Agenda packet — Calimesa City Council, September 21, 2026 (part 8 of 8)

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-2
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043)
Although no comments have been raised that would require revisions to the SEIR, these comments and responses are available to the City Council for their review and consideration as part of their deliberations on the Project’s environmental documentation.
2 Comments and Responses
This section presents responses to all additional comments received between August 10, 2026 and September 8, 2026.

Page 1161 of 1216 ends

Page 1162 of 1216 ends

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1163 of 1216 ends

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-5
Response to Comment Letter I5
C.W. Hoefer
August 10, 2026
I5-1 Chapter 3, Project Description of the Draft SEIR states that improvements along County Line Road would consist of a 48-foot curb-to-curb roadway with 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, one 12-foot center turn lane, and 6-foot bicycle lanes on each side, as well as unpaved right of way on either side of the curb (see Section 3.5.1.1, Circulation on p. 3-17 of the Draft SEIR). Since public circulation of the Draft SEIR, some specifics regarding the width of the paved roadway surface and design of the proposed pedestrian/bicycle improvements have changed. Through the drafting of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement by and Between the City of Calimesa and Mesa Verde Owner, LLC for the Mesa Verde Project and Conditions of Approval between the City and the Project Applicant, the design of the proposed County Line Road extension has been refined. The proposed roadway width and design along County Line Road would remain as described above along the off-site segment from the Project site boundary to approximately West County Line Lane, except for the additional of paved sidewalks. East of West County Line Lane, the roadway would transition to a 38 feet curb-to-curb roadway (consisting of 14-foot shared bicycle/vehicle travel lanes in each direction and a 10-foot center turn lane) plus paved sidewalks and an additional unpaved right-of-way on either side of the roadway.

A figure showing the proposed roadway width along County Line Road (and the existing 60-to-80-foot public right-of-way boundary) is included as Exhibit E of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement by and Between the City of Calimesa and Mesa Verde Owner, LLC for the Mesa Verde Project, which was provided as part of the August 10, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Packet (specifically, see p. 146 of 605 of the Agenda Packet).3 The applicant’s statement at the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission hearing regarding 36-foot curb-to-curb roadway improvements along County Line Road was made in error. The paved roadway surface east of West County Line Lane would in fact be 38 feet curb-to-curb, as noted above. The proposed roadway improvements west of West County Line Lane to the Project site boundary would remain 48 feet curb-to-curb. Consistent with the discussions throughout the Draft SEIR, all off-site County Line Road improvements would occur within the existing 60-to-80-foot public right-of-way and would include one lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bicycle and pedestrian amenities.

I5-2 The SEIR analyzes impacts associated with the expansion of County Line Road in all topical chapters

4.1 through 4.18 because it is a part of the defined limits of the Project Description. County Line Road is specifically identified in the SEIR as a Project access route, a location of proposed off-site improvements, and a roadway evaluated throughout the environmental analysis (see Chapter 3, Project Description, Section 3.5.1.1, Circulation, where the Project’s proposed improvements to County Line Road are described). Even with the minor lane configuration changes described above in Response to Comment I5-1, the potential physical environmental effects associated with County Line Road improvements (and anticipated operational conditions) were adequately evaluated throughout the SEIR in accordance with CEQA. For example, please refer to the following:
3 The August 10, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Packet is available for review and download on the City’s website:
https://calimesaca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1012/files/agenda/5135.

Page 1164 of 1216 ends

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-6
▪ Section 4.1, Aesthetics. Threshold 4.1c, where Key Observations Points (KOPs) 6 and 7 address potential impacts to visual quality/character from public vantage points along County Line Road (Final SEIR pp. 4.1-22). There is discussion on page 4.1-22 of the SEIR regarding the undergrounding of the utilities along County Line Road, which is reflected in the visual simulation for KOP-7.
▪ Section 4.2, Air Quality. This section of the SEIR (supported by Appendix B-1, Air Quality Impact Analysis Report and Appendix B-2, Construction and Operational Health Risk Assessment) includes both a localized air quality analysis and a project-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that evaluate potential impacts from diesel-powered construction equipment, truck traffic, transport refrigeration units, and other diesel emission sources at nearby sensitive receptors (refer to Threshold 4.2c beginning on Final SEIR, p. 4.2-52). A total of 181 receptors extending up to three miles from the Project site were included in the modeling, and localized impacts were evaluated at the receptors closest to the Project site (see Final SEIR Section 4.2.1.3, p. 4.2-8). In addition to the HRA, the SEIR conducted a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis for criteria pollutants.

The analysis concluded that localized concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors would remain below applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds and would not result in significant localized air quality impacts. With specific regard to potential exposure to residents along County Line Road, localized construction and operational LST results for NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 show that total concentrations (background plus Project) are far below the applicable LSTs in each phase (refer to Tables 4.2-13 and 4.2-14 on Final SEIR pp. 4.2-53 and 4.2- 54). Any receptors along County Line Road are farther from the main emission sources than the modeled maximum exposure receptors evaluated in the SEIR and therefore would experience lower concentrations than those evaluated.
▪ Section 4.4, Cultural Resources. County Line Road was included in the study area for cultural resources, as identified on Figure 4.4-1B of the SEIR. On p. 4.4-3, Table 4.4-1, Summary of Significance Evaluation Findings, identifies the properties along County Line Road that were determined to be constructed 45 years ago or more ago (historic era), and required evaluation for potential indirect impacts. As stated under Threshold 4.4a (beginning on Final SEIR p. 4.4-17), Dudek prepared an assessment of each historic era property, including a physical description and significance evaluation, found in detail in Appendix D-1 of the SEIR. The results of this assessment conclude that none of the evaluated properties would be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or under City criteria, as evaluated in accordance with Section 15064.5 (a)(2)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines and using the criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code, and the Project would have no impact on historic resources.
▪ Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning. Threshold 4.10a (beginning on Final SEIR p. 4.10-8), which includes discussion/analysis of whether proposed construction-related and operational activities (including increased vehicular traffic) along County Line Road would divide the established community.
▪ Section 4.11, Noise. The noise analysis defines specific off‑site roadway segments—including County Line Road west of County Line Lane (Segment 1), County Line Road west of 7th Place (Segment 2), and County Line Road east of 7th Place (Segment 3)—and classifies adjacent rural residential uses as noise‑sensitive receivers. The SEIR evaluates Existing, Opening Year (2030, 2035, 2038, 2040), and Horizon Year 2045 conditions, comparing “No Project” and “With Project”

Page 1165 of 1216 ends

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-7
scenarios at these receivers. The analysis applies the City’s incremental increase criteria (e.g., 3 to 5 A-weighted decibel [dBA] thresholds) to determine significance. The results show that Project‑related traffic does in fact increase noise levels at residences along County Line Road. For example, under “Existing with Project Buildout” conditions at Segment 1 (west of County Line Lane), the SEIR identifies an approximate 9.7 dBA CNEL increase at the sensitive receiving land use, which exceeds the City’s significance threshold and is therefore concluded to be a significant off‑site traffic noise impact (see Table 4.11-16 on Final SEIR p. 4.11-25). Similar evaluations are presented for Opening Year and Horizon Year scenarios, demonstrating that the SEIR explicitly addresses localized, cumulative traffic noise effects on existing County Line Road residents. As discussed on p. 4.11-33 of the Final SEIR, the SEIR proposes MM‑NOI‑3, requiring the use of rubberized asphalt along County Line Road between County Line Lane and 7th Place (Segment 1), specifically adjacent to existing residential uses, to reduce tire‑pavement noise. ▪ Section 4.15, Transportation. Threshold 4.15c (beginning on p. 4.15-27 of the Final SEIR) evaluates whether Project traffic and proposed improvements to County Line Road would substantially increase roadway hazards. The SEIR specifically addresses setbacks as set forth in Chapter 18.20.040, Residential Development Standards of the City’s Municipal Code, which are measured from the property line (not the paved roadway surface) and explains that the Project would not alter property lines. Although the roadway would be widened and would accommodate additional vehicular traffic when compared to the current condition, County Line Road would be constructed in compliance with City standards for roadway design and would be within the City’s designated right-of-way. The redevelopment of land within the City’s public right-of-way for the purposes of roadway redevelopment, and the subsequent removal of lawns, landscaping, fencing, and/or mailboxes, accordingly, would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. In addition, refer to Threshold 4.15d (beginning on Final SEIR p.4.15-29), which evaluates whether the Project would result in inadequate emergency access, including during construction of proposed County Line Road improvements and operation of the widened roadway.

I5-3 Regarding potential effects associated with Project trips, truck and passenger vehicle trips are quantified and considered in several technical SEIR analyses, including transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise, as demonstrated below:
▪ Transportation: During the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, the applicant misspoke when he stated that there would be a peak of approximately 14,000 vehicles “per hour” along County Line Road; the correct reference is vehicles per day. The Traffic Analysis (included as Appendix J-2 of the SEIR) forecasts approximately 14,000 vehicles per day on County Line Road immediately west of County Line Lane under “Horizon Year (2045) with Project” conditions, as shown in Exhibit 10-2 (see p. 135 of Appendix J-2 [PDF p. 151 of 1728]). Of that future traffic, approximately 12,700 vehicles per day are attributable to the Project itself on this segment of County Line Road, as shown on Exhibit 4.3-5 (see p. 4.3-5 of SEIR Appendix J-2 [PDF p. 471 of 1728]). The remaining approximately 1,300 vehicles per day represent traffic that is not generated by the Project, including existing traffic and other future/cumulative traffic. Finally, as shown in Table 4-4, at buildout, the entire Project would result in a total weekday daily trip generation of 60,090 daily trips (see p. 177 of Appendix J-2 [PDF p. 93 of 1728]). This does not mean that 60,090 individual vehicles would be traveling on County Line Road, nor does it represent 60,090

Page 1166 of 1216 ends

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-8
different cars. In traffic studies, a “trip” represents a one-way vehicle movement. For example, if a resident leaves home to drop a child off at school and then returns home, that represents two trips.

If that same resident later drives to work and returns home, that represents another two trips.

Therefore, one vehicle can account for several trips over the course of a day. It is also important to distinguish the Project’s total trip generation from the amount of Project traffic assigned to a particular roadway. While the initial phases of the residential development may rely primarily on County Line Road until the Sandalwood Drive connection is completed, once the Sandalwood Drive connection is available approximately half of the residential traffic is anticipated to use County Line Road, with the remaining residential traffic using Sandalwood Drive.

In summary, 60,090 daily trips is the total trip generation for the entire Project; 12,700 vehicles per day is the portion of Project traffic forecast on County Line Road immediately west of County Line Lane; and 14,000 vehicles per day is the total traffic forecast on that roadway segment in 2045, including the Project as well as existing and other cumulative future traffic. The future forecast along County Line Road (14,000 vehicles per day) is well within the capacity of a two-lane roadway with a painted median (which has capacity of 18,000 vehicles per day). ▪ Air Quality. The Project’s total trip generation (60,090 daily trips at buildout; Table 4-4, Appendix J2, p. 177 [PDF p. 93 of 1728]) were used as direct inputs to the CalEEMod model to quantify Project operational mobile-source emissions, as documented in Appendix B-1, Air Quality Impact Analysis Report, and summarized in Table 4.2-9, Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Operational – Unmitigated, of the SEIR. Because regional criteria pollutant emissions are evaluated on a Project-wide basis rather than by individual roadway segment, trips traveling along County Line Road are captured within—not separate from—this total. In addition, as discussed in Response to Comment I5-2 above, the SEIR’s localized significance threshold (LST) analysis evaluated near-source concentrations from truck and passenger vehicle trips at the closest sensitive receptors (Tables 4.2-13 and 4.2-14, Final SEIR, pp. 4.2-53 and 4.2-54), which include receptors along Project access routes such as County Line Road. ▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Consistent with the air quality analysis, the Project’s total trip generation and VMT were used to calculate mobile-source GHG (CO2e) emissions using CalEEMod, as documented in Appendix B-4, Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report and summarized in Table 4.7-6, Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions – With Mitigation of the SEIR. GHG emissions are inherently a global-pollutant, project-wide metric under CEQA and are not evaluated on a segment-specific basis; trips assigned to County Line Road are therefore included within, rather than in addition to, the Project’s total quantified mobile-source GHG emissions. ▪ Noise. The forecast vehicle trip volumes discussed above—including the approximately 14,000 vehicles per day total and 12,700 vehicles per day of Project-attributable traffic on County Line Road immediately west of County Line Lane—were used directly as average daily traffic (ADT) inputs to the traffic noise modeling in Section 4.11, Noise (see also Response to Comment I5-2 above).

Unlike air quality and GHG, which quantify emissions on a Project-wide basis, the noise analysis evaluates trips at the specific roadway-segment level, including County Line Road Segments 1 through 3. As shown in Table 4.11-16 (Final SEIR p. 4.11-25), this resulted in an identified significant off-site traffic noise impact along County Line Road (Segment 1), for which MM-NOI-3 (rubberized asphalt paving) is proposed (Final SEIR p. 4.11-33). ▪ Safety Hazards. Please refer above to Response to Comment I5-2 (specifically, the bullet discussing Section 4.15, Transportation).

Page 1167 of 1216 ends

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-9
I5-4 As stated above in Response to Comment I5-1, please refer to Exhibit E of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement by and Between the City of Calimesa and Mesa Verde Owner, LLC for the Mesa Verde Project, which was provided as part of the August 10, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Packet (specifically, see p. 146 of 605 of the Agenda Packet).4 This detailed graphic was not available at the time of the Draft SEIR, but the anticipated alignment and configuration of the proposed County Line Road was described in Section 3.5.1.1, Circulation on p. 3-17 of the Draft SEIR and was analyzed throughout the Draft SEIR..

I5-5 The commenter’s specific concerns have been addressed above in further detail. Furthermore, the Planning Commission did not approve the Project. The action taken at the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission hearing was to recommend that the City Council approve it. Because the application package included legislative actions (e.g., an amended and restated development agreement, general plan amendment, specific plan amendment), only the City Council can approve or deny the Project. The City Council hearing is scheduled for September 21, 2026 commencing at 6:00 pm at the Norton Younglove Multipurpose Senior Center (908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320). This comment has been forwarded to the decisions makers for their review and consideration. 4 The August 10, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Packet is available for review and download on the City’s website:
https://calimesaca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1012/files/agenda/5135.

Page 1168 of 1216 ends

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1169 of 1216 ends

Page 1170 of 1216 ends

Page 1171 of 1216 ends

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-13
Response to Comment Letter I6
Saralyn Tossetti
August 12, 2026
I6-1 This comment does not state any specific concerns related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the SEIR but has been forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration.

I6-2 The commenter does not identify any specific deficiencies in the analysis contained in the SEIR, nor do they provide any substantial evidence that the evacuation routes identified and analyzed in the SEIR are unsafe. Furthermore, the SEIR (including the supporting technical appendices) has been independently peer-reviewed by third-party experts and found to be both adequate and accurate.

Accordingly, this comment does not identify a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact, or new information requiring additional analysis or recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

I6-3 The Project site is largely undeveloped open space and does not support any existing hazardous pipeline infrastructure or aboveground water- or fuel-storage tanks. As discussed in Section 2.3.2, Physical Conditions Overview of the SEIR, the Project site includes two inactive water wells and an inactive oil well site. The SEIR includes mitigation measures to address potential hazards associated with the previous well operations and ensure adequate abandonment procedures (refer to SEIR Section

4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Threshold 4.8b). As discussed on p. 4.8-19 of the Final SEIR, MM-HAZ-2 requires that the well is evaluated and properly abandoned in compliance with California Geologic Energy Management Division standards. MM-HAZ-3 requires that the on-site water wells are abandoned in accordance with the appropriate Riverside County Department of Environmental Health procedures, County Code Chapter 13.20, and Bulletins of the California Department of Water Resources. The Applicant/Developer must also coordinate with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health regarding the necessary permits, notifications, and reports (Final SEIR pp. 4.8-5 and 4.8-36).

Regarding proposed infrastructure, as stated on p. 3-21 of the Final SEIR, the Project would not implement any extensions of natural gas infrastructure onto the Project site. As with the approved 2017 Specific Plan, service stations that sell and dispense gasoline are conditionally permitted (i.e., require a Conditional Use Permit [CUP]) within the Project site’s Mixed-Use zone (Planning Area 1) as well as within the proposed Commercial zone (Planning Area 114), which is located in the same area as the previously approved Mixed-Use zone under the 2017 Specific Plan). As such, these uses are already conditionally permitted to occur on the southeastern portion of the Project site. Any future service station uses proposed within the Project site’s Mixed-Use or Commercial zones would be subject to discretionary review by the City, including subsequent environmental review in accordance with CEQA.

Furthermore, the Commercial and Mixed-Use zones are not located within 1,500 feet of any existing or proposed school sites. The potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school is addressed under Threshold 4.8c in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the SEIR. Per MM-HAZ-5, Project-site land uses located within 0.25 miles (approximately 1,320 feet) of existing or

Page 1172 of 1216 ends

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-14
proposed schools are prohibited from storing, handling, or using toxic or highly toxic gases at quantities that exceed threshold levels established by California Health and Safety Code 25532.

As with the previously approved 2017 Specific Plan, the Project would also include the installation of an aboveground water-storage tank in the northeastern corner of the Project site as required by the Yucaipa Valley Water District. Under the proposed Project, the water-storage tank would be located within Planning Area 59. As shown on SEIR Figure 3-1, Proposed Land Use Plan, Planning Area 59 is located on the north side of County Line Road and is not adjacent or near to any existing or proposed school locations and would thus have no potential to result in inundation in the event of accident or upset conditions. This comment does not identify a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact, or new information requiring additional analysis or recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Page 1173 of 1216 ends

Page 1174 of 1216 ends

Page 1175 of 1216 ends

Page 1176 of 1216 ends

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 1177 of 1216 ends

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-19
Response to Comment Letter I7
C.W. Hoefer
August 19, 2026
I7-1 The SEIR does not contain any legal deficiencies under CEQA. The commenters specific concerns are addressed in further detail below.

I7-2 CEQA expressly contemplates that there may be clarifications and revisions to an EIR as part of the final EIR process, and states that recirculation of an EIR is not required as long as those changes would not result in a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088[d]). The fluctuations in paved roadway width and other minor design variations regarding pedestrian and bicycle improvements would not materially alter the analysis provided in the Draft SEIR (please refer to Response to Comment I5-1 for a more detailed explanation of the proposed revisions to the roadway design). For example, the Project’s Traffic Analysis (included as Appendix J-2 of the SEIR) did not assume a specific paved roadway width—rather, the analysis assumed that improvements would involve widening County Line Road to provide one lane in each direction plus a center turn lane and determined that this would be sufficient to accommodate increased traffic volumes. Specifically, the future forecast along County Line Road (14,000 vehicles per day) is well within the capacity of a two-lane roadway with a painted median (which has capacity of 18,000 vehicles per day). The Draft SEIR also assumed that the disturbance area for County Line Road (for the purposes of potential ground disturbance impacts related to hydrology/water quality, cultural resources, biological resources, etc.) may extend throughout the entirety of the exiting 60-to-80-foot public right-of-way (see, for example, pp. 479 and 482 of 484 in Appendix C, Biological Resources Technical Report of the SEIR, which shows the extent of the Project’s potential tree removal and encroachment impacts along County Line Road). Regarding the discussion of setbacks under Threshold 4.15c in Section 4.15, Transportation of the Draft SEIR, although the Project would no longer include separate bike lanes along the eastern segment of County Line Road (from approximately West County Line Lane to County Line Lane), both travel lanes would include bicycle share-lane markings, as well as fully paved sidewalks with curb and gutter and some areas of additional unpaved right-of-way on one or both sides of the roadway. Any non-conforming existing structures that are directly adjacent to the property line would still be buffered from the travel lane paved sidewalks adjacent to the curb and gutter as well some additional areas of unpaved right-of-way.

Thus, the analysis provided in the Draft SEIR was sufficiently conservative to account for all proposed improvements along County Line Road.

For consistency, the Final SEIR has been revised to reflect the fluctuations in paved roadway width and other minor design variations that were not reflected in the version of the Final SEIR posted on the City’s website prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The “Revised” Final SEIR has been posted on the City’s website and provided to the decision makers prior to the September 21, 2026 City Council hearing to consider approval of the Project and certification of the SEIR. As stated above, the Draft SEIR analysis was sufficiently conservative regarding proposed improvements to County Line Road and these proposed revisions would not result in a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. Thus, these revisions would not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation of the SEIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Page 1178 of 1216 ends

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-20
CEQA requires analysis of a project’s potentially significant physical effects on the environment using significance thresholds and accepted analytical methodologies resulting in substantial evidence to support a conclusion. As shown in Exhibit 4.2-27 on page 4.2-27 of the Traffic Analysis (Appendix J-2 of the SEIR), “heavy” truck traffic would enter and exit the Project site via Sandalwood Drive, not County Line Road. Thus, the Project would not result in a significant increase of heavy truck traffic along County Line Road. Furthermore, the Project includes mitigation measures requiring posting of signage to identify approved truck routes and on-site circulation systems, as well as signage in the Business Park areas providing contact information to receive complaints about any excessive noise, dust, fumes, or odors. (Please refer to MM-AQ-15, MM-AQ-16, and MM-AQ-17 in Section 4.2.6.2 of the SEIR.) Please refer to Response to Comments I5-2, above (specifically, the bullet discussing Section 4.15, Transportation) and I7-6, below regarding the SEIR’s analysis of transportation safety hazards along County Line Road.

I7-3 The commenter incorrectly characterizes the referenced exhibit as information that was "withheld" from the public. The Project’s proposed improvements to County Line Road, including its location, general alignment, roadway widening, and circulation function, were disclosed in the Draft SEIR and the environmental impacts associated with development and operation of the roadway were analyzed throughout the environmental document, including Chapter 3, Project Description and the various environmental resource chapters. The exhibit referenced in Response to Comment I5-4 was prepared as part of the subsequent refinement of Project design details and included in the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission agenda packet. The exhibit did not introduce a new roadway alignment, expand the limits of disturbance, alter the Project right-of-way assumptions, or identify a new environmental impact not already analyzed in the SEIR. Rather, it provided additional graphical detail regarding improvements that were already disclosed and evaluated.

CEQA does not require an EIR to include final engineering plans. The relevant question is whether the SEIR contains sufficient information to permit informed decision-making and meaningful public participation. The essential components of the County Line Road improvements that could potentially result in a significant environmental effect under CEQA were described and analyzed in the SEIR and available for review and comment during the SEIR public review period. The subsequent exhibit merely illustrates those improvements in greater detail. Accordingly, the exhibit does not constitute significant new information or evidence that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5
I7-4 The issue regarding setbacks along County Line Road has been adequately addressed in the Draft SEIR and reiterated in the Final SEIR and in several subsequent responses to comments. As stated on page

4.15-27 of the Draft SEIR, in the current condition, there are five properties on the south side of County Line Road and two properties on the north side of County Line Road, between the Project site and the I-10 interchange, that do not meet the required 30-foot setback as set forth in Chapter 18.20.040, Residential Development Standards of the City’s Municipal Code and are considered to be existing nonconforming properties. The requirements for front yard setbacks in the Rural Residential zone, which is the applicable zone for the residential uses within this stretch of County Line Road, mandates that a building, structure, parking, or other designated item must be located 30 feet from a lot line. The proposed roadway improvements, including the expansion of the paved portion of the existing roadway, would not alter the property lines of these properties or expand the existing public right-of-way, but the homes/structures on these non-conforming properties would be closer to the paved roadway upon

Page 1179 of 1216 ends

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-21
completion of the expansion of County Line Road. However, the vehicle travel lanes would be buffered by 5-foot paved sidewalks adjacent to the curb and gutter, and, west of West County Line Lane, by 6- foot bike lanes on either side of the street as well some areas of additional unpaved right-of-way buffer as a 6-foot-wide buffer area on the exterior of the curb. Therefore, any non-conforming existing structures that are directly adjacent to the property line would be buffered by a 5-foot paved sidewalk adjacent to the curb and gutter and, in certain segments, by a dedicated bike lane and/or additional unpaved right-of-way. Although the roadway would be widened and would accommodate additional vehicular traffic when compared to the current condition, County Line Road would remain within the existing right-of-way and would be constructed in compliance with City standards for roadway design and would be within the City’s designated right-of-way. The redevelopment of land within the City’s public right-of-way, including the associated removal of lawns, landscaping, fencing, and/or mailboxes, would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Final designs of Project plans and all Project traffic improvements would be subject to review and approval by the City, thereby ensuring conformance of improvements with City design and safety standards.

Accordingly, the issue of residential setbacks was not “dismissed”— it was explicitly addressed in the SEIR in accordance with the applicable checklist questions for transportation hazards. This comment does not identify a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact, or new information requiring additional analysis or recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

I7-5 CEQA does not require that a significant impact be completely eliminated, only that feasible mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives be considered and disclosed. As discussed in detail in Section

4.11, Noise, of the SEIR, the Project’s significant noise impact related to off-site roadway traffic along County Line Road was appropriately analyzed and disclosed in the SEIR. In addition to MM-NOI-3 (which, as the commenter suggests, would reduce but would not eliminate the traffic noise impact) the SEIR considered a range of reasonable alternatives pursuant to CEQA that have the potential to reduce or avoid the Project’s significant environmental effects while still feasibly attaining the most of the basic objectives of the Project. As discussed in Chapter 6, Alternatives, of the SEIR, the alternatives considered by the SEIR included alternatives that would reduce overall development intensity (including Project-generated traffic) or alter circulation patterns. Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce truck traffic associated with the Business Park uses; however, the truck traffic would utilize Sandalwood Drive, not County Line Road. Therefore, any reductions in truck traffic would not reduce or eliminate the traffic noise along County Line Road, which is tied primarily to residential passenger vehicle traffic. Alternative 4 considered use of County Line Road as emergency access only (similar to the approved 2017 Specific Plan). However, as stated in Section 6.6, Environmentally Superior Alternative in Chapter 6 of the SEIR, although Alternative 4 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact related to traffic noise along County Line Road, is would also result in new significant unavoidable impacts to public services related to increased response times and evacuation for fire, police, and emergency medical providers and to hazards, transportation, and wildfire as a result of inadequate emergency access. Accordingly, the SEIR disclosed the significant and unavoidable noise impact, identified feasible mitigation, and evaluated reasonable alternatives capable of avoiding or reducing the impact, consistent with CEQA’s informational and decision-making requirements.

Furthermore, under CEQA, when a lead agency (e.g., the City) approves a project that would result in significant environmental impacts that are identified in a final EIR, but are not avoided or substantially

Page 1180 of 1216 ends

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED – VOL. III / MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2 AMENDMENT 2 PROJECT
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED (VOL. III) – CITY COUNCIL HEARING (SEPTEMBER 21, 2026) 14341.04 SEPTEMBER 2026 RTC-22
lessened, the agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR or other information in the record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[b]). If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). These written findings would be included in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the proposed Project.

I7-6 As stated above in Response to Comment I7-2, CEQA requires analysis of a project’s potentially significant physical effects on the environment using established significance thresholds, accepted methodologies, and substantial evidence. The SEIR assumes and explicitly states that the off-site improvements to County Line Road would be constructed in compliance with City standards for roadway design. The SEIR therefore evaluates transportation-related environmental effects such as roadway safety, roadway design features, circulation, emergency access, traffic operations, noise, and air quality, rather than the ability of individual residents to perform specific driving maneuvers at particular properties.

The commenter does not identify any specific deficiency in the transportation analysis contained in Section 4.15 of the SEIR, nor does the commenter provide any traffic engineering analysis, accident data, sight-distance analysis, or other substantial evidence demonstrating that Project traffic would create a significant transportation hazard associated with private driveway access along County Line Road. The fact that a resident may use a recreational vehicle, horse trailer, or other vehicle requiring additional maneuvering does not establish the existence of a significant environmental impact under CEQA. Accordingly, the comment does not identify a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact, or significant new information requiring additional environmental review or recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. This comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their review and consideration.

Page 1181 of 1216 ends

Publish Date: August 28, 2026
Darlene Gerdes, City Clerk

CITY OF CALIMESA

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 21, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in the Norton Younglove Senior Center, 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, California, the City Council of the City of Calimesa will hold a regular meeting to consider approval of proposed applications for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan project as follows:

A REQUEST BY DAVID GRAVES ON BEHALF OF MESA VERDE OWNER, LLC FOR THE MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN (AMENDMENT 2) PROJECT PROPOSED AS FOLLOWS FOR AN APPROXIMATLEY 1,463.1-ACRE AREA LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 10, GENERALLY BETWEEN SANDALWOOD DRIVE AND COUNTY LINE ROAD, CALIMESA, CA (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 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).
• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA-23-02 – Certification of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2004071045), which has been prepared in conformance with CEQA to ensure that the incremental environmental impact changes between the proposed Project and the 2017 Specific Plan are analyzed and considered and that all feasible and reasonable mitigation measures or alternatives are implemented to reduce the identified significant impacts.
• ORDINANCE NO. 424 FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-4 – A Development Agreement between the City of Calimesa and Mesa Verde Owners, LLC to specify the respective development and financial obligations of both parties.
• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA-23-01 – A General Plan Amendment to change the following in the General Plan: (1) change Figure LU-1, Land Use Map, to reflect the new land use designation changes; (2) change Figure TM-1,CirculationMap, to reflect the new roadway configuration and categorization changes ; (3) change Figure OSPR-1, 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 on-site geotechnical studies; (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 the Specific Plan Amendment.
• ORDINANCE NO. 425 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-01/ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-01 – The Specific Plan Amendment would replace the previously approved 2017 Specific Plan to provide for the orderly development of the property through compliance

Page 1182 of 1216 ends

Publish Date: August 28, 2026
Darlene Gerdes, City Clerk
with site-specific development standards that are consistent with the intent and policies of the General Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment would modify the previously approved zones in the 2017 Specific Plan. The zoning changes include redistribution and development standards of the Residential, Mixed-Use, Public/Quasi-Public Facilities, Open Space, Elementary School, and Calimesa Public Works zone districts; creation of a new Commercial zone and Business Park Zone; and provision of updated development standards accordingly. • TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33931 – REVISION 2 – Subdivision of the Property and mass grading of the Project site into 57 lots and public streets, including easements for utilities and ingress/egress.
• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 25-3 - A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Consistency Checklist for twelve implementing projects totaling 323 acres within the project (see descriptions below).
• TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 39086 THROUGH 39091 (SIX TENTATIVE MAPS) - to subdivide planning areas 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 into 549 residential lots totaling approximately 100 acres.
• DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEWS 24-06 THROUGH 24-11 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 24-05 THROUGH 24-10 (SIX INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS) - to approve business park site plans and use permits resulting in approximately 4 million square feet of warehouse building area within planning areas 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 totaling approximately 223 acres.

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The project documents are available for review at the City of Calimesa, 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320 and may also be accessed on the City of Calimesa’s website at:
https://www.calimesa.gov/303/Mesa-Verde.

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the public may provide comments as follows:

The Calimesa City Council will be conducting this meeting in the Norton Younglove Senior Center. Members of the public may attend this meeting in person at the Norton Younglove Senior Center, 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320, or the public may view the City Council meetings live at beginning at 6:00 p.m at:
https://www.youtube.com/@calimesacity900/live

HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS
In accordance with California Senate Bill 707 (SB 707), public comment may be submitted in person or verbally through a real-time remote audio connection. Advance registration is not required to speak. Regardless of the method chosen, please observe a time limit of 3 minutes when giving your presentation, and note that you may not defer your 3 minutes to another speaker.

OPTION 1: SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS
Submit written comments to City Hall at 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, CA 92320 OPTION 2: EMAIL COMMENTS TO THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
Email comments to City Clerk Darlene Gerdes at [email protected] OPTION 3: IN PERSON (NORTON YOUNGLOVE SENIOR CENTER)
Public comment will be allowed by completing a speaker slip and providing it to the City Clerk at the meeting.

When called upon, please step forward to the microphone, state your name for the record, whom you represent, and any statement you wish to make.

OPTION 4: REMOTELY VIA ZOOM APP (COMPUTER AUDIO / SMARTPHONE)

1. Click the link to join the live audio stream queue: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87546661221

2. When the Mayor calls for your desired item and any time before public comment has been closed on your desired item, click the "Raise Hand" button at the bottom of your Zoom screen to register your intent to speak.

3. When called upon, a prompt will appear on your device. Click "Unmute", state your name for the record, and begin your comment.

Page 1183 of 1216 ends

Publish Date: August 28, 2026
Darlene Gerdes, City Clerk
OPTION 5: REMOTELY VIA STANDARD TELEPHONE LINE (AUDIO ONLY)

1. Dial the number: (669) 900-6833

2. When prompted, enter Webinar ID: 875 4666 1221 followed by the # key. Press # again to bypass the participant ID.

3. When the Mayor calls for your desired item and any time before public comment has been closed on your desired item, press *9 on your phone keypad to virtually raise your hand.

4. When called upon, the meeting clerk will read aloud the last 4 digits of your phone number. Press *6 on your keypad to unmute your line, state your name for the record, and begin your comment.

Please note, mailed and/or emailed comments must be submitted by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, September 21, 2026.

SB 707 Statutory Disruption Policy Notice
Pursuant to SB 707 legal mandates, the City has adopted a technological disruption policy. If the YouTube live video broadcast or the Zoom public comment audio bridge experiences a technical failure that prevents remote viewers from hearing or participating in real-time, the City Council will immediately pause the meeting. No official council action or voting will occur until the technical failure is resolved.

PLEASE NOTE that pursuant to Government Code Section 65090, if you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing as described in this Notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk of the City of Calimesa prior to or at the public hearing.

Page 1184 of 1216 ends

Publish Date: August 28, 2026
Darlene Gerdes, City Clerk

Page 1185 of 1216 ends

10 Regional Location and Local Vicinity
Public Hearing Notice for the Mesa Verde Specific Plan Area 2 Amendment 2 Project SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series El Casco and Yucaipa Quadrangles; Township 2S / Range 2W / Sections 08, 09, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23 Date: 4/29/2024 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1434101\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\NOP\Figure1-RegionalLocation_LocalVicinity.mxd Specific Plan Area/Project Site
FIGURE 1
Temecula
Blythe
Murrieta
Indian Wells Lake Elsinore
Rancho Mirage San
Corona Jacinto
Beaumont Cathedral City
San
Bernardino
County
San Diego
County
Imperial
County
Mexico Arizona
66 395
95 243
18 71
57 247
74 94
91 39
241
54 125
206
195
56 330
78 173
115
67 60
2 177
58 38
76 79
138
98 86
111
805
5 215
10 15
8 40
405
210
15 Project Site
03 1,500 ,000
Feet
01 500 ,000
Meters

Page 1186 of 1216 ends

42 M
22 AC
154 DU
7 DU/AC
32 LM

21.9 AC
131 DU
6 DU/AC
31 LM

18.3 AC
110 DU
6 DU/AC 29
M

17.8 AC
124 DU
7 DU/AC
19 M

21.4 AC
125 DU

5.8 DU/AC
43 L

18.5 AC
68 DU
41 3.7 DU/AC
M

15.3 AC
107 DU
7 DU/AC
28 LM

14.6 AC
87 DU
6 DU/AC
13 M

17.2 AC
110 DU

5.8 DU/AC
36 M

13.9 AC
97 DU
7 DU/AC
38 LM

13.8 AC
83 DU
6 DU/AC
33 LM

13.5 AC
81 DU
6 DU/AC
17 M

15.6 AC
112 DU

7.2 DU/AC
16 M

15.9 AC
85 DU

5.3 DU/AC
40 M

12.2 AC
85 DU
7 DU/AC
37 LM

11.1 AC
67 DU
6 DU/AC
27 M

10.6 AC
74 DU
7 DU/AC
20 MH

11.2 AC
129 DU
10 DU/AC
26 M

9.8 AC
68 DU
7 DU/AC
30 M

8.6 AC
60 DU
7 DU/AC
24 MH
10 AC
101 DU

10.1 DU/AC
11 H

10.3 AC
194 DU

18.8 DU/AC
9 H

10.1 AC185 DU

18.4 DU/AC
10 H

8.8 AC
162 DU

18.5 DU/AC
39 LM

19.6 AC
118 DU
6 DU/AC
14 L

18.3 AC
71 DU

3.8 DU/AC
15 M

16.9 AC
83 DU

5.3 DU/AC
21 MH
15 AC
134 DU

10.1 DU/AC
12 H

13.4 AC
249 DU

18.6 DU/AC
35 M

9.8 AC
69 DU
7 DU/AC
18 M

10.6 AC
60 DU

5.6 DU/AC
23 MH

8.6 AC
86 DU
10 DU/AC
22 MH

8.1 AC
81 DU
10 DU/AC
25 MH

6.3 AC
63 DU
10 DU/AC
34 M

5.3 AC
37 DU

6.9 DU/AC
69 68
71 52
78 77
74 76
75 79
80 72
73 70
93 OS-N
108.9 AC
2 BP

54.5 AC
103
OS-N

46.7 AC
88 OS-N

45.3 AC
6 BP

37.3 AC
4 BP

38.2 AC
5 BP

35.7 AC
92 OS-N

31.9 AC
7 BP

31.4 AC
102
OS-N
25 AC
8 BP

27.1 AC
85 OS-N

30.9 AC
96 OS-N

26.3 AC
87 OS-N

22.6 AC
108
OS-N

17.4 AC
1 MU

20.9 AC
3 BP

18.3 AC
99 OS-N

16.7 AC
105
OS-N

16.4 AC
86 OS-N

13.8 AC
53 OS-PP

12.7 AC
45ES

11.7 AC
54 OS-PP

9.8 AC
47 OS-PR

9.6 AC
44 ES

10.3 AC
91 OS-N

8.4 AC
49 OS-PP

6.8 AC
46 OS-PR

6.4 AC
56 CPW

5.3 AC
67 PF

3.9 AC
94 OS-N

11.1 AC
109
OS-N

12.3 AC
110
OS-N

11.5 AC
95 OS-N

8.7 AC
90 OS-N

8.3 AC 61
PF
5 AC
48 OS-PP

6.9 AC
101
OS-N

6.4 AC
50 OS-PP

5.4 AC
89 OS-N

5.4 AC
55 OS-PP

4.9 AC
114
C

4.5 AC
113
OS-PP
4 AC
62 PF
3 AC
104
OS-N

3.8 AC
66PF

3.3 AC
64PF

3.4 AC
107
OS-N

3.2 AC 59
PF

3.2 AC
60 PF

2.9 AC
98 OS-N

2.8 AC
65 PF

2.5 AC 51
OS-N
2 AC
83 OS-N

2.4 AC
63 PF

2.2 AC
84 OS-N

1.7 AC
82 OS-N

1.6 AC
111
OS-N

1.5 AC
57 PF

1.3 AC
81 OS-N

1.3 AC
97 OS-N

0.8 AC
100
OS-N

0.7 AC
112
OS-N

0.4 AC
58 PF

0.2 AC
106
OS-N

0.1 AC
7TH ST.
10 Legend
Natural Open Space
Low ResidentialMedium Residential
Park & Private Rec.Public/Quasi Public FacilitiesRoadElementary School Medium High Residential
Average 5000 SF; 8 du/acSingle Family Cluster; 14 du/acTownhomes; 18 du/acLow Medium ResidentialAverage 4000 SF; 10 du/acHigh ResidentialMulti Family; 24 du/acre Business Park
Calimesa Public Works
Commercial
677
594
790
1,450
Projected
No. Units
139
496.6 Acres66.5 Acres30.9 Acres (Basins, Water Tank, Lift Station)22.0 Acres99.1 Acres5.3 Acres 01 600 ,200
N Feet

SUMMERWIND
RANCH

SANDA LWO
O
D
DR. ROBERTS RD.

COUNTY LINE RD.

CALIMESA BLVD.

W AVENUE L
W. AVENUE L
STREET "A"
STREET "B"
STREET "B"
STREET "H"
STREET "F"
STREET "G"
STR EET "E"
STREET "D"
STREET "K"
STREET "J"
STREET "L"
STREET "C"
SEVENTH PL.

MUSTANG WAY

MESA VIEW

MIDDLE SCHOOL
STREET "A"
Mixed Use
H
MH
M
L
BP
C
MU
LM
OS-N

OS-PPOS-PR
PF
CPW
ES
Primary Residential Access
Primary Business
Park Access
Proposed Land Use Plan
Public Hearing Notice for the Mesa Verde Specific PlanArea 2Amendment 2 Project FIGURE 2
Z:\Projects\j1434101\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\NOP
SOURCE: FORMA, June 2026

Page 1187 of 1216 ends

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

PROJECT: MESA VERDE SPECIFIC PLAN –
AMENDMENT NO. 2

PROJECT LOCATION: 1,463.1-ACRE AREA WEST OF
INTERSTATE 10, GENERALLY BETWEEN SANDALWOOD DRIVE AND COUNTY LINE

ROAD, CALIMESA, CALIFORNIA

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN THAT THE PUBLIC MAY PROVIDE COMMENTS AS FOLLOWS: 1) SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS TO CITY HALL AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS, 2) EMAIL COMMENTS TO THE CITY CLERK AT
[email protected], 3) ATTEND THE MEETING IN PERSON AND SPEAK THEREON, OR 4) JOIN REMOTELY VIA ZOOM APP AT:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87546661221. CONTACT THE CITY CLERK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REMOTE PARTICIPATION.

PLEASE NOTE THAT MAILED AND/OR EMAILED COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:30 P.M. ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2026.

PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65090, IF YOU

CHALLENGE THE PROJECT IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY

THOSE ISSUES YOU RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AS DESCRIBED IN THIS

NOTICE OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE CITY OF CALIMESA, 908 PARK AVENUE, CALIMESA, CA 92320 AND MAY ALSO BE ACCESSED ON THE CITY OF CALIMESA’S WEBSITE AT:

HTTPS://WWW.CALIMESA.GOV/303/MESA-VERDE

PROJECT CONTACT:

KELLY LUCIA, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PHONE: (909) 795-9801 EXT. 229
EMAIL: [email protected]
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:

WHAT: PUBLIC HEARING AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA

CITY COUNCIL
WHEN: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2026, AT 6 :00 PM
WHERE: IN THE NORTON YOUNGLOVE SENIOR CENTER, 908 PARK AVENUE, CALIMESA, CA, 92320
MEETING SUBJECT: THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT APPLICATIONS DESCRIBED BELOW.

APPLICATIONS UNDER REVIEW:
• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA-23-02 – CERTIFICATION OF A SUBSQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2004071045) • DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF CALIMESA AND MESA VERDE OWNERS, LLC
• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA-23-01 – AMENDMENTS TO THE

CALIMESA GENERAL PLAN TO REFLECT THE PROPOSED PROJECT
• SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-01/ZONE CHANGE NO. 23-01 – TO REPLACE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 2017 SPECIFIC PLAN WITH

THE PROPOSED PROJECT ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
• TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33931 – REVISION 2 – SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY AND MASS GRADING OF THE PROJECT SITE INTO 114 LOTS

AND PUBLIC STREETS, INCLUDING EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES AND INGRESS/EGRESS.
• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 25-3 - A SUBSEQUENT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST FOR
TWEVE IMPLEMENTING PROJECTS TOTALLING 323 ACRES WITHIN THE

PROJECT (SEE DESCRIPTIONS BELOW)
• TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 39086 THROUGH 39091 (SIX TENTATIVE MAPS) - TO SUBDIVIDE PLANNING AREAS 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, AND 19 INTO 549 RESIDENTIAL LOTS TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 100 ACRES.
• DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEWS 24-06 THROUGH 24-11 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 24-05 THROUGH 24-10 - TO APPROVE SIX

BUSINESS PARK SITE PLANS AND USE PERMITS RESULTING IN
APPROXIMATELY 4 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSE BUILDING AREA WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 223 ACRES.

Page 1188 of 1216 ends

Mesa Verde Public Hearing Sign Locations

Page 1189 of 1216 ends

Greg Bogh
Division 1
Nyles O’Harra
Division 2
Jay Bogh
Division 3
Brett Granlund
Division 4
Joyce McIntire
Division 5
12770 Second Street • Post Office Box 730 • Yucaipa, California 92399-0730 (909) 797-5117 • Fax: (909) 797-6381 • www.yvwd.us
Preliminary Project Service Evaluation
Issuance Date: July 7, 2026
Expiration Date: July 7, 2027
Project: Mesa Verde Specific Plan
Project Number: Elements Project ID: 80, Task No: 87043 Applicant:

Shopoff Reality Investments
Attn: David Graves
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92612
Developer (Owner):

Mesa Verde Owners, LLC
Attn: Brian Rupp
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92612
Copies to:

Kelly Lucia, Planning Director
City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
Project Location: South of County Line Road, West of Interstate 10 Tract Number: 33931
Gross Land Area 1,355 Acres
Drinking Water Provider: Yucaipa Valley Water District
Recycled Water Provider: Yucaipa Valley Water District
Sewer Service Provider: Yucaipa Valley Water District
This Preliminary Project Service Evaluation authorizes the appropriate land use and planning entity to complete the recordation process for the proposed Project.

Once the specific Project concepts are completed and provided to the Yucaipa Valley Water District (“District”), a Development Agreement will be prepared outlining the specific requirements for drinking water, sewer, and recycled water service. The Development Agreement will need to be fully executed by the Yucaipa Valley Water District and the Applicant/Developer prior to the issuance of any building permit.

Page 1190 of 1216 ends

Page 2 of 7 ends

Page 1191 of 1216 ends

Page 3 of 7 ends

Preliminary Project Requirements
The District has not received all of the necessary information from the Applicant/Developer to fully evaluate the proposed Project at this time. Therefore, the Applicant should be aware that the following partial list of conditions may not represent the final requirements for this Project.

1. This Preliminary Project Service Evaluation outlines the expected service requirements for obtaining water and/or sewer service from the Yucaipa Valley Water District. While this letter may be used to support the recordation of the project map, it does not authorize the issuance of building permits or grant any vested rights to water or sewer service. The actual provision of water and/or sewer service will depend on the Applicant or Developer fulfilling all requirements set forth by the Yucaipa Valley Water District in a Development Agreement, which must be executed prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Project.

2. The Yucaipa Valley Water District recognizes that service conditions, market environment, environmental factors, and regulatory requirements are subject to changes. Therefore, this Preliminary Project Service Evaluation will expire 12 months from the date of this letter as identified above if a Development Agreement has not been executed before the expiration date.

3. Approved water and sewer construction drawings expire one year after their respective approval date. The Applicant/Developer will need to resubmit drinking water, recycled water, and sewer plans for re-evaluation one year after the plans have been approved and signed.

4. The Applicant must comply with the most current rules, regulations, policies, design criteria, and construction standards of this District, as they are amended or may hereafter be amended, whether written or otherwise in effect at the time of construction.

5. Full compliance with all rules, regulations, procedures, and Development Agreements are necessary to receive Certificates of Compliance from the land use or permitting authority.

6. Within the service area of the Yucaipa Valley Water District are other water-related facilities owned by private companies and the State of California. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to determine the impact of these facilities upon the proposed Project.

7. Slopes, walls, and structure overhangs are not allowed within any existing or proposed water or sewer easements. All existing and proposed sewer and water easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide with all-weather roadway surfaces and consistent with the latest District standards. Adequate separation must be maintained to ensure the integrity of all existing facilities.

8. The Applicant should review the Yucaipa Valley Water Districts Standards and Drawings for Drinking Water, Sewer, and Recycled Water Facilities to become familiar with general design and construction requirements.

Page 1192 of 1216 ends

Page 4 of 7 ends

9. The Yucaipa Valley Water District will not allow existing or proposed water or sewer facilities within the proximity of on-site stormwater detention basins without adequate mitigation and protection. The Applicant should coordinate the location of the on-site detention basins with the Engineering Department.

10. The Yucaipa Valley Water District has not reviewed the projected drinking water, recycled water, or sewer demand projections for this Project. The anticipated system demands will modify the preliminary requirements for on-site and off-site facilities. The Applicant should schedule a meeting to discuss this issue.

11. The Yucaipa Valley Water District has not reviewed the projected fire flow requirements for this Project. The fire flow demands will modify the preliminary requirements for on-site and off-site facilities. The Applicant should schedule a meeting to discuss this issue.

12. To properly conduct a review of the proposed infrastructure needed for this Project, the Applicant shall provide utility drawings for other facilities/infrastructure that may cause interference with the existing/proposed water and sewer facilities. These conflicts may include, but not be limited to detention basins, storm drains, electricity, gas, cable, etc.

13. All permits related to water and sewer facilities by other entities shall be at the expense of the Applicant.

14. The Applicant will be responsible for all fees and charges as established by the District for this Project, including, but not limited to the advanced payment of deposits for plan check and inspection of water and sewer related facilities. The Developer shall be responsible for the actual cost of plan check and inspection services required for the Project. Plan check and inspection deposits are typically 10% of the infrastructure construction cost.

A. Before executing a Development Agreement, the District will require an initial deposit from the Development based on the schedule below:
i. An initial deposit of $2,500 and a minimum balance of $1,000 for a Project that involves the construction of 1 to 2 proposed structures. ii. An initial deposit of $5,000 and a minimum balance of $2,000 for a Project that involves the construction of 3 to 5 proposed structures. iii. An initial deposit of $10,000 and a minimum balance of $3,000 for a Project that involves the construction of 6 to 20 proposed structures. iv. An initial deposit of $25,000 and a minimum balance of $5,000 for all other Projects.

B. The minimum balance identified above will be evaluated by the District throughout the Project to make sure the minimum balance is available in the Project account before the District staff completes any Project related task or activity.

Page 1193 of 1216 ends

Page 5 of 7 ends

15. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring the property is within the service boundary of the Yucaipa Valley Water District before the approval of a Development Agreement with the Yucaipa Valley Water District. All costs related to annexation proceedings shall be the responsibility of the Applicant.

16. This Preliminary Project Service Evaluation does not provide a vested right, guarantee, or commitment of water or sewer related services from the District.

17. The District reserves the right to deny water and/or sewer service to the Project if any of the conditions contained in this letter and/or the Development Agreement are not satisfied.

18. Each parcel must be directly adjacent to the Yucaipa Valley Water District infrastructure that is used to provide service to the parcel.

19. The construction and/or use of a sewer dump station will not be permitted or approved as a part of the Project.

Special Conditions:

A. General Requirements: The District has not yet received all the information needed to thoroughly assess the proposed Project. As a result, the following list of conditions is only partial and may not reflect the final requirements that will be imposed on this Project.
i. The Development is within Yucaipa Valley Water District service area. ii. The Applicant/Developer shall submit plumbing plans and fixture unit calculations for an accurate determination of facility capacity fees and minimum meter sizes required to meet the needs of the project. iii. Points of connection to the existing District infrastructure will need to be addressed in the Development Agreement and prior to construction. iv. The Development is currently evaluating potential alternatives for emergency vehicle/equipment access to the northwestern portion of the Project area in case of fire or other emergencies. Presently, emergency responders can reach the Project area by traveling across the District’s wastewater treatment plant property to support wildfire response efforts. Any decision to establish permanent emergency access for future development will require approval from the Yucaipa Valley Water District Board of Directors. At a minimum, this approval will be contingent upon the construction of all-weather access surfaces, proportional reimbursement of prior related access costs, and the implementation of security measures to safeguard District personnel and assets. The specific requirements for emergency access will be detailed in a separate agreement once the emergency access needs are more clearly defined.

B. Preliminary Drinking Water and Recycled Water Requirements: The District has not received all of the necessary information to fully evaluate the proposed Project at this time. Therefore, the Applicant should be aware that the following partial list of

Page 1194 of 1216 ends

Page 6 of 7 ends

conditions is not representative of the final requirements and conditions for this Project.
i. Drinking water infrastructure will need to be extended on-site and off-site to meet the needs of this project.
a. The Applicant/Developer shall submit plans and construct public facilities that adhere to District Design Drawing Standards. b. The Project will require multiple connection points to the existing public drinking water system in each pressure zone that provides service and will be outlined in the Development Agreement. c. The Applicant shall participate in the coordination of planned improvements relating joint infrastructure of the adjacent developments of Summerwind and the Oak Valley Town Center. Any contribution requirements for joint infrastructure shall be outlined in the Development Agreement.
ii. Recycled water infrastructure will need to be extended on-site and off-site to meet the needs of this project.
a. The Applicant/Developer shall submit irrigation plans that specify the use of recycled water and adhere to District Design Drawing Standards.
b. The Applicant/Developer shall provide the Yucaipa Valley Water District with the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) to determine the appropriate recycled water Facility Capacity Charges for the Project. c. The Project will require multiple connection points to the existing public recycled water system in each pressure zone that provides service and will be outlined in the Development Agreement. d. The Applicant shall participate in the coordination of planned improvements relating joint infrastructure of the adjacent developments of Summerwind and the Oak Valley Town Center. Any contribution requirements for joint infrastructure shall be outlined in the Development Agreement.

C. Preliminary Sewer Requirements: The District has not received all of the necessary information to fully evaluate the proposed Project at this time. Therefore, the Applicant should be aware that the following partial list of conditions is not representative of the final requirements and conditions for this Project. i. Sewer infrastructure will need to be extended on-site and off-site to meet the needs of this Project.
a. Due to the topography of the Project area, sewer lift stations may be required to serve the project.

Page 1195 of 1216 ends

Page 7 of 7 ends

b. The relocation of existing Lift Station No. 3 is planned within the Project area and shall be outlined in the Development Agreement.

During the relocation of Lift Station No. 3, temporary sewer service will be provided utilizing the existing lift station at the discretion of the District. Details (including any required modifications) of the existing lift station for temporary use shall be included in the Development Agreement.
c. Sewer connections shall be coordinated with the District and outlined in the Development Agreement.
d. The Applicant shall participate in the coordination of planned improvements relating joint infrastructure of the adjacent developments of Summerwind and the Oak Valley Town Center. Any contribution requirements for joint infrastructure shall be outlined in the Development Agreement.

D. Preliminary Construction Water Requirements: The District has not received all of the necessary information to fully evaluate the proposed Project at this time. Therefore, the Applicant should be aware that the following partial list of conditions is not representative of the final requirements and conditions for this Project. i. Construction water from the recycled water system will be used for all phases of construction for the project. Construction water will be metered by the District at the established point of connection and intermittent construction meetings may be required between the District and the Developer for construction water locations during construction phasing.

Matthew Porras July 7, 2026
Matthew Porras, Director of Engineering Date

Page 1196 of 1216 ends

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 13.

SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 426 — An Ordinance Of The City Of Calimesa, California, Making Administrative Revisions To Ordinance Nos. 415 And 416, Amending Chapter 15.05 (Adoption Of The 2025 Edition Of The California Building Code), Chapter 15.15 (Adoption Of The 2025 Edition Of The California Electrical Code), Chapter 15.20 (Adoption Of The 2025 Edition Of The California Plumbing Code), Chapter 15.35 (Adoption Of The 2025 Edition Of The California Residential Code), And Chapter 15.37 (HUD Foundations Guide For Manufactured Housing), Of Title 15 Of The Calimesa Municipal Code, And Approving A CEQA Exemption Determination.

MEETING DATE: September 21, 2026
PREPARED BY: Paul Lindley, Fire Chief
Kelly Lucia, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Introduce First Reading of Ordinance No. 426 by title only: An Ordinance of the City of Calimesa, California, making administrative revisions to Ordinance Nos. 415 and 416, amending Chapter 15.05 (Adoption of the 2025 Edition of the California Building Code), Chapter 15.15 (Adoption of the 2025 Edition of the California Electrical Code), Chapter

15.20 (Adoption of the 2025 Edition of the California Plumbing Code), Chapter 15.35 (Adoption of the 2025 Edition of the California Residential Code), and Chapter 15.37 (HUD Foundations Guide for Manufactured Housing), of Title 15 of the Calimesa Municipal Code, and approving a CEQA exemption determination.

2. Set a Public Hearing for the 2nd reading of Ordinance No. 426 for October 5, 2026.

BACKGROUND:

The City previously adopted Ordinance Nos. 415 and 416, thereby adopting by reference and amending certain Codes comprising the 2025 California Building Standards Code (“State Building Codes”), including the California Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Historical Building, Existing Building and Green Building Standards Codes; together with

Page 1197 of 1216 ends

the HUD Foundations Guide for Manufactured Housing.

Since adoption and codification of the foregoing Codes, certain text and provisions from the 2022 Editions of said Codes were inadvertently included in Ordinance Nos. 415 and 416.

Furthermore, Staff has determined that additional amendments to some of the Codes adopted are required in order to more fully address local conditions unique to the City. Lastly, Staff has determined that additional study concerning HUD regulations governing manufactured housing foundations is required before adopting final regulations.

DISCUSSION:

Now that Staff has had the opportunity to work with the 2025 State Building Codes, Staff has determined that certain revisions to the adopting Ordinances and those Codes are necessary to ensure that consistent and effective enforcement may occur. These include minor revisions to administrative portions of Ordinance Nos. 415 and 416, and minor revisions to certain sections of the California Building, Residential, Electrical and Plumbing Codes. As these Codes have been previously adopted by reference, the City may simply revise the text of the affected, adopted provisions, without having to re-adopt any entire Code.

As noted above, staff has determined that additional study concerning HUD regulations governing manufactured housing foundations should be undertaken before adopting final regulations. Therefore, this Ordinance will repeal the previous adoption of the HUD Foundations Guide for Manufactured Housing.

Ordinance No. 415 also included findings required by Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 18941.5 for amendments to building standards in the Codes, where “reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.” However, because additional revisions are being made to the previous amendments, additional or revised findings are necessary. Therefore, concurrent with the introduction of this Ordinance, the Council is being presented with a separate Resolution containing the original, and the revised and additional findings.

ENVIRONMENTAL: The adoption of the Ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review in that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance, and the regulations established thereby, may have a significant effect on the environment, because the Ordinance will impose greater limitations on development in the City, and will thereby serve to reduce potential significant adverse environmental impacts. It is therefore exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review pursuant to Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

Page 1198 of 1216 ends

1. Ordinance - Code Adoption Amendments - Sept 2026

Page 1199 of 1216 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 426

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING ADMINISTRATIVE REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE NOS. 415 AND 416, AMENDING CHAPTER 15.05 (ADOPTION OF THE 2025 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE), CHAPTER 15.15 (ADOPTION OF THE 2025 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE), CHAPTER 15.20 (ADOPTION OF THE 2025 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE), CHAPTER 15.35 (ADOPTION OF THE 2025 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE), AND CHAPTER 15.37 (HUD FOUNDATIONS GUIDE FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING), OF TITLE 15 OF THE CALIMESA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND APPROVING A CEQA EXEMPTION DETERMINATION.

WHEREAS, by previously adopting Ordinance Nos. 415 and 416, the City of Calimesa adopted the 2025 Editions of various Codes comprising the California Building Standards Code; and WHEREAS, revisions to the California Building Code, California Residential Code, and California Fire Code occurring after the City’s adoption of the 2022 versions of those Codes, necessitate revising and correcting certain sections of Ordinance Nos. 415 and 416, and sections of those Codes, to ensure consistency with the 2025 Editions of each Code; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that additional revisions to the 2025 Editions of the California Building Code, California Electrical Code and California Plumbing Code are necessary based on local conditions unique to the City; and
WHEREAS, City Staff have determined that additional study is required concerning the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Permanent Foundations Guide for Manufactured Housing (4930.3G) 1996 Edition and that, pending completing of that additional study, it is in the City’s best interest to repeal the City’s current regulations.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Administrative revisions to Ordinance No. 415 of the City of Calimesa.

A. The reference to the “2016 Edition of the California Building Code” set forth in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 415 of the City of Calimesa, is hereby corrected to read “2025 Edition of the California Building Code.”
B. References to the “2022” Edition of the California Building Code and “2021” International Building Code in Section 15.05.010 of the Calimesa Municipal Code, as adopted in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 415 of the City of Calimesa, are revised to read: “2025” and “2024”, respectively.

Section 2. Administrative revisions to Ordinance No. 416 of the City of Calimesa.

The reference to the “2022 Edition of the California Fire Code” set forth in Section 2 of Ordinance No. 416 of the City of Calimesa, is hereby corrected to read “2025 Edition of the California Fire Code.”
Section 3. Subsection “B” of Section 15.05.020 (“Amendments”) of Chapter 15.05 (“Adoption of the 2025 Edition of the California Building Code”) of Title 15 of the Calimesa Municipal Code is hereby

Page 1200 of 1216 ends

amended by revising Footnote “a” to Table 1505.1 of the California Building Code, as adopted in this Section, to read as follows:
“a. Unless otherwise required by the 2025 Edition of the California Wildland-Urban Interface Code.” Section 4. Subsection “B” of Section 15.05.020 (“Amendments”) of Chapter 15.05 (“Adoption of the 2025 Edition of the California Building Code”) of Title 15 of the Calimesa Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising the reference in Section 1505.2 to the 2022 Edition of the California Building Code, to read: “2025 Edition of the California Building Code.” Section 5. Subsection “B” of Section 15.05.020 (“Amendments”) of Chapter 15.05 (“Adoption of the 2025 Edition of the California Building Code”) of Title 15 of the Calimesa Municipal Code is hereby amended by revising Section 3109.3 of the California Building Code, as adopted in this Section, to read as follows:
“3109.3 Residential swimming pools. Residential swimming pools shall be completely enclosed by a barrier complying with Appendix CI of the 2025 California Residential Code, as adopted and amended in Chapter 15.35 of this Code.”
Section 6. Subsection “B” of Section 15.05.020 (“Amendments”) of Chapter 15.05 (“Adoption of the 2025 Edition of the California Building Code”) of Title 15 of the Calimesa Municipal Code is hereby amended by deleting the subsection entitled “Appendices deleted”.

Section 7. Section 15.15.020 (“Amendments”) of Chapter 15.15 (“Adoption of the 2025 Edition of the California Electrical Code”) of Title 15 of the Calimesa Municipal Code is hereby amended by deleting the amendments to Articles 310 and 310.106(B) of the 2025 California Electrical Code.

Article 690.13(A)(1) Location is amended to read as follows:
“ 1. The PV system disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location on the outside of any building or structure where PV is installed and nearest to the point of entrance of the system conductors. When a PV system is installed on a building or structure that is detached from the structure containing the main meter panel, a single visible, lockable AC disconnect shall be within 3 feet of the meter on the exterior of the building.”
Section 8. Section 15.20.020 (“Amendments”) of Chapter 15.20 (“Adoption of the 2025 Edition of the California Plumbing Code”) of Title 15 of the Calimesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“15.20.020 Amendments
Section 719.1 Location is amended to read as follows:

Section 719.1 Locations. Cleanouts shall be installed outside the building at the lower end of the building drain and extended to grade, cleanouts are prohibited in garage floors.

Additional building sewer cleanouts shall be installed at intervals not to exceed 100 feet (30480 mm) in straight runs and for each aggregate horizontal change in direction exceeding 135° (2.36 rad.)” Section 9. Section 15.35.020 (“Amendments”) of Chapter 15.35 (“Adoption of the 2025 Edition of the California Residential Code”) of Title 15 of the Calimesa Municipal Code is hereby amended by deleting “Section R403.1.3.6 is deleted in its entirety.” Section R403.1.3.6 shall continue to read as set forth in the 2025 California Residential Code.

Page 1201 of 1216 ends

Section 10. Chapter 15.37 (Adoption of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Permanent Foundations Guide for Manufactured Housing (4930.3G) 1996 Edition) of Title 15 of the Calimesa Municipal Code is hereby repealed.

Section 11. CEQA
The City Council finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment because the Ordinance provides for greater environmental protection by adopting and amending building standards and administrative provisions designed to provide for greater energy efficiency, construction sustainability, and protection from seismic and climatic forces, including fire-related dangers. Therefore, it is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review pursuant to Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3), of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines).

Section 12. SEVERABILITY
If any portion of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, the City council hereby declares that it would have enacted the remainder of this Ordinance regardless of the absence of any such invalid part or portion. The City Council of the City of Calimesa hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 13. PENALTY
Except where specified to be an infraction, violation of any provision of this Ordinance or any Code adopted herein by reference shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every day such a violation exists shall constitute a separate and distinct violation of this Ordinance.

Section 14. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions, requirements, orders and matters established and adopted hereby, shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final passage and adoption, but no sooner than November 5, 2026.

INTRODUCED AND PASSED UPON FIRST READING by title only, this 21st day of September 2026, upon the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Page 1202 of 1216 ends

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of October 2026 upon the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________

JEFF CERVANTEZ
ATTEST:
_________________________________

DARLENE GERDES, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
STEVEN L. FLOWER, CITY ATTORNEY

Page 1203 of 1216 ends

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 14.

SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2026-60 - A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Calimesa Making Express Findings And Determinations That Modifications To The 2025 Editions Of The California Building Code, Electrical Code, Plumbing Code, Residential Code, Wildland - Urban Interface Code, And Fire Code Are Reasonably Necessary Because Of Local Climatic, Geological And/Or Topographical Conditions.

MEETING DATE: September 21, 2026
PREPARED BY: Paul Lindley, Fire Chief
Kelly Lucia, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 2026-60: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Calimesa, making express findings and determinations that modifications to the 2025 additions of the California Building Code, Electrical Code, Plumbing Code, Residential Code, Wildland – Urban Interface Code, and Fire Code are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, and/or topographical conditions.

BACKGROUND:

The City previously adopted Ordinance Nos. 415, 416 and 426, thereby adopting by reference and amending certain Codes comprising the 2025 California Building Standards Code (“State Building Codes”), including the California Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Historical Building, Existing Building and Green Building Standards Codes (“State Building Codes”). Some of those amendments constituted amendments to building standards.

Before they can become effective, Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 18941.5 require findings to be adopted for such amendments where the amendments are “reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. This Resolution identifies those sections being amended and the local climatic, geological, and/or topographical conditions supporting each amendment.

DISCUSSION:

Now that Staff has had the opportunity to work with the 2025 State Building Codes, Staff has determined that certain, additional revisions to those Codes are necessary to ensure consistent and effective enforcement may occur. Ordinance No. 415 also included findings as required by

Page 1204 of 1216 ends

Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 18941.5 for amendments to building standards in those Codes. However, because additional revisions are being made to the previous amendments, additional or revised findings are necessary. Therefore, the attached Resolution containing the original and new findings should be adopted and it will become operative upon Ordinance No. 426 becoming effective.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution - Express Findings - Sept 2026

Page 1205 of 1216 ends

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-60

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA

MAKING EXPRESS FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THAT
MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2025 EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA

BUILDING CODE, ELECTRICAL CODE, PLUMBING CODE,

RESIDENTIAL CODE, WILDLAND - URBAN INTERFACE CODE, AND

FIRE CODE ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY BECAUSE OF LOCAL

CLIMATIC, GEOLOGICAL AND/OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7 and 18941.5 provide that the City of Calimesa may adopt ordinances and regulations imposing the same or stricter requirements as are contained in the regulations adopted by the State pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17922 and/or 18941.5; WHEREAS, the building standards contained in the Codes comprising the 2025 California Building Standards Code, including the California Building Code, the California Electrical Code, the California Plumbing Code the California Residential Code, the California Wildland - Urban Interface Code, and the California Fire Code (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Codes"), apply to all occupancies in the State commencing January 1, 2026;
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Sections 17598.7(a) and 18941.5 permit the City Council to amend building standards contained in the Codes, to make them more stringent, based on findings establishing that such amendments are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological and/or topographical conditions.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City of Calimesa Building and Safety Division and Fire Department have recommended that changes and modifications be made to the Codes and have advised that certain said changes and modifications to the 2025 Editions of the California Building Code, the California Electrical Code, the California Plumbing Code, the California Residential Code, the California Wildland - Urban Interface Code, and the California Fire Code are reasonably necessary due to local conditions in the City of Calimesa as described below:

I. Climatic Conditions:

A. The City of Calimesa is located in Riverside County, Southern California, and covers a vast and varied geographic area. The base climate in western Riverside County consists of semi-arid Mediterranean weather patterns. Eastern Riverside County is a desert area with Mohave Desert temperatures and weather patterns. Those two primary areas are divided by the San Bernardino Mountain Range. Both areas outside of the mountain terrain annually experience extended periods of high temperatures with little

Page 1206 of 1216 ends

2 or no precipitation. Hot, dry winds, which may reach speeds of 98 M.P.H. or greater, are common to the area. Examples are: Santa Ana/ Foehn winds, afternoon surface-heating generated winds, and prevailing desert winds.

These climatic conditions cause extreme drying of vegetation and common building materials. Frequent periods of drought and low humidity add to the fire danger. This predisposes the area to large destructive fires (conflagration) which necessitates rapid identification, locating and extinguishment of all fires in the smallest stage possible. In addition to directly damaging or destroying buildings, these fires are also prone to disrupt utility services throughout the County. Obstacles generated by a strong wind, such as fallen trees, streetlights and utility poles, will greatly impact the response time to reach an incident scene. During these winds, the inability to use aerial type firefighting apparatus would further decrease our ability to stop fires in large buildings and place rescue personnel at increased risk of injury.

B. Although Riverside County and the City of Calimesa occasionally experiences periods of significant drought; the County can also experience periods of substantial rainfall. When experiencing heavy rain, or rain over a period of days or weeks, many areas of the County are subject to flooding. Runoff from rain drains either naturally into rivers, washes, and creeks or into flood control facilities. Flash flooding is typically associated with short duration, high intensity precipitation events often associated with summer thunderstorms. Such events can occur even during a drought.

C. Water demand in densely populated Southern California far exceeds the quantity supplied by natural precipitation; and although the population continues to grow, the already-taxed water supply does not. California is projected to increase in population by nearly 10 million over the next quarter of a century with 50 percent of that growth centered in Southern California. Due to storage capacities and consumption, and a limited amount of rainfall future water allocation is not fully dependable. This necessitates the need for additional and on-site fire protection features. It would also leave tall buildings vulnerable to uncontrolled fires due to a lack of available water and an inability to pump sufficient quantities of available water to floors in a fire.

D. These dry climatic conditions and winds contribute to the rapid spread of even small fires originating in high-density housing or vegetation. These fires spread very quickly and create a need for increased levels of fire protection. The added protection of fire sprinkler systems and other fire protection features such as identification and notification will supplement normal fire department response by providing immediate protection for the building occupants and by containing and controlling the fire spread to the area of origin. Fire sprinkler systems will also reduce the use of water for firefighting by as much as 50 to 75 percent.

II. Topographical conditions
A. Much of the eastern, western and southern portions of the city are in the wildland - urban interface (WUI). This creates unique challenges with development in terms of emergency access, adequate water supply and an extended response time from the nearest fire stations(s). The City of Calimesa has topographic conditions consisting of slopes greater than 40 percent in areas covered with large amounts of densely covered dry vegetation throughout most of the year.

Page 1207 of 1216 ends

3 III. Geological Conditions
Located within Riverside County are several known active and potentially active earthquake faults, including the San Andreas, San Jacinto, and Elsinore Fault. In the event of an earthquake, the location of the epicenter as well as the time of day and season of the year would have a profound effect on the number of deaths and casualties, as well as property damage.

The major form of direct damage from most earthquakes is damage to construction. Bridges are particularly vulnerable to collapse, and dam failure may generate major downstream flooding. Buildings vary in susceptibility, dependent upon construction and the types of soils on which they are built. Earthquakes destroy power and telephone lines; gas, sewer, or water mains; which, in tum, may set off fires and/or hinder firefighting or rescue efforts. The hazard of earthquakes varies from place to place, dependent upon the regional and local geology. Ground shaking may occur in areas 65 miles or more from the epicenter (the point on the ground surface above the focus).

Ground shaking can change the mechanical properties of some fine grained, saturated soils, where upon they liquefy and act as a fluid (liquefaction).

A. Previous earthquakes in southern California have been accompanied by disruption of traffic flow and fires. A severe seismic event has the potential to negatively impact any rescue or fire suppression activities because it is likely to create obstacles similar to those indicated under the high wind section above. With the probability of strong aftershocks there exists a need to provide increased protection for anyone on upper floors of buildings.

B. Road circulation features located throughout the County also make amendments reasonably necessary. Located through the County are major roadways, highways and flood control channels that create barriers and slow response times. Hills, slopes, street and storm drain design accompanies with occasional heavy rainfall, causes roadway flooding and landslides and at times may make an emergency access route impassable. There are areas in Riverside County that naturally have extended emergency response times that exceed the 5-minute goal.

Section 2. Amendments to the 2025 Editions of the California Building Code, the California Electrical Code, the California Plumbing Code, and the California Residential Code, as contained in City of Calimesa Ordinance Nos. 415 and 426, and amendments to the 2025 Editions of the California Wildland - Urban Interface Code and California Fire Code, as contained in City of Calimesa Ordinance No. 416, are found reasonably necessary based on climatic, geological and/or topographical conditions as listed below:

Page 1208 of 1216 ends

4 2025 CODE

SECTION

AMENDED

TITLE/SUBJECT FINDINGS I, II, III
CBC California Building Code (Part 2)
104.8 Liability Administrative
105.2 Work Exempt from Permit Administrative
105.5 Expiration Administrative
109.2 Schedule of Permit Fees Administrative
109.4 Investigation Fees Work Without a Permit Administrative 109.6 Fee Refunds Administrative
111.3 Temporary Occupancy Administrative
113.3 Board of Appeals Qualifications Administrative
202 Definitions Administrative
1505 Fire Classification I & II
1505.1 Roof Assembly Requirements I & II
1505.1.2 Roof Coverings Within All Other Areas I & II
3109.3 Residential Swimming Pools I
CEC California Electrical Code (Part 3)
690.13(A)(1) Location III
CPC California Plumbing Code (Part 5)
719.1 Location I
CRC California Residential Code (Part 2.5)
R301.2 Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria I, II & III R403 Footings III
R403.1.2 Continuous Footings III
R403.1.3 Footings and Stem Walls III
R403.1.3.1 Concrete Stem Walls III
R403.1.3.2 Masonry Stem Walls III
R403.1.3.3 Slab on Ground III
R403.1.3.4 Interior Bearing and Braced Wall Footings III R403.1.6 Foundation Anchorage III
WUI California Wildland-Urban Interface Code
(Part 7)
202 Fire Hazard Severity Zones I
302.3 Division of Review Areas I&II
403.1.7 Static Water Source Access II
404.4.1 Hydrant Identification Administrative
504.10.4 Eave-Type Attic Ventilators I
601.4 General Development Requirements Administrative
602.3.3 Fire Protection Plans/Fuel Modification I&II

Page 1209 of 1216 ends

5 604.6 Transmission Line Clearance I
608.3 Building Separation II
609.2.8 Slope Development II
610.3 Project Design Requirements II
CFC California Fire Code (Part 9)
103.4 Cost Recovery Administrative
104.1.1 Responsibilities Administrative
108.1.1 Permit Fees Administrative
111.1 Board of Appeals Administrative
112.4 Violation Penalties Administrative
202 Fire Hazard Severity Zones Definition I
305.5.1 Spark Arresters Required I
307 Open Burning Regulations I
315.8 Combustible Rubbish Removal I
315.9 Abatement I
324 Engine Spark Arresters I
325 Restricted Entry I & II
326 Trespassing on Posted Property I & II
327 Explosives and Blasting I
328 Outdoor Fires I
503.1.4 Fire Apparatus Access II
503.1.5 Fire Lane Designation II
503.2.3 Road Surface II
503.2.7 Road Grade II
505.1 Premises Identification Administrative
505.1.1 Map Directory Administrative
605.3.1 Chimney Spark Arresters I
605.3.2 Incinerators I
905.4 Standpipe/Hose Outlet Amendments II
2809.1.1 Pallet Storage Administrative
5601 Fireworks/Explosives I
5604 Storage of Explosives Administrative
5605 Manufacturing/Pyrotechnics Administrative
5704 Used Oil Storage Administrative
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution, shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City, and shall cause a copy hereof to be forthwith transmitted to the California Building Standards Commission, together with a copy of Ordinance Nos. 415, 416, and 426.

Page 1210 of 1216 ends

6 Section 4. This Resolution shall become operative upon the effective date of Ordinance No.426
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 2026 ________________________

MAYOR JEFF CERVANTEZ
ATTEST:
______________________________________

DARLENE GERDES, CITY CLERK

Page 1211 of 1216 ends

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 15.

SUBJECT: City Commission Appointment
MEETING DATE: September 21, 2026
PREPARED BY: Darlene Gerdes, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Yaiza Benson, Deputy City Clerk/Executive Assistant
RECOMMENDATION:

That Council Member Cundieff appoint one member to the Parks Trails & Community Services Commission and that the City Council ratify the appointment by a majority vote and adopt Resolution No. 2026-52 providing for the appointment made.

BACKGROUND:

Calimesa Municipal Code Chapter 2.20 provides the regulations and processes for governing city-established commissions and boards. Chapter 2.25 establishes the Parks, Trails & Community Services Commission.

Commissioner Van Hyning previously served on the Parks, Trails & Community Services Commission and was recently reappointed to the Planning Commission. As a result of her appointment to the Planning Commission, a vacancy was created on the Parks, Trails & Community Services Commission.

The vacant seat is an appointment of Council Member Cundieff.

DISCUSSION:

An application has been received from Bryn Cundieff to serve on the Parks, Trails & Community Services Commission. Council Member Cundieff has expressed her intention to appoint Bryn Cundieff to fill the vacant seat.

Pursuant to the City’s appointment process, the appointment is subject to ratification by a majority vote of the City Council. The appointee’s term will coincide with Council Member Cundieff’s term and expire in December 2028, or until any pending Commission mergers or organizational changes have been processed.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None

Page 1212 of 1216 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Bryn Cundieff Commission Application

2. Resolution 2026-52

Page 1213 of 1216 ends

Page 1214 of 1216 ends

Page 1215 of 1216 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-52

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CALIMESA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR AN APPOINTMENT TO
THE PARKS, TRAILS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION.

WHEREAS Section 2.20.050 of the Calimesa Municipal Code requires that the City Council shall, by resolution, establish policies and procedures for appointing and removing Commissioners.

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 98-26, Section 2(a) requires that members of each Commission shall be appointed and shall serve for a period of time set forth in the ordinance creating the commission.

WHEREAS, Chapter 2.25.010 of the Calimesa Municipal Code requires that the Parks, Trails and Community Services Commission shall consist of five (5) members and be appointed as follows: Each Council Member shall appoint one (1) Commissioner who shall serve at the pleasure of that appointing City Council Member for the term (or remainder thereof) of the City Council Member or to fill the unexpired term of a former incumbent, in which case, the appointment shall be for the unexpired term. Each Parks, Trails and Community Services Commissioner shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Appointments to the Parks, Trails and Community Services Commission shall be ratified by a majority vote of the City Council.

WHEREAS, Council Member Cundieff appoints Bryn Cundieff to the Parks, Trails and Community Services Commission, for a term to expire December 2028, or until any pending Commission mergers or organizational changes have been processed.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA DOES HEREB Y RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

The City Council ratifies Council Member Cundieff’s appointment of Bryn Cundieff to the Parks, Trails and Community Services Commission.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September 2026. ________________________________

JEFF CERVANTEZ, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________

DARLENE GERDES, CITY CLERK

Page 1216 of 1216 ends

Calimesa City CouncilSeptember 21, 2026

Calimesa City Council
September 21, 2026