Yorba Linda City Council
February 3, 2026

19081 Yorba Linda
Boulevard Residential
Project
Noise and
Vibration Impact
Analysis
Prepared for
City of Yorba Linda
August 2025
Tina Yuan
Renee Escario
Terrance Smalls

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
i Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Purpose of the Report ............................................................................................................ 6

1.3 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 6 2 Noise Scales and Definitions.................................................................................. 7

2.1 Terminology ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Sound Propagation ................................................................................................................. 9

2.3 Stationary Noise ..................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Mobile Noise ........................................................................................................................ 10

2.5 Noise From Multiple Sources ............................................................................................... 10

2.6 Vibration .............................................................................................................................. 10 3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................... 12

3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................. 12

3.2 State ..................................................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Local ..................................................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Significance Criteria Summary ........................................................................................... 17 4 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 19

4.1 Existing Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 19

4.2 Sensitive Receptors .............................................................................................................. 21

4.3 Aircraft Noise ...................................................................................................................... 21

4.4 Stationary Sources ............................................................................................................... 21

4.5 Existing Traffic Noise Level ................................................................................................ 21 5 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................... 23

5.1 CEQA Thresholds ................................................................................................................. 23

5.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 23 6 Project Impacts ..................................................................................................... 26

6.1 Construction Noise ............................................................................................................... 26

6.2 Operational Noise ............................................................................................................... 30 Operational Increases in Ambient Noise .................................................................................. 32

6.3 Vibration .............................................................................................................................. 33

6.4 Airport Noise ....................................................................................................................... 34 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 35 8 References ............................................................................................................ 36

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
ii Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Figures
Figure 1-1: Regional Map .................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 1-2: Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-1: Common Noise Levels ........................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3-1: Noise Measurement Locations ....................................................................................... 20 Tables
Table 1-1: Surrounding Areas and Project Site Existing Land Uses .................................................. 3 Table 1-2: Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................... 6 Table 3-1: Construction Noise Criteria ............................................................................................. 12 Table 3-2: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria .......................................... 13 Table 3-3: City of Yorba Linda Noise Standards ........................................................................... 14 Table 3-3: Criteria for Noise-Compatible Land Use ...................................................................... 15 Table 3-4: Significance Criteria Summary ....................................................................................... 18 Table 3-6: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ........................................................................................... 22 Table 5-1: Distances Used for Analysis............................................................................................ 24 Table 6-1: Construction Equipment Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptor.................... 27 Table 6-2: Construction Equipment Noise Levels at the Closest Land Uses ................................... 28 Table 6-3: Mitigated Construction Noise Level Increases at the Surrounding Land Uses ............ 29 Table 6-4: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels ...................................................................... 30 Table 6-5: Operational Exterior Noise Levels at Closest Off-Site Receptors .............................. 31 Table 6-6: Typical Noise Level Generated by Parking Lots .......................................................... 31 Table 6-7: Operational Noise Level Increase at Closest Off-Site Receptors ............................... 32 Table 6-8: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ....................................................................... 33 Table 6-9: Construction Vibration Levels to the Surrounding Structures........................................ 33 Table 7-1: Summary of Noise and Vibration Levels from the Project ........................................... 35 Appendices
Appendix A – Noise Measurement Data
Appendix B – Noise Modeling Data

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
3 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
1 INTRODUCTION
This Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis evaluates the potential noise and vibration impacts of the proposed 19081 Yorba Linda Residential Project (“Project” or “proposed Project”). The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Yorba Linda (City).

1.1 Project Description
The Project site is located at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard in the western central portion of the city of Yorba Linda within Orange County in Section 23, Township 3 South, Range 9 West in the Yorba Linda (7.5- minute) Quadrangle. The approximate 2.64-acre Project site consists of one parcel identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 323-081-35. The Project site is bounded by single-family residential homes to the north, Jessamyn West Park to the east, a single-family residential home to the southeast, Yorba Linda Boulevard to the south, and a synagogue with a learning center to the west. Refer to Table 1-1, Surrounding Areas and Project Site Existing Land Uses. Regional access to the site is provided via State Route 90 (known locally as Imperial Highway), State Route 91 (known locally as Riverside Freeway), and State Route 57 (known locally as Orange Freeway). Local access to the site is provided via Yorba Linda Boulevard. The location of the Project is shown in Figure 1-1, Regional Map.

The Project proposes to demolish three existing residential buildings and ancillary structures on-site and redevelop the 2.64-acre site with 62 attached townhome residential units. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and a zoning designation of Residential Estate (RE).

Additionally, the proposed Project includes landscaping, parking, private roadways, open and private space amenities, and utility and stormwater improvements. The proposed site plan for the Project is shown in Figure 1-2, Conceptual Site Plan.

Table 1-1: Surrounding Areas and Project Site Existing Land Uses Direction General Plan Land Use Zoning
North Residential Medium-Low (R-ML) Residential Estate (RE) East Residential Medium-Low (R-ML),
Open Space (OS-General)
Residential Multiple-Family 20 (R-M20), Public and Semi-Public (PS) South Residential Medium-Low (R-ML) Residential Estate (RE) West Residential Medium-Low (R-ML) Residential Estate (RE) Proposed Project Site Residential Medium-Low (R-ML)- Residential Estate (RE) Source: General Plan Land Use Map (City of Yorba Linda, 2016a) and Zoning Map (City of Yorba Linda, 2019)

Figure 1-1: Regional Map
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Project
Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Anaheim
Brea
Placentia
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Yorba Linda
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 0.5 1
Miles
Legend
Project Boundary
Anaheim
Brea
Placentia
Unincorporated
Yorba Linda
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project

Figure 1-2: Conceptual Site Plan 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Project Noise and Vibration Study 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
6 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis

1.2 Purpose of the Report
To support the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the proposed Project, this report evaluates potential noise and vibration related impacts that could result from implementation of the Project. This report begins with an overview of the study area, the project site, and the key components of the proposed development. It then provides a foundational explanation of noise and vibration concepts to help frame the analysis.

To ensure consistency with local requirements, the report outlines relevant noise guidelines and regulatory standards that apply to the project. It also describes the existing noise environment in and around the Project site to establish a baseline for comparison. From there, the analysis addresses potential short-term noise and vibration impacts that could occur during construction activities, and long-term operational impacts once the Project is built and active, and if mitigation measures would be required. The results of this analysis is based upon Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

1.3 Summary of Findings
The conclusions of this analysis are shown in Table 1-2, Summary of Findings.

Table 1-2: Summary of Findings
Topics Applicable Housing Element EIR
Mitigation Measures Significant Findings
Additional
Proposed Project
Mitigation
Measures
Construction Noise Mitigation Measures 4.6-1, -2, -3, -4 Less than significant NA Operation Noise Mitigation Measure 4.6-5 Less than significant NA Construction Vibration Mitigation Measures 4.6-1, -2, -3, -4 Less than significant NA Operation Vibration NA Less than significant NA
Airport NA Less than significant NA
Notes: NA = not applicable

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
7 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
2 NOISE SCALES AND DEFINITIONS
Sound is energy transferred through air that our ears detect as small changes in air pressures. Noise is defined as any sound that is unwanted or excessive. Noise is considered undesirable when it disrupts everyday activities, poses a risk of physical harm, or negatively impacts health. Its effects on people can include irritation, difficulty communicating, sleep disruption, and in severe cases, hearing loss. These impacts can stem from either the pitch or the loudness of the sound. Pitch refers to the frequency of a sound wave, how many vibrations occur per second, which determines whether a sound is high or low in tone. Humans generally perceive higher-pitched sounds as louder. Loudness, on the other hand, relates to the intensity or amplitude of the sound.

Typically, noise is measured or predicted by a sound pressure level, reported in decibels (dB). The dB is a logarithmic unit used to represent the ratio between a measured sound pressure level and a standard reference level. A sound level of 0 dB corresponds to the quietest sound that a healthy, unimpaired human ear can hear. The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to approximately 140 dBA. Figure 2-1, Common Noise Levels, shows typical sound levels and human response for everyday sounds and noises.

Sound and vibration are intimately related. Sound is produced by the vibration of sound pressure waves in the air. Vibrating surfaces and structures can radiate sound, so measures taken to reduce vibration will often lead to a reduction in noise level.

2.1 Terminology
Sound: Sound is a vibratory disturbance produced by a vibrating object that travels through a medium, such as air, in the form of pressure waves. It can be detected by a receiver, such as the human ear or a microphone.

Noise: Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.

Ambient noise: The combined noise from all nearby and distant sources present in a specific environment.

Decibel (dB): Unit used to measure the intensity of a sound.

A-weighted decibel (dBA): Unit of sound pressure level in decibels on the “A-weighted” scale.

Sound exposure level (SEL): Represents all the acoustic energy (sound pressure) of an individual noise event as if that event had occurred within a one-second time period.

Equivalent sound level (Leq): Leq is the equivalent steady-state level which within a stated period of time contains the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period.

Maximum sound level (Lmax): The highest values measured by the sound meter over a given time period.

Minimum sound level (Lmin): The lowest values measured by the sound meter over a given time period.

Day-night average sound level (Ldn): A noise metric used to reflect a person’s cumulative exposure to sound over a 24-hour period, expressed as the noise level for the average day of the year on the basis of annual operation.

Figure 2-1: Common Noise Levels 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Page 1779 of 2028
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
9 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Community noise equivalent level (CNEL): CNEL represents a composite 24-hour noise level. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are to account for the noise-sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when quiet is most desirable and sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure.

Root mean square (RMS): RMS is the average vibration amplitude. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body (FTA 2018).

Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal (FTA 2018).

The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings.

VdB: VdB is a unit used to measure ground motion caused by vibrations, specifically particle velocity in inches per second.

2.2 Sound Propagation
Sound propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance in air from a point source. Sound can propagate through air, water, and solids. During propagation, waves can be reflected, refracted, or attenuated by the medium.

The reduction of sound (acoustic) waves is known as attenuation. Sound attenuation can be effected in numerous ways, including:
• Dissipating through the air when absorbed by another medium. • Reflected against a barrier.
• Redirected by wind.
• Via interference from ambient noise.

2.3 Stationary Noise
A stationary noise source refers to any fixed-location activity or equipment that generates noise. Examples include engines, machinery, energy generation systems, and other powered equipment, as well as activities such as loading and unloading and parking lot activity. Although noise from motor vehicles on public roads is generally exempt from local regulation, these vehicles are considered stationary noise sources when used on private property, such as at construction sites, truck terminals, or warehouse facilities.

The impact of stationary noise depends on several factors, including the type and operation of the equipment, the distance and path between the noise source and the receiver, and environmental conditions such as weather. Regulation of stationary noise can occur at the point of manufacture (for example, limits on engine noise), through restrictions on hours of operation, location of installation, or by requiring noise mitigation features such as barriers, structures, or other project features.

Construction activities are a frequent and often temporary source of stationary noise. Although constructionrelated noise is typically higher than existing background levels, it is limited to the duration of the work.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
10 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Construction occurs in phases, each involving different equipment and operations, resulting in varied noise levels and characteristics throughout the project. Despite differences in equipment type and size, the primary sources and patterns of noise during construction are consistent enough to categorize noise levels by construction phase.

2.4 Mobile Noise
Traffic noise levels are primarily influenced by three factors: the volume of traffic, the speed of vehicles, and the proportion of trucks within the traffic flow. In general, traffic noise becomes louder with increased vehicle volume, higher speeds, and a greater number of heavy trucks. Vehicle noise comes from a combination of sources, including the engine, exhaust system, and tires.

Because noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale, doubling the volume of traffic (while speed and truck percentage remain the same) results in an increase of about 3 dBA. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a change of 3 dBA is considered "barely perceptible" and a change of 5 dBA is considered readily perceptible. A 10 dBA increase is typically required to produce a doubling in perceived loudness. The mix of vehicles also affects noise levels; as the number of heavy trucks rises and makes up a larger share of the traffic, nearby noise levels increase (FTA, 2018).

2.5 Noise From Multiple Sources
Because sound pressure levels in decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, they cannot be added or subtracted using standard arithmetic. Instead, these levels are combined using energy-based summation. This means that adding a new noise source with the same sound level as an existing one does not result in a doubling of the overall noise level.

When two noise sources differ by 10 dBA or more, the louder source determines the overall level, and the combined noise level will be equal to that louder source. If the difference is between 0 and 1 dBA, the resulting level will be 3 dBA higher than the louder source or both sources if they are equal. A difference of 2 to 3 dBA results in a combined level 2 dBA above the louder source. When the difference is between 4 and 10 dBA, the resulting level will be 1 dBA higher than the louder source (FTA, 2018).

2.6 Vibration
The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual describes that vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Unlike airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is generally not perceptible outdoors and is primarily an indoor annoyance. Vibration effects should therefore be evaluated at the structure, considering building characteristics. Light structures such as wood-framed homes are more susceptible to vibration than heavy buildings with deep or spread foundations. In general, heavier buildings respond less to ground vibration due to soil-structure coupling (FTA, 2018).

There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts on buildings. The root mean square (RMS) vibration is the average of the squared

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
11 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body.

Also, vibration decibel notation (VdB) is another vibration notation used by the FTA to describe vibration levels, provide a background of common vibration levels, and set vibration limits. Typical sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, heavy trucks and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. For construction-related activities, a PPV-based threshold, such as those established by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), are appropriate and most commonly used for evaluating potential impacts on both structures and human receptors.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
12 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
3 REGULATORY SETTING

3.1 Federal
Federal Transit Administration Noise Guidance
The noise and vibration assessment in this report is based on criteria from the FTA’s 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual) for a detailed construction noise assessment. Table 3-1, Construction Noise Criteria, lists the FTA’s recommended noise thresholds for a detailed construction noise assessment based on adjacent land uses.

Table 3-1: Construction Noise Criteria
Land Use
Leq.equip(8hr), dBA
Day Night
Residential 80 70
Commercial 85 85
Industrial 90 90
Source: Federal Transit Administration. (2018). Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Guidance.

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) has the following recommendations when reviewing noise levels and land uses. If ambient noise measurements show that noise sensitive areas will be at or above 65 dB and will have an increase of 1.5 dB Ldn or more, further analysis should be conducted of noise-sensitive areas between 60-65 dB Ldn having an increase of 3 dB Ldn or more due to the proposed airport noise exposure. If the 65 dB Ldn screening test calls for further analysis between 60-65 dB Ldn, agency mitigation options may include noise sensitive areas between 60-65 dB Ldn that are projected to have an increase of 3 dB or more as a result of the proposed airport noise exposure. When the ambient noise level is less than 60 dB Ldn A “margin of safety’ of 5 dB is applied to the outdoor identified level to account for other adverse effects on activity interference and annoyance as well as for the most sensitive fraction of the population.

3.2 State
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
The Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (previously known as the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research) Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL). A noise environment of 50 CNEL to 60 CNEL is considered to be “normally acceptable” for residential uses.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
13 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a Noise Element within the General Plan. The Element must identify and evaluate noise problems within the community, focusing on noise sources such as transportation, industrial plants, and airports, and presenting noise contours using CNEL or day-night average sound level (Ldn).

Title 24 – California Building Standards Code
The California Building Code (CBC) California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2) contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance.

Section 1206.4, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, of the CBC requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room.

California Department of Transportation
Caltrans published updates to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol and Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual in April 2020. It contains the recommended thresholds to evaluate noise and vibration impacts during construction. The Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol recommended 12 dB as the construction noise level increase threshold for ambient noise levels. The construction vibration criteria include consideration of building conditions, as shown in Table 3-2, Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria.

Table 3-2: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and condition
Maximum PPV, inches/second
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial structures 2.0 0.5
PPV=Peak Particle Velocity
Notes: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source: Caltrans. (2020). Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

3.3 Local
City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code
The City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code (YLMC) has several policies directed at controlling or mitigating environmental noise effects. YLMC Chapter 8.32 provides all noise regulations to control and limit

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
14 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
unnecessary and excessive noise and vibration in the City. The following sections are applicable to the proposed Project.

8.32.060. Noise Standards – Exterior.

A. The following noise standards (Table 3-3, City of Yorba Linda Noise Standards), unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property within a designated noise zone:

Table 3-3: City of Yorba Linda Noise Standards
Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period
I
55 dB(A) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
50 dB(A) 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.

Source: City of Yorba Linda, City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code Section 8.32.060, Noise Standards – Exterior.

B. It is unlawful for any person, at any location within the City, to create any noise which causes the noise level when measured on any residential property to exceed:

1. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour;

2. The noise standard plus 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour;

3. The noise standard plus 10 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hours;

4. The noise standard plus 15 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or

5. The noise standard plus 20 dB(A) for any period of time.

C. In the event the ambient noise level exceed any of the five noise limit categories stated in subsection B of this section, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. Furthermore, the maximum permissible noise level shall never exceed the maximum ambient level.

8.32.090. Exemptions.

The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:

D. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday.

H. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property used for residential purposes, provided said activities take place between the hours of seven a.m. and eight p.m. on any day expect Sunday, or between the hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m. on Sunday.

J. Noise Sources associated with the maintenance of real property owned or operated by a public entity, such as but not limited to golf courses, libraries, municipal buildings, parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, and school grounds.

City of Yorba Linda General Plan
The City of Yorba Linda General Plan Noise Element establishes acceptable noise levels for various land uses based on the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) land use/noise compatibility standards

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
15 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
that provide a planning tool to gauge the compatibility of land uses with the noise environment. As shown below, single-family residential uses are considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 60 CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 70 CNEL. Multi-family residential land use is considered normally acceptable in exterior noise environments up to 65 CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 70 CNEL. A conditionally acceptable designation indicates that new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. Conventional construction, but with windows closed and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

Table 3-4: Criteria for Noise-Compatible Land Use
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (dB)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential- Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes 50-60 55-70 70-75 75-80
Residential – Multi family 50-65 60-70 70-75 70-85
Transit Lodging, Motels, Hotels 50-70 60-70 70-80 80-85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing
Homes 50-70 60-70 70-80 80-85
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheater -- 50-70 -- 65-85 Sports Arena Outdoor Spectator Sports -- 50-75 -- 70-85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50-70 -- 57.5-75 72.5-85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries 50-75 -- 70-80 80-85
Office Buildings, Business, Commercial and
Professional 50-70 60-70 75-85 --
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50-75 55-70 75-85 -- Normally Acceptable: Specified Land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Source: City of Yorba Linda, City of Yorba Linda General Plan Noise Element.

The City of Yorba Linda General Plan Noise Element provides goals and policies to protect local citizens from the harmful effects of excessive exposure to noise. The following goals and polies contained in the Noise Element are applicable to the proposed Project.

Goal N-1 Indoor and outdoor living areas that are adequately protected from excessive transportation noise impacts.

Policy N-1.2 Consider appropriate technologies to mitigate excessive noise levels where necessary or where feasible.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
16 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Policy N-1.4 Ensure potentially excessive noise generators provide for the highest feasible level of noise mitigation and compliance with local, state, and federal noise standards.

Policy N-1.5 Promote alternative transportation modes such as walking, bicycling, equestrian transportation, and transit to contribute to reducing or minimizing potential noise impacts.

Goal N-2 Noise and land use compatibility.

Policy N-2.1 Ensure compliance with the City’s established noise thresholds for various land uses.

Policy N-2.2 Ensure compliance with the City’s established noise thresholds for noise sensitive receptors, land uses, and activities.

Policy N-2.3 Ensure noise producing land uses and activities are designed and located to consider impacts to adjacent uses and activities.

Goal N-3 Mitigate noise impacts from non-transportation sources.

Policy N-3.1 Ensure compliance with standards and procedures for mitigating construction-related activities that introduce excessive noise levels.

Goal N-4 Project approval that include conditions to mitigate noise impacts.

Policy N-4.1 Consider noise impacts in the sitting, design, and construction of new development to minimize noise impacts.

Policy N-4.2 Consider alternative architectural layouts as a means of meeting noise requirements.

Policy N-4.3 Consider a combination of noise barriers, landscape berms, and architectural design treatments when needed to mitigate noise impacts.

Policy N-4.5 Consider measures which alter, prohibit or mitigate noise generating uses through site design.

Yorba Linda Housing Element Mitigation Measures
The Project, as a residential development evaluated in the Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Program, would be required to comply with the applicable mitigation measures in the City of Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (2022), which include the following:

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1: Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer’s standards and all stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise-sensitive use nearest the construction activity.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-2: The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receiver nearest to the construction activity.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
17 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Mitigation Measure 4.6-3: The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment Section 8.32.090[D] of the City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code. The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: Prior to issuance of any construction permits, applicant for individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers, within 25 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and fragile structures), shall prepare and submit to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department a study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration impacts. The vibration assessment shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer and be based on recognized vibration-induced architectural damage criterion. If the study determines a potential exceedance of the thresholds, measures shall be identified that ensure vibration levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Identified measures shall be included in all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-5: Prior to issuance of any construction permits, applicant for individual projects that are within the 50 feet of a sensitive receptor, shall prepare and submit to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department a study to evaluate potential operational-related stationary source noise impacts. The noise report shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer using the ISO 9613-2 protocol in the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. If the study determines a potential exceedance of City’s thresholds (55 dBA Leq daytime, or 50 dBA Leq nighttime), measures shall be identified that ensure noise levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department.

3.4 Significance Criteria Summary
The following significance criteria are based on the analysis identified within Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The City’s General Plan guidelines and municipal code regulations identify noise compatibility and establish noise standards that are implemented as thresholds. However, the existing City regulations do not identify levels of ambient noise increases that are considered substantial or vibration criteria. Thus, information from the FTA Manual, Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), and the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual were utilized.

Increase in Ambient Noise
Construction. Temporary noise level increases over the existing ambient conditions are required to be considered by CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol identifies that a 12 dBA Leq noise level increase is substantial, which is based on the concept that a 10 dB increase is considered a doubling of loudness. Therefore, if construction generates a temporary noise level increase of

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
18 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
12 dBA Leq or more above the existing ambient noise level, it will be considered a potentially significant impact.

Operation. FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial permanent increase in baseline ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the without Project (baseline) noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land-use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without Project noise levels for noise-sensitive uses.

Per the FICON, if ambient noise is (<60 dBA) a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level would be significant. If ambient noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase would be significant; and if ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBA a 1.5 dBA or greater increase is considered significant as it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance.

Vibration
Vibration-generating activities are evaluated using the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibrational Manual vibration damage thresholds to assess potential construction-related impacts at nearby buildings.

Most buildings near the Project site are modern structures. However, to provide a conservative analysis, a threshold for older residential buildings is used that provides a vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), as listed previously in Table 3-2.

Table 3-4, Significance Criteria Summary, provides a summary of thresholds used in this report.

Table 3-5: Significance Criteria Summary
Analysis Conditions
Significance Criteria
Daytime
(7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.)
Off-Site Traffic1
If ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project Increase If ambient is 60-65 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project Increase If ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project Increase Operational2 Exterior Noise Level Standards 55 dBA Leq 50 dBA Leq Construction
Exempt provided the activities do not take place between the hours of 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or federal holidays.3 Noise Level Threshold4 80 dBA Leq.equip(8hr) 70 dBA Leq.equip(8hr) Noise Level Increase5 12 dBA Leq
6 Vibration Level Threshold6 0.3 PPV (inches/second)7

1. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issue.

2. City of Yorba Linda, Municipal Code Section 8.32.060.

3. City of Yorba Linda, Municipal Code Section 8.32.090 (D).

4. Federal Transportation Administration. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

5. Caltrans (2020a). Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

6. Caltrans (2020b). Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual.

7. Older Residential Structures.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
19 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 Existing Noise Levels
To assess existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, EPD conducted four short-term noise measurements on June 2, 2025, at locations in the vicinity of the proposed Project. These measurement locations are shown in Figure 4-1, Noise Measurement Locations, and are representative of typical noise exposure levels experienced at the nearest sensitive receptors. Each measurement consisted of a 15-minute recording taken between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. These short-term Leq measurements are considered indicative of general noise conditions throughout the day.

The measurements were conducted during “off-peak” traffic hours (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) to establish a more conservative baseline. During traditional peak hours, traffic congestion often results in lower vehicle and heavy truck volumes. In contrast, free-flowing traffic conditions immediately before or after peak periods can produce higher noise levels. The recorded noise levels at the measurement sites and at the nearest sensitive receptors are summarized in Table 4-1, Ambient Noise Measurements.

Table 4-1: Ambient Noise Measurements
Location Description Leq
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
NM-1 In front of 19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard 69.1 84.1 46.3 NM-2 Southwest corner of 19045 Yorba Linda Boulevard 69.9 85.4 44.9 NM-3 Northeast of 19185 Palm Vista 50.1 67.2 36.0
NM-4 In front of 19020 Lynn Lane 47.2 66.1 37.3
Notes: dBA=A-weighted decibels; Leq=Equivalent Sound Level; Lmin=Minimum Sound Level; Lmax=Maximum Sound Level Source: EPD Solutions, Inc. 2025. Refer to Appendix A, Noise Measurement Data.

The background ambient noise levels in the Project area are dominated by transportation-related noise associated with surface streets, including the auto and heavy truck activities on study area roadway segments near the noise level measurement locations.

The meteorological conditions included overcast, cool temperatures with light windspeeds (5 miles per hour).

Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise survey consisted of a PCE-430, which is a Class 1 sound level meter with a half-inch measurement microphone equipped with a windscreen. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for sound level meters. The results of the field measurements are included in Appendix A.

Figure 4-1: Noise Measurement Locations
19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Project
Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
1 2
3 4
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, Maxar, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap, and the GIS user community
0 180 360
Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
Noise Monitoring Location
Yorba Linda Boulevard
Palm Vista
Lynn Lane

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
21 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis

4.2 Sensitive Receptors
Noise-sensitive receptors are locations or individuals that may be adversely affected by elevated noise levels due to their nature, function, or occupancy. Land use considered sensitive by the State of California include schools, playgrounds, athletic facilities, hospitals, rest homes, rehabilitation centers, long-term care and mental care facilities. Generally, a sensitive receptor is identified as a location where human populations (especially children, senior citizens, and sick people) are present.

The nearest sensitive receptors would include the following:
• Single-family residences adjacent to the south, 15 feet to the north, and 40 feet to the east of the Project site.
• City Park adjacent to the east of the Project site.
• Institutional uses (synagogue and daycare) 55 feet to the west of the Project site.

Other noise sensitive land uses near the Project site are located at greater distances than those listed above and would experience lower noise levels than those detailed in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures.

4.3 Aircraft Noise
Airport-related noise levels are primarily associated with aircraft engine noise made during takeoff, landing, or idling on the tarmac. The closest airport to the Project site is Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately

10.5 miles to the west of the Project site.

4.4 Stationary Sources
Land uses in the Project area are mostly residential, institutional, and open space. The primary sources of stationary noise in the Project vicinity are urban-related activities (e.g., mechanical equipment and parking areas). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.

4.5 Existing Traffic Noise Level
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions along local roadway segments in the Project vicinity. The details of traffic noise modeling are included in Appendix B, Noise Modeling Data. Table 3-6, Existing Traffic Noise Levels, provides the existing traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity. These traffic noise levels are representative of a worst-case scenario that assumes a flat terrain and no shielding between the traffic and the noise contour.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
22 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Table 4-1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT1
dBA @
100 feet
from
Roadway
Centerline
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Yorba Linda Boulevard Between Palm Avenue and
Ohio Street 11,642 53.8 - - 83
Notes: ADT = average daily traffic; CNEL = community noise equivalent level; dBA=A-weighted decibels, - = contour is within the roadway.

As a conservative analysis, the ADT along the roadway segment is converted from hourly trip using a K-factor of 12 percent.

Source:

1. City of Yorba Linda, Yorba Linda HE Implementation Programs Environmental Impact Report, Appendix G, Traffic Impact Analysis.

2. United States Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. (2018). Traffic Data Computation Method.

Refer to Appendix B, Noise Measurement Data.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
23 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

5.1 CEQA Thresholds
Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the CEQA Guidelines contains the following significance criteria. A project could have potential significant impacts regarding noise and vibration if it were to:
• Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of the other agencies.
• Generate excessive ground vibration or ground borne noise levels. • For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Based on these standards/criteria, the effects of the Project have been categorized as having “no impact”, a “less-than-significant impact”, or a “potentially significant impact.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less-thansignificant level through the application of existing regulations and mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact.

5.2 Methodology
Construction Noise
Since the City’s Municipal Code does not establish quantified thresholds for increases to noise volumes and vibration, the thresholds from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual were used in this analysis.

Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment as published by the FTA and FHWA and using the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise levels. The equipment list used in this analysis is based on land use and Project location using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).

Since the exact specific equipment to be used on-site is unknown, the General Noise Assessment Methodology from the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used to evaluate the noise level due to construction equipment on-site. Per the General Noise Assessment Methodology, noise from construction is typically modeled as originating from the center of the project site. As a conservative analysis, it identifies the combined noise levels for all construction activities expected for each stage, assuming all equipment will be operating simultaneously. Construction noise is assessed in dBA Leq.

The General Noise Assessment Methodology sets a threshold of 90 dBA for residential land uses during the daytime; however, the Detailed Noise Assessment Methodology from the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual sets a threshold of 80 dBA for residential land uses during the daytime, which is more conservative. As such, while the methodology from the General Noise Assessment Methodology is used to calculate noise levels, the more conservative threshold of 80 dBA set in the Detailed Noise Assessment

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
24 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Methodology is used to evaluate noise impacts. Additionally, the Construction Noise Increase Criteria of Caltrans’s Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol was used to evaluate the construction noise increase over ambient noise level.

Operational Noise
Operational noise would include noise from mobile sources and noise from stationary sources such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and trash pickup. The noise levels from stationary sources were evaluated using CadnaA, consistent with the Yorba Linda Housing Element EIR. Stationary noise due to implementation of the Project was compared to the exterior thresholds set in the City’s Municipal Code to evaluate the significance of impact.

For mobile noise evaluation, noise levels were estimated using the FHWA Highway Traffic Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-10). The “Existing with Project” levels were calculated based on existing trip generation plus Project daily trips. According to the Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis, prepared for the proposed Project by EPD Solutions, Inc., dated May 28, 2025, the Project would generate an estimated 418 daily trips. Since the ambient noise along Yorba Linda Boulevard is over 65 dBA, the mobile noise increase due to implementation of the Project was compared to a threshold of 1.5 dBA (as listed in Table 3-4, Significance Criteria Summary) to evaluate the significance.

Construction and Operation Vibration
Vibration levels were calculated based on the damage assessment method provided in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. As the nearest sensitive receptor structures are residential uses, the construction damage criterion for vibrations at older residential structure of 0.3 inchper-second is applied (see Table 3-4, Significance Criteria Summary).

Distance to the Surrounding Sensitive Receptors
As discussed above, there are sensitive receptors located in the Project vicinity. The construction noise impacts are evaluated from the geographic center of the Project site to the nearest sensitive receptors as construction equipment is mobile and would move throughout the site. The construction vibration impacts are evaluated from the Project site boundary where the closest construction activities to the nearest offsite structures would occur. Please refer to Table 5-1, Distances Used for Analysis, for details of distances.

Table 5-1: Distances Used for Analysis
Surrounding Sensitive
Receptors
Distance Between
Project Boundary
to Surrounding
Land Uses (feet)
Distance Between
Geographic Center of
Project Site (feet)
Distance Between Project
Construction Vibration to
Nearest Structures (feet)
Residential to the North 15 280 35
Residential to the Northeast 55 250 70
Residential to the South Adjacent 55 15
Institutional to the West 40 200 55

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
25 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Airport Noise
The distance between the Project site and the nearest airport was evaluated to determine whether the Project is located within an airport land use plan area or within the vicinity of a public or private airstrip.

Aircraft flyovers may occasionally be audible at the Project site due to air traffic in the surrounding area.

The closest airport is Fullerton Municipal Airport, located approximately 10.5 miles west of the site. The Project site lies well outside the Fullerton Municipal Airport 60 dBA CNEL noise contour (Airport Land Use Commission, 2019).

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
26 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
6 PROJECT IMPACTS

6.1 Construction Noise
On-Site Construction Noise
The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual describes that construction projects are accomplished in several different stages and outlines the procedures for assessing noise impacts during construction. Construction is accomplished in different phases with a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be performed during that phase. As result of the mix of equipment list, each phase has its own noise characteristics; some phases have higher continuous noise levels, while others have higher impact noise levels. The Project construction activities would occur in the following phases:

1. Demolition;

2. Site Preparation;

3. Grading;

4. Building Construction;

5. Paving; and

6. Architectural Coating.

Construction noise generated by the proposed Project was prepared using the Roadway Construction Noise Model published by FHWA. In addition, the RCNM provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power, which is its loudest condition.

According to the EPA, FTA, and FHWA, the overall construction noise level is generated primarily by the noisiest pieces of equipment. As a conservative analysis, Table 6-1 presents the combined noise levels for all the equipment expected for each stage, assuming all equipment operates simultaneously.

Construction activities frequently shift from one location to another. For example, during site preparation and grading, noise-generating activities may concentrate in an area for a short period to remove existing structures, while the majority of the grading involves the equipment moving back and forth in a predictable pattern throughout the site. The building construction and foundation work generally concentrates near the building location, while paving involves a pattern of movement throughout the site over a short-term.

Therefore, the FTA recommends that construction activities are best evaluated as multiple moving point sources because equipment changes position in terms of its distance and direction relative to the receivers (FTA 2018). Since the analysis assumed all equipment operates simultaneously, the distance used to evaluate construction noise would be from the geographic center of the Project site and nearest sensitive receptors.

The construction noise would be attenuated by distance and existing objects (e.g., walls or buildings) to block light of sight.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
27 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Table 6-1: Construction Equipment Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptor Activity Equipment1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet2
Composite
Noise Level at
the Nearest
Sensitive
Receptor (dBA
Leq)2
dBA Lmax
Demolition
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe 84
Rubber Tired Dozers 85 85
Concrete/Industrial Saws 90
Site Preparation
Graders 85
86 Scrapers 85
Crawler Tractors 84
Woodchipper 85
Grading
Graders 85
Rubber Tired Dozers 85 85
Crawler Tractors 84
Building Construction
Cranes 85
85 Forklift 85
Generator sets 81
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe 84
Welders 73
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe 84
86 Pavers 85
Paving Equipment 85
Rollers 85
Cement and Mortar Mixers 85
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 81 73

1. Equipment is based on land use size and types and location using California Emissions Estimator Model outputs.

2. The noise levels are based on Table 9.1 of the Construction Noise Handbook. If the exact equipment listed is not available, a default noise level of 85 dBA—representative of typical construction equipment—is used. Specifically, the Woodchipper and Forklift are modeled using this default value. Additionally, for the category of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, the noise level of a Tractor (85 dBA) is used, as it represents the loudest among the three.

3. The Composite Noise Level is estimated using Roadway Construction Noise Mode.

Source: Federal Highway Administration (2006). Construction Noise Handbook.

The nearest noise sensitive receptor to Project construction is a single-family residence located adjacent to the south of the Project site. The geographic center of the Project site is approximately 55 feet from the nearest residence. As shown in Table 6-1, Construction Equipment Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptor, noise generated during construction activities is estimated to range between 58 dBA and 71 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
28 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
As part of the development under the Yorba Linda Housing Element Implementation Program, the Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-4 from the Yorba Linda Housing Element Implementation Program EIR and listed above in Section 1.2, Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 4.6- 1 requires all construction contractors to equip construction equipment—both fixed and mobile—with properly operating and well-maintained mufflers consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications. According to Noise Abatement Techniques for Construction Equipment (United State Department of Transportation. 1979), application a good muffler would reduce overall noise level by 6 to 12 dB A. Since the exact muffler used during construction is unknown and the technologies have improved since 1979, the installation of muffler and noise barrier would reduce construction by 9 dBA.

Additionally, there are existing walls between the Project site and the residential to the north, northeast, and south that are solid barriers, which would reduce the noise level by 5 dBA (FHWA 2006). Further, the Yorba Linda Housing Element Implementation Program EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 requires all stationary equipment to be positioned so that noise emissions are directed away from the nearest noise-sensitive uses.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 further specifies that equipment should be placed at the greatest feasible distance from noise-sensitive receptors. Construction noise is also subject to Municipal Code Section 8.32.090, which limits construction activities to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, while prohibiting them at any time on Sundays and federal holidays.

As a result of the mitigation measures discussed above, actual highest construction noise levels could be lower than the estimated 77.4 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptor. As shown on Table 6-2, the noise levels are below the FTA-recommended daytime construction noise threshold of 80 dBA with the installation of mufflers.

Therefore, construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant. The estimated (highest) noise levels due to Project construction activities at the closest surrounding land uses are provided in Table 6-2, Construction Equipment Nosie Levels at the Surrounding Land Uses.

Table 6-2: Construction Equipment Noise Levels at the Closest Land Uses Sensitive Receptors
Distance
Between
Geographic
Center of
Project Site
(feet)
Noise Level (dBA)1
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Residential to the
North 280 72.4 71.8 70.5 72.2 70.8 58.7
Residential to the
Northeast 250 73.4 72.8 71.5 73.2 71.8 59.7
Residential to the
South 55 86.5 86.0 84.7 86.4 84.9 72.9
Institutional to the
West 200 75.3 74.7 73.4 72.2 73.7 61.6
Highest Noise Level 86.5 86.0 84.7 86.4 84.9 72.9
Highest Noise Level with Mitigation
Measures2 72.5 72.0 70.7 72.4 70.9 58.9
Threshold 80
Exceed the threshold? No No No No No No

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
29 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptors
Distance
Between
Geographic
Center of
Project Site
(feet)
Noise Level (dBA)1
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating

1. The noise level is estimated based on the equipment list provided in Table 6-1 and distance to the sensitive receptors from the geographic center of the Project site.

2. As required by Yorba Linda Housing Element Implementation Program Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, all construction equipment used for the Project would be equipped with mufflers consistent with standard industry practices. Although the exact specifications of the mufflers are currently unknown, a conservative noise reduction of 9 dBA has been assumed to account for their use. In addition, existing walls located between the construction area and the sensitive receptors to the north, northeast, and south would provide further noise attenuation. Therefore, an additional reduction of 5 dBA has been applied to the noise levels estimated for those respective receptors.

Temporary Construction Increases in Ambient Noise
To identify the temporary Project construction noise level contributions to the existing ambient noise environment, the Project construction noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise level measurements listed in Table 4-1. The difference between the combined Project-construction and ambient noise levels is used to describe the construction noise level contributions. As detailed in Table 6-3, the highest temporary construction ambient noise increase would be 11.2 dBA at the closest residence to the north, which is less than the temporary ambient noise increase threshold of 12 dBA. Thus, temporary construction noise level increases from Project construction would be less than significant.

Table 6-3: Mitigated Construction Noise Level Increases at the Surrounding Land Uses Sensitive Receptors
Noise Level (dBA)
Exceed the
Highest Noise Thresholds?
Level1
Ambient
Noise Level
Construction
Increase Threshold
Residential to the North 58.4 47.2 11.2
12 No
Residential to the Northeast 59.4 50.1 9.3 No
Residential to the South 72.5 69.1 3.4 No
Institutional to the West 66.3 69.9 NA No

1. The highest noise level to the sensitive receptors in Table 6-2 with the installation of the mufflers and existing walls.

Note: when the noise increase is negative, a “NA” would be applied in the table. “NA” means “Not Applicable”.

Off-Site Construction Noise
Project construction would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways over the period that construction occurs. According to the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which is used to predict the number of construction-related automotive trips, the maximum number of Project construction trips traveling to and from the Project site during a single construction phase would not be expected to exceed 210 daily trips in total. According to the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, a doubling of traffic on a roadway results in an increase of 3 dB (Caltrans, 2020a). A 3 dBA change is considered a just perceptible difference. The Project site would be accessible via Yorba Linda Boulevard during construction. The roadway segment currently has an average of 11,642 vehicle daily trips, as shown in Table 3-6. Therefore, the Project’s construction trips (210 trips) would not result in a doubling of traffic on the local

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
30 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
transportation network (which would be 11,642 trips), and its contribution to existing traffic noise would be approximately 0.08 dBA that would not be perceptible. As shown in Table 3-5, Ambient Noise Measurements, above, the ambient noise level along Yorba Linda Boulevard ranges from 69.1 dBA to 69.9 dBA. As such, the Project would not introduce more than a 1.5 dBA increase when the ambient noise level is larger than 65 dBA. Additionally, construction is temporary, and construction trips would cease upon completion of the Project. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise. Overall, potential impacts related to construction traffic noise would be less than significant.

6.2 Operational Noise
Long-term operational noise would be generated by the Project from the day-to-day operations, which include:
• Mobile sources: automobiles traveling to and from the Project site. • Stationary sources: HVAC noise, parking lot noise, and trash trucks.

Mobile Noise
Roadway segment noise levels for the “Existing” and “Existing with Project” scenarios were compared to evaluate Project-related operational noise impacts. According to Table 3-6, Existing Traffic Noise Levels, noise level under the “Existing” scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline would be 53.8 dBA. Table 6-4, Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, the noise level would be 53.9 dBA.

The increase due to the Project would be 0.1 dBA. As such, the increase would not exceed 1.5 dB threshold along the Yorba Linda Boulevard. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Table 6-4: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT1
dBA @
100 feet
from
Roadway
Centerline
Centerline
to 70 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Centerline
to 65 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Centerline
to 60 dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Increase
over
Existing
Scenario
(dBA)
Yorba Linda Boulevard Between Palm
Avenue and Ohio Street 12,060 53.9 - - 85 0.1
Notes: ADT= average daily traffic; CNEL=Community Noise Equivalent Level; dBA=A-weighted decibels.

ADT of the Existing with Project is total of the existing ADT in Table 7 and Project’s daily trips.

Source: EPD Solutions, Inc. (2025). Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis Yorba Linda Housing Element.

Stationary Noise
HVAC and Trash Pick Up Noises
The stationary noise was evaluated using the CadnaA computer program to calculate the distance and attenuation from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, which is compliant with the ISO 9613-2 protocol as required by the Yorba Linda Housing Element Implementation Program EIR Mitigation Measure

4.6-5. The proposed Project would generate noise primarily from HVAC units on top of each proposed building, and trash pick-up on-site. Typically, HVAC generates a noise level of 60 dBA at 20 feet from the

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
31 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
source and trash compactors generate 74 dBA at 9.84 feet from the source (Berger, E. H. et al, 2015). The modeling in this analysis assumes all H VACs operate all together for 585 minutes during the day and 252 minutes during the night. The noise levels were converted from sound power levels to sound pressure levels using the Tontechnik-Rechner tool developed by Sengpielaudio for modeling purposes.

Based on the CadnaA modeling results, as shown in Table 6-5, Operational Noise Level, the Project would generate operational noise levels of approximately 51.2 dBA during the daytime and 49.4 during the nighttime at the nearest sensitive receptors, which is below the City’s Municipal Code noise requirements of 55 dBA in the daytime and 50 dBA in the nighttime. As Project operational noise would not exceed the City’s municipal code thresholds, Project impacts would be less than significant.

Table 6-5: Operational Exterior Noise Levels at Closest Off-Site Receptors Sensitive Receptors Daytime (dBA) Nighttime (dBA)
Residential to the north 46.5 43.5
Residential uses to the northeast 48.6 46.7
Residential to the south 51.2 49.4
Institutional uses to the west 50.6 48.7
Maximum Noise Level 51.2 49.4
Exterior Thresholds 55 50
Exceed thresholds? No No
Source: Appendix B
Parking Lot Noise
Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by engine starting up, and car idling may be an annoyance to adjacent noisesensitive receptors. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking lot activities are presented in Table 6-6, Typical Noise Level Generated by Parking Lots.

Table 6-6: Typical Noise Level Generated by Parking Lots Noise Source Maximum Noise Levels at 50 Feet from the Source Vehicle starting 41.1
Vehicle idling 30.1
Source: Berger, E. H., Neitzel, R., & Kladden, C. A. (2015) It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards on the CNEL scale, which are averaged over time. As a result, actual noise levels over time resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower than the noise levels identified in Table 6-6. The parking lot noise would occur within the on-site surface parking lot in the center of the Project site, which would be blocked by the line of sight from the proposed buildings and walls to the sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the parking activities noise currently exists at nearby parking lots to the west for institutional use and to the east for the

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
32 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
park. Therefore, the proposed parking activities would be short-term and would not introduce a new noise source compared to existing conditions. A less than significant impact would occur.

Operational Increases in Ambient Noise
To identify Project operational ambient noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements. The units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, and must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:

SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Projectoperational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels identifies the Project noise level increase to the existing ambient noise level.

As shown on Table 6-7, Operational Noise Level Increase at Closest Off-Site Receptors, the Project would generate daytime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.1 to 3.2 dBA Leq and nighttime noise level increases ranging from <0.01 to 2.2 dBA Leq at the closest receiver locations, which would not exceed the threshold of 5 dBA for ambient noise level less than 60 dBA and 1.5 dBA for ambient noise level over 60 dBA. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

Table 6-7: Operational Noise Level Increase at Closest Off-Site Receptors Sensitive
Receptors
HVAC and Truck
Noise1 Parking
Lot
Noise2
Ambient
Noise
Level3
Operational Noise
Level4 Overall Increase
Threshold Exceed
Threshold? Daytime
(dBA)
Nighttime
(dBA)
Daytime
(dBA)
Nighttime
(dBA)
Daytime
(dBA)
Nighttime
(dBA)
Residential
to the
north

46.5 43.5 41.1 47.2 50.4 49.4 3.2 2.2 5 No
Residential
uses to the
northeast

48.6 46.7 41.1 50.1 52.7 52.1 2.6 2.0 5 No
Residential
to the
south

51.2 49.4 41.1 69.1 69.2 69.2 0.1 0.1 1.5 No
Institutional
uses to the
west

50.6 48.7 41.1 69.9 70.0 69.9 0.1 <0.01 1.5 No

1. Noise level from Table 6-5 above.

2. Noise level from Table 6-6 above. As a conservative analysis, it’s assumed the project would have a constant noise level of 41.1 dBA from on-site automobile activities.

3. Noise Measurement Level from Table 4-1 above.

4. Calculated based on the formula above.

Source: Appendix B

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
33 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis

6.3 Vibration
Construction Vibration
Construction activities can generate varying levels of ground vibration depending on the equipment used and the methods employed. These vibrations propagate through the ground and decrease in intensity with distance. The primary source of vibration during construction of the proposed Project would be from the operation of a small rubber-tired bulldozer. Table 6-8, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, presents typical vibration levels associated with construction equipment. Using the representative values from the table, the potential vibration levels at the nearest structure were estimated using the equation provided by the FTA, listed in Table 6-5 as Footnote 1.

Table 6-8: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment Reference Vibration Level at 25 Feet (PPV [inches/second])1 Small Bulldozer 0.003
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Source: Federal Transit Administration. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

The nearest sensitive receptor is located 15 feet from Project boundary that would generate vibrations.

Table 6-9, Construction Vibration Levels to the Surrounding Structures, identifies that at 15 feet, vibration levels during construction would range from 0.006 inches/second (inch/sec) to 0.191 (inch/sec), which would not exceed the vibration threshold of 0.3 inch/sec for older residential structures. Furthermore, the Project construction would not use vibration-heavy equipment such as a vibratory roller and pile driving. Therefore, Project-related construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Table 6-9: Construction Vibration Levels to the Surrounding Structures Sensitive Receptors
Distance Between
Construction Vibration to
the Nearest Structures (feet)
Vibration Level in PPV (inch/sec)
Small Bulldozer Loaded Trucks Large Bulldozer
Residential to the North 35 0.002 0.046 0.054
Residential to the Northeast 70 0.001 0.016 0.019
Residential to the South 15 0.006 0.164 0.191
Institutional to the West 55 0.001 0.023 0.027
Highest Vibration Level 0.006 0.164 0.191
Thresholds 0.3
Exceed the threshold? No No No
Source: Federal Transit Administration. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

1.

 =

 
×




.
(D=distance between the equipment to the sensitive receptors.)

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
34 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Operational Vibration
The Project would develop multi-family residences that would not involve railroads or substantial heavy truck operations. Operation of the proposed residences would include heavy trucks for residents moving in and out of the units and garbage trucks for solid waste disposal. Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. However, as shown on Table 6-8, vibration levels from loaded trucks generate 0.076 inch per second PPV. Truck movements on site would be travelling at very low speed, so it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receptors would be less than 0.076 inch per second PPV, which is less than the threshold of 0.2 inch per second PPV. Therefore, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.

6.4 Airport Noise
The closest airport to the Project site is Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately 10.5 miles to the west of the Project site. The Project site is not located within the area designated under the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Fullerton Municipal Airport (Airport Land Use Commission, 2019). Therefore, the Project would propose a residential development which would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
35 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
7 CONCLUSION
The Project would implement the Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element Program Implementation EIR mitigation measures that install mufflers on construction equipment, and direct noise away from sensitive receptors, and set up equipment with the greatest distance between noise-sensitive receivers. As detailed in Tables 6-1 through 6-3, construction of the Project would not exceed applicable noise or vibration thresholds.

As such, the Project would not result in a significant impact on noise and vibration during construction.

During operation, sources of noise would include mobile noise and stationary noise. The Project would result in a 0.07 dBA increase over the existing traffic conditions along Yorba Linda Boulevard. Stationary noise would include HVACs, trash pick-up, and parking. Based on the modeling results, the noise levels due to stationary sources would result in 51.2 dBA during the daytime and 49.4 dBA during the nighttime at the nearest sensitive receptor, which would not exceed the City’s exterior thresholds of 55 dBA and 50 dBA, respectively. The parking lot noise would also be within the City’s exterior thresholds. Furthermore, the noise level increase over ambient level would range from 3.2 to 0.1, which would not exceed the thresholds established in Table 3-4. As a residential development, the Project would not involve any activities introducing vibration during operation beyond those related to truck deliveries and loading and trash pickup. As such, the Project would not result in a significant impact related to noise and vibration during operation.

Additionally, the Project is not within 2 miles of a private or public airport and would propose a residential development which would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport noise levels related. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Table 7-1, Summary of Noise and Vibration Levels from the Project, provides a summary of noise and vibration levels at the closest receptors with implementation of the Project, the applicable thresholds, and the levels of impacts. Overall, with compliance with existing Housing Element Program Implementation EIR mitigation measures and regulations, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to noise and vibration.

Table 7-1: Summary of Noise and Vibration Levels from the Project Surrounding Sensitive
Receptors
Construction (Highest) Operation (dBA)
Noise (dBA)
Ambient
Noise
Level
Increase
Vibration
(PPV) Daytime Nighttime
Maximum
Ambient
Noise
Increase
Residential to the North 58.4 11.2 0.006 46.5 43.5 3.2
Residential to the Northeast 59.4 9.3 0.164 48.6 46.7 2.6 Residential to the South 72.5 3.4 0.191 51.2 49.4 0.1
Institutional to the West 66.3 NA 0.006 50.6 48.7 0.1
Thresholds 80 12 0.3 55 50 5 or 1.5
Exceed the thresholds? No No No No No No
NA= Not Applicable.

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
36 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
8 REFERENCES
Aircraft Noise Office. (2025). Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Retrieved June 26, 2025, from https://noise.flysfo.com/blog/glossary_term/community-noise-equivalent-levelcnel/#:~:text=SFO%20Noise%20Office- ,Community%20Noise%20Equivalent%20Level%20(CNEL),to%20measure%20aircraft%20noise%20l evels
Airport Land Use Commission. (2019). Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Fullerton Municipal Airport.

Retrieved July 11, 2025, from https://files.ocair.com/media/2021- 02/AELUP%20for%20FMA%2005092019.pdf?VersionId=Pe0mNdYdt9RPkWpfPFbhCmkVI4zejGxs Berger, E. H., Neitzel, R., & Kladden, C. A. (2015). Noise Navigator Sound Level Database. Retrieved June 9, 2025, from https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/888553O/noise-navigator-sound-levelhearing-protection-database.pdf California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2020a). Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Retrieved July 29, 2025, from https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/traffic-noise-protocol-april-2020-a11y.pdf California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2020b). Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Retrieved July 29, 2025, from https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf City of Yorba Linda. (2016a). 2016 General Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved May 21, 2025, from https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/465/2016-General-Plan-Land-Use-MapPDF?bidId= City of Yorba Linda. (2016b). Yorba Linda General Plan Noise Element. Retrieved June 9, 2025, from https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/471/2016-GP-Noise-Element?bidId= City of Yorba Linda. (2019). City of Yorba Linda Official Zoning Map. Retrieved May 21, 2025, from https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/466/City-of-Yorba-Linda-Zoning-Map-PDF City of Yorba Linda. (2022). City of Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs Final Program Environment Impact Report. Retrieved June 26, 2025, from https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6331/YL-HEIMPs-Final-PEIR-Public-ReviewPDF?bidId= City of Yorba Linda. (2025). City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Chapter 8.32. Noise Control. Retrieved June 9, 2025, from https://ecode360.com/print/YO5039?guid=44325482 EPD Solutions, Inc. (2025). Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis Yorba Linda Housing Element.

Environment Protection Authority Victoria. (2021). Noise: mufflers or exhaust silencers. Retrieved June 4, 2025, from https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-05/Mufflers-or-exhaustsilencers.pdf

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
37 Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Federal Aviation Administration. (2025). Fundamental of Noise and Sound. Retrieved June 9, 2025, from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/noise/basics Federal Transit Administration. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Retrieved June 3, 2025, from https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. (1992). Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issue. Retrieved June 9, 2025, from
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/reports_noise_analysis.pdf Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2006). Construction Noise Handbook. Retrieved June 9, 2025, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/ Hayne, M. J., Rumble, R. H., and Mee, D. J. (2006). Prediction of Crowd Noise. Retrieved June 9, 2025, from https://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/AASNZ2006/papers/p46 INCE USA. (2025). What is Noise? Retrieved June 9, 2025, from https://www.inceusa.org/about-inceusa/what-is-noise/#noise John Hopkins University. (2025). The Propagation of Sound. Retrieved June 9, 2025, from https://pages.jh.edu/virtlab/ray/acoustic.htm
Sengpielaudio. (2025). Tontechnik-Rechner. Retrieved June 9, 2025, from https://sengpielaudio.com/calculator-soundpower.htm.

Technicon Acoustics. (2025). What Is Sound Attenuation? Retrieved June 9, 2025, from https://www.techniconacoustics.com/blog/what-is-soundattenuation/#:~:text=Excavators%2C%20bulldozers%2C%20and%20other%20types,material%20 composition%2C%20and%20structural%20design

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Appendix A – Noise Measurement Data

Noise Measurement Field Data
Project Number: 25-062
Site Number: NM-1
Investigator(s): Cameron Lukos, Tina Yuan
Date: 6/3/2025
Time: 10:21 a.m. – 10:36 a.m.

Measurement Location: In front of 19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard Peak Noise: Tra'ic Noise, pedestrian playing music
Noise Meter Model: PCE-430 Microphone Model: PCE 1/2’’
Calibration Date: 3/3/2025
Weather Conditions: Sky Temperature Wind Speed
Overcast 68 degrees F 5 mph
Measurements Data
Leq (dB) Lmax (dB) Lmin (dB)

69.1 84.1 46.3
Site Photos

Project Number: 25-062
Site Number: NM-2
Investigator(s): Cameron Lukos, Tina Yuan
Date: 6/3/2025
Time: 10:54 a.m. – 11:09 a.m.

Measurement
Location:

Southwest corner of the 19045 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Peak Noise: Tra'ic noise, dog barking, church bell, car honking Noise Meter Model: PCE-430 Microphone Model: PCE 1/2’’
Calibration Date: 3/3/2025
Weather Conditions: Sky Temperature Wind Speed
Overcast 68 degrees F 5 mph
Measurements Data
Leq (dB) Lmax (dB) Lmin (dB)

69.9 85.4 44.9
Site Photos

Project Number: 25-062
Site Number: NM-3
Investigator(s): Cameron Lukos, Tina Yuan
Date: 6/3/2025
Time: 11:27 a.m. – 11:42 a.m.

Measurement Location: Northeast of the 19185 Palm Vista Peak Noise: Bird chirping, gardening activities from distance, plane overhead.

Noise Meter Model: PCE-430 Microphone Model: PCE 1/2’’
Calibration Date: 3/3/2025
Weather Conditions: Sky Temperature Wind Speed
Overcast 68 degrees F 5 mph
Measurements Data
Leq (dB) Lmax (dB) Lmin (dB)

50.1 67.2 36.0
Site Photos

Project Number: 25-062
Site Number: NM-4
Investigator(s): Cameron Lukos, Tina Yuan
Date: 6/3/2025
Time: 11:52 a.m. – 12:07 p.m.

Measurement
Location:

In front of 19020 Lynn Ln
Peak Noise: Tra'ic Noise, Birds chirping, plane overhead, Church clocktower Noise Meter Model: PCE-430 Microphone Model: PCE 1/2’’
Calibration Date: 3/3/2025
Weather
Conditions:

Sky Temperature Wind Speed
Overcast 68 degrees F 5 mph
Measurements Data
Leq (dB) Lmax (dB) Lmin (dB)

47.2 66.1 37.3
Site Photos

19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Residential Project
Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
Appendix B – Noise Modeling Data

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/5/2025
Case Description: Demolition
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to the North Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 280 0
Tractor No 40 84 280 0
Tractor No 40 84 280 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 280 0
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 280 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Tractor 69 65.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 69 65.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 69 65.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 66.7 62.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Saw 74.6 67.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 74.6 72.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to the Northest Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 250 0
Tractor No 40 84 250 0
Tractor No 40 84 250 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 250 0
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 250 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Tractor 70 66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 70 66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 70 66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 67.7 63.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Saw 75.6 68.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 75.6 73.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to the South Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 55 0
Tractor No 40 84 55 0
Tractor No 40 84 55 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 55 0
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 55 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Tractor 83.2 79.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 83.2 79.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 83.2 79.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 80.8 76.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Saw 88.8 81.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 88.8 86.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----

Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Insitutional to the West Commercial 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 200 0
Tractor No 40 84 200 0
Tractor No 40 84 200 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 200 0
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 200 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Tractor 72 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 72 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 72 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Saw 77.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 77.5 75.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/5/2025
Case Description: Site Preparation
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to the South Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 55 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 55 0
Tractor No 40 84 55 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 55 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 84.2 80.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 82.8 78.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 83.2 79.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 84.2 81.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 84.2 86 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to North Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 280 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 280 0
Tractor No 40 84 280 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 280 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 70 66.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 68.6 64.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 69 65.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 70 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 70 71.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to Northeast Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 250 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 250 0
Tractor No 40 84 250 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 250 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 71 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 69.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 70 66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 71 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 71 72.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night

Insituttional to West Commercial 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 200 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 200 0
Tractor No 40 84 200 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 200 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 73 69 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 71.5 67.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 72 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 73 69.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 73 74.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/5/2025
Case Description: Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to North Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 280 0
Dozer No 40 85 280 0
Tractor No 40 84 280 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 70 66.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 70 66.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 69 65.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 70 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to Northeast Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 250 0
Dozer No 40 85 250 0
Tractor No 40 84 250 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 71 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 71 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 70 66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 71 71.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to South Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 55 0
Dozer No 40 85 55 0
Tractor No 40 84 55 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 84.2 80.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 84.2 80.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 83.2 79.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 84.2 84.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to West Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding

Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 200 0
Dozer No 40 85 200 0
Tractor No 40 84 200 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Grader 73 69 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 73 69 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 72 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 73 73.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/5/2025
Case Description: Building Construction
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to North Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 280 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 280 0
Generator No 50 80.6 280 0
Tractor No 40 84 280 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 280 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 280 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 280 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 280 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Crane 65.6 57.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 70 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator 65.7 62.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 69 65.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 59 55.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 59 55.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 59 55.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 70 67 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 70 72.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to Northeast Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 250 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 250 0
Generator No 50 80.6 250 0
Tractor No 40 84 250 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 250 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 250 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 250 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 250 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Crane 66.6 58.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 71 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator 66.7 63.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 70 66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 60 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 60 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 60 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 71 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 71 73.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to the South Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 55 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 55 0
Generator No 50 80.6 55 0
Tractor No 40 84 55 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 55 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 55 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 55 0

All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 55 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Crane 79.7 71.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 84.2 81.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator 79.8 76.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 83.2 79.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 73.2 69.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 73.2 69.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 73.2 69.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 84.2 81.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 84.2 86.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Resdential to the West Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 200 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 200 0
Generator No 50 80.6 200 0
Tractor No 40 84 200 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 200 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 200 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 200 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 200 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Crane 68.5 60.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 73 69.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator 68.6 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 72 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 62 58 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 62 58 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Welder / Torch 62 58 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Equipment > 5 HP 73 69.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 73 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/5/2025
Case Description: Paving
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to North Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 280 0
Paver No 50 77.2 280 0
Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 280 0
Roller No 20 80 280 0
Roller No 20 80 280 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 280 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Tractor 69 65.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 62.3 59.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pavement Scarafier 74.5 67.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 65 58 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 65 58 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Mixer Truck 63.8 59.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 74.5 70.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to Norheast Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 250 0
Paver No 50 77.2 250 0
Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 250 0
Roller No 20 80 250 0
Roller No 20 80 250 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 250 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Tractor 70 66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 63.2 60.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pavement Scarafier 75.5 68.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 66 59 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 66 59 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Mixer Truck 64.8 60.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 75.5 71.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to South Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 55 0
Paver No 50 77.2 55 0
Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 55 0
Roller No 20 80 55 0
Roller No 20 80 55 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 55 0

Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Tractor 83.2 79.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 76.4 73.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pavement Scarafier 88.7 81.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 79.2 72.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 79.2 72.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Mixer Truck 78 74 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 88.7 84.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to West Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 200 0
Paver No 50 77.2 200 0
Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 200 0
Roller No 20 80 200 0
Roller No 20 80 200 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 200 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Tractor 72 68 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Paver 65.2 62.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pavement Scarafier 77.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 68 61 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roller 68 61 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Concrete Mixer Truck 66.8 62.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 77.5 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/5/2025
Case Description: \Architectural Coating
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to North Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 280 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Compressor (air) 62.7 58.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 62.7 58.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to Northeast Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 250 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Compressor (air) 63.7 59.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 63.7 59.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential to South Residential 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 55 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Compressor (air) 76.8 72.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 76.8 72.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Insitutional to West Commercial 1 1 1
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 200 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Compressor (air) 65.6 61.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 65.6 61.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Project Number 25-062
Project Name Yorba Linda Residential
Scenario Exsiting + Project
Background Information
Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels.

Source of Traffic Volumns: City of Yorba Linda, Yorba Linda HE Implementation Programs Environmental Impact Report, Appendix G, Traffic Impact Analysis Coomunity Noise Descriptors: Ldn CNEL x
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total Total ADT Volumns 77.50% 12.90% 9.60% 100.00%
Medium-Duty Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30% 100.00%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80% 100.00%
Analysis Vehicle Mix
Roadway Segment Lanes Median Width ADT Volume Design Speed (mph) Alpha Factor Medium Trucks (MT) Heavy Trucks (HT) CNEL at 100 Feet 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL Yorba Linda Bouelvard
Palm Avenue and Ohio Street 6 10 12,060 15 0.5 1.8% 0.7% 53.9 - - - 85 Traffic Noise levels and Noise Contours
Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Distance to Contour

Receiver Land Use Limiting Value rel. Axis Lr w/o Noise Control dL req. Lr w/ Noise Control Exceeding Name ID Day Night Station Distance Height Day Night Day Night Day Night Day dB(A) dB(A) m m m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) SR1 0 0 51.2 49.4 51.2 49.4 0.0 0.0 -
SR2 0 0 46.5 43.5 46.5 43.5 0.0 0.0 -
SR3 0 0 50.6 48.7 50.6 48.7 0.0 0.0 -
SR4 0 0 48.6 46.7 48.6 46.7 0.0 0.0 -

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5970

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

YORBA LINDA UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES, WITH CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, an application for Tentative Tract Map 19389 was made by City Ventures, 3121 Michelson Street, Suite 150, Irvine, California, 92612, to subdivide 2.65 acres into a single lot for condominium purposes for the development of a 62-unit townhome residential community located at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard, generally located east of Ohio Street, west of Palm Avenue and north of Yorba Linda Boulevard within the R-M-20 (Residential Multiple-Family 20) zone, APN: 323-081-35, and, WHEREAS, in accordance with all the land use application review requirements and procedures contained in the City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code, and the requirements of other applicable local, state and federal agencies, on November 12, 2025, and December 10, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed this matter at a duly noticed public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by 3-1-1 motion action, approved Tentative Tract Map 19389, with conditions of approval; and,
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2025, subsequent to the Planning Commission’s approval action, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action to approve Tentative Tract Map 19389 was filed with the City of Yorba Linda, in accordance with Section 18.36.820 of the Yorba Linda Zoning Code; and,
WHEREAS, Section 18.36.820 of the Yorba Linda Zoning Code requires that the appeal be considered by the City Council of the City or Yorba Linda at a public hearing, and notice of such public hearing concerning the project was given in accordance with applicable law; and,
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2026, a public hearing on Tentative Tract Map 19389 was held by the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff report and all of the information, testimony, and evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda does hereby find that with incorporation of the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and all mitigation measures described in the previously certified Program EIR and Addendum (State Clearinghouse No. 2022040574) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA for the Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element and Implementation Programs prepared in support of the Housing Element, which included the subject development site among thirteen (18) housing sites contemplated as part of the Housing Element Implementation Programs:

(1) The proposed map will be consistent with the City's General Plan in that it is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan, and will be consistent with all other aspects of the General Plan.
(2) The proposed map will be consistent with the current zoning on the property. (3) The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision as designated on the subject Tentative Tract Map will be consistent with the City's General Plan in that it will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan, including:
(a) Street alignments, grades and widths;
(b) Drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof;
(c) Location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (d) Lot size and configuration;
(e) Traffic access;
(f) Grading;
(g) Land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (h) Such other specific requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision as may be necessary to insure conformity to or implementation of the General Plan.
(4) The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that the infrastructure and utilities either already serve the site or can be readily expanded to serve the site, and there are no intractable topographical peculiarities associated with the physical character of the property that may prevent the development of multiple-family residential dwellings as part of a condominium residential community.
(5) The site is physically suitable for the proposed multiple-family residential dwellings as part of a condominium residential community in that the applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan which illustrates that the proposed project may be constructed on the site without adversely affecting the health, safety, or welfare of anyone who will utilize the development or anyone living within the surrounding community.
(6) The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the proposed subdivision, upon approval of associated and requested incentives for providing affordable units,

will comply with all requirements and development standards prescribed within the Yorba Linda General Plan and Zoning Code.
(7) The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
(8) The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the applicable California Regional Quality Control Board.
(9) The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision in that each building’s size, shape and design configuration permits the existing orientation of the planned development to take advantage of existing sun and shade opportunities.
(10) When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. (11) The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed map on the housing needs of the region in which the City is situated and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources, and finds that the proposed map does not detrimentally affect housing in the area, or place an undue burden on public service needs and available fiscal and environmental resources. (12) As this project involves no repeal, amendment, or adoption of all or any part of the land use planning policy documents as specified in Section 18.01.020 of the Yorba Linda Municipal Code, this project is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 18.01 of the Yorba Linda Municipal Code, also known as the “Yorba Linda Right-to-Vote Amendment.”
(13) The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodate the City’s share of housing so as to satisfy its regional housing need.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda does hereby uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, and approve Tentative Tract Map 19389, subject to the conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "A" attached to this Resolution and all mitigation measures described in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element and Implementation Programs, and which is by reference incorporated herein.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda on this 3rd day of February, 2026.

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, MAYOR

CITY OF YORBA LINDA
ATTEST:

MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK

CITY OF YORBA LINDA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP

CITY ATTORNEY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.

COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, MARCIA BROWN, City Clerk of the City of Yorba Linda, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda held on the 3rd day of February, 2026, and was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK

CITY OF YORBA LINDA

EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 –

CITY VENTURES
Eng. 1. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for all work within the City right of way.

2. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be used during construction in accordance with the Construction Runoff Guidance Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and Developers to prevent pollutants, construction materials, and soil from entering the storm drain.

3. Prior to grading permit/building permit, the proposed improvements shall comply with the California Building Code latest edition. Drainage and structural setbacks to slopes shall comply with the minimum requirements.

4. Prior to grading permit/building permit, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a transportation permit that identifies the disposition of all imported or exported soil and a haul route. The applicant shall demonstrate that the imported soil is clean and suitable for the intended use, and that exported soil complies OCFA and OC Environment Health Department. A geotechnical analysis may be required.

5. Prior to grading permit/building permit, retaining walls shall be designed to have waterproofing applied to the retaining side of the wall, subdrain, and subdrain outlets. The subdrain outlets detail shall be indicated on the retaining wall plan and grading plan. Storm water runoff shall be conveyed away from the retaining wall or mitigated with drainage system.

6. Prior to grading permit, a complete final hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a qualified engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

7. Prior to grading permit, an Emergency overflow is required at all sump locations. Slopes shall be armored, or a drainage conveyance facility shall be designed where emergency overflow is proposed.

8. Prior to grading permit, grading of the project may be performed in phases subject to an approved grading phase plan. Each grading phase shall have a standalone rough grading plan, hydrology and hydraulics analysis, and grading security to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

9. Prior to grading permit, individual lot drainage shall be designed to convey flows to an acceptable drainage system or outlet to the street or by other lot drainage design to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

10. Prior to grading permit, a soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

11. Prior to grading permit, any grading required outside of the project boundaries will require either slope easements or right-ofentry/permission to grade letters from the adjacent property owners.

12. Prior to grading permit, applicant shall submit sewer and water plans to the Yorba Linda Water District for determination of the Terms and Conditions for Water and/or Sewer Service.

13. Prior to grading permit, drainage facilities that discharge onto adjacent properties shall be designed in such a manner as to convey storm surface water as it historically crosses said property line in its natural state or a drainage acceptance instrument may be obtained from the downstream property owner if the historic drainage flow is affected in an adverse manner.

14. Prior to grading permit, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted at the time of Grading Plan review and be accepted by the City Engineer.

15. Prior to grading permit, grading of the subject property shall be in compliance with the Grading Ordinance and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

16. Prior to grading permit, a grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval. Grading shall be in significant conformance to the Tentative Tract Map and the proposed grading as approved by the Planning Commission.

17. Prior to grading permit, surety shall be posted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of grading within the project.

18. Prior to grading permit, a Priority Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted with the grading plan for review and accepted by the City Engineer. A Maintenance Agreement outlining the postconstruction Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be executed. All costs associated with the review, installation and/or maintenance of the plan and project-related BMPs shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

19. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region).

20. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall file any required documents, including but not necessarily limited to the notice of intent, and comply with permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

21. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the review and accepted by the City Engineer. The SWPPP shall describe the construction phase Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure compliance with the NPDES General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity.

22. Prior to grading permit, No proprietary biotreatment water quality treatment systems will be permitted within the public right-of-way.. Water quality treatment systems shall be incorporated into the site design and privately maintained by future Homeowners Association..

23. Prior to grading permit, private roads shall be designed to comply with the requirements of Orange County Fire Authority - Fire Master Plans for Commercial and Residential Development, Guideline B-09. Private road structural sections shall be based on recommendations of a soils engineer and approved by the City Engineer.

24. Prior to grading permit, existing easement quitclaims for must be completed.

25. Prior to grading permit, offsite run-on from abutting properties must be addressed by demonstrating how flows will be conveyed. Acceptance of existing sheet flows must be called out if the flows are historical. Run-on sheet flows shall also be addressed in the pre & post development hydrology maps.

26. Prior to grading permit, excavation quantities including cut, fill, and disturbed area must be provided.

27. Prior to building permit, trash receptacles shall be enclosed by a 6-foothigh decorative masonry block wall with approved gates and latches designed to withstand foreseeable use and abuse. Trash receptacles shall also conform with NPDES standards, which may include provisions for a solid roofed cover, an area drain connected to the sanitary sewer system, and a hot water hose bib. Location and design shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Director. Ensure that trash enclosure shall accommodate a 3-container system adhering to state mandates, including SB 1383 Organics which built on and expanded AB 1826 Commercial Organics, and AB 341 Commercial Recycling.

28. Prior to model homes building permit, a model home precise grading plan shall include all proposed improvements and parking lot to be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

29. Prior to modeling home building permit, issuance is subject to payment of fees, improvements, and the approval of the City, MWD, YLWD, and OCFA.

30. Prior to building permit, a rough grade certificate, final rough grade report, and individual lot compaction tests shall be provided by a licensed Civil Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer.

31. Prior to building permit, the proposed improvements shall comply with sight distance design requirements of OCPW standard plan 1117 and City Zoning Ordinance 18.26 vision triangle.

32. Prior to building permit, a street lighting plan indicating location, size and type of existing and proposed street lighting shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted along with the improvement plans for review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer.

33. Prior to building permit, all exterior street improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

34. Prior to building permit, all proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground in accordance with current utility engineering practices. Existing aerial utilities shall be removed and/or placed underground.

35. Prior to building permit, all street lighting shall meet the equipment and illumination standards of the City to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

36. Prior to building permit, applicant is responsible to ensure that a minimum 2-inch PVC conduit or smaller, if approved by the appropriate utility companies and the City Engineer, is installed in the open common trench.

37. Prior to building permit, applicant shall provide a free trench to the CATV operator and give said operator reasonable notice of when open trench is available.

38. Prior to building permit, drainage facilities and easements shall be provided in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage and to the specifications of the City Engineer.

39. Prior to building permit, driveways in excess of 75 feet in length, or excessively sloped and/or curved more than 45 degrees shall incorporate

“hammerhead” turnaround spaces near the garage to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer.

40. Prior to building permit, parking lot or parking stall structural sections shall be based on recommendations of a soils engineer and approved by the City Engineer.

41. Prior to building permit, private roads shall be constructed to the requirements of Orange County Fire Authority - Fire Master Plans for Commercial and Residential Development, Guideline B-09. Private road structural sections shall be based on recommendations of a soils engineer and approved by the City Engineer.

42. Prior to building permit, street improvement plans prepared on standard size sheets by a licensed Civil Engineer shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. Standard plan check and inspection fees shall be paid by the applicant.

43. Prior to building permit, street striping and signing plans shall be prepared by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and included with the initial submittal of the improvement plans.

44. Prior to building permit, the City Engineer and Building Official will not authorize the issuance of any or all building permits unless and until in the City Engineer's opinion, traffic to be generated may be accommodated adequately on surrounding thoroughfares due to the completion of improvements, adverse effects of a natural event, or for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.

45. Prior to building permit, the development shall participate in the Eastern Transportation Corridor Fee Program at the established rate.

46. Prior to building permit, the precise location of new or relocated monument signs shall be subject to the final review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer.

47. Prior to building permit, this project is applicable to the requirements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and shall be subject to payment of Traffic Impact Mitigation (Measure M) and as established by the Development Mitigation Program.

48. Prior to building permit, utility plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer.

The City shall have the right to comment, modify, approve or disapprove the utility plan for each utility.

49. Prior to map recordation, parking restrictions resultant of minimum width streets shall be identified in the project CC&R’s.

50. Prior to map recordation, reciprocal access easements shall be provided on the final map insuring access to all parcels over private roads to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

51. Prior to map recordation, reciprocal drainage easements or lettered lot shall be provided on the final map for cross lot drainage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

52. Prior to map recordation, surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements. NOTE: Upon acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council, the City will release the Monumentation Bond immediately, release the Labor and Materials Bond in 180 days, and reduce the Grading and Faithful Performance Bonds to 10% of the original amount and release in one year if no liens have been filed.

53. Prior to map recordation, the applicant shall participate in the Master Plan of Drainage at the established fee and shall be responsible for the construction of all on-site drainage facilities as required by the City Engineer.

54. Prior to map recordation, the applicant shall participate in the Sewer Master Plan and pay the associated fees at the applicable rate.

55. Prior to map recordation, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital graphics file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18.

56. Prior to map recordation, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7- 9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18.

57. Prior to map recordation, those portions of the subject property proposed to be held under common ownership shall be labeled as such and identified by a separate lot number/letter on the final map.

58. Prior to map recordation, utility easements shall be provided to the specifications of the appropriate utility companies and the City Engineer.

59. Prior to map recordation, vehicular access rights to arterials and local collectors shall be dedicated to the City of Yorba Linda and labeled on the final map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

60. Prior to map recordation, public street right-of-way dedications shall conform to OCPW Std. Plan 1111 Curb Return Radius And Corner CutOff.

61. Prior to certificate of occupancy, street trees shall be designed and installed in the [INSERT STREET NAME} parkway at approximately 35’ center on center spacing to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director. A landscape plan shall be required and identify limited use areas based on a sight distance analysis per OCPW standard plan 1117 and Chapter 18 of the Yorba Linda Zoning Code.

62. Prior to occupancy, all required street striping and traffic/parking regulatory signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer.

63. Prior to occupancy, water supply facilities shall be designed and constructed to the specifications of the Yorba Linda Water District and the City Engineer and dedicated to the Yorba Linda Water District with all incidental fees paid by the applicant.

64. Prior to occupancy, sewer facilities shall be designed and constructed to the specifications of the Yorba Linda Water District by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and/or the Yorba Linda Water District.

65. Prior to occupancy, street lighting shall be installed by the applicant per the equipment and illumination standards of the City and Southern California Edison Company. A streetlight plan shall be prepared by the applicant and included with the initial submittal of the improvement plans.

A 36-month advance energy charge deposit to SCE is required at the time of the streetlight authorization.

66. Prior to occupancy, a final grade certificate and final grade soils report or letter shall be provided by a licensed Civil Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer.

67. Prior to occupancy, a fair share cost shall be contributed towards the re-paving and restoration of Yorba Linda Boulevard.

68. Prior to paving, all proposed gas mains and services shall be installed within the proposed streets.

69. Prior to paving, all street structural sections shall be submitted to, and approved by the City Engineer. Interim street structural sections that are

constructed without the final course shall be sized for the anticipated vehicular loads and duration.

70. Prior to improvement security release, all catch basins and public access points that cross or abut an open channel shall be marked with a water quality message in accordance with City Standards.

Bldg. 71. Prior to final inspection by the Building Division, developer shall contact Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) to request final inspection of on and off-site fire-related improvements. Final site inspection must be requested by contacting Inspection Scheduling OCFA at (714) 744-0567. Developer shall provide proof of compliance with all OCFA conditions of approval to the Building Division prior to issuance of occupancy certificates and final release of occupancy.

72. Developer is hereby notified that utility release will be authorized by the Building Official only after the project is determined complete in accordance with the approved plans, and when all other department and agency approvals and conditions have been met.

73. Class A fire-rated roofing material shall be provided for all buildings. In addition, roofing material must be installed to meet high wind velocity (85 mph) and exposure “C” standards.

74. This project shall be subject to applicable school fees, the payment of which shall be documented to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits.

75. Applicant shall contact the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) and report findings to the Building Division early on and prior to issuance of a building permit.

76. When project/development is within an area of current or former oil production, applicant shall prepare and submit to the Building Division complete, self-contained professional reports (with conclusive results) addressing oil well abandonment, venting, testing, and agency permits and clearances. Some of the involved agencies are: State Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). Reports shall be submitted to the Building Division three months before submittal of working drawings for plan check.

77. All structures, including light standards/canopies, shall be designed in accordance with Section 1609 for the wind design and Section 1613

seismic design of the 2022 California Building Code and wind loading based on a velocity of 110 mph and exposure “C” standards of the latest adopted edition of the California 2022 Building Code.

78. Existing structures proposed to be demolished shall be removed to the satisfaction of the Building Official. City Council review and approval is required prior to issuance of a demolition permit.

79. Existing septic tanks, drywells, and/or cesspools shall be identified, removed, and filled to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to any demolition of structures, grading, or construction of new structures.

80. All walls and fences constructed by the developer at side or rear property lines shall meet the minimum standards for pool enclosures as specified by Chapter 15.32 of the Yorba Linda Municipal Code.

81. Development shall comply with the latest adopted California Building Code, California Building Security Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, The National Electrical Code, State Building Standards Title 24, and all other applicable codes.

82. Applicant shall satisfy all requirements of the Orange County Fire Authority prior to issuance of building permits, or, at the discretion of the Building Official, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy. Contact Orange County Fire Authority at (714) 744-0499 for requirements.

83. At the completion of construction, and prior to occupancy, interior and exterior CNEL shall be determined by field testing at developer’s expense. Tests shall be conducted by a recognized acoustical expert.

No occupancy permits shall be granted until field test results meet the satisfaction of the Building Official in accordance with Appendix Chapter 12 of the California Building Code (latest adopted edition) “Sound Transmission Control.”

84. All Construction and Development shall comply with the latest adopted California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, The California Electrical Code, California Green Building Standards Code, State Building Standards Title 24, and all other applicable codes.

85. Plans shall be rendered legible and usable. Separate sheets shall be provided for distinctly different aspects of the proposed project. Plan sheets shall be clearly labeled with sheet numbers on the bottom rightPage 1840 of 2028 hand corner and each sheet included in the set shall be included in a sheet index provided on the cover sheet.

86. The project shall comply with all applicable disabled access requirements.

87. It is highly suggested the owner consult with a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) during the design and construction phases.

88. Deferred submittals shall be reviewed and approved by the design professional prior to being submitted to the city.

89. A survey is required to accurately determine the property lines and/or building location.

90. Plans must indicate if the existing building is protected by an automatic sprinkler system. Projects that require a new Fire Sprinkler System to be installed shall have the cover sheet notated “FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED” and the proposed fire sprinklers shall be listed as a deferred submittal.

91. New buildings located in any adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone, or any or any Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Area designated by the enforcing agency constructed after the application date shall comply with the provisions of R337/7A.

92. These provisions shall also apply to all structures located within 100 feet of a Fuel Modification Zone, Vegetation Management Area, or similar area containing hazardous combustible vegetation, regardless of whether the property is currently located in an adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone or Wildland-Urban Interface Area, when materials and/or construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure were previously required at the property by the Building or Fire Code Official.

93. Applicant shall satisfy all requirements of the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) prior to issuance of building permits and final inspection. Contact Orange County Fire Authority at (714) 573-6100 for requirements. Fire Sprinkler installations requirements are part of this requirement.

94. Applicant shall satisfy all conditions of approval and any other department or agency requirements prior to the building permit’s final inspection.

Plng. 95. Developer is responsible for the prewiring of all dwelling units with commercial CATV grade coaxial cable.

96. Developer shall provide the CATV operator access and cooperation for the purpose of laying cable and connecting the CATV system for the purpose of complying with the service requirements of the franchise agreement.

97. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a copy of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners’ Association shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to recordation. Copies of the final CC&R’s and the final map shall be placed on file with the Community Development Director.

98. Pad elevations on the final grading plan cannot deviate more than ± one foot (± 1’) from the grades shown on the Tentative Map as approved by the Planning Commission. Any grade changes greater than the ± 1-foot shall necessitate the grading plan being submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director to determine consistency with the Tentative tract map approval prior to the issuance of the grading permit.

99. Street names, if applicable, shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to recordation of the final tract map.

Suggested street names and alternatives shall be submitted in writing to the Community Development Director for approval. Phonic similarity with existing street names should be avoided.
100. Air conditioner condenser pads shall be shown on the plot plan, and shall maintain Zoning Code separation requirements from an adjacent dwelling.
101. All roof appurtenances and mechanical equipment, including but not limited to HVAC units, shall be screened from public view and sound buffered from adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Building Official.
102. No equipment shall be located on the sloped, externally visible portion of the roof of the structure.
103. Parking lot/Street lighting shall consist of downward directed “shoebox” style fixtures, a maximum of 20 feet in height. Lighting shall be directed away from all property lines, adjacent streets and residences and shown in detail on the site and landscape plans. On-site illumination intensity shall not exceed 0.2 footcandles at any neighboring property line. Location, fixture design and shielding details shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to installation.

104. All signs shall be in conformance with Chapter 18.24 (Signs) of the Yorba Linda Zoning Code.
105. All standards and restrictions contained within the Yorba Linda “Guidelines and Specifications for Landscape Development” shall be reflected in landscape plans to the satisfaction of the City Landscape Architect.
106. Final species, location, size, and planting details of all project site trees shall be approved by the City Landscape Architect.
107. Decorative masonry walls and/or fencing shall be installed along the tract perimeter. Publicly viewed perimeter walls will be required to include vine plantings to break up the masses of masonry walls. Exact location and design shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 108. The entire project shall be annexed into the appropriate zones within the Yorba Linda Street Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Assessment District to pay fair share costs of operating and maintaining street lighting and landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

The District shall be formed prior to issuance of building permits.

Boundaries of maintenance responsibility shall be shown on the landscape architectural plans
109. All common landscape along the northerly project boundaries shall be constantly maintained in a healthy, thriving condition by the homeowner’s association for the project as to adequately screen and protect the privacy of the adjacent homeowners.
110. The applicant shall provide landscape architecture plans prepared by a California-licensed landscape architect including where applicable:
a. Landscape development of all street median islands;
b. Proposed and required fencing or walls;
c. Permanent irrigation system;
d. Landscape planting and irrigation shall occur on all slopes in excess of seven feet (7’) high and 5:1 or steeper;
e. Natural areas where the Orange County Fire Authority recommends a fuel modification program;
f. Open space lots;
g. Screening around oil wells;
h. Ground mounted lighting fixtures;
i. Facilities for the handicapped including ramps, logos and signs; j. Existing trees;
k. Parking lot details including wheel stops, sidewalk details, signing and striping;

l. Drainage details;
m. Electrical transformers;
n. Trash enclosures;
o. Details of public recreational/equestrian trails;
p. Details of private trails;
q. Areas to be maintained by Landscape Maintenance
Assessment District, homeowner’s association, and private property owners;
r. Model home/sales complex;
s. Ground-mounted mechanical equipment;
t. Oil wells (active or abandoned);
u. Playground equipment details conforming to the Consumer Products Safety Commission.
111. Final landscape architecture plans, subject to all applicable plan check fees, shall be submitted to the Engineering and Planning Divisions, as applicable, for review and approval by the City Landscape Architect per the standard plan check process prior to installation of exterior hardscape, landscape planting, and/or irrigation. All landscape architecture shall be installed prior to final occupancy and release of permits for each phase of the project.
112. The developer shall have the following items on permanent and prominent display in the sales office where applicable:
a. A copy of the approved and recorded tract map;
b. A copy of the approved Design Review plot plans;
c. A copy of the approved landscape architecture plans; d. A copy of the approved residential parking plan;
e. A current Yorba Linda General Plan land use map;
f. A current Yorba Linda Zoning Map;
g. A noise display board including the site plan and noise study h. A map showing private and public equestrian trails;
i. A map showing the boundaries of those area to be maintained by the Landscape Maintenance Assessment District;
j. A statement regarding estimated partial first tax year and full second year tax levies attributable to special bond issue taxes levied by the Yorba Linda Water District;
k. A statement regarding estimated partial first tax year and full second year tax levies attributable to the Landscape
Maintenance Assessment District;
l. Fuel modification program maps;
m. Seismic fault zone information and map describing known fault data;
n. A statement regarding special fire protection areas due to wildland exposure;
o. Applicable Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R’s);

p. Copies (blank) of statements or other disclosures required to be endorsed by the purchaser of a lot or home within tract as required by the City of Yorba Linda;
q. A statement regarding limitation of vehicular access rights due to dedications to the City;
r. A statement regarding the requirement to construct landscape planting and irrigation and permanently maintain landscape development in the required front yard setback area; and, s. A statement regarding current Zoning Ordinance limitations on parking of vehicles in front yard area;
t. A statement advising homeowners to contact the Yorba Linda Community Development Department prior to any additional on-site construction, i.e., pools, patios, fences, retaining walls, storage or utility structures, air conditioning or solar installations, etc.
u. A map of all existing and abandoned oil wells on and within 500 feet of the project site; and,
113. If applicable, the developer is required to provide to the Planning Division upon sale and transfer the following signed statement by the purchasers of properties located within a Landscape Maintenance Assessment District:
“In purchasing property described as [insert lot and tract number], on [insert date], I/we understand that said lot is located within the boundaries of a Landscape
Maintenance Assessment District and that an annual
landscape maintenance charge will be levied.

Signed: [Purchaser]
Name:”
114. If applicable, the developer is required to provide to the Planning Division upon sale and transfer the following signed statement by the purchasers of properties within 50 feet of an abandoned oil well:
“In purchasing property described as [insert lot and tract number], on [insert date], I/we understand that said lot contains or is located within 50 feet of an abandoned oil well and that no permanent wall or structure may be
constructed within a 10-foot radius of the extended shaft line of said well.

Signed: [Purchaser]
Name:”

115. The developer shall confirm compliance with disclosure-related conditions of approval in writing to the Community Development Director prior to opening of the sales office.
116. Developer is encouraged to offer a hot water recirculating system in all new residential subdivisions as an option to any buyer purchasing a home prior to construction.
117. Mailboxes shall be designed, installed and located by the developer to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 118. The cover sheet of the building construction drawings shall include a blue line print of the City’s conditions of approval and shall be attached to each set of plans submitted for City approval.
119. Pre-cast fireplaces shall not be allowed on exterior walls. 120. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all other applicable City ordinances and development standards in effect at this time.
121. Any approved technical drawings and/or specifications that will be changed, altered, or in any other way affected as a result of the Planning Commission approval of this project shall be revised and resubmitted for review and approval by the applicable City department. 122. The applicant shall agree and consent in writing within 60 days to the conditions of approval as adopted by the Planning Commission. 123. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission and on file in the Community Development Department.
124. The approval of Tentative Tract Map 19389 is granted for two (2) years from the date of approval by the Planning Commission, and shall become null and void upon expiration of said two year period, unless building permits have been issued or a time extension is requested in writing prior to that date.

Special Conditions:

Plng. 125. Tentative Tract Map 19389 is for a 62-unit townhome residential community, with associated recreational facilities, parking stalls and open space amenities. Any modification to the Tentative map and/or proposed onsite improvements shall require subsequent approval of a revised Tentative Map as determined by the Community Development Director.

126. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 19389 is contingent upon concurrent approval of Design Review 2025-02 and Conditional Use Permit 2025-

10. Failure to approve Design Review 2025-02 and Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 shall render any approval of Tentative Tract Map 19389 null and void.
127. Commitment to Negotiate and Enter Into Affordable Housing Agreement. Based on the applicant’s negotiations with city staff, the applicant has voluntarily committed to provide 3 units (5%) for use, ownership, and occupancy by “persons and families of very-low income” as defined by Health and Safety Code section 50093 for a term of 30 years (referred to as the “restricted units”). In furtherance of this commitment, City staff and the applicant shall negotiate in good faith and enter into an “Affordable Housing Agreement” that will provide, among other relevant provisions, recordable restrictive covenants (such as a regulatory agreement or use covenant, and referred to as the “restrictive covenants”) for no less than restricted units to ensure that their use and occupancy is restricted to persons and families of very-low income as defined by Health and Safety Code section 50093 for a term of 55 years. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits: (i) the applicant shall identify, and the Director of Community Development, in his or her reasonable discretion, shall have approved, the location of the restricted units in the project, (ii) the applicant shall have obtained from the City Council the approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement, according to terms approved by the Director of Community Development and in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office, and (iii) the applicant shall have recorded in the Official Records for Orange County, California, the restrictive covenants against the restricted units, according to terms approved by the Director of Community Development and in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office.
128. The private street entry/exist shall be constructed of decorative stamped concrete or decorative pavers as represented within the landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
129. The gating of access to the proposed project is not granted as a part of this approval. Any future proposal to provide gated access shall require subsequent review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission, and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer and the Orange County Fire Authority.
130. The street frontage parkway along Yorba Linda Boulevard between the proposed development and the sidewalk shall be provided with a generous landscape treatment of trees, shrubs and groundcover to

enhance the aesthetic quality of the project edge as viewed from the streetscape. Details shall be shown on the project landscape plan submitted for the review and approval of the City Landscape Architect. 131. Appropriate size of evergreen trees shall be provided within the landscape area along the perimeter of the project site, particularly to the norther project boundary, to screen views of adjacent residents toward the project site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Landscape Architect. The landscape buffer area shall be shown on the final map and within the CC&R’s to be recorded with the map.
132. All standard conditions, design features and mitigation measures described within the Addendum for Tentative Tract Map 19389 and the certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element and Implementation Programs are incorporated herein by reference and shall apply to Tentative Tract Map 19389 to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 133. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Yorba Linda, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the subject application by the City, its legislative body, advisory agencies or administrative officers. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding against the City and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney.
134. The developer accepts the approval of Tentative Tract Map 19389 with the understanding that the City of Yorba Linda is opposed to the landbased financing of any and all public facilities or development fees required by the City or any other public agency. The developer therefore agrees that it shall not pursue with the City or any other public agency the creation of a community facilities district or any other land based financing for public facilities or development fees in connection with this project. The developer represents that it will inform any successor developer of developer’s understanding of the City’s prohibition and developer’s agreement not to pursue such public financing. As with all the conditions of approval contained herein, this condition shall apply to developer and its successors and assigns.
135. Applicant shall provide to the Planning Division, prior to issuance of building permits, an electronic copy of the final plans approved by the Planning Commission. The copy shall be provided on a USB thumb drive in “.pdf” format.

136. Construction and architectural detailing shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans, including but not necessarily limited to elevation drawings and material/colors sample board, submitted as a part of this application and as approved by the Planning Commission, except that any modification shall be subject to the discretion of the Community Development Director upon finding that any changes are comparable in substance and quality to the original approval.
137. All tubular steel fencing within Tentative Tract Map 19389 shall be designed to prevent rust and provide the greatest degree of longevity and durability feasible to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
138. Any future modification to the building colors approved by the Planning Commission shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. At the Community Development Director’s discretion, proposed color modifications may be referred to the Planning Commission for design review approval.
139. Applicant shall include notification within the CC&R’s as well as within the project sales office informing potential homeowners that landscaping within H.O.A.-maintained areas is not to be modified, trimmed, or removed in any way by the homeowner, without express authorization by the H.O.A.
140. Maximum building height is dictated by Section 18.26.030 of the Yorba Linda Zoning Code which allows decorative architectural elements such as chimneys, cupolas, weathervanes, and screened mechanical units to extend up to 10 percent above the maximum building height with final discretion to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director approval.
141. The final site plan for Tentative Tract Map 19389 shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
142. The project Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall prohibit the use of dedicated covered resident parking for personal storage or any use other than for the parking of operable motor vehicles at all times to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Community Development Director. Quarterly garage checks are to be performed by the Homeowner’s Association to ensure compliance.
143. As an infill development site, construction will be occurring within a noisesensitive environment. In accordance with Municipal Code requirements,

any construction or maintenance activity on real property which may disturb the peace and comfort of the inhabitants of the neighborhood or comfortable enjoyment of life and property is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays and Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday, unless said work is of an emergency nature or a prior permit has been obtained from the Community Development Director. Applicant shall rigorously adhere to this Municipal Code requirement during the construction phases of the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
144. All existing structures on site shall be demolished prior to the recordation of the tract map, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Building Official.

YLWD 145. The proposed project shall require connection to the District’s water system when the lot is developed or subdivided.
146. The Developer shall be required to connect to existing District owned water facilities in a manner acceptable to the District. Developer shall contact the District to initiate an application to construct the required connection(s). The project shall be subject to the requirements specified in the following “Facility Construction Requirements” section. 147. Developer shall construct an extension of the District’s existing water main to serve the proposed site. Said extension shall be constructed in accordance with the District’s standard drawings and specifications. 148. Developer must make an application with the District for water and sewer service. Terms and Conditions shall be established and approved by the District’s Board of Directors.
149. On-site sewer facilities shall be private.
150. Developer shall provide sewer easements for the new facilities and abandon unused sewer laterals.
151. The Developer shall be required to connect to existing District owned sewer system in a manner acceptable to the District. Developer shall contact the District to initiate an application to construct the required connection(s).
152. The Developer shall be required to modify existing District owned sewer system in a manner acceptable to the District. Developer shall contact the District to initiate an application to construct the required connection(s). The project shall be subject to the requirements specified in the following “Facility Construction Requirements” section.

153. Developer shall construct an extension of the District’s existing sewer main to serve the project site. Said extension shall be from the project site in its entirety.

OCFA 154. Plan Submittal: The applicant or responsible party shall submit the plan(s) listed below to the Orange County Fire Authority for review.

Approval shall be obtained on each plan prior to the event specified.

Prior to OCFA clearance of a final map or issuance of a precise grading permit or a building permit, if a grading permit is not required:
 fire master plan (service code PR145) NOTE: The preliminary fire hydrant locations may need to be modified to comply with current codes standards.
 Methane investigation/mitigation (PR172-PR176)
Prior to issuance of a building permit:
 underground piping for private hydrants and fire sprinkler systems (service code PR470-PR475)
Prior to concealing interior construction:
 sprinkler monitoring system (service code PR500)
 fire sprinkler system (service codes PR400-PR455)
Specific submittal requirements may vary from those listed above depending on actual project conditions identified or present during design development, review, construction, inspection, or occupancy.

Standard notes, guidelines, submittal instructions, and other information related to plans reviewed by the OCFA may be found by visiting www.ocfa.org and clicking on “Fire Prevention” and then “Planning & Development Services.”
P&R 155. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay park in-lieu fees to the City of Yorba Linda Parks and Recreation Department. The amount of the in-lieu fees shall be determined in compliance with City Ordinance No. 2025-999 (or more recent ordinance update), and subject to the approval of the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department.

Eng. 156. Prior to issuance of final occupancy, the applicant shall provide a Performance Surety Bond in the amount of up to $50,000. This security shall apply solely to the potential costs for the City’s construction of a reconfigured center raised median.

A median improvement may only be required if the City Engineer, or designee, determines in writing—based on substantial evidence supported by analysis consistent with accepted traffic engineering practice, including applicable standards under the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices—that such work is necessary to address a demonstrated safety concern attributable to illegal left turns out of the project site.

If the City Engineer, or designee, does not make the required written determination and the City does not commence physical construction of the reconfigured raised median within thirty-six (36) months of issuance of final occupancy, this security bond shall automatically expire and the associated security shall be released in full without further action required by the applicant.

Plng. 157. Privacy mitigation shall be designed to prevent direct line-of-sight views into second-story balconies/deck along the north elevations of Buildings 8 and 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, these second-story balconies and decks facing single family residences shall incorporate solid or opaque screening measures, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
158. Prior to issuance of building permits, and in conjunction with Condition #97, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners’ Association shall incorporate a parking management and enforcement plan, including but not limited to: assigned resident parking, guest parking signage, enforcement authority and towing procedures, and prohibition of conversion of garages to storage or living space. The CC&R’s shall also require all vehicles registered to residents to have an adhesive sticker to be adhered to all resident vehicles for parking identification purposes. Furthermore, the CC&R’s shall require no overnight parking off-site for its residents.
159. Within 6 months of 90% building occupancy, the applicant shall submit a parking utilization study and an overflow parking observation memorandum for informational purposes to the satisfaction of the City’s Traffic Engineer.
160. The applicant shall make their best effort to enter into a shared parking agreement with nearby property owners to accommodate special event parking for up to 50 additional vehicles.
-The EndPage 1852 of 2028
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR:

DESIGN REVIEW 2025-02 – CITY VENTURES

1. Approval of Design Review 2025-02 is contingent upon the prior, concurrent, or subsequent approval of Tentative Tract Map 19389. Failure to approve Tentative Tract Map 19389 shall render approval of Design Review 2025-02 null and void.

2. All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map 19389 shall be incorporated herein by reference.

3. The applicant shall agree and consent, in writing, within 60 days to the conditions of approval as adopted by the Planning Commission.

4. Approval of Design Review 2025-02 is granted for a period of two years from the date of approval by the Planning Commission, unless building permits have been issued, or a time extension is requested in writing prior to that date. -The EndPage 1853 of 2028
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF YORBA LINDA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2025-10 – CITY VENTURES, WITH CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, an application for Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 was made by City Ventures, 3121 Michelson Street, Suite 150, Irvine, California, 92612, to construct threestory townhomes within seventy feet (70’) of another single-family dwelling and second-story decks in conjunction with development of a proposed 62-unit townhome residential community located at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard, generally located east of Ohio Street, west of Palm Avenue and north of Yorba Linda Boulevard within the R-M-20 (Residential Multiple-Family 20) zone, APN: 323-081-35, and
WHEREAS, Sections 18.10.100.B of the Yorba Linda Zoning Code require that a Conditional Use Permit be granted by the Planning Commission for two-story new construction that is located within seventy feet (70') of an adjacent single-family dwelling and,
WHEREAS, Section 18.20.120.I of the Yorba Linda Zoning Code requires that a Conditional Use Permit be granted by the Zoning Administrator for any proposed second story deck prior to construction; and,
WHEREAS, 18.38.080.B of the Yorba Linda Zoning Code grants the Zoning Administrator authority to refer second story deck applications to the Planning Commission when that application is in conjunction with, and a part of, a project which requires Planning Commission approval as a normal course; and WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 is being considered in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map 19389 and Design Review 2025-02; and, WHEREAS, this matter requires a public hearing in conformance with applicable law; and,
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Yorba Linda concerning Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 was given in accordance with applicable law; and,
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 and continued the public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2025, a public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 was held by the Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Yorba Linda does hereby find that the proposed three-story townhomes complies with mandatory findings included in Section 18.10.100.B of the Yorba Linda Zoning Code as follows:

A. That the construction does not result in any significant loss of privacy for adjacent residences in a manner that would compromise the neighbors' ability to obtain reasonable and enjoyable use of their own property in that proposed new windows and decks do not exacerbate view impacts to the neighboring properties due to the design, orientation, proposed grading, and inclusion of vertical screen trees;
B. For a building addition, that the design of the two-story construction be architecturally integrated with that of the existing house as to be made to appear as part of the original construction, in that the proposed three-story buildings are new construction and are designed in consistency with the written objective development standards of the Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines to ensure design quality by utilizing a contemporary architectural style with colors, materials, and finishes that are consistent with the Mediterranean Revival style;
C. That the design of the addition is sensitive to its environs such that it is architecturally compatible with its neighborhood, in that the proposed townhomes compliment the surrounding architecture as a preferred style of the adopted Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines; D. For any second-story addition to any attached single-family structure, the Planning Commission shall encourage construction which has the least impact on the neighboring attached dwelling units and which is most structurally sound, in that this requirement is not applicable as the proposed townhouses are all new ground-up construction buildings.

WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff report and all of the information, testimony, and evidence presented at the public hearing, the Yorba Linda Planning Commission does hereby find that with incorporation of the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit “A”:

A. The proposed location of the conditional uses are in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code and the purpose of the zone in which the site is located in that Section 18.10.100.B of the Yorba Linda Zoning Code allows for new twostory construction within seventy feet of another single-family residence and Section 18.20.120.I of the Yorba Linda Zoning Code allows for second story decks with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.

B. The location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposed townhome units and decks will not unduly violate the privacy of the adjacent property owners due to their orientation, location, and separation from neighboring structures, also the introduction of vertical screen trees along the perimeter property lines that will substantially minimize

views of the project from the existing residences and mitigate privacy impact concerns on those properties.

C. The proposed conditional uses will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code of the City of Yorba Linda.

D. The project is a subsequent activity within the program covered by a previously certified Program EIR and Addendum (State Clearinghouse No. 2022040574) pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines.

E. As this project involves no repeal, amendment, or adoption of all or any part of the land use planning policy documents as specified in Section 18.01.020 of the Yorba Linda Municipal Code, this project is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 18.01 of the Yorba Linda Municipal Code, also known as the “Yorba Linda Right-to-Vote Amendment.”
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Yorba Linda Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, subject to the conditions of approval shown on Exhibit “A” attached to this Resolution and by this reference incorporated herein.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Yorba Linda on December 10, 2025.

DON BERNSTEIN

CHAIRMAN
TO WIT:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a special meeting of the Yorba Linda Planning Commission on December 10, 2025, and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

NATE FARNSWORTH, AICP

SECRETARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

EXHIBIT “A”
FOR RESOLUTION NO.

APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-10 –

CITY VENTURES

1. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 is contingent upon the prior, concurrent, or subsequent approval of Tentative Tract Map 19389 and Design Review 2025-

02. Failure to approve the Tentative Tract Map 19389 and Design Review 2025-02 shall render approval of Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 null and void.

2. All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map 19389 shall be incorporated herein by reference.

3. The applicant shall agree and consent, in writing, within 60 days to the conditions of approval as adopted by the Planning Commission.

4. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 is granted for a period of two years from the date of approval by the Planning Commission, unless building permits have been issued, or a time extension is requested in writing prior to that date. -The EndPage 1857 of 2028

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2025
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMEN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BY: GABRIEL DIAZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: Attachment 22 - Joint Traffic and Planning Comm. Staff Report 11-12-

25.docx
APPLICANT: City Ventures
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92612
CEQA STATUS: Statutory Exemption (Government Code §65457) Previously Certified 2021-2029 Housing Element EIR & Addendum- (SCH No. 2022040574)

RELATED
ITEMS: None
REQUEST: A request for site planning and architectural design review approval for a three-story, 62-unit multi-family, for-sale, attached townhouse project located at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard, east of Ohio Street, west of Palm Avenue and north of Yorba Linda Boulevard within the R-M-20 (Residential Multiple-Family 20) zone. (APN: 323-081-35).

PROJECT DATA
Project Address: 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
APN: 323-081-35
General Plan: Residential-Medium Low
Zoning: R-M-20 (Residential Multiple-Family 20)

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 2
Property Development Standards
Required Proposed
Front setback 20 feet 22 feet, 2 inches
Right side setback 20 feet cumulative 11 feet*
Left side setback 20 feet cumulative 5 feet, 11 inches* Rear setback 20 feet 23 feet
Building height
(max)
40 feet or 3
stories, whichever
is less.
35 feet, 3 stories
Parking 217 spaces 137 spaces*
Lot Coverage 65 percent 40 percent
Max Density 53 units 62 units*
*Allowed under California Density Bonus Law, as described further below.

BACKGROUND
Project Overview
The project area consists of one flag lot shaped parcel that contains a single-family dwelling and is approximately 2.65 acres in size. It is located east of Ohio Street, west of Palm Avenue and north of Yorba Linda Boulevard. The applicant, City Ventures, a residential housing developer, has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and Design Review to subdivide and develop the property to accommodate 62 for-sale, attached townhomes, on the subject property. As shown in the project plans (Attachment 1), the project will include 33 three-bedroom/three-bathroom units, and 29 fourbedroom/four-bathroom units within 12 separate three-story buildings. Each unit ranges in size from 1,363 square feet to 1,639 square feet and generally configured with ground level parking, a family room, kitchen/dining area, ground floor outdoor patios, and second floor balconies.

Architecturally, the project proposes a Mediterranean Revival style utilizing an earth-toned color palette with dark wood accents and a traditional red tile roof. Communal spaces include landscaped walking paths with benches and an outdoor dining shade structure with integrated outdoor barbeques, seating, and an open lawn area.

Of the 62 total units, four would be set aside for very low-income households and per State Density Bonus Law, the project is entitled to a 25% density bonus and the concessions and waivers authorized, including reduced parking requirements. The applicant is proposing waivers permitted under State Density Bonus Law for setbacks, landscaping, and perimeter wall heights. A total of 137 parking spaces are being proposed. The project is proposing a singular ingress and egress driveway to access the site from Yorba Linda Boulevard.

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 3
Figure 1: Rendering of one of the proposed townhome buildings.

Approval of the following specific discretionary actions is requested:

Tentative Tract Map 19389 – Subdivision of 2.65 acres into a single lot for condominium purposes for the development of a 62-unit townhome residential community.

Design Review 2025-02 – Design Review to consider the site planning and building architecture for the proposed residential development.

Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 – In any residential zone, a multi-story building closer than 70 feet to an existing single-family residence shall require approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. The Commission shall make findings that the project’s second and third story building areas, including decks, do not result in any significant loss of privacy for adjacent residences in a manner that would compromise the neighbors’ ability to obtain reasonable and enjoyable use of their property.

General Plan and Zoning Designations
The site was identified in the City’s adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element as a rezone site (S4-204B) to support Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) housing growth targets as mandated by the State of California. An adjacent one-acre parcel located at 19111 Yorba Lind Boulveard was also included as part of Site S4-204B, but is not included as part of this development proposal. A successful Measure B (Yorba Linda Right-To-Vote Amendment) vote was obtained to amend the zoning designation on the site from R-E (Residential Estate) to R-M-20 (Residential Multiple-Family 20) through Measure JJ in November 2024.

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 4
Surrounding Land Uses/Existing Conditions
The project site is generally bound by a horse trail easement and single-family residential uses to the north/northeast, Jessamyn West Park to the east, and a religious institution (the North County Chabad Center) to the west. The adjacent one-acre parcel, previously mentioned, is located to the southeast. The southern boundary of the project site is Yorba Linda Boulevard.

Density Bonus Eligibility & Affordable Housing Provision California State Density Bonus Law (described in Government Code 65915-65918) aims to encourage the development of affordable housing by offering qualifying projects increases to the maximum density established by a local jurisdiction. The actual amount of the density bonus is set on a sliding scale and is based upon the percentage of affordable units provided in the development at each income level (i.e., moderate income, low income, and very low income). The bonus ranges from a five percent increase to an 80 percent increase for projects which are completely affordable. State Density Bonus Law is mandated by the state, and projects that meet the requirements of the state law are entitled to receive the density bonus as a matter of right regardless of local regulations.

The project qualifies under State Density Bonus at seven percent with four affordable units total reserved for very low income (VLI) households. The table below describes the income levels associated with each of the affordability categories based on income level in relation to the current (2025) Area Median Income (AMI) level for the County:

Household
Size
Extremely
Low Income
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate Income
Above
Moderate
Income
4-person
AMI:
$136,600
Less than
$50,750
Up to
$84,600
Up to
$135,350
Up to
$163,900
Over
$163,900
Under California Density Bonus Law, the project is entitled to a 25 percent density bonus which equates to an additional 14 units above the 53-unit maximum allowed in the R-M-20 zone for a total of 67 units. However, the proposed project includes 62 units. The density bonus increase is a land use right granted by the State to promote affordable housing.

Development Standard Waivers
In addition to density bonuses, the State has determined that projects meeting affordability criteria are eligible for waivers or reductions of development standards that would physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density. There is no limit to the number of development standard waivers that an applicant may propose. The applicant’s letter (Attachment 3) has proposed development standard waivers for setbacks, landscaping requirements, and wall heights.

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 5
State Density Bonus Law Waivers
In exchange for four affordable units, the applicant proposes proposed and permitted under State Density Bonus Law:
1) To reduce the required 50-foot setback for buildings in any R-M zone, as measured from single family residences along the northern property line to 34 feet pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.10.100.A.1.
2) To reduce the required 20-foot cumulative side yard setback in the R-M-20 zone along the eastern and western property lines to 16 feet, 11 inches pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.10.100.A.1.
3) To reduce the 50 percent landscaping requirements for the building site area from 23,600 square feet to 9,900 square feet pursuant to Zoning Code Section

18.10.110.C.2.
4) To reduce the five-foot-wide screen landscaping buffer requirements between multifamily dwellings and single-family zones for the building site area, pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.10.110.D, to 2 feet, 4 inches at the western property line and 3 feet along the eastern property line.
5) To increase the perimeter wall heights from the maximum six-foot height, pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.10.130.B., to heights between nine and 12 feet.

The proposed waivers are required under California Density Bonus Law to facilitate affordable housing.

DISCUSSION
Tentative Tract Map 19389 and Design Review 2025-02
Municipal Code requirements pertaining to subdivisions (Tract Maps and/or Parcel Maps) are governed by the Subdivision Map Act (State of California Government Code § 66410 – 66499.58), and Title 17 (Subdivisions of Land) of the Yorba Linda Municipal Code.

Furthermore, all subdivision maps shall comply with the provisions of the City Zoning Code, and all other ordinances, statutes and laws pertaining to the use, sale, leasing or subdivision of land.

Tentative Tract Map 19389 proposes to subdivide 2.65 acres into a single lot for condominium purposes for the development of a 62-unit townhome residential project. Individual unit ownership within a condominium is construed as ownership of only the interior air space confining the boundaries of the dwelling. Each unit owner within a condominium development also owns a divided interest in any common areas within the community. Each unit owner also is represented as a member of a homeowner’s association with responsibility for maintaining

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 6
common areas, as well as other community assets, such as the exterior portions of buildings, site lighting and parking lots, swimming pool, clubhouse, and other amenities.

Access and Circulation
Access to the development is proposed via a singular ingress and egress driveway access to the site from Yorba Linda Blvd., and a “hammerhead” style turnaround for emergency vehicles.

The proposed entry road would lead into the center of the site providing driveway access to the branched drive aisles for the first level garages serving the townhomes within the project.

The entry road would include a decorative entryway paving treatment and landscaped nodes at either side to create an attractive entry.

Grading and Drainage
The topography of the site naturally flows in a southwesterly direction with an elevation drop of approximately 20 feet from the northeast corner to the southwest corner with a 2.6% slope.

The grading activities for development of the proposed project include an approximate cut of 12,880 cubic yards (CY) of soil and a fill of 2,702 CY of soil totaling a net export of 10,178 CY of soil. The proposed cut is to reduce the overall finished pad elevations for the site to increase privacy to the adjoining properties which staff is in support of. Further, staff has conditioned that the precise grading plan be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading permits, and if for any reason the amount of cut or fill is significantly increased staff will require review and approval by the Planning Commission.

The Project’s proposed drainage system would be divided into two drainage areas, one to convey on-site flows via biofiltration system located beneath the drive aisle for treatment and the other to convey existing off-site flows. An underground storm drain system and detention pipe would feed runoff into a proposed storm water sump pump that would discharge at predevelopment flow rates prior to off-site flow into the parkway drain. The project would not result in substantial changes to the existing drainage pattern of the site.

Traffic
As previously noted, this project site was one of 18 housing sites evaluated in the 2021- 2029 Housing Element and Implementation Programs. A Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”) and subsequent Addendum were prepared to address the environmental impacts associated with the Housing Element, In approving the Housing Element and certifying the PEIR and Addendum, and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15093, et al., the City made written findings and adopted statements of overriding considerations wherein it was demonstrated and substantiated that the benefits of the Housing Element and related actions would outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts under the topical areas noted above.

The PEIR utilized a traffic analysis evaluated impacts to existing traffic conditions (i.e., level of service) under two scenarios—with and without the “project” or build-out of the 18 housing

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 7
sites described in the Housing Element. One of the 21 study area intersections is located near the proposed project: Ohio Street and Yorba Linda Boulevard. The traffic analysis found that intersection currently operates at an acceptable level of service and would remain operating at an acceptable level of service with build-out of the 18 Housing Element sites.

This project’s focused Traffic Impact Analysis (Attachment 6), prepared by EPD Solutions (the applicant’s consulting traffic engineers), conducted updated traffic counts at the intersection at Palm Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard. The study indicated that traffic impacts associated with the project will not exceed the levels as evaluated in the Housing Element PEIR. Further, the project has been reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineering Manager.

Parking
Pursuant to State law, applicants are entitled to alternative parking requirements for a housing development that is eligible for a density bonus:

Required Parking for 3-Bedroom and 4-Bedroom Units
(Alternative Parking Standards)
Number of Bedrooms On-Site Parking Spaces Required
3-Bedroom 1.5 space
4-Bedroom 2.5 spaces
Guest 0 spaces
Based upon the number of bedrooms provided within the proposed dwelling units, 122 parking spaces are required. State law allows a reduction of required parking spaces from 217 spaces to 137 spaces.

Required Project Parking
(Alternative Parking Standards)
Number of
Bedrooms
Units Required Rate Required
Parking
Three 33 1.5 space 49.5
Four 29 2.5 spaces 72.5
Total Required 122
Total Provided 137
As reflected on the site plan, 124 of the spaces are proposed within the first-floor garages at a rate of two garage spaces per townhouse. An additional 13 guest spaces are located along the center of the site with design considerations made pertaining to accessible parking, electric vehicle parking, and turnaround for emergency vehicles.

Staff directed the applicant to conduct a parking demand analysis (Attachment 9) due to the parking supply not meeting the Municipal Code requirements and concern with potential

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 8
overflow parking issues on the surrounding streets and public park. The report, prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc.(the applicant’s consulting traffic engineers), concludes that the proposed project provides sufficient parking to meet the parking demands for the project .

The applicant has provided a parking compliance memo (Attachment 8) to provide additional information and a market-based justification for the project. The applicant has provided a comparison of five other similar-sized City Ventures-built projects located in the Los Angeles Metro area. It states a 2.21 space per unit parking ratio for this project is comparable and exceeds the average 2.19 spaces per unit for their similar sized projects. The applicant has cited their knowledge of the regional housing market as additional validation that the proposed development is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated parking demand.

In a further effort to ensure sufficient parking is provided for the proposed project, the applicant has agreed to require homeowners to preserve availability of garage parking spaces for the parking of operable vehicles only, since alternative garage uses, such as storage of personal goods, could potentially lower the ability of the project to adequately meet parking demand.

Therefore, through the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), the use of dedicated covered resident parking for personal storage or any use other than for the parking of motor vehicles will be prohibited. Staff has included a condition of approval to require quarterly garage inspections to be included in the CC&Rs. These practices will provide additional safeguards for the community to prevent overflow parking issues in the surrounding area.

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 9
Noise
In general, construction activities on the project site would increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity on an intermittent but temporary basis. Noise levels during construction would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between the noise source and receptors (i.e., neighboring residences in the vicinity), and the presence or absence of barriers between the noise source and receptors. Staff notes that construction-related noise is exempt from the City’s noise control ordinance, provided that certain time and day restrictions are observed (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter

8.32.090 and Title 15, Chapter 15.48.010).

The PEIR identified that the application of mitigation measures (which replicates the above provision of the Municipal Code and adds reasonable noise-reduction techniques) would reduce construction-related noise impacts below a level of significance. This mitigation measure would be applied to the proposed project. Staff has also included a condition of approval reiterating allowable construction hours and emphasizing the sensitivity of this issue to surrounding neighboring residents.

Upon completion, the use of the proposed townhome condominium development would not generate significant noise levels. Typical noise levels from ingress and egress of vehicles, routine property maintenance activities, and other noise sources common to a residential community would be expected.

Public Infrastructure
Implementation of the proposed project will result in additional demand for existing public services, including demand for fire and police services. However, as concluded in the Housing Element PEIR, this increased demand can be accommodated by existing service levels, and therefore would have less than a significant impact. Additionally, the increase in demand for the utilities, i.e., water, gas, power, and sewer, can be accommodated by existing service levels as there is sufficient capacity to serve the project site under present conditions. Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) has provided a will-serve letter for the proposed project confirming availability of sufficient water supply to serve the project.

In addition, Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) has reviewed the proposed site plan for fire/emergency access and did not identify any significant issues of concern that would prevent further submittals to OCFA subsequent to any approval of the project granted by the City. OCFA has suggested applicable standard conditions of approval, which staff has included in the attached resolutions.

The Housing Element PEIR analyzed the number of additional students that may result from implementation of the Housing Element, which included future residential development on the project site. The need for additional school services is addressed by compliance with school impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50. Therefore, to address the increase in

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 10
enrollment at PYLUSD schools, the project applicant would be required to pay school impact fees to reduce any impacts on the school system.

The proposed project will contribute to the need for additional park facilities in the general area; however, this impact will be fully mitigated through the payment of park fees required by the City. Moreover, the project includes an outdoor dining terrace and open space features that may offset the increased demand for public recreation facilities to some extent.

Architecture and Site Plan
Pursuant to Section 18.36.100 of the Zoning Code, the applicant is requesting approval of site planning and architectural design for the proposed townhouse community. To provide objective-based architectural guidance to the development community and in order to ensure that proposed multi-family residential development is consistent with Yorba Linda’s community values and character, the City Council adopted the Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines (“Guidelines”). The design policies contained in the Guidelines are a key tool for evaluating project proposals and aim to expedite the review process by clearly stating the community’s expectations in terms of design quality for multi-family residential development and serve as additional written objective development standards for multifamily residential development. Staff has evaluated the project and determined that it is consistent with the goals and policies of the Guidelines, including:

Guideline 2.2 – Appropriate Architectural Styles
Guideline 2.6 – Building Form
These Guidelines describe appropriate architectural styles for multi-family and identify Mediterranean Revival architecture as a preferred style. The proposed design includes a variety of materials and architectural details that are consistent with the style, including a combination of stucco, stone veneer and metal accents, Spanish tile roofing, wood railings, and decorative window shutters. Other encouraged architectural elements that are incorporated into the proposed design include: dark wood and metal embellishments, earthen tones, smooth stucco, exposed wood, gabled roofs, patios, tall/narrow windows, recessed garages and entryways, decorative vents, and wood trellis.

Figure 2: Proposed Typical Front Elevation

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 11
Guideline 2.3 – Lot Layout and Site Planning
Guideline 2.4 – Buffers and Transitions
Guideline 2.5 – Privacy
These Guidelines encourage multi-family developments to provide a variety of product types, provide a mix of private and communal open space, utilize open space to break up the building mass, and consider compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Consistent with these Guidelines, the proposed design includes a mix of three- and four-bedroom townhomes with private, outward facing patios and balconies across twelve buildings.

Shared open spaces are also provided for residents with an outdoor BBQ and open lawn and pedestrian walking paths.

Regarding compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, the property is surrounded by single-family residences to the north, east, and south. The North County Chabad Center is located to the west and Jessamyn Park to the west. These public and semipublic uses act as a buffer for other nearby residential uses. Likewise, a mature tree canopy located along the majority of the park boundary provides additional screening of the site for the neighborhood. In their respective locations, the townhome buildings are approximately 93 feet away from the closest single-family residence to the west, 79 feet away from residence to the east, 59 feet away from the residence to the south, and 42 feet away from the residence to the north. Due to the flag lot shape of the project site, the majority of the site buildings would not be visible from the public right of way. The project entry has also included enhanced paving to help provide an aesthetic transition from the street to the main drive aisle.

The proposed landscape plan (Sheet L-7) shows the perimeter of the site will be planted with various trees to provide screening between the project area and the closest residential neighbors to promote enhanced privacy. The grouping of trees is the densest at the northern and southern boundaries due to the proximity to those residences. Finally, the project grading plans show the finished pad elevations of the building will be situated four to eight feet lower than the pad elevation of residences to the south and north, thereby reducing the structure’s appearance of mass and bulk and promoting privacy between neighbors.

Guideline 2.12 – Outdoor Lighting
This Guideline promotes effective lighting that provides safety and direction for vehicles and pedestrians while enhancing architectural building and landscape details. Decorative and shielded light fixtures are encouraged while minimizing glare or spillover onto adjacent properties. The proposed lighting plan (Sheets ES1-3) includes LED streetlights, bollards, and sconce lighting. The proposed streetlights are decorative in nature with a gooseneck design and located along the central drive aisle provide safe illumination for vehicles and pedestrians. The lighting element is shielded and directed downward, and the project photometric plan shows 0.0 footcandles at the property line due to the design and the perimeter walls. The majority of the light fixtures, including bollards and sconces, are located

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 12
within the interior along walkways, patios, and garage to illuminate the proposed walking path and communal areas.

Guideline 2.17 – Amenities
This Guideline requires multi-family developments to provide on-site amenities that are proportionate in scale and number with the project, be centrally located for the majority of residents, and accommodate a range of ages. Consistent with this Guideline, the proposed project includes landscaped walking paths with benches and a covered outdoor BBQ terrace. A tree-lined recreation lawn and picnic tables are also provided. Due to the waiver for reduced open space the on-site amenities are not as robust as desired by staff. However, the project’s proximity to Jessamyn West Park offers access to direct recreational amenities such as recreational courts, open fields, covered gazebo with seating, and play structures that exceed what most multi-family residential communities are able to offer on-site.

Common facilities such as guest parking, mailboxes, and trash facilities are centrally located and accessible to the majority of residents.

Landscaping and Walls
The submitted concept landscape plan provides a preliminary palette of trees, groundcover, and shrubs for the parking lot and other common areas. The site will include 40 trees located along the perimeter of the site. To increase privacy for adjacent properties to the north and south, the perimeter of the site will be landscaped with a continuous row of screen/vertical and shade trees, such as Brisbane Box, Magnolia, and Chinese Elm, which can reach up to 40 feet in height at maturity. The guest parking, recreation lawn, and drive aisle will feature a mix of accent trees, such as Western Redbud and Little Gem Magnolia. The private patio trees will offer the same. Staff is supportive of the preliminary landscape plan but has included standard conditions of approval requiring the applicant to obtain approval of final landscape and irrigation plans from the City Landscape Architect prior to installation of plant materials or issuance of an occupancy permit. All landscaping within the project is also required to be constantly maintained by a homeowner’s association to ensure long-term viability.

As depicted on the preliminary wall and fence plan (Sheet L-4) and Tentative Tract Map, the applicant proposes to construct a slump stone block retaining wall along the northern, eastern, and western boundary of the project site. The tan-colored wall contains accent bands and decorative pilasters for aesthetic purposes. Due to proposed grading differences with neighboring properties, the applicant has proposed a State Density Bonus waiver to allow for retaining wall heights that exceed zoning code standards. However, most of these walls impose the additional height as viewed from within the site. Overall, staff believes the proposed wall and fence plan is satisfactory and enhances privacy for adjacent neighbors.

Furthermore, the perimeter walls have been reviewed for adequate sight distance by Public Works Engineering at the proposed driveway to ensure safe ingress and egress at the project entry.

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 13
Conditional Use Permit 2025-10
Upper-level Stories and Decks
Section 18.10.100.B of the Zoning Code requires the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission for two-story construction that is located within seventy feet (70’) of an existing single-family residence. A total of 12 of the 62 proposed units would be located within seventy feet (70’) of an adjacent single-family residence. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that proposed two-story construction does not result in any significant loss of privacy on adjacent residences such that it would compromise the neighbors’ ability to obtain reasonable and enjoyable use of their properties. Additionally, this section of the code aims to ensure architectural compatibility and, in the case of second-story room additions, architectural integration. Similarly, Section 18.10.120.I of the code also requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for upper-level balconies and decks.

Therefore, staff has reviewed the project for potential view and privacy impacts associated with the proposed construction included on the proposed three-story structure. Since the main issue of concern with new, two-story homes is the potential for privacy impact to neighboring residences, staff limits the scope of review in this section to this particular issue.

The question of architectural compatibility for the development was already addressed in detail in the design review analysis.

As reflected on the adjacent resident exhibit (Sheet A1.20), eight of the units in Buildings 8 and 9 would have upper-level windows and balconies within 70 feet and as close as 42 feet from the residence located at 19030 Lynn Lane. The front elevation windows and balconies will both provide direct views into the rear yards and home from the new town homes.

However, the applicant has proposed to reduce the privacy impacts by planting a row of screen trees along the northern property line and grading the site to reduce the building pad heights by 4 to 8 feet. In review of the screening attributes of the proposed trees along the northern property line, staff believes that those trees will help impede views of the project from the existing residence and mitigate privacy impact concerns on those properties.

Figure 3: Proposed north elevation of Building 9.

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 14
Similarly, the closest units in Buildings 3 and 12 would have upper-level windows within 53- 59 feet of the residence located at 19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard. Building 3 has one unit with windows within 70 feet from one unit whereas Building 12 would have 3 units within 59-70 feet. The viewshed from Building 3 would be from the side whereas Building 12’s front elevation faces towards the rear yard of the adjacent home. Building 3 is buffered by the intervening main drive aisle and the proposed screen trees at the shared side property line.

Therefore, staff believes the privacy impacts in this direction are minimized to the greatest extent possible.

Due to the orientation, distance, and presence of balconies, the potential for privacy impacts is greater for Building 12. However, the presence of intervening trees in this area, both proposed and existing, will provide the necessary mitigation for views. The proposed grading plan also indicated a finished pad height 3 feet less than existing grade for this building.

Furthermore, the site layout has been planned to allow for the greatest distance feasible in relation to this single-family residence given the 20-foot setback. Given these efforts, staff believes the privacy impacts are being minimized
As shown on the project floor plans and elevations (Sheets A2.00-A3.11), each townhome includes second floor decks between 61-93 square feet in size. For the large majority of the buildings, i.e., Buildings 1-7 and 10-12, these decks are either oriented inward towards the interior of the project site or at a great enough distance from adjacent properties that privacy impacts are minimal. As previously mentioned, given the height, orientation, and proximity to neighboring residences, staff believes there is potential for view and privacy impacts from the second-story balconies on Buildings 8,9, and 12 to the north and south. However, the viewsheds provided from the balconies are the same or less as the associated second and third-story windows on these buildings. Furthermore, the recessed nature of the decks on the elevation and the presence of corner columns and wing walls reduces the viewshed from the decks, Therefore, staff believes the aforementioned mitigation measures (screen trees and grading pad height) for these particular buildings in addition to the deck design will minimize the privacy impacts.

For these reasons, staff believes the proposed upper-level construction design is sensitive to its environment, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and would not compromise a neighboring property owner’s ability to obtain reasonable and enjoyable use of their property.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION This project site was one of 18 housing sites evaluated in the 2021-2029 Housing Element and Implementation Programs. A Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”) was prepared for the Housing Element and certified by the City Council on August 2, 2022 (State Clearinghouse No. 2022040574). PEIRs generally analyze broad environmental effects of the program with the acknowledgement that future development may require further sitespecific environmental review. The PEIR found three potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Housing Element,

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 15
specifically related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. Accordingly, in approving the Housing Element and certifying the PEIR, and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15093, et al., the City made written findings and adopted statements of overriding considerations wherein it was demonstrated and substantiated that the benefits of the Housing Element and related actions would outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts under the topical areas noted above. Following an unsuccessful ballot measure vote under the requirements of Measure B (Yorba Linda RightTo-Vote Amendment), the City revised the Housing Element to reflect residents’ concerns and recommendations.

The City also prepared an Addendum to the previously certified PEIR to evaluate the changes. It found the revised Housing Element would neither result in any significant impacts to the physical environment nor result in substantial increases in the severity of the impacts that were not already disclosed in the previously certified PEIR impacts. The PEIR and subsequent Addendum prepared for the revised Housing Element were certified by the City Council in June 2024, and a successful Measure B ballot measure vote was obtained in November the same year.

The proposed project is a subsequent activity within the program covered by the PEIR and Addendum. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment beyond those effects identified in the PEIR and Addendum, since all potential environmental impacts associated with the project are within or below the scope of and were adequately analyzed in the PEIR and Addendum. All of the mitigation measures contained within the Program EIR and Addendum, which are fully applicable to the currently proposed project, will mitigate the impacts associated with the project to insignificant levels.

Furthermore, a CEQA consistency analysis was completed by the applicant which determined the proposed project does not involve new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of the previously identified effects. As a result, the project does trigger the need to prepare supplemental environmental documents as it is consistent with the existing PEIR.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
On October 27, 2025, at the recommendation of staff, the applicant held a community meeting at the Yorba Linda Community Center. A community outreach mailer was sent to all residents within 500 feet of the project site. The meeting was attended by staff, the applicant, and approximately 40 residents. The applicant has provided a response letter addressing the issues raised at this meeting (Attachment 4).

Since this matter is a public hearing, all surrounding properties within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were sent public hearing notices for the project. As of this writing, staff has received written correspondence from four adjacent residents expressing concerns related to the number of dwelling units proposed, potential for privacy impacts, traffic,

Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 16
parking, and construction-related impacts. The applicant has informed staff that they have been working closely with any residents that have raised issues to attempt to address their concerns. An update on this outreach will be provided at the Planning Commission meeting.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map 19389, with conditions.

2. Approve, by minute motion, Design Review 2025-02, with conditions.

3. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, with conditions.

ATTACHMENTS
1) Project Plans
2) Vicinity Map
3) Applicant Narrative Letter
4) Community Meeting Response
5) Public Correspondence
Traffic & Parking
6) Traffic Impact Analysis
7) Traffic Impact Analysis Appendices
8) Parking Compliance Memo
9) Parking Demand Analysis Memo
10) Level of Service Screening Memo
Environmental
11) Environmental Analysis
12) Project Geotechnical Report
13) Phase I Report
14) Phase II Report
15) Preliminary Hydrology Report
16) Preliminary WQMP
17) Project GHG Report
18) Project Biological Resources Assessment
19) Noise & Vibration Analysis
Resolutions and Conditions
20) Tentative Tract Map 19389 Resolution, with conditions 21) Conditions of Approval for Design Review 2025-02
22) CUP 2025-10 Resolution with Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval

Mayor Janice Lim
City of Yorba Linda
4845 Casa Loma Drive
Yorba Linda , CA 92886
Dear Mayor Lim,
I am writing as a long time resident of Yorba Linda-having lived here 63 years on equestrian zoned property and as someone deeply concerned with preserving the character, safety, and sense of community that our city has offered for decades.

Over the years our neighborhood has remained a place where horses, riders, cyclists and families can feel reasonably safe and enjoy the open, rural – equestrian atmosphere. That is one of the very reasons that we chose to make our home here and stay here for 63 years.

Recently, the proposed development at 19801 Yorba Linda Blvd ( 62 units on 2.6 acres) has caused significant concern among residents of our immediate community. As you know, the base zoning density for RM-20 would permit about 20 units per acre, or roughly 52 units in this case.

The jump to 62 units seems to rely on the inclusion of just three affordable housing units-thus triggering the state – density bonus loop. While providing affordable, housing is laudable , it concerns us when that mechanism is used to significantly increase density in an established equestrian neighborhood without what feels like adequate neighborhood– specific safeguards.

In addition to density concerns, there are community safety issues that I respectfully ask you to consider:
• Since the opening of Bastanchury Road to all of the housing on the hill, our neighborhoods north of Jessamyn West Park has become a frequent cut-through during the morning and evening commutes. The traffic volumes have already increased and for our neighborhood- without sidewalks by design so that the horses and riders can pass safely- the change has been markedly unsafe.
• The right turn movement heading
west on YL Blvd is already hazardous as drivers accelerate down, then back up the hill past the park and synagogue, moving too quickly. At certain times of the day the suns glare reduces visibility which makes it already difficult to see when cars exit the park and synagogue.

The glaring sun is an issue going east as well. Adding an additional 62-124 cars- exiting and possibly shooting across lanes to U-turn simply makes no sense. The developers are saying there will be “ right turn only ingress/egress. Adding high-density traffic in to our existing environment …and the risk multiplies. We simply do not have the infrastructure for this proposed plan. • Our equestrian, walking and cycling lifestyle depends on lower-traffic conditions and safe, shared space. The larger-scale development proposed threatens the very aspects of our neighborhood that makes it unique and keeps it safe.

Mayor Lim, your stated commitment to preserving the charm and beauty of Yorba Linda is something we hold dear. For many of us, that charm is deeply tied to the equestrian history, the open feel, the safe and slower paced roads. Approving a high density project of this

magnitude without strong mitigation of traffic and equestrian impacts, risks eroding that Yorba Linda charm.

Our community has many long – time residents, and I can tell you that there is unanimous opposition among our neighbors, friends, family in this area. We fully plan to attend the hearings to voice our concerns.

But, I also hope that we can work constructively with your office and city staff to ensure that any development here reflects both our housing needs and the unique nature of our surrounding neighborhoods.

Thank you for your service to our community and for hearing me out. I appreciate your consideration and time.

I have also Cc’d all YL City Council Members on this.

All the best,
Stephanie Ruppe
4751 Palm Ave.

Yorba Linda CA 92886

Outlook

MEETING REQUEST
From Brian Scharr <[email protected]>
Date Fri 7/18/2025 9:21 AM
To Chris Dominguez <[email protected]>; Gabriel Diaz <[email protected]> Hello Chris and Gabe.

My name is Brian Scharr. My wife Cindi and I live @ 19030 Lynn Lane here in Yorba Linda.

We are requesting a meeting with one or both of you to discuss some very serious concerns we have in regards to the proposed development at 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.

Please let me know what your schedules look like the week of 7/28. We would/could be available that week any day except Monday the 28th.

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
Brian Scharr
Shelf Appeal
714-312-8444 | [email protected]
www.shelfappealpkg.com

Outlook
City Ventures Proposed High Density Residential Project From Vawter, Matthew <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/30/2025 8:17 AM
To Chris Dominguez <[email protected]>
Hi Chris,
I am a resident in less than 500’ from the proposed City Ventures project at Yorba Linda and Ohio Street who is interested in the project review/approval process, technical study review, and related items. I believe that the proposed 3 story high density residential project could have significant impacts to the community traffic (VMT/Trip Gen), noise, ghg, infrastructure and related CEQA analysis.

How can I plug into the status to review the documents and to be notified of the upcoming public hearings?
Is the counter open tomorrow Friday October 31
st or should I come in Monday morning? Is it better to
schedule an appointment Monday morning?
Please advise.

Your help is greatly appreciated!
Matthew
Matthew Vawter
Vice President ‑ District Manager
T 562-948-4395
[email protected]
www.CommerceLP.com
13191 Crossroads Parkway North, 6th Floor, City of Industry, CA, 91746 Contractor License #'s: AZ: ROC117720 Class: B‑1 | CA: 723302 Aurora, CO: CL | FL: CGC1535970 | GA: GCQA008807 | OR: 212122 | NV: 0042911 LOS ANGELES • ATLANTA • AUSTIN • BETHLEHEM • DALLAS / FT. WORTH DENVER • LAREDO • LAS VEGAS • PHOENIX • PORTLAND

Lee and Andrea Burrows
19205 PALM VISTA, YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA 92886
TELEPHONE / 7r4.8t2.8402 EMAIL / [email protected] ilr itl lllli }ij-lt
NOv 1 0 ?"0?5
November 10,2025
Via Enail and Personal Delivery
p I an n in s(Av o r b al in d a c a s ov
L3y
AYln
Yorba Linda Planning Commission
City of Yorba Linda
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Yorba Linda, California 92886
Re: 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, California
Subject: Objection and Request for Continuance - Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, Tentative Tract Map 19389, and Design Review 2025-02 (City Ventures - 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.) To the Honorable Chairperson and the Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

Please be advised that this correspondence is being provided to the Yorba Linda Planning Commission on behalf of Lee and Andrea Burrows, Mark and Melissa Breiter, Sean and Randi Forge, Brandon &Liza Huynh, and Aaron Adams. We are long-time Yorba Linda residents who have lived at 19205 Palm Vista for more than22 years, l92l0 Falm Vista for more than 30 years, 19220 Palm Vista for about 7 years,19195 Palm Vista for 13 years, and 19175 Palm Vista for 7 years (but a Yorba Linda resident for 45 years) respectively. We are writing to object to and request a continuance of the hearing currently scheduled for November 1212025, at 6:30 p.m. regarding the proposed City Ventures high-density residential development at 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.

1. Insufficient Notice and Request for Continuance
We received the notice of hearing by personal delivery on November 8,2025, only four (4) calendar days before the scheduled hearing.r Given the complexity and scope of this project - proposing 62 multi-story townhome units ona2.6-acre parcel within a single-family residential neighborhood - this short notice period does not provide adequate time for local residents to meaningfully review the plans and other related documents or submit informed comments.2 We r1 The Notice of Hearing that was delivered (with a print date of Novemb er 7,2025) indicates thatit was mailed to "Property Owners", but the "Property Owners" and/or their addresses are not listed. z1 This lack ofpropernotice raises substantial due process concerns. Further, it appears that a1,700 page Agenda for the November 12,2025 meeting was only recently posted on the City's website. There is simply insufficient time to review such a substantial "agetrda" to be able to 19205 Palm Vista, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 .714.812.8402 . [email protected] n
u

() (^,
Yorba Linda Planning Commission
City of Yorba Linda
R:e: 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, Califtrnia
Subject: Objection and Request for Continuance - Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, Tentative Tract Map 19389, and Design Review 2025-02 (City Ventures - 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.) November 10,2025
Page2
therefore respectfully request that the Planning Commission continue the hearing for at least 30 days and direct staff to provide complete project documentation to the undersigned, including the traffic impact analysis, parking study, and CEQA-related materials or make such documentation immediately available for review.

2. Zonins and Densitv Inconsistencies
The City of Yorba Linda's ("Yorba Linda" or "City") 202I-2029 Housing Element and the February 23,2024 Amendment identiff the relevant parcels for potential residential development as 19081-191l1 YorbaLinda Blvd., totaling 3.9 acres. Those parcels are now designated R-M20 (Residential Medium Density 20 units per acre). The Housing Element analysis indicates that the realistic development potential for the combined 3.9 acres is approximately 66 units, not the maximum theoretical 78 units.3 However, City Ventures owns only 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd. (2.6 acres) and is not developing the adjoining 19111 parcel (1.3 acres). Applying the same density and'orealistic capacity" factors proportionally, the maximum realistic density for the development of 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd. would be approximately {@!!q, not the 62 units currently proposed.

Accordingly, the proposed 62-unit development substantially exceeds the permissible and realistic density for the property. Approval of this project atthat level would effectively grant a density increase not authorized under Measure JJ or existing zoning without a corresponding density bonus agteement that satisfies the strict statutory requirements of Government Code $ 6s91s.

We respectfully request that City staff and the Commission re-examine the density calculations and confirm that the project complies with the R-M-20 zoning designation and the assumptions used in the City's certified Housing Element EIR.

3. Traffic. Parking. and Safetv Concerns
Under Yorba Linda Municipal Code $ 18.10.090, projects within the R-M-20 zone must provide in relevant part:
3* bedroom units: one covered space, one uncovered space, and 1.5 guest spaces per unit.
a
For a 62-unit project consisting primarily of 3- and 4-bedroom units, this equates to approximately 217 required spaces (including 93 guest spaces). The current proposal provides fully analyze, address or respond to matters raised in the posted Agenda or any findings made therein. t1 About l5% below the maximum theoretical density of 78 units. 19205 Palm Vista, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 .714.812.8402 . [email protected] Page 1881 of 2028 (-l .l
Yorba Linda Planning Commission
City of Yorba Linda
R:e: 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, California
Subject: Objection and Request for Continuance - Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, Tentative Tract Map 19389, and Design Review 2025-02 (City Ventures - 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.) November 10,2025

only two covered spaces per unit (124 total) and l3 guest spaces, resulting in a shortfall of about 80 parking spaces, or nearly 40o% below code requirements.4 This deficiency will inevitably lead to overflow parking onto nearby residential streets, which lack sidewalks and have no permit parking system in place, and at the parking lot of the adjacent park, Jessamyn West. These impacts are foreseeable, significant, and unmitigated, making project approval inconsistent with City parking standards and CEQA's requirement to analyze traffic and safety impacts.

Further, the single driveway providing ingress and egress directly onto Yorba Linda Blvd. creates a significant traffic safety hazard,,particularly given the absence of a traffic signal and the high-speed flow of traffic althatlocation.s A current, formal traffic impact analysis should be required and made available to local residents for review and comment before the Planning Commission considers approval.

4. Heisht. Scale. Privacy and Neishborhood Comnatibili8 The proposed three-story buildings are inconsistent with the predominantly one- and two-story structures in the surrounding neighborhood, which include single-family homes, churches, and small retail centers. The visual and aesthetic impact of this project would substantially alter the character of this portion of Yorba Linda and should therefore be carefully reconsidered, including the appropriateness of the R-M-20 zoningof 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard.

Also, the project's proposed three-story townhomes will tower over adjacent single-story and two-story homes, creating significant privacy intrusions into backyards and windows that have, for decades, enjoyed reasonable seclusion. California courts have recognizedthat privacy and neighborhood character are legitimate planning considerations that cities should address. (See, t1 The current proposal of 13 guest parking spaces only accounts for about 20Yo of the units, meaning that only 20o/o of the units can have I guest (i.e. 1 "car") park in the project before all available guest parking is exhausted. That lack of guest parking alone for the number of proposed units is problematic, especially where the issue is likely to be exacerbated during special occasions, like holidays, when people tend to have more than 1 guest or 1 family over to their residence. This proposed limited amount of guest parking spaces also assumes that the guest parking will not be used for owner overflow parking (where owners and their families have more than 2 carc), and that the 13 spaces will always be available to "guests". s1 An additional problem exists where vehicles exiting the proposed driveway can only turn right onto Yorba Linda Boulevard (turning west), and that location is also subject to hours of intense, direct sunlight, particularly during early morning hours headed east and during sunset heading west. The often-blinding light serves as another potential hazard to commuters heading west on Yorba Linda Boulevard and to anyone exiting the proposed driveway without an active traffic signal.
19205 Palm Vista, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 . 714.812.8402 . [email protected]

a _\ (^,
Yorba Linda Planning Commission
City of Yorba Linda
R:e: 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, Califurnia
Subject: Objection and Request for Continuance - Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, Tentative Tract Map 19389, and Design Review 2025-02 (City Ventures - 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.) November 10,2025

e.g., Desmond v. County of Contra Costa (1993) 2l Cal.App.4th330,336 [compatibility with surrounding uses is a valid CEQA and zoning consideration].) In sum, the proposed height and density are inconsistent with the visual character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood and such a development, as proposed, would fundamentally alter the residential fabric of the area.

As noted on the City of Yorba Linda's website, "This milestone [the approval of Measure JJ] allows the City to meet its housing obligations while safeguarding local control over land use decisions. The City will maintain its ability to: Protect open space; Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods; Retain local control over land use decisions and housing projects (including design and zoning) in Yorba Linda; Mitigate traffic concerns; and Create opportunities for small businesses in a new downtown experience at Savi Ranch."6 [Emphasis addedl.

5. Noise and Population Density Impacts
The proposed density of approximately 62 units on 2.6 acres, housing a conservative estimate of 180 to 200 or more residents, is vastly gteater than the surrounding single-family neighborhoods, where the median size of the local parcels is about 9,174 square feet. The increase in population density will inevitably lead to higher ambient noise, more vehicle trips, and a loss of neighborhood quiet enjoyment.T No evidence has been provided that the City or City Ventures has properly evaluated or mitigated these impacts.

CEQA Objection and Challenge to Claimed Statutory Exemption (Gov. Code $ 65457',)
The hearing notice states that the project is "subject to a Statutory Exemption (Government Code $65457) under the previously certified 2021-2029 Housing Element EIR and Addendum (SCH No.2022040574)." While we recognizethat Government Code $65457 allows certain residential projects consistent with a specific plan or zoningprogram EIR to be exempt from additional CEQA review, the exemption only applies where the project is fully consistent with the development density, intensity, and policies analyzed in that prior EIR. That is not the case here.

Thus, we object to the City's proposed reliance on a statutory exemption under Governrnent Code $ 65457 (referencing the previously certified 2021-2029 Housing Element Environmental Impact Report and Addendum, SCH No. 2022040574). The exemption does not apply to the proposed project at 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd. for several reasons:
e t hftps://www.yorbalindaca.govlg0TllVleasure-JJ-Yorba-Linda-Local-Control-Res t1 Not including the disruption to traffic on Yorba Linda Boulevard and the elevated noise levels that construction of such a scale will inevitably bring to this part of Yorba Linda. 19205PalmVista, Yorba Linda, CA 92886.714.812.8402. [email protected]

6.

)-
Yorba Linda Planning Commission
City of Yorba Linda
R:e: 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, Califurnia
Subject: Objection and Request for Continuance - Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, Tentative Tract Map 19389, and Design Review 2025-02 (City Ventures - 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.) November 10,2025

A. The project exceeds the intensity analyzed in the certified EIR.

The Housing Element EIR identified the combined properties at 19081-1911I Yorba Linda Blvd. (totaling approximately 3.9 acres) as suitable for a realistic residential capacity of about 66 units, assuming both parcels were developed together.

The current proposal seeks 62 units on only the 2.6 .-acre portion (19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.), thereby increasing the development density by nearly 40o/o over what was contemplated and analyzed in the EIR. This increased intensity, when coupled with 3-story building heights and limited setbacks, introduces substantially greater environmental impacts, including traffic congestion, parking shortages, noise, and privacy intrusions, that were not analyzed in the previously certified EIR.

B. The project creates new site-specific impacts not previously addressed.

The EIR did not evaluate the effects of a high-density, three-story townhome development with a single narrow ingress/egress driveway directly onto Yorba Linda Boulevard without a signalized intersection. This raises significant traffic safety, circulation, and emergency access concerns. Further, the proposed structures will tower above adjacent one- and two-story single-family homes, causing direct privacy intrusions and potential noise conflicts in a low-density residential area. These are new and significant effects requiring additional CEQA analysis under CEQA Guidelines g Ist62(a)(2).

C. The exemption cannot be used where substantial changes or new information exists.

Under CEQA Guidelines $ 15162, the City must prepare a supplemental or subsequent EIR if substantial changes in the project or its circumstances result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously identified. Because this project compresses nearly the same number of units analyzed across 3.9 acres onto just 2.6 acres, it constitutes a substantial change in density and intensity of use. Accordingly, the $ 65457 exemption is inapplicable.

D. The City must not approve or rely on the exemption until a full record and analysis is made public.

The CEQA Guidelines require that the City provides the basis for its exemption determination and the supporting documentation for public review prior to approval. As of this writing, no such documentation or updated environmental analysis has been made available to the public or adjoining property owners.s
For these reasons, we again respectfully request that the Planning Commission continue the November 12,2025 hearing to a later date to allow the public and affected property owrers a reasonable opportunity to review all environmental documentation, including any traffrc, a1 The most recent dates of the environmental reports made available by the City for 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard are April 2022 for the Phase I Report and July 2022 for the Phase 2 Report.
19205 Palm Vista, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 .714.812.8402 . [email protected]

,.l a
Yorba Linda Planning Commission
City of Yorba Linda
Re: 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, Califurnia
Subject: Objection and Request for Continuance - Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, Tentative Tract Map 19389, and Design Review 2025-02 (City Ventures - 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.) November 10,2025

parking, or noise studies, and to allow the City to reconsider its reliance on the S 65457 exemption.

7. Misinterpretation of c6Affordability Bonus" and State Law At a prior community meeting on October 27,2025, City Ventures representatives suggested that including a small number of low-income units allows the developer to build at a higher density or greater height than otherwise permitted. They further suggested that City Ventures could build on the subject property at an even higher density level than permitted by the City of Yorba Linda. However, the state density bonus laws do not necessarily override all aspects of local land use control or considerations of community safety, particularly where local measures such as Measure JJ were adopted to balance housing goals with community scale and character. The developer's argument that it could build even more units but is "choosing not to" is misleading and inconsistent with the City's zoningauthority and CEQA considerations.

8. Request for Transparencv and l)ue Process
Given the apparent inconsistencies in density calculations, unclear CEQA exemption basis, lack of public access to traffic and parking studies, if any have been conducted, and the inadequate notice period, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission:
. Continue the hearing to allow at least 30 days forpublic review and comment; . Provide the public with access to all relevant project documentation, including the full staff report, environmental materials, and traffic studies and time for consideration of such documentation; and
. Reassess the proposed densityo including the proposed parking, and height of the project for compliance with the R-M-20 zoning and the City's certified Housing Element and its Addendum.

This request is made not to delay progress, but to ensure that the Planning Commission's decision is based on a complete, transparent, and legally sufficient record, consistent with CEQA, Measure JJ, and the City's Municipal Code.

19. Conclusion
We strongly support responsible housing development in Yorba Linda, including the creation of affordable units where feasible. However, such projects must be thoughtfully integrated into the community, consistent with adopted plans, and supported by adequate infrastructure. Such projects must also take into consideration and address potential safety issues that increased density and traffic would create to Yorba Linda residents, especially given the existing neighborhood infrastructure. This proposal, as currently presented, does not meet those standards.
19205 Palm Vista, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 . 714.812.8402 ' [email protected] Page 1885 of 2028 ")n Yorba Linda Planning Commission
City of Yorba Linda
R:e: 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, Califurnia
Subjecf Objection and Request for Continuance - Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, Tentative Tract Map 19389, and Design Review 2025-02 (City Ventures - 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.) November 10,2025
PageT
We respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny or substantially reduce the scale of this proposed project. The City's housing goals can and should be met without compromising neighborhood character, public safety, or quality of life for existing residents. At a minimum, the Commission should continue the hearing until the public can meaningfully evaluate the project's true impacts.

Thank you for your attention to these concerns and for your continued service to our community Respectfu lly submitted,
/s/ Lee Burrows
/s/ Andrea Burrows
Lee and Andrea Burrows
19205 Palm Vista
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
ls/ Mark Breiter
/s/ Melissa Breiter
Mark and Melissa Breiter
19210 Palm Vista
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
/s/ Sean Forge
/s/ Randi Forge
Sean and Randi Forge
19220 Palm Vista
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
/s/ Brandon Huynh
/s/ Liza Huynh
Brandon &LizaHuynh
19195 Palm Vista
Yorba Linda, Ca92886
19205PalmVista, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 '714.812.8402 . [email protected] Page 1886 of 2028 'l .'l
Yorba Linda Planning Commission
City of Yorba Linda
R:e: 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, Califurnia
Subject Objection and Request for Continuance - Conditional Use Permit2025-10, Tentative Tract Map 19389, and Design Review 2025-02 (City Ventures - 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.) November 10,2025

/s/ Aaron Adams
Aaron Adams
19175 Palm Vista
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
LEB:
cc: Don Bernstein, Chair; dbernstein@yorbalindaca. gov
Michael Masterson, Vice Chair; [email protected] Nathaniel B ehura, Commissioner; nbehura@,yorbalindaca. gov Mario Chavez Marquez, Commissioner; [email protected]. gov Dale Goldfarb, Commissioner; dgoldfarb@yorbalindaca. sov Kristen H. ; [email protected]
Stephanie R. ; [email protected]
19205 Palm Vista, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 . 714.812.8402 . [email protected]

From: Shannon Edmondson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 5:50 PM
To: Janice Lim <[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent request to oppose high density development in our neighborhood To the Honorable Mayor Janice Lim,
I am writing as a concerned Yorba Linda resident regarding the proposed development of 62 housing units on the property at 19081 YL Blvd. As you are aware, even with the adjustments allowed under recent California housing mandates, this parcel should support no more than four single-family homes—not a large-scale, high-density complex. This property and the one next to it changed in 2024 to high-density status of 66 “realistic unit potential” for BOTH properties on a total of 3.9 acres. The total units proposed for this one

2.6 acre property is 62. The overly high density is not acceptable.

Regardless of Proposition JJ, the proposed project is clearly out of alignment with the surrounding neighborhood’s character and infrastructure capacity. The traffic impact alone would be substantial. Nearby streets are already heavily trafficked, and adding dozens of cars from 62 new units will significantly worsen congestion, pose safety concerns, and diminish residents’ quality of life.

Adequate parking is also a serious concern. The proposed plans do not include sufficient on-site parking for residents and guests, which will inevitably push overflow parking into surrounding streets and even the small Jessyman West Park lot. That would prevent residents from accessing the park and create additional safety risks as pedestrians and children navigate around overflow vehicles.

Moreover, the property has only one possible ingress and egress point. Residents entering or leaving the complex will either need to use backstreets not designed for that volume of traffic or make multiple U-turns, further endangering drivers and pedestrians.

I respectfully ask that you firmly oppose this high density development and protect the integrity, safety, and livability of our neighborhood. It is not appropriate for the area and will have lasting negative consequences for Yorba Linda residents.

Thank you for your commitment to preserving the community we all value so deeply.

Sincerely,
Shannon Edmondson
4741 Ohio St.

Yorba Linda, CA 92886
714-612-7816
mailto:[email protected]

From: JE <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 11:48 AM
To: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>
Subject: Tract 19389 Meeting
Mr. Farnsworth,
My name is Justin Egerer and I reside on Ohio St, near the proposed development. I attended the marathon meeting on Wednesday, November 12th, 2025. I'm also confused at the current status of the project, noting I just saw from eScribe that the project has been approved, but yet the meeting was set for a continuance in December? I acknowledge it was a very long meeting but it's a very important issue. A lot of very valid points and code violations were brought up in the meeting, to which I hope those points would be given proper consideration, but if it's already been approved, then the entire meeting was a farce. I will address a few points I wanted to bring up Wednesday, but no more "neighbors" were allowed to speak after the break was taken in the meeting. And it's very unfortunate that no questions are answered during the meeting, just dialog presented in one direction.

I believe the initial plan for the space was for 40 units upon both parcels, so why is the developer allowed to build 62 units on only 1 of the parcels? Since the Thompson's didn't sell wouldn't the units originally slated for the other parcel be the maximum number? The applicant quickly passed by the slide that showed the original 40 units on the 3.65 acres, intentionally. This whole process seems very rushed. But why were the number of units increased versus decreased? And the applicant has no vested interest in this other than the total profit margin. Absolutely none.

The parking situation is absurd and it will overflow onto the adjacent city streets, as well as the synagogue, the park and most likely the church across the street. And the enforcement of the 2 car garage parking will be impossible to monitor and abide by.

The traffic will be affected, despite the applicants skewed and insufficient studies. The Yorba Linda Imperial intersection is already an issue. The proposed U-turn at south Ohio is a very quick cross over of 3 lanes into a turn lane. There will be issues and people making an illegal left out of the tract, just like exists at the Bastanchury and Lakeview's 3 story homes. The other factor is the increased traffic already from people using Imperial and Yorba Linda to travel from the 57 to the 91 along Gypsum Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon, bypassing the freeway interchange.

The fact that a letter was sent out to 300' and 500' is insufficient for our neighborhood.

The parcels are larger and therefore very few homes were actually notified of this monstrosity of a development. This should have been caught by the city and corrected when they applied.

Measure JJ, as voted on by your constituents, was to keep control within our own city.

You were elected to protect the city's constituents, developments and to preserve the character of our residential neighborhoods. None of which are being done with this project.

There was no push back in the meeting other than pandering to the applicant for a sign here or a sign there and a more in depth study. The one ingress and egress should be a violation on its own for that many units. The total number of units on less land than initially proposed is egregious. And I hope it's wrong, but if it's already been approved without any further consideration, then you have failed miserably in protecting the people and the old Yorba Linda neighborhood and the meeting was a complete waste of time for everyone involved.

None of the people's concerns brought up have been followed up or investigated, again, if it did get approved on Wednesday. And what, if any, are the interests and motives of the city's officials has already come into question.

I do hope that I receive some sort of response to my email, but that also remains to be seen. Answering the public's questions in an important matter like this might also be considered. Are the individual voting results released to the public? Thank you for your time,
Justin Egerer

Nov 12, 2025
City of Yorba Linda
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd By Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Dear Yorba Linda Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 62-unit housing development project at 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd, which includes 3 very low-income units.

These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines..

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would or reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.

Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.

Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org

CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to the 50-foot setback at the northern property line, the side yard setback, the 50 percent landscaping requirement, the screen landscaping buffer requirements, and perimeter wall heights. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is exempt from further state environmental review pursuant to section 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 2 of 3

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3

November 11, 2025
Joshua and Tracy Baptista
5102 Club Terrace Dr.

Yorba Linda, CA 92886
[email protected]
714-496-6702
11/10/2025
To:

The Honorable Members of the Yorba Linda City Council
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING PROJECT AT YORBA

LINDA BLVD AND OHIO STREET
Dear Members of the Yorba Linda City Council,
I am writing as a concerned resident of Yorba Linda to express my strong opposition to the proposed high-density housing project at Yorba Linda Boulevard and Ohio Street.

While I understand the need for responsible growth and compliance with state housing requirements, this proposal directly conflicts with the values, infrastructure, and character that define our community.

Yorba Linda has long been known as the “Land of Gracious Living” — a city with a distinct rural-equestrian charm, open spaces, and a family-oriented atmosphere. This project, proposed by developers who are not residents of Yorba Linda, disregards that identity. Their plan prioritizes profit over community integrity, introducing urban density into an area designed for spacious, low-impact living. It is a development for outsiders, not by or for the people who call Yorba Linda home.

The claim that this project fulfills the State of California’s affordable housing goals is also misleading. In reality, the design and price points of the proposed units do little to meet the true needs of low- or moderate-income families. Instead, it appears to exploit a state mandate to justify high-density construction that primarily benefits developers— not the residents or the broader community. Moreover, the traffic and infrastructure impacts would be severe. Yorba Linda Boulevard already experiences significant congestion, and adding this volume of housing will further burden roads, increase safety risks, and degrade the quality of life for nearby neighborhoods. These roads were never designed to support such density, particularly in a city where equestrian activity, cycling, and pedestrian use remain integral to daily life.

The environmental effects—loss of open space, disruption of wildlife, and increased runoff—compound these concerns. The project does not align with Yorba Linda’s sustainability goals or its long-standing commitment to preserving a balance between responsible growth and environmental stewardship.

Most importantly, the residents of Yorba Linda do not understand how this project benefits our community. It does not meaningfully address affordable housing. It does not enhance our infrastructure. It does not preserve our city’s heritage. What it does do is jeopardize the character, safety, and livability that make Yorba Linda unique.

The City Council’s foremost responsibility is to represent and protect the interests of Yorba Linda residents. The overwhelming sentiment among your constituents is that this high-density project is not wanted and not appropriate for our city. Approving it in its current form would ignore the collective will of the very people you were elected to serve.

I respectfully urge the Council to reject the current proposal and instead pursue a development plan that truly reflects the needs and vision of Yorba Linda residents—one that promotes sustainable, lower-density growth while maintaining the rural and equestrian charm that defines our community.

Thank you for your attention, your service, and your continued commitment to preserving the integrity of Yorba Linda.

Sincerely,
Long time Yorba Linda Residents
Joshua and Tracy Baptista

Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org
Chair Gerardo De Santos
Yorba Linda Traffic Commission
Chair Don Bernstein
Yorba Linda Planning Commission
City of Yorba Linda
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
November 12, 2025
RE: Letter of Support – Proposed 62-Unit Townhome Development at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Dear Chairs De Santos and Bernstein and Members of the Commissions, On behalf of People for Housing Orange County, I am writing in strong support of the proposed 62-unit for-sale townhouse development located at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard, east of Ohio Street, west of Palm Avenue, and within the R-M-20 zoning district.

This thoughtfully designed, multi-family attached project represents exactly the type of entry-level housing that Yorba Linda—and indeed all of Orange County—urgently needs. With most of the city’s existing homes priced well beyond the reach of moderate-income households, teachers, nurses, first responders, public sector employees, and nonprofit workers—the people who sustain and enrich the community—find it increasingly difficult to live where they work.

These new townhomes would provide first-time homeownership opportunities for young professionals and families who grew up in Yorba Linda and wish to remain and raise their children here. This project helps ensure that the next generation can continue to call Yorba Linda home and participate in the community institutions and schools that make this city so special.

Equally important, this site was previously identified and approved by voters as an appropriate location for housing. The city’s adopted and state-certified Housing Element—Yorba Linda’s official plan for meeting its share of regional housing needs—specifically anticipates development of housing 1

at this site. Approving this project fulfills that local and state commitment, demonstrating the city’s integrity in implementing its plan and maintaining compliance with state housing law.

This project is a clear win for Yorba Linda: it aligns with local planning goals, addresses the city’s critical need for attainable housing, and provides a responsible, high-quality opportunity for families to build equity and community roots.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Planning and Traffic Commissions to recommend approval of the proposed 62-unit townhome project at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard.

Thank you for your leadership and your commitment to thoughtful, inclusive community planning.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hansburg
Cofounder & Director
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org
2

1 November 11, 2025
Attention: City of Yorba Linda Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, City Council and Staff
Re: City Ventures Proposed Development 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd I have only had a few days to review the materials released by the City on Friday November 7th and to prepare for the 1st public hearing on November 12th. This letter is not meant to cover all potential topics for discussion and consideration. It is meant to highlight some of the areas that either require further study or help support the City to deny the project Conditional Use Permit. This letter is going to focus on topics that the City has the discretion to approve/deny, question and/or request additional studies regardless of the State Exemptions. The scare tactic of the state exemption representation is stale. It has rushed the process leading to sloppy studies and faulty logic as illustrated below.

I am asking that the City of Yorba Linda deny the Conditional Use Permit application. I believe the City cannot make the required findings to approve this project.

CUP Resolution A -
A. That the construction does not result in any significant loss of privacy for adjacent residences in a manner that would compromise the neighbors' ability to obtain reasonable and enjoyable use of their own property in that proposed new windows and decks do not exacerbate view impacts to the neighboring properties due to the design, orientation, proposed grading, and inclusion of vertical screen trees.

The community will comment on the impact to each of their properties, but more sight line analysis should be required than provided. The project should not be considered a complete submittal with the current level of sight light analysis. Also, the proposed project screening with 40’ trees is not true and the design concept is not correct. The proposed landscape plan (Sheet L-7) shows the perimeter of the site will be planted with various trees to provide screening between the project area and the closest residential neighbors to promote enhanced privacy. The grouping of trees is the densest at the northern and southern boundaries due to the proximity to those residences.

2 To increase privacy for adjacent properties to the north and south, the perimeter of the site will be landscaped with a continuous row of screen/vertical and shade trees, such as Brisbane Box, Magnolia, and Chinese Elm, which can reach up to 40 feet in height at maturity.

Trees used to screen projects from adjacent residents should call out a specific tree type with size so that you can determine if the tree will reach 40’ height, screen yearround (deciduous or evergreen), and how long it will take to grow to that height. Some of the trees in the palette don’t grow to 40’ height or would take a long time to reach it.

Trees listed adjacent to adjoining residents are as follows:

Chilopsis linearis – 26’ height – Deciduous
Cercidium ‘Desert Museum’ – 20’ high – Deciduous
Ficus nitida – Up to 50’ high – Evergreen – Has invasive roots especially if it grows to 40’
Magnolia Spp. - Which variety will be used? Some get large others are dwarf, so there is no way to determine how big the tree will get.

Prunus caroliniana – Up to 20’ high - Evergreen
Rhus lancea – Up to 30’ high – Evergreen
Tristania conferta – Up to 45’ high – Evergreen
Ulmus parvifolia – Up to 50’ high – Deciduous
No trees are shown in private areas where screening is necessary on the east side. The planter adjacent to the east next to the drive is only 3’ wide which is too tight for screening trees especially if there is a wall footing in the planter. The proposed benches at the perimeter may create openings in the tree coverage. The proposed landscape screening design may not meet the intent and criteria required to approve the CUP CUP Resolution B - That the design of the addition is sensitive to its environs such that it is architecturally compatible with its neighborhood, in that the proposed townhomes compliment the surrounding architecture as a preferred style of the adopted MultiFamily Residential Design Guidelines. Please take a drive through the neighborhood to the south and north within 1,000 of the proposed development and you can see that these do not fit into the design scheme. KTGY’s letter is purely opinion and not reflective of facts. The developer is touting the success of projects in Compton, Long Beach and Artesia as examples. The applicant is stating that they believe their past project approach success in those specific LA Housing Market areas aligns with the design criteria of rural estates Yorba Linda. Seriously, the applicant is touting the LA Metro Housing Market project design intent and criteria are applicable to Yorba Linda.

Specifically, the applicant is presenting that the Yorba Linda Rural Estate Neighborhood

3 architectural compatibility intent is aligned with the LA Metro Housing Market and asking for it to be approved!
Section 18.10.100.B of the Zoning Code requires the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission for two-story construction that is located within seventy feet (70’) of an existing single-family residence. A total of 12 of the 62 proposed units would be located within seventy feet (70’) of an adjacent single-family residence.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that proposed two-story construction does not result in any significant loss of privacy on adjacent residences such that it would compromise the neighbors’ ability to obtain reasonable and enjoyable use of their properties. Additionally, this section of the code aims to ensure architectural compatibility and, in the case of second-story room additions, architectural integration.

Similarly, Section 18.10.120.I of the code also requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for upper-level balconies and decks…….As reflected on the adjacent resident exhibit (Sheet A1.20), eight of the units in Buildings 8 and 9 would have upper-level windows and balconies within 70 feet and as close as 42 feet from the residence located at 19030 Lynn Lane.

Bio – I am concerned that there is no mention of Bee Studies. Having Citrus trees in our yard, we can see the Bee activity increasing recently over time and am concerned that species such as the Crotch Bumble Bee listed by the State was not mentioned. If needed, I am sure residents would volunteer to assist the study effort by photographing dead bees in our backyards and pools over the next couple of years to help the survey.

Essentially, the Bio report may have been rushed and may not have taken everything into consideration.

Noise, Vibration and GHG – Studies should have been prepared based on the actual construction fleet and not a presumed theoretical construction fleet. Applicant has failed to provide evidence on the record that noise and vibration will be within the limits that the mitigation measures require. Also, the 25 feet and 50 feet are not large enough study areas and studies of a larger radius should be required.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: Prior to issuance of any construction permits, applicant for individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and vibratory rollers, within 25 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and fragile structures), shall prepare and submit to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department a study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration impacts. The vibration assessment shall be prepared by an acoustical Engineer and be based on recognized vibration-induced architectural damage criterion. If the study determines a potential exceedance of the thresholds, measures shall be identified that ensure vibration levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Identified measures shall

4 be included in all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City of Yorba Linda Department. Mitigation Measure 4.6-5: Prior to issuance of any construction permits, applicants for individual projects that are within the 50 feet of a sensitive receptor, shall prepare and submit to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department a study to evaluate potential operational-related stationary source noise impacts. The noise report shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer using the ISO 9613-2 protocol in the Cadna A (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program.

If the study determines a potential exceedance of City’s thresholds (55 dBA Leq daytime, or 50 dBA Leq nighttime), measures shall be identified that ensure noise levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department.

Report page 4-1 first paragraph – Applicant took 15-minute noise readings. They should have taken 24-hour readings, readings at night and readings at the synagogue.

In addition, studies, forecasts and calculations of no significant impact are based on the proposed Construction schedule. If the proposed construction schedule is not reasonable, then the models are not correct to support the no significant impact conclusion. For instance, the schedule states the grading operations to consist of 6 days to export 10,000 + cubic yards of dirt, rough grade the site and prepare the building pads for the next phase of construction. These 6 days may not be a realistic time frame to perform all those activities due to limited hours of operation, site geometry and logistics, single point of entry, and size of equipment to work in that space. If it takes longer to perform the work, then the models for Traffic, noise and GHG will change and may result in showing that there are potential impacts. Also, the schedule assumes the construction to be performed in a single year. The developer in the community meeting on Monday October 27th, stated that the project will be constructed in phases that are not known at this time. Unfortunately, the notes of the community meeting don’t document these, and other statements made by the applicant very well.

The applicant stated that the project housing unit development timeline is not known and dependent on the market. The schedule and the models do not reflect phasing.

Phasing and longer schedules might produce modeling that result in significant impacts.

The data might have been skewed to tweak the out come to less than significant.

Also, the Air Quality report may also conflict and show that the models were staged to show less than significant impacts by using SCAQMD’s methodology to estimate acres of ground disturbance, the site preparation phase was determined to result in a maximum of 2 acres of ground disturbance per day. Therefore, the SCAQMD thresholds

5 for a 2-acre site were used. The site is 2.6 acres. How are they going to not simultaneously disturb the whole site during construction during the grading process? The flag lot will be used daily to export dirt while they grade it. They will always be constructing, staging, accessing every part of the site as much as possible to meet their proposed schedule. There are too many conflicts between the studies and what the applicant is proposing. To further review of the questionable data entered the models, the Air Quality Consultant credentials should be submitted for review as we expect consultants with experience managing the modeling to reflect reality. Again, who is going to police the site for this, but common sense would say to run the model at the full acreage of development.

As required by Yorba Linda Housing Element Implementation Program Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, all construction equipment used for the Project would be equipped with mufflers consistent with standard industry practices. Although the exact specifications of the mufflers are currently unknown, a conservative noise reduction of 9 dBA has been assumed to account for their use. In addition, existing walls located between the construction area and the sensitive receptors to the north, northeast, and south would provide further noise attenuation. Therefore, an additional reduction of 5 dBA has been applied to the noise levels estimated for those respective receptors.

Existing Walls The walls would need to be solid with no gaps or holes to be effective to apply the 5dBA reduction. Have these been confirmed, studied and verified? Applicants are using a 12dBA threshold for construction noise increase significance at residences - 1.5, 3, or 5 is standard, based on the ambient condition. There is no credible evidence that a 12 decibel increase is appropriate. It’s a Caltrans threshold and this is not a CALTRANS project.

What about operational noise of 63 homes in a condensed area adjacent to rural estate properties. Has this been properly studied? Does it fit into the CUP criteria for approval? Furthermore, the Project construction would not use vibration-heavy equipment such as a vibratory roller and pile driving. Therefore, Project-related construction vibration impacts would be less than significant. How can this be true with the soil report over excavation and compaction requirements, the retaining wall footing construction, trench back fill, concrete slab construction, earth work, 1,000’s of dirt export trucks, paving equipment and related demolition required for 63 homes? The reductions in landscape area require more construction activities and highly dense development will increase these processes.

These studies are relying on a lack of policing, enforcement and repercussions.

6 Geotech report page 14 Section 6.2.9.2 talks about the project site in Fullerton and not Yorba Linda. The Geotech report should be reviewed in better detail and might have been rushed along with the other documents.

I could not find a construction health risk assessment online and suggest that one needs to be done due to the very short distance between the construction site and existing homes.

Traffic – Studies focused on certain intersections along Yorba Linda Blvd. They did not study the East Bound Traffic Left Turn into the Park and U turn inside the park parking lot area to use as a short cut instead of the U turn at Palm Signalized Intersection. The study did not address the alternate routes on Ohio Street, Oriente, and Palm. These streets are not improved with Street Lights, Sidewalks, and Parking. In addition, they have equestrian uses on them and may be sensitive to long-term parking and increased traffic. These impacts should be studied.

The applicant might be required to provide these improvements to mitigate their project’s impact prior to the first building permit issuance. 418 daily trips on a right-in and right-out driveway is going to impact the adjacent streets with vehicles in ways that the study has not addressed. The study is clear that it’s not significant in the intersections that were studied. The study did not assess all the streets and intersections that will be impacted and is therefore incomplete.

On Site Emergency Access/Exiting – We respectfully request a study be provided that shows a single access point is acceptable for the proposed high density emergency access and exiting with the recent California Fire Conditions taken into consideration.

The project might be in close proximity to potential new fire hazard considerations since last season.

Parking – The state exemption decreases the ON SITE parking requirements that can be enforced by the City. Therefore, the project is known to be 80 parking spaces short of the City of Yorba Linda requirements. The applicant knows that they need more parking than proposed and they allegedly attempted to negotiate with the adjacent churches.

The exemption works on paper, but reality is that the proposed lack of parking will be flow out into the adjacent park and streets (Ohio and Palm). The cars will not magically disappear. There is no paving on the west side of Ohio Street and it’s not improved. The car parking on Palm will be extensive as pedestrian traffic will cut through the park to access the proposed housing development. The pedestrian traffic through the park and on private property will be constant and not uncontrollable. The neighborhood streets with less density zoning will be significantly impacted with the off-site parking and increased pedestrian activity. This will result in an increased hazard to the public health, safety and welfare of the immediate community. The impacted streets (Ohio, Palm and

7 Oriente) do not have streetlights, full improvements for sidewalk, parking and related safety controls. The east side of Palm Avenue has a serious elevation drop that is dangerous with existing 2 lane traffic conditions and the high pedestrian use. There is not enough room for 2 vehicles to safely pass with mixed pedestrian traffic. No study is going to account for common sense when driving under those conditions. Adding more daily trips and long-term parking will only exacerbate public health, safety and welfare in the specific stretch of street. Again, that area has no streetlights as well.

Therefore, careful consideration needs to be made for the applicant to be required to make the necessary improvements to the adjacent streets prior to the first building permit issuance. Revenue collections to manage the park. Restrict access from the site through the park and to the community trails. Even with all the mitigation measures, it might still be found that the proposed project has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, and the project is denied.

The conditions of approval are very broad and do not address a lot of the impacts the proposed project represents. For this situation, I expected a lot more Conditions of Approval, more in-depth studies, a mitigation monitoring prevention program and maybe even a development agreement. I don’t see the benefits of the project weighing the negative impacts. The potential significant impacts either require further study and/or a flat denial of the project. This project should not be approved as submitted.

Respectfully,
Yorba Linda Resident for Responsible Development
Matthew Vawter
4777 Palm Avenue
Yorba Linda CA 92886