Yorba Linda City Council
March 3, 2026

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE YORBA LINDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,

YORBA LINDA HOUSING AUTHORITY AND YORBA LINDA MUNICIPAL FINANCING AUTHORITY

JOINT MEETING
AGENDA

Tuesday, March 3, 2026, 6:30 p.m.

Council Chambers
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
This meeting is being broadcast live for airing on cable channel 3, channel 99 AT&T U-Verse and the city's website. By remaining in the room, you are giving your permission to be televised.

Pages

CALL TO ORDER
The City Council/Successor Agency to the Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency will convene at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 4845 Casa Loma Avenue.

ROLL CALL

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE YORBA LINDA

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION,

SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) (2 Cases)
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) (1 case)
Name of Case: Yorba Canyon, LLC v. City of Yorba Linda
Case Number: 30-2025-01497724-CU-WM-CXC, Superior Court, County of Orange

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION
RECESS

CALL TO ORDER
The City Council/Successor Agency to the Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency, Yorba Linda Housing Authority and Yorba Linda Municipal Financing Authority will reconvene at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 4845 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda.

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION

PASTOR JOSHUA HOLIDAY, CALVARY CHAPEL OF YORBA LINDA

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
PUBLIC COMMENTS – ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR OR ITEMS NOT

ON THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA
There is a five (5) minute maximum time limit for each individual addressing the legislative body during Public Comments and on all other items listed on the Agenda.

Whenever a group of persons wishes to address the City Council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding officer to request that a spokesman be chosen by the group so as to avoid unnecessary repetitions before the City Council.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under "CONSENT CALENDAR" are considered by the City Council/ Successor Agency to the Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency, Yorba Linda Housing Authority and Yorba Linda Municipal Financing Authority to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendation listed on the Agenda. There will be no separate discussion unless Members of the Council/Successor Agency, Yorba Linda Housing Authority and Yorba Linda Municipal Financing Authority or Staff request specific items to be removed from the Consent Calendar.

Recommendation:

Approve the Consent Calendar.

1. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON

THE AGENDA
Recommendation:

Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions on the agenda and declare that said titles which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

2. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER – MARCH 3, 2026 5
Recommendation:

Receive and file the accounts payable check register and wire transfer report dated March 3, 2026, in the amount of $2,488,488.12.

3. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 17, 2026 CITY COUNCIL /

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE YORBA LINDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

MEETING
52 Recommendation:

Approve the minutes of the February 17, 2026 City Council/Successor Agency to the Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency joint meeting.

4. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5973 AUTHORIZING THE REQUEST FOR DELAY OF MEASURE M2 FUNDS FOR THE SAVI RANCH PARKWAY

IMPROVEMENTS
59 Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 2026-5973 authorizing a request to delay Measure M2 Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program construction funds for the Savi Ranch Parkway Improvements project.

5. REPORTS OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS FROM THEIR LAST

MEETING
62 Recommendation:

Receive and file this report.

6. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND AGENCY REPORTS 65
Recommendation:

Receive and file this report.

PUBLIC HEARING
Note: If previous agenda items are completed prior to 7:00 p.m., the legislative body will proceed to “Administrative Reports” on the Agenda until the scheduled time for the Public Hearings. At the Mayor’s discretion, Public Comments may be postponed at 7:45 p.m. to allow the Public Hearings to be started and following the completion of Public Hearing item(s), the legislative body will go back to the Public Comments at the Mayor’s discretion and then continue to the remainder of the agenda order thereafter.

If you challenge the legislative body’s proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising those issues that you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Agenda, or in any written correspondence delivered to the City Council/Successor Agency to the Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency on or prior to the Public Hearing.

7. UPHOLD PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
68 a. Open Public Hearing
b. Staff Report
c. Take Testimony

1.) Appellant

2.) Project Applicant

3.) Public Comment

4.) Rebuttal by Applicant, If Required
d. Close Public Hearing
e. Make Determination
CEQA STATUS: Previously Certified 2021-2029 Housing Element EIR and Addendum - (SCH No. 2022040574). CEQA Guidelines, §15168 Program EIR Consistency. Categorical Exemption – Class 32 (14 Cal. Code of Regs., §15332).

Recommendation:

1.) Uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Tract Map 19389 and adopt Resolution No. 2026-5974; and 2.) Approve a demolition permit for the existing single family home located at 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT/MAYOR’S REPORT/MATTERS PRESENTED BY

COUNCILMEMBERS/ OTHER AGENCY REPORTS

CLOSED SESSION IF REQUIRED

ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled City Council/Successor Agency to the Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency joint meeting is March 17, 2026.

NOTE: ALL STAFF REPORTS AND RELATED ATTACHMENTS FOR ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA ARE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE. AS AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE, THE CITY NOW PROVIDES THE STAFF REPORTS AND RELATED ATTACHMENTS ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE. PLEASE NOTE THAT IT IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO EMBED ALL ATTACHMENTS AND MAPS. THUS, IF YOU REQUIRE A FULL AND COMPLETE COPY OF THE AGENDA PACKET, YOU SHOULD NOT RELY UPON THE WEBSITE MATERIALS ALONE.

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), THE CITY WILL MAKE EVERY REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE ANY ATTENDEE OR PARTICIPANT AT THIS MEETING NEEDING SPECIAL ASSISTANCE BEYOND WHAT IS NORMALLY PROVIDED. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT (714) 961-7150 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING TO INFORM US OF YOUR PARTICULAR NEEDS AND TO DETERMINE IF ACCOMMODATION IS FEASIBLE. PLEASE ADVISE US AT THE TIME YOU CALL IF SPECIAL ASSISTANCE IS REQUIRED TO ATTEND OR PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DATE: MARCH 3, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SUNNY HAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR / CITY TREASURER
PREPARED BY: ALEXANDRA KARAPETIAN, ACCOUNTANT
SUBJECT: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER – MARCH 3, 2026

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the accounts payable check register and wire transfer report dated March 3, 2026, in the amount of $2,488,488.12.

SUMMARY
The Municipal Code states that the accounts payable check register shall be presented to the City Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting following the printing and mailing of checks.

BACKGROUND
This check register includes both City and Successor Agency weekly check runs for the weeks since the last City Council meeting. Additionally, a report of any wires sent by the City is included as an attachment to this report on an as-needed basis.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this report. Sufficient funds are available in the approved budget to cover all listed checks and wires.

1 CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE YORBA LINDA REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY, YORBA LINDA HOUSING AUTHORITY AND YORBA LINDA MUNICIPAL

FINANCING AUTHORITY JOINT MEETING

MINUTES
February 17, 2026, 6:30 p.m.

Council Chambers
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Councilmembers

Absent:

Campbell, Huang, Lim, Singh, Rodriguez
_____________________________________________________________________

CALL TO ORDER
The City Council/Successor Agency to the Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency convened at 5:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 4845 Casa Loma Avenue.

ROLL CALL
Councilwoman Janice Lim arrived 5:35 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE YORBA LINDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION,

SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) (1 Case)

2 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) (1 case)
Name of Case: Yorba Canyon, LLC v. City of Yorba Linda
Case Number: 30-2025-01497724-CU-WM-CXC, Superior Court, County of Orange

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.

CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION
The City Council convened into Closed Session at 5:33 p.m.

RECESS

3 CALL TO ORDER
The City Council/Successor Agency to the Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency, Yorba Linda Housing Authority and Yorba Linda Municipal Financing Authority reconvened at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 4845 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda.

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Girl Scout Troop 1125

INVOCATION
Bhai Deepinder Singh, Sikh Center of Orange County

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Todd Litfin said there was no reportable action on the items discussed in Closed Session.

INTRODUCTIONS & PRESENTATIONS

RECOGNITION OF PYLUSD PTA PRESIDENTS
Mayor Carlos Rodriguez recognized the following Placentia Yorba Linda Unified School District PTA Presidents for their exceptional leadership and dedication: Lynnsey Jorgensen - Bryant Ranch Elementary School, Rachel Sammons - Buena Vista Virtual Academy, Sheena Keo - Fairmont Elementary School, Shawna Marshall - Glenknoll Elementary School, Shweta Shah - Lakeview Elementary School, Elysse Salumbides (Past President) - Lakeview Elementary School, Marissa Bellanti - Linda Vista Elementary School, Jessica Zingali - Mabel Paine Elementary School, Lauren Badorek - Orange County School of Computer Science, Stefanie Holland (Executive Vice President) - Rose Drive Elementary School, Laura Nunez - Rose Drive Elementary School, Julie Szerlag - Travis Ranch School, Rosie Esqueda - Yorba Linda High School, Suzanne Chicuniec - Yorba Linda Middle School, and Jessica Candelaria - Placentia Yorba Linda Unified Council.

The PTA Presidents also received certificates from the offices of Congresswoman Young Kim, Senators Steven Choi and Kelly Seyarto, Assemblyman Phillip Chen, and Supervisor Don Wagner.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR OR ITEMS NOT ON

THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA
Angie Cohen, resident, expressed concerns regarding the proposed water rate increases and comments made by Councilwoman Lim at a November Yorba Linda Water District

4 meeting. She shared an audio clip from the meeting and asked whether the City Council had taken a formal position on the rate increase and whether Councilwoman Lim was speaking on behalf of the City.

Margaret Thurston, resident, commented on the Accounts Payable Check Register, noting the City’s water bill exceeded $27,000. She inquired whether the proposed rate increase would impact LMAD zones and asked if other cities are similarly increasing water rates.

Pam, resident, voiced concerns about the proposed water rate increase and former Mayor Lim’s remarks. She referenced her water bill and compared the District’s proposed rates to those of the City of Anaheim.

Pat Nelson, resident, encouraged prior speakers to attend a Yorba Linda Water District meeting. She noted difficulty finding parking at the February 3rd Council meeting and stated she missed the discussion on the City Ventures project, which was continued to March 3. She expressed concerns regarding density, traffic, and Measure JJ.

Trudi DesRoches, Yorba Linda Water District Director, introduced the District’s Finance Manager, Christine McIlrevey, who was present to address questions. Director DesRoches referenced a mailer sent to residents explaining cost increases and announced upcoming District tours on March 3, 10, and 24. She encouraged community participation to better understand water operations. She stated the public hearing on water rates will be held April 9 and noted that residents may attend District Board meetings to ask questions. During discussion with the Council, she highlighted the District’s online water rate calculator and clarified that a legally required rate study was completed by an independent consultant to determine the cost of providing water service.

CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Peter Grant requested to remove Item No. 8 — Approval of the Agreement with J&E Construction for the Lemon Drive/Imperial Highway Storm Drain Project — from the Consent Calendar, noting it will be brought back at a later date.

Assistant City Engineer Rick Yee explained that recently identified underground utility conflicts near the storm drain may require relocation of existing conflicting utilities or design modifications. Improvements on Lemon Drive may be phased, allowing the storm drain replacement on Imperial Highway to proceed. Staff will return to the City Council at a future meeting to request additional funding to complete the Lemon Drive portion of the project once the scope and best solution for Lemon Drive has been identified.

Moved by Campbell
Seconded by Singh
Approve the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item No. 8.

5 AYES (5): Campbell, Huang, Lim, Singh, and Rodriguez
CARRIED (5 to 0)

1. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON THE AGENDA
Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions on the agenda and declare that said titles which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

2. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER – FEBRUARY 17, 2026
Receive and file the accounts payable check register and wire transfer report dated February 17, 2026, in the amount of $1,507,559.86.

3. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 3, 2026 CITY COUNCIL /

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE YORBA LINDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

MEETING
Approve the minutes of the February 3, 2026 City Council/Successor Agency to the Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency joint meeting.

4. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 10, 2026 CITY COUNCIL /

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE YORBA LINDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING
Approve the minutes of the February 10, 2026 City Council/Successor Agency to the Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency joint special meeting.

5. TREASURER’S REPORT – NOVEMBER 2025

1.) Receive and file the attached monthly Treasurer’s Report; and 2.) Delegate investment responsibility to the City’s Finance Director / City Treasurer for one year.

6. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5972 TEMPORARILY CLOSING BASTANCHURY ROAD

1.) Adopt Resolution No. 2026-5972 temporarily closing Bastanchury Road between Cornell Lane and Princeton Place on April 23 for Yorba Linda High School’s Every 15 Minutes program: and 2.) Authorize the City Manager to approve future street closures for the Every 15 Minutes program.

7. APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5971 TEMPORARILY CLOSING GOLDEN AVENUE

6 Approve Resolution No. 2026-5971 closing Golden Avenue from February 19 through September 2026.

8. APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH J&E CONSTRUCTION

FOR THE LEMON DRIVE/IMPERIAL HIGHWAY STORM DRAIN PROJECT Approve an amendment to the agreement with J&E Construction Corp. in the amount of $97,800.

9. REPORTS OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS FROM THEIR LAST MEETING Receive and file this report.

10. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND AGENCY REPORTS
Receive and file this report.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT/MAYOR’S REPORT/MATTERS PRESENTED BY

COUNCILMEMBERS/ OTHER AGENCY REPORTS
City Manager Grant addressed public comments regarding water rates and confirmed that the City Council has not taken a position on Yorba Linda Water District rates.

Councilwoman Tara Campbell reiterated that the Council has not taken a position on District rates, noting that the District operates under its own governing board. In response to Ms. Nelson’s comments, she stated that the City would receive RHNA credit for the 62 proposed units in the City Ventures project. She explained that the site has been zoned RM-20 (20 units per acre) for over four years and that the designation was approved by voters. She added that the City worked with residents through a working group to identify appropriate RHNA allocations and minimize exposure to Builder’s Remedy. She concluded by wishing the community a happy Lunar New Year.

Councilman Shivinder Singh also extended Lunar New Year wishes and referenced the recent celebration at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. He asked staff to clarify whether increased water rates would affect the City’s Landscape Maintenance Assessment District (LMAD). City Attorney Litfin explained that water costs are one component of LMAD expenses and that any potential increase would require a zone-byzone analysis. Councilman Singh also asked Councilwoman Lim to clarify that her prior comments on water rates at the aforementioned November Yorba Linda Water District meeting were not made on behalf of the full Council.

Councilwoman Lim clarified that her remarks expressed support for public engagement, not for rate increases, and reiterated that the Council does not set water rates. She noted that she had encouraged the District Board to remain mindful of affordability. She also wished the community a happy Lunar New Year, announced the City’s ranking as the fifth safest city in California, and thanked public safety personnel. Additionally, she highlighted

7 Presidents’ Day and the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum event featuring Abraham Lincoln, James Madison, George Washington and Ulysses Grant presidential reenactors. She concluded her comments by talking about the West Yorba Linda Little League, she congratulated the Orange County Sheriff's Department for their successful Cupcakes with Deputies at The Classic Cupcake and said the Miss & Teen Placentia, Yorba Linda & Canyon Hills are in transition and congratulated the current and past title holders.

Councilwoman Peggy Huang echoed Lunar New Year greetings and thanked Director DesRoches for attending. She attended the meeting in January where there was a robust discussion on the rate study and encouraged residents to review the District’s educational materials and attend the upcoming March tours. She reiterated that the Council and the Water District are separate entities and acknowledged the rising cost of water.

Mayor Rodriguez reinforced prior statements that the City Council has never agendized or taken a position on water rates, which fall exclusively under the authority of the District Board. He asked the City Attorney to confirm that the Council has no role in setting water rates, and City Attorney Litfin affirmed that rates are determined solely by the District, a separate entity. Mayor Rodriguez also extended Lunar New Year wishes, referenced the event at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, reiterated upcoming Yorba Linda Water District tour dates, and offered well wishes to those observing Ramadan.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rodriguez adjourned the meeting at 7:44 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled City Council/Successor Agency to the Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency joint meeting on March 3, 2026.
_________________________
City Clerk

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: MARCH 3, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JAMIE LAI, P.E. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER PREPARED BY: COLIN TSUI, P.E. ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5973 AUTHORIZING THE REQUEST FOR DELAY OF MEASURE M2 FUNDS FOR THE SAVI RANCH PARKWAY

IMPROVEMENTS

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 2026-5973 authorizing a request to delay Measure M2 Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program construction funds for the Savi Ranch Parkway Improvements project.

DISCUSSION
The City received approximately $6.9 million in Measure M2 funding from OCTA for the Savi Ranch Parkway Improvements project. However, project rights-of-way acquisition is not complete, and construction cannot begin in FY 2026-27. The recommended resolution requests a 24-month extension which will provide the time to complete rights-of-way acquisition. Construction is expected to begin in spring 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

ALTERNATIVES
Do not adopt the resolution and provide alternative direction.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 2026-5973

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-5973

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
REQUEST FOR DELAY OF MEASURE M2

COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

PROGRAM (CTFP) FUNDS FOR THE SAVI RANCH
PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS – YORBA LINDA BLVD TO

MIRAGE ST CONSTRUCTION PHASE
WHEREAS, the City of Yorba Linda received an allocation of $6,904,350 from OCTA to fund the Savi Ranch Parkway Improvements – Yorba Linda Blvd to Mirage St Construction phase; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yorba Linda established Fiscal Year 2025/26 as the program year for the construction phase for the Savi Ranch Parkway Improvements – Yorba Linda Blvd to Mirage St; and
WHEREAS, OCTA CTFP Guidelines requires agencies to request authorization from their governing boards if delays are expected to be incurred beyond the allocated funding Fiscal Year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the City of Yorba Linda as follows:

Authorize the City’s request to OCTA for a delay of 24-months of Measure M2 CTFP Funds for the Savi Ranch Parkway Improvements – Yorba Linda Blvd to Mirage St Construction phase.

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

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, MAYOR

CITY OF YORBA LINDA
ATTEST:
______________________________

MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK

CITY OF YORBA LINDA

RESOLUTION NO. 202 6 - 5973
PAGE 2
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 adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Yorba Linda held on the 3rd day of March, 2026, and was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK

CITY OF YORBA LINDA

PLANNING COMMISSION | AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
MEETING DATE | FEBRUARY 25, 2026
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Director
Nate Farnsworth, AICP

4.1 APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 11, 2026, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES A motion by Chair Pro Tem Goldfarb, second by Commissioner Chavez Marquez, to approve the minutes as drafted. The motion carried (3-0-2) with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Chavez Marquez, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Behura, Bernstein
ABSTAIN: None

7.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-17, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 2025-13 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 2025-05 – PRAHM
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 17840 ANNA MARIE ROAD
Commissioner Behura arrived at 6:35p.m.

A request to construct a new two-story accessory structure (first floor garage/workshop) with an 850 square foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU).

A motion by Commissioner Behura, second by Chair Pro Tem Goldfarb, adopting Resolution No. 5659 approving Conditional Use Permit 2025-05 subject to attached conditions and by minute motion Administrative Adjustment 2025-05 with findings. The motion carried (4-0-1) with the following roll call vote:

Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0
AYES: Behura, Chavez Marquez, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bernstein
ABSTAIN: None

7.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-53 – MCCABE
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 17127 ORANGE DRIVE
A request to construct a 957 square foot second story addition and a new 50 square foot second deck (located on the front elevation) on the existing 1,757 square foot single story residence.

A motion by
Commissioner Behura, second by Commissioner Chavez Marquez, recommending the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and continue the project to a date certain of March 25, 2026, with direction to the applicant on project modifications to improve consistency with the required conditional use permit findings. The motion carried (4-0-1) with the following roll call vote:

Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0
AYES: Behura, Chavez Marquez, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bernstein
ABSTAIN: None

7.3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-54 – BROWN
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5211 LOS ALTOS DRIVE
A request to construct a new 2,462 square-foot second-story addition and a new 1,314 squarefoot second story deck to an existing single-story, 2,120 square-foot single family residence.

A motion by Commissioner Chavez Marquez, second by Commissioner Behura, adopting Resolution No. 5660 approving Conditional Use Permit 2025-54 Brown subject to amended conditions, attached conditions and the open code case on the property must be resolved prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion carried (4-0-1) with the following roll call vote:

Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0
AYES: Behura, Chavez Marquez, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bernstein
ABSTAIN: None

8.1 SIGN REQUEST 2025-03 – YORBA HILLS BUSINESS PARK
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 22343 LA PALMA AVENUE
A request to construct a new 2,462 square-foot second-story addition and a new 1,314 squarefoot second story deck to an existing single-story, 2,120 square-foot single family residence.

Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0

A motion by Commissioner Behura, second by Chair Pro Tem Goldfarb, approving by minute motion Sign Request 2025-03 Yorba Hills Business Park with conditions. The motion carried (4-0- 1) with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Behura, Chavez Marquez, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bernstein
ABSTAIN: None

9.1 CONTINUED DESIGN REVIEW 2025-15 – CHASE BANK
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 18461 YORBA LINDA BOULEVARD
A request for architectural and site plan review for the construction of a new 1-story Chase Bank with approximately 3,000 square feet of floor area with a walk-up ATM terminal.

A motion by Commissioner Chavez Marquez, second by Commissioner Behura, recommending that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and continue the project to a date certain of March 25, 2026, with direction to applicant and staff. The motion carried (4-0-1) with the following roll call vote:

Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0
AYES: Behura, Chavez Marquez, Goldfarb, Masterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bernstein
ABSTAIN: None
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. to the March 11, 2026, Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m.

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: MARCH 3, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARCIA BROWN, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND AGENCY REPORTS

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file this report.

DISCUSSION
City Council members serve on a number of outside committees and agencies. Attached are updates received recently from these agencies

ATTACHMENTS

1. Reports from City Council Organizations, Agencies and Committees

Transportation Corridor Agencies
For the February 12, 2026, Meeting

BOARD MEETING HIGHLIGHTS

F/ETCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Patricia Kelley, Chair,

MISSION VIEJO
Scott Voigts, Vice Chair,

LAKE FOREST
Natalie Meeks,

ANAHEIM
Mike Frost,

DANA POINT
William Go,
IRVINE
Denis Bilodeau,
ORANGE
Anthony Beall,

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
John Taylor,

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
David Penaloza,

SANTA ANA
Ray Schnell,
TUSTIN
Peggy Huang,

YORBA LINDA
Donald P. Wagner,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 3RD DIST.

Doug Chaffee,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 4TH DIST.

Katrina Foley,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 5TH DIST.

Lan Zhou, Ex Officio Member,
CALTRANS DIST. 12

SJHTCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Stephanie Oddo, Chair,

LAGUNA NIGUEL
David Penaloza, Vice Chair,

SANTA ANA
Tim Zandbergen,

ALISO VIEJO
John Stephens,

COSTA MESA
Mike Frost,

DANA POINT
William Go,
IRVINE
Erica Pezold,

LAGUNA HILLS
Cynthia Conners,

LAGUNA WOODS
Patricia Kelley,

MISSION VIEJO
Robyn Grant,

NEWPORT BEACH
John Taylor,

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Donald P. Wagner,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 3RD DIST.

Katrina Foley,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 5TH DIST.

Lan Zhou, Ex Officio Member,
CALTRANS DIST. 12
73/133/241/261 TOLL ROADS
BOARDS SELECT 2026 CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS, WELCOME

NEW BOARD MEMBER
The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency (SJHTCA) and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/ETCA) Boards of Directors held leadership elections for the current calendar year to guide the Agencies in continuing the practice of strong fiscal management and pursuit of enhanced mobility in Orange County.

The SJHTCA Board of Directors unanimously elected Laguna Niguel Councilmember Stephanie Oddo as Chair and Santa Ana Mayor Pro Tem David Penaloza as Vice Chair. The F/ETCA Board of Directors unanimously re-elected Mission Viejo Councilmember Trish Kelley as Chair and Lake Forest Mayor Scott Voigts as Vice Chair.

Chair Oddo joined the SJHTCA Board of Directors in 2023, serving as Vice Chair in 2025. She was elected to the Laguna Niguel City Council in November 2022, having served as Mayor Pro Tem in 2023.

Chair Kelley joined the Boards of Directors for SJHTCA and F/ETCA in 2019. She served as Chair for SJHTCA in 2020- 2021, Vice Chair for F/ETCA in 2023-2024, and most recently as Chair in 2025. Chair Kelley was first elected to the Mission Viejo City Council in November 2002 and served as Mayor in 2005, 2008, 2010, 2014, 2021 and 2024.

The F/ETCA welcomed Yorba Linda Councilmember Peggy Huang, who previously served on the Agency’s Board from 2017-2022.
2026 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM UPDATES
The Boards of Directors for SJHTCA and F/ETCA adopted updates to the 2025-2026 State and Federal Legislative Platforms, reinforcing TCA’s advocacy priorities for the coming legislative sessions in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

Staff provided annual updates to reflect Board actions from the past year and anticipate emerging issues that may affect toll operations, environmental planning, and mobility initiatives.

State and federal updates include technical refinements and new policy statements aimed at supporting project delivery, streamlining environmental review, enhancing wildfire mitigation and roadway safety, planning for major regional events, and expanding flexibility to reinvest excess toll revenue in regional mobility, as well as flexibility in re-use of former toll plaza sites.

State updates include support for securing Southern California’s fair share of transportation funding, advancing TCA’s interoperability efforts, aligning with the Agencies’ environmental priorities, and pursuing reforms to overly restrictive toll agency privacy laws, while also reinforcing recent enhancements to veteran benefits.

At the federal level, the Boards added a policy opposing proposed communications technology changes that could negatively impact tolling operations or cause customer service disruptions.

The adopted platforms will guide TCA’s legislative priorities and serve as a tool for engagement with lawmakers and agency partners to inform budget monitoring, regulatory review, and the Agencies’ annual legislative watch list.

PACIFICA BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
The SJHTCA and F/ETCA Boards approved a contract with SmithGroup to provide architectural and design services for site improvements and safety enhancements of the TCA Pacifica building in Irvine, which accommodates the Agencies’ employees and The Toll Roads customer service center. The goals of the project include improving security and space utilization, and rehabilitating aging and deteriorated areas within the building, which was constructed in 1989.

The SmithGroup, a nationally recognized architectural firm known for utilizing research, data and advanced technologies, was selected based on its strong understanding of the Agencies’ needs and extensive local and public agency experience.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UPDATES
CEO Ryan Chamberlain provided an update on the recent early bond paydown of $47 million for the SJHTCA, saving the Agency $45 million in interest.

As a result of both Agencies’ commitment to the early bond paydown program and strong fiscal management, Moody’s upgraded the F/ETCA senior lien bond ratings to A3 and junior lien to Baa1, while the SJHTCA senior lien bond rating was upgraded to Baa1 with a stable outlook for both agencies.

CEO Chamberlain also shared highlights from two recent legislative trips in Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, meeting with lawmakers and agency officials to discuss the importance of continued focus on transportation infrastructure that supports economic growth, improves mobility, and enhances safety across the region.

Closing out his update, CEO Chamberlain announced that TCA, along with regional transportation partners from Orange County Transportation Authority, Riverside County Transportation Commission and California Department of Transportation, have been named a nominee for the Orange County Business Council’s (OCBC) Turning Red Tape into Red Carpet – Leadership in Public Service award. Award honorees will be announced at the annual OCBC event on February 26, 2026. The nomination recognizes the collaborative work among transportation partners in advancing the 241/91 Express Connector project, moving the decades-long initiative closer to construction.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: MARCH 3, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: NATE FARNSWORTH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY: GABRIEL DIAZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: UPHOLD PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES

RECOMMENDATION

1. Uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Tract Map 19389 and adopt Resolution No. 2026-5974.

2. Approve a demolition permit for the existing single family home located at 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 3, 2026, the City Council City Council continued the public hearing to March 3, 2026, to provide the applicant with the opportunity to respond to questions and concerns raised at the meeting. The additional information included with this report and frequently asked questions were posted on the website and provided to Councilmembers and interested residents on February 24.

It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s approval because the voter-approved 2021-2029 Housing Element establishes 19801 Yorba Linda Blvd as a housing opportunity site and because the project is consistent with State law.

DISCUSSION
The applicant has provided responses to questions and concerns the City Council identified at the February 3 public hearing (Attachment 1). The City Council requested that the applicant:
1) Report back to Council on attempts to find more parking either on-site or off-site. 2) City Ventures to arrange a meeting with North County Chabad Center at City Hall with OCSD and other City staff present.

APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 2
3) Clarify the CEQA explanation for hazardous materials within 0.25 miles of a school. 4) Conduct on-site traffic analysis of all multi-modal forms of transportation (vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, e-bikes, equestrian) along Ohio Street, Oriente Drive, and Palm Avenue.
5) Confirm specific school-related traffic from the North County Chabad Center at a projected future enrollment of 100 students and include specified study locations. 6) City Ventures to meet with the appellant (and others of his choosing) at City Hall with City staff present, primarily to discuss CEQA concerns. 7) City Ventures to meet with Brian Scharr to address privacy concerns, and to conduct a solar analysis for Brian Scharr.
8) Share the parking management tools and procedures proposed to address overflow parking.
9) Provide a written parking enforcement and compliance plan that acknowledges the limitations of HOA enforcement under current state law, including Civil Code Section 5850, and identifies supplemental measures to prevent and address recurring parking violations.
10)Analyze moving the project ingress to be immediately adjacent to the North County Chabad Center.
11)Confirm whether the developer can establish a fund in HOA reserves for parking enforcement.
12)Clarify the traffic study inconsistencies related to whether residents can park in guest spaces.

The City has reviewed the applicant’s responses and responded to many questions from City Councilmembers and residents since the February 3 meeting. Nothing the applicant provided requires any additional mitigation measures or conditions of approval.

Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus Law
As the City Council will recall, the State Legislature has enacted several news laws aimed at addressing California’s ongoing housing crisis. These laws include updates to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the Housing Crisis Act, and State Density Bonus Law.

Combined, these laws limit local land authority and restrict the City Council’s control over housing.

Key limitations on local land use authority imposed by the Legislature include:

1. The HAA limits qualifying projects to a maximum of five hearings. A hearing is broadly defined to include workshops, preliminary reviews, and continuances. For this project, the Traffic Commission and Planning Commission held a joint meeting

APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 3
on November 12, 2025, followed by a Planning Commission hearing on December 10, 2025, and February 3, 2026, City Council hearing. If the City conducts more than five hearings on the project, it constitutes a violation of the HAA.

2. The HAA limits local agencies’ ability to deny qualifying projects or impose conditions that reduce project density. Specifically, the local agency must find that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, defined as a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, written public health or safety standards in effect when the application was deemed complete, and that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified impact other than disapproving the project or approving it at a lower density.

Unfortunately, many impacts and arguments that are important to the City and residents do not meet the legal threshold for denial, including:
 Impacts on private views
 Concerns that a project does not fit within the neighborhood character  Concerns related to crime
 Impacts on property values
 Traffic congestion
 Parking shortfalls (based on local standards)
State law requires that an objective analysis must clearly demonstrate that a project would create a significant and unavoidable impact that violates an adopted health and safety standard.

The HAA makes it extraordinarily difficult for local agencies to make the findings required to deny a housing project and the City’s analysis of this project concludes that there are no qualifying reasons to deny the project.

It is reasonable to expect that a City Council decision to grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval will be challenged. The challenge would likely result in litigation. State law pertaining to housing litigation makes it difficult for cities to prevail in such litigation.

The challenge could also result in:
 A court order approving the project without conditions  Notices of Violation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development and potential risks to the City’s Housing Element

APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 4
on the basis that it is not being implemented and/or its programs are not effective
 Local land use regulations and zoning being overridden and housing being developed on any qualifying site under State “Builder’s Remedy” laws

3. Because three of the project’s 62 units are set aside for very low-income households. State Density Bonus Law requires the City to allow:
 A 22.5% density bonus. This bonus increases the number of units allowed on the 2.65-acre site from 53 to 65. The project includes nine density bonus units
 One incentive/concession. The project provides parking at a rate applicable to qualified density bonus developments.
 Development standard waivers where the standard would physically preclude the construction of the project at the allowed density. The project includes waivers for setbacks, landscaping, and perimeter wall heights When a project meets State affordability requirements, local agencies are mandated to approve the density bonus, incentive/concession, and development standard waivers unless there are objective and specific health and safety impacts.

Project Compliance with State Housing Law
To the extent that the proposed project is protected under these State housing laws, the proposed City Ventures development complies in compliance with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Furthermore, the applicant has exceeded State requirements and voluntarily accepted multiple conditions of approval to address local concerns. These include:

1. The level of detail requested in the traffic impact analysis exceeds State requirements

2. Requesting fewer development standard waivers than State Density Bonus Law allows

3. Including decorative stamped concrete/pavers at the ingress/egress

4. Including generous landscape treatment of trees, shrubs and groundcover to enhance the streetscape aesthetic

5. Installing evergreen trees around the perimeter of the project site

6. Installing mature landscape screening along the northern property line

7. Improving steel fencing materials

8. Permitting the City to review and approve the homeowner’s association CC&Rs

APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 5

9. Complying with the City’s multi-family design guidelines

10.Providing privacy mitigation for second-story balconies and decks facing single family residences

11.Requiring CC&Rs to address parking management and enforcement

12.Preparing a parking utilization study and overflow parking observation memo at 90% building occupancy

13.Providing a Performance Surety Bond for potential costs for the City’s construction of a reconfigured center raised median

14.Preparing solar analysis for adjacent neighbor

15.Providing more parking than they are required to provide and has agreed to try to find additional parking through off-site parking agreements

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The project site was evaluated as part of the 2021-29 Housing Element Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The PEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise, and the City Council adopted findings and statements of overriding considerations in accordance with CEQA to approve the Housing Element. Following revisions to the Housing Element in response to Measure B and community input, an Addendum to the PEIR concluded that the revisions would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts.

The project is a subsequent action within the scope of the certified PEIR and Addendum.

The City has determined that the project’s environmental effects were adequately analyzed in those documents and that applicable mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. A CEQA consistency analysis further confirmed that the project would not introduce new significant impacts or substantially increase previously identified impacts, and therefore no supplemental environmental documentation is required.

The project also qualifies for a Class 32 CEQA exemption (Infill Development Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Code of Regulations.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternatively, the City Council may:

1. Approve the project with additional modifications/conditions of approval

APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 6

2. Establish findings for a Resolution of Denial. Under the HAA, the City Council must find that the project would result in a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot feasibly be mitigated.

ATTACHMENTS
New Information Since February 3 City Council Meeting
1) Applicant Response to City Council Requests
2) Updated Site Plan
3) Applicant Notes from Neighbor Meetings
4) Applicant Response to Public Comments dated February 24, 2026 5) Supplemental Traffic Analysis
6) Supplemental Traffic Analysis Appendix
7) Parking Management Plan dated February 23, 2026
8) Updated CEQA Consistency Analysis – February 2026
9) Photometric Plan
10)Alternative Site Design Analysis
11)Northern Property Line Cross Section Rendering
12)Tentative Tract Map 19389 Appeal Resolution 2026-5974, with conditions Meeting Reports, Minutes, and Correspondence
13) Joint Traffic & Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments) – 11/12/25 14) Joint Traffic & Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 11/12/25 15) Continuation Memo for Planning Commission (without attachments) – 12/10/25 16) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 12/10/25
17) Tentative Tract Map 19389 Appeal Application – 12/18/25 18) City Council Staff Report (without attachments) – 2/3/26 19) Public Correspondence Received Since February 3
All previous attachments are available for reference on the website at https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/959/City-Ventures

1 February 24, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Mayor Rodriguez and Members of the Yorba Linda City Council City of Yorba Linda
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Re: 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard – City Ventures’ Comprehensive Response for the March 3, 2026 Appeal Hearing
Dear Mayor Rodriguez and Members of the Yorba Linda City Council, I. Introduction
City Ventures submits this letter in advance of the March 3, 2026 City Council hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the 62-unit townhome project at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard. This letter is organized in four parts: first, background on the Project and the legal framework governing the Council’s review; second, a narrative of City Ventures’ good faith engagement with commissioners, City staff, and the community prior to and during two Planning Commission hearings, culminating in the Commission’s approval of the Project; third, an analysis of the contentions raised in the appeal; and fourth, a complete response to each item the City Council directed City Ventures to address prior to the March 3 hearing.

The record before the Council is comprehensive. The February 3, 2026 City Staff Report recommends denial of the appeal and approval of the Project, and provides a thorough analysis of the contentions raised in the appeal. EPD Solutions’ February 20, 2026 Responses to Comments document addresses all 129 public comment letters submitted in connection with the Project. We incorporate and rely upon those documents here and ask the Council to do the same.

We respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeal and approve the Project at the March 3, 2026 hearing.

II. Project Background and Legal Framework
The Project proposes 62 for-sale, attached townhomes on a 2.65-acre flag lot zoned R-M-20 (Residential Multiple-Family 20) at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard. The site was identified in the City’s adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element as a housing opportunity site (Site S4-204B) to meet the City’s State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) allocation. In June 2024, the City adopted a revised Housing Element. In November 2024, in a direct expression of community will, Yorba Linda voters approved Measure JJ by a remarkable 90% supermajority, rezoning this site from R-E to R-M-20 and explicitly enabling the type of residential development City Ventures proposes. We moved forward with this project based on the voterapproved zone change for this site.

The Project includes three units reserved for Very Low-Income households, qualifying it for a 20% density bonus, concessions, and waivers under California State Density Bonus Law (Government Code §65915–65918). These benefits are granted as a matter of right; the City has

2 extremely limited discretion to deny them (and none here). City Ventures, however, striving to be a good neighbor, is not seeking to maximize development potential or lean significantly on the entitlements otherwise granted by the Density Bonus Law. The Project is entitled to provide a minimum of 122 on-site parking spaces under State law, for instance, yet it provides 140. The Project could include up to 64 units under State law – yet City Ventures voluntarily capped the unit count at 62. Local zoning would have permitted City Ventures to propose a project at 40 feet; the Project’s buildings stand at 35 feet, five feet below the zoning ceiling. Likewise, the Project’s lot coverage of 40 percent is 25 percentage points below the 65-percent maximum.

The Project’s environmental review is thorough and fully complies with CEQA. The Project both (a) qualifies for a categorical exemption from CEQA pursuant to the Class 32 infill exemption and (b) is within the scope and consistent with the analysis of the previously certified 2021-2029 Housing Element Program EIR and Addendum (SCH No. 2022040574). Rather than simply relying on the certified Housing Element EIR, City Ventures commissioned independent, project-specific technical studies covering traffic, parking, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biology, noise, hydrology, geotechnical conditions, and hazardous materials – each prepared specifically for this site. EPD Solutions then reviewed all 129 public comment letters submitted in connection with the Project and provided written responses to each. Not one identified a new or more severe significant environmental impact requiring preparation of an EIR. The comments also did not provide any evidence that the Class 32 categorical exemption is inapplicable. City Staff has recommended approval at every stage of review – the November 12 joint Traffic and Planning Commission hearing, the December 10 Planning Commission hearing, and the February 3 City Council appeal hearing. The environmental record fully supports approval.

III. Good Faith Engagement Prior to and During the Planning Commission Process What follows is not merely a summary of legal compliance. It is a record of working in good faith at every stage of a lengthy public review process.

A. Pre-Application Community Outreach (July – October 2025) Before the first public hearing, City Ventures proactively reached out to the surrounding community. In July 2025, City Ventures sent an initial community outreach letter to all residents within 500 feet of the Project site. In October 2025, a second outreach letter was sent. On October 27, 2025, City Ventures hosted a community meeting attended by approximately 40 residents and City staff. City Ventures met individually with residents who responded to answer questions about the Project. None of this was legally required. It reflects City Ventures’ commitment, from the outset, to being a good neighbor.

B. November 12, 2025 Joint Traffic and Planning Commission Hearing The joint hearing on November 12, 2025 was attended by over 80 residents. Commissioners raised substantive concerns about traffic, circulation, parking, landscaping, building height, privacy, and fire access. State law entitles applicants to have a compliant project approved as a matter of right. City Ventures could have argued – correctly – that no further studies were required. Instead, City Ventures accepted the Planning Commission’s direction to continue the item and voluntarily addressed each concern before the December 10 hearing.

3 C. Addressing Planning Commission Concerns (November-December 2025) In the four weeks between Planning Commission hearings, City Ventures met with commissioners, staff, and residents to develop responses to every concern raised. None of the following actions were legally required. All were undertaken voluntarily as a demonstration of good faith:
• Traffic and Circulation: City Ventures commissioned a supplemental gap study (conducted November 19, 2025) and a line-of-sight analysis using a conservative 48 MPH design speed – more conservative than the posted 45 MPH limit. No legal threshold required this additional analysis, but this study provided assurance to the Commission that there was no traffic-related public safety impact for this project.
• Traffic Safety Enhancements: In response to residents’ concerns about potential illegal left turns, City Ventures agreed to a $50,000 performance surety bond for potential street median improvements on Yorba Linda Boulevard. No traffic study supports the likelihood of left-turn movements by Project residents given site geometry and travel patterns – but City Ventures agreed to this in an effort to show good faith to concerns. • Parking Enforcement Framework: City Ventures voluntarily developed a comprehensive CC&R-based parking enforcement framework.
• Landscaping and Privacy: The Planning Commission requested larger trees for enhanced screening for the North property line. City Ventures voluntarily upgraded to 36-inch box trees – the largest feasible size – and selected Brisbane Box (Lophostemon confertus), an evergreen species that grows to 30–45 feet and provides year-round privacy screening.

This was only possible due to a reduction in patio size and reconfiguration of walkways.

We also shifted tree placement to align directly with upper-floor windows, increased the number of trees along the rear property line from 12 to 13, and added solid/opaque screening on all second-story balconies facing adjacent single-family homes (Condition #157). None of these enhancements were legally required.

The Planning Commission reviewed all of these voluntary responses at the December 10, 2025 hearing and approved the Project – all three entitlements – finding that City Ventures had been fully responsive to Commission and community feedback and that the Project met all applicable standards.

IV. Response to the Appeal’s Contentions and Public Testimony After Planning Commission approval, an appeal was filed. The appeal raises contentions related to parking, traffic, circulation, density, and fire safety. The February 3, 2026 City Staff Report addresses each of those contentions in detail and concludes that none meets the legal threshold for denial under the Housing Accountability Act.

We highlight the following key points from that record related to the appeal:
• Parking: State Density Bonus Law requires a minimum of 122 on-site parking spaces – the only legally applicable standard. The Project provides 140 spaces, including 16 dedicated guest spaces, 18 above the SDBL threshold. SDBL compliance is what the law requires, and the Project exceeds it. City Ventures also voluntarily commissioned an ITE empirical parking demand study – not required by law – which confirms demand of just 79 spaces, well below what the Project provides. In response to the Planning Commission’s request, City Ventures further provided a SANDAG parking rate comparison, which the Project

4 also exceeds. Both analyses were offered voluntarily to provide additional assurance that the Project would not result in unanticipated parking demand, not because any legal standard required them. Aside from commenter speculation, there is no evidence that the Project is under-parked (and is not under-parked pursuant to the SDBL). The Parking Management Plan and HOA enforcement framework ensure the Project will not generate overflow parking impacts.
• Traffic: The Project generates 32 PM peak-hour trips – below the City’s 50-trip threshold for a full traffic impact analysis. The gap study confirms 95 available gaps in a 30-minute window versus 19 outbound AM peak trips required – a five-to-one margin. The line-ofsight analysis at 48 MPH confirms the required 459-foot sight distance is fully met. Three independent traffic studies – the Housing Element PEIR Traffic Impact Analysis, the Cityapproved project-specific TIA, and the supplemental gap study – all confirm no significant impacts. Every City department and OCFA identified no public safety concerns. Planning Commissioner Behura, a licensed traffic engineer, found no health or safety concerns related to the Project’s traffic.
• Density: The Project is located on a site the City designated for housing in its certified Housing Element and that the voters of Yorba Linda rezoned for multi-family use by a 90% supermajority in November 2024. State Density Bonus Law entitles the Project to up to 64 units (based on the level of affordability provided); City Ventures voluntarily proposed 62 notwithstanding that entitlement for two more units (which would have triggered the need for additional waivers/deviations from development standards).

Neighborhood compatibility and community preference are not legal bases for denial under the Housing Accountability Act.
• Fire Safety: The Project site is not within a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Severity Zone. OCFA reviewed the conceptual fire access plan and confirmed no compliance issues.

All homes will include NFPA 13D sprinkler systems. A Fire Master Plan will be prepared and reviewed by OCFA at the building permit stage.

As the February 3, 2026 City Staff Report concludes, none of the contentions raised in the appeal provides a legally sufficient basis for denial. Since the February 3 hearing, City Ventures and EPD Solutions have responded in writing to all 129 public comment letters submitted in connection with the Project. The appeal record, as it stands, provides no basis for denial.

Nevertheless, and entirely without legal obligation to do so, City Ventures responded to each of the Council’s requests in the spirit of good faith engagement that has defined this Project from the outset. Those responses follow.

V. Responses to City Council Requests
The following provides City Ventures’ complete response to each of the specific requests that the City Council directed City Ventures to address prior to the March 3, 2026 hearing.

1. Report back to Council on attempts to find more parking either on-site or off-site.

Through negotiation with Republic Services, City Ventures arranged for individual unit pickup of trash and recycling, eliminating one trash enclosure and creating space for two additional guest parking spaces. While initially providing 13 guest parking spaces, the Project now provides 16 dedicated guest parking spaces in addition to two enclosed garage spaces per unit – 140 total on-site spaces, 18 above the State Density Bonus Law minimum.

5 A commenter raised during the Council review and in a subsequent letter argued that the two-car garages, being exclusive to each unit, should not count toward satisfying the 2.5- space requirement for four-bedroom units – and that only the 13 (original submittal’s guest parking) dedicated guest spaces should count toward the fractional 0.5 requirement, producing a shortfall of 15 spaces. City Ventures reviewed the applicable statute.

Government Code Section 65915(p)(1) states that the parking ratios apply to a vehicular parking ratio “inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests” on a project basis. The statute draws no distinction between exclusive-use garage spaces and shared guest spaces – all onsite parking counts. Applying the statutory ratios to the Project: 33 threebedroom units × 1.5 = 49.5 spaces; 29 four-bedroom units × 2.5 = 72.5 spaces; total = 122 spaces. The Project provides 140 onsite spaces – 18 above the statutory minimum.

2. City Ventures to arrange a meeting with North County Chabad Center at City Hall with OCSD and other City staff present.

City Ventures arranged and attended a meeting on February 11, 2026 at City Hall with the Chabad’s representatives, OCSD, and City staff. The meeting notes are attached. The goal of that meeting was to understand the Chabad’s specific concerns; a follow-up meeting was then scheduled for February 18 for City Ventures to present proposed mitigations. Prior to the February 18 meeting, the Chabad’s representatives indicated they could no longer attend.

City Ventures provided alternative dates and times and has not received a response. City Ventures remains available and is happy to continue engagement with the Chabad if they are interested. City Ventures takes these concerns seriously – which is why we met with them last summer to share the proposed plans, and why, when we heard their concerns in the days before the February 3 appeal hearing, we reached out immediately to arrange a meeting.

During the February 11 meeting, the Chabad raised several categories of concern, each addressed below. It should be noted, as a contextual proposition, that religious institutions are commonly sited adjacent to multifamily residential uses (as well as commercial and industrial uses) in both Yorba Linda, specifically, and Southern California, generally. There is nothing inherently unique about the Project, its design or orientation, that creates a condition unlike other similarly situated religious institutions/developments. Nevertheless, respecting the Chabad’s concerns, the following discussion is provided:

Line-of-Sight
The Chabad raised concerns about sightlines from Project units into Chabad facilities and toward schoolchildren. Five Project units are positioned with sightlines toward the Chabad property; these units are located more than 55 feet from the Chabad’s buildings and are sided with no balconies facing the Chabad property. The Chabad specifically requested clerestory or frosted windows on the second and third floors. City Ventures is willing to install clerestory windows on the second and third floors of the five affected units as requested.

City Ventures had previously connected the Chabad with our landscape architect and offered to pay for landscape design consultation services for enhanced screening on the Chabad’s side of the shared property line; we believe that the window mitigations address the core privacy and line-of-sight concerns and make landscape screening less essential.

6 Security
Separately, the Chabad raised broader security concerns related to the proximity of new residents to their facility. During the February 11 meeting, the Chabad’s security representative indicated that a 12-foot barrier height would be sufficient for anti-climbing purposes. The existing barrier along the shared property line is 10 feet (four-foot retaining wall below a six-foot fence). City Ventures is willing to increase the fence height by 2 feet to reach the 12-foot threshold identified by the Chabad’s own security, if the Council determines that condition is appropriate. This enhancement, combined with the Chabad’s existing on-site security protocols, would provide meaningful additional protection for the facility and its members.

Overflow Parking and Gate Request
The Chabad expressed concern that unidentified vehicles could park in their lot, posing a security risk. They requested that City Ventures fund a security gate for their property. We have no expectation that our residents or their guests would illegally park on the Chabad’s lot. The Chabad currently employs on-site security during operating hours and restricts its parking lot to facility vehicles – a gate is therefore not a measure necessitated by this Project.

There is no nexus between the Project’s impacts and the Chabad’s request for gate funding.

The Chabad also questioned the traffic study methodology. The traffic concerns are addressed comprehensively in EPD’s Responses to Comments, which confirm that Project peak traffic periods do not overlap with the Chabad’s.

Construction Noise and Dust
The Chabad raised concerns about noise and dust during construction. Construction activities will comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and City of Yorba Linda noise ordinance standards, including permitted construction hours. The Project’s CEQA Noise and Vibration Analysis confirms that construction impacts are less than significant. City Ventures is committed to maintaining open communication with the Chabad regarding construction scheduling and will work cooperatively to minimize disruptions during Chabad events and holidays.

Affordable Units
The Chabad has expressed interest, including in communications during and outside of the February 11 meeting, in acquiring the Project’s three affordable units. City Ventures has no objections to exploring this concept. However, there are legal and regulatory considerations related to affordable restrictions, homeowner qualifications, and Fair Housing Law that would need to be carefully evaluated before any commitment could be made. City Ventures is willing to engage with the Chabad, the City, and appropriate legal counsel to assess feasibility. This Affordable Housing Agreement is in the process of being negotiated and will be approved at a later date.

Continued Engagement
City Ventures is sensitive to the broader significance of this neighbor relationship. The Chabad serves the local Jewish community, and City Ventures takes seriously its

7 responsibility to be a respectful and cooperative neighbor. The concerns raised by the Chabad have been engaged in good faith, as reflected in our voluntary willingness to incorporate mitigations that address their core concerns, and that commitment does not end with this hearing.

3. Clarify the CEQA explanation for hazardous materials within 0.25 miles of a school.

EPD has updated the CEQA Consistency Analysis to specifically reference the North County Chabad Center preschool. As set forth in EPD’s comprehensive response document, the preschool’s proximity does not alter the conclusion that there are no significant CEQA impacts. The Project does not propose the use of any acutely hazardous materials as defined by applicable federal, state, or local regulations. The preschool is located approximately 55 feet from the Project’s western property line. The CEQA analysis conservatively analyzed the nearest residential receptors located approximately 15 feet from the Project boundary – a more protective baseline than the preschool location. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment confirms no significant site contamination.

4. Conduct on-site traffic analysis of all multi-modal forms of transportation (vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, e-bikes, equestrian) along Ohio Street, Oriente Drive, and Palm Avenue.

There was no technical basis requiring multimodal analysis of this scope for a project of this type. Nonetheless, in response to the Council’s direction and as a demonstration of good faith, we commissioned an additional second supplemental traffic to address community concerns about crash history, U-turns, cut-through traffic, multimodal safety, and driveway interaction with the Chabad preschool.

The updated study includes all requested multimodal analysis, comprising: 24-hour ADT counts on one Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday at four locations (Yorba Linda Boulevard, Ohio Street, Oriente Drive, and Palm Avenue); 24-hour multimodal counts (pedestrian, bicycle, e-bike, and equestrian) on the same days at the same four locations; peak-hour (7–9 AM and 4–6 PM) turning movement counts on one Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday at the intersection of Club Terrace Drive and Yorba Linda Boulevard; and westbound left-turn queuing surveys at Yorba Linda Boulevard and South Ohio Street on Thursday (7–9 AM and 4–6 PM), Friday (7–9 AM and 4–9 PM), Saturday (10 AM–1 PM), and Sunday (8–10 AM).

5. Confirm specific school-related traffic from the North County Chabad Center at a projected future enrollment of 100 students and include specified study locations.

The February 24, 2026 supplemental traffic study analyzed projected impacts assuming the Chabad preschool reaches full 100-student capacity and addressed all requested study locations, including Ohio Street, Oriente Drive, Palm Avenue, and the Club Terrace Drive/Yorba Linda Boulevard intersection. All roadway segments and intersections operate within acceptable capacity with the addition of both Project trips and a fully built-out Chabad preschool. The Club Terrace Drive/Yorba Linda Boulevard intersection already operates below satisfactory level of service under existing conditions due to north/southbound left-turn movements that are not affected by the Project. Project peak hours (7–9 AM and 4–6 PM) do not coincide with Chabad preschool peak arrival and

8 departure times (9–10 AM and 2–3 PM). Even assuming concurrent traffic at both driveways, gaps in the westbound traffic stream are sufficient to accommodate combined driveway volumes without congestion.

6. City Ventures to meet with the appellant (and others of his choosing) at City Hall with City staff present, primarily to discuss CEQA concerns.

On February 18, 2026, City Ventures met with the appellant and a group of residents at City Hall, with EPD and City staff present. Following the meeting, City Ventures prepared written responses to each CEQA contention raised in the three primary comment letters.

EPD’s comprehensive response document, which addresses all 129 comment letters in detail, confirms that the CEQA analysis for the Project is adequate and no significant unmitigated environmental impacts have been identified.

7. City Ventures to meet with Brian Scharr to address privacy concerns, and to conduct a solar analysis for Brian Scharr.

City Ventures commissioned a solar impact analysis for Mr. Scharr and shared the findings directly with him. City Ventures is also open to considering restrictions on tree height adjacent to Mr. Scharr’s property where the privacy concern is comparatively lower, as a means of minimizing solar impact. We have previously offered to pay for landscaping design services if the Scharrs are interested in assessing opportunities to maximize privacy in their backyard. The offer still stands.

8. Share the parking management tools and procedures proposed to address overflow parking.

The Parking Management Plan utilizing a digital platform like Park Boss is attached. The Plan includes a digital guest parking reservation system, mandatory garage use requirements for all residents, quarterly HOA garage inspections, resident vehicle identification stickers, and HOA-administered towing enforcement. Park Boss materials are also attached.

9. Provide a written parking enforcement and compliance plan that acknowledges the limitations of HOA enforcement under current state law, including Civil Code Section 5850, and identifies supplemental measures to prevent and address recurring parking violations.

Civil Code Section 5850, as amended by Assembly Bill 130 (effective June 30, 2025), generally caps HOA monetary fines at $100 per violation per occurrence. We acknowledge this limitation. The Parking Management Plan does not rely primarily on fines. The primary enforcement mechanism is towing under California Vehicle Code Section 22658, contracted through a licensed towing company. All towing costs are borne by the violating party directly – the HOA incurs no expense. This creates a robust, financially self-sustaining enforcement mechanism entirely independent of the Section 5850 fine cap. Additionally, any resident who fails to comply with quarterly garage inspections will lose access to the guest parking reservation system – a meaningful secondary deterrent.

10. Analyze moving the project ingress to be immediately adjacent to the North County Chabad Center.

9 City Ventures prepared a site plan exhibit analyzing the alternative ingress configuration along the western property line adjacent to the Chabad. The analysis demonstrates that this configuration is infeasible: the shifted driveway alignment results in private drive stubs (Drives D and E) that cannot meet the Orange County Fire Authority’s 150-foot hose pull requirement even with OCFA-compliant hammerheads. The alternative also results in the loss of two residential units and fewer guest parking spaces than the approved plan. The site plan the Council is being asked to approve is the only configuration that is both OCFAcompliant and maximizes parking and unit count.

11. Confirm whether the developer can establish a fund in HOA reserves for parking enforcement.

City Ventures confirmed with its California Department of Real Estate (DRE) consultant, Wendy Bucknum, that this is not permitted under California law. For new common interest developments, the HOA budget is submitted to and reviewed by the DRE as part of the subdivision public report process. Under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act and DRE standards, reserve funds may only be used for the repair, replacement, restoration, or maintenance of major common area components identified in a reserve study.

Parking enforcement costs are operating expenses and cannot be included in reserves.

As described in our response to Item 9, the Project’s Parking Management Plan achieves effective enforcement through towing at violator cost – a financially self-sustaining structure that does not require reserve funding and provides a meaningful deterrent.

12. Clarify the traffic study inconsistencies related to whether residents can park in guest spaces.

To be clear: residents are not permitted to park in the designated guest parking spaces. The November 20, 2025 Parking Demand Analysis expressly states this requirement, and the Parking Management Plan reiterates it. The November 4, 2025 memorandum prepared following the community meeting incorrectly stated that residents could park additional vehicles on site. That was an error. We regret any confusion it caused. None of the Project’s parking studies support a conclusion that combined residential and guest parking demand will exceed on-site supply.

V. Additional Items Raised by the City Council
A. CC&Rs authorize City enforcement of parking restrictions.

The Project CC&Rs expressly authorize the City to enforce parking restrictions within the community. Upon the City’s request, the HOA Board is required to take all actions necessary to apply California Vehicle Code Sections 21107.5, 21107.6, 21107.7, and 21107.8, including towing. The City may, but is not required to, enforce restrictions, rules, and regulations in addition to applicable laws and ordinances. The CC&R language also requires quarterly garage inspections by the Association to ensure garages are used for vehicles, not storage.

Our attorney has shared proposed language with the City Attorney that would expressly authorize the City to enforce the CC&Rs related to parking restrictions.

10 B. Increase the bond with language covering potential impacts on Ohio Street, Oriente Drive, Palm Avenue, and the Yorba Linda Boulevard median.

City Ventures agrees to increase the existing $50,000 surety bond by a 25% contingency to $62,500, responding to the Council’s concern that the existing bond may be insufficient to cover potential median improvements on Yorba Linda Boulevard if later determined necessary.

City Ventures is not prepared to commit to a bond covering potential improvements to Ohio Street, Oriente Drive, or Palm Avenue. No evidence in the record – including the updated traffic study – supports the conclusion that the Project will create any need for improvements beyond those addressed by the existing bond and contingency. City Ventures will not agree to conditions that exceed what the evidence supports.

C. Add a condition to evaluate parking overflow impacts at 18 months post-occupancy.

City Ventures agrees to amend the parking monitoring condition to require an evaluation of any potential parking overflow impacts at 18 months post-occupancy in lieu of the originally proposed 9-month timeframe.

D. Parties asked to provide a written description of what transpired at meetings between City Ventures, the Chabad Center, and residents.

A written description of all stakeholder meetings, including the February 11, 2026 meeting with the Chabad, OCSD, and City staff, and the February 18, 2026 meeting with the appellant and residents, is attached as the meeting notes prepared by City Ventures.

E. City Ventures agreed to install the tallest available 36-inch box trees.

City Ventures agrees to the following condition: The Applicant shall make best efforts to install the tallest healthy thirty-six (36) inch box trees available to maximize early privacy screening. The Applicant shall contact and document outreach to at least four (4) licensed nurseries to identify the tallest available specimens of the approved species. The tallest structurally sound trees reasonably available at the time of purchase shall be installed, subject to City review and approval.

G. Clarify how Civil Code Section 5850 impacts HOA-based parking enforcement.

Civil Code Section 5850 generally caps HOA monetary fines at $100 per violation. As explained in our response to Item 9, the Project’s enforcement framework is not built around HOA fines. Towing under California Vehicle Code Section 22658 – with all costs borne by the violating party – is the primary enforcement mechanism. Loss of guest parking reservation privileges through Park Boss is the secondary mechanism. Together, these provide a robust and legally sound enforcement regime entirely independent of the Section 5850 fine cap. As noted, the CC&Rs also provide the City with independent enforcement authority to ensure the HOA’s compliance with the conditions.

VI. Conclusion
The record before this Council is extensive. From the first community outreach letter in July 2025 through more than two dozen Planning Commission and City Council requests City Ventures has now addressed, City Ventures has acted in good faith at every turn –

11 commissioning studies that were not required, accepting conditions that exceeded legal minimums, meeting with neighbors and institutions that raised concerns, and voluntarily modifying the Project in response to feedback. City Ventures did all of this not because State law required it, but because good-faith engagement is the right way to develop housing in a community.

That engagement has produced a record in which City Staff, the Planning Commission, and every reviewing City department have recommended approval. The Project meets all applicable objective standards. The appeal contentions do not meet the legal threshold for denial. EPD’s comprehensive Responses to Comments document and the February 3, 2026 City Staff Report provide the Council with everything it needs to make the required findings. City Ventures respectfully requests that the City Council deny the appeal and approve Tentative Tract Map 19389, Design Review 2025-02, and Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 for the 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard Project at the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting, together with the required CEQA findings.

Yorba Linda is a special place, and City Ventures is grateful for the time and engagement of the residents, Commissioners, and Council Members who participated in this process. The level of community involvement reflects how much this community cares about where and how it grows, and City Ventures has taken that seriously at every step. We look forward to presenting at the March 3 hearing.

Sincerely,
Alex Rounaghi
Senior Development Manager
City Ventures
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92612

CONSULTANT INFORMATION KTGY ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 17911 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA 92614 CONTACT: ALAN SCALES PHONE: (949) 221-6256 EMAIL: [email protected] ARCHITECTURE: No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 COVER A0.00 YORBA LINDA & OHIO. YORBA LINDA, CA DEVELOPER INFORMATION YORBA LINDA 3 INV.LLC 3121 MICHELSON DR., SUITE 150 IRVINE, CA 92612 CONTACT: ALEX ROUNAGHI PHONE: (949) 395-1275 EMAIL: [email protected] C&V CONSULTING , INC. 9830 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE IRVINE, CA 92618 CONTACT: DANE MCDOUGALL PHONE: (949) 916-3800 EMAIL: [email protected] CIVIL: C2 COLLABORATIVE 100 AVINEDA MIRAMAR SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 CONTACT: STEVE OH PHONE: (949) 364-6624 x743 EMAIL: [email protected] LANDSCAPE: Page 85 of 980 PROJECT SITE COMMUNITY CONTEXT (1:150) SHEET INDEX NOTES: 1. PLANS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH: · 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE · 2025 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE · 2025 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE · 2025 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE · 2025 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE · 2025 ELECTRICAL CODE. No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 SHEET INDEX + PROJECT SUMMARY A0.10 Civil Sheet Index Architectural Sheet Index A0.00 - COVER A0.10 - SHEET INDEX + PROJECT SUMMARY A1.00 - SITE PLAN A1.10 - SITE PLAN SETBACKS A1.20 - ADJACENT RESIDENT EXHIBIT A2.00 - BUILDING '400' - 4-PLEX - PERSPECTIVE A2.01 - BUILDING '400' - 4-PLEX - ELEVATIONS A2.02 - BUILDING '400' - 4-PLEX - BUILDING PLANS A2.10 - BUILDING '700' - 7-PLEX - PERSPECTIVE A2.11 - BUILDING '700' - 7-PLEX - ELEVATIONS A2.12 - BUILDING '700' - 7-PLEX - BUILDING PLANS A2.20 - BUILDING '900' - 9-PLEX - PERSPECTIVE A2.21 - BUILDING '900' - 9-PLEX - ELEVATIONS A2.22 - BUILDING '900' - 9-PLEX - BUILDING PLANS A3.00 - UNIT PLANS - PLAN 1 A3.10 - UNIT PLANS - PLAN 2 A3.11 - UNIT PLANS - PLAN 2 OPTIONS A4.00 - TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS Landscape Sheet Index L-1 - OVERALL CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2 - DESIGN IMAGERY L-3 - CONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE ENLARGEMENT L-4 - WALL AND FENCE PLAN L-5 - OVERALL IRRIGATION MASTER PLAN L-6 - CONCEPTUAL PLANT PALETTE L-7 - OVERALL CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN L-8 - CONCEPTUAL SITE AMENITIES AND DESIGN DETAILS SHEET 1 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SHEET 2 - PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SHEET 3 - PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SHEET 4 - PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN SHEET 5 - PRELIMINARY SECTIONS SHEET 6 - PRELIMINARY FIRE ACCESS & HYDRANT PLAN Page 86 of 980 STOP AHEADAHEADAHEAD SIGNALSIGNALSIGNAL BLDG 1 B400 BLDG 2 B400 BLDG 3 B400 BLDG 4 B400 BLDG 5 B400 BLDG 6 B400 BLDG 7 B400 BLDG 8 B400 BLDG 9 B900 BLDG 10 B700 B700 B700 24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 24'-2" 24'-3" 29'-1" P P P HC BLDG 12 BLDG 11 29'-1" YORBA LINDA BLVD. PROJECT ENTRY 20'-0" MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK 23'-0" EQUESTRIAN TRAIL SETBACK 5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD

SETBACK
5'-1" 20'-0" MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK TRANSFORMER TRASH ENCLOSURE 5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD

SETBACK
7'-8"
24'-0"
DRIVE
AISLE 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 24'-0" 8'-0" 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 24'-0" DRIVE AISLE 26'-0" 26'-1" 26'-0" 21'-3" 26'-0" 21'-2" 26'-0" 26'-0" 27'-1" 26'-0" 5'-0" P P P P PP P A A A A A A A 23'-9" 6'-6"
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD
SETBACK 24'-4"
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD
SETBACK 20'-0" MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK 20'-0" MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK 6'-2"
6'-2"
6'-2"
7'-8"
6'-2"
7'-8" 22'-11" 25'-2" 27'-0" 26'-0"
11'-6" 20'-0" 21'-0"
6'-1" 23'-2" 22'-6" 22'-8" 27'-0"
5'-0"
10'-6"
5'-2"
6'-1"
5'-0"
6'-1" P P MAILBOXES 9'-0"
20'-0"P P P A No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A1.0 0 15 30 60 Scale 1" = 30' UNIT ENTRY LEGEND PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 ALT A ACCESSIBLE UNIT TRANSFORMER PRIVATE OPEN SPACE COMMON OPEN SPACE Page 87 of 980 STOP AHEADAHEADAHEAD SIGNALSIGNAL BLDG 1 B400 BLDG 2 B400 BLDG 3 B400 BLDG 4 B400 BLDG 5 B400 BLDG 6 B400 BLDG 7 B400 BLDG 8 B400 BLDG 9 B900 BLDG 10 B700 B700 B700 P P P P HC BLDG 12 BLDG 11 YORBA LINDA BLVD. PROJECT ENTRY 20'-0" MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK 23'-0" EQUESTRIAN TRAIL SETBACK 5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD

SETBACK
4'-8"
20'-0" MIN.

FRONT YARD

SETBACK
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD

SETBACK
7'-8" P P P P P PP P A A A A A A A 22'-4"
6'-1"
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD
SETBACK 24'-4"
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD

SETBACK
20'-0" MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK 20'-0" MIN. FRONT YARD

SETBACK
6'-2"
6'-2"
6'-2"
7'-8"
6'-2"
7'-8" 23'-0" 25'-2" 27'-0" 26'-0"
11'-6" 20'-0" 22'-3" 23'-2" 22'-6" 22'-8" 27'-0"
5'-1" 10'-6"
6'-1"
5'-1"
6'-1"
5'-1"
5'-1"
6'-1"
6'-1"
5'-1"
5'-1"
6'-1"
6'-1"
5'-1"
6'-1"
5'-1"
10'-6"
11'-6"
9'-6"
11'-0" A P P P No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 SITE PLAN SETBACKS A1.10 0 15 30 60 Scale 1" = 30' Page 88 of 980 STOP AHEADAHEADAHEAD SIGNALSIGNALSIGNAL BLDG 1 B400 BLDG 2 B400 BLDG 3 B400 BLDG 4 B400 BLDG 5 B400 BLDG 6 B400 BLDG 7 B400 BLDG 8 B400 BLDG 9 B900 BLDG 10 B700 B700 B700 P P P P HC BLDG 12 BLDG 11 YORBA LINDA BLVD. PROJECT ENTRY 22'-0" MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK 25'-0" EQUESTRIAN TRAIL SETBACK 5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD
SETBACK 20'-0" MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD

SETBACK P P P P PP P A A A A A A A
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD

SETBACK
5'-0" MIN.

INTERIOR SIDE YARD
SETBACK 20'-0" MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK 20'-0" MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK 25'-2" 50'-11" 23'-2"
93'-7" 43'-9" 43'-10" 27'-0"44'-9"
61'-6" 28'-6" 86'-1"
61'-3"
59'-7" 81'-7" 25'-2"
86'-11"
47'-7" 60'-4"
79'-8"
167'-3" 144'-1" 174'-1" P A P P P No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 ADJACENT RESIDENT EXHIBIT A1.20 0 15 30 60 Scale 1" = 30' Page 89 of 980 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 B-400 - 4-PLEX A2.00 PERSPECTIVES REAR PERSPECTIVE FRONT PERSPECTIVE Page 90 of 980 8'-7" 9'-1" 1-FRONT ELEVATION FF FINISH GRADE T.O. PLATE FF 3-REAR ELEVATION 2-LEFT ELEVATION 4-RIGHT ELEVATION 8'-7" FF T.O. PLATE T.O. PLATE T.O. ROOF
T.O. EAVE 2'-0" 2'-0" 1'-6" 2'-9" 1'-6"
±30'-0"
T.O. EAVE
±29'-10"
37'-1" LEGEND Stucco, 16/20 'S' Roof Tile Decorative Metal Window Grille Parapet Stone Veneer Vinyl Windows Decorative Window Shutter Metal Railing Fiberglass Entry Door Decorative Exterior Light & Address Wood Railing Stucco o/ Foam Trim Stucco o/ Foam Sill Stucco o/ Foam Header Wood Barge Board Sectional Metal Garage Door Gable End Faux Vent Recess Utility Closet Door 1 Planter Box 2346 789 5 101112 131415161718 19 2-LEFT ELEVATION - ALT. 2'-0" No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA 0 4 8 16 Scale 1" = 8' MARCH 4, 2026 B-400 - 4-PLEX A2.01 ELEVATIONS 2 5 1 9 16 7 13 6 4 12 3 3 2 4 1 KEY SITE PLAN: 1/16" = 1'-0" 10 14 11 15 18 19 17 Page 91 of 980 65'-2"
45'-0" 1'-6" P2 P1 P1 P2 65'-2" 1'-0"
4'-6"
4'-8"
48'-6" P2 P1 P1 P2 65'-2"
48'-6" P2 P1 P1 P2 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" MARCH 4, 2026 SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR THIRD FLOOR ROOF PLAN B-400 - 4-PLEX A2.02 BUILDING PLANS Page 92 of 980 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 REAR PERSPECTIVE FRONT PERSPECTIVE B-700 - 7-PLEX A2.10 PERSPECTIVES Page 93 of 980 8'-7" 9'-1" 1-FRONT ELEVATION FF FINISH GRADE T.O. PLATE FF 3-REAR ELEVATION 2-LEFT ELEVATION 4-RIGHT ELEVATION 8'-7" FF T.O. PLATE T.O. PLATE T.O. ROOF
±30'-0"
T.O. EAVE
±29'-10"
T.O. EAVE 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-9" 1'-6" 1'-0"
37'-1" LEGEND Stucco, 16/20 'S' Roof Tile Decorative Metal Window Grille Parapet Stone Veneer Vinyl Windows Decorative Window Shutter Metal Railing Fiberglass Entry Door Decorative Exterior Light & Address Wood Railing Stucco o/ Foam Trim Stucco o/ Foam Sill Stucco o/ Foam Header Wood Barge Board Sectional Metal Garage Door Gable End Faux Vent Recess Utility Closet Door 1 Planter Box 2346 789 5 101112 131415161718 19 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA 0 4 8 16 Scale 1" = 8' MARCH 4, 2026 5 2 1 9 16 13 7 12 3 6 4 3 2 4 1 KEY SITE PLAN: 1/16" = 1'-0" 10 15 11 14 18 19 17 B-700 - 7-PLEX - ELEVATIONS A2.11 ELEVATIONS Page 94 of 980 113'-11"
45'-0" 1'-6" P1 P2 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 113'-11"
48'-6" P2 P1 P2 P1 P1 P1 P2 113'-11"
48'-6" 1'-0"
4'-8"
4'-6" P2 P1 P2 P1 P1 P1 P2 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" MARCH 4, 2026 SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR ROOF PLAN THIRD FLOOR B-700 - 7-PLEX A2.12 BUILDING PLANS Page 95 of 980 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 REAR PERSPECTIVE FRONT PERSPECTIVE B-900 - 9- PLEX A2.20 PERSPECTIVES Page 96 of 980 8'-7" 9'-1" 1-FRONT ELEVATION FF FINISH GRADE T.O. PLATE FF 3-REAR ELEVATION 2-LEFT ELEVATION 4-RIGHT ELEVATION 37'-1" FF T.O. PLATE T.O. PLATE T.O. ROOF 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-9" 1'-6" ±30'-0"
T.O. EAVE
±29'-10"
T.O. EAVE 8'-7" LEGEND Stucco, 16/20 'S' Roof Tile Decorative Metal Window Grille Parapet Stone Veneer Vinyl Windows Decorative Window Shutter Metal Railing Fiberglass Entry Door Decorative Exterior Light & Address Wood Railing Stucco o/ Foam Trim Stucco o/ Foam Sill Stucco o/ Foam Header Wood Barge Board Sectional Metal Garage Door Gable End Faux Vent Recess Utility Closet Door 1 Planter Box 2346 789 5 101112 131415161718 19 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA 0 4 8 16 Scale 1" = 8' MARCH 4, 2026 2 5 1 9 16 7 13 12 3 6 4 3 2 4 1 KEY SITE PLAN: 1/16" = 1'-0" 10 14 15 11 18 19 17 B-900 - 9-PLEX A2.21 ELEVATIONS Page 97 of 980 146'-5"
45'-0" 1'-6" P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1 146'-5"
48'-6" 1'-0"
4'-8"
4'-6" P2 P1 P2 P1 P1 P1 P2 P1 P2 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" MARCH 4, 2026 FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR B-900 - 9-PLEX A2.22 BUILDING PLANS Page 98 of 980 146'-5"
48'-6" P2 P1 P2 P1 P1 P1 P2 P1 P2 No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" MARCH 4, 2026 THIRD FLOOR ROOF PLAN B-900 - 9-PLEX A2.23 BUILDING PLANS Page 99 of 980 2-CAR GARAGE 10'-9" x 44'-1" 11'-4"
45'-0" PORCH ENTRY T W.H. R O KITCHEN 11'-2" x 11'-10" LIVING 11'-10" x 15'-0" BED 2 10'-1" x 10'-1" W.I.C. BATH 2 48'-0" 16'-1" PANTRY REF.

STOVE

SINK DW COAT
LINEN DECK 4'-8" x 10'-6"
5'-1" PRIMARY BED 11'-10" x 13'-3" PRIMARY BATH LAU. BED 3 10'-2" x 10'-7" BATH 3 W.I.C. 16'-1" 43'-4" +36" RAISED FLOORW.I.C. ROOF ACCESS HATCH
LINEN PLAN 1 NET SF 1ST FLOOR 85 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR 669 SQ. FT. 3RD FLOOR 627 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1381 SQ. FT. DECK 51 SQ. FT. GARAGE 511 SQ. FT. 2-CAR GARAGE 10'-9" x 43'-3" 16'-1" 45'-0" PORCH ENTRY T W.H. R O GROSS SF 1ST FLOOR 85 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR 711 SQ. FT. 3RD FLOOR 666 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1463 SQ. FT. No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" FIRST FLOOR (ALT) UNIT PLANS - PLAN 1 A3.00 UNIT PLANS Page 100 of 980 GARAGE 20'-3" x 20'-4" OPT. PDR PORCH T ENTRY RO
45'-0" 2'-0" 1'-6" 20'-10" 16'-1" W.H. DEN 11'-10" x 15'-9" BED 2 9'-11" x 10'-0" KITCHEN 11'-10" x 13'-11" LIVING 11'-10" x 16'-3" DECK 4'-6" x 15'-6" BATH 2 REF.

STOVE

SINK DW PANTRY
4'-6"
48'-0" 6" 20'-10" 16'-1" COAT
LINEN BED 3 10'-0" x 11'-7" BATH 3 W.I.C. LAUNDRY 6'-1" x 6'-4" PRIMARY BATH PRIMARY BEDROOM 11'-11" x 14'-7" W.I.C. ROOF ACCESS HATCH +36" RAISED FLOORW.I.C. 48'-0" 6" 16'-1" NET SF PLAN 2 1ST FLOOR 320 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR 619 SQ. FT. 3RD FLOOR 712 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1651 SQ. FT. DECK 70 SQ. FT. GARAGE 465 SQ. FT. GROSS SF 1ST FLOOR 347 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR 698 SQ. FT. 3RD FLOOR 777 SQ. FT. TOTAL LIVING 1822 SQ. FT. No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" UNIT PLANS - PLAN 2 3.10 UNIT PLANS Page 101 of 980 DEN 11'-10" x 15'-9" GARAGE 20'-3" x 20'-4"
45'-0" 2'-0" 1'-6" 20'-10" 16'-1" BATH 4 PORCH ENTRY T RO W.H. OPT. BED 4 10'-1" x 13'-6" GARAGE 20'-3" x 20'-4" 45'-0" 2'-0" 1'-6" 20'-10" 16'-1" PORCH ENTRY T RO W.H. BATH 4 18'-9"
2'-0" 1'-6"
UTIL. UTIL. MECH./ELEC.
45'-0" 1'-6" No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 FIRST FLOOR ACCESSIBLE - DEN W OPT. BATH FIRST FLOOR ACCESSIBLE - OPT BED W ACC BATH 0 2 4 8 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" PLAN 2 OPTIONS 3.11 UNIT PLANS FIRST FLOOR END WALL - UTILITY CLOSET Page 102 of 980 1 4 RUNNING BOND PRECISION PROJECTED BLOCKFRONT 3 REAR 2 LEFT 4 RIGHT 5'-0"
6'-0" TRASH 8'2" L x 5' W RECYCLING 8'2" L x 5' W TO BRICK CAP CORRUGATED METAL ROOF 19'-4" 9'-4" 2 13
6'-0" TO BRICK CAP No. 888.456.5849 | ktgy.com YORBA LINDA & OHIO 20241152 CITY VENTURES SCHEMATIC YORBA LINDA, CA MARCH 4, 2026 A4.00 0 2 4 8 Scale 1" = 4' TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN & ELEVATIONS Page 103 of 980

02.25.26 YORBA LINDA, CA
L-1

YORBA LINDA AND OHIO -
Collaborative
0 10’ 20’ 40’
OVERALL CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN Scale: 1”= 20’-0” 3’ 2’-4” 9’-6”9’-6”
14’-0”
16’-0”

YORBA LINDA BLVD
LEGEND
Project Entry with Enhanced Paving
Pedestrian Sidewalk
Private Patio Fence and Gate
Common Open Space w/Shade Structure, BBQ, Tables, and Open Lawn 1 1
2 2
2 2
3 3 3
3 3
4 4
5 5 5
6 6
6 6
6 7
7 7
8 8
Mailbox Cluster
Perimeter Masonry Wall
Transformer
Trash Enclosure

02.25.26 YORBA LINDA, CA
L-2

YORBA LINDA AND OHIO -
Collaborative

DESIGN IMAGERY

02.25.26 YORBA LINDA, CA
L-3

YORBA LINDA AND OHIO -
Collaborative
0 2’ 4’ 8’
CONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE ENLARGEMENT Scale: 1/4”=1’-0”
LEGEND
Shade Structure with Picnic Tables & BBQ
Open Lawn
Specimen Trees
Screening Trees
Guest Parking
Private Patio Fence and Gate
Perimeter Masonry Wall Accent Vines

YORBA LINDA BLVD
KEYMAP
1 1
2 2
3 4
4 3
5 5
6 6
7 7

YORBA LINDA BLVD

02.25.26 YORBA LINDA, CA
L-4

YORBA LINDA AND OHIO -
Collaborative

WALL AND FENCE PLAN
0 10’ 20’ 40’
Scale: 1”= 20’-0”
Steel Patio Fence
• 36” Ht.
• Color to Match Architecture
Perimeter Masonry Wall Low Masonry Wall
• 6’-0” Ht from offsite.
• Masonry Wall: Tan color with SplitFace finish with Precision Accent Band • 3’-0” Ht. Max.
• Masonry Wall: CMU build-up with
Stucco Finish and Precast Cap. Color
to Match Architecture
Steel Patio Gate
• 36” Ht. x 42”W. opening min.
• Color to Match Architecture
LEGEND
Patio Fence- Steel Fence
(Color to match Architecture)
Patio Gate- Steel gate
(Color to match Architecture)
Perimeter Wall- Masonry Wall
Low Masonry Wall
(Color to match Architecture)
48’-0” O.C.

Pilasters

02.25.26 YORBA LINDA, CA
L-5

YORBA LINDA AND OHIO -
Collaborative

OVERALL IRRIGATION MASTER PLAN
0 10’ 20’ 40’
Scale: 1”= 20’-0”
LEGEND
Low Water Use
Medium Water Use
High Water Use

YORBA LINDA BLVD
Hydrozone: Eto: KL LA Sq. Ft. Conversion SLA Sq. Ft. MAWA Landscaped Area 48 0.55 13,794 0.62 0 225,780
MAWA= Maximum Applied Water Allowance (gallons per year) Eto= Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C (inches per year)

0.50= Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF)

1.0= ETAF for Sprcial Landscaped Area
LA= Landscaped Area includes Special Landscape Area (square feet)

0.62= Conversion Factor (to gallons per square foot)

0.3= the additional ET adjustment Factor for Special Landscape Area (1.0- 0.7= 0.3) SLA= Speical Landscape Area (square feet)
Applicant to fill in boxes below:

Eto (Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C inches per year) Landscaped Area includes Special Landscape Area (square feet) Speical Landscape Area (square feet)
Hydrozone: Eto: KL Sq. Ft. Conversion IE EAWU
Very Low Water Use 48 0.1 0 0.62 0.81 -
Low Water Use 48 0.2 0.62 0.81 8,539 62,746
Medium Water Use 48 0.5 0.62 0.81 4,821 88,564
High Water Use 48 0.8 0.62 0.73 434 14,154
Special Landscape Area 48 1.0 0.62 1.00 - -
Total EAWU: 13,794 165,464
EAWU= Estimated Applied Water Use (gallons per year)
Eto= Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C (inches per year) KI= Landscape Coefficient
LA= Landscaped Area (square feet)
Project Name: Yorba Linda

WATER EFFICIENT WORK SHEET
Total EAWU = (Eto x KL x LA in Sq.ft. / IE)= Gallons per Year 48 13,794
0 Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
Estimated Annual Water Use:

Total MAWA = (Eto x 0.50 x LA in Sq.ft. x 0.62)+(Eto x 1.0 x SLA in Sq.ft. x 0.62)= Gallons per year for LA + SLA Date: February 24, 2026
Hydrozone: Eto: KL LA Sq. Ft. Conversion SLA Sq. Ft. MAWA Landscaped Area 48 0.55 13,794 0.62 0 225,780
MAWA= Maximum Applied Water Allowance (gallons per year) Eto= Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C (inches per year)

0.50= Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF)

1.0= ETAF for Sprcial Landscaped Area
LA= Landscaped Area includes Special Landscape Area (square feet)

0.62= Conversion Factor (to gallons per square foot)

0.3= the additional ET adjustment Factor for Special Landscape Area (1.0- 0.7= 0.3) SLA= Speical Landscape Area (square feet)
Applicant to fill in boxes below:

Eto (Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C inches per year) Landscaped Area includes Special Landscape Area (square feet) Speical Landscape Area (square feet)
Hydrozone: Eto: KL Sq. Ft. Conversion IE EAWU
Very Low Water Use 48 0.1 0 0.62 0.81 -
Low Water Use 48 0.2 0.62 0.81 8,539 62,746
Medium Water Use 48 0.5 0.62 0.81 4,821 88,564
High Water Use 48 0.8 0.62 0.73 434 14,154
Special Landscape Area 48 1.0 0.62 1.00 - -
Total EAWU: 13,794 165,464
EAWU= Estimated Applied Water Use (gallons per year)
Eto= Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C (inches per year) KI= Landscape Coefficient
LA= Landscaped Area (square feet)

0.62= Conversion Factor (to gallons per square foot)
IE= Irrigation Efficiency= IME X DU (See definication in Appendix E for exmaplne IE percentages) IME= Irrigation Management Efficiency (90%)
DU= Distribution Uniformity of Irrigation Head
KI= Ks x Kc x Kmc
Ks= species factor (range 1.0- 0.9) (see WUCOLS list for values) Kd= density factor (range 0.5- 1.3) (see WUCOLS list for density value) Kmc= microclimatic factor (range 0.5- 1.4) (see WUCOLS) Table A- PF (Plant Factor)
Cool Season Turf= 0.8
Warm Season Turf= 0.7
High Water Use Plants= 0.7 (can be between 0.7-0.9)
Moderate Water Use Plants= 0.5 (can be between 0.4-0.6) Low Water Use Plants= 0.2 (can be between 0.1-0.3)
Very Low Water Use Plants= 0.1
IE (Irrigation Efficiency)- Appendix E
Pop-up Stream Rotor= 0.73
Rotor Head= 0.76
Microspray= 0.76
Bubblers= 0.77
Drip Emitters= 0.81
Subsurface Irrigation= 0.81
Project Name: Yorba Linda

WATER EFFICIENT WORK SHEET
Total EAWU = (Eto x KL x LA in Sq.ft. / IE)= Gallons per Year 48 13,794
0 Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
Estimated Annual Water Use:

Total MAWA = (Eto x 0.50 x LA in Sq.ft. x 0.62)+(Eto x 1.0 x SLA in Sq.ft. x 0.62)= Gallons per year for LA + SLA Date: February 24, 2026
Hydrozone: Eto: KL LA Sq. Ft. Conversion SLA Sq. Ft. MAWA Landscaped Area 48 0.55 13,794 0.62 0 225,780
MAWA= Maximum Applied Water Allowance (gallons per year) Eto= Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C (inches per year)

0.50= Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF)

1.0= ETAF for Sprcial Landscaped Area
LA= Landscaped Area includes Special Landscape Area (square feet)

0.62= Conversion Factor (to gallons per square foot)

0.3= the additional ET adjustment Factor for Special Landscape Area (1.0- 0.7= 0.3) SLA= Speical Landscape Area (square feet)
Applicant to fill in boxes below:

Eto (Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C inches per year) Landscaped Area includes Special Landscape Area (square feet) Speical Landscape Area (square feet)
Hydrozone: Eto: KL Sq. Ft. Conversion IE EAWU
Very Low Water Use 48 0.1 0 0.62 0.81 -
Low Water Use 48 0.2 0.62 0.81 8,539 62,746
Medium Water Use 48 0.5 0.62 0.81 4,821 88,564
High Water Use 48 0.8 0.62 0.73 434 14,154
Special Landscape Area 48 1.0 0.62 1.00 - -
Total EAWU: 13,794 165,464
EAWU= Estimated Applied Water Use (gallons per year)
Eto= Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C (inches per year) KI= Landscape Coefficient
LA= Landscaped Area (square feet)

0.62= Conversion Factor (to gallons per square foot)
IE= Irrigation Efficiency= IME X DU (See definication in Appendix E for exmaplne IE percentages) IME= Irrigation Management Efficiency (90%)
DU= Distribution Uniformity of Irrigation Head
KI= Ks x Kc x Kmc
Ks= species factor (range 1.0- 0.9) (see WUCOLS list for values) Kd= density factor (range 0.5- 1.3) (see WUCOLS list for density value) Kmc= microclimatic factor (range 0.5- 1.4) (see WUCOLS) Table A- PF (Plant Factor)
Cool Season Turf= 0.8
Warm Season Turf= 0.7
High Water Use Plants= 0.7 (can be between 0.7-0.9)
Moderate Water Use Plants= 0.5 (can be between 0.4-0.6) Low Water Use Plants= 0.2 (can be between 0.1-0.3)
Very Low Water Use Plants= 0.1
IE (Irrigation Efficiency)- Appendix E
Pop-up Stream Rotor= 0.73
Rotor Head= 0.76
Microspray= 0.76
Bubblers= 0.77
Drip Emitters= 0.81
Subsurface Irrigation= 0.81
Project Name: Yorba Linda

WATER EFFICIENT WORK SHEET
Total EAWU = (Eto x KL x LA in Sq.ft. / IE)= Gallons per Year 48 13,794
0 Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
Estimated Annual Water Use:

Total MAWA = (Eto x 0.50 x LA in Sq.ft. x 0.62)+(Eto x 1.0 x SLA in Sq.ft. x 0.62)= Gallons per year for LA + SLA Date: February 24, 2026

02.25.26 YORBA LINDA, CA
L-6

YORBA LINDA AND OHIO -
Collaborative

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
TREE SCHEDULE:

Acacia stenophylla
Cercis occidentalis

Chamaerops humilis
Chilopsis linearis
Dracaena draco
Eriobotrya deflexa
Lagerstroemia indica
Laurus nobilis
Lophostemon confertus
Platanus racemosa
Podocarpus gracilior
Prosopis chilensis
Prunus caroliniana
Quercus ilex
Quercus suber
Quercus virginiana
Rhaphiolepis x ‘Montic’
Ulmus parvifolia “True Green”
Shoestring Acacia
Western Redbud
Mediterranean Fan Palm
Desert Willow
Dragon Tree
Bronze Loquat
Crape Myrtle
Sweet Bay
Brisbane Box
California Sycamore
Fern Pine
Chilean Mesquite Tree
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Holly Oak
Cork Oak
Southern Live Oak
Majestic Beauty Indian Hawthorn
True Green Chinese Elm
Note: 1. Plant selection and landscape/irrigation design should comply with the Water Efficient Landscape requirements and ordinances.

2. All Landscaping should meet the minimum Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidelines as follows:

- All shrub or ground cover vegetation should be no higher than 2 feet in height - Tree canopies should be no lower than 6 feet in height. - Avoid creating areas of potential concealment by using “lacy” vegetation. - Avoid using vegetation that requires constant maintenance and upkeep as to avoid excessive growth potentially compromising the 2’ x 6’ rule.

C O N C E P T U A L P L A N T P A L E T T E

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
GROUNDCOVER SCHEDULE:

VINE SCHEDULE:

Bougainvillea spp.

Carissa macrocarpa ‘Green Carpet’
Lantana spp.

Senecio mandraliscae
Trachelospermum jasminoides
Verbena spp.

Vinca minor
Calliandra haematocephala
Distictis ‘Rivers’
Trachelospermum jasminoides
Bougainvillea
Dwarf Natal Plum
Lantana
Blue Chalk Sticks
Star Jasmine
Verbena
Periwinkle
Pink Powder Puff
Royal Trumpet Vine
Star Jasmine

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
GRASSES/SUCCULENTS SCHEDULE:

Agave spp.

Agrostis pallens
Aloe spp.

Carex spp.

Distichlis spicata
Dudleya spp.

Echeveria spp.

Festuca californica
Festuca mairei
Helictotrichon sempervirens
Juncus patens ‘Carman’s Gray’
Liriope spicata
Sedum spp.

Sisyrinchium bellum
Agave
Bentgrass
Aloe
Sedges
Saltgrass
Chalk Lettuce
Mexican Hens & Chicks
Red Fescue
Atlas Fescue
Blue Oat Grass
Carman’s Gray Common Rush
Creeping Lilyturf
Stonecrops
Blue-Eyed Grass

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
SHRUB SCHEDULE:

Anemopsis californica
Baccharis spp.

Berberis nevinii
Bougainvillea spp.

Buxus japonica ‘Green Gem’
Ceanothus spp.

Cercis spp.

Cistus spp.

Dianella spp.

Elaeagnus pungens
Encelia farinose
Hesperaloe parvifolia
Iva hayesiana
Juncus mexicanus
Leucophyllum spp.

Ligustrum japonicum ‘Texanum’
Mimulus cardinalis
Myrtus communis
Penstemon spp.

Phlomis spp.

Pittosporum tobira ‘Variegatus’
Podocarpus macrophyllus
Prunus caroliniana spp. Rhaphiolepis x ‘Montic’

Rhaphiolepis spp.

Ribes speciosum
Romneya coulteri
Rosa californica

Salvia spp.

Santolina chamaecyparissus
Santolina virens
Solanum rantonnetii

Tecoma stans
Viburnum davidii
Xylosma congestum
Yerba Mansa
Marsh Baccharis/ Coyote Brush
Nevin’s Barberry
Bougainvillea
Japanese Boxwood
California Lilac
Redbud
Rockrose
Flax Lily
Silverberry
Brittlebush
Red Yucca
San Diego Povertyweed
Mexican Rush
Texas Sage
Waxleaf Privet
Scarlet Monkey Flower
Myrtle
Penstemon
Sage
Variegated Mock Orange
Yew Pine
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Indian Hawthorn
Majestic Beauty Indian Hawthorn
Fushia Flowering Gooseberry
California Tree Poppy
California Wildrose
Sage
Lavender Cotton
Green Lavender Cotton
Blue Potato Bush
Yellow Trumpet Flower
David Viburnum
Shiny Xylosma

SPECIMEN TREES

ACCENT TREES

SCREENING SHRUBS

ACCENT SHRUBS

ACCENT SHRUBS

MEDIUM SHRUBS

GRASSES

SCREENING VINES

TURFGRASS
TREES: SHRUBS: NATIVE SHRUBS: GROUNDCOVERS:

TURF/OPEN LAWN:

PATIO TREES

SHADE TREES

SCREEN/VERTICAL TREES
Botanical name (Common Name) Botanical name (Common Name) Botanical name (Common Name) Botanical name (Common Name) Botanical name (Common Name)

PLANTING LEGEND
Platanus racemosa (California Sycamore)
Prosopis chilensis (Chilean Mesquite Tree)
Quercus virginiana (Southern Live Oak)
Aesculus californica (California Buckeye)
Albizia julibrissin (Silk Tree)
Cercis occidentalis ( Western Redbud)
Dracaena draco (Dragon Tree)
Lagerstroemia indica (Crape Myrtle)
Magnolia v. ‘Jim Wilson’ (Moonglow Sweet Bay Magnolia)
Ligustrum japonicum texanum (Waxleaf Privet)
Podocarpus macrophyllus (Yew Pine)
Xylosma congestum (Shiny Xylosma)
Agave ‘Blue Flame’ (Blue Flame Agave)
Bougainvillea spp. (Bougainvillea)
Echeveria spp. (Hens & Chicks)
Hesperaloe p. ‘Brake Lights’ (Red Yucca)
Salvia leucantha (Mexican Bush Sage)
Anemopsis californica (Yerba Mansa)
Mimulus cardinalis (scarlet monkey flower)
Rosa californica (California Wildrose)
Carissa m. ‘Boxwood Beauty’ (Carissa)
Dianella ‘Clarity Blue’ (Clarity Blue Flax Lily)
Helictotrichon sempervirens (Blue Oat Grass)
Myrtus communis (True Myrtle)
Rhaphiolepis indica ‘Clara’ (Clara Indian Hawthorn)
Rhaphiolepis umbellata ‘Minor’ (Dwarf Indian Hawthorn)
Agrostis pallens (Bentgrass)
Carex praegracilis (Clustered Field Sedge)
Distichlis spicata (Saltgrass)
Festuca californica ( Red Fescue)
Juncus patens ‘Carman’s Gray’ (Carman’s Gray Common Rush) Sisyrinchium bellum (Blue-eyed Grass)
Calliandra haematocephala (Pink Powder Puff)
Distictis ‘Rivers’ (Royal Trumpet Vine)
Trachelospermum jasminoides (Star Jasmine)
Festuca Arundinacea (Marathon II Sod)
Cassia leptophylla (Gold Medallion Tree)
Cercis occidentalis (Western Redbud)
Eriobotrya deflexa (Bronze Loquat)
Jacaranda mimosifolia ‘Bonsai Blue’ (Bonsai Blue Dwarf Jacaranda) Lagerstroemia indica (Crape Myrtle)
Rhaphiolepis x ‘Montic’ (Majestic Beauty Indian Hawthorn) Bauhinia purpurea (Purple Orchid Tree)
Chilopsis linearis (Desert Willow)
Laurus nobilis (Sweet Bay)
Podocarpus gracilior (Fern Pine)
Ulmus parvifolia ‘True Green’ (True Green
Chinese Elm)
Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood Acacia)
Acacia stenophylla (Shoestring Acacia)
Ficus nitida (Indian Laurel Fig)
Podocarpus henkelii (Long-Leafed Yellowwood)
Podocarpus macrophyllus (Yew Pine)
Prunus caroliniana (Carolina Cherry Laurel)
Leucadendron argenteum (Silver Tree)
Lophostemon confertus (Brisbane Box)

VERTICAL SHRUBS SHRUBS
Leucophyllum f. ‘Green Cloud’ (Green Cloud Texas Sage)
Prunus caroliniana ‘Bright n Tight’
Rhaphiolepis i. ‘Majestic Beauty’
Baccharis glutinosa (Saltmarsh Baccharis)
Berberis nevinii (Nevin’s Barberry)
Iva hayesiana (San Diego Povertyweed)
Juncus mexicanus (Mexican Rush)
Ribes speciosum (Fushia Flowering Gooseberry)

GROUNDCOVERS
Carissa macrocarpa ‘Green Carpet’ (Dwarf Natal Plum)
Carex spp. (Sedge)
Lantana spp. (Lantana)
Senecio mandraliscae (Blue Chalk Sticks)
Verbena spp. (Verbena)

02.25.26 YORBA LINDA, CA
L-7

YORBA LINDA AND OHIO -
Collaborative
0 10’ 20’ 40’
OVERALL CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN Scale: 1”= 20’-0”

YORBA LINDA BLVD

02.25.26 YORBA LINDA, CA
L-8

YORBA LINDA AND OHIO -
Collaborative

CONCEPTUAL SITE AMENITIES AND DESIGN DETAILS
BBQ / BBQ Grills / Post-Mount Grills / Fire Magic Legacy Patio Post Charcoa 
Ships Wit
Fire
Char
by Fire M
ITEM # 577
The Fire
standard
Grill feat
cooking g
See All P
$2,5


T R A S H C A N M A I L B O X
R O U N D D I N I N G T A B L E AT SHADE STRUCTUREB E N C H AT PASEOS (FORMS + SURFACES - APEX BENCH)B B Q

AT SHADE STRUCTURES

AHEADAHEADAHEAD SIGNAL 0 1" = 20' 10 20 40 Page 112 of 980 To: City of Yorba Linda Planning Division
From: City Ventures
Date: 2/24/2026
Re: Additional Neighbor Meetings for a 62-Unit Project
Meeting #1 – February 11, 3PM – City Hall Conference Room Participants: Gabe Diaz, Mitchell Cameron, Alex Rounaghi, Jack Manalo, Rabbi David, Rabbi Levi, Rebbetzin Naromi, Maverick Marquez, Sergeant Lee, Captain Wigginton Chabad to clarify safety concerns and the impact of this 62-unit project on their institution and members.

KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED
Safety Concerns
 Line of sight into Chabad creates a safety concern for members and schoolchildren. o Proposed clearstory or tinted windows
 Rabbi brought up a project built directly across from the Hebrew Academy Day School in Orange County
o Proposed a 12-15ft no climb wall – FBI standards (no specific code section sited)  Gabe Diaz notes that the building code does not allow for walls greater than 6ft – this project’s increase in wall height was already evaluated by staff. An additional increase to 12ft would need to be reevaluated. o City Ventures offered to pay for landscape design services to increase landscape screening on Chabad side.
 Overflow parking into their parking lot.
o Unidentified vehicles and individuals pose a threat to the Chabad.  Discussed general antisemitic trends in the world and the fear surrounding potential attacks on Jewish institutions.

Noise & Construction
 Concerned with noise and dust/dirt resulting from construction. o Clarified that standard construction measures are in place to reduce impacts as much as possible.
 Concerned that they will get noise complaints during events and Jewish holidays by new neighbors.

Traffic
 Chabad is worried that they might have to install a gate to their property.

o They would prefer City Ventures to pay for this.
 Concerned with validity of the traffic studies.
o They were not consulted as part of data collection process. o Claim that the study did not account for the annual increase in school enrollment and general member increase.

ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE UNITS
 Chabad is interested in obtaining affordable units
o Explain a potential path through purchasing as a non-profit organization  Rabbi to contact affordable housing lawyer
 Coordinated schedules to agree to a follow-up meeting on Wednesday, February 18, to discuss City Ventures’ proposed mitigation in response to concerns raised Meeting #2 – February 18, 1PM – City Hall Conference Room Participants: Gabe Diaz, Mitchell Cameron, Alex Rounaghi, Jack Manalo, Ben Roberts, Meghan Macias, Konnie Dobreva, Matthew Vawter, Brian Scharr, John DeLap, Nancy Pfieifer, Lee Burrows, Gary Devian
Appellants requested clarification on project impact metrics and CEQA methodology, with a focus on traffic, parking, and safety.

CEQA SUMMARY
 No significant impacts identified from demolition or construction. o EPD will make sure to include the Preschool in the CEQA document.  However, they clarified that no hazardous materials will be released through construction, so the conclusion does not change.  Explained how the analysis is compared to the City’s EIR but not guided by it. o Appellants brought up the validity of the EIR which did not specifically focus on this site.
 EPD clarified what CEQA focuses on, which includes: VMT, emergency access, and geometric safety.
o Off-site impacts are not subject to CEQA unless required by City guidelines – no city guidelines exist.
 Overall, the project generates an insignificant number of new trips.

KEY ISSUES DISCUSSED
Traffic
 Appellants are concerned with increased traffic on side streets.  Lee asks about where these trip rates come from.
o EPD explains Trip generation based on standard traffic engineering rates by product type and urban context.
 Flag lot was included in site-specific studies with no safety or sight-distance issues. o Appellants explain that the flag lot was not what was originally intended for the site and poses a safety hazard with a narrow drive aisle.  School and Chabad peak hours were considered; further review planned for potential future increases.
 Additional local street data collection will be completed.

Parking
 Concern that the project provides fewer spaces than Yorba Linda requirements. o City Ventures clarifies that the project meets all SDBL requirements for parking.  Off-site parking concerns were raised.
o Appellants raised the issue of residents parking on nearby streets which do not have the capacity for more cars.
 These side streets do not have streetlights or site walks and are frequented by people on horses.
 EPD explains that parking is not within the scope of CEQA.  Parking Management Plan is in progress, including HOA enforcement. o This will be a digital tool to regulate guest spots.

Safety & Operations
 U-turns at Club Terrace raised as a safety concern.
 Emergency access reviewed through CEQA traffic analysis.

Noise
 Appeals raise the issue of nearby sensitive receptors 300ft away. o EPD explains that analysis based on closest sensitive receptor (the Thompson residence) showed no significant impacts 15ft away. Therefore  Residential uses are deemed compatible under the General Plan. o The noise generated from residential use is minimal.

 Appellants claim that the Chabad is more sensitive to sound due to recent events targeted at Jewish institutions.
o CEQA does not account for changing world events or heightened sensitivities.

Study Questions
 Appellants questioned model inputs and consistency with the City’s EIR. o Many questions brought up about the measurement of “no significant impact”  EPD explains that this condition applies to these impacts that are below the allotted thresholds for CEQA studies.
 Conclusion remains that this project results in no significant impacts.

ADDITIONAL ITEMS
 Photometric study to be provided.
 Biological study found no habitat or species on-site.  Suggestion to continue the item due to time constraints.  Agenda items must be finalized by February 26.

This document includes a response to comment letters that were submitted to the City for the Tentative Tract Map 19389 – City Ventures Project. All written comments received are listed in Table 1. All comment letters received have been coded with a number to facilitate identification and tracking.

The responses on the following pages are provided to amplify or clarify information provided in the CEQA Consistency Analysis, and support the conclusion that the project is exempt pursuant to the Class 32 categorical exemption. Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues (e.g., opinions on the merits of the Project unrelated to its environmental impacts) are noted for the record. As described in the responses below, the concerns raised in the comment letters do not constitute significant new information or substantial evidence that would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, nor do the constitute substantial evidence that the project is not exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 32 categorical exemption.

Table 1: Comment Letters Received
Comment Letter Commenter Date
L1 Chabad Beth Meir HaCohen February 3, 2026
L2 Rabbi David Eliezie February 2, 2026
L3 Sonja Trauss; YIMBY LAW February 2, 2026
L4 Lee and Andrea Burrows; Gary Devian January 29, 2026 L5 John DeLap January 28, 2026
L6 John DeLap January 28, 2026
L7 Matthew Starkey January 29, 2026
L8 Californians for Homeownership; Matthew Gelfand February 3, 2026 L9 Matthew Vawter n.d.

L10 Dan Cline n.d.

L11 Lee and Andrea Burrows; Gary Devian February 2, 2026 L12 People for Housing; Elizabeth Hansburg February 2, 2026 L13 Allen Stefanek February 3, 2026
L14 California Housing Defense Fund; Dylan Casey;
James M. Lloyd
February 3, 2026
L15 Lynn Stone, Pastor February 2, 2026
L16 Shadow Corps Protection Services LLC; Maverick D.

Marquez
February 2, 2026
To: Chris Dominguez, City of Yorba Linda
From: EPD Solutions, Inc.

Date: 2/24/2026
Re: Responses to Comments for Tentative Tract Map 19389 – City Ventures

2 L17 Natalie Loughran January 30, 2026
L18 Janelle Dryer February 1, 2026
L19 Barbara Fox January 31, 2026
L20 Danielle Lardas February 1, 2026
L21 Janet Lardas February 1, 2026
L22 Amber Lardas-Hayden February 1, 2026
L23 Catherine Lardas-Hayden February 1, 2026
L24 Sharon Kaak February 3, 2026
L25 Joseph Yeon February 2, 2026
L26 Stephanie Ruppe February 4, 2026
L27 Kevin Yang February 4, 2026
L28 Matthew Vawter n.d.

L29 Ana Gromis February 6, 2026
L30 Eileen Hayden February 3, 2026
L31 Judy Price January 29, 2026
L32 John DeLap February 3, 2026
L33 Lee Burrows February 2, 2026
L34 John DeLap February 2, 2026
L35 John DeLap February 2, 2026
L36 Lee Burrows January 3, 2026
L37 Larry Pinson January 22, 2026
L38 Kathy Shepherd January 29, 2026
L39 Rabbi David Elezrie, Rabbi Levi & Naomi Blesofsky January 29, 2026 L40 Feliz Padilla January 27, 2026
L41 Ruchir and Vernita Soneji January 27, 2026
L42 Fred Awwad January 26, 2026
L43 Irwin M. Fried January 15, 2026
L44 Jill Wilkerson January 24, 2026
L45 Scott Nathan January 26, 2026
L46 Scott Nathan January 17, 2026
L47 Cindi and Brian Scharr January 23, 2026
L48 Juhee Lee January 23, 2026
L49 Katherine Kwon January 23, 2026
L50 Justin Egerer January 18, 2026
L51 ME Nathan January 18, 2026
L52 Nathan and Elizabeth Bettisworth January 17, 2026
L53 Brad Howard January 18, 2026
L54 Kristen Howard January 18, 2026
L55 Susan Goubert January 14, 2026
L56 Mary Pinson January 6, 2026
L57 Larry Pinson January 6, 2026
L58 Stephanie January 11, 2026

3 L59 Lila and Scott Moulton January 10, 2026
L60 Connie and Brad Bryant January 6, 2026
L61 Cheryl A. Sanders January 5, 2026
L62 Colleen Kirtland January 25, 2026
L63 Barry & Joyce Lovinger February 3, 2026
L64 Jeff Goodman February 3, 2026
L65 Deby Goodman February 3, 2026
L66 Randall McFarland February 3, 2026
L67 Matthew Vawter November 11, 2025.

4 Comment Letter L1: Chabad Beth Meir HaCohen Advisory Board 2026 (03 pages)

5

6

7 Comment Letter L1: Chabad Beth Meir HaCohen Advisory Board 2026, February 3, 2026 Response L1: This comment letter does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The comment raises constitutional, security, privacy, and land-use compatibility concerns related to the proximity of the proposed residential development to an existing religious institution and preschool. While the City acknowledges the importance of protecting religious freedom and public safety, these issues do not constitute environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA is limited to the analysis of significant physical changes to the environment and does not require evaluation of constitutional claims, perceived surveillance, speculative criminal acts, social “chilling effects,” or land-use compatibility standards such as Measure JJ (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). To the extent these concerns relate to zoning compliance, design review, or public safety considerations, they are addressed through the City’s discretionary approval processes and applicable building and safety regulations, not through CEQA. It should be noted that the project is consistent with applicable General Plan and zoning standards, as explained in the Consistency Analysis.

The commenter is correct that a preschool operates at the adjacent Chabad center immediately west of the Project site. However, the presence of the preschool does not change the conclusions of the CEQA and technical analysis. The CEQA document identifies nearby sensitive receptors, including residential uses and institutional uses in the vicinity of the Project site (page 4). The analysis did not omit consideration of sensitive land uses. Most importantly, CEQA requires evaluation of impacts based on the closest and most affected sensitive receptors in order to conservatively assess potential health and safety effects. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site consist of existing residential units approximately 15 feet north of the Project boundary. The CEQA Consistency Analysis modeled construction-related emissions, noise, and other potential effects based on these nearest residential receptors.

The Chabad Center, which includes the preschool referenced in the comment, is located approximately 55 feet from the Project’s western property line, substantially farther than the residential receptors used in the modeling. Because air emissions, noise, and other construction-related effects attenuate with distance, analysis of the nearer residential receptors represents a conservative approach. If impacts at 15 feet are less than significant, impacts at 55 feet would be equal or less. Therefore, potential impacts to the preschool were inherently encompassed within the conservative modeling assumptions. Accordingly, the comment does not identify a significant environmental impact or a deficiency in the Project’s CEQA determination and does not require further environmental analysis.

8 Comment Letter L2: Rabbi David Eliezie (05 pages)

9

10

11

12

13 Comment Letter L2: Rabbi David Eliezie, February 2, 2026 Response L2: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The commenter asserts that the environmental document is legally defective because it fails to identify Aleph Preschool as an adjacent sensitive receptor within 0.25 miles of the Project site, fails to analyze impacts to programs conducted at the adjacent Chabad center, and fails to analyze impacts to nearby parsonage homes, including privacy and security concerns.

The commenter is correct that a preschool operates at the adjacent Chabad center immediately west of the Project site. However, the presence of the preschool does not change the conclusions of the hazardous materials analysis. It should also be noted that the Consistency Analysis does identify the North County Chabad Center and Aleph Preschool as surrounding land uses in Section 2.4.

CEQA Appendix G evaluates whether a project would emit hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of a school. As described in the CEQA Consistency Analysis, which incorporates the analysis of the HEIP PEIR, Project construction and operation would involve only the limited use and storage of common construction-related and operational materials (e.g., fuels, lubricants, cleaning products) in small quantities. The Project would not involve the use, storage, or disposal of acutely hazardous materials as defined by applicable State and federal regulations. All hazardous materials would be handled, stored, and disposed of in compliance with applicable regulations, including requirements for containment, spill prevention, and emergency response. To that end, the Project is consistent and within the scope of the analysis of the HEIP PEIR, which considered whether residential projects implementing the housing element could result in hazardous materials impacts. The HEIP PEIR concludes that “hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use of hazardous materials during Project construction would be less than significant.” It also states, with respect to demolition/construction in proximity to schools, that “Development that could be allowed with implementation of the Project does not involve hazardous emissions or handling of substantial amounts of hazardous materials.” It concludes, again with respect to schools, that “Compliance with existing regulations would minimize the risks to schools associated with the exposure to hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant.” The proposed Project is an implementing project of the Housing Element, and was thus analyzed as part of the HEIP PEIR.

Because no acutely hazardous materials are proposed, the presence of a school or preschool within 0.25 miles does not trigger a significant impact under CEQA. Compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing hazardous materials handling, storage, spill prevention, and disposal would further reduce the potential for accidental release. Therefore, even with the identification of Aleph Preschool immediately adjacent to the Project site, impacts related to hazardous materials would remain less than significant.

Further, the closest sensitive receptor analyzed in the CEQA document is the existing single-family residences located adjacent to the Project site, as close as 15 feet from the property line. The CEQA Consistency Analysis modeled emissions based on the proximity to this sensitive receptor. The Chabad Center is located as close as 55 feet from the Project’s property line. Therefore, the CEQA Consistency Analysis adequately considered the closest sensitive receptor to the site, and impacts to nearby sensitive uses, including the preschool, would remain less than significant.

The commenter also states that the CEQA Consistency Analysis fails to identify environmental impacts to the variety of programs held at the Chabad center, including religious, educational, and social events. CEQA does not require an environmental document to inventory or analyze individual activities conducted at adjacent land uses unless those activities would alter the environmental impact analysis. The hazard analysis focuses on whether the Project would create a risk of exposure to hazardous or acutely hazardous materials at sensitive receptors. As discussed above, the HEIP PEIR concluded that implementing residential projects (like the proposed Project) would not cause impacts associated with hazardous materials at sensitive

14 receptors (for the reasons identified above, particularly compliance with applicable regulations). The Project is consistent with that conclusion, as shown in the Consistency Analysis. The Chabad Center (and associated preschool), acknowledged as sensitive receptors, would not be significantly impacted by the proposed Project.

Lastly, the commenter states that the Project would impact nearby parsonage homes due to visual privacy and security concerns. Privacy, views, and security are not environmental impacts under CEQA unless they relate to a physical change in the environment that results in a significant environmental effect. CEQA does not require analysis of visual privacy between private land uses or speculative security concerns unrelated to environmental hazards. The Project’s compliance with applicable zoning, setback, height, and design standards is addressed through the City’s discretionary review process and is not a CEQA hazard issue.

Therefore, no additional CEQA analysis is required.

The commenter states that the construction noise analysis is defective because it models noise levels at a distance of 200 feet rather than at the five-foot side yard setback adjacent to a preschool, resulting in an alleged underestimation of worst-case noise impacts. First, the preschool is not located five feet from the project site.

Second, the construction noise analysis in Appendix H evaluates average (Leq) noise levels over defined time periods, consistent with CEQA practice and applicable noise standards, rather than instantaneous peak noise levels. Furthermore, as the specific types and locations of construction equipment cannot be known at this stage, the analysis conservatively assumes all major construction equipment operates simultaneously at the center of the Project site, consistent with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Noise and Vibration Manual General Assessment Method. This methodology is widely accepted and intentionally conservative, as it represents a worst-case operating scenario.

Although the Project includes a five-foot side yard setback, construction equipment would not operate directly at the property line for extended periods of time and would generally be located farther from sensitive receptors. In addition, construction activities are temporary and mobile in nature; heavy earthmoving equipment does not remain stationary at a single location for extended periods, further limiting sustained exposure at any one receptor.

Accordingly, the use of a representative distance for modeling purposes does not underestimate construction noise impacts. The analysis appropriately evaluates potential noise exposure using accepted methodologies and provides a meaningful assessment of construction noise impacts in compliance with CEQA. Moreover, it should be noted that the Project’s impact is within the scope of the HEIP PEIR’s analysis. The HEIP PEIR concluded that construction of implementing projects had the potential to generate substantial noise at nearby receptors (analyzed at 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet) and, even with applicable mitigation, could result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The Project’s noise analysis, discussed above, concluded that the Project would not cause a significant impact to nearby receptors. That includes the Chabad Center, which is located 55 feet from the Project boundary. At a distance of 55 feet, maximum noise associated with Project construction would be reduced to a level below the 80 dBA threshold.

The commenter also asserts that the Project would result in privacy and security impacts. Such issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA. Likewise, the commenter’s assertions regarding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalize Persons Act are not environmental impacts.

15 Comment Letter L3: YIMBY Law (03 pages)

16

17

18 Comment Letter L3: YIMBY Law, February 2, 2026
Response L3: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). Accordingly, this comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis.

19 Comment Letter L4: Lee and Andrea Burrows and Gary Devian (08 pages)

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 Comment Letter L4: Lee and Andrea Burrows and Gary Devian, January 29, 2026 Response L4: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. This comment states that reliance on Government Code section 65457 is improper and that additional site-specific CEQA review is required. The reference to section 65457 in the City’s staff report and Planning Commission materials was in error, as noted at the Planning Commission meeting. However, that error does not undermine the CEQA conclusions of the Consistency Analysis - because the Project is consistent with the applicable land use designations, zoning standards, and development assumptions evaluated in the certified Housing Element Programmatic EIR, and substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. The use of the State Density Bonus Law, including concessions or waivers, does not by itself constitute a new or more severe environmental impact and is expressly contemplated by state law and prior programmatic analyses. The CEQA consistency analysis prepared for the Project is not conclusory; it evaluates site conditions, project characteristics, and applicable impact categories and demonstrates that potential effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, construction, and land use compatibility were previously analyzed at a programmatic level in the HEIP PEIR and would remain within the scope of that analyses. Concerns regarding building height, massing, setbacks, parking, and adjacency to existing uses are land use and design considerations and do not, on this record, constitute new or peculiar environmental effects requiring additional CEQA review. No substantial evidence has been provided demonstrating unusual circumstances or site-specific environmental impacts beyond those examined in the prior EIRs. Accordingly, the City’s reliance on the supporting CEQA consistency analysis is appropriate and complies with CEQA.

Additionally, this comment letter raises concerns about traffic:

1. The Chabad Center was explicitly considered in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), including sitespecific traffic count simulations. It should be noted that a project’s impacts to level of service (LOS) or other form of automobile delay are not CEQA impacts. The Project generates an extremely minimal amount of daily trips, which were analyzed, relative to existing volumes.

2. The second component raises concerns about not including school peak hours within the analysis. The Project itself is considered a small-scale project for traffic generating purposes. It is to be noted that the Project prepared a traffic impact analysis when the Project was screened from preparing a traffic impact analysis. The reason why school peak hours were not considered is because based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual Vehicle Time of Day distribution, the Project would generate a significantly lower amount of traffic during school peak hours compared to the typical morning and afternoon peak hours. The traffic impact analysis along with the supplemental analysis addressed safety, queuing, and access potential impacts.

3. Concerns regarding drivers using nearby residential streets (Ohio Street, Oriente Drive, Palm Avenue) are unwarranted, as Project traffic would use signalized intersections and is not expected to cut through neighborhoods. The Project’s trips are extremely limited, and the trip distribution summary was confirmed by the City’s Traffic Engineer. Moreover, consistent with standard traffic modeling practice, new trips continue to dilute as they distribute across the roadway network. Even assuming that the Project does result in vehicular trips on local roads, those trips would be de minimis based on (a) the low level of overall project daily trips and peak hour trips, and (b) the trip distribution analysis. The commenter’s speculation about safety, queuing, or access impacts are not supported by any evidence.

4. The fourth component raises concerns about parking. It is to be noted that the parking analysis along with the supplemental traffic analysis analyzed the Project’s parking demand based on multiple different rates obtained from different studies and it was concluded that the Project’s parking capacity would be sufficient to accommodate the parking demand. Further, parking is not a CEQA issue. The commenter’s speculation about parking impacts are unsupported.

28 Accordingly, the comment does not identify new or more severe transportation or parking-related environmental impacts requiring additional CEQA review or invalidating reliance on the CEQA exemption.

29 Comment Letter L5: John M. Delap (03

30

31

32

33

34 pages)

35

36

37

38 Comment Letter L5: John M. Delap, January 28, 2026
Response to L5: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The commenter speculates that overflow parking would occur, but fails to provide any evidence. Moreover, it fails to provide evidence that parked cars somehow conflict with equestrian activities. Moreover, CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). Accordingly, this comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis.

39 Comment Letter L6: John M. Delap (06 pages)

40

41

42

43

44

45 Comment Letter L6: John M. Delap, January 28, 2026
Response L6: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The Project is consistent with (and within the scope of) the City’s adopted 2021–2029 Housing Element, for which a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified (SCH No. 2022040574). The certified Housing Element Programmatic EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with accommodating residential development within the City, including sites designated for multifamily housing. The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation, density assumptions, and development standards. Accordingly, CEQA does not require preparation of a new EIR or negative declaration for this Project.

The Consistency Analysis also concluded that the Project was exempt pursuant to the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption. The commenter states that the 65457 statutory exemption should be denied due to “unusual circumstances” under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c). The City’s staff report reference to section 65457 was incorrect, and was corrected before the Planning Commission. The Project is exempt pursuant to the Class 32 CEQA exemption. The exception to CEQA categorical exemptions cited by commenter (the “unusual circumstance” exception) applies only where a project presents a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect caused by circumstances that are unusual for the class of project. The circumstances identified in the letter regarding crime, terrorism, antisemitism, security vulnerabilities, privacy, and potential misconduct by third parties do not constitute environmental impacts under CEQA. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project does not present any “unusual circumstances” that make it different from the projects otherwise exempt under Class 32. Many churches throughout the City of Yorba Linda (and Southern California more generally) are within proximity to (or adjacent to) a variety of uses, including commercial uses and residential uses of differing intensities. Further, the Project’s potential environmental justice effects are social issues that are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the CEQA Consistency Analysis includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of environmental justice.

46 Comment Letter L7: Matthew S. Starkey (01 page)

47 Comment Letter L7: Matthew S. Starkey, January 29, 2026.

Response L7: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The commenter expresses concern that the Right-In/Right-Out restriction on Yorba Linda Boulevard will lead Project residents to use Ohio Street, Oriente Drive, and Palm Avenue as shortcuts. Project residents driving west on Yorba Linda Boulevard would U-turn at the nearest signalized intersection (i.e, Yorba Linda Boulevard/Palm Avenue) and are therefore not anticipated to cut through neighborhood streets. The commenter presents no evidence that the trip distribution assumptions in the TIA were inadequate or incorrect.

Notwithstanding the fact that this comment does not raise a CEQA issues, the Applicant prepared a Supplemental Traffic Analysis on February 24, 2026, which included a cut-through traffic analysis. The analysis specifically evaluated whether vehicles would divert to avoid U-turn delays. The findings show that 1) adequate traffic gaps exist for U-turns; 2) a cut-through route would add approximately 1 mile and over 3 minutes of travel time, and 3) a U-turn at Club Terrace Drive would result in only about 20 seconds of delay. Therefore, because the alternative route is substantially less efficient, cut-through behavior is not expected. Additionally, the Supplemental Traffic Analysis found that local roadway level of service (LOS) would remain satisfactory even with the addition of Project trips, meaning congestion conditions that typically generate diversion do not exist.

Further, in response to community concerns regarding pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian safety, a multimodal traffic evaluation was conducted for Ohio Street, Oriente Drive, and Palm Avenue. Twenty-fourhour multimodal counts were collected on February 12, 14, and 15, 2026, documenting vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters, and equestrians. Results showed:
• Fewer than 600 vehicles per day on Ohio Street and Oriente Drive • Fewer than 800 vehicles per day on Palm Avenue
• Moderate pedestrian and bicycle activity (less than 200 per day) • No equestrian activity observed
According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance, shared roadways are suitable where speeds are 25 mph or less or where traffic volumes are below 3,000 vehicles per day. The evaluated streets operate well below this threshold as vehicle traffic on Ohio Street and Oriente Drive was observed to be less than 600 vehicles per day and less than 800 vehicles per day on Palm Avenue. Additionally, crash history data identified no collisions on these roadways. Thus, the Supplemental Traffic Analysis concludes that existing conditions are consistent with safe shared roadway operation, no safety issues were identified, and Project traffic would not increase volumes to levels that would create cut-through or multimodal safety concerns.

The comment also raises concerns about spillover of vehicles due to insufficient capacity at the westbound uturn pocket lane on Yorba Linda Boulevard/South Ohio Street. The queuing capacity and demand was analyzed in the Project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA). The TIA concluded that the u-turning lane length would be sufficient to accommodate the future u-turning traffic and spillover of vehicles would not be anticipated.

The comment also raises concerns about “right-look” hazard for eastbound pedestrians, joggers, and e-bike riders on the sidewalk. Standard driver behavior includes checking both directions before entering traffic.

The Project driveway provides sufficient sight distance and visibility for safe right turns onto Yorba Linda Boulevard. Concerns regarding a “right-look” hazard are speculative and hypothetical, and CEQA does not require analysis of impacts that are conjectural or not supported by substantial evidence. No unusual pedestrian hazards are expected beyond typical driveway operations. It should also be noted that rightturn-only conditions are common along Yorba Linda Boulevard given the separated nature of the street.

48 The fourth component raises concerns about sun glare hazards. The Project does not propose any modifications to the existing roadway (i.e., Yorba Linda Boulevard). While sun glare is a general condition while driving, it is not a project-specific impact and does not result in a significant environmental effect under CEQA.

49 Comment Letter L8: Matthew Gelfand (03 pages)

50

51

52 Comment Letter L8: Matthew Gelfand, February 3, 2026.

Response L8: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. This comment is a letter in support of the proposed Project.

53 Comment Letter L9: Executive Summary of Appeal Letter and Procedural CEQA Comments, Matthew Vawter (03 pages)

54

55

56 Comment Letter L9: Executive Summary of Appeal Letter and Procedural CEQA Comments, Matthew Vawter, n.d.

Response to Comment L9.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Consistency Analysis or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Response L9.2: This comment states that the traffic analysis relies on unsupported assumptions regarding trip distribution, routing, local circulation, U-turn behavior, and operational safety. The transportation analysis was prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, which requires evaluation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary metric for transportation impacts. Page 95 of the CEQA Consistency Analysis explains that, pursuant to the City’s adopted VMT screening criteria and guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), the Project qualifies for a screening determination because it is located within a low VMT-generating area.

Based on this screening, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT.

Although LOS is no longer a CEQA significance metric and the Project does not require preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis because it does meet the trip generation thresholds requiring evaluation, operational analysis was nonetheless performed to evaluate intersection performance under existing conditions. LOS modeling is based on actual traffic counts and evaluates delay, queuing, and movement-specific operations, thereby reflecting real-world traffic conditions. Traffic counts were collected at the following intersections:
• Yorba Linda Boulevard and South Ohio Street on August 26, 2025 • Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Avenue on October 22, 2025 • Yorba Linda Boulevard and Kellogg Drive on October 22, 2025 • Multimodal traffic counts were also collected over a 24-hour period on Thursday (February 12, 2026), Saturday (February 14, 2026), and Sunday (February 15, 2026) for vehicles, pedestrians, bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, and equestrians at Yorba Linda Boulevard, Ohio Street, Oriente Drive, and Palm Avenue.

Traffic counts inherently captured activity from surrounding land uses, including nearby school and religious uses. Trip distribution assumptions were based on roadway geometry, driveway placement, and observed traffic patterns. A gap analysis was conducted to evaluate ingress, egress, and U-turn movements from the Project driveway. The analysis demonstrated that adequate gaps exist on Yorba Linda Boulevard to safely accommodate anticipated turning movements, including U-turns. Even under conservative routing assumptions, sufficient operational capacity exists and no hazardous conditions were identified.

With respect to local residential streets, LOS at adjacent intersection were found to be well below the capacity of the intersections, thereby indicating that drivers would experience very little delay and would not be motivated to seek alternate “cut-through” routes.

As further discussed on page 95 of the Consistency Analysis, the Project would not introduce new public roadways or a land use that conflicts with the surrounding residential and institutional uses. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive aisles that also function as fire access lanes. Project design, including the internal private roadway, ingress and egress configuration, and streetscape improvements, is subject to the City’s development standards and engineering plan check process to ensure compliance with applicable safety and sight distance requirements.

Accordingly, the record demonstrates that site-specific circulation, routing, and safety conditions were evaluated using accepted methodologies, that VMT impacts are less than significant, and that no substantial evidence supports a conclusion of a significant transportation impact under CEQA. The commenter does not provide any evidence that the TIA’s analysis/assumptions are incorrect.

57 Response L9.3: Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak on-site vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. Because the Project meets and exceeds applicable statutory parking requirements, no additional parking management plan or supplemental CEQA analysis is required.

The Project does not rely on off-site parking to meet its parking obligations or to function as proposed. While optional off-site arrangements may have been informally explored, such discussions do not modify the Project description and are not part of the Project analyzed under CEQA. CEQA requires evaluation of the project as proposed, not speculative or hypothetical alternatives that are not part of the approval request.

Response L9.4: CEQA requires that a project evaluate potential impacts to the nearest and most affected sensitive receptors. Residential uses are considered the most sensitive receptors because occupants may be present 24 hours per day. As identified on page 21 of the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family residence immediately adjacent to the south, residences located approximately 15 feet to the north and 40 feet to the east, Jessamyn Park to the east, and the Chabad Center to the west. These locations represent the closest and therefore most conservative receptor positions for evaluating potential construction and operational noise and vibration impacts.

The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis concluded that both construction and operational noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant (see pages 26 through 34). Because noise levels attenuate (decrease) with distance, analysis of the nearest sensitive receptors represents a conservative assessment.

Any receptors located farther away, including those within approximately 320 feet of the project site, would experience equal or lower noise levels than those evaluated. Therefore, impacts at such locations would also be less than significant.

The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis explains how modeled assumptions translate to real-world conditions at nearby sensitive receptors by evaluating both mobile and stationary operational noise sources using conservative, industry-standard methodologies. Traffic noise was calculated by comparing existing and existing-plus-Project roadway conditions at a standard reference distance (100 feet from the roadway centerline), which represents typical receptor setback distances and provides a reliable estimate of exterior noise exposure. The resulting increase of 0.1 dBA demonstrates that Project traffic would not perceptibly change real-world ambient noise conditions at adjacent residences (see page 30).

Stationary sources including rooftop HVAC equipment, trash collection, and parking lot activity, were modeled using the CadnaA acoustic modeling program in compliance with the ISO 9613-2 sound propagation standard, as required by the Housing Element Programmatic EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-5. The modeling incorporated conservative assumptions, including simultaneous HVAC operation and standard reference noise emission levels, and accounted for distance attenuation and shielding from proposed buildings and walls. With respect to third-story windows and balconies, the commenter appears to suggest that such features would result in significant noise. However, conversations typically occur at noise level of 55-65 dBA, well below the standard. Residential uses are, themselves, not considered a significant source of noise, especially in an urban environment. The modeled noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors were below the City’s daytime and nighttime noise standards. Additionally, Project operational noise was logarithmically combined with measured ambient noise levels to determine actual incremental increases at receptor locations. These incremental increases were well below applicable CEQA significance thresholds (see pages 30-32).

58 By modeling the closest sensitive receptors using conservative operational assumptions and accepted acoustic propagation methods, the analysis reflects real-world conditions and demonstrates that operational noise effects at nearby residences and other sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Response L9.5: The comment is based on an incorrect assumption regarding Project height. The proposed residential buildings would have a maximum height of 35 feet, not approximately 43 feet. Therefore, the premise that the Project includes substantially taller structures with upper-story lighting requiring additional analysis is not accurate. In addition, a detailed photometric plan was prepared and submitted to the City during the second plan submittal and was reviewed and approved as part of the Project’s development review process.

The CEQA document accurately explains that the Project is required to comply with the City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code (YLMC) Chapter 18.10.110, which contains specific standards regulating outdoor lighting, including shielding, direction, and limitations on light trespass onto adjacent properties (see page 35).

Compliance with these standards ensures that light spillover and glare at nearby residences would be controlled to acceptable levels. Because the Project is subject to these mandatory requirements and a photometric plan has been prepared and approved demonstrating compliance, potential lighting and glare impacts would be less than significant under CEQA.

Response L9.6: The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) included a site visit and habitat assessment sufficient to characterize existing on-site conditions and determine the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur. As documented on page 4 of the BRA, the Project site does not contain native habitat.

The site is developed and consists primarily of disturbed agricultural and ornamental land covers. These conditions do not provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species or sensitive wildlife species that typically require native vegetation communities, riparian corridors, wetlands, or other natural habitat features. Because suitable habitat is absent, focused or seasonal protocol-level surveys are not warranted.

Under CEQA, additional surveys are not required where habitat conditions clearly demonstrate a low potential for species occurrence.

The BRA provides a logical connection between site conditions and its conclusions. For example, page 25 specifically addresses the Crotch's bumble bee and notes that the species is not present due to the lack of suitable habitat within or adjacent to the Project site. Similar reasoning is applied throughout the analysis:
where habitat elements necessary to support a species are absent, the potential for occurrence is correspondingly low. Accordingly, the survey effort and habitat-based assessment are appropriate to the site-specific conditions and provide substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that impacts to specialstatus biological resources would be less than significant under CEQA.

Response L9.7: The CEQA document and supporting technical studies intentionally analyzed a conservative, worst-case construction scenario to ensure that potential impacts would not be understated, regardless of how construction is ultimately phased. For analytical purposes, the studies assumed that construction activities could occur over a 12-month period with the maximum anticipated equipment operating concurrently. This approach represents a worst-case condition because it concentrates construction activity into the shortest reasonably foreseeable timeframe and assumes overlapping use of heavy equipment. If construction were instead phased over a longer duration due to market conditions (e.g., units built incrementally as homes are sold), daily construction intensity would be lower, with fewer pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.

As a result, peak daily noise, traffic, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced compared to the conservative scenario analyzed.

With respect to air quality, construction emissions were evaluated using the significance thresholds adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which are expressed in pounds per day.

59 Because the thresholds are based on maximum daily emissions, assuming a shorter, more intensive construction period yields the highest potential daily emissions. Extending construction over a longer timeframe would distribute emissions over additional days and reduce peak daily emission rates.

Similarly, the noise, traffic, and greenhouse gas analyses relied on maximum equipment usage, peak haul trips, and full disturbance assumptions to evaluate potential impacts. By analyzing the maximum anticipated disturbance and concurrent activity levels, the CEQA document ensures that impacts would not exceed those disclosed, even if actual phasing differs.

Response L9.8: As described on Page 101 of the CEQA Consistency Analysis, according to 2025 fire hazard severity zone maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Project site is not located within or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

The Project is required to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in conformance with the Yorba Linda Municipal Code. Additionally, the Orange County Fire Authority would review the development plans prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the CFC (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9, included in the YLMC as Chapter 15.08. Further, the Project site is not in a hillside area. The Project site is relatively flat and the areas within the Project’s vicinity do not contain hillsides or other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks. The site is within a developed area of Yorba Linda and surrounded by existing development on all sides. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or increased impacts related to exposure of people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires.

Response L9.9: The closest sensitive receptor analyzed in the CEQA document is the existing single-family residence located adjacent to the Project site, as close as 15 feet south from the property line. The CEQA Consistency Analysis modeled emissions based on the proximity to this sensitive receptor. Under CEQA, sensitive receptors are treated the same whether they are being analyzed for noise, air quality, or traffic.

The CEQA Consistency determined impacts to the nearest sensitive receptor related to air quality and noise would be less than significant on page 48 and 83 of the Consistency Analysis. Any receptors located farther away, including school receptors, would experience equal or lower noise levels than those evaluated.

Therefore, impacts related to further located sensitive receptors would also be less than significant.

Response L9.10: This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. No further response is warranted or provided.

60 Comment Letter L10: Dan Cline (01 page)

61 Comment Letter L10: Dan Cline, n.d.

Response L10: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. This comment opposed the proposed high-density project, arguing it is poorly designed, overly tall, and incompatible with the area. The commenter raises concerns regarding aesthetics, accessibility, driveway width, and increased traffic impacts on nearby residential streets, but fails to identify a specific potential impact that was not analyzed in the Consistency Analysis. The commenter urges the City to require a redesign with lower density or relocate the Project to better protect the character of Yorba Linda.

This comment expresses the commenter’s opinion and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

62 Comment Letter L11: Lee and Andrea Burrows and Gary Devian (10 pages)

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72 Comment Letter L11: Lee and Andrea Burrows and Gary Devian, February 2, 2026 Response L11: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. This comment requests that the city council appeal hearing is continued for public review and response. Under CEQA, the lead agency is required to consider and respond to comments that raise environmental issues or challenge the adequacy of the environmental analysis. CEQA does not require the continuance of a public hearing or appeal based solely on such a request. The timing and scheduling of appeal hearings are discretionary actions governed by the City’s applicable procedures and policies, not CEQA. The comment does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document, no further response is required or provided.

73 Comment Letter L12: Elizabeth Hansburg (02 pages)

74

75 Comment Letter L12: Elizabeth Hansburg, February 2, 2026 Response L12: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. This comment is a letter in support of the proposed Project.

76 Comment Letter L13: Allen Stefanek (01 page)

77 Comment Letter L13: Allen Stefanek, February 3, 2026 Response L13: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. This comment urges the City to reconsider the proposed high-density project, arguing it misrepresents what voters approved and would create serious traffic and safety issues on already constrained local streets. The comment expresses the commenter’s opinion and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document. Impacts related to transportation and traffic were discussed in Section 5.9, Transportation, on pages 93 through 96 of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. Although not required under CEQA, the Applicant also prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis dated October 27, 2025, to further evaluate potential traffic impacts. A Parking Analysis was also prepared on November 20, 2025, to address community concerns regarding whether the Project provides an adequate onsite parking supply.

In response to community concerns, two supplemental analyses were prepared. The December 2, 2025, Supplemental Traffic Analysis included a gap study, sight distance analysis, and parking evaluation. A subsequent Supplemental Traffic Analysis dated February 24, 2026, included a crash data review, U-turn analysis, additional traffic operations analysis, cut-through evaluation, driveway interaction analysis for the North County Chabad Center, and multimodal traffic counts. Collectively, these analyses evaluated roadway operations, intersection performance, safety conditions, and potential neighborhood traffic effects. The studies concluded that the Project would not result in significant traffic or safety impacts. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document, no further response is required or provided.

78 Comment Letter L14: California Housing Defense Fund (03 pages)

79

80

81 Comment Letter L14: California Housing Defense Fund, February 3, 2026 Response L14: This comment provides information about the Housing Accountability Act and does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. This comment is a letter in support of the proposed Project.

82 Comment Letter L15: Lynn Stone (02 pages)

83

84 Comment Letter L15: Lynn Stone, February 2, 2026
Response L15: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The comment raises concerns regarding parking associated with the Project.

Parking is considered an environmental impact under CEQA. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). Accordingly, this comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis.

85 Comment Letter L16: Maverick D. Marquez, Shadow Corps Protection Services LLC (09 pages)

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94 Comment Letter L16: Maverick D. Marquez, Shadow Corps Protection Services LLC, February 2, 2026 Response L16: The commenter asserts, without supporting evidence, that the project would cause “safety concerns” at the adjacent Chabad Center, particularly alleging that the proximity of the “oversized” development creates an unusual risk. First, the Project would add residential uses to an already developed site, which is currently occupied by landscaping, orchards, and a single-family home. Second, there is nothing inherent in the project that creates a safety issue for the Chabad Center. There is no evidence whatsoever that higher density residential uses have a chilling effect on religious exercise or creates a security risk.

Throughout Yorba Linda, as well as Southern California more broadly, houses of worship and other religious institutions are cited adjacent to high-density residential uses, industrial uses, or commercial uses. The Project is, therefore, not unique in locating such uses near religious institutions. Moreover, this comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The comment raises concerns related to security risk, crime prevention, privacy, traffic operations, law enforcement resources, and proposed design and operational measures intended to protect an adjacent religious facility. CEQA is limited to the analysis of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require evaluation of speculative criminal acts, terrorism risks, third-party misconduct, security vulnerabilities, policing needs, or constitutional and operational concerns of adjacent land uses. Project design features and security infrastructure fall within the City’s land-use, design review, and public safety authority, not under CEQA. Accordingly, this comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis.

95 Comment Letter L17: Natalie Loughran (02 pages)

96

97 Comment Letter L17: Natalie Loughran, January 30, 2026 Response L17: The commenter, a nearby resident, expresses concerns regarding traffic safety near Palm Avenue and the adjacent park, potential increases in congestion and red-light violations, parking availability, neighborhood compatibility, and potential effects on privacy, views, and quality of life for nearby homes.

In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, perceived safety, parking convenience, zoning policy disputes. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak on-site vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate onsite capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) In addition, page 95 of the consistency details that pursuant to the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening criteria and guidance from Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), based on the Project’s location within a low VMT-generating area, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT. The Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards.

Finally, it should be noted that the Project would generate 418 daily trips, which is approximately 1.5 percent of existing volumes on Yorba Linda Boulevard. Those trips would occur throughout the day, and would not occur during the same shorter period.

98 Comment Letter 18: Janelly Dryer (01 page)

99 Comment Letter 18: Janelly Dryer, February 1, 2026
Response L18: The commenter expresses concern that the proposed buildings appear too tall and closely spaced and requests a reduction in the number of units to lessen potential impacts on surrounding homes.

Concerns related to building height, site layout, density, aesthetics, privacy, and neighborhood character are planning and policy considerations governed by zoning and design review standards. CEQA focuses on physical environmental effects and does not treat aesthetic preferences or changes in views or privacy as significant environmental impacts. The Project has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development standards intended to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

100
Comment Letter 19: : Barbara Fox (02 pages)

101

102
Comment Letter L19: Barbara Fox, January 31, 2026
Response L19: This comment expresses their opinion regarding glare, perceived aesthetics, and perceived traffic; this does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document. Concerns regarding neighborhood character, building height and density, traffic congestion, parking availability, pedestrian and equestrian safety, privacy, views, and the appropriateness of the Project location are not related to CEQA.

CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, privacy, views, perceived safety, speculative accident risk, parking convenience, or zoning policy disputes.

This commenter also expresses their opinion over parking concerns related to the proposed Project. Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak on-site vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs.

This comment expresses the commenter’s opinion and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document. Impacts related to transportation and traffic were discussed in Section 5.9, Transportation, on pages 93 through 96 of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. Although not required under CEQA, the Applicant also prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis dated October 27, 2025, to further evaluate potential traffic impacts. A Parking Analysis was also prepared on November 20, 2025, to address community concerns regarding whether the Project provides an adequate onsite parking supply. In response to community concerns, two supplemental analyses were prepared. The December 2, 2025, Supplemental Traffic Analysis included a gap study, sight distance analysis, and parking evaluation. A subsequent Supplemental Traffic Analysis dated February 24, 2026, included a crash data review, U-turn analysis, additional traffic operations analysis, cut-through evaluation, driveway interaction analysis for the North County Chabad Center, and multimodal traffic counts. Collectively, these analyses evaluated roadway operations, intersection performance, safety conditions, and potential neighborhood traffic effects. The studies concluded that the Project would not result in significant traffic or safety impacts. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document, no further response is required or provided.

103
Comment Letter L20: Danielle Lardas (02 pages)

104

105
Comment Letter L20: Danielle Lardas, February 1, 2026
Response to Comment L20: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, zoning policy disputes. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) Nevertheless, it should be noted that the project-level Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project concluded that the Project’s 418 daily trips would not cause a deficiency to existing intersections or roadways. In addition, page 95 off the consistency details that pursuant to the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening criteria and guidance from Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), based on the Project’s location within a low VMT-generating area, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT. The Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards.

106
Comment Letter L21: Janet Lardas (02 pages)

107

108
Comment Letter L21: Janet Lardas, February 1, 2026
Response to Comment L21: This comment is a duplicate of Comment L20. Please refer to Response L20 for a response to this comment letter.

109
Comment Letter L22: Amber Lardas-Hayden (02 pages)

110

111
Comment Letter L22: Amber Lardas-Hayden, February 1, 2026 Response to Comment L22: This comment is a duplicate of Comment L20. Please refer to Response L20 for a response to this comment letter.

112
Comment Letter L23: Catherine Lardas-Hayden (02 pages)

113

114
Comment Letter L23: Catherine Lardas-Hayden, XX
Response to Comment L23: This comment is a duplicate of Comment L20. Please refer to Response L20 for a response to this comment letter.

115
Comment Letter L24: Sharon Kaak (02 pages)

116

117
Comment Letter L24: Sharon Kaak, February 3, 2026
Response to Comment L24: The comment states opposition to the proposed Project and questions the zoning changes and approval process in comparison to their own residential project. The commenter raises concerns about traffic and parking, but without any specific arguments. This comment expresses the commenter’s opinion and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, privacy, views, perceived safety, speculative accident risk, parking convenience, zoning policy disputes. Impacts related to transportation and traffic were discussed in Section 5.9, Transportation, on pages 93 through 96 of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. The Project includes 138 on-site parking spaces, exceeding State Density Bonus Law requirements by 15 spaces and estimated parking demand by 59 spaces, which is sufficient to meet resident and guest needs without causing neighborhood spillover. Parking management measures, including assigned garage parking, designated guest spaces, and periodic HOA garage inspections, will help ensure the on-site parking supply is used efficiently. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document, no further response is required or provided.

118
Comment Letter 25: Joseph Yeon (02 pages)

119

120
Comment Letter 25: Joseph Yeon, February 2, 2026
Response to Comment L25.1: The commenter expresses safety concerns regarding the proposed Project and the intersection of Ohio Street and Yorba Linda Boulevard, stating increased traffic will be dangerous for local students and senior citizens. This expresses the commenter’s opinion and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts to pedestrian safety due to an increase in traffic.

CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of perceived safety. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, privacy, views, perceived safety, speculative accident risk, parking convenience, zoning policy disputes. Impacts related to transportation and traffic were discussed in Section 5.9, Transportation, on pages 93 through 96 of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. Although not required under CEQA, the Applicant also prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis dated October 27, 2025, to further evaluate potential traffic impacts. A Parking Analysis was also prepared on November 20, 2025, to address community concerns regarding whether the Project provides an adequate onsite parking supply. In response to community concerns, two supplemental analyses were prepared. The December 2, 2025, Supplemental Traffic Analysis included a gap study, sight distance analysis, and parking evaluation. A subsequent Supplemental Traffic Analysis dated February 24, 2026, included a crash data review, U-turn analysis, additional traffic operations analysis, cut-through evaluation, driveway interaction analysis for the North County Chabad Center, and multimodal traffic counts.

Collectively, these analyses evaluated roadway operations, intersection performance, safety conditions, and potential neighborhood traffic effects. The studies concluded that the Project would not result in significant traffic or safety impacts. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document, no further response is required or provided.

121
Comment Letter L26: Stephanie Ruppe (02 pages)

122

123
Comment Letter L26: Stephanie Ruppe, February 4, 2026
Response L26: The comment states that many (commenters and members of the public) agree the traffic and safety analysis were flawed. The commenter reiterates her concerns, but the commenter’s opinion regarding traffic and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document. Impacts related to transportation and traffic were discussed in Section 5.9, Transportation, on pages 93 through 96 of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) In addition, page 95 off the consistency details that pursuant to the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening criteria and guidance from Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), based on the Project’s location within a low VMT-generating area, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to Vehicle Miles Traveled.

The Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards.

The comment also raises concerns about queue times of vehicles due to insufficient capacity at the eastbound u-turn pocket lane on Palm. The queuing capacity and demand was analyzed in the Project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA). The TIA concluded that the u-turning lane length would be sufficient to accommodate the future u-turning traffic and spillover of vehicles would not be anticipated. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document, no further response is required or provided.

124
Comment Letter L27: Kevin Yang (01 page)

125
Comment Letter L27: Kevin Yang, February 4, 2026
Response to Comment L27.1: The commenter suggests analyzing a comparable development, to better understand potential traffic, parking, and privacy impacts of the proposed Project to inform decision making with realistic and transparent information. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. This comment letters expresses the commenter’s opinion regarding Traffic and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document. Impacts related to transportation and traffic were discussed in Section 5.9, Transportation, on pages 93 through 96 of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. Although not required under CEQA, the Applicant also prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis dated October 27, 2025, to further evaluate potential traffic impacts. A Parking Analysis was also prepared on November 20, 2025, to address community concerns regarding whether the Project provides an adequate onsite parking supply. In response to community concerns, two supplemental analyses were prepared. The December 2, 2025, Supplemental Traffic Analysis included a gap study, sight distance analysis, and parking evaluation. A subsequent Supplemental Traffic Analysis dated February 24, 2026, included a crash data review, U-turn analysis, additional traffic operations analysis, cut-through evaluation, driveway interaction analysis for the North County Chabad Center, and multimodal traffic counts. Collectively, these analyses evaluated roadway operations, intersection performance, safety conditions, and potential neighborhood traffic effects. The studies concluded that the Project would not result in significant traffic or safety impacts. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document, no further response is required or provided.

126
Comment Letter L28: Matthew Vawter (02 pages)

127

128
Comment Letter L28: Matthew Vawter, n.d.

Response L28.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Response L28.2: This comment is related to onsite parking adequacy and parking management. The Project is subject to the parking requirements established under the State Density Bonus Law (DBL); California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1), which permits adjustments to parking requirements for residential projects receiving a density bonus to support higher-density and affordable housing. The applicable DBL parking ratios of 1.5 spaces per unit for three-bedroom units and 2.5 spaces per unit for four-bedroom units are applicable to the Project. The total DBL-calculated requirement is 123 spaces. The Project would provide 138 on-site parking spaces, which is a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the DBL requirement. The parking study also concluded, based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking demand rates, that the Project’s on-site parking supply would be sufficient to accommodate anticipated demand. The parking analysis prepared for the Project concludes that the on-site supply is sufficient to accommodate anticipated resident and guest demand. There is no evidence to the contrary. Because the Project meets and exceeds the applicable statutory parking requirement, no additional parking analysis or parking management program is required as a matter of CEQA.

Response L28.3: This comment claims that discussions of off-site parking arrangement constitutes as new information under CEQA. The parking study concluded, based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking demand rates, that the Project’s on-site parking supply would be sufficient to accommodate anticipated demand. The Project does not rely on off-site parking to meet applicable requirements or to operate as proposed. While the applicant may have explored optional off-site arrangements, such discussions do not modify the project description and are not a component of the project analyzed under CEQA. CEQA requires evaluation of the project as proposed. Because the Project includes sufficient on-site parking consistent with State Density Bonus Law requirements and supporting analysis, off-site parking is not part of the Project and is not necessary to support the findings. Moreover, parking is not a CEQA impact.

The statement that off-site parking would introduce additional environmental impacts is speculative and unsupported by substantial evidence. CEQA does not require analysis of speculative impacts or hypothetical future scenarios that are not part of the Project description. Accordingly, no additional environmental analysis is warranted.

Response L28.4: In response to public input, traffic counts were collected at the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Club Terrace Drive during peak hours (7-9AM and 4-6PM) on Thursday (February 12, 2026), Saturday (February 14, 2026), and Sunday (February 15, 2026) and a Supplemental Traffic Analysis was prepared on February 24, 2026. The data indicates that under existing conditions, vehicles are utilizing the eastbound left-turn lane at Club Terrace Drive to make U-turns. Project trips may also U-turn at Club Terrace Drive instead of driving further and U-turning at Palm Avenue. Furthermore, based on the gap survey conducted on November 19, 2025, adequate gaps exist on Yorba Linda Boulevard to accommodate the expected U-turns, even if all trips to the Projects make a U-turn at Club Terrace Drive. Additionally, based on the collected turning movement counts and the crash data analysis conducted in the Supplemental Traffic Analysis, it was concluded that vehicles U-turned at Club Terrace Drive safely without any crashes; therefore, it is anticipated that vehicles would continue to make safe U-turns. . Further, level of Service (LOS) or other metric of automobile delay also cannot legally serve as a CEQA impact.

Nonetheless, while not required under CEQA, due to the controversy associated with the Project, adjacent roadway segments have been evaluated in a Supplemental Traffic Analysis prepared on February 24, 2026. The Supplemental Traffic Analysis included a roadway segment analysis of four additional segments:
• Yorba Linda Boulevard (Ohio Street to Palm Avenue)
• Ohio Street (Yorba Linda Boulevard to Oriente Drive)
• Oriente Drive (Ohio Street to Palm Avenue)

129
• Palm Avenue (Oriente Drive to Yorba Linda Boulevard)
An intersection analysis was also prepared for the following intersections:
• Ohio Street/Yorba Linda Boulevard (previously analyzed under TIA dates 10/27/25) • S Ohio Street/Yorba Linda Boulevard (previously analyzed under TIA dates 10/27/25) • Project Driveway/Yorba Linda Boulevard (previously analyzed under TIA dates 10/27/25) • Palm Avenue/Yorba Linda Boulevard (previously analyzed under TIA dates 10/27/25) • Club Terrace Drive/Yorba Linda Boulevard (not previously analyzed) Traffic counts were collected on Thursday (February 12, 2026), Saturday (February 14, 2026), and Sunday (February 15, 2026), with Thursday data used for analysis as it represented the most conservative condition.

The future traffic scenario assumed 20 percent of preschool traffic and 50 percent of Project trips would be distributed onto local roadways, representing a more conservative assumption than the original traffic study (October 27, 2025).

The results of the roadway segment analysis found that all analyzed roadway segments would continue to operate within the City of Yorba Linda General Plan circulation element capacity standards, even with the addition of Project traffic and the preschool expansion (estimated additional capacity of 100 students).

The results also determined that all study intersections would operate at satisfactory levels of service (LOS), except for Club Terrace Drive/Yorba Linda Boulevard. However, this intersection currently operates at an unsatisfactory LOS under existing conditions due to delays associated with northbound and southbound leftturn movements at the unsignalized intersection.

Overall, the Supplemental Traffic Analysis concludes that the Project, including accounting for 100 additional students at Aleph Preschool, would not cause roadway segments or study intersections to exceed applicable operational standards beyond existing conditions.

Response L28.5: As discussed in Response to Comment L28.4, a gap analysis was conducted to evaluate vehicle turning movements associated with the Project driveway. The analysis demonstrates that sufficient gaps exist to accommodate safe turning movements, including U-turn movements. CEQA requires evaluation of potential physical environmental impacts, and no substantial evidence has been presented demonstrating that the Project would create a hazardous condition due to inadequate stopping sight distance.

Response L28.6: This comment mischaracterizes the requirements for a traffic analysis under CEQA. CEQA provides specific conditions that must be evaluated which include the following:
- Conflicts with a program plan or policy addressing the circulation system. – The Project is consistent with previous planning done for this site, including the City’s Housing Element which identifies the Project site for future residential development.
- Inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, namely evaluation of VMT impacts. – A VMT screening analysis was prepared, consistent with the City’s adopted VMT guidelines. The analysis showed that based on the City’s screening thresholds, the VMT impacts are considered to be less than significant.
- Substantial increases in hazards due to geometric design features such as sharp curves, dangerous intersections or incompatible uses. – Project access will be designed according to City standards and will go through the City’s plan check process to ensure compliance with City design standards. A gap analysis was provided to demonstrate that there is sufficient gap/spacing along Yorba Linda Boulevard to accommodate project movements, and that vehicles can safely enter and exit the driveway. No hazards due to design features have been identified. - Inadequate emergency access. – The project has been reviewed by the Fire department and found to provide adequate emergency access.

Furthermore, LOS is an analysis of “real world” traffic conditions as it is based on traffic counts taken at each location evaluated. LOS also provides indications of overcapacity conditions at specific intersection

130
movements, queuing, and operation of each approach and movement at an intersection, which is substantially more than “general intersection performance” as asserted in the comment.

Response L28.7: Adjacent residential streets were not evaluated for the following reasons: 1) The Project would not require a traffic impact analysis to be prepared for the Project because it does not meet the trip generation thresholds requiring evaluation; and 2) Levels of service at adjacent intersection were found to be well below the capacity of the intersections, thereby indicating that drivers would experience very little delay and would not be motivated to seek alternate “cut-through” routes. The scope of work for a traffic study is developed using adopted trip thresholds and substantial evidence indicating that an impact requiring analysis may be caused by the project. Neither of these elements have been demonstrated and therefore local residential streets were not evaluated. Nonetheless, due to the controversy associated with the project, these roadways were evaluated in the subsequent traffic analysis. See Response L28.4.

Response L28.8: A gap analysis has been conducted to analyze the adequacy of gaps as vehicles exit the project site and it was concluded that there would be sufficient gaps for vehicles to exit safely. Furthermore, EPD staff visited the site during both peak hour and mid-day conditions and replicated inbound and outbound vehicle movements to ensure that the exiting movements could be made safely and efficiently. In our realworld experience, inbound and outbound movements were able to be completed safely, including crossing of lanes on Yorba Linda Bouevard to make a U-turn at S. Ohio street.

Response L28.9: Adjacent religious and school-related traffic is included in the peak hour traffic counts. It was also included in the traffic counts and forecasting prepared for the Housing Element traffic analysis.

Additional supplemental peak-hour analyses are not warranted as data collection efforts and evaluation of existing conditions includes all existing land uses via collection of new traffic count data.

Response L28.10: This comment concludes the letter and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

131
Comment Letter L29: Ana Gromis (01 page)

132
Comment Letter L29: Ana Gromis, February 6, 2026
Response to Comment L29: The comment requests written notification that a meeting is being held to consider the approval of a new fee, exaction, or service charge no later than 14 days before said meeting.

This comment does not state any concerns regarding CEQA analysis or the validity of the environmental document; no further response is required.

133
Comment Letter L30: Eileen Hayden (02 pages)

134

135
Comment Letter L30: Eileen Hayden, February 3, 2026
Response to Comment L30: This comment is a duplicate of Comment L20. Please refer to Response L20 for a response to this comment letter.

136
Comment Letter L31: Judy Price (02 pages)

137

138
Comment Letter L31: Judy Price, January 29, 2026
Response to Comment L31: The comment expresses concern regarding traffic, parking, and aesthetics of the proposed Project and states the parking spaces are inadequate and neighboring streets cannot accommodate the spillover of parked cars. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, perceived safety, parking convenience, zoning policy disputes. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak on-site vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs.

It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) In addition, page 95 off the consistency details that pursuant to the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening criteria and guidance from Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), based on the Project’s location within a low VMT-generating area, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to Vehicle Miles Traveled. The Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards.

139
Comment Letter L32: John M. Delap (12 pages)

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151
Comment Letter L32: John M. Delap, February 3, 2026
Response to Comment L32: The commenter notes an apparent inconsistency between references to a Class 32 Categorical Exemption and a statutory exemption in Project materials and expresses concern regarding the accuracy of the CEQA determination.

The CEQA Consistency Analysis evaluated the Project’s eligibility for a Class 32 (Infill Development) Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. The staff report reference to a statutory exemption was incorrect, and corrected at the Planning Commission hearing. Regardless of terminology, the City’s CEQA determination is supported by the Housing Element Programmatic EIR and accompanying analysis demonstrating the Project would not result in new significant impacts or impacts more severe than those previously analyzed.

The CEQA documentation, including the Consistency Analysis and supporting technical studies, provides the evidentiary basis for the Lead Agency’s determination that the Project’s impacts are within the scope of the Housing Element Programmatic EIR. The City’s review process ensures compliance with CEQA and provides adequate information for public evaluation of potential environmental effects and applicable exemption criteria.

The commenter also asserts that the CEQA exemption analysis must accurately characterize the Chabad as both a Jewish house of worship and an elementary school and explains that it is a sensitive receptor that warrants further evaluation of potential adverse impacts from the Project to avoid antisemitic bias. The environmental analysis identifies the property to the west as a religious institution with associated educational uses (page 4 of Consistency Analysis). For purposes of CEQA review, land uses are categorized based on functional use (e.g., religious institution, school, community facility) to evaluate potential environmental effects such as noise, traffic, and safety. The technical studies prepared for the Project evaluated nearby sensitive land uses, including places of worship and educational facilities, in assessing potential impacts and compliance with applicable standards.

CEQA does not require identification of religious affiliation in order to evaluate environmental impacts.

Rather, the analysis considers land use sensitivity and occupancy characteristics to determine whether receptors such as schools, parks, residences, and places of assembly could be affected. The Project analysis concluded that potential impacts related to traffic, noise, safety, and other environmental topics would be less than significant and consistent with prior program-level analysis. The CEQA review process is conducted in accordance with State law and is neutral with respect to religious affiliation The comment also states that the Staff Reports conclusion disregards inspection of the proposed Project’s windows facing the Jewish facility lot and states that loud music from the window would violate the attendees’ free exercise of religion without interference. The Project’s Consistency Analysis evaluated operational noise and concluded that typical residential activities would not result in noise levels exceeding applicable City standards. Residential land uses are a common and compatible adjacency to places of worship and schools in urban settings, and routine household noise is not considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA. In addition, the Project must comply with the City’s noise regulations, which prohibit unreasonable noise disturbances. The proposed Project would not result in a significant noise impact and remains supported by the environmental analysis.

The comment also states unusual circumstances prompts a supplemental EIR and that the City Council will further inquire impacts of the proposed Project on the Jewish Center and School. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c), a categorical exemption does not apply where unusual circumstances exist and there is a reasonable possibility that the Project would result in a significant environmental effect. The Project and surrounding conditions were analyzed and it was determined that the site is located within an urbanized area surrounded by existing residential, recreational, and institutional uses, and that the proposed infill

152
residential development is consistent with the type, scale, and intensity of development within the exempt class of projects (the Class 32 categorical exemption).

The environmental analysis and supporting technical studies evaluated potential impacts related to noise, traffic, safety, and land use compatibility, including consideration of nearby sensitive land uses such as places of worship and educational facilities. The analysis determined the Project would not result in new significant impacts or impacts more severe than those previously analyzed. No unusual site conditions or project characteristics have been identified that would create a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect.

Accordingly, the proposed Project qualifies for CEQA streamlining and that no exceptions to the exemption apply. The determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record and complies with CEQA requirements.

153
Comment Letter L33: Lee Burrows (2 pages)

154

155
Comment Letter L33: Lee Burrows, February 2, 2026
Response to Comment L33: The comment requests a continuance to allow more time for public review of materials and meaningful public participation. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. This comment expresses the commenter’s opinion regarding and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis.

156
Comment Letter L34: John M. DeLap (19 pages)

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175
Comment Letter L34: John M. DeLap, February 2, 2026
Response to Comment L34: The comment states the project cannot be found exempt due to unusual circumstances. This expresses the commenter’s opinion and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document.

The comment defines the Unusual Circumstances Exception and states that the Chabad hosts two sensitive communities that have had a degree of security for many years, and the safety and security of the Chabad could be impaired by the proposed Project. The comment describes the increased acts of violence toward the Jewish community, highlighting the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, and that there has been an increase antisemitism. The comment also highlights the increase in harassment, assaults, and vandalism towards the Jewish community within the United States, mentioning a fire that took place at a Mississippi synagogue in January 2026.

This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project presents an unusual circumstance, meaning that a feature of the project distinguishes it from other features in the exempt class. The Class 32 exemption is specifically for in-fill housing in urban areas. Moreover, high-density housing and religious institutions/houses of worship are common neighbors in the City of Yorba Linda and throughout Southern California. There many religious institutions throughout the City of Yorba Linda (and Southern California more generally) that are within proximity to (or adjacent to) a variety of uses, including commercial uses and residential uses of differing intensities. Those features are common of an urban area, like the City of Yorba Linda. Thus, locating high density residential uses adjacent to religious uses is not an unusual circumstance.

Furthermore, the alleged impacts identified in the letter regarding crime, terrorism, antisemitism, security vulnerabilities, privacy, and potential misconduct by third parties do not constitute environmental impacts under CEQA. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).

Further, the Project’s potential environmental justice effects are social issues that are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the CEQA Consistency Analysis includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of environmental justice. There are no unusual circumstances that preclude finding the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 32 exemption.

The commenter requests an “Environmental Impact Assessment” of the potential adverse impact of the proposed Project to keep the Jewish community safe. The commenter highlights the windows overlooking Chabad’s grounds present a place where attacks could take place, such as use by a child predator or the ability to throw an incendiary device onto the Chabad roof. The comment questioned if school enrollment at the Chabad would be impacted and the change in perceived sense of security that could occur. The commenter is referred to the discussion above, which notes that residential uses and religious institutions are common neighbors in urban areas (and without security risk or incident).

This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. The certified Housing Element Programmatic EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with accommodating residential development within the City, including sites designated for multifamily housing. The Project is consistent with the Housing Element’s land use designation, density assumptions, and development standards. Accordingly, CEQA does not require preparation of a new EIR or negative declaration for this Project. Additionally, it is worth noting that the Consistency Analysis evaluated the Project from the ground up and compared the findings to the certified Housing Element Programmatic

176
EIR. Thus, the Consistency Analysis does not rely on the findings of the Programmatic EIR, but simply shows how the Project would not result in new or increased impacts.

177
Comment Letter L35: John DeLap (5 pages)

178

179

180

181

182
Comment Letter L35: John DeLap, February 2, 2026
Response L35: Please refer to response to comment L34.

183
Comment Letter L36: Lee Burrows (1 page)

184
Comment Letter L36: Lee Burrows, February 2, 2026
Response L36: This comment discusses a letter that was sent on behalf of Lee Burrows and Gary Devian to City Council and the City’s Planning Commission regarding the City Ventures TTM and CUP. The letter referenced in this comment was not provided within the comment letters provided by the City. This does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document.

185
Comment Letter L37: Larry Pinson (1 page)

186
Comment Letter L37: Larry Pinson, January 22, 2026
Response L37: This comment is asking for a vote against approval of high-rise apartments near Jessamyn West Park and states that there is already too much traffic in the area. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. This comment expresses the commenter’s opinion regarding Traffic and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document. Impacts related to transportation and traffic were discussed in Section 5.9, Transportation, on pages 93 through 96 of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. Although not required under CEQA, the Applicant also prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis dated October 27, 2025, to further evaluate potential traffic impacts. A Parking Analysis was also prepared on November 20, 2025, to address community concerns regarding whether the Project provides an adequate onsite parking supply. In response to community concerns, two supplemental analyses were prepared. The December 2, 2025, Supplemental Traffic Analysis included a gap study, sight distance analysis, and parking evaluation. A subsequent Supplemental Traffic Analysis dated February 24, 2026, included a crash data review, U-turn analysis, additional traffic operations analysis, cut-through evaluation, driveway interaction analysis for the North County Chabad Center, and multimodal traffic counts. Collectively, these analyses evaluated roadway operations, intersection performance, safety conditions, and potential neighborhood traffic effects. The studies concluded that the Project would not result in significant traffic or safety impacts. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document, no further response is required or provided.

187
Comment Letter L38: Kathy Shepherd (1 page)

188
Comment Letter L38: Kathy Shepherd, January 29, 2026
Response to Comment L38: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, zoning policy disputes. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) In addition, page 95 off the consistency details that pursuant to the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening criteria and guidance from Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), based on the Project’s location within a low VMT-generating area, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT. The Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards

189
Comment Letter L39: David Elizrie, Levi& Naomi Blesofsky (5 pages)

190

191

192

193

194
Comment Letter L39: David Elizrie, Levi& Naomi Blesofsky, January 29, 2026 Response to Comment L39: This comment expresses the commenter’s opinion and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document. Concerns regarding neighborhood character, building height and density, traffic congestion, parking availability, pedestrian and equestrian safety, privacy, views, and the appropriateness of the Project location are not related to CEQA. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, privacy, views, perceived safety, speculative accident risk, parking convenience, or zoning policy disputes.

This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared Project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) The queuing capacity and demand was analyzed in the Project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA). The TIA concluded that the u-turning lane length would be sufficient to accommodate the future u-turning traffic and spillover of vehicles would not be anticipated.

As further discussed on page 95 of the Consistency Analysis, the Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area.

Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes.

Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards. For example, the design of the Project streets would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant.

Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak onsite vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. Parking Management Measures including assigned resident garage parking, designated guest spaces, and annual HOA garage inspections would promote efficient use and management of available parking. If deemed necessary, these measures would be included as Conditions of Approval (COA) and would be implemented by the Applicant and verified by the City.

This comment also expresses concerns over the proposed residential development and how it would affect the safety of the neighboring North County Chabad Center. This expresses the commenter’s opinion and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document. While the City acknowledges the importance of protecting religious freedom and public safety, these issues do not constitute environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, privacy, views, perceived safety, speculative accident risk, parking convenience,

195
zoning policy disputes. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. This comment expresses the commenter’s opinion regarding and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document.

196
Comment Letter L40: Feiz Padilla (2 pages)

197

198
Comment Letter L40: Feiz Padilla, January 27, 2026
Response to Comment L40: This comment expresses the commenter’s opinion and does not provide any substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, nor does it raise any specific concerns about the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis document. Concerns regarding neighborhood character, building height and density, traffic congestion, parking availability, pedestrian and equestrian safety, privacy, views, and the appropriateness of the Project location are not related to CEQA. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, privacy, views, perceived safety, speculative accident risk, parking convenience, or zoning policy disputes.

The commenter expresses concern that restricting project access to right-turn-in/right-turn-out movements on Yorba Linda Boulevard may encourage drivers to use nearby residential streets, including Palm Avenue and Oriente Drive, and that U-turn movements at the Palm Avenue intersection could increase congestion and create safety concerns in an equestrian area.

The Project’s access design is consistent with City engineering standards for arterial roadways and is intended to promote safe ingress and egress by minimizing conflict points along Yorba Linda Boulevard. The traffic analysis evaluated Project trip generation and distribution and determined that Project-related traffic volumes would be relatively small compared to existing corridor volumes and would not substantially alter traffic operations. In response to concerns of community members, that Applicant collected traffic counts and prepared additional analysis at nearby intersections, including Club Terrace Drive, to evaluate circulation patterns and ensure safe operations. Turning movement counts were collected at the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Club Terrace Drive during peak hours (7-9AM and 4-6PM) on Thursday (February 12, 2026), Saturday (February 14, 2026), and Sunday (February 15, 2026). The data indicates that under existing conditions, vehicles are utilizing the eastbound left-turn lane at Club Terrace Drive to make U-turns.

Project trips may also U-turn at Club Terrace Drive instead of driving further and U-turning at Palm Avenue.

Furthermore, based on the gap survey conducted by EPD on November 19, 2025, there were 78 gaps sufficient for passenger cars to U-turn during the observed half-hour period. Additionally, based on the collected turning movement counts and the crash data analysis conducted herein, it was concluded that vehicles U-turned at Club Terrace Drive safely without any crashes; therefore, it is anticipated that vehicles would continue to make safe U-turns. Further, it was concluded that vehicles would have sufficient gaps to make a right turn out of the Project’s driveway and ultimately make a westbound U-turn at the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard/South Ohio Street. The sufficiency of gaps would also apply to eastbound U-turns along Yorba Linda Boulevard. Since there are sufficient gaps available for vehicles to U-turn, cut-through trips are not anticipated.

While some drivers may choose alternate routes, the Project is not expected to generate traffic volumes that would materially increase cut-through traffic on local residential streets. U-turn movements at the Palm Avenue signalized intersection are controlled by traffic signals and signage designed to regulate turning movements and maintain orderly traffic flow. Should post-occupancy monitoring indicate operational concerns, the City may evaluate additional traffic management measures.

This comment letter also includes the commenter’s opinion on parking related concerns. Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak on-site vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITEbased demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. Parking Management Measures including assigned resident garage parking, designated guest spaces, and annual

199
HOA garage inspections would promote efficient use and management of available parking. If deemed necessary, these measures would be included as Conditions of Approval (COA) and would be implemented by the Applicant and verified by the City.

This comment letter also expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to impacts related to emergency access. The Project is required to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in conformance with the Yorba Linda Municipal Code. Additionally, the Orange County Fire Authority would review the development plans prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the CFC (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9, included in the YLMC as Chapter

15.08. It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) Thus, no further response is warranted.

This comment also reflects the commenter’s opinion regarding zoning consistency. Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20).

The commenter also requests evaluation of cumulative traffic conditions on Yorba Linda Boulevard and nearby neighborhood streets and expresses concern that traffic studies focus primarily on vehicle delay rather than equestrian safety. Cumulative conditions are considered in the transportation analysis through review of existing traffic volumes, planned growth, and cumulative development assumptions, and the Project’s relatively small trip generation is not expected to substantially contribute to corridor congestion or neighborhood cut-through traffic. Traffic and safety evaluations consider all roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians, consistent with City standards and roadway design practices.

200

201
Comment Letter L41: Ruchir Soneji (2 pages)

202

203
Comment Letter L41: Ruchir Soneji, January 27, 2026
Response L41: This comment is a duplicate of Comment L20. Please refer to Response L20 for a response to this comment letter.

204
Comment Letter L42: Fred Awwad (2 pages)

205

206
Comment Letter L42: Fred Awwad, January 26, 2026
Response L42: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, zoning policy disputes. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) In addition, page 95 off the consistency details that pursuant to the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening criteria and guidance from Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), based on the Project’s location within a low VMT-generating area, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT. The Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards.

207
Comment Letter L43: Irwin M. Fried (1 page)

208
Comment Letter L43: Irwin M. Fried, January 15, 2026
Response L43: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20).

209
Comment Letter L44: Jill Wilkerson (1 page
)

210

211
Comment Letter L44: Jill Wilkerson, January 24, 2026
Response L44: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) The queuing capacity and demand was analyzed in the Project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA). The TIA concluded that the u-turning lane length would be sufficient to accommodate the future u-turning traffic and spillover of vehicles would not be anticipated. As further discussed on page 95 of the Consistency Analysis, the Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes.

Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards. For example, the design of the Project streets would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant.

Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak onsite vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. Parking Management Measures including assigned resident garage parking, designated guest spaces, and annual HOA garage inspections would promote efficient use and management of available parking. If deemed necessary, these measures would be included as Conditions of Approval (COA) and would be implemented by the Applicant and verified by the City.

212
Comment Letter L45: Scott Nathan (1 page)

213
Comment Letter L45: Scott Nathan, January 26, 2026
Response L45: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to added congestion. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Consistency Analysis and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared Project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].)

214
Comment Letter L46: Scott Nathan (1 page)

215
Comment Letter L46: Scott Nathan, January 23, 2026
Response L46: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to added congestion. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Consistency Analysis and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].)

216
Comment Letter L47: Brian and Cindi Scharr (5 pages)

217

218

219

220

221
Comment Letter L47: Brian and Cindi Scharr, January 23, 2026 Response L47: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to significant impacts related to privacy, solar access, and property value. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The circumstances identified in the letter regarding privacy, solar production, and impacts on property values do not constitute environmental impacts under CEQA.

222
Comment Letter L48: Juhee Lee (2 pages)

223

224
Comment Letter L48: Juhee Lee, January 23, 2026
Response L48: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the potential traffic impacts from the proposed Project. It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) The queuing capacity and demand was analyzed in the Project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA). The TIA concluded that the u-turning lane length would be sufficient to accommodate the future u-turning traffic and spillover of vehicles would not be anticipated. As further discussed on page 95 of the Consistency Analysis, the Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards.

For example, the design of the Project streets would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant.

225
Comment Letter L49: Katherine Kwon (1 page)

226
Comment Letter L49: Katherine Kwon, January 23, 2026
Response L49: This comment letter is a copy of the letter provided in Letter L48. Please refer to Response L48 for a response to this comment letter.

227
Comment Letter L50: Justin Egerer (2 pages)

228

229
Comment Letter L50: Justin Egerer, January 18, 2026
Response L50: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak on-site vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. Parking Management Measures including assigned resident garage parking, designated guest spaces, and annual HOA garage inspections would promote efficient use and management of available parking. If deemed necessary, these measures would be included as Conditions of Approval (COA) and would be implemented by the Applicant and verified by the City.

230
Comment Letter L51: Nathan (1 page)

231
Comment Letter L51: Nathan, January 18, 2026
Response L51: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) In addition, page 95 of the Consistency Analysis details that pursuant to the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening criteria and guidance from Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), based on the Project’s location within a low VMT-generating area, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT.

232
Comment Letter L52: Nathan and Elizabeth Bettisworth (2 pages)

233

234
Comment Letter L52: Nathan and Elizabeth Bettisworth, January 17, 2026 Response L52: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) The queuing capacity and demand was analyzed in the project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA). The TIA concluded that the u-turning lane length would be sufficient to accommodate the future u-turning traffic and spillover of vehicles would not be anticipated. As further discussed on page 95 of the Consistency Analysis, the Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes.

Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards. For example, the design of the Project streets would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant.

Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak onsite vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. Parking Management Measures including assigned resident garage parking, designated guest spaces, and annual HOA garage inspections would promote efficient use and management of available parking. If deemed necessary, these measures would be included as Conditions of Approval (COA) and would be implemented by the Applicant and verified by the City.

235
Comment Letter L53: Brad Howard (2 pages)

236

237
Comment Letter L53: Brad Howard, January 18, 2026
Response L53: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to impacts related to emergency access. The Project is required to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in conformance with the Yorba Linda Municipal Code. Additionally, the Orange County Fire Authority would review the development plans prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the CFC (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9, included in the YLMC as Chapter 15.08. It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Accordingly, this comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. Thus, no further response is warranted.

238
Comment Letter L54: Kirsten Howard (1 page)

239
Comment Letter L54: Kirsten Howard, January 18, 2026
Response L54: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Concerns regarding neighborhood character, building height and density, traffic congestion, parking availability, pedestrian and equestrian safety, privacy, views, and the appropriateness of the Project location are not related to CEQA.

CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, privacy, views, perceived safety, speculative accident risk, parking convenience, or zoning policy disputes. As further discussed on page 95 of the Consistency Analysis, the Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24- foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lane. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards. For example, the design of the Project streets would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area are provided to the fire code standards. Overall, because the Project is within the total unit count of the Housing Element Programmatic EIR, the traffic that would be generated from operation of the Project is within the assumptions of the Housing Element Programmatic EIR. For context, the Project would generate, at most, 418 peak hour trips, which is 1.5 percent of existing volumes on Yorba Linda Boulevard. As such, consistent with the findings of the Housing Element Programmatic EIR, the Project would not interfere with adopted plans, programs, ordinances, or policies regarding roadway facilities; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

240
Comment Letter L55: Susan Goubert (1 page)

241
Comment Letter L55: Susan Goubert, January 7, 2026
Response L55: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Concerns regarding neighborhood character, building height and density, traffic congestion, parking availability, pedestrian and equestrian safety, privacy, views, and the appropriateness of the Project location are not related to CEQA.

CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, privacy, views, perceived safety, speculative accident risk, parking convenience, or zoning policy disputes. The queuing capacity and demand was analyzed in the Project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA). The TIA concluded that the u-turning lane length would be sufficient to accommodate the future u-turning traffic and spillover of vehicles would not be anticipated.

As further discussed on page 95 of the Consistency Analysis, the Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area.

Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes.

Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards. For example, the design of the Project streets would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant.

242
Comment Letter L56: Mary Pinson (1 page)

243
Comment Letter L56: Larry Pinson, January 7, 2026
Response L56: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic impacts. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak on-site vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. Parking Management Measures including assigned resident garage parking, designated guest spaces, and annual HOA garage inspections would promote efficient use and management of available parking. If deemed necessary, these measures would be included as Conditions of Approval (COA) and would be implemented by the Applicant and verified by the City.

244
Comment Letter L57: Larry Pinson(1 page)

245
Comment Letter L57: Larry Pinson, January 7, 2026
Response L57: This comment letter is a copy of letter L56 above. Please refer to Response L56.1 for a response to this comment letter.

246
Comment Letter L58: Stephanie (2 pages)

247

248
Comment Letter L58: Stephanie, January 11, 2026
Response L58: This comment is a duplicate of Comment L20. Please refer to Response L20 for a response to this comment letter.

249
Comment Letter L59: Lila and Scott Moultont (1 page)

250
Comment Letter L59: Lila and Scott Moultont, January 10, 2026 Response L59.1: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, zoning policy disputes. Regarding infrastructure capacity, the Project would be served by Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) for water and sewer services. The Project would install new 8-inch private water lines on-site which would connect to the existing 8-inch domestic water main in Yorba Linda Boulevard. Additionally, the Project would install new 8-inch private sewer lines on-site which would connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer within the Yorba Linda Boulevard median. Project drainage infrastructure would connect to a parkway drain in Yorba Linda Boulevard. The Housing Element Programmatic EIR determined the YLWD would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. Additionally, the wastewater generated by buildout of the Project would not exceed the capacity of the YLWD or Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD).

Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak onsite vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. Parking Management Measures including assigned resident garage parking, designated guest spaces, and annual HOA garage inspections would promote efficient use and management of available parking. If deemed necessary by the City, these measures would be included as Conditions of Approval (COA) and would be implemented by the Applicant and verified by the City. It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) In addition, page 95 off the consistency details that pursuant to the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening criteria and guidance from Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), based on the Project’s location within a low VMT-generating area, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT. The Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards.

251
Comment Letter L60: Connie and Brad Bryant (2 pages)

252

253
Comment Letter L60: Connie and Brad Bryant, January 6, 2026 Response L60: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the [Consistency Analysis] and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, zoning policy disputes. Regarding infrastructure capacity, the Project would be served by Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) for water and sewer services. The Project would install new 8-inch private water lines on-site which would connect to the existing 8-inch domestic water main in Yorba Linda Boulevard. Additionally, the Project would install new 8-inch private sewer lines on-site which would connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer within the Yorba Linda Boulevard median. Project drainage infrastructure would connect to a parkway drain in Yorba Linda Boulevard. The Housing Element Programmatic EIR determined the YLWD would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. Additionally, the wastewater generated by buildout of the Project would not exceed the capacity of the YLWD or Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD).

Parking capacity was removed from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2009 as an environmental issue area required to be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Applicant prepared a parking demand analysis to determine if the proposed Project provides an adequate on-site parking supply to accommodate peak onsite vehicle parking demands with a reduced parking requirement pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed 138-space supply provides a surplus of 15 spaces relative to the SDBL requirement and 59 spaces relative to the ITE-based demand, indicating adequate on-site capacity to meet anticipated parking needs. Parking Management Measures including assigned resident garage parking, designated guest spaces, and annual HOA garage inspections would promote efficient use and management of available parking. If deemed necessary by the City, these measures would be included as Conditions of Approval (COA) and would be implemented by the Applicant and verified by the City. It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) In addition, page 95 off the consistency details that pursuant to the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening criteria and guidance from Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), based on the Project’s location within a low VMT-generating area, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to VMT. The Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards.

254
Comment Letter L61: Cheryl A. Sanders (1 page)

255
Comment Letter L61: Cheryl A. Sanders, January 25, 2026 Response L61: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Consistency Analysis and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, zoning policy disputes. Thus, no further response is warranted.

256
Comment Letter L62: Colleen Kirtland (2 pages)

257

258
Comment Letter L62: Colleen Kirtland, January 25, 2026
Response L62: This comment letter expresses the commenters concerns over the proposed density of the residential development which may lead to traffic and evacuation impacts. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is required to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Consistency Analysis and shall prepare a written response to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period.” Comments related to the proposed Project or elements of the Project, as well as the Project’s merits, are not themselves considered comments on issues related to physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the CEQA Consistency Analysis. CEQA is limited to the evaluation of significant physical effects on the environment and does not require analysis of neighborhood character, aesthetic preferences, zoning policy disputes. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Residential High (R-H) and zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family 20 (RM-20). It should also be noted that automobile delay, including level of service (LOS), cannot legally be an impact on the environment. (Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at 1021 [challenges to EIR’s LOS analysis that compared project traffic to General Plan LOS goals were moot].) In addition, page 95 off the consistency details that pursuant to the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening criteria and guidance from Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), based on the Project’s location within a low VMT-generating area, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to Vehicle Miles Traveled. The Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Internal circulation would be provided via 24-foot-wide drive-aisles that double as a fire access lanes. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards.

As discussed on page 101 of the Consistency Analysis, and supported by the Housing Element Programmatic EIR, the Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. Direct access to the Project site would be provided via one driveway on Yorba Linda Boulevard. The Project is required to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in conformance with the Municipal Code, and Orange County Fire Authority would review the development plans prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the CFC (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9, included in the YLMC as Chapter 15.08. As a result, the proposed Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and would not result in new impacts. The Project is also not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.