority. Failure to pay such outstanding fees within the time limits specified shall invalidate any approval granted. No permits, site work, or other actions authorized by this action shall be processed by the City, nor permitted, authorized or commenced until all outstanding processing fees are paid to the City.
Planning
1.08 Future development of the proposed subdivision will be subject all applicable Mesa Verde Specific Plan standards and/or Calimesa Municipal Code Sections, including, but not limited to the following:
a) CMC 18.90.040(B)(1) Major Development Plan Review
b) CMC 18.20 Residential Districts.
c) CMC 18.50 Sign Regulations
d) CMC 18.45 Off-Street Parking
e) CMC 18.70 Landscape Requirements
f) CMC 18.75 Water Conservation for Landscaping
g) CMC 18.65 Fence, Wall, and Screening Standards
h) CMC 18.120 Outdoor Lighting
i) CMC 18.115 Development Impact Fees
j) CMC 18.105 Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee k) CMC 16.05 Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Mitigation Fee
l) CMC 17.15 Subdivisions
Planning
1.09 The developer shall demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the Yucaipa Valley Water District Preliminary Project Service Evaluation Letter dated July 7, 2026. Planning
1.10 The Community Development Department shall review and approve the height, location, and aesthetic design of any fences, retaining, and/or garden walls. Planning
1.11 All exterior lighting shall comply with the Mesa Verde Specific Plan, Calimesa Municipal Code Section 18.120 Outdoor Lighting, the project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, as applicable.
Planning
Mesa Verde - TTMs 39086 through 39091
1) GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.12 The Applicant shall submit an exhibit showing the location and specifications for all meter pedestals and aboveground equipment adjacent to right of way. All equipment shall be located in the least visible areas and screened with landscaping materials to diminish their visibility, and as approved by utility standards.
Equipment shall not obstruct driver visibility at intersections or driveways.
Planning
1.13 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City of Calimesa Development Impact Fee ordinance. The amount of the fee for this development shall be calculated at the issuance of each building permit.
Planning
1.14 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of City of Calimesa Ordinance No. 212 (as may be amended from time to time), which requires the payment of the appropriate fee for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
Planning
1.15 Payment of school fees shall be made to the applicable school district by the project proponent in accordance with California State law. Planning
1.16 Any proposed signage shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning
1.17 All mitigation measures stated within the certified Final Environmental Impact Report, third addendum to the EIR, and approved Traffic Impact Report are made a part of these conditions of approval. All costs of supervising and conducting the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be borne by the developer. The developer shall maintain a minimum of $10,000 deposit at all times and shall be responsible for any additional costs associated with the monitoring program.
All
1.18 The Developer shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project.
Deviations not identified on the plans may not be approved by the City, potentially resulting in the need for the project to be redesigned. Consequently, amended entitlement approvals may be necessary.
All
1.19 All Ordinances, Policy Resolutions, and Standards of the City in effect at the time this project is approved shall be complied with as a condition of this approval. All
1.20 All public improvements shall be designed in compliance with all appropriate Federal, State, County, and/or City standards. Preference shall be given to the use of Riverside County Transportation Department construction standards. Use of other standards, i.e. Caltrans, APWA, and other shall be approved on a caseby-case basis. All public and private improvements shall be constructed to the standards mandated by the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and the latest changes thereto.
All
1.21 City project account review shall be performed to determine if any outstanding fees are owed, and subsequent fees shall be paid prior to the following actions: 1) Map recordation; 2) Issuance of any permits (building, encroachment, grading, etc.); 3) Acceptance of improvements; 4) Occupancy release; and 5) Surety release.
All
1.22 The street improvement plans shall incorporate all bike lanes and/or trails along the Project frontage(s) as specified within the Mesa Verde Specific Plan.
1.23 The applicant, or assignee, is required to provide for the perpetual maintenance of the following items: 1) Public parkway landscaping and irrigation; 2) Onsite private drainage facilities including storm drain pipes, inlets, concrete v-gutters, curb and gutters 3) On-site private sewer and water facilities; 4) On-site private courts, parking areas, signing and striping, landscaping, walls, and fences; 5) Maintenance responsibilities to comply with the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and continuing maintenance of the Best Management Practices.
Engineering and
Planning
1.24 All approved grading, improvement plans and project reports, including revisions to approved documents, shall be submitted to the City in electronic format prior to issuance of permits. Engineering
1.25 Contractors are required to arrange for a pre-construction meeting concurrently with the issuance of any permits. Engineering
1.26 All retaining and perimeter walls shown on a grading plan require separate plan check, permits and inspections from the City’s Building Department. Engineering
1.27 Developer shall employ a qualified professional engineering firm to perform design services. All construction plans shall be prepared on 24”X36” drawing sheets with the City standard title block. Engineering
1.28 Project improvement plans and reports shall be submitted for plan check to the Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. Public and private improvement plans shall be submitted as a complete package including grading, erosion, street, signing and striping, street lights, drainage, sewer, water, hydrology and hydraulics study, soils report, traffic study, WQMP & SWPPP reports, reference and backup documents and any other plans or reports as required by these conditions of approval. Incomplete submittals shall be rejected. Plan check fees/deposits shall be submitted, with the plan check submittal package, based on the latest adopted fee schedule.
Engineering
1.29 Any utility conflicts or changes to the approved plans that occur during construction shall be approved by the City Engineer. If City Engineer deems necessary, construction work in the area of the conflict shall stop until the project engineer has submitted appropriate solutions to the City for review and approval.
Engineering
1.3 No utility boxes, pedestals, clean outs, manholes, vaults or other impediments shall be installed within the public sidewalk area; all shall be located within the parkway or other location as approved by the City Engineer.
Engineering
1.31 Removal/Destruction of Any Existing OWTS and Wells: Any existing wells and/or existing onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) shall be properly removed and/or destroyed under permit with DEH. For additional information please contact our Land Use Program at (951) 955-8980.
Riverside County
Department of
Environmental
Health
1.32 The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, Environmental Cleanup Program (RCDEH-ECP):
Based on the historic agriculture land use of the property, soil sampling and analysis is required. Soil sampling and analysis should be performed in the area of the historic olive groves on portions of APN 413- 040-020 and shall be conducted in accordance with the “Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties” (DTSC, 2008). Provide subsurface soils investigation workplan with site plan for RCDEH-ECP review and approval.
Riverside County
Department of
Environmental
Health
1.33 This project will require one or more building permits. Permits will require a complete permit application and complete building plans to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of work.
Building and
Safety
1.34 The Site shall be developed in compliance with all current model codes. All plans shall be designed in compliance with the latest editions of the California Building Codes as adopted by the City of Calimesa Building and
Safety
1.35 Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access to all normal paths of travel. Paths of travel shall incorporate (but not limited to) exterior stairs, landings, walks and sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, warning curbs, detectable warnings, signage, gates, lifts, and walking surface material. The accessible route(s) of travel shall be the most practical direct route between accessible site facilities, accessible parking, public sidewalks, and the accessible entrance(s) to the site. California Building Code (CBC) 11B.
City of Calimesa enforces the State of California provisions of the California Building Code disabled access requirements. The Federal ADA standards differ in some cases from the California State requirements. It is the building owner’s responsibility to be aware of those differences and comply accordingly.
Building and
Safety
1.36 Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patio covers, block walls, retaining walls and storage buildings.
Building and
Safety
1.37 Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer.
Building and
Safety
1.38 Yucaipa Valley Water District regulations do not allow waste water cleanouts or backwater valves to be located within a garage.
Building and
Safety
1.39 The perimeter of the jobsite, that is adjacent to a public right of way, shall have a properly installed, 6’ high, construction fence with privacy cloth attached. The fencing and cloth shall be maintained and kept in good condition until such a time that the project has been completed, or a permanent perimeter wall is in place. All construction entrances/exits shall be approved in advance by city personnel.
Building and
Safety
1.40 Consistency with Approved Plans. Landscape construction drawings submitted for plan check and permitting shall be in substantial conformation with the landscape plans approved with project entitlement, as determined by the Community Development Department.
Landscape
1.41 Landscape Checklist. All landscape construction drawing submittals shall comply with the City's current checklist for Landscape Construction Documents. Construction drawings that do not satisfy the checklist requirements may be returned without review until the required information has been provided.
Landscape
1.42 Yucaipa Valley Water District Approval. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). Evidence of YVWD approval, including the required approval stamp(s) on irrigation sheets, shall be obtained prior to approval and signature of the final landscape construction documents by the City Landscape Architect.
Landscape
1.43 All applicable conditions of approval established for Tentative Tract Map 33931 are incorporated herein by reference as through set forth in full, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Engineering
1.44 The Planning Area Developer shall demonstrate that the Master Developer of Tentative Parcel Map 33931 has designed and construct the backbone street and storm drain public improvements as well as supply Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds to guarantee the installation of said backbone improvements that are required for this Planning Area.
Engineering
1.45 No pavement cuts shall be allowed on any streets previously accepted by the City after the final course of pavement has been installed. Any project specific utility trenching and/or driveway cuts shall occur prior to the final course of pavement being constructed. Any deviations from this requirement shall be justified and approved by the City Engineer.
Engineering
2.01 All final tract maps shall be prepared by, or under the direction of, a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor and shall comply with the California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Title 13 of the Calimesa Municipal Code (City of Calimesa Subdivision Ordinance), unless modified by the conditions listed below. Final map shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and approved by the City Council prior to being filed with the County Recorder.
Engineering
2.02 A preliminary subdivision guarantee (title report) is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances when the final map is submitted for map check. An updated subdivision guarantee shall be provided before the final map is released for filing with the County Recorder.
Engineering
2.03 The final map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits, with the exception of a rough grading permit, and only when allowed by the Community Development Director and City Engineer .
Engineering and
Planning
2.04 Prior to recordation of the final map, the Subdivider shall provide a list of street names to the Community Development Director for review and approval. Planning
2.05 Prior to the recordation of the final map, all organizational documents for a Sub Homeowner's/Property Owner's Association for the entire project for the project, including CC&Rs, shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director, City Engineer, and the City Attorney. The developer is responsible for costs associated with the review of these documents. The approved CC&Rs shall be recorded concurrently with recordation of the final map. A certified copy of the final documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within five days after their recordation. These provisions shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Provisions for effective ownership, operation, maintenance, and use of all areas to be owned or maintained by the Sub-Homeowners' Association;
2. Maintenance standards shall be provided for applicable items listed in Section A (above). Examples of maintenance standards are as follows:
a. All private roadways, sidewalks, and open space areas shall be maintained so that they are safe for users. Significant pavement cracks, pavement distress, excessive slab settlement, abrupt vertical variations, and debris on travel ways shall be removed or repaired promptly.
b. Common areas shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid the reasonable determination of a duly authorized official of the City that a public nuisance has been created by the absence of adequate maintenance such as to be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare.
c. Maintenance of all common areas, landscape lots, fuel modification areas , natural open space areas, paseos, trails, trail monumentation and associated fencing, and implementation of the Oak Tree Preservation Plan; unless otherwise provided for by alternate means approved by the City.
d. A program for preventative maintenance of major manufactured slope areas, unless otherwise provided for by alternate means approved by the City;
e. The CC&R’s or other approved mechanism shall include provisions for providing the perpetual maintenance of all public and private parks and recreational areas;
f. The CC&R’s or other approved mechanism shall include provisions for providing the perpetual maintenance of public parkway and median landscaping and irrigation facilities and all fencing located within a public parkway; g. The CC&R’s or other approved mechanism shall include provisions for providing the perpetual maintenance of all storm drain facilities not owned and maintained by RCFCWCD; and h. The CC&Rs, or another legal instrument approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer, shall require the property owner, successors, tenants (if applicable), and assigns to operate and maintain in perpetuity any postconstruction BMPs described in the approved Water Quality Management Plan for the project.
2.06 Approval for the filing of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications based on the conditions of approval presented herein and the final version of Tentative Map. All 2) PRIOR TO MAP RECORDATION
Map Recordation - Right of Way, Dedication, and Easements
2.07 The final map shall include the right-of-way dedication of the full street width for the proposed as shown on the approved tentative map. Streets shall conform to the cross sections of the approved Mesa Verde Specific Plan for "Public Local Streets" with a right-of-way to right-of-way width of 56-ft and a curb to curb width of 36- ft and 10-ft parkways.
Engineering
2.08 Per California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix D, the final map shall include the right-of-way dedication for cul-desacs to accomendate curb to curb width of 96-ft for fire access turn around.
Engineering/
Fire
2.09 The final map shall have adequate reservations of public ingress and egress as well as public and/or private utility easements and abandonment of existing utility easements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Developer shall be responsible for contacting all utility providers to establish appropriate easements to provide services to all lots.
Engineering
2.10 The Final map shall include the necessary easement for access to the private court streets as shown on the approved tentative map. The private court shall be 26-ft wide and conform to the cross section shown on the approved tentative map.
Engineering
2.11 All existing easements or dedications shall be quitclaimed or vacated as required to comply with the approved tentative tract map. Engineering
2.12 Applicable permanent off-site slope easements shall be recorded by separate instrument and referenced on the Final Map. Engineering
2.13 Easements and/or other legal means of access shall be provided to all open space lots, multi-use trails and paseos that do not have adequate access from a public street. Easements shall be shown and offered on the Final Map.
Engineering
2.14 Approval for the filing of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications based on the conditions of approval presented herein and the final version of Tentative Map. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing of this land division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds (or other surety type acceptable to the City) in the amount approved by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of said improvements. The current Riverside County Transportation Department Engineer's estimate form shall be used for all Calimesa bonding estimates.
Engineering
2.15 Developer shall install survey monuments as shown on the final map or shall provide a monumentation cash deposit (or acceptable surety as allowed by the City Engineer) to allow the map to record prior to the placement of monumentation. Surety amount shall be determined by Developer’s Engineer/Surveyor and shall be documented in written form.
Engineering
2.16 Grading, storm drain, retention facilities and erosion control plans shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to map recordation. Engineering
2.17 The Subdivider shall provide a comprehensive soils and geotechnical report (no older than one year), based on field and laboratory testing. The reports shall establish grading recommendations based on the nature and character of the site soils. The report shall specify requirements related to import and/or export of soil from the site. The City Engineer reserves the right to require additional field or laboratory testing based on "discovery" within the submitted soils report. The final map shall not be approved until the aforementioned soils report is approved. The subdivider shall pay the costs for the technical review of the Geotechnical and Geology reports.
Engineering
2.18 A hydrology and hydraulics report shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City of Calimesa.
Report shall demonstrate on-site storm drain facilities are properly sized. The City Engineer reserves the right to require reasonable additional field or laboratory testing based on "discovery" within the submitted Hydrology/Hydraulics Report. Approval of the Hydrology/Hydraulics Report is required prior to recordation of the final tract map or issuance of any permits.
Engineering
2.19 Developer shall submit Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for review and approval of the City Engineer. WQMP facilities shall be designed based on the Guidelines contained in the sample Riverside County WQMP documents latest edition, available on the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Website. The WQMP shall provide for the treatment of the first flush runoff from the project as well as reducing the discharge from the project to predevelopment levels.
Engineering
2.20 Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, the Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board.
Engineering
2.21 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be approved.
The SWPPP shall be maintained throughout the scope of the project and copies shall be available at the job site at all times.
Engineering
Map Recordation - Grading, Drainage & Water Quality
2.22 Improvement plans shall demonstrate that historical or existing storm water flows from adjacent properties are received and directed to a public street, a public drainage facility or a City approved drainage easement. Engineering
2.23 The proposed drainage improvement plans shall be designed to be consistant with the master draiage facilities and will maintain or reduce the 100-year peak runoff rates presently exiting all Project boundaries. Engineering
2.24 Improvement plans shall show storm water within the Project site to be conveyed by streets and local storm drains to master drainage facilities and detention basins. Engineering
2.25 All storm drains 36 inches in diameter or less shall be designed and constructed to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) Standards and these facilities shall be maintained by a LLMD, CFD or approved mechanism.
Engineering
2.26 All storm drains greater than 36 inches in diameter, and structures proposed for maintenance by RCFCWCD for detention, retention, or debris, shall be designed and constructed to RCFCWCD standards. All plan sets related to any RCFCWCD facilities shall be reviewed, checked, and approved by RCFCWCD. Prior to recordation of the final map, Developer shall provide evidence of ownership and maintenance responsibility by RCFCWCD.
Engineering and
RCFC
2.27 Developer shall demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD).
Engineering and
RCFC
2.28 Developer shall prepare and submit a program for preventative maintenance of major manufactured slope areas. Such program will be approved by the City Engineer. In addition, slope maintenance requirements and guidelines shall be acknowledged as an obligation in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions or in Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District or other City approved arrangement.
Engineering
2.29 Prior to final map recordation, street improvements shall be constructed (or secured) and shall conform to the cross section shown in the approved Mesa Verde Specific Plan and Approved tentative Map. Street improvements shall be designed in accordance with City of Calimesa and Riverside County Standards.
Engineering
2.30 Applicant shall perform a sight distance analysis that demonstrates adequate stopping sight distance is provided along street frontages in accordance with County of Riverside standards, taking into consideration intersecting streets, proposed driveways, vertical elevation differences, and curvilinear alignments to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No landscaping, walls, fences, utility structures, entry monuments signing, or permanent construction that will be more than 30 inches in the critical height area shall be permitted.
Engineering
2.31 Traffic Control Plan based on the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) shall be submitted, for review and approval by the City Engineer. Traffic control shall be included as a line item in the Engineer's Estimate for bonding purposes. No construction shall be allowed prior to the approval of Traffic Control Plans.
Engineering
2.32 Signing and striping plans, for streets within a final map, shall be submitted for plan check, review and approval prior to final map recordation. Developer shall install all street name signs, striping, and related signage as shown on the approved plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of improvements.
Engineering
2.33 Street improvement plans shall be designed to contain a maximum 10-year storm flow between the curbs, a maximum 100-year storm flow within the right-of-way. Engineering
2.34 Construction Signage and Safety Apparatuses: A line item shall be included in the Engineer's Estimate for the personnel required for twenty-four hours a day, seven days per week monitoring and maintaining of all construction signage and safety apparatuses. The personnel shall be available as on-call with a maximum response time to arrive at the project site within two hours during normal working hours and four hours outside normal working hours. The telephone numbers for the on-call person shall be publicly available at the Riverside County Sheriff's Department Substation and at the Riverside County Fire Station in Calimesa. This condition applies to each Tentative Tract Map and all sub-phases. The City construction inspectors shall have the authority to stop the work in progress until the safety signage/lighting has been restored to a condition acceptable to the City.
Engineering and
Riverside County
Sheriff
Department
2.35 Developer shall submit street light plans indicating the location of all existing and proposed streetlights. All project lighting shall be in accordance with applicable Calimesa Municipal Code standards or the Riverside County Department of Transportation Guidelines. Light Emitting Diode (LED) type street lights are required and all light type and spacing shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Engineering
Map Recordation - Water, Recycled Water, and Sewer
Map Recordation - Street Lights and Utilities
Map Recordation - Street, Traffic, and Circulation
2.36 Developer shall provide, to the City Engineer, written confirmation from the governing water purveyor indicating Developer is in compliance with fire flow requirements. Engineering
2.37 Each lot within the project boundary shall be served by adequately sized and individually metered water services.
Engineering and
YVWD
2.38 YVWD Service and Facilities: TTM 39086 proposes to receive potable water service and sanitary sewer service from Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). Developer shall design and construct (or secure) water facilities to serve this project as required by Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). Plans and specifications for the water and recycled water system facilities shall be submitted to YVWD for plan check and approval, and to the City of Calimesa for plan check and approval of City related issues, prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of a construction permit. Developer shall submit an agreement and/or other evidence, satisfactory to the City Engineer, indicating that the developer has entered into a contract with water purveyor guaranteeing payment and installation of the water improvements.
Engineering and
YVWD
2.39 Developer shall design and construct (or secure) sewer facilities to serve this project as required by Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). Plans and specifications for the sewer system facilities shall be submitted to the governing sewer purveyor for plan check and approval, and to the City of Calimesa for plan check and approval of City related issues, prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of a construction permit.
Developer shall submit an agreement and/or other evidence, satisfactory to the City Engineer, indicating that the Developer has entered into a contract with the sewer purveyor guaranteeing payment and installation of the sewer improvements.
Engineering and
YVWD
2.40 The CC&R’s shall include provisions for providing the perpetual maintenance of public parkways. Engineering and City Attorney
2.41 The CC&R’s shall include provisions for providing access to public utilities for maintenance of their facilities within the project area.
Engineering and
City Attorney
2.42 The CC&R’s shall include provisions to implement the approved Water Quality Management Plan. The Property Owner's Association shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance of all common area BMP's and water quality measures.
Engineering and
City Attorney
2.43 The CC&R’s shall include provisions for lots accepting cross lot drainage stating that these lots are required to accept and accommodate runoff from adjacent lots. Said provisions shall prohibit property owners from modifying drainage facilities or flow patterns of their lots without first obtaining permission from the City; and shall provide for the perpetual maintenance of the drainage facilities.
Engineering and
City Attorney
2.44 Property buyer’s notification document shall include a notice listing all areas where recycled water is used to water landscaped areas pursuant to rules, regulations and enforcement by the governing water purveyor. Engineering
3.01 Developer shall comply with Assembly Bill 1414 (AB 1414) of the Business and Professions Code of the Land Surveyors Act as required to preserve existing monuments and survey control. Engineering
3.02 Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, final landscape & irrigation plans shall be submitted to Public Works Department for approval to ensure that proposed trees do not conflict with utilities, signs, lights, line of sight, etc. Trees shall be located to maintain the following clearances: 5-ft from dry utilities, 10 feet from wet utilities (i.e. sewer and water laterals and main lines, fire hydrants, detector check assemblies, storm drain mains and laterals, catch basins, inlets, etc.), 15-ft from street lights and public street signs, and trees shall not block line of sight at street intersections or project driveways. Variation to these minimum clearances require approval form the City Engineer.
Engineering and
Planning
3.03 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, construction documents shall include language that requires all construction contractors to strictly control the staging of construction equipment and the cleanliness of construction equipment stored or driven beyond the limits of the construction work area. When possible, construction equipment shall be parked and staged within the project site. Staging areas shall be screened from view from residential properties. Vehicles shall be kept clean and free of mud and dust before leaving the development site. Surrounding streets shall be swept daily and maintained free of dirt and debris.
Engineering
3.04 Construction traffic access to an on-going phased construction site shall not be permitted through any adjacent development site, which has been completed and accepted by the City for occupancy. Engineering 3) PRIOR TO GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITY
Ground Disturbing Activity - Grading
Ground Disturbing Activity - General
Map Recordation - CC&R's and Home Buyer Notifications
3.05 Prior to grading permit issuance, the Developer shall demonstrate compliance with all measures listed in the amended RCA Joint Project review (JPR #07-01-08-01) dated 7-11-2025 and included as Attachment D of PC Reso 2026-20. These measures include MSHCP Conservation, Restoration of Upland Temporary Impacts, Riparian/Riverine Mitigation, Invasive Species protection,Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines, and the Appendix C - Best Management Practices measure.
Western
Riverside County
Regional
Conservation
Authority
3.06 Prior to issuance of a grading or drainage improvement permit, all plans and reports associated with grading, erosion, drainage, water quality & water treatment, water retention/detention and best management practices shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Engineering
3.07 Grading and erosion control plans shall include provisions to avoid adverse effects caused by rain, wind, or other weather conditions. Erosion and sediment control plans will be prepared and accomplished according to the best management practices as defined in the Riverside County Drainage Area Master Plan and as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Engineering
3.08 All rough and precise grading plans for all tracts, phases, and units shall include specific requirements from the approved geotechnical reports regarding cuts, fills, over-excavation, and compaction requirements. Engineering
3.09 Geotechnical engineer shall sign and seal all grading plans indicating the respective plan set complies with the recommendations of the comprehensive soils and geotechnical reports. Engineering
3.10 The grading plans shall include provisions to ensure that grading will be conducted in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 403, as applicable. Engineering
3.11 Dust control operations shall be performed by the Contractor to comply with all Air Quality Management District regulations regarding dust control and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City shall have the authority to suspend all construction operations if, in their opinion, the Contractor fails to adequately provide for dust control.
Engineering
3.12 Cross lot drainage is undesirable and only allowed as permitted by the City Engineer. A private drainage easement shall be recorded on all lots accepting surface water runoff from adjacent properties and shall include installation of a concrete V-ditch to carry said drainage to an approved location to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Engineering
3.13 Prior to grading permit issuance, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) should be implemented at the site during grading operations to have proper protocols for what to do if any potential environmental concerns, including septic systems, USTs, wells, or contaminated soils are discovered. A SMP workplan should be submitted for review and approval by DEH prior to grading permit issuance. Contact Riverside County Environmental Health - Environmental Cleanup Programs at (951) 955-8980, for further information.
Riverside County
Department of
Environmental
Health
3.14 Prior to grading clearance, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) completion report should be submitted for review by our department. Contact Riverside County Environmental Health - Environmental Cleanup Programs at (951) 955-8980, for further information.
Riverside County
Department of
Environmental
Health
3.15 Fire Apparatus Access Road: Prior to grading permit issuance, Developer shall submit for review and approval an exhibit depicting temporary fire apparatus access roads to be used during construction. a. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of the 2025 CFC, section 503 and shall extend to within 150 feet of all proposed staging areas. The applicant or developer shall include temporary signage as appropriate in the fire apparatus access plan. b. Dimensions: fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet, exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with the 2025 CFC section 503.6, and unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Surface fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus of 80,000 pounds and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Roadways shall have a minimum 48 foot outside turning radius. Dead end access road shall not exceed 150 feet in length. c. Install additional ingress and egress roadways for concurrently safe access for emergency wildland fire suppression equipment and civilian evacuation. The additional ingress and egress roadways shall provide for unobstructed traffic circulation during a wildland fire emergency consistent with 14 CCR §§ 1273.00 through 1273.09. (CCR T14, Div 1.5, Ch 7, Sub Ch 2 Article 2, Section 1273.00) Fire
3.16 Fire hazard severity zone: This project is in a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). This is a high fire hazard brush area. This project shall, at all times, comply with the materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure per the 2025 California WUI Code.
Fire
3.17 Fuel Modification: Prior to grading permit issuance, a fuel modification zone plan adhering to the guidelines from the fire prevention department shall be submitted, and approved by the City of Calimesa Fire Prevention Department. 100' brush clearance (as allowed by the MSHCP) shall be installed per plan prior to the delivery of combustibles to the job site (including the construction trailer).
Fire
3.18 Construction staging areas/siting, and setbacks: Prior to grading permit issuance, Developer to submit construction staging plans depicting the following (CCR T14, Div 1.5, Ch 7, Sub Ch 2 Article 2, Section 1276.00):
a. The location of proposed construction staging areas. b. The proposed setbacks of construction staging areas to show increased safety for emergency fire equipment, evacuation of civilians, and areas designated for attack or defense from wildland fire suppression tactics.
c. The protection against undeveloped ridgelines to show increased safety for emergency fire equipment, evacuation of civilians, and areas designated for attack or defense from wildland fire suppression tactics.
Fire
3.19 Per the State Water Resources Control Board, construction activity resulting in a land disturbance of one acre or more, or less than one acre but part of a larger common plan of development or sale must obtain the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit (General Permit). Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Subdivider shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI), indicating that coverage has been obtained, to the City Engineer and Building Official. The Subdivider shall include notes on the grading plans indicating that the project will be implemented in compliance with the Statewide Permit for General Construction Activities.
Engineering
3.20 A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be approved and maintained throughout the scope of the project. Copies shall be available at the job site at all times. Engineering
3.21 Developer shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for review and approval of the City Engineer. WQMP facilities shall be designed based on the Guidelines contained in the sample Riverside County WQMP documents latest edition, available on the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Website. The WQMP shall provide for the treatment of the first flush runoff from the project as well as reducing the discharge from the project to predevelopment levels.
Engineering
3.22 This project is subject to all of the requirements of the Municipal Storm Water and Sanitary Sewer System (MS4) permits issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and all subsequent permits to which the City is a signatory.
Engineering
4.01 The Applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all outstanding fees as required by the City of Calimesa Municipal Code. Engineering
4.02 All grading, public and private improvements, utilities, landscaping and irrigation and other items required by the conditions of approval shall be installed and accepted by the City. Engineering
4.03 Permanent survey monuments shall be set at tract boundaries, lot boundaries, the intersection of street centerlines, beginning and end of curves in centerlines, and at other locations designated by the City Engineer. All monuments shall be placed in accordance with standard survey practices. A complete set of all street centerline ties shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
Engineering
4.04 Developer shall file a letter with the SWRCB or submit information to the SMART System stating that the construction activity is complete. A copy of this letter shall be submitted to the City prior to acceptance of improvements.
Engineering
4.05 All catch basins and storm drain inlet facilities shall be stenciled with the appropriate "No Dumping, Only Rain in the Drain" message. Engineering
4.06 The final recorded map and all approved improvement plans and revisions to approved plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in both full sized mylars and electronic format. As-built drawings necessary to document field construction changes shall be provided to the City in electronic format and on revised mylars prior to acceptance of improvements or surety release.
Engineering
4) PRIOR TO SURETY RELEASE OR ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Ground Disturbing Activity - Storm Drain, Hydrology, and Water Quality
4.07 4.08
4.09 4.10
4.11 Developer shall be required to i"Qplace any $tmet improvaJJl8rrts; including ·t,ut not limited to pa\ting; SidaW~lk; curb and gutUJr, traffic sigllSI loops and advanced warning loops, that. are aa~ed during construction activities to the satisfaclion of the Cttv Enoineer~
tn accordance with the California Building Code, Title 24, aild the requirements of the Amettcans with Disabilities Act (ADA), facilities for disabled persons shali be .oonstructed and .existing facilities shall be reconstructed atall street intersections or other locations associated with the project as. required by the City IEn9irioor. ·
All above-ground utilities, including but not limited to communication and power lines that.are 33KV in size or less, whidl are locatEKi oil s\te or a(:tjacent to too property frontage, shall be placed underground to the satisfaction of the Public Worts Director.. The uridergrourtding of utiiities shall be refiacmd oo 1he project improvement plans; . . . . . . . . . . . .
All new elecqi~I power, gas, te!E3phone, fiber optics, ~ble television, and other miscellar:iootis sefVices s~II ~ imrtalled underarouild with.said services available to each lot Develo~r shall. .!le resP,Onsible for res~rch .on private ytility lines (g!:ls, el~ric, telephooo,,. ~bl~. int~m~t. etc.) to ens.ure there am no ~nflicts with ~ite ~ev€3lopment. AU ex,isting vfitify lin!3S that rorifli~With 1:hi~ oroiect shall .be relocated removed or sealed as directed bv Citv Enoineer.
Acl<n
As the
read, ful
Prtrident <f cro
.,4u (!tit- 21 2 o 2 &
Date
-•.
Englneerlng
Engl~ertng
Engi~erlng
r;nglneenn.g
Engi~eting
PC RESOLUTION 2026-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CALIMESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW NOS. 24-06
THROUGH 24-11 FOR THE SITE LAYOUT, ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN, LANDSCAPING, WALL PLAN, RELATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE MESA VERDE BUSINESS PARK
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR SIX BUSINESS PARK
DEVELOPMENTS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 24-05
THROUGH 24-10 FOR THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF
WAREHOUSE FACILITIES, TO BE LOCATED WITHIN PLANNING
AREAS 2 AND 4 THROUGH 8 OF THE MESA VERDE SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 2, AMENDMENT NO. 2 (SPA 23-01) (APN: 413-040-
017, 413-040-020, 413-040-018, 413-160-011)
The Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa hereby finds and determines that:
WHEREAS, Mesa Verde Owner, LLC (the "Applicant") has submitted Development Plan Review (DPRs 24-06 through 24-11) and Conditional Use Permit (CUPs 24-05 through 24-10), all Planning Areas being located within the Mesa Verde Specific Plan No. 2, Amendment No. 2 (SPA 23-01) (APN: 413-040-017, 413-040-020, 413-040-018, 413-160-011), subject to findings and conditions of approval herein, applications to the City of Calimesa for approval of the site layout, architectural design, landscaping, wall plan, related site improvements, and the Mesa Verde Business Park Master Sign Program, as more particularly described below:
(a) DPR 24-06 an approximately 717,230 square foot warehouse facility building inclusive of 689,230 square feet of warehouse space, 14,000 square feet of office space, a 14,000 square foot mezzanine, 99 loading dock doors and related site improvements and CUP 24-05 for the conditional approval of a distribution facility, to be located on an approximately
53.91 gross-acre site within Planning Area 2.
(b) DPR 24-07 an approximately 702,120 square foot warehouse facility building inclusive of 688,120 square feet of warehouse space, 14,000 square feet of office space, 107 loading dock doors and related site improvements and CUP 24-06 for the conditional approval of a distribution facility, to be located on an approximately 37.68 gross-acre site within Planning Area 4.
(c) DPR 24-08 an approximately 700,150 square foot warehouse facility building inclusive of 686,150 square feet of warehouse space, 14,000 square feet of office space, 128 loading dock doors and related site improvements and CUP 24-07 for the conditional approval of a distribution facility, to be located on an approximately 34.49 gross-acre site within Planning Area 5.
(d) DPR 24-09 an approximately 717,600 square foot warehouse facility building inclusive of 689,600 square feet of warehouse space, 14,000 square feet of office space, a 14,000 square foot mezzanine, 142 loading dock doors and related site improvements and CUP 24-08 for the conditional approval of a distribution facility, to be located on an approximately
37.46 gross-acre site within Planning Area 6.
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
(e) DPR 24-10 an approximately 614,300 square foot warehouse facility building inclusive of 600,300 square feet of warehouse space, 14,000 square feet of office space, a 14,000 square foot mezzanine, 88 loading dock doors and related site improvements and CUP 24-09 for the conditional approval of a distribution facility, to be located on an approximately
32.06 gross-acre site within Planning Area 7.
(f) DPR 24-11 an approximately 654,400 square foot warehouse facility building inclusive of 640,400 square feet of warehouse space, 14,000 square feet of office space, a 14,000 square foot mezzanine, 87 loading dock doors and related site improvements and CUP 24-10 for the conditional approval of a distribution facility, to be located on an approximately
27.31 gross-acre site within Planning Area 8; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with Development Plan Review Nos. 24-06 through 24-11, the Applicant submitted the “Mesa Verde Business Park Master Sign Program,” revised January 13, 2026 (the “Master Sign Program”), attached to this Resolution as Exhibit H and incorporated herein by this reference. The Master Sign Program establishes coordinated design, location, size, quantity, materials, color, and illumination standards for tenant monument signs, roadway directional signs, regulatory signs, internal directional signs, and tenant wall signs serving Planning Areas 2 and 4 through 8; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Calimesa Municipal Code Sections 18.50.030(A)(1)(b),
18.50.050(G), and 18.50.170, the Master Sign Program is subject to review through the development-review process and may be considered by the same approving authority that reviews the associated discretionary land-use applications; and WHEREAS, the Master Sign Program is intended to integrate signage with the architecture and landscaping of the Business Park developments through coordinated sign types, materials, colors, mounting methods, and illumination, thereby creating a unified architectural statement and providing orderly tenant identification, vehicular direction, parking information, and regulatory information throughout the Business Park; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has also requested approval of the following applications approvals, which along with DPRs 24-07 through 24-11 and CUPs 24-06 through 24-10 for Planning Areas 2 and 4 through 8 are referred to collectively herein as the “Project”:
(a) EA 23-02, certifying a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Project (SCH# 2004071045), and EA 25-3, approving a Consistency Checklist for the Mesa Verde implementing projects).
(b) GPA 23-01 amends the City’s existing General Plan to (a) modify Figure LU-1, Land Use Map, to reflect the new land use designation changes; (b) modify Figure TM-1, Circulation Map, to reflect the new roadway configuration and categorization changes; (c) modify Figure OSPR-1, Existing Public Parks and Open Space Areas, to reflect the new public parks; (d) modify Figure OSPR-2, Trails Master Plan, to reflect the new trails system; (e) modify Figure SAF-1, Fault Zones to indicate that the fault depicted within the Mesa Verde Specific Plan area has been determined to be inactive pursuant to geotechnical studies performed on-site; (f)
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
modify Figure SAF-7, Evacuation Routes to show evacuation routes from the Mesa Verde Specific Plan area along County Line Road, Sandalwood Drive and Roberts Road and (g) update references to the “Mesa Verde” Specific Plan to reflect the Specific Plan Amendment. (c) SPA 23-01 would replace the previously approved 2017 Specific Plan for the 1,463.1-acre property to provide for the orderly development of a property through compliance with site-specific development standards that are consistent with the intent and policies of the amended General Plan. ZC 23-01 proposes to modify the City’s official zoning map as it applies to the 1,436.1-acre project site including redistribution and development standards of the Residential, Mixed-Use, Public/Quasi-Public Facilities, Open Space, Elementary School, and Calimesa Public works zone districts and creation of a new Commercial zone and Business Park zone; and provision of updated development standards accordingly. (d) DA 25-4 proposes an agreement between the City and the Applicant that specifies the respective development and financial obligations of both parties; and (e) TTM 33931 Rev 2 provides for the subdivision of property 1436-acres into 114 lots and public streets, including easements for utilities and ingress/egress, for finance and conveyance purposes.
(f) TTM 39086 is a proposed tract map to subdivide approximately 17.1 acres into 112 single-family lots with a density of 6.5 DUs/ac within Planning Area 13 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan.
(g) TTM 39087 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 19.5 acres into 76 single-family lots with a density of 3.9 DUs/ac within Planning Area 14 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan.
(h) TTM 39088 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 16.6 acres into 84 single-family lots with a density of 5.0 DUs/ac within Planning Area 15 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan.
(i) TTM 39089 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 15.9 acres into 84 single-family lots with a density of 5.3 DUs/ac within Planning Area 16 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan.
(j) TTM 39090 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 10.7 acres into 60 single-family lots with a density of 5.6 DUs/ac within Planning Area 18 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan.
(k) TTM 39091 is a proposed parcel map to subdivide approximately 21.4 acres into 133 single-family lots with a density of 6.2 DUs/ac within Planning Area 19 of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), Environmental Assessment 25-3, a Consistency Checklist was prepared for the Project to evaluate whether the potential environmental effects associated with the site plans, Master Sign Program, and related site improvements were adequately
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
addressed within the scope of Environmental Assessment 23-02, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to the previously certified Mesa Verde Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2004071045), and, in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Project and the proposed buildings in Planning Areas 2 and 4 through 8 comply with the requirements of the amended Mesa Verde Specific Plan No. 2, the Calimesa Municipal Code, the Mesa Verde Specific Plan No.2, Amendment No. 2 SEIR, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and statement of overriding findings and considerations, and the Project is allowed with the issuance of a Development Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit in Planning Areas 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8; and, WHEREAS, the City of Calimesa Planning Department on June 26, 2026, caused to be published a legal notice in the Yucaipa News Mirror, a local paper of general circulation, indicating the date and time of the public hearing in compliance with state law concerning the Project, and mailed said public hearing notice to each property owner within a 600-foot radius of the project site in accordance with state law, and other interested parties; and the Public Hearing Notice was also posted on the City’s website, at City Hall, and at the Calimesa library, and five 6’x6’ public hearing signs were posted at conspicuous locations on the property; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Project and following the receipt of all testimony, closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Calimesa does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
Section 1. The Planning Commission finds that the recitals contained in this Resolution and the information contained in the attached exhibits are true and correct and are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. Prior to making a decision on this Project, the Planning Commission reviewed considered and approved Resolution No. 2026-18, recommending that the City Council approve Environmental Assessments 23-02 and 25-4, finding that all potential environmental impacts of the Project generally, and the construction and operation of the warehouse operations in Planning Areas 2 and 4 through 8 specifically, have been fully analyzed in, and are covered by, the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the amended Mesa Verde Specific Plan (SCH#2004071045) (“SEIR”), including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA findings of fact, and statement of overriding considerations and associated Consistency Checklist. The Planning Commission determined in its independent judgment that the Mesa Verde Specific Plan SEIR and associated Consistency Checklist complies with CEQA and recommended certification thereof, as set forth in Resolution No. 2026-18.
Section 3. Based on substantial evidence contained in the application, the Staff Report and supporting documents, the public comments submitted prior to and during the public hearing, and the Consistency Checklist and SEIR, technical appendices, other associated documents, and the remainder of the administrative record, the Planning Commission hereby
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
makes the following findings in support of approving Development Plan Review Nos. 24-06 through 24-11:
(a) The development plan application is consistent with the City's General Plan, applicable specific plans, zoning, and all federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is currently classified as Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan (SP), inclusive of the Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Open Space and Public Institutional land use designations. The proposed land use designations for the site are proposed to be revised to Open Space, Elementary School, Public/Quasi Public Facilities, and Business Park through GPA 23-01 and SPA 23-01, which are being processed concurrently with DPRs 24-06 through 24-11 and CUPs 24-05 through 24-10.
The majority of the project site is proposed to be designated as Business Park (BP) under GPA 23-01 and SPA 23-01. The Business Park designation is intended to accommodate enterprises engaged in the manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning, distributing, cooling, logistics or assembling of goods, merchandise, or equipment. The proposed development, as a distribution or logistics use facility, is consistent with the BP land uses and standards as proposed by the Mesa Verde Specific Plan, which conditionally allows a wide variety of storage and wholesale trade facility uses.
In addition, the proposal fulfills the following General Plan goals:
• POLICY LU-15: Commercial and industrial developments shall be designed to reflect the small-town atmosphere of Calimesa, using building materials such as exposed heavy timbers, weathered wood, and new and used bricks and stone, while maintaining good planning and design principles.
• POLICY LU-16: Discourage land use conflicts and incompatibilities by providing buffers to include, but not be limited to, landscaping, setbacks, walls/fencing, site design, architectural features, density/intensity/operation reduction, or shielding of lighting between incompatible land uses and new development. • POLICY LU-19: Locate commercial and industrial development in areas where street rights of-way and capacity are available, as well as sufficient infrastructure and public services.
• POLICY LU-23: Encourage the development of commercial and industrial centers to expand the employment and fiscal base of Calimesa.
• POLICY LU-24: Encourage existing and new employers in Calimesa to hire local residents when seeking to fill employment positions.
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
• POLICY TM-4: Maintain and rehabilitate roadways to preserve and improve the quality of city streets and thoroughfares that promote access and mobility between residential neighborhoods, employment centers, shopping, and health services. • POLICY TM-11: Reduce vehicle trips through design and changes in operations. • POLICY IPS-1: The City will work with water providers and developers to ensure that water supply and delivery systems are capable of meeting normal and emergency needs.
• POLICY AQ-13: Reduce the effects of air pollution and the urban heat island effect with increased tree planting in public and private spaces. (b) The design of the site plan is safe, functional, and environmentally sensitive to the surrounding properties. Grading, where required, minimizes any potential environmental damage to the greatest extent possible. For purposes of making this finding, consideration shall be given, but not limited, to the following:
1) Orientation and location of buildings and open space.
The Project has been designed to maximize the buildable area of the site while being sensitive to surrounding vacant parcels that also fall within the Mesa Verde Specific Plan and are planned to develop as open space, public facility and residential and uses in the future. The Project utilizes buffers, landscaping, walls, and building orientation for noise-attenuation between non-residential and sensitive receptor land uses.
2) Vehicle access.
Access to the Planning Area 2 building (Building 2) would be accommodated through two proposed access driveways, one located along Sandalwood Drive and the other along Roberts Road. The Sandalwood Drive access serves as the primary site access point. Both access points provide emergency vehicle access to Planning Area 2. Therefore, Building 2 has and will maintain adequate vehicular access.
Access to the Planning Area 4 building (Building 4) would be accommodated through four proposed access driveways, two located along Street “K” and two along Street “J” of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan. The eastern access serves as the primary site access point. Both access points provide emergency vehicle access to Planning Area 4. Therefore, Building 4 has and will maintain adequate vehicular access.
Access to the Planning Area 5 building (Building 5) would be accommodated through four proposed access driveways, two located along Street “K” and two along Street “J” of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan. The Street “K” access serves as the primary site access point. Both access
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
points provide emergency vehicle access to Planning Area 5. Therefore, Building 5 has and will maintain adequate vehicular access.
Access to the Planning Area 6 building (Building 6) would be accommodated through four proposed access driveways, two located along Street “K” and two along Street “J” of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan. The Street “K” access serves as the primary site access point. Both access points provide emergency vehicle access to Planning Area 6. Therefore, Building 6 has and will maintain adequate vehicular access.
Access to the Planning Area 7 building (Building 7) would be accommodated through two proposed access driveway Street “I” of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan. The Street “I” access drives serve as the primary site access point. Both access points provide emergency vehicle access to Planning Area 7. Therefore, Building 7 has and will maintain adequate vehicular access
Access to the Planning Area 8 building (Building 8) would be accommodated through two proposed access driveways located along Street “I” of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan. The Street “I” access serves as the primary site access point. Both access points provide emergency vehicle access to Planning Area 8. Therefore, Building 8 has and will maintain adequate vehicular access.
3) Circulation, parking, and loading.
The Project has been reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure that the proposed site circulation and parking areas are adequate for the proposed use. There is the ability to circulate completely around the buildings without needing to exit the property. Ample parking is laid out such that it is proximate to the main building entrances for each site. 4) Building heights.
The maximum building height for Planning Area 2/Building 2 is 52’.
The maximum building height for Planning Area 4/Building 4 is 51’6.
The maximum building height for Planning Area 5/Building 5 is 52’9.
The maximum building height for Planning Area 6/Building 6 is 52’6.
The maximum building height for Planning Area 7/Building 7 is 52’.
The maximum building height for Planning Area 8/Building 8 is 51’9.
All proposed building heights are compliant with the height restrictions of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan No. 2, Amendment No. 2 which limits the maximum height in those areas of the plan designated as Business Park to 60’ and 5 stories, whichever is less.
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
5) Design of walls and fences.
The wall and fence plans for Planning Areas 2, and 4 through 8 are consistent with the design guidelines of the amended MVSP.
Planning Area 2/Building 2 will have an 8-foot-high concrete tilt up screen wall around the perimeter of the loading dock area/truck court to the southside of the building. 7-foot-high sliding gates will flank the east and west ends of the loading area and 6-foot-high tubular steel fencing and gates will be used at both basin locations to the south and east of Building
2. Planning Area 4/Building 4 will have an 8-foot-high concrete tilt up screen wall around the perimeter of the loading dock area/truck court to the eastside of the building and an 8-foot-high tubular steel fence will be located along the loading dock/truck court area along the western perimeter of the site, separating Planning Area 4 from Planning Area 5. 7-foot-high tubular steel sliding gates will flank the northern and southern ends of the loading dock/truck court areas on both the east and west sides of Building 4. A 7- foot-high sliding gate will also be located at the loading dock area/truck court on the eastern side of the building between the two parking fields.
Planning Area 5/Building 5 will have an 8-foot-high tubular steel fence around the perimeter of the loading dock areas/truck courts to the east and west sides of the building. 7-foot-high tubular steel sliding gates will flank the northern and southern ends of the loading dock/truck court areas on both the east and west sides of the building. 8-foot-high concrete tilt-up screen walls would be located on the western side of the building at the northern and southern ends of the tubular steel fencing. Lastly, 6-foot-high tubular steel fencing would be used at the perimeter of the basin areas.
Planning Area 6/Building 6 will have an 8-foot-high concrete tilt-up screen wall along the loading dock/truck court areas on the western side of the building and an 8-foot-high tubular steel fence around the perimeter of the loading dock areas/truck courts to the east of the building. 7-foot-high tubular steel sliding gates will flank the northern and southern ends of the wall and fence along the loading dock/truck court areas with an additional sliding gate being located at a break in the concrete tilt-up wall, allowing access into the loading dock/truck court area on the western side of the building. 6-foot-high tubular steel fencing would also be located at the perimeter of the basin areas.
Planning Area 7/Building 7 will have a black 8-foot-high tubular steel fence around the perimeter of the loading dock/truck court on the west side of the building and an 8-foot-high concrete tilt-up screen wall at the perimeter of the loading dock/truck court area on the west side of the building. An 8-foothigh concrete tilt-up screen wall will also be located along the northernmost
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
parking field on the east of the building. 7-foot-high tubular steel sliding gates will be located to the north and south of the loading dock/truck court areas on both the eastern and western sides of the building. Lastly, 6-foothigh tubular steel fencing will be located at the perimeter of the basin area.
Planning Area 8/Building 8 will have an 8-foot-high tubular steel fence around the perimeter of the loading dock/truck court to the north and west sides of the building while a combination retaining wall and tubular steel fence with varying heights up to 12-feet would be located on the southern side of the building. 7-foot-high tubular steel sliding and access gates will be located north and south of the building at the loading dock/truck court and parking areas. Lastly, Planning Area 8 proposes a combination Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall with tubular steel fence atop along portions of the western perimeter of the site with varying heights of up to 40-feet as allowed by the specific plan.
6) Preservation of natural landforms and vegetation.
The Project is subject to EA 23-02 and EA 25-4 for the Consistency Checklist and MVSP SEIR and MMRP and statement of overriding considerations which are under consideration as a part of the overall Project. The adopted mitigation measures reduce impacts to natural landforms and vegetation within the amended MVSP area.
7) Protection and enhancement of historic, archeological, and cultural resources.
The Project is subject to EA 23-02 and EA 25-4 for the Consistency Checklist and the MVSP SEIR and MMRP statement of overriding considerations which are under consideration as a part of the overall Project. The adopted mitigation measures reduce impacts to historic, archeological, or cultural resources within the amended MVSP area. 8) Minimization of environmental impacts.
The Project is subject to and incorporates the mitigation measures contained within the Consistency Checklist and MVSP SEIR which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project and the associated MMRP and statement of overriding considerations (EA 23-02 and EA 25-3). The mitigation measures and project design features minimize the environmental impacts within the Specific Plan area. 9) Fiscal and economic impacts.
The addition of the warehouse/distribution use in the City will add tax revenue for the City and provide ample job opportunities for the local community.
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
10) Pedestrian amenities.
The Project will be required to provide sidewalks along Sandalwood Drive and Roberts Road and has been designed with appropriate pedestrian pathways within the project area. The Project will also provide for bicycle racks at each building or in a common area that serves multiple buildings. (c) The architecture proposed is compatible with community standards and protects the character of adjacent development. For purposes of this finding, consideration shall be given, but not limited, to the following:
1) The scale, character, and quality of the design of the development.
The scale, character, and quality of the Project is consistent with the Business Park Zone District’s Warehousing Distribution and Logistics Architectural Guidelines within the MVSP. Associated improvements include screen walls, fences, passenger parking stalls, trailer parking spaces, vehicle circulation aisles, utility infrastructure, landscaping and exterior lighting. All perimeter screen walls will include pattern blocking as architectural treatment to break up the façade in accordance with the specific plan.
2) The appropriate use of design elements, including line, mass, contour, texture, and colors.
The Project maintains a similar design and color theme throughout Planning Areas 2 and 4 through 8 that is characteristic and representative of the Calimesa area and consistent with the MVSP Design Guidelines. The Project features a more traditional design aesthetic, which provides architectural styling with attractive detailing, dark gray accent walls with unique concrete seam pattern, panel blocks made of light sand beige and dark sand beige color palette and a concrete seam pattern. 3) The appropriate use of design principles, including unity, diversity, repetition, emphasis, symmetry, or asymmetry to achieve a pleasing effect.
The proposed designs of the buildings are aesthetically pleasing in that they include aspects of unity, diversity, repetition, and symmetry, and therefore is appropriately using design principles. The site plan is laid out such that there is convenient access provided to the anticipated uses. Furthermore, the design principles that have been used are consistent with the standards found in the MVSP Design Guidelines.
4) Harmony with surrounding structural elements.
The Project has been designed to complement existing and planned development to exhibit harmony with surrounding structural elements.
Furthermore, the Project has been designed to reduce visibility of loading
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
doors, service docks, and equipment areas from public view and has been conditioned to screen equipment located on the roof of the building. 5) Screening of exterior structural elements.
The Project has been conditioned to screen all exterior mechanical equipment from public view.
6) Lighting design.
The Project is required to comply with Calimesa Municipal Code Section
18.120 Outdoor Lighting in order to reduce and minimize light pollution produced by proposed projects. In addition, the project’s lighting was found to be consistent with the MVSP’s Design Guidelines. The Project is also required to comply with the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines, as applicable.
7) Energy conservation.
The Project is required to comply with all applicable energy regulations, including Title 24 of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
Title 24 requires existing and new buildings to achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. Through the implementation of this Title, the Project will comply with state energy efficiency standards.
(d) The landscaping plan ensures visual relief and provides an attractive environment for the public's enjoyment and conforms to all landscape guidelines and water conservation requirements. For the purposes of this finding, consideration shall be given, without limitation, to the following:
1) Location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant material. 2) Provision for irrigation, maintenance, and protection of existing and proposed landscaped areas.
3) Screening of buildings and structures so as to relate them more closely to the natural environment.
4) Minimization and concealment of utility and mechanical features. 5) Preservation of native vegetation, significant ecological areas, and environmental features.
6) Water conservation.
The conceptual landscaping plan has been reviewed and conceptually approved by the City Landscape Architect for compliance with the Calimesa Municipal Code Chapter 18.75 Water
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
Conservation for Landscaping Requirements and the MVSP. Project approvals impose comprehensive conditions of approval which require compliance with the above referenced landscape requirements. In addition, the site is serviced by the Yucaipa Valley Water District and will utilize recycled water to achieve optimal water efficiency. Landscaping is used to lessen the visual impacts from surrounding streets with walls and plantings, providing a significant buffer to other uses in the surrounding area.
Section 4. Based on substantial evidence contained in the application, the Staff Report and supporting documents, the public comments submitted prior to and during the public hearing, and the Consistency Checklist and SEIR, technical appendices, other associated documents, and the remainder of the administrative record, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings in support of approving Conditional Use Permit Nos. 24-5 through 24-10:
(a) The proposed use is conditionally permitted within the subject land use district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this zoning code.
As discussed in Section 3(a) above, the project sites are located in Planning Areas 2 and 4 through 8 of the amended MVSP, which allows for uses consistent with the Business Park designation. The purpose of the Business Park Planning Areas is to provide areas that accommodate manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning, distributing, cooling, logistics or assembling of goods, merchandise, or equipment. In addition, Table 3-2 of the MVSP details the permitted and conditionally permitted uses allowed within the Business Park areas. As a warehouse distribution facility, the proposed developments are consistent with the conditionally permitted uses for the Business Park areas as identified in Table 3-2.
The Project is a speculative facility, meaning no tenants are yet identified. The tenants may operate 24/7/365.
(b) The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the land use district in which it is to be located.
The subject project will have a land use and zoning designation of Mesa Verde Specific Plan – Business Park in accordance with the amended MVSP. The site has been designed for consistency with the MVSP and the Development Code; thereby, maintaining the integrity and character of the amended specific plan. (c) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of land use being proposed.
As demonstrated through compliance with all applicable development standards such as floor area ratio, setbacks, parking provided, and building height, the subject sites accommodate the proposed type and intensity of the land use being proposed. (d) The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject property.
The subject sites are currently undeveloped. However, the proposed uses are compatible with the Business Park standards of the amended MVSP.
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
(e) The proposed use would be compatible with existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located.
The proposed distribution facility uses are compatible with the future planned land uses that are anticipated within the immediate vicinity of the Project. In addition, buffering such as increased setbacks, walls and landscaping has been included in the Project’s design in an effort to maintain compatibility with existing and future land uses in the area.
(f) The proposed use is compatible in scale, mass, coverage, density, and intensity with all adjacent land uses.
The architectural character of the Project is consistent with the MVSP’s Warehousing Distribution and Logistics – Architectural Guidelines. The proposed buildings are designed with a contemporary style and materials, that employs massing, scale and proportion for a cohesive, balanced, simple and distinct buildings. Comprised of interlocking volumes of wall planes, accents, colors, and materials that create visual appeal, the buildings are compatible with the surrounding area and the future planned uses. Exterior building colors include the use of gray, beige and brown tones with gray reflective glazing, and white accents around entries.
(g) There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety.
The Yucaipa Valley Water District issued an updated Preliminary Service Evaluation Letter for the Project on July 7, 2026. Other public utilities such as power, internet, and phone services are available to the site. The City will provide public safety services to the Project through the City Fire Department and contract services through the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office.
(h) There will be adequate provisions for public access to serve the subject proposal.
The Project site plans are laid out in such a way that there is convenient access provided to anticipated users, while avoiding an overbearing presence when the area is viewed from the street. Sandalwood Drive and Roberts Road border the subject sites along the northern and eastern boundaries of the amended MVSP area. Both Sandalwood Drive and Roberts Road provide access to the project sites for Buildings 2 and 4 through 8 and emergency vehicle access is also provided along these roads.
Access to the Buildings 2 and 4 through 8 sites would be accommodated via the proposed driveways indicated under Section 3(b)(2), Vehicle Access, described above. Therefore, the Project has and will maintain adequate public access to serve the proposal.
(i) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is currently classified as Mesa Verde Estates Specific Plan, inclusive of the Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
Residential, Open Space and Public Institutional land use designations. The proposed land use designations for the site are proposed to be revised to Open Space, Elementary School, Public/Quasi Public Facilities, and Business Park through GPA 23-01 and SPA 23-01, which are being processed concurrently with DPRs 24-06 through 24-11 and CUPs 24-05 through 24-10.
The majority of the project site is proposed to be designated as Business Park under GPA 23-01 and SPA 23-01. The Business Park designation is intended to accommodate enterprises engaged in the manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning, distributing, cooling, logistics or assembling of goods, merchandise, or equipment. The proposed development, as a distribution or logistics use facility, is consistent with the Business Park land uses and standards as proposed by the Mesa Verde Specific Plan, which conditionally allows a wide variety of storage and wholesale trade facility uses.
In addition, the proposal fulfills the following General Plan goals:
• POLICY LU-15: Commercial and industrial developments shall be designed to reflect the small-town atmosphere of Calimesa, using building materials such as exposed heavy timbers, weathered wood, and new and used bricks and stone, while maintaining good planning and design principles.
• POLICY LU-16: Discourage land use conflicts and incompatibilities by providing buffers to include, but not be limited to, landscaping, setbacks, walls/fencing, site design, architectural features, density/intensity/operation reduction, or shielding of lighting between incompatible land uses and new development. • POLICY LU-19: Locate commercial and industrial development in areas where street rights of-way and capacity are available, as well as sufficient infrastructure and public services.
• POLICY LU-23: Encourage the development of commercial and industrial centers to expand the employment and fiscal base of Calimesa.
• POLICY LU-24: Encourage existing and new employers in Calimesa to hire local residents when seeking to fill employment positions.
• POLICY TM-4: Maintain and rehabilitate roadways to preserve and improve the quality of city streets and thoroughfares that promote access and mobility between residential neighborhoods, employment centers, shopping, and health services. • POLICY TM-11: Reduce vehicle trips through design and changes in operations. • POLICY IPS-1: The City will work with water providers and developers to ensure that water supply and delivery systems are capable of meeting normal and emergency needs.
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
• POLICY AQ-13: Reduce the effects of air pollution and the urban heat island effect with increased tree planting in public and private spaces. (j) There will not be significant adverse effects upon environmental quality and natural resources.
The Project is subject to and incorporates the mitigation measures contained within the Consistency Checklist and MVSP Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as proposed under EA 23-02 and EA 25-3 which are being processed concurrently with this application. The mitigation measures and project design features reduce the adverse effects upon environmental quality and natural resources to the extent feasible.
(k) The negative impacts of the proposed use are mitigated.
The Project is subject to and incorporates the mitigation measures contained within the Consistency Checklist and MVSP Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as proposed under EA 23-02 and EA 25-3 which is being processed concurrently with this application. The mitigation measures, project design features, and Conditional Use Permit conditions contained herein mitigate potential negative impacts of the proposed use to a less than significant level.
(l) The proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interests, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.
The site has been designed consistent with the goals/policies of the General Plan and complies with the allowable uses/development standards of the amended MVSP and Development Code. Through consistency and compliance with these applicable documents, the proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Section 5. Based upon the application, the Master Sign Program, the Staff Report and supporting documents, the public testimony, the Consistency Checklist and SEIR, and the remainder of the administrative record, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings in support of approval of the Mesa Verde Business Park Master Sign Program:
(a) The Master Sign Program is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Mesa Verde Specific Plan No. 2, Amendment No. 2, and the purposes and applicable provisions of Chapter 18.50 of the Calimesa Municipal Code.
The Master Sign Program applies to an integrated Business Park development encompassing Planning Areas 2 and 4 through 8. It provides a comprehensive and coordinated system of tenant identification, monument, directional, regulatory, and wall signage appropriate to the size, configuration, and industrial character of the development.
Planning Commission Resolution 2026-24
DPR Nos. 24-06 through 24-11 and CUP Nos. 24-05 through 24-10
(b) The Master Sign Program substantially conforms to the sign regulations applicable to a large industrial park and represents an appropriate exercise of the flexible master-signprogram and design-review authority provided by Calimesa Municipal Code Sections
18.50.050(G) and 18.50.170.
The sign sizes, heights, quantities, and locations depicted in the Master Sign Program are proportionate to the scale of the warehouse buildings and associated sites and provide adequate tenant identification and wayfinding without creating unnecessary sign proliferation or visual clutter.
(c) The Master Sign Program integrates signage with the architectural and landscape design of the Business Park developments and creates a unified architectural statement.
The program uses a coordinated palette of Cor-ten steel, bronze-colored sign cabinets, gabion elements, dimensional lettering, and compatible illumination. The consistent use of these materials and design elements provides visual continuity among Planning Areas 2 and 4 through 8 and complements the architecture, landscaping, walls, and other site improvements approved through Development Plan Review Nos. 24-06 through 24-11. (d) The Master Sign Program promotes public convenience and safety.
The coordinated tenant identification, address, parking, shipping and receiving, and regulatory signs will assist motorists, pedestrians, emergency responders, delivery vehicles, employees, and visitors in navigating the Business Park. The program provides this information in a consistent format intended to reduce driver confusion and avoid visual obstruction and sign clutter.
(e) The illumination and placement of signs, as conditioned, will not create adverse effects on surrounding properties or roadways.
Illuminated signs are limited to the types and locations shown in the Master Sign Program and remain subject to the applicable outdoor-lighting, building, electrical, visibility, and safety requirements of the Calimesa Municipal Code and other applicable laws.
Section 6. Based on the findings contained in Sections 1 through 5 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Plan Review Nos. 24- 06 through 24-11, Conditional Use Permit 24-05 through 24-10, and the Mesa Verde Business Park Master Sign Program for the site layout, architectural design, landscaping, wall plan and related site improvements Buildings 2 and 4 through 8 located within Planning Areas 2 and 4 through 8 of the MVSP, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit G. The Master Sign Program attached as Exhibit H is approved as an integral component of Development Plan Review Nos. 24-06 through 24-11.
Section 7. The Planning Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause it be published and recorded in a manner required by law.
Exhibit A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW 24-06/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 24-05 PLANS Planning Area/Building 2
Electronic Copies available on the City of Calimesa website:
https://www.calimesa.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=492
Exhibit B
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW 24-07/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 24-06 PLANS Planning Area/Building 4
Electronic Copies available on the City of Calimesa website:
https://www.calimesa.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=493
Exhibit C
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW 24-08/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 24-07 PLANS Planning Area/Building 5
Electronic Copies available on the City of Calimesa website:
https://www.calimesa.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=494
Exhibit D
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW 24-09/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 24-08 PLANS Planning Area/Building 6
Electronic Copies available on the City of Calimesa website:
https://www.calimesa.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=495
Exhibit E
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW 24-10/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 24-09 PLANS Planning Area/Building 7
Electronic Copies available on the City of Calimesa website:
https://www.calimesa.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=496
Exhibit F
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW 24-11/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 24-10 PLANS Planning Area/Building 8
Electronic Copies available on the City of Calimesa website:
https://www.calimesa.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=497
Exhibit G
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TO APPLY TO DPRS 24-06 THROUGH 24-11
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 24-04 THROUGH 14-10
# Conditions of Approval Department
1.01 These conditionally approved Development Plan Reviews 24-06 through 24-11 shall remain valid while the project Development Agreement is valid, consistent with the terms and conditions set forth within the DA. Planning
1.02 Details shown on the plans are not necessarily approved. All details must be consistent with the Mesa Verde Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report, City ordinances, other applicable regulations, and these conditions of approval.
Notwithstanding this requirement, the Director of Community Development and/or City Engineer may approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Calimesa Municipal Code, other applicable regulations, and are in substantial conformance with the plans approved by the City Council.
Planning
1.03 Any proposed phasing of project components shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department and the City Engineer. Planning
1.04 The omission of a requirement of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan as a condition of approval contained herein shall not waive any obligation of the developer to demonstrate compliance of the provisions of the Specific Plan. Planning
1.05 Recommended approval of this Development Plan Review is contingent upon the property owner and applicant signing and returning to the Community Development Department the "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form at the end of this exhibit.
Planning
1.06 The development of this property shall substantially conform to the Site Plan, Elevations, Color and Materials, Floor Plans, Landscape Plans, Tentative Tract Map, Mesa Verde Busiess Park Master Sign Program, and other incidental plans as approved by the City of Calimesa City Council.
Planning
1.07 As a condition of approval of this Development Plan Review, the developer agrees to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City, and agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes or action, proceeding, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney's fees and disbursements (collectively, "Claims") arising out of or in any way relating to the issuance of the entitlement, any actions taken by the City related to this entitlement or the environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., for this entitlement and related actions.
Planning
1.08 All applicable mitigation measures within the certified Environmental Impact Report adopted for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan (SCH# 2004071045) that are not specifically listed herein are hereby made a part of these conditions of approval. All costs of supervising and conducting the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be borne by the developer. The developer shall maintain a minimum $10,000 deposit at all times and shall be responsible for any additional costs associated with the monitoring program. In addition, the Project shall comply with all applicable provisions of all federal, State, and Regional Water/Air Quality Control Board rules and regulations.
Planning
1.09 Final architectural approval for any potential guard shack shall be granted at the staff level with no additional public hearing required. Staff shall make findings of substantial conformance to the typical architectural elevations presented in DPRs 24-06 through 24-11. Subsequent planning commission approval shall be required only if the proposed architecture or building height/square footage is not found to be in substantial conformance with the aforementioned typical elevations.
Planning
1.10 All portions of the property shall be maintained in an orderly and clean fashion at all times. All waste products shall be disposed of in an appropriate manner. Planning
1.11 Development Plan Reviews 24-06 through 24-11 are applied for in conjunction with Environmental Assessments 23-02 and 25-3, the Project Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment 23-01, Specific Plan Amendment 23-01/Zone Change 23-01 (adopting Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment 2), Tentative Parcel Map 33931 Revision 2, Tentative Tract Maps 39086 through 39091, Development Plan Reviews 24-06 through 24-11, and Conditional Use Permits 24-05 through 24-10 which are incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. All applicable conditions of approval, project features, and mitigation measures contained in the project approvals, and all applicable mitigation measures contained in the Mesa Verde EIR including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full.
Planning
1.12 Pursuant to the timing specified in the applicable ordinance(s), the applicant shall pay all fees in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time of permit issuance including but not limited to the City of Calimesa Development Impact Fees, the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation (MSHCP) Fee, and the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF).
The applicant acknowledges it is their responsibility to obtain the most current fee schedule from the Community Development Department.
Planning
1.13 All Ordinances, Policy Resolutions, and Standards of the City in effect at the time this project is approved shall be complied with as a condition of this approval. All
1.14 All public improvements shall be designed in compliance with all appropriate Federal, State, County, and/or City standards. Preference shall be given to the use of Riverside County Transportation Department construction standards.
Use of other standards, i.e. Caltrans, APWA, and other shall be approved on a case-by-case basis by the City Engineer.
All public and private improvements shall be constructed to the standards mandated by the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and the latest changes thereto.
All
1.15 City project account review shall be performed to determine if any outstanding fees are owed, and subsequent fees shall be paid prior to the following actions: 1) Map recordation; 2) Issuance of any permits (building, encroachment, grading, etc.); 3) Acceptance of improvements; 4) Occupancy release; and 5) Surety release.
All
1.16 The Developer is required to provide for the perpetual maintenance of the following items: 1) Public parkway landscaping and irrigation; 2) Onsite drainage facilities including storm drain pipes, inlets, concrete v-gutters, curb and gutters, biobasins and retention basins/underground infiltration chambers 3) On-site private sewer and water facilities; 4) On-site drive isles, parking areas, signing and striping, landscaping, walls, and fences; 5) Maintenance responsibilities to comply with the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and continuing maintenance of the Best Management Practices.
Engineering and Planning
1.17 Contractors are required to arrange for a pre-construction meeting concurrently with the issuance of any permits. Engineering Mesa Verde - Business Park DPRs 24-06 through 24-11
1) GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.18 All retaining and perimeter walls shown on a grading plan require separate plan check, permits and inspections from the City’s Building Department. Engineering
1.19 Developer shall employ a qualified professional engineering firm to perform design services. All construction plans shall be prepared on 24”X36” drawing sheets with the City standard title block. Engineering
1.20 Project improvement plans and reports shall be submitted for plan check to the Engineering Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. Public and private improvement plans shall be submitted as a complete package including grading, erosion, street, signing and striping, street lighting, drainage, sewer, water, hydrology and hydraulics study, soils report, WQMP report, reference and backup documents and any other plans or reports as required by these conditions of approval. Incomplete submittals shall be rejected. Plan check fees/deposits shall be submitted, with the plan check submittal package, based on the latest adopted fee schedule.
Engineering
1.21 Projects that require trash enclosures shall construct trash facilities to provide for trash, recycling and green waste.
Project plans to show appropriately sized trash enclosure(s) to comply to state regulations. All trash enclosures shall include a solid roof to prevent pollutant discharge and runoff during a rain event.
Engineering
1.22 Project shall include recycling facilities per current California state standards and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Engineering
1.23 Any utility conflicts or changes to the approved plans that occur during construction shall be approved by the Public Works Director and the City Engineer. Construction work in the area of the conflict shall stop until the project engineer has submitted appropriate solutions to the City for review and approval.
Engineering
1.24 Consistency with Approved Plans. Landscape construction drawings submitted for plan check and permitting shall be in substantial conformation with the landscape plans approved with project entitlement, as determined by the Community Development Department.
Landscape
1.25 Landscape Checklist. All landscape construction drawing submittals shall comply with the City's current checklist for Landscape Construction Documents. Construction drawings that do not satisfy the checklist requirements may be returned without review until the required information has been provided.
Landscape
1.26 Yucaipa Valley Water District Approval. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). Evidence of YVWD approval, including the required approval stamp(s) on irrigation sheets, shall be obtained prior to approval and signature of the final landscape construction documents by the City Landscape Architect.
Landscape
1.27 Landscape Precon. Prior to issuance of the landscape construction permit, the job site superintendent and landscape contractor shall meet with the City Landscape Architect to conduct a pre-job meeting. Landscape
1.28 This project will require one or more building permits. Permits will require a complete permit application and complete building plans to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of work. Building and Safety
1.29 The Site shall be developed in compliance with all current model codes. All plans shall be designed in compliance with the latest editions of the California Building Codes as adopted by the City of Calimesa. Building and Safety
1.30 Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access to all entrances and exterior ground floor exits and access to normal paths of travel, and where necessary to provide access. Paths of travel shall incorporate (but not limited to) exterior stairs, landings, walks and sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, warning curbs, detectable warnings, signage, gates, lifts, and walking surface material. The accessible route(s) of travel shall be the most practical direct route between accessible building entrances, site facilities, accessible parking, public sidewalks, and the accessible entrance(s) to the site. California Building Code (CBC) 11B. The City of Calimesa enforces the State of California provisions of the California Building Code disabled access requirements. The Federal ADA standards differ in some cases from the California State requirements. It is the building owner’s responsibility to be aware of those differences and comply accordingly.
Building and Safety
1.31 Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patios, block walls, retaining walls and storage buildings. Building and Safety
1.32 Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer. Building and Safety
1.33 The perimeter of the jobsite that is adjacent to a public right of way shall have a properly installed, 6’ high, construction fence with privacy cloth attached. The fencing and cloth shall be maintained and kept in good condition until such a time that the project has been completed, or a permanent perimeter wall is in place. All construction entrances/exits shall be approved in advance by city personnel.
Building and Safety
1.34 Buildings on the site shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 11B. Building and Safety
1.35 Site Facilities such as parking (open and covered), recreation facilities, and trash dumpsters, shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 11A, 11B and 31B. Building and Safety
1.36 The building(s) shall meet all handicapped requirements. Building and Safety
1.37 The building(s) shall comply with all structural and non structural provisions of the California Building Code. Building and Safety
1.38 The building(s) shall meet all exiting requirements of Chapters 10 and 11 of the California Building Code. Building and Safety
1.39 Any change of occupancy will require submission of plans for approval to Building and Safety. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the local Building and Safety Division for inspection prior to occupancy of the building(s). Building and Safety
1.40 The building(s) or structure(s) shall meet all applicable requirements of the adopted model codes and amendments. Building and Safety
1.41 Fire Sprinkler System: fire sprinklers are required per California Fire Code. Install fire sprinklers systems in accordance with the 2025 CFC, 2025 NFPA 13, city of Calimesa Fire Prevention Department. Plans must be submitted to the Calimesa Fire Prevention Department for review and approval prior to installation.
Fire
1.42 Fire Extinguisher (ABC): A minimum of one 2A-10BC fire extinguisher shall be installed for each 3,000 sq.ft. of floor area.
Travel distance shall not exceed 75 feet. Additional fire extinguishers, size and class to be determined by fire marshal, may be required. Fire extinguishers shall be serviced annually and shall have a current SFM service tag attached.
Fire
1.43 Shell Building, No Hazardous Materials: these plans have not been reviewed for hazardous materials use, storage, or handling. Hazardous materials use, storage, and handling shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code and Calimesa Fire Prevention Department requirements.
Fire
1.44 Parking on access driveways, fire lanes and fire department turnarounds is prohibited. Fire
1.45 Construction equipment and supplies should be stored on the site in such manner as not to block natural surveillance from the surrounding streets.
Riverside County Sheriff
Department
1.46 Areas under construction shall be lit during hours of darkness, as permitted by the Western Riverside County MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.
Riverside County Sheriff
Department
1.47 Business Park Trip Generation and VMT Conformity Analysis: (Transportation (MM-TRA-1) – in accordance with the approved Environmental Impact Report, Appendix N, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Table 1 (MMRP Table 1), Developer shall prepare a trip generation and VMT conformity analysis for City review and approval. The Plan shall contain minimum requirements as defined in MMRP Table 1.
Engineering
1.48 All applcable conditions of approval established for Tentative Parcel Map 33931 are incorporated herein by reference as through set forth in full. All
1.49 Fuel Modification: A fuel modification zone plan adhering to the guidelines from the fire prevention department shall be submitted, and approved by the City of Calimesa Fire Prevention Department. 100' brush clearance (as permitted by the MSHCP) shall be implemented per plan prior to the delivery of combustibles to the job site (including the construction trailer).
Fire
1.50 Fire Hydrants: provide fire hydrant(s) within 400 feet of all portions of all buildings per the 2025 CFC, section 507.5.1. and Appendix ‘C’ Fire hydrants are to be installed, flushed and operational prior to the delivery of combustibles to the job site. Fire
1.51 Water System: The water system for fire protection must be installed by a licensed contractor and approved by the Calimesa Fire Prevention Department. No combustibles shall be brought on site until the water system has been inspected, functioning, and approved by the Calimesa Fire Prevention Department.
Fire
1.52 Fire Apparatus Access Road: approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. Roads are to be installed and capable of supporting 75,000 lbs prior to the delivery of combustibles to the job site. a. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of the 2025 CFC, section 503 and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. The applicant or developer shall include in the building plans the required fire lanes and include the appropriate lane printing and/or signs. b. Dimensions: fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet, exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with the 2025 CFC section 503.6 and unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Surface fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus of 80,000 pounds and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Roadways shall have a minimum 48 foot outside turning radius. Dead end access road shall not exceed 150 feet in length.
Fire
2.01 Consistent with Environmental Assessments 23-02 and 25-3, the Applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and project design features within the certified Environmental Impact Report adopted for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan (SCH# 2004071045).
Planning
2.02 The Applicant shall include the project mitigation measures on the grading plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Planning
2.03 Any additional import or export of soil that is not shown on the preliminary grading plan may require additional environmental analysis at the discretion of the Community Development Director. All costs associated with any additional environmental review shall be borne by the developer.
Planning
2.04 Developer shall comply with Assembly Bill 1414 (AB 1414) of the Business and Professions Code of the Land Surveyors Act as required to preserve existing monuments and survey control. Engineering
2.05 Developer shall provide notarized written permission from off-site landowner(s) prior to commencing grading and constructing for any offsite improvements within the off-site landowner(s) property. Engineering
2.06 Prior to issuance of a grading or drainage improvement permit, all plans and reports associated with grading, erosion, drainage, water quality & water treatment, water retention/detention and best management practices shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Engineering
2.07 A temporary erosion control plan shall be submitted for plan check and approval by the City Engineer. Grading and erosion control plans shall include provisions to avoid adverse effects caused by rain, wind, or other weather conditions.
Erosion and sediment control plans will be prepared and accomplished according to the best management practices as defined in the Riverside County Drainage Area Master Plan and as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Engineering
2.08 The grading plans shall include provisions to ensure that grading will be conducted in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 403, as applicable. Engineering
2.09 The Subdivider shall provide a comprehensive soils and geotechnical report (no older than one year), based on field and laboratory testing. The reports shall establish grading recommendations based on the nature and character of the site soils. Project grading plans shall include specific requirements from the approved geotechnical reports, including but not limited to, cuts, fills, over-excavation, and compaction requirements. Geotechnical engineer shall sign and seal all grading plans indicating the respective plan set complies with the recommendations of the comprehensive soils and geotechnical reports.
Engineering
2.10 A comprehensive hydrology and hydraulics report shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City of Calimesa.
Any off-site drainage, which may impact this development, or additional drainage created by this development, shall be addressed in accordance with the mitigation measures required in the hydrology report and as directed by the City Engineer. Approval of the Hydrology/Hydraulics Report is required prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Engineering
Project Specific Conditions - General Conditions
2) PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT
Prior to the Delivery of Combustable Material to the Job Site
2.11 Improvement plans shall demonstrate that historical or existing storm water flows from adjacent properties are received and directed to a public street, a public drainage facility, a City approved drainage easement or other approved facility. Engineering
2.12 The proposed project improvement plans shall be designed such that drainage facilities will maintain or reduce the 100- year peak runoff rates presently exiting all Project boundaries. The Project drainage facilities shall reduce the storm water flows to or below the existing condition flow rates prior to their discharge to areas located downstream of the project.
Engineering
2.13 All storm drains that are not maintained by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) shall be designed and constructed to RCFCWCD Standards and these facilities shall be maintained by a CFD or other City approved mechanism.
Engineering
2.14 Developer shall demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD). Engineering
2.15 Developer shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for review and approval of the City Engineer. WQMP facilities shall be designed based on the Guidelines contained in the sample Riverside County WQMP documents latest edition, available on the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Website. The WQMP shall provide for the treatment of the first flush runoff from the project as well as reducing the discharge from the project to predevelopment levels.
Engineering
2.16 This project is within a priority land use as defined by California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Water Code Section 13383 (Trash Provisions) and will be required to install, operate, and maintain full trash capture systems for all storm drains within or adjacent to the project. The Final WQMP shall include the design, specifications, and operation/maintenance procedures of the trash capture systems to state requirements and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Engineering
2.17 Per the State Water Resources Control Board, construction activity resulting in a land disturbance of one acre or more, or less than one acre but part of a larger common plan of development or sale must obtain the Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit (General Permit). Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Subdivider shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI), indicating that coverage has been obtained, to the City Engineer and Building Official. The Subdivider shall include notes on the grading plans indicating that the project will be implemented in compliance with the Statewide Permit for General Construction Activities.
Engineering
2.18 A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be approved and maintained throughout the scope of the project. Copies shall be available at the job site at all times. Engineering
2.19 Dust control operations shall be performed by the Contractor to comply with all Air Quality Management District regulations regarding dust control and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City shall have the authority to suspend all construction operations if, in their opinion, the Contractor fails to adequately provide for dust control.
Engineering
2.20 Developer shall obtain all applicable approvals and permits from the Water Quality Control Board and/or regional or local jurisdictions and demonstrate compliance with all applicable mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report or demonstrate that approvals are not required.
Engineering
2.21 Construction documents shall include language that requires all construction contractors to strictly control the staging of construction equipment and the cleanliness of construction equipment stored or driven beyond the limits of the construction work area. When possible, construction equipment shall be parked and staged within the project site.
Staging areas shall be screened from view from residential properties. Vehicles shall be kept clean and free of mud and dust before leaving the development site. Surrounding streets shall be swept daily and maintained free of dirt and debris.
Engineering
2.22 Construction traffic access to an on-going phased construction site shall not be permitted through any adjacent development site, which has been completed and accepted by the City for occupancy. Engineering
2.23 This project is subject to all of the requirements of the Municipal Storm Water and Sanitary Sewer System (MS4) permits issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and all subsequent permits to which the City is a signatory.
Engineering
2.24 Cross lot drainage is undesirable and only allowed as permitted by the City Engineer. A private drainage easement shall be recorded on all lots accepting surface water runoff from adjacent properties and shall include installation of a concrete V-ditch to carry said drainage to an approved location to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer.
Engineering
2.25 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, final landscape & irrigation plans shall be submitted to Public Works Department for approval to ensure that proposed trees do not conflict with utilities, signs, lights, line of sight, etc. Trees shall be located to maintain the following clearances: 5-ft from dry utilities, 10 feet from wet utilities (i.e. sewer and water laterals and main lines, fire hydrants, detector check assemblies, storm drain mains and laterals, catch basins, inlets, etc.), 15-ft from street lights and public street signs, and trees shall not block line of sight at street intersections or project driveways. Trees planted near bio-basins shall be of low leaf drop type and able to withstand wet conditions. Variation to these minimum clearances require approval form the City Engineer.
Engineering and Planning
2.26 Precise grading plans to include sewer and water services sized to adequately serve the proposed building(s). Service connections to be approved by appropriate water and sewer purveyor prior to issuance of a precise grading permit. Engineering
2.27 Developer shall prepare and submit a program for preventative maintenance of major manufactured slope areas. Such program will be approved by the City Engineer. In addition, slope maintenance requirements and guidelines shall be acknowledged as an obligation in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions or other City approved arrangement.
Engineering
2.28 The applicant shall provide submit written clearances (as applicable) to the City evidencing that all pertinent requirements of the following agencies have been met:
1) Yucaipa Valley Water District for water, recycled water, and sewer service; 2) City of Calimesa Fire Department approving the location/size of fire service pipe and detector check assembly, FDC, PIV, fire hydrants, fire flow calculations, fire lanes, etc.
Engineering
2.29 Construction staging areas/siting, and setbacks: Prior to grading permit issuance, Developer to submit construction staging plans depicting the following (CCR T14, Div 1.5, Ch 7, Sub Ch 2 Article 2, Section 1276.00):
a. The location of proposed construction staging areas. b. The proposed setbacks of construction staging areas to show increased safety for emergency fire equipment, evacuation of civilians, and areas designated for attack or defense from wildland fire suppression tactics. c. The protection against undeveloped ridgelines to show increased safety for emergency fire equipment, evacuation of civilians, and areas designated for attack or defense from wildland fire suppression tactics.
Fire
2.30 Removal/Destruction of Any Existing OWTS and Wells: Any existing wells and/or existing onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) shall be properly removed and/or destroyed under permit with DEH. For additional information please contact our Land Use Program at (951) 955-8980.
Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health
2.31 Prior to grading permit issuance, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) should be implemented at the site during grading operations to have proper protocols for what to do if any potential environmental concerns, including septic systems, USTs, wells, or contaminated soils are discovered. A SMP workplan should be submitted for review and approval by DEH prior to grading permit issuance. Contact Riverside County Environmental Health - Environmental Cleanup Programs at (951) 955-8980, for further information.
Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health
2.32 Prior to final grading clearance, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) completion report should be submitted for review by our department. Contact Riverside County Environmental Health - Environmental Cleanup Programs at (951) 955-8980, for further information.
Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health
2.33 Soil sampling and analysis should be performed in the area of the waste oil containers and surface staining west of the concrete apron below/west of Sandalwood Rd in the eastern portion of the site (APN 411-210-028).
Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health
2.34 Soil sampling and analysis should be performed in the area of the dumped trash, debris, empty metal drums, and soils stockpiling located in the southeastern area near Shady Brook Rd (APNs 411-210-010; -028) and the south-central portion of the site (413-040-017).
Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health
2.35 Prior to grading permit issuance, the Developer shall demonstrate compliance with all measures listed in the amended RCA Joint Project review (JPR #07-01-08-01) dated 7-11-2025 and included as Attachment D of this resolution. These measures include MSHCP Conservation, Restoration of Upland Temporary Impacts, Riparian/Riverine Mitigation, Invasive Species protection,Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines, and the Appendix C - Best Management Practices measure.
Western Riverside County
Regional Conservation
Authority
3.01 Applicant shall provide completed, signed Encroachment Permit Application and pay the permit issuance fee and inspection deposit as determined by City staff along with payment of any outstanding fees owed at that time. Engineering
3.02 Plans shall provide for radius type driveways in accordance with City Standard Plans for Commercial development. Engineering
3.03 Safe horizontal traffic sight distances and vertical curve sight distances shall be maintained regardless of street intersection angles, street grades, landscaping, or the lot configuration shown on project site plan. Developer shall perform a sight distance analysis that demonstrates adequate stopping sight distance is provided along street frontages in accordance with County of Riverside standards, taking into consideration intersecting streets, proposed driveways, vertical elevation differences, and curvilinear alignments to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No landscaping, walls, fences, utility structures, entry monuments signing, or permanent construction that will be more than 30 inches in the critical height area shall be permitted.
Engineering
3.04 For work in the public right of way, Traffic Control Plan based on the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) shall be submitted, for review and approval by the City Engineer. Traffic control shall be included as a line item in the Engineer's Estimate for bonding purposes. No construction shall be allowed prior to the approval of Traffic Control Plans.
Engineering
3.05 YVWD Service and Facilities: Project proposes to receive potable water service and sanitary sewer service from Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). Developer shall design and construct water facilities to serve this project as required by Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). Plans and specifications for the water and recycled water system facilities shall be submitted to YVWD for plan check and approval, and to the City of Calimesa for plan check and approval of City related issues, prior to issuance of a construction permit. Developer shall submit an agreement and/or other evidence, satisfactory to the City Engineer, indicating that the developer has entered into a contract with water purveyor guaranteeing payment and installation of the water improvements.
Engineering, YVWD, and Dept
of Environmental Health
3.06 Developer shall design and construct sewer facilities to serve this project as required by Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). Plans and specifications for the sewer system facilities shall be submitted to the governing sewer purveyor for plan check and approval, and to the City of Calimesa for plan check and approval of City related issues, prior to issuance of a construction permit. Developer shall submit an agreement and/or other evidence, satisfactory to the City Engineer, indicating that the Developer has entered into a contract with the sewer purveyor guaranteeing payment and installation of the sewer improvements.
Engineering and YVWD
3.07 The Master Developer of Tentative Parcel Map 33931 is required to design and construct the backbone street and storm drain public impriovements as well as supply Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds to guarentee the installation of said backbone improvements that are required by this project.
Engineering
3.08 No pavement cuts shall be allowed on any streets previously accepted by the City after the final course of pavement has been installed. Any project specific utility trenching and/or driveway cuts shall occur prior to the final course of pavement being constructed. Any deviations from this requirment shall be justified and approved by the City Engineer.
Engineering
3.09 Driveway locations and points of access shall be in approved by the City Engineer and will require issuance of an encroachment permit. Engineering
3.10 Applicant shall dedicate any additional right-of-way width at the commercial drive approach necessary to accommodate the ADA sidewalk crossing the driveway. Engineering
3.11 Access shall be restricted to right in/right out movements only off Sandalwood Drive unless the driveway is located at an intersection. Engineering
Project Specific Conditions - Prior to Encroachment Permits 3) PRIOR TO ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
3.12 Prior to issuance of an encroachment permit for any phased construction, the project engineer shall submit a phasing plan identifying construction access, public access and emergency access for review and approval by the City Engineer. Engineering
4.01 All approved improvement plans and revisions to approved plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in both full sized mylars and electronic format. As-built drawings necessary to document field construction changes shall be provided to the City in electronic format and on revised mylars prior to acceptance of improvements or surety release.
Engineering
4.02 In accordance with the California Building Code, Title 24, and the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), facilities for disabled persons shall be constructed and existing facilities shall be reconstructed at all street intersections or other locations associated with the project as required by the City Engineer.
Engineering
4.03 All catch basins and storm drain inlet facilities shall be stenciled with the appropriate "No Dumping, Only Rain in the Drain" message.
Engineering
4.04 No utility boxes, pedestals, clean outs, manholes, vaults or other impediments shall be installed within the public sidewalk area; all shall be located within the parkway or other location as approved by the City Engineer. Engineering
4.05 Prior to acceptance of public improvements, surety release or occupancy release, all above-ground utilities, including but not limited to communication and power lines that are 33KV in size or less, which are located on site or adjacent to the property frontage, shall be placed underground to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The undergrounding of utilities shall be reflected on the project improvement plans.
Engineering
4.06 Prior to acceptance of improvements or surety release, Developer shall be required to replace any street improvements, including but not limited to paving, sidewalk, curb and gutter, traffic signal loops and advanced warning loops, that are damaged during construction activities, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Engineering
4.07 Developer shall be responsible for research on private utility lines (gas, electric, telephone, cable, internet, etc.) to ensure there are no conflicts with site development. All existing utility lines that conflict with this project shall be relocated, removed, or sealed as directed by City Engineer.
Engineering
5.01 All building plans shall substantially conform to the approved elevations. Planning
5.02 A detailed material and color board shall be submitted in conjunction with construction plans. All exterior treatments shall be keyed to and noted on the construction plans and elevations. Planning
5.03 Off-street parking specifications shall be provided for standard, handicap, bicycle, motorcycle, carpool, vanpool, and zero emission vehicles in accordance with Calimesa Municipal Code Section 18.45. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Planning
5.04 The Community Development Department shall review and approve the location and aesthetic design of any retaining walls for compliance with the Mesa Verde Specific Plan. Planning
5.05 All trash bin enclosures shall be provided in accordance with the City of Calimesa standard design or alternate approved design. The enclosures shall be treated to match the building and shall contain a fire-resistant cover to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
Planning
5.06 All exterior lighting shall comply with the Mesa Verde Specific Plan, Calimesa Municipal Code Section 18.120.090 "Lighting in the commercial/industrial zone," and MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. Planning
5.07 Elevations and cross-section details showing the installation of proposed rooftop equipment shall be submitted. Rooftop equipment shall be installed and maintained at the height of six (6) inches below the parapet so as not to be visible from the public right-of-way.
Planning
5.08 The location of any utility vents or other equipment shall be provided on the roof plan and the location of any wall or ground-mounted equipment shall be shown on the site plan and elevations; aboveground utility boxes shall not interfere with line of sight visibility for parking lot circulation.
Planning
5.09 No exterior down spouts or roof scuppers shall be permitted along elevations facing public right of way. At elevations adjacent to the public right-of way all roof drains shall utilize interior piping but may have exterior outlets at the base of the buildings.
Planning
5.10 Details and specifications for all window and door types and treatments shall be included in the architectural plans. Planning
5.11 All wall and ground-mounted mechanical and electrical fixtures and equipment shall adequately and decoratively screened. The screen shall be included as an element of the overall design of the project and blend with the architectural design of the building. All telephone and electrical boxes shall be identified on the construction plans.
Planning
5.12 The Applicant shall submit an exhibit showing the location and specifications for all meter pedestals and aboveground equipment adjacent to Calimesa Boulevard. All equipment shall be located in the least visible areas and screened with landscaping materials to diminish their visibility. Equipment shall not obstruct driver visibility at intersections or driveways.
Planning
5.13 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City of Calimesa Development Impact Fee ordinance. The amount of the fee for this development shall be calculated at the issuance of each building permit.
Planning
5.14 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of City of Calimesa Ordinance No. 212, which requires the payment of the appropriate fee for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
Planning
5.15 All sides of a building elevation shall have architectural treatment that is consistent with the approved Development Plan Review. Planning
5.16 All signage shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit; all signs shall be in substantial conformance with the Mesa Verde master sign program. Planning
5.17 The Developer shall be responsible for the payment of all outstanding fees as required by the City of Calimesa Municipal Code. Fees to include plan check, permit, inspection and appropriate Development Impact and TUMF fees. All
5.18 The developer shall comply with all requirements of the Yucaipa Valley Water District Preliminary Project Service Evaluation Letter. Developer shall provide clearance from YVWD demonstrating that water and sanitary service requirements have been satisfied.
YVWD and Dept of
Environmental Health
5.19 Developer shall provide a rough grade certification letter for the site for approval by the City Engineer. Engineering
5.20 Developer shall provide compaction test results for the building pad for approval by the City Engineer. Engineering 5) PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITS
4) PRIOR TO IMPROVEMENT ACCEPTANCE
5.21 A Precise Grading, Utility and Erosion Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.
Plan check fees shall be paid based on the latest adopted fee schedule Engineering
5.22 Payment of school fees shall be made to the Yucaipa Calimesa Joint Unified School Disctrict by the project proponent in accordance with California State law. YCJUSD
5.23 Fire Flow Test: provide a current fire flow test report showing there is a water system capable of delivering the minimum fire flow required by the 2025 CFC Section 507.3, 507.4, and Appendix B. Fire
5.24 Site Plan. The applicant/ developer shall submit a site plan to Fire Prevention showing the locations of the nearest fire hydrant(s) to the proposed building(s), and provide the distances (dimensioned) of the fire hydrant(s) to the furthest portion of the building(s), measured along an approved route around the building.
Fire
5.25 Water Plans. Prior to building plan approval and construction, applicant/developer shall furnish three copies of the water system fire hydrant plans to the Calimesa Fire Prevention Department for review and approval. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed and approved by the local water authority, the originals shall be presented to the Calimesa Fire Prevention Department for review and approval.
Fire
5.26 Refuse Service Clearance Letter. Provide documentation from CR&R verifying that the appropriate size and number of refuse/recycle bins are provided at this site, in accordance with SB 1383. For additional information please contact our Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) at (951) 955-8980.
Riverside County Dept of
Environmental Health & CR&R
6.01 The builder’s name, address and emergency telephone number(s) shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site for emergency notification.
Riverside County Sheriff
Department
6.02 A list of the serial or license numbers of equipment and vehicles stored at the site shall be maintained in the construction trailer for reporting and recovery purposes.
Riverside County Sheriff
Department
6.03 Keys shall not be left with or on equipment or vehicles to help prevent theft and/or destruction. Riverside County Sheriff Department
6.04 The construction shall have a clearly designated point of contact, such as a construction trailer or office. Riverside County Sheriff Department
7.01 All current and future tenants shall obtain a Permit to Operate issued by the City of Calimesa. A Permit to Operate is valid for twelve months and shall be renewed annually. Planning
7.02 The applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Calimesa prior to Final Occupancy. Per CMC 5.05.140, business licenses issued by the City of Calimesa are initially valid for six months and must be renewed yearly thereafter. Planning
7.03 The applicant shall obtain a city-issued address for each structure prior to Final Occupancy. Planning
7.04 Any fees due to the City of Calimesa for processing this project shall be paid to the City prior to Final Occupancy. Planning
7.05 Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the project proponent shall pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of issuance. Planning
7.06 Prior to the request for final inspection, the Applicant shall have completed the installation of all landscape items, passed all construction sequence inspections in addition to having a completed 3rd party water audit with report, as built documents, controller charts submitted and approved prior by the City Landscape Architect.
Landscape
7.07 All new electrical power, gas, telephone, internet/fiber optics, television, and other miscellaneous services shall be installed underground. Engineering
7.08 All grading, public and private improvements, utilities, landscaping and irrigation and other items required by the conditions of approval shall be installed and accepted by the City. Engineering
7.09 Applicant to provide evidence of project approval from applicable outside agencies including Fire Department, sewer and water purveyor, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, etc. Engineering
7.10 All approved improvement plans and revisions to approved plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in both full sized mylars and electronic format. As-built drawings necessary to document field construction changes shall be provided to the City in electronic format and on revised mylars prior to occupancy release or acceptance of improvements or surety release.
Engineering
7.11 The engineer shall provide a fine grade certification letter for the building site to the City Engineer. Engineering
7.12 Upon the completion of construction, the owner/developer shall file a letter with the SWRCB or submit information to the SMART System stating that the construction activity is complete. A copy of this letter shall be submitted to the City prior to occupancy
Engineering
7.13 The engineer shall provide a Water Quality Management Plan certification to the Public Works Department. In addition, Developer shall provide the Public Work's Department with a covenant and agreement for WQMP BMP maintenance to be recorded by the City. This agreement shall provide the City with complete access for inspection.
Engineering
7.14 The Developer shall provide the City with documentation of recovered organic waste procurement. Public Works
7.15 Address Identification: address numbers shall be placed on all new and existing commercial buildings in such a manner as to be plainly visible and legible from access roadway/street at all times, in accordance with the 2025 CFC, section 505.1.
Fire
7.16 Key boxes: all new industrial buildings where the Fire Department deems access is restricted shall be required to install a key box or key switch in an approved location. Electric gates for emergency vehicle access shall include an “infrared automatic gate system” that opens the gate automatically. These devices shall be installed on all electric fire access gates.
Fire
7.17 Developer shall provide clearance from YVWD demonstrating that water and sanitary service requirements have been satisfied.
YVWD and Riverside County
Dept of Environmental Health
7.18 Prior to final occupancy, this facility shall be required to contact and have a review conducted by the Hazardous Materials Management Branch (HMMB). A business emergency plan for the storage of any hazardous materials, greater than 55 gallons, 200 cubic feet or 500 pounds, or any acutely hazardous materials or extremely hazardous substances will be required. If further review of the site indicates additional environmental health issues, HMMB reserves the right to regulate the business in accordance with applicable County Ordinances. Please contact HMMB at (951) 358-5055 to obtain information regarding any additional requirements.
Riverside County Dept of
Environmental Health
7) PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY RELEASE
6) PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
Government Code Section 65850.2 (AB 3205) requires the City to not issue the final certificate of occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The applicant shall
7.19 complete the Air Quality Permit Checklist (available at front counter) to determine whether air quality permits are required Building and Safety for any equipment that may be operated at the site (for non-residential buildings). South Coast Air Quality Management District. 21865 Copely Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182. 1800) 388-2121 (we) do hereby acknowledge that these Conditions of Approval have been read, fully understood and .r+ 21 202&
Date
Date
it+J.e
# Conditions of Approval Department
1.01 Future Tenants. Conditional Use Permits 24-05 through 24-10. The property owner (present and future) shall be responsible for providing a copy of the approved conditions of approval and approved exhibits to every current and future project tenant, lessee, and property owner to facilitate compliance with these conditions of approval and continuous use requirements. All conditions of approval, EIR mitigation measures and environmental assessments (EA 23-02 and EA-25- 3) Project Features are continuously in effect throughout the operative life of the project for the use approved. Failure of the property owner, tenant, applicant, developer or any operator to comply with any or all of the conditions at any time may result in a public hearing and revocation of the approved land use, provided adequate notice, time and opportunity is provided to the property owner or other party to correct the non-complying situation.
Planning
1.02 All current and future tenants shall obtain a Permit to Operate issued by the City of Calimesa. A Permit to Operate is valid for twelve months and shall be renewed annually.
Planning, Fire, and Riverside
County Department of
Environmental Health
1.03 All current and future tenants shall obtain a Business License issued by the City of Calimesa. Business licenses are initially valid for six months and shall be renewed annually thereafter. Finance
1.04 Revisions. Any proposed change to the approved use/activity on the site; or an increase in the exterior footprint, including addition of a vehicle/trailer maintenance facility, addition of an outdoor diesel/fuel distribution facility, exterior expansion of the building footprint, landscaping modification, exterior lighting modification, proposed change in the conditions of approval, or proposed change to the EIR mitigation measures identified in EA-23-02, shall require amendment to the Conditional Use Permit through a public hearing process. Modification of the building interior area which does not result in a change of use shall be processed through a ministerial building permit review process.
Planning
1.05 Expiration. This project conditional use permit approval shall remain valid while the project Development Agreement is valid, consistent with the terms and conditions set forth within the DA. Planning
1.06 Indemnification. As a condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit 24-05, the property owner and/or tenant agrees to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City, and agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes or action, proceeding, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney's fees and disbursements (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the issuance of the entitlement, any actions taken by the City related to this entitlement or the environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., for this entitlement and related actions.
Planning
1.07 Continuous Maintenance. The property owner and/or tenant shall continually maintain the property so that it is visually attractive and not dangerous to the health, safety and general welfare of both on-site users (e.g. employees) and surrounding properties. The property owner and/or tenant shall ensure that all facets of the development are regularly inspected, maintained and that any defects are timely repaired. Among the elements to be maintained, include but are not limited to:
Planning
a. Annual maintenance and repair inspections shall be conducted for all structures, fencing/walls (including noise walls), walks, parking lots, driveways, and signs to assure proper structural, electrical and mechanical safety and a properly operating irrigation system.
Planning
b. Graffiti and debris shall be removed with weekly maintenance. Planning c. All landscaping shall be maintained in a continual healthy thriving manner at proper height for required screening and air quality mitigation. Tree pruning, for the purpose of of trimming to limit the height and/or width of tree canopy and resulting in a reduction of shade coverage for the parking lot area, is prohibited.
Tree pruning for the health of the tree and/or to avoid wind damage shall be done in consultation with the City Landscape Architect. Drought-resistant, fire retardant vegetation shall be used where appropriate.
Planning
d. Erosion control measures shall be maintained to reduce water runoff, siltation, and promote slope Planning e. Architectural controls shall be enforced by the property owner to maintain compatibility of theme, materials, unfaded colors, building mass, size, and height. Planning f. External Storage, loading, recycling, and trash storage areas shall be kept neat, orderly, and screened from public view with a solid masonry wall. The wall shall include sight-obscuring gates. The solid wall(s) and gate(s) shall be continuously maintained in good repair. Outside storage shall be screened from public view and not exceed the height of screening walls. The primary truck entrance gate may be of perforated steel construction with a minimum of 80% opacity.
Planning
g. Metal Storage Containers, if used, shall be screened by landscaping or other means. Planning h. Parking and on-site circulation requirements, including surfaces, all markings and traffic/directional signs shall be maintained in an unfaded condition as identified on the approved site plan. Any modification to parking and access layout requires City review and approval. The markings and signs shall be clearly defined and legible. These include parking spaces, disabled space and access path of travel, directional designations, and signs, stop signs, pedestrian crossing, speed humps “No Parking” “carpool” and “Fire Lane” designations.
Planning
1.08 Performance Standards. The approved land uses shall operate in compliance with the general performance standards listed in the Calimesa Municipal Code Chapter 18.30.050, regarding noise, electrical disturbance, radioactivity, fire hazards, vibration, smoke, odors, and emission of heat and glare. In addition to these, the following apply:
Planning
a. Noise. No use shall be permitted which exceeds the sound levels permitted by Chapter 8.15 CMC. Planning b. Electrical Disturbance. Devices which radiate radio frequency energy shall be so operated as not to cause interference with any activity carried on beyond the boundary line of the parcel upon which the device is located. The term “radio frequency energy” as used herein shall mean the electromagnetic energy at any frequency in the radio spectrum between 10 kilocycles and 3,000,000 megacycles.
Planning
c. Radioactivity. The use of radioactive materials shall be limited to measuring, gauging, and calibration devices. No use shall emit dangerous radioactivity. No cleaning of radioactive materials, equipment, or devices shall be permitted.
Planning
Conditional Use Permits 24-05 through 24-10
1) GENERAL CONDITIONS
d. Fire and Explosion Hazards. All activities involving flammable or explosive materials and all storage of such materials shall be provided with adequate safety devices against the hazard of fire and explosion. Planning Adequate firefighting and fire suppression equipment shall be available within response times defined· by the fire department.
e. Vibration. Every use shall be so operated that ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated Is not perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person standing on any boundary line of the lot on Planning which the use is located.
f. Smoke, Dust, Fumes, and Other Particulate Emissions. Said emission levels shall comply with the Planning standards of the South Coast Air Quality Mana11ement District. g. Odors. Odors shall not be in such quantities as to be offensive to a reasonable person standing Planning any-where outside the boundaries of the parcel from which said odors emanate. h. Emission of Heat and Glare. Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat or glare in such quantity or degree as to be readily detectable by a reasonable person standing beyond any boundary line of Planning the oarcel from which said heat or olare emanates.
1.09 Lighting. The glare from any luminous source, including on-site lighting shall not exceed one-half (0.5) foot-candle at Planning crooertv line.
Acceptance of Conditions. Within thirty (30) calendar days of approval of this entitlement, the applicant shall sign and
1.10 retum to the Planning Division the Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval, indicating that the applicant has read Planning and aorees to meet all Conditions of A:;Jproval of this entitlement.
1.11 Applicability. If any of the conditions or limitations of this approval are held to be invalid, that holding does not invalidate Planning an1 of the remaining conditions or limitations set forth.
1.12 All operations must comply with the Mitigation Measures described in the Environmental Assessments (EA 23-02 for the Planning SEIR and EA-25-3 for the Consisteney Checklist\. (we) do hereby acknowledge that these Conditions of Approval have been read, fully understood, and n-w wt 21
Date
vSf 21 2 d2/t
Date
ft t fjdenf t Cl;()
fiJl.e
Exhibit H
Mesa Verde Business Park Sign Program
https://www.calimesa.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=498
**DATE:** July 29, 2026
**TO:**
City of Calimesa Planning Commission
Attn: Deputy City Clerk
908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320
Via Email: [email protected]
**FROM:**
Clarence Hoefer
870 W County Line Rd
Calimesa, CA 92320
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Please accept this letter as my FORMAL OPPOSITION to the proposed Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment 2 Project, Environmental Assessment NO. EA-23-02 and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH No. 2004071045), General Plan Amendment NO. GPA-23-01, Development Agreement, Specific Plan Amendment NO.23-01/Zone Change NO. 23-01, scheduled for public hearing on July 13, 2026.
I am writing to state my explicit and formal objection.
As a local stakeholder and resident, I urge the Planning Commission to deny certification of the SEIR and reject the General Plan Amendment. The SEIR is legally inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it completely fails to analyze severe, localized environmental impacts on West County Line Road residents. Furthermore, the proposed amendments fundamentally destroy the "Rural" character guaranteed to this community in the 2017 approved plan.
Shared with Planning Commission via email on
08/03/2026
My formal objections are based on the following unaddressed, unmitigated impacts:
1. Inadequacy of the SEIR Regarding Localized Traffic and Resident Safety The project’s Traffic Analysis indicates that the development will generate an astronomical **24,000 daily vehicles and heavy truck traffic trips**. Despite this staggering volume, the SEIR is entirely silent on how this influx will impact the safety and daily operations of the residents living along West County Line Road.
This specific section of West County Line Road is zoned rural/residential. A large percentage of residents here own trailers, boats, and RVs. Due to current road configurations and residential designs, backing into our driveways is a structural necessity. Forcing residents to maneuver large trailers and RVs into their driveways while competing with 24,000 daily vehicle trips is an extreme safety hazard that will render routine property access physically impossible. The SEIR’s complete failure to evaluate this critical barrier to localized traffic safety and property access invalidates its findings and should negate its certification.
2. Unanalyzed Encroachment, Setback Violations, and Property Value Loss The project proposes to widen County Line Road to its maximum 60-foot right-of-way width. This widening severely encroaches upon existing residential homes, placing the active roadway directly inside the current 30-foot residential setback established by the City of Calimesa.
The SEIR contains zero analysis regarding how violating these established setbacks will impact local residents of W County Line Rd. Furthermore, the SEIR completely ignores the devastating loss of property value that West County Line Road homeowners will suffer. Converting a quiet, rural residential street into a high-volume logistics and transit corridor—while physically encroaching onto private properties and erasing established safety setbacks—inflicts severe financial injury on homeowners that has been entirely unacknowledged by the City and the developer.
3. Severe Omissions of Localized Noise and Air Pollution The SEIR is fundamentally flawed because it fails to evaluate the localized noise and air pollution impacts forced specifically upon the West County Line Road residential corridor:
* **Noise Pollution:** Introducing 24,000 daily trips, including heavy diesel trucks idling, braking, and accelerating directly adjacent to residential bedrooms, will shatter the ambient noise levels of this rural zone. The SEIR fails to address the lack of sound walls or mitigation measures required to protect residents from 24/7 acoustic disruption.
* **Air Pollution:** West County Line Road residents will be subjected to concentrated diesel particulate matter (DPM), fine particulate matter ($PM_{2.5}$), and localized emissions from heavy truck traffic. The SEIR fails to conduct a localized Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for these specific residents, ignoring the heightened risks of respiratory illness and toxic air contaminants brought directly to our doorsteps.
4. Failure to Account for Existing Cumulative Truck Traffic The cumulative impact analysis in the SEIR is deeply flawed because it fails to calculate or factor in the actual, active truck traffic originating from the newly built Yucaipa warehouse located at the I-10 and County Line Road offramp. By ignoring this existing bottleneck and heavy vehicle load, the SEIR relies on inaccurate baseline data, rendering its traffic, air quality, and noise projections completely invalid.
5. Violation of the General Plan, Destructive Land Use Alteration, and Elimination of Rural Options The General Plan Amendment must be rejected because it completely strips away the "Rural" character explicitly promised and heavily emphasized in the 2017 approved plan. Amendment 2 aggressively eliminates low-density, rural living options by completely removing the **Very Low Density** residential category. Furthermore, it slashes the **Low Density** category by 289 lots and the **Medium Density** category by 219 lots.
In place of these rural options, the developer is forcing extreme urban density and industrialization onto our community. **Extreme High Density** residential increases by 250 lots, and **Multifamily High Density** spikes by 432 units. Compounding this destruction is the addition of **4,133,800 square feet of massive warehouse business parks**. This industrial encroachment completely violates the 2017 approval that embraced a cohesive rural theme.
To make matters worse, the developer is attempting to alter primary project access points. In the 2017 approval, Sandalwood Drive was designated as the main access route for residential development, while County Line Road was strictly designated as emergency-access-only and secured with a gate. Amendment 2 attempts to flip this entirely by making County Line Road a main
access point, dumping massive amounts of daily residential and industrial traffic onto a rural residential corridor that was never designed or intended to handle it.
Conclusion
Because the SEIR fails to address localized driveway access, ignores the violation of the City's own 30-foot setbacks, fails to baseline existing Yucaipa warehouse truck traffic, and completely omits localized property value loss, noise pollution, and air pollution impacts, it cannot legally be certified under CEQA.
For these reasons, I reiterate my formal objection to every project action listed on the hearing notice. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend **denial** of the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Amendment 2 and the associated General Plan Amendment to the City Council.
Mesa Verde already has an approval for their project. Amendment 2 looks nothing like the original in which countless hours were put in by not only the City staff, but the residents of Calimesa in shaping the project to its approval. This was all built around the “Rural” character of Calimesa.
Creating a high density mega development but leaving more open area to bait us with ruralness is an insult. Amendment 2 has issues that can not be mitigated as stated in the SEIR, and that fact alone should be enough to send this back with a NO VOTE.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our community's safety, identity, and integrity.
Sincerely,
Clarence Hoefer – (35 year resident)
870 W County Line Rd
Calimesa, Ca 92320
Outlook
Re: Clarification of statements
From c w hoefer <[email protected]>
Date Wed 8/19/2026 12:13 PM
To Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
External ([email protected])
Report This Email FAQ Protection by INKY
Thanks for the information.
Where is the specific Environmental Impact analysis on the residents of W County Line Rd: Traffic (safety), noise, pollution (both air and noise), safety of the thousands of cars now pushed closer to homes and driveways, as well as the inability to safely enter or exit driveways (safety), or back a trailer into our Rural/Residential driveways (safety) ? There is no mention of the 30' setbacks that will be violated on many homes as well. NONE of this exists in the SEIR.
If it does exist, please have Dudek specifically show section, page, paragraph of each of these items. These items were all brought up in letters to the Planning Commissioners in submitted comments and have still not been addressed.
An SEIR is legally required to analyze any significant environmental or safety hazards caused by a project's design.
Under the "Fair Argument" standard of CEQA, if a member of the public provides substantial evidence that a project creates a safety hazard or restricts emergency access, the lead agency (City) must analyze it in the EIR/SEIR.
The traffic analysis Appendix J-2 did not reference the data that you just sent regarding street size. We need clarification that the traffic analysis was done based on the responses that were just given for the size of the road just referenced. Because they don't match, and that makes the SEIR legally insufficient. If we are incorrect, please provide Section, page, paragraph stating it.
Also, referencing that Bill Shopoff "misspoke" is a major problem for the City of Calimesa. This due to the fact that he said it on the record more than once while at the podium prior to the Planning Commission vote. This information was false and contradicted the Traffic Analysis and the SEIR and any information given to the public. This misinformation was put on the record and very well could have swayed votes. The City Planning Commission chairperson acknowledged me when he was asked where the 36' road that Shopoff stated was referenced, and the Chair pointed at the paperwork and said "right here" pointing at the paperwork, and yet this was false, and he still voted to confirm. It is very apparent that the Chair and possibly other Commissioner's did NOT read the SEIR, and I question if they read the comments submitted by the public outlining many of these points. Either way Bill Shopoff's comments can not just be shrugged off.
There is also the issue that of the Planning Commission Chair and one other Commissioner acknowledged on the record that they had both had a phone conversation with Bill Shopoff. Just acknowledging they had a conversation is not enough. Legally they needed to disclose the contents of that conversation.
To safeguard the public's due process rights, decision-makers are legally required to fully disclose on the public record:
1. **The specific timing and length** of the private communication;
2. **The complete substance** of what was discussed, including any arguments, facts, road dimensions, trip estimates, or assurances presented by the applicant; and
3. **Whether any representations made** during those private discussions influenced the decision-maker's understanding of the project.
By acknowledging the phone calls without disclosing a single detail of what was said, the public was deprived of its fundamental right to hear, evaluate, and rebut the evidence and arguments presented privately by the applicant. This creates an unrecorded, "secret baseline" of information that taints the fairness of the hearing and prejudices the public.
On August 12, 2026 I sent to the City Clerk a: FORMAL NOTICE OF PROCEDURAL DEFECT AND INSUFFICIENT
EX PARTE DISCLOSURE regarding this issue that has yet to be acknowledged by the Clerk. I realize there is a 10 day provision and we look forward to that information.
Please respond back so that we can address these many issues plaguing this project.
Thank you,
Clarence Hoefer
On Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 02:03:46 PM PDT, Kelly Lucia <[email protected]> wrote:
Good afternoon Clarence,
Thank you for your patience. The environmental consultant prepared detailed responses to your questions, which are attached here. I have also attached Exhibit E of the proposed Development Agreement, which shows the dimensions of the roadway and limits of improvement (Planning Commission packet PDF page 146 of 605). You will need to use the zoom feature of your PDF reader to see the dimensions, but here is a screen snip for reference.
One item of note is that the applicant misspoke during the Planning Commission hearing when he stated that the roadway improvements would be 36'. As detailed in the attached, the proposed roadway would be 38' curb to curb. It would consist of 14' shared bicycle/travel lanes (one lane in each direction), and a 10' center turn lane, plus paved sidewalks.
The improvements would be made within the existing 60'-80' right of way and refined during final engineering. See the representative image below, which shows the general extent of the existing right of
way outlined in blue. (This is not survey level data but generally shows that the right of way extends beyond the pavement).
Finally, the detailed response also includes references to the Aesthetics section of the EIR and Key Observation Points 6 and 7. I extracted those images along with the location map below.
I hope this information is helpful.
Thank you,
SCALE. 1 "=500'
EXHIBIT "E"
WEST COUNTY LINE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
MESA VERDE - TR 33931
CITY OF CALIMESA
COUNTY LINE LANE
BEGIN
IMPROVEMENTS �
OFFS/TE
�
�
PRBPARBD FOR: MESA VERDE OWNER, LLC.
18565 JAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 200
//?VINE, CA 92612
PRBPARBD BY: ILi HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
IRVINE, INC .
PLANNING • ENGINEERING • SURVEYING
Three Hughes • Irvine, CA 92618 • Pt-t (949) 583-1010 • FX: (949) 583,0759 ' NOTE: PROPERTY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM COUNTY GIS FILES AND HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED. DATE PREPARED: 2026-06-03 DATE: Jun. 03, 2026 03:20:47 PM FILE: F:\ 7227\Plonning\0A_Project\Ex_Genera!\County Line Rood widening\Exh_County Line Rood Widening.dwg
Kelly Lucia, M. URP
Community Development Director
Cell 909.809.8778
Office 909.795.9801 ext. 229
Email [email protected]
Planning · Building & Safety · Code Enforcement
Please use the OpenGov Permit Portal for all submittals Check out our major development projects!
From: c w hoefer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 12:57 PM
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Clarification of statements
Thanks Kelly.
On Monday, August 10, 2026 at 11:24:53 PM PDT, Kelly Lucia <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Clarence,
I’ll prepare responses to your questions shortly. For now, I wanted to make sure that you know that the Planning Commission did not approve the project. The action taken tonight was to recommend that the City Council approve it.
Because the application package includes legislative actions (a development agreement, general plan amendment, and specific plan amendment), only the City Council can approve or deny the proposal. The public hearing notices have not gone out yet, but the City Council hearing is scheduled for Sept 21st at 6 pm in the Senior Center.
Thank you,
Kelly
From: c w hoefer <[email protected]>
Date: August 10, 2026 at 9:09:48 PM PDT
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Clarification of statements
Hello,
Could you please direct me specifically to the document that explains Shopoff's reference to W County Line Rd being 36' curb to curb.
Also, please show me where in the SEIR how the current residents would be affected was discussed or analyzed. Document, page, and paragraph please.
Please show me document, page, and paragraph on the effects of 14,000 - 32,000 vehicles, the noise, the pollution, the safety hazards, for the residents of W County Line Rd. I have canvassed the thousands of pages and can't find this information.
Where is one to find the actual layout of the road and where the boundaries of the curb to curb will lay as well as the sidewalks ? The document, page, and paragraph would be great.
Very disappointed in the lack of mention of any of these details, and yet 3 commissioners lacked the fortitude to investigate the answers. Meeting felt very much like a charade with a pre determined outcome before it even started. Crazy that unelected, but appointed, commissioners have this kind of power to look the other way.
Thank you for your time.
C W Hoefer
August 12, 2026
**TO:**
City of Calimesa Planning Commission
Attn: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners
City of Calimesa City Attorney’s Office
908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320
Via Email: `[email protected]` / `[email protected]` **FROM:**
Clarence Hoefer
870 W County Line Rd
Calimesa, CA 92320
**SUBJECT: FORMAL NOTICE OF PROCEDURAL DEFECT AND INSUFFICIENT EX PARTE DISCLOSURE**
*Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 Public Hearing August 10, 2026* Dear Chair, Commissioners, and City Attorney:
I am writing to place on the official administrative record a formal objection regarding a serious procedural defect that occurred during the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission hearing for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 project.
At the opening of the hearing, the Planning Commission Chair and one other Commissioner verbally acknowledged having held private, off-the-record phone conversations with the project developer, Mr. Bill Shopoff. However, neither Commissioner disclosed the substance, content, timing, or representations made during those private discussions. ### Legal Insufficiency of the Disclosure
Under California land-use law and constitutional principles of procedural due process (*Cochell v.
City of Glendale*), when a decision-maker in a quasi-judicial proceeding engages in ex parte communications, **merely stating that a conversation occurred is legally insufficient.** To safeguard the public's due process rights, decision-makers are legally required to fully disclose on the public record:
1. **The specific timing and length** of the private communication;
2. **The complete substance** of what was discussed, including any arguments, facts, road dimensions, trip estimates, or assurances presented by the applicant; and
3. **Whether any representations made** during those private discussions influenced the decision-maker's understanding of the project.
By acknowledging the phone calls without disclosing a single detail of what was said, the public was deprived of its fundamental right to hear, evaluate, and rebut the evidence and arguments presented privately by the applicant. This creates an unrecorded, "secret baseline" of information that taints the fairness of the hearing and prejudices the public. ### Request for Remedial Action
Because a decision rendered on an incomplete public record violates due process and jeopardizes the legal validity of any subsequent City Council approvals, I respectfully request that:
1. Both Commissioners file a **detailed, written disclosure memo** stating the full substance of their private conversations with Mr. Shopoff;
2. These written disclosures be entered into the official public record prior to the City Council’s review of Amendment 2; and
3. The City Attorney review the procedural validity of the Planning Commission’s August 10, 2026 vote in light of these uncurred ex parte contacts.
Thank you for your prompt attention to correcting this procedural record.
Sincerely,
Clarence Hoefer
August 19, 2026
**TO:**
Kelly Lucia, Community Development Director (`[email protected]`) City of Calimesa City Attorney’s Office
Office of the City Clerk (`[email protected]` / `[email protected]`) **FROM:**
Clarence Hoefer
870 W County Line Rd
Calimesa, Ca 92320
**SUBJECT:** REBUTTAL AND FORMAL EXCEPTION TO DUDEK’S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS (LETTER 15)
*Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 Project / Final SEIR (SCH No. 2004071045)* Dear Ms. Lucia, City Attorney, and Planning Staff:
Thank you for providing the written responses prepared by Dudek regarding Comment Letter 15.
Please ensure this letter is placed into the official administrative record for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 Project and distributed directly to the City Council ahead of the September 21, 2026 public hearing.
Upon careful review of Dudek’s responses, the document explicitly confirms that the environmental review process suffers from critical, fatal legal deficiencies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
### 1. Admission of an Unstable Project Description & Uncirculated Redesign (Response 15-1)
In Response 15-1, Dudek acknowledges that while the circulated Draft SEIR evaluated a **48-foot curb-to-curb roadway** with dedicated 6-foot bicycle lanes, the City and applicant fundamentally changed the physical design to a **38-foot curb-to-curb roadway** with 14-foot shared lanes inside the uncirculated Development Agreement.
* Under CEQA (*County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles*), an agency cannot circulate an EIR based on one project design and subsequently alter the physical roadway footprint behind closed doors without recirculating the environmental document.
* Squeezing 14,000 daily vehicles, heavy trucks, and cyclists into a 38-foot shared section constitutes a new, unanalyzed traffic safety hazard that was never disclosed for public review in the Draft SEIR.
### 2. Admission of Withheld Alignment Maps During Public Comment (Response 15-4) Dudek admits in Response 15-4 that the detailed graphic showing the physical alignment, curb lines, and right-of-way boundaries along County Line Road **"was not available at the time of the Draft SEIR"** and was only provided on page 146 of the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission agenda packet.
* Withholding basic engineering alignment plans until the night of the Planning Commission hearing deprived the public and affected landowners of their statutory right to evaluate physical roadway placement during the mandatory CEQA public comment period. ### 3. Acknowledged Destruction of Frontage & Inadequate Noise Mitigation (Response 15-2) * **Property Destruction:** Dudek’s response dismisses residential setback concerns while explicitly conceding that the project will cause the **"subsequent removal of lawns, landscaping, fencing, and/or mailboxes"** directly in front of our homes. Paving the public Right-of-Way up to existing property lines strips away the essential open-space setback buffer required by municipal zoning standards.
* **Unmitigated Noise Surge:** Dudek confirms that project traffic will cause a severe **9.7 dBA noise increase** along County Line Road Segment 1, exceeding the City’s threshold of significance.
Relying exclusively on rubberized asphalt (MM-NOI-3), which typically achieves only a minor 2–3 dBA reduction, leaves existing residents with a substantial, unmitigated noise impact. ### 4. Continued Omission of Localized Driveway Hazards Dudek points to broad, generic chapter headings (Thresholds 4.15c and 4.15d) but fails to provide a single page or paragraph containing an empirical safety analysis of how rural residents will safely execute backing maneuvers with RVs, horse trailers, and personal vehicles against 14,000 daily trips.
Because Dudek’s own responses substantiate that the SEIR relies on an unstable project description, concealed engineering plans from the public draft, and fails to mitigate significant localized impacts, the Final SEIR cannot legally be certified by the City Council on September 21, 2026.
Sincerely,
Clarence Hoefer
951-377-1275
August 19, 2026
**TO:**
City of Calimesa City Council
Attn: Mayor and City Council Members
City of Calimesa City Attorney’s Office
Office of the City Clerk
908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320
Via Email: `[email protected]` / `[email protected]` **FROM:**
Clarence Hoefer
870 W County Line Rd
Calimesa, CA 92320
951-377-1275
[email protected]
**SUBJECT: FORMAL OPPOSITION & LEGAL OBJECTION TO FINAL SEIR CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 (SCH NO. 2004071045)** *Hearing Date: September 21, 2026*
Dear Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Attorney:
Please accept this formal written objection to the proposed Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2, the Amended and Restated Development Agreement, the General Plan Amendment, and the certification of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) scheduled for public hearing on **September 21, 2026**.
As an affected property owner along West County Line Road, I respectfully urge the City Council to **deny certification of the Final SEIR and reject Amendment 2**. The environmental review and recommendation process for this project violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and constitutional principles of procedural due process in several fundamental ways:
### 1. Unstable Project Description and Backroom Redesign (Response 15-1) Under CEQA (*County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles*), an EIR must provide an accurate, stable, and finite project description. In official written Response 15-1 to my comments, environmental consultant Dudek explicitly admits that:
* The circulated Draft SEIR evaluated a **48-foot curb-to-curb roadway** with dedicated 6-foot bicycle lanes;
* Subsequent to public circulation, the City and applicant changed the design to an uncirculated **38-foot curb-to-curb cross-section** (14-foot shared lanes with no dedicated bike lanes) tucked into Exhibit E of the Development Agreement;
* At the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, applicant Bill Shopoff verbally introduced yet a third configuration of **36 feet curb-to-curb**, which Dudek now concedes was "made in error".
Altering roadway geometry from dedicated bike lanes to a squeezed 38-foot shared section carrying over 14,000 daily vehicles creates unanalyzed traffic safety hazards that were never circulated for public environmental review.
### 2. Withholding Physical Alignment Plans During Public Review (Response 15-4) In Response 15-4, Dudek admits on the record that the graphic detailing the physical alignment, curb-to-curb boundaries, and right-of-way transitions along West County Line Road **"was not available at the time of the Draft SEIR"** and was only disclosed on page 146 of the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission agenda packet. Concealing the actual engineering alignment until the night of the recommendation vote deprived the public of its statutory right to evaluate physical roadway placement and property encroachments during the public comment period. ### 3. Acknowledged Destruction of Residential Frontage & Setback Encroachment (Response 15- 2)