Item 27 - Case No. 22-122/APP An Appeal of the Planning Commission — Yucaipa City Council, September 12, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Agenda Item No. 27

CITY OF YUCAIPA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services/City Engineer Benjamin J. Matlock, Planning Manager/City PlannereA--- FOR: City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022
SUBJECT; Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-1221APP) An appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation of denial of Case No. 20-1361PDPIFDP(TTM 20375, A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road directIy south of the City limits to unincorporated Sari Bernardino County, APNs: 0320-161-08, 09, and 28.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and consider the appeal request regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of the Serrano Estates' Planned Development Project. Should the City decide to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the Project, the following motion is provided:
1) Deny the appeal request and adopt Resolution 2022-47 denying Preliminary Development Plan for the Senxano Estates Project; and
2) Deny Final Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 (Case No. 20-136IFDPITTM 20375), as inconsistent with the Development Code (as there would be no PDP); and 3) Adopt the Findings for denial as contained in this Agenda Report; and 4) Find the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(4) and 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines.

As part of the denial, the City Council can also provide feedback on the PDP standards to allow the applicant to make changes to the Project that may be ultimately supported, and this direction

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-1221APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 2 ends

would be included as part of the review of a new and amended Project for the consideration of the Planning Commission and City Council.

If the City Council decides to approve the Project, the following motion is provided:
1) Approve the appeal request and adopt Resolution No. 2022-47, approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the Serrano Estates Project; and
2) Approve Final Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 (Case No. 20- 136/FDP/TTM 20375), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and
3) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and 4) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and 5) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

The City Council also has the discretion to amend the Project in whole or in part, and can make revisions, subject to concurrence with the applicant, to provide a project that would meet the required findings for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Surrounding Laud Uses:

Area Land Use Designations; Improvement Levels; and existing Land Uses:

Site:

RL-1 (Rural Living, 1-acre minimum
(gross) lot size
IL-3
Vacant
North:

Resource Conservation District — 40
acre minimum (San Bernardino
County)
NIA
Winery/Vineyard and Single Family
Residential
South:

I RL-1
IL-3
Vacant
East:

RL-1
IL-3
Vacant
West:

RL-1
IL-3
Single Family Residential
DISCUSSION:

Location and Setting -
The Project site is located on the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, north of Ivy Avenue, directly adjacent to Quartz Street and Crystal Street. The Project site is currently vacant undeveloped land, with an un-named creek located in the southeast corner of the site that connects with Spoor Creek approximately 300 feet south of the Project's southerly property line. There is a notable change of elevation from the southern edge of the site, at 2,920 feet above sea level, to 3,090 along a ridge

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/F'DP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 3 ends

located near the northern property line. The site is designated Rural Living, one -acre minimum (RL- 1) and the Custom Horne (CH) Overlay District and is surrounded by properties also designated RL- 1 within the City of Yucaipa, and is adjacent to unincorporated San Bernardino County to the north.

The most adjacent property to the north is the location of the North Cork Vineyard and Winery, which includes planted vines, a production building for the fermentation of grapes, and an outdoor venue for wine tasting activities and events. The property also includes a single-family residence.

Prior Approvals;
The subject site has previously held land use entitlements for a residential subdivision dating back to September 1989, when the County of San Bernardino approved Tentative Tract 14297 for 33 residential lots of one gross acre or greater in two phases on 39 acres, with an 11.9-acre remainder parcel. After the expiration of that original project, subsequent entitlements were submitted for the same project, with the most recent approvals following the Planning Commission's action of February 19, 2003, to entitle the map. In 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013, the California Legislature passed AB 116, AB 208, AB 333 and SB 1185, respectively, in response to market conditions caused by the recession, which provided automatic State extensions to all active Tentative Maps, Vesting Tentative Maps, and Tentative Parcel Maps. The actions of the State resulted in a cumulative total of seven additional years to the expiration date of an active map. As a result of the previously -approved 36 month administrative extension and subsequent State extensions, the expiration date for TTM 14297 was March 1, 2016. The final two-year time extension for the project was approved at the City Council Meeting of March 28, 2016. :t1
1,
Is
• M1 �nn�Y a M• u r. u.�r. a ur. rw.aR M4R Y hr.N+•
Tfs'.'41:r17'1 i 'l; 1'1 ? C' C' aVO_ 1429 7
r�
h � _
I / I
i ' .

NCIT
EM

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 4 ends

Planning Commission Hearing:

The proposed Project was reviewed at the regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 17, 2022, and the Minutes are attached for Council's reference. As part of the hearing, a total of 23 speakers provided comment, with 3 in favor of the Project and its efforts to support a viticultural industry, and 20 comments received in opposition to the project over concerns with the proposed unit count and lot sizes, and related impacts that may occur with approval of the Project.

In their discussion, three commissioners identified their concerns with the proposed land use plan and the transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed Project, while others noted that the overall design and approach help meet a variety of goals through the preservation of open space and the establishment of new vineyards. Several Planning Commissioners suggested that additional elements could be incorporated into the Preliminary Development Plan standards in order to help soften the transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed residences, including a larger landscape buffer between Yucaipa Ridge Road and a proposed block wall.

Following a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the Project that ultimately resulted in, 3 votes in favor, 4 against, therefore constituting a recommendation for denial of the Project pursuant to Section 83.030210 of the 'Yucaipa Development Code.

As a result of the Planning Commission's reconmendation for denial of the Project, the applicant submitted an appeal application on August 23, 2022, which is attached for Council's review. As part of the appeal, the applicant's representative contends that the Planning Commission went beyond its purview and ultimately did not review the Project from a planning lens, and further asserts that the Commission was uninformed of the Planned Development process. It should be noted that the process requirements were provided in the Planning Commission agenda report and during staffs verbal presentation. In addition, the Planning Commission considered the Project and all relevant testimony, and in their discussion also recognized that ultimately it would be best that the City Council review and decide on the proposed PDP standards.

Following the Notice of Public Hearing, a letter was received by the applicant's attorney, which is attached for Council's review, along with a response that has been provided.

Project Design and Description:

Preliminary Development Plan:

Currently, the subject site is designated as RL-1, which permits the development of one single family unit per gross acre pursuant to the City's General Plata and would therefore be permitted to accommodate up to 52 single family lots. Instead of proposing a project that adheres to those existing development standards, the Project proposal utilizes the Planned Development Review process set forth in Article 2, Planned Development Review (Section 83.030205 et seq.) of Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Development Code, which creates a process for an applicant to propose alternate development standards that, while inconsistent with the existing underlying development standards, may be justified based on specific findings, The Planned Development Review process allows an applicant to propose new development standards that would be applicable to a site, in order to provide more flexibility in development based on the site's characteristics,

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 5 ends

Pursuant to these provisions, the Project includes a Preliminary Development Plan ("PDP") that would create new development standards which, if approved, would replace the existing RL-1 standards otherwise applicable to the site, while maintaining the underlying density. As proposed, these new development standards are inconsistent with the underlying RL-1 development standards and do not comply with the objective design standards of the RL-1 and Custom Home Overlay, The applicant acknowledges this inconsistency, and their correspondence and letter of intent explains that the proposal provides "[m]odifications to the development standards [that] include, but are not limited to setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum dwelling unit street frontage" to accomplish additional site design flexibility while explaining that the new development standards are needed to consolidate the residential development in one area based on the topography. The new development standards form the basis for the applicant's ability to develop the residential uses and agricultural uses as set forth in TTM 20375/Final Development Plan,

2...IdduaW8118ar... — TM �y J _ - ._ -. r�+��:�lastro�[T,.,�I �Lwto��d to rratnlikwtl _ � � � Eastment
Y tY:ulo) 4 Area ❑ R i_ �� — ----- �, tWananw ayrayd 'I i s.. �.
�j #r
}_ �+
+ Area B
w� a
iyr r
LAND USE PLAN ` h '� — qI`
A : Desi"Ion Min, Lot Sim acnayo
... � �. RarnnpWrtA. ��¢o�eae,w rylpo-t.,2ae t'�.• �';� •" - '- ! •.�� - RannigNcnH 17,fA09q1. Ary,G.2iSC; ,I
a
• WncmlpdveaC- HA AME601dc •• '1
�. tt3:jral(ipcn Son r �
* ti
Araw3x rMw ,•
Proposed Land Use Plan to be subject to new proposed standards ':•

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of20-13d/PDP/FDP/T"T'M 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 6 ends

Consistent with the General Plan designation of RL-1, which allows up to 52 residential on the subject site, the PDP provisions proposed would the development of 51 single family lots, as well as one additional lot that will consist of only open space and a vineyard or similar agricultural use. The proposed PDP includes four separate planning areas that would govern the development; Planning Area A, designated as Agriculture, is the proposed 12 acres for the agricultural planting area; Planning Area B, designated as Low Residential, encompasses 27 acres and would permit the 51 single family residences with a variety of standards that are different from the underlying RL-1 designation; Planning Area C would provide ten acres of Open Space; and Area D, including three additional acres of open space and serving as a landscaped buffer between the residences and agricultural operations. As part of the PDP, the Planning Area S is noted to include 16 lots that will be specifically age restricted for senior households (age 62 and above), and the agriculture area proposed as part of Planning Area A would be planted by Yucaipa Ridge Vineyards. Additionally, the age restriction for the development shall comply with all applicable requirements of state law, including any implementation of any elements to best ensure enforceability of these age -restricted covenants.

Planned Development applications require the approval of a PDP by the City Council, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, to create the appropriate development standards, and the submittal of a Final Development Plan ("FDP") to formally entitle a specific project. In order for the City Council to approve the Project adopting these new development standards, the City Council must make all of the following findings set forth in Section 83,030220 of the Development Code:
a) The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan and any other applicable plan.
b) The physical characteristics of the site have been adequately assessed and the site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking areas, loading areas, landscaping, and other features required.
c) The site for the proposed development has adequate access, meaning that the site design and development plan conditions consider the limitations of existing streets and highways and provide improvements to accommodate the anticipated requirements of the proposed development.
d) Adequate public services and facilities exist, or will be provided in accordance with the conditions of development plan approval, to serve the proposed development, and the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of such public services to properties in the vicinity to be a detriment to public health, safety, and welfare. e) The proposed development, as conditioned, will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property or the permitted use thereof and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area. fj The improvements required per the conditions of development plan approval and the manner of development adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the proposed development and the project site including, but not limited to, flood, seismic, fire, and slope hazards.
g) The proposed development carries out the intent of the planned development provisions by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of design greater than that which would be achieved through the application of conventional development standards.

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 7 ends

h) If the development proposes to intermix residential and commercial uses, whether done in a vertical or a horizontal manner, the residential use is designed in such a way that it is buffered from the commercial use and is provided sufficient amenities to create a comfortable and healthy residential environment and to provide a positive quality of life for the residents. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, private open space, private or separated entrances, landscaping, etc.

Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the purpose of the Planned Development Review process "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." The proposed Project does not include the development of units beyond what is currently permissible under the City's General Plan, but instead is intended to "provide(s) a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations" through the creation of new standards that would then apply, subject to Council approval. Based on the topographical elements of the site, in conjunction with the City's Hillside Overlay District, the approach contemplated by this Planned Development application results in consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site, which would avoid areas of steeper topography that might otherwise create conflicts with access requirements listed in the Development Code. These factors may be considered along with all other evidence, written and oral, presented to the City Council for its consideration, in order to determine if the required findings under Development Code Section

83.030220 may be made.

Tentative. Tract Map/Final Developmew Plan.

Along with the PDP, the proposed Project includes an FDP exhibit to implement the provisions of the PDP, which is provided through Tentative Tract Map ("TTM") No. 20375. The TTM has the following elements: The Planned Development review process (Section 83.030225) permits the concurrent review of a subdivision with a PDP, provided separate application, review, and findings shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the City's Development Cade. As such, approval of the PDP is required first to establish the applicable development standards of the FDP.

In order to approve TTM 20375/FDP, the City Council must first approve the PDP. Approval of TTM 20375/FDP requires that the City make all of the findings required under Development Code Section 83.030220 (as listed above), and also all required findings in accordance Government Code Section 66474 and Article 2 of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Development Code. Proposed findings for TTM 20375/FDP are included as an attachment to this Staff Report.

Single Family Development:

The TTM includes 51 single family residential lots ranging from 12,000 to 23,759 square feet in size, arranged around the extension of Crystal Street that would terminate at a cul-de-sac, and the extension of Quartz Street, which would loop around back to Yucaipa Ridge Road.

Remainder Lot:

An area designated as a "Remainder Lot" is proposed to correspond to Planning Areas A, C, and D of the PDP, and would therefore include the open space elements of the Project, as well as the future ,..

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-1221APP of 20-1361PDP/FDPITTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 8 ends

agriculture use. The proposed agricultural operations would be accessed from Yucaipa Ridge Road.

The PDP specifies that no commercial or residential activities which would result in daily trips will occur on this lot, and the ultimate Tract Map and Conditions of Approval will include these restrictions.

Lettered Lots/Drainage:

The site has been designed to maintain historic flows, and includes measures that will ensure that the Project complies with the onsite water retention and City's water quality requirements. Several additional lettered lots are included to support landscaped detention basins that would accommodate water quality requirements. The majority of these detention basins are located adjacent to Yucaipa Ridge Road, and are intended to support the existing flow of runoff towards the southwest portion of the site, and to create a landscaped section between the 51 residences and the existing neighborhood.

Circulation:

The Project site is located adjacent to Yucaipa Ridge road, an existing 2-way local paved roadway that is partially constructed. The development of the site would be responsible for completing the Yucaipa Ridge Road improvements, including curb and gutter, and would include a multipurpose trail. Adjacent to the right of way of Yucaipa Ridge Road will include several lettered lots to serve as detention basins, which have been designed as a 30-foot-wide landscaped stream bed. Between the lettered lot and the residential lots will include a decorative block wall. x. x�
(a! curb [nF road +►�'^0 multl�lr�7ie tai � larufrrpad
laji.t.ptarcen< falac,aaim r�wrnbad
II a bn ny n 5w tl
Yu"lpe RldoL mom
�— }�Wdllq whack
EOfIC, jipt�l w811
All the proposed residences of the Project would receive access from the internal streets that are proposed, which would connect to Yucaipa Ridge Road via Quartz Street and Crystal Street. The proposed Project roadway design provides 50 feet of public right of way, and consists of streets measuring 36 feet (curb -to -curb) in width, and a 7-foot-wide landscaped drainage swale proposed to carry the rain runoff to the proposed detention basins. The street design also includes a decomposed granite multipurpose trail within a 7-foot easement into the residential lots, which will include split rail fencing provided along the streets to delineate the trail location. In addition to these trails along the street network, an additional trail is provided north of the residential area. The trail design was developed with input from the City's Engineering Division, and the conceptual trail alignment reviewed at the .Tune 7, 2022, Trails & Open Space Committee Meeting. The Committee did not have any comments and found that this element of the Project was consistent with the General Plan Multi -use Trails Map,
M

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22�122/A.PP of20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 9 ends

r t 1Q- 1 1f
eau �
d4mb" ' ` waftwrftw.rw
I r
TYPiroAL INT"EROR 5TRMT
Further, the Project would result in improvements adjacent to an existing United States Forest Service easement along Yucaipa Ridge Road, which supports fire department access along the ridge directly outside of the city limits, with these improvements conditioned to occur entirely within the subject site.

Project Phasing
Pursuant to the TTM and PDP exhibits, the recordation and bonding of improvements for Tract 20375 will occur in a single phase. Individual homes are expected to be built out to meet market demand, but completed as part of an overall development instead of a "lot sales" approach. The vineyards are expected to be planted in the 2022 fall season.

General Plan and Development Cade:

The Project proposes a development that is not consistent with the existing Citywide objective standards but may be permitted through the PDP process, provided that the findings for approval are made by the City Council. The Project consists of a PDP that establishes development standards intended to support the City's General Plan, which would replace the development standards otherwise applicable to RL-1 land use designation. These include the following policies:
• CDL-1.1 Places to Live. Provide sites for a range of housing types, locations, and densities in a variety of neighborhood settings equipped with amenities that support a high quality of life.
• CDL-10.1 Development Review. Implement and adhere to development review procedures and design guidelines in the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code that advance the visual quality of the community.
• HN-2.1 Balanced Housing Stock. Designate adequate land for a broad range of types of housing, including single-family attached and detached, multiple -family housing, and mixed uses located in accordance with the land use and community design element. • HN-3.3 Housing Incentives. Facilitate the development of market rate and affordable housing through regulatory incentives (e.g., density bonus), permit processing (e.g., planned development), and other incentives, where feasible and appropriate.

It should be noted that the PDP also provides requires an analysis of the City's General Plan to demonstrate the approach made by the PDP will provide consistency with the City's General Plan.

The nature of the Planned Development procedures is to create specific standards that would replace existing standards that would apply to the subject site, and therefore the Project does not currently . Gull

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of20-136/PDP/FDPITTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 10 ends

comply with the objective standards for the district. As such, approval of the FDP is first subject to Council making the determination that the development standards listed in the PDP are appropriate based on findings listed in Section 83.030220 of the Development Code, as outlined above, which would then establish the standards applicable to the FDP. The proposed PDP for the Serrano Estates Project has the following Development Standards that would pertain to the Residential Development, rather than the development standards of the underlying RL-1 land use designation:

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Minimurn? Lot Area:
12,000 Square Feet
Minimurn Lot Width:
75' (at front bldg. setback line)
Minimum Lot Depth
100'
Minirman Street Frontage:
60,
Minimum Habitable FloarArea:
2,200 sq, f ,
Front Setback to Residence:
25' minimum from property line
Rear Setback:
20' minimum
Side Setback (interior):
10' and 5' minimum
Side Setback (Street Side):
15' minimum from property line
Height:
35' maximum 2.5 stories
Building Coverage (max. percent):
40%
Lot Coverage (max, percent):
50%
Required Parking Spaces:

3.0 spaces w/in enclosed garage
Minimum Garage Area:
600 s uare feet with three (3) vehicle capacity
Minimum Driveway Length:
25' (from garage door to multipurpose trail)
Standard Driveway Stall Dimension:
9" x 20' 18' x 20' for 2 s aces
Processin- and Procedural Adions
Notices of the Project were sent to all surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Project site, and a variety of responses were received by neighbors to the Project site with concerns about the Project and the proposed reduction of the lot sizes identified in the PDP. Many of the comments and concerns are addressed with the Initial Study prepared for the Project, with responses summarized by topic below. The comments are also included as an attachment to this agenda report.

Lot Sizes: Many of the comments received indicated concerns with the proposed lot sizes and includes requests that lots be either half an acre or be maintained at one acre. As part of these requests, commenters noted the potential incompatibility of the smaller lots as well as the current land use designation for the site. Currently, the subject site is designated as RL-1 which permits one unit per gross acre pursuant to the City's General Plan and has a theoretical capacity of 52 single family lots. It should be noted that gross density refers to the overall parcel area that includes right of way areas, rather than just the individual parcel boundary and therefore does not require each individual lot to measure 43,560 square feet.

The proposed Project includes a PDP and associated FDPITTM that is designed to implement the City's Planned Development review procedures. Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." Based on the topographical elements of the site, in conjunction with the City's Hillside Overlay District, the -491-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 11 ends

applicant is proposing to use the Planned Development process and has created a land use design that results in the consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site to avoid areas of steeper topography that might otherwise create conflicts with other elements listed in the Development Code.

However, as the Planned Development approach is to establish new development standards for a site rather than to comply with to the current objective standards listed in the Development Code, the City Council is ultimately responsible for determining if the policy set forth by the PDP is appropriate once a recommendation has been provided by the Planning Commission. As noted previously, the Planning Commission reviewed the Planned Development at their regular meeting of August 27, 2022, and were unable to find that these standards were appropriate. With this consideration, City Council may amend in whole or in part the standards listed in the PDP to best suit the requirements of the General Plan, with additional consideration provided as part of the applicant's appeal request. Further, the Yucaipa General Plan states "When implementing Yucaipa's General Plan, it is important to note that it addresses multiple objectives through its goals and policies. Adherence to an individual goal or policy is not intended to preclude achievement of other goals and policies. Implementing goals and policies often requires balancing priorities at a particular time or for particular circumstances and decisions. The City Council has final discretion over how to balance adherence to goals and policies when multiple ones affect a single decision." As such, Council may provide direction to achieve the rural and compatible neighborhood design that supports the existing neighborhood that surrounds the Project.

In an effort to address concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, the Project has been designed around the internal street network and none of the proposed Residences would be located directly along Yucaipa Ridge Road. This approach intends to insulate the neighborhood somewhat from the subdivision rather than having the residential frontage directly across the street from existing homes. Instead, the design would result in a multipurpose trail, a 30-foot-wide landscaped stream bed, and a decorative block wall being the visible elements to the existing neighborhood.

One of the Planning Commissioner's comments was to increase the width of the buffer, which would also include additional landscape buffering, along with other site design elements that were consistent with staffs suggestions throughout the review of the Project. Several public comments at the Planning Commission hearing also noted concerns that the design provided an "uncreative" subdivision design, and had concerns with the interface of the neighborhoods due to the block wall that was proposed in the buffer.

Traffic Impacts: To support the analysis of the Project, a Transportation Study Screening Assessment, dated May 26, 2022, was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc. the City's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines specifies that a transportation impact study with level of service (LOS) analysis should be based on one or more of the following criteria:

When the project AM or PM peak hour trip generation is 100 or more trips.

Projects that will add 51 or more trips during either the AM or PM peak hour to any intersection.

When determined by the City Engineer that existing or proposed traffic conditions in the project vicinity have unique characteristics that warrant evaluation.

Based on the proposed development consisting of 51 single family dwellings proposed, 16 of which will be age restricted for seniors, the project would not result in enough traffic that would trigger -492-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 12 ends

these review requirements and would be within the capacity for the adjoining roadways. Many of the comments received noted concerns with the introduction of 399 daily trips that was identified by the Transportation Study Screening Assessment, However, this number of trips amounts to 29 trips during the AM peals hour and 3 8 trips during the PM peak hour, or less than one car per minute, and is less traffic than what is generated by the existing neighborhood. Further, no complaints are on file from the City°s Neighborhood Traffic Calming program regarding congestion or other traffic - related issues that would indicate that the roadway LOS is deficient.

Juniper Street Access: A comment letter was received noting that it was difficult to make a left turn from Juniper towards the southbound direction of Bryant Street, which would be one of the primary exit routes from the development to other parts of the City. To address this concern, a Condition of Approval has been added that requires a traffic analysis to provide a stop sign/traffic signal warrant analysis for the intersection of Bryant Street and Juniper. If potential improvements are determined to be necessary, improvement plans and construction/bonding requirements shall be completed prior to the recordation of the subdivision, and the required improvements shall be constructed prior to the permit final for individual residences within the Project.

Yucaipa ,Midge RoadIUSFS Easement: A few comments were received regarding the extension of Yucaipa Ridge Road north of Quartz Street, including the right of way dedication that should be required and the related street improvements made. Based on the design proposed as part of prior TTM 14297, this alignment was intended to integrate with the future right of way that would be located on 35234 Quartz Street and the existing United States Forest Service easement. However, based on the existing development at the adjoining residence, it is unlikely that such right of way would ever occur. Further, the initial improvements shown on the project would require improvements on the neighboring property whose owner indicated that they would not grant access for such improvements. Based on these conditions, staff has provided direction to the applicant to modify the map design for Yucaipa Ridge Road to include a 40 foot right of way rather than the 30 foot originally shown, and that all related improvements be contained to the Project site. Public comments received at the Planning Commission had requested that these roadway improvements be made all the way to the northern property line to allow for access for future development north of the site.

Sewer Availability/Connections: Several different comments noted that the existing area does not feature existing sewer lines and therefore had concerns about the introduction of new septic tanks, As noted in the preliminary service evaluation for the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) and the PDP, the proposed Project would be required to extend sewer lines from Bryant Street to serve the development. An exhibit of this extension is provided below. Additional continents were received with concerns that existing properties would be required to connect to the proposed sewer line extension. Approval of the proposed PDP would not require other properties to connect to this infrastructure. Public comments received at the Planning Commission hearing referenced the cost that would be involved to extend sewer to the Project as a concern of the Project's feasibility. -493-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 13 ends

err"1'� -•'"'I �L1E�iF�' "- +,� �.•..... ' +'Ulm
t T"rwl�
re■
IRV-
LA
Ve IT
f w
i ♦a .ri 'A} + ■ *, . r#r,,: ' '�� f':Y'� t �a a'. i 1 ,'�ii1fE:.J�'

4. • ` PtOj7E ,;4, 1 S('Yior Line' -�� `. c�. �,"•,�,�'� »`:} wr 'f rMIl4Ri"�' � ; � 4 r aR
•�E'' TM- � 7, ♦ "{r .�Ef75:73.fi � l �• i� ' ra , ■ + �+�' ,r It
Ir
.e
�4 �� r'� ems: �." f. `•,'. .•; i�� .
r,o I • 1i : 54uthern Project Boundary
■ a4. +c
Keeping of Large Animals: Several comments were received regarding concerns that the proposed Project would not permit the keeping of large animals such as horses and cattle. Pursuant to the City's Development Code, the keeping of large animals are: permitted on lots greater than 20,000 square feet. The site does not currently feature livestock or other large animals and the owner is not obligated to include them. However, the Project would not impact others from having large animals, and a condition of approval for the Project requires the disclosure that "all parcels may be located within 1,320 feet of existing accessory animal raising uses which existed prior to the creation of this subdivision" and that such uses will be protected from nuisance complaints pursuant to the City Development Code, Section 84.0560, entitled "Accessory Animal Raising" Water Availability: Various comments referred to the ongoing drought impacting the southwest area of the Country and noted concerns with approving development considering these issues. As part of the Project application, the applicant has obtained a letter from the District noting that they would be able to accommodate the proposed development, and the PDP includes details on the necessary connections to be made for water and sewer infrastructure. It should be noted that prior infrastructure improvements have been developed to increase the potable water storage capabilities to meet the demand of future residents and businesses based on the City's General Plan. This includes the Wilson II and III Basins, and Wildwood Basins, that have been specifically designed to increase stormwater retention capability, increase groundwater recharge, and improve downstream water quality. These projects, along with other community investments made through various partners with the City, have increased the City's groundwater supply to create a more sustainable water supply for the future. These efforts have been included into the Yucaipa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (YSGSA) that was adopted by the City Council at their regular .s

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 14 ends

meeting of January 10, 2022, and is under review with the California Department of Water Resources. The YSGSP identified that the Plan Area is not currently experiencing undesirable results with regard to the chronic lowering of groundwater elevations, reduction of groundwater in storage, land subsidence and depletion of surface water as a result of groundwater production from the principal aquifer, and the basin is not projected to experience undesirable results over the 50- year planning and implementation horizon.

In addition, newer residential development is subject to both Title 24 energy standards and the City's Water Conservation Ordinance, which includes provisions regarding water fixtures, such as faucets and toilets, and landscaping, such as plant selection and irrigation design, to reduce the water usage relative to older homes. Further, smaller residential lots typically result in less water usage per capita than larger lots, as the larger lots have larger yards that ultimately use more potable water. As an additional element, vineyards require less water than other agricultural crops and, combined with the overall development, would use comparable amount of water relative to a standard RL-1 development. Further, as the state has maintained its housing development goals, it has not permitted any cities to declare a moratorium on new development because of the drought.

Based on the initial Preliminary Service Evaluation from YVWD, recycled water was not specified as a required connection. Dual plumbing for potable and recycled water will be required, and recycled water connections may be also conditioned in a Development Agreement with YVA D.

Electricity Impacts: A comment was received regarding concerns on the capacity of the electrical grid and its ability to support the proposed Project. The Project would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen), which require new buildings to include materials and design elements that increase building system efficiencies, such as unproved HVAC system, electrical equipment improvements such as LED lighting, and other related improvements. In addition, the new residences would be required to include solar panels.

Remainder Parcel: One comment was received regarding a concern that the lot labeled Remainder Parcel has the potential to be sold and re -subdivided, and thereby requested that a condition be added to identify on the Composite Development Plan that the Remainder Parcel cannot be subdivided. The Conditions of Approval have been reflected to identify that such future development would not be permitted. The conditions provided state the following:

18. The designated open space/agricultural lot shall not be further subdivided and be maintained in perpetuity,

19. The designated open space/agricultural lot shall not include activities that result in an increase in daily trips, as identified by the project proponent, Earthquake Risk/Trenching: Some comments referenced concerns with nearby earthquakes faults and the impacts may occur to the proposed residences. To support the analysis of the Project, responses have been provided by the applicant, dated July 8, 2022, and LOR Geotechnical Report dated June 15, 2022, in response to a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation dated November 22, 2005, for the subject site. As part of the current Project review, LOR Geotechnical notes that the current PDP/TTM plan generally incorporates the recommendations that had been previously presented including their recommended restricted use zone (R.U.Z.) along the northern portion of the site which would be avoided with the proposed PDP configuration. The applicant had indicated -495-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 15 ends

that they are currently updating their geotechnical documents, including the preparation of a current fault study, to ensure compliance with today's codes and requirements that is a requirement consistent with a uniformly applicable policy related to the final engineering effort for future residential building permits. Additional concerns noted the backfill of trenches that was completed as part of prior geotechnical investigations, which will be assessed as part of the required documentation for building permits, and compaction reports will be required as part of the site grading process and prior to the construction of building foundations. Through the review process, the applicant noted to staff that this updated study was to be provided before the City Council meeting; this report has not yet been received.

Fire Risk; A variety of commenters noted the vegetation around the site and the associated risks that may result from wildfires as well as available access should residents need to evacuate. The Project site is located adjacent to Yucaipa Ridge Road, an existing 2-way local paved roadway that is partially constructed. The development of the site would be responsible for completing the Yucaipa Ridge Road improvements, including curb and gutter, and would not impact access to users traveling along the public right-of-way street. Figure S-5 of the Yucaipa General Plan does not designate Yucaipa Ridge Road as a local evacuation route, but does include Bryant Street as a Local Evacuation Route, which can be accessed from Azurite Street and Topaz Street. Further, the Project would result in improvements adjacent to an existing United States Forest Service easement along Yucaipa Ridge Road, which supports fire department access along the ridge directly outside of the city limits.

The Project site is also located approximately 2.19 miles, via paved roadways, to Yucaipa Fire Station 41 at 11416 Bryant Street, Yucaipa, CA 92399. Due to the proximity to the more rural areas of Yucaipa and the neighboring unincorporated community of Oak Glen, this fire station is equipped with Paramedic Engine 551, Reserve Engine 551A, and CAL FIRE Engines 3551 & 3569, and also includes a heliopad and quick response rescue equipment to aid in wildland Eire response. Additional firecrews associated with the Mill Creek Hotshots are also located at the Mill Creek Ranger Station that is located at 34701 Mill Creek Rd, Mentone, CA 92359, approximately

1.1 miles away via paved roadways.

The Project will be required to adhere to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Documentation from the Project applicant notes that the existing hydrants adjacent to the site provide a flow rate of 850 gallons per minute, which exceeds the Code requirement of 500; however, it should be noted that several public comments received noted that the area has limited water pressure. As a standard condition of approval, a hydrant flow test will be required to verify the flow rate to serve the subdivision prior to the issuance of building permits.

The water supply and pressure will need to meet code requirements before any combustible materials (lumber) is provided to the site, and the applicant will be required to make any such improvements to achieve that pressure.

Utility Pole Relocation: One comment was received with a request that the developer relocate the utility poles currently along the west side of Yucaipa Ridge Road to be instead along the project's frontage. The City of Yucaipa's Development Code includes provisions where the undergrounding .s$

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 16 ends

of utilities is required but does not include provisions to relocated equipment that would not otherwise be impacted by the Development's improvements to their street frontage.

Habitat Impacts: To support the analysis of the Project, a Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation, dated June 2022, was prepared by Jennings Environmental. In addition, prior biological research and surveys had been completed on the site as part of the environmental review efforts associated with TTM 14297. In all cases, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; wetlands; and wildlife corridors were discovered onsite. Further, various protocol surveys/trappings for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat have been completed within the North Bench area over the past decades and each survey has been negative. The Project site does contain trees and shrubs that would be removed as part of the mass grading activities for the site, and therefore could have a potential impact on nesting birds if they are present on the Project site at the time of grading and construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 from the Initial Study would require a preconstruction nesting bird clearance survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site and includes appropriate provisions consistent with law.

Blue Tine Stream Impacts: A drainage feature is located along the southeastern edge of the site and is considered as a jurisdictional feature under the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, with an estimated jurisdictional area encompassing 0.4 acres of the site. However, the PDP and TTM for the Project has been designed to specifically avoid any development within or adjacent to this jurisdictional feature, and instead would designate this area as natural Open Space in perpetuity.

This requirement is also reflected in the Project's Conditions of Approval.

Property Value Impacts: Several comment letters noted concerns about the potential for property values to diminish with development of the proposed Project. While property values are not a land use consideration, new residential projects of all types have not result in reduced values and typically maintain or increase land values of the surrounding area.

Trash Bin Location: One comment was received regarding access to trash service for the lots directly north of the site in unincorporated San Bernardino County. The Project would be required to complete street improvements along Yucaipa Ridge Road, which will provide additional space for the trash can collection.

Development Review Committee:

The City .Development Review Committee reviewed the Project on August 4, 2022, which discussed the Project's draft Conditions of Approval with the applicant's representative. The representative noted that they would complete the stop sign improvements along Yucaipa Ridge Road and will be working to address the concerns on the Juniper/Bryant Street intersection. Minor plan revisions were noted during this meeting and have not yet been reflected in the exhibit attached to this agenda report. The applicant is aware that if the Project is approved, a revised exhibit shall be provided that addresses these comments and any additional revisions that may occur during the public hearing process. However, these required revisions are also reflected in the proposed Conditions of Approval, and includes details such as the 40 fl ROW along the northern end of Yucaipa Ridge Road, and the proposed stop control at the Yucaipa Ridge Road intersections. -497-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 17 ends

Environrr ental Review:

The Initial Study prepared for this proposal, which was made available for comment for 20 days beginning on July 15, 2022, and ending on August 4, 20221, considers the potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the Project. Based upon the analysis conducted by staff, all available evidence indicates that any adverse impacts that could occur are at a less -than -significant level, and consequently, staff is recommending the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should the City Council approve the Project. Mitigation measures reflect the comments received through tribal consultation as part of SB 18/AB 52, as well as the standard protocols regarding biological resources and a paleontological resource evaluation. Other elements of the Project would be governed by uniformly applicable policy, including adherence with the Building Code and SCAQMD rules. No comments were received specifically on the Initial Study during the public review process by local, regional or state agencies, or by members of the public, though a variety of public comment letters were provided with concerns over the Project. These responses are included above as part of the Project processing section.

Alternatively, the City Council can find that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(4) and 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines if the Planned Development is denied. 'These sections state that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

CONCLUSION:

If approved, the proposed Preliminary Development Plan will establish a land use plan and development standards for a single-family residential subdivision consisting of 51 lots, including 16 that will be age restricted, and provides additional area for natural open space and vineyards on a 52-acre site along Yucaipa Ridge Road. As part of the Project, a Final Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 has been submitted to entitle the subject site in a design that is consistent with the Preliminary Development Plan.

The City's Development Code includes procedures for Planned Development applications, and notes that its purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." As a result, the proposed development does not meet the City's objective design standards, including lot dimensions and setbacks, until a PDP has ben is approved that establishes new standards applicable to the site, The proposed standards of this PDP have been developed by the applicant, based on their application and letter of intent, to address the existing topographical challenges for the site, and includes "[m]odifications to the development standards [that] include, but are not limited to setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum dwelling unit street frontage" to accomplish additional site design flexibility. The Planned Development process includes required findings of approval that are to be met in order to approve the Project.

The Planning Commission had reviewed the proposal at their regular meeting of August 17, 2022, and ultimately could not make the findings for approval of the Project based on the current proposal and therefore ultimately denied the Project. A key area of concern was with the transition of the project to the surrounding neighborhood, noting that the wider lots and natural grade elements of the adjoining parcels creates the rural character of that area, which has not been provided by the 1 Initial Study was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review during the same period im

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 18 ends

proposed PDP standards. Considerable discussion was provided regarding how the PDP creates a development form and design that is in significant contrast to the adjoining areas, with larger 2:1 slope areas that are used to create a standard terrace design between pads, and where the site design does not leverage the natural topography of the site, resulting in a neighborhood that is not well - integrated with the surroundings. The comments also noted that streetscape will result in similar appearing lots, and no consideration was provided to add features that help to blend to the natural topography or to increase the design elements for the site. As part of the applicant rebuttal to comments, the applicant also noted that the subdivision does have a prototypical subdivision design.

An appeal request has been submitted by the applicant to provide an opportunity for the City Council to conduct an evaluation of the Project. Motions are provided should the City Council decide to uphold or overturn the Planning Commission's action, and findings are also included and are attached for consideration. The City Council can also make revisions that may be necessary to support approval of the Project or, if the Project is denied, can provide direction to the applicant should they file an amended Project for review. Additionally, City Council may make any necessary revisions to the draft findings to further memorialize their discussion and decision on the Project as part of the Project record,
FISCAL IMPACT:

Based on a total number of 51 residential units on 27 net acres, the project can be expected to generate $1.,207,229.73 in Development Impact Fees, using the current 2022 fee schedule, as hollows;
Drainage Facilities:
$401,745.42
Traffic Facilities:
$532,144.20
Public Facilities:
$73,675.62
Fire Facilities:
$46,726.71
Park Facilities:
$152,937.78
TOTAL:
$1,207,229.73
Fees collected by other agencies, such as Yucaipa Valley Water District and Yucaipa Calimesa School District, are in addition to this total.

Attachments: Preliminary Development Plan Findings for Denial — Draft Tentative Tract Map Findings for Denial — Draft
Preliminary Development Plan Findings for Approval — Draft Tentative Tract Map Findings for Approval — Draft
Land Use District & Location Map
Draft Resolution 2022-47 for Denial
Draft Resolution 2022-47 for Approval
Draft Conditions of Approval
Applicant's Appeal Form
Letter from Applicant's Attorney, John Mirau, dated September 7, 2022 Letter from City Attomey's Office, dated September 8, 2022 • Letter dated May 18, 2021 from Premium Land Development to City of Yucaipa
...

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 19 ends

Approved by:
• Letter dated September 8, 2021 from Prerruum Land Development to City of Yucaipa
• Letter dated June 4, 2022 from Premium Land Development to City of Yucaipa
• Letter dated June 7, 2022 from City of Yucaipa to Premium Land Development
August 17, 2022, Planning Commission Minutes
Comment Letters Received
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Environmental Initial Study (Under separate cover and assessable at the following link: htt s:// ucai a.or -
content/uploads/dev_sves/MND/PlannedDev'Vineyard/I S-20- 136TTM°ro2020375PDSerrano%20Estates.pdf? t=1657735599
Project Plans
-500-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/F'DP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 20 ends

FINDINGS: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DENIAL
The proposed development is not consistent with the City's General Plan. The current land use district designation is Rural Living, 1-acre minimum (gross) lot size, and while the proposed Project includes the implementation of the Planned Development Review procedures listed in Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code in lieu of direct application of the RL-1 standards, the proposed development standards that includes "[m]odifications to the development standards [that] include, but are not limited to setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum dwelling unit street frontage" in the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) that are inconsistent with the following General Plan Policies:

CDL-1.8 Overlay Districts: The PDP does not provide a comprehensive set of design standards that would result in the implementation of the Custom Home Overlay District requirements, nor does the standards include comparable requirements that are appropriately tailored to the PDP area. The lot sizes, setbacks, and overall development form are instead more closely aligned to the City's RS Land Use District, and the letter of intent identifies that the provisions of the CHO should not be applicable to the proposed Project.

CDL-2.4 Grading: The PDP creates a development form and design that is in significant contrast to the adjoining areas, with larger 2:1 slopes that use used to create a standard terrace design between pads that does not leverage the natural topography of the site and ultimately is not well -integrated with the surroundings.

CDL-2.7 Site Planning: The General Plan policies work to ensure projects fit the natural site topography rather than altering natural topography or features to accommodate a stock pad, The public hearing testimony from the Project applicant's representative notes that the PDP does result in square lots, which in conflict with this section.

CDL-10.4 Design Variation: The PDP creates a development form and design that is in significant contrast to the adjoining areas, with larger 2:1 slopes that are used to create a standard terrace design between pads that does not leverage the natural topography of the site and ultimately is not well -integrated with the surroundings. The streetscape will result in similar appearing lots, and no consideration is provided to add features that blend to the natural topography or to increase the design elements for the site.

HN-2.4-North Bench and Wildwood Canyon: The City's General Plan recognizes that the City has distinct areas their own unique identify, including the North Bench which provides for a rural atmosphere. The wider lots, and natural grade elements of the adjoining parcels creates the rural character of that area, which is not provided by the proposed PDP standards, which proposes substantially narrow lot sizes directly across the from the existing neighborhood. The Planning Commission discussion noted the efforts as part of the Wine Country Specific Plan, which is to achieve similar project goals of providing opportunities for agriculture, open space, and maintaining land use rights, but with a greater emphasis that has been placed on the transitions to surrounding development and towards maintaining the rural character of the North Bench.

HN-3.6-Compatibility: Policy HN-2.4 reinforces that the rural character of the north Bench is to be preserved. While the PDP process is to create tailored standards that would best implement the General Plan, the proposed standards creates a neighborhood that will be marked by notable change from the adjoining neighborhood, where the subdivision would have standard type of suburban lots that does not leverage the natural terrain environment to accommodate the site grading and roadway network, and that the -501-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-1221APP of 20-136/PDP/FDWTTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 21 ends

cohesion between the existing neighborhood and the planned development is reduced by the current proposed design of the water detention basins and a block wall that segregates the Project from the adjoining area.

The Planned Development provisions identify that the PDP functions as a development suitability analysis and a comprehensive plan for the development of the area, and based on the site design and provisions currently proposed, does not propose a development that is suitable and consistent with the General Plan.

2. The physical characteristics of the site have been assessed through, the proposed Preliminary Development Platt, with a primary goal of leveraging the areas of the site with limited topographical constraints to accommodate the residential capacity and to otherwise preserve the areas with greater slopes or naturalized drainage channels as open space. However, the proposed standards intended to implement these goals creates a neighborhood design that is substantially different from the adjoining areas, and ultimately creates a subdivision design that is not creative and imaginative, as specified by the Planned Development purpose, and rather creates a standard type of building pad that does not integrate with the surrounding or leverage the site.

Further, the Project only implements very limited elements of the Custom Home Overlay District, such as the three -car garage requirement and 2,200 square foot residence size, but otherwise included development standards typical for the City's Single Residential (RS) district that is outside of the Custom Horne Overlay, and no other specifics are included to provide comparable standards.

3. The site for the proposed development has adequate access from Yucaipa Ridge Road, an existing 2-way local paved roadway that is partially constructed, and relevant condition of approval are required for the Project, including the completion of Yucaipa Ridge Road improvements, including curb, gutter, and a multipurpose trail, as well as the completion of additional improvements adjacent to an existing United States Forest Service easement along Yucaipa Ridge Road, as part of the consideration on the limitations of existing streets and highways and provide the necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed development.

The Project would fiarther access Bryant Street, the primary thoroughfare, from Azurite Street and Topaz Street which are developed as local streets.
4, .Adequate public services and facilities will be provided as a condition of development plan approval to serve the proposed development and is identified in Section 4 of the Preliminary Development Plan. This includes the extension of the sewer line from Bryant Street and improvements to potable water service, to support the future development. In addition, these improvements consider the development surrounding the site, and through the permit review process with the utility companies will ensure that there is not result in a reduction of such public services to the surrounding properties.

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122IAPP of 20-1361PDPIFDPITTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 22 ends

Flood: The Preliminary Development Plan proposes a land use plan that would avoid any development in drainage areas that may pose a flood risk and would instead preserve the existing drainage channels that feed towards Spoor Creek as natural open space.
• Seismic hazards: The subject site is located within the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone boundary, and prior geotechnical studies completed for the site identify potential fault zone risks along the northern portion of the site. The Preliminary Development Plan would preserve such areas as open space, including natural open space and vineyards, in lieu of residential development. In addition, the proposed residential development would be subject to the California Building Code, and additional geotechnical studies will be completed as part of the permit process to provide for the structural design requirements for the new residences.
* Fire: Risks to future development from fire hazards are addressed through adherence to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a hydrant flow test will be required to verify the flow rate to serve the subdivision, and the development would be subject to any additional water improvements to meet the code requirements for flow. Other key elements supported by the Project is a roadway design that meets the California Fire Code (CFC), including a maximum 12% grade, all weather roadway design capable of supporting 75,000 pounds, and two (2) points of vehicular ingress and egress from streets.

Slope hazards: The Preliminary Development Plan, has been designed to located future residential uses away from the steeper slopes located along the northern portions of the site, and instead concentrates the development along the flatter portion. The steeper areas are also more highly visible to the community at large, and therefore is also proposed for natural open space and vineyards.

7. The proposed development does not carry out the intent of the planned development provisions in that the specific Development Standards that are proposed do not incorporate site design principles that help maintain the rural atmosphere. Instead, the site design uses standard residential lot standards that ultimately do not implement or support the General flan for the area nor creates a "creative and imaginative" approach that leverages the existing topography and surrounding area to address the constraints noted in Finding 6. As such, the development standards within the PDP do not capture the intent of the PDP, and additional site design efforts and modified standards are necessary to implement the General Plan policies. -503-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/A.PP of 20-136/PDP/FDPlTTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 23 ends

FINDINGS: TENTATIVE MAP NO.20375 DENIAL
The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is inconsistent with the General Plan and does not comply with the RL-1 (Dural Living, 1-acre minimum (gross) lot size) Land Use District standards nor the Custom Home Overlay standards.

2. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development, because the grading concept and standards in the PIMP creates standards lots more typical of the City's Single Residential (RS) district, and does not otherwise leverage the site terrain or surrounding area to create a logical transition between neighborhoods.

3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and substantially or avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the environmental review for the project includes appropriate conditions or mitigation measures that demonstrate that the Project will have a less than significant impact to the environment.

4. The design of the proposed subdivision and any related types or proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public safety and health problems because conditions are included to assure compliance with all City health and safety standards.

5. The design of the proposed subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with public easements within or through the site because conditions have been included to ensure non-interference with any existing public easements.

6. The design of the subdivision provides for the extent feasible, passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities, because the project proposes residential lots that would include the installation of solar panels, as required by the with the most current building code, without interference from surrounding properties, which provide opportunities for the use of solar energy,

7. The proposed subdivision, its design, density, and type of development and improvements does not conform to the regulations of the Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law, as the proposed standards of the Preliminary Development Plan does not correctly implement the General Plan and does not provide a "creative and imaginative" for the area.

8. The proposed subdivision is not deemed to be a land project as defined by the Yucaipa Development Code, Section 812.12030.
-504-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDPITTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 24 ends

FINDINGS; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL

1. The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the current land use district designation is Rural Living, l-acre minimum (gross) lot size that would permit up to 52 single family lots. The proposed Project includes the implementation of the Planned Development Review procedures listed in Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code in lieu of direct application of the RL-1 standards to permit the approval of 51 single family lots and one additional lot for vineyards and permanent open space. Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." The proposed Project does not include the development of units beyond what is currently permissible under the City's General Plan but works to provide development standards intended to achieve different design goals, including the preservation of natural open space, and provide areas for viticulture.

2. The physical characteristics of the site have been adequately assessed through the proposed Preliminary Development Plan, which leverages the areas of the site that has limited topographical constraints to accommodate the residential capacity and preserves areas with greater slopes or naturalized drainage channels to remain as open space. The design also provides an opportunity for agrarian activities along visible areas intended to support a more rural community appearance and the local viticultural industry. As part of the Preliminary Development Plan, 51 single family homes is proposed within the 52 acre site, and development standards are included to accommodate 12,000 or greater square foot lots that includes design requirements pertaining to yards, setbacks, and walls and fences, as well as the three car garage requirement listed for the Custom Home Overlay District, while also establishing landscape buffers between the proposed vineyard and from the adjoining neighborhood along Yucaipa Ridge Road.

The Project would further access Bryant Street, the primary thoroughfare, from Azurite Street and Topaz Street which are developed as local streets.

4. Adequate public services and facilities will be provided as a condition of development plan approval to serve the proposed development and is identified in Section 4 of the Preliminary Development Plan. This includes the extension of the sewer line from Bryant Street and improvements to potable water service, to support the future development. In addition, these improvements consider the development surrounding the site, and through the permit review process with the utility companies will ensure that there is not result in a reduction of such public services to the surrounding properties.
-505-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 25 ends

5. The proposed development has been designed to minimize any adverse effects on surrounding property by creating a land use design that can help buffer the differing lot sizes of proposed development (greater than a quarter (net) acre) to the existing development (one acre gross) through a landscaped basin along Yucaipa Ridge Road, and locating the permitted residential capacity towards interior streets to the Project. The proposed land rases for the site includes single family residences and land for agrarian purposes, which will provide compatibility between land use activities of the surrounding area.

6. The improvements required per the conditions of development plan approval and the manner of development adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the proposed development and the project site including:
• Flood: The Preliminary Development Plan proposes a land use plan that would avoid any development in drainage areas that may pose a flood risk and would instead preserve the existing drainage channels that feed towards Spoor Creek as natural open space.
• Seismic hazards: The subject site is located within the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone boundary, and prior geotechnical studies completed for the site identify potential fault zone risks along the northern portion of the site. The Preliminary Development Plan would preserve such areas as open space, including natural open space and vineyards, in lieu of residential development. In addition, the proposed residential development would be subject to the California Building Code, and additional geotechnical studies will be completed as part of the permit process to provide for the structural design requirements for the new residences.
• Fire: Risks to future development from fire hazards are addressed through adherence to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a hydrant flow test will be required to verify the flow rate to serve the subdivision, and the development would be subject to any additional water improvements to meet the code requirements for flow. Other key elements supported by the Project is a roadway design that meets the California Fire Code (CFC), including a maximum 12% grade, all weather roadway design capable of supporting 75,000 pounds, and two (2) points of vehicular ingress and egress from streets. General Plan Policy 5-1.8, Natural Topography, note that projects should "limit grading for future developments to the minimum amount needed to preserve Yucaipa's natural topography, preserve vegetation, and maintain soil and slope stability.
i Slope hazards: The Preliminary Development Plan has been designed to located future residential uses away from the steeper slopes located along the northern portions of the site, and instead concentrates the development along the flatter portion. The steeper areas are also more highly visible to the community at large, and therefore is also proposed for natural open space and vineyards.

7. The proposed development carves out the intent of the planned development provisions by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of design greater than that which would be achieved through the application of conventional development standards as the land -506-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of20-13d/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 26 ends

use plan provides for the consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site, which would avoid areas of steeper topography that might otherwise create conflicts with access requirements listed in the Development Code, and leverages these other areas for natural open space and vineyards which would not be otherwise feasible with the strict application of the RL-I Development Standards.
-507-

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12, 2022

Page 27 ends

FINDINGS: TENTATIVE MAP NO, 20375 APPROVAL
The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan, provided that the Preliminary Development Plan is approved, because the proposed use and overall density of 51 single family lots on 52 gross acres is consistent with the RL-1 (Rural Living, 1-acre minimum (gross) lot size) Land Use District that is augmented by the Preliminary Development Plan that includes standards that would apply specifically to the site, and the Conditions of Approval address the provision of public services and improvements.

2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development, because the Project site would be graded to create pad areas for future units, and has been designed to accommodate the proposed development, roadways, and associated infrastructure for the Project. In addition, physical constraints such as a drainage course, topography, or another environmental constraint, have been taken into consideration during the development of the Preliminary Development Plan and avoided with the subdivision design.

7. The proposed subdivision, its design, density, and type of development and improvements conforms to the regulations of the Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law should the Preliminary Development Plan be approved pursuant to the provisions listed in Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code, and all public agencies that may be affected by this development have had their concerns addressed by the Conditions of Approval.

S. The proposed subdivision is not deemed to be a land project as defined by the Yucaipa Development Code, Section 812.12030.
1:

Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case, No. 22-122/APP of 20-136/PDP/FD11'I7M 20375) City Council Meeting of September 12,2022
Page, 28
LAND USE: RL-1 {RURAL LIVING, I -ACRE MIN IMUM (GROSS) LOT SIZE)

LOCATION
-509-

RESOLUTION NO.2022-47

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF YUCAIPA DENYING THE SERRANO ESTATES

PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DENYING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20375/FINAL DEVELOPMENT

PLAN AND ADOPTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL

FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) WHERE

CEQA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT

APPROVED BY THE AGENCY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yucaipa (the "City Council") has before it a request for approval of Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) No. 20-136 (the "Project") for the Serrano Estates Planned Development; and
WHEREAS, The proposed "Project" consists of a Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/1~inal Development Plan (FDP) for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and an additional 27-acre lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road directly south of the City limits to unincorporated San Bernardino County; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residential development shall include 16 lots that are specifically restricted for qualifying senior residents (62 years of age or older); and WHEREAS, the proposed remaining lot for open space and agriculture will not be permitted for future residential development nor be permitted to have other uses that generate daily trips; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan contains a variety of goals and policies to encourage the development of hous; ng for all incomes, to support high quality design for development projects in the City, and to protect key resources within the City; and WHEREAS, Land Use Mix Policy CDL-1.8 states that "development projects comply with applicable regulations in the municipal code when the underlying parcels are located within a designated overlay district," and
WHEREAS, Hillsides and Ridgelines Policy CDL-2A states that projects will °`encourage natural grading techniques that blend with existing topography; grading should use rounded contours on slopes to minimize disturbance. Encourage the preservation of the physical shape of the hillside and views where feasible," and
-510-

WHEREAS, Hillsides and Ridgelines Policy CDL-2.7 states that projects will "promote land use patterns that are consistent with the slopes, landform, vegetation, and scenic quality of hillsides. Ensure projects fit the natural site topography rather than altering natural topography or features to accommodate a stock pad," and
WHEREAS, Design Quality Policy CDL-10.4 states that projects will "encourage identifiable architectural designs, design variations, and well -planned projects that are visually interesting, neighborhood or district oriented, and well integrated with the surroundings," and WHEREAS, Housing Sites Policy HN-2.4 states that the City will "require all new residential development in the North Bench and Wildwood Canyon to be consistent with the custom home overlay, adopted density and development standards, and the rural character of those areas," and
WHEREAS, Housing Design Policy HN-3.6 states that City will "require that residential development and rehabilitation projects are compatible with the character of their neighborhood, comply with municipal code development standards, and follow appropriate site planning and project design practices," and
WHEREAS, the Project site is designated as Rural Living, one -acre minimum (RL-1) and the Custom Home (CH) Overlay District, and subject to certain development standards including but not limited to those set forth in Section 84.0320, Rural Living (RL) District of Chapter 3 of Division 4 of the Yucaipa Development Code and Article 5 Custom Home (CH) Overlay District (Sections 85.040501 and 85,040502) of Chapter 4 of Division 5 of the Yucaipa Development Code, and
WHEREAS, Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code provides the processing requirements for a Planned Development application, which is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations" but a proposal cannot be approved if these goals are not ultimately met by the specific standards that are proposed and the proposal does not meet the General Plan policies specified; and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Development Plan proposed by the applicant includes development standards that are inconsistent with the existing development standards applicable to the Project site under the Development Code, including but not limited to, Section 84.0320, Rural Living (R-L) District of Chapter 3 of Division 4 of the Yucaipa Development Code and Article 5 Custom Home (CH) Overlay District (Sections 85,040501 and 85.040502) of Chapter 4 of Division 5 of the Yucaipa Development Code; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve the Project, the City Council is required by Development Code Section 83.030220 to find that all of the following are true:
(a) The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan and any other applicable plan.
-�11-

(b) The physical characteristics of the site have been adequately assessed and the site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking areas, loading areas, landscaping, and other features required.
(c) The site for the proposed development has adequate access, meaning that the site design and development plan conditions consider the limitations of existing streets and highways and provide improvements to accommodate the anticipated requirements of the proposed development.
(d) Adequate public services and facilities exist, or will be provided in accordance with the conditions of development plan approval, to serve the proposed development, and the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of such public services to properties in the vicinity to be a detriment to public health, safety, and welfare. (e) The proposed development, as conditioned, will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property or the permitted use thereof and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area. (f) The improvements required per the conditions of development plan approval and the manner of development adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the proposed development and the project site including, but not limited to, flood, seismic, fire, and slope hazards.
(g) The proposed development carries out the intent of the planned development provisions by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of design greater than that which would be achieved through the application of conventional development standards.
(h) If the development proposes to intermix residential and commercial uses, whether done in a vertical or a horizontal manner, the residential use is designed in such a way that it is buffered from the commercial use and is provided sufficient amenities to create a comfortable and healthy residential environment and to provide a positive quality of life for the residents. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, private open space, private or separated entrances, landscaping, etc.; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2022, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") was completed for the Project and a Notice of Intent ("NOI") was issued. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (",CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto, the City analyzed the Project's potential impacts on the environment; and WHEREAS, the City circulated the MND and the Appendices for the Project to the public and other interested parties for a 20-day comment period, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, including posting of the document on the City°s website and the State Clearinghouse, from July 15, 2022, through August 4, 2022; and
= 12-

WHEREAS, no written responses were received on the MND during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 15, 2022, to consider testimony on the Serrano Estates Planned Development and ultimately recommended denial of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 12, 2022 to consider the appeal request from the applicant, the denial recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to consider all other testimony on the Serrano Estates Planned Development; and.

WHEREAS, the findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the review of the Project, the MND, and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings and in the record of the proceedings. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the Development Services Department, City of Yucaipa, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399. The custodian of records is Benjamin Matlock with the City of Yucaipa Development Services Department. Each of those documents is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, Sections 15061(4) and 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines state that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the Serrano Estates Planned Development does not provide development standards that further support the implementation of the General Plan and that the proposed development standards are not appropriate for the conditions of the site, based on the required Findings for denial for the Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan set forth in the staff report dated September 12, 2022 and in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and that the City Council is unable to make all required Endings under Development Code Section 83.030220 are true; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby further Ends that because it is unable to make all findings required to approve the proposed Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan, proposed TTM 20375/FDP must also be denied because the development proposed thereby would not be consistent with the General Plan and underlying development standards for the RL- 1 land use designation;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Yucaipa, California, hereby denies the Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan, adopts the findings for denial of the Preliminary Development Plan as set forth in the City Council Staff Report dated September 12, 2022 and Exhibit A, attached hereto, adopts the Endings for denial and denies TTM 20375/FDP as set forth in the September 12, 2022 City Council Staff Report and Exhibit B, and finds that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15061(4) and 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines. =- 13-

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this _ day of , 20
ATTEST:

Jennifer Crawford
City Clerk
I1:2911111"A31IYMV 1111 I)5110A
David M. Snow
City Attorney
David Avila
Mayor
=- 14-

Exhibit A
Findings for Denial of Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan The proposed development is not consistent with the City's General Plan. The current lard use district designation is Rural Living, 1-acre minimum (gross) lot size, and while the proposed Project includes the implementation of the Planned Development Review procedures listed in Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code in lieu of direct application of the RL-1 standards, the proposed development standards that includes "[m]odif cations to the development standards [that] include, but are not limited to setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum dwelling unit street frontage" in the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) that are inconsistent with the following General Plan Policies:
• CDL-1.8 Overlay Districts: The PDP does not provide a comprehensive set of design standards that would result in the implementation of the Custom Home Overlay District requirements, nor does the standards include comparable requirements that are appropriately tailored to the PDP area. The lot sizes, setbacks, and overall development form are instead more closely aligned to the City's RS Land Use District, and the letter of intent identifies that the provisions of the CHO should not be applicable to the proposed Project.
• CDL-2.4 Grading: The PDP creates a development form and design that is in significant contrast to the adjoining areas, with larger 2:1 slopes that use used to create a standard terrace design between pads that does not leverage the natural topography of the site and ultimately is not well -integrated with the surroundings, • CDL-2.7 Site Planning: The General Plan policies work to ensure projects fit the natural site topography rather than altering natural topography or features to accommodate a stock pad. The public hearing testimony from the Project applicant's representative notes that the PDP does result in square lots, which in conflict with this section.
• CDL-1 0.4 Design Variation: The PDP creates a development form and design that is in significant contrast to the adjoining areas, with larger 2:1 slopes that are used to create a standard terrace design between pads that does not leverage the natural topography of the site and ultimately is not well -integrated with the surroundings.

The streetscape will result in similar appearing lots, and no consideration is provided to add features that blend to the natural topography or to increase the design elements for the site.
• HN-2.4-North Bench and Wildwood Canyon: The City's General PIan recognizes that the City has distinct areas their own unique identify, including the North Bench which provides for a rural atmosphere. The wider lots, and natural grade elements of the adjoining parcels creates the rural character of that area, which is not provided by the proposed PDP standards, which proposes substantially narrow lot sizes directly across the from the existing neighborhood. The Planning Commission discussion noted the efforts as part of the Wine Country Specific Plan, which is to achieve similar project goals of providing opportunities for agriculture, open space, and maintaining land use rights, but with a greater emphasis that has been placed on the 4-
-515-

transitions to surrounding development and towards maintaining the rural character of the North Bench.
• HN-3.6-Compatibility: Policy HN-2.4 reinforces that the rural character of the north Bench is to be preserved. While the PDP process is to create tailored standards that would best implement the General Plan, the proposed standards creates a neighborhood that will be marked by notable change from the adjoining neighborhood, where the subdivision would have standard type of suburban lots that does not leverage the natural terrain environment to accommodate the site grading and roadway network, and that the cohesion between the existing neighborhood and the planned development is reduced by the current proposed design of the water detention basins and a block wall that segregates the Project from the adjoining area.

The Manned Development provisions identify that the PDP functions as a development suitability analysis and a comprehensive plan for the development of the area, and based on the site design and provisions currently proposed, does not propose a development that is suitable and consistent with the General Plan.

2. The physical characteristics of the site have been assessed through the proposed Preliminary Development Plan, with a primary goal of leveraging the areas of the site with limited topographical constraints to accommodate the residential capacity and to otherwise preserve the areas with greater slopes or naturalized drainage channels as open space. However, the proposed standards intended to implement these goals creates a neighborhood design that is substantially different from the adjoining areas, and ultimately creates a subdivision design that is not creative and imaginative, as specified by the Planned Development purpose, and rather creates a standard type of building pad that does not integrate with the surrounding or leverage the site. Further, the Project only implements very limited elements of the Custom Horne Overlay District, such as the three -car garage requirement and 2,200 square foot residence size, but otherwise included development standards typical for the City's Single Residential (RS) district that is outside of the Custom Home Overlay, and no other specifics are included to provide comparable standards.

process with the utility companies will ensure that there is not result in a reduction of such public services to the surrounding properties.

5. The proposed development has not been designed to minimize any adverse effects on surrounding property as it creates a barrier between the existing neighborhood and the proposed residential district that consists of 2:1 landscape slopes and a block wall, and no other elements are included to otherwise provide an effective transition or compatibility to the surroundings.
b. The improvements required per the conditions of development plan approval and the manner of development adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the proposed development and the project site including:
• Flood: The Preliminary Development Plan proposes a land use plan that would avoid any development in drainage areas that may pose a flood risk and would instead preserve the existing drainage channels that feed towards Spoor Creels as natural open space.
• Seismic hazards: The subject site is located within the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone boundary, and prior geotechnical studies completed for the site identify potential fault zone risks along the northern portion of the site. The Preliminary Development Plan would preserve such areas as open space, including natural open space and vineyards, in lieu of residential development. In addition, the proposed residential development would be subject to the California Building Code, and additional geotechnical studies will be completed as part of the permit process to provide for the structural design requirements for the new residences.
• Fire. Risks to future development from fire hazards are addressed through adherence to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a hydrant flow test will be required to verify the flow rate to serve the subdivision, and the development would be subject to any additional water improvements to meet the code requirements for flow. Other key elements supported by the Project is a roadway design that meets the California Fire Code (CFC), including a maximum 12% grade, all weather roadway design capable of supporting 75,000 pounds, and two (2) points of vehicular ingress and egress from streets. • Slope hazards: The Preliminary Development Plan has been designed to located future residential uses away from the steeper slopes located along the northern portions of the site, and instead concentrates the development along the flatter portion. The steeper areas are also more highly visible to the community at large, and therefore is also proposed for natural open space and vineyards.

standard residential lot standards that ultimately do not implement or support the General Plan for the area nor creates a "creative and imaginative" approach that leverages the existing topography and surrounding area to address the constraints noted in Finding 6. As such, the development standards within the PDP do not capture the intent of the PDP, and additional site design efforts and modified standards are necessary to implement the General Plan policies.

KI
-518-

EXHIBIT D
TTMIFDP Findings of Denial
(Under Separate Cover
_5_
-519-

RESOLUTION NO.2022-47

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF YUCAIPA ADOPTING THE SERRANO ESTATES

PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 203751F'INAL DEVELOPMENT

PLAN, AND APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL

FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENT,A,L QUALITY ACT (CEQA), ADOPTING

A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CASE
NO. 20-1361PDPIFDPITTM 20375, AND ADOPTING A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM FOR THE SERRANO ESTATES PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yucaipa (the "City Council") has before it a request for approval of Preliminary Development flan (PDP) No. 20-136 (the. "Project") for the Serrano Estates Planned Development; and
WHEREAS, The proposed "Project" consists of a Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development flan (PDP) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan (FDP) for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, including 16 lots specifically restricted for qualifying senior residents, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and an additional 27-acre lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road directly south of the;City limits to unincorporated San Bernardino County; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residential development shall include lb lots that are specifically restricted for qualifying senior residents (62 years of age or older); and WHEREAS, the proposed remaining lot for open space and agriculture will not be permitted for future residential development nor be permitted to have other uses that generate daily trips; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan contains a variety of goals and policies to encourage the development of housing for all incomes, to support high quality design for development projects in the City, and to protect key resources within the City; and WHEREAS, Housing and Neighborhoods Policy HN-3.3 identifies that the City should facilitate the development of market rate and affordable housing through regulatory permit processes, such as planned development, where feasible and appropriate, and -520-

WHEREAS, Public Safety Policy 5-1.8 notes that projects should "limit grading for future developments to the minimum amount needed to preserve Yucaipa's natural topography, preserve vegetation, and maintain soil and slope stability; and WHEREAS, the Project site is designated as Rural Living, one -acre minimum (RL-1) and the Custom Home (CH) Overlay District, and subject to certain development standards including but not limited to those set forth in Section 84.0320, Rural Living (RL) District of Chapter 3 of Division 4 of the Yucaipa Development Code and Article 5 Custom Home (CH) Overlay District (Sections 85.040501 and 85,040502) of Chapter 4 of Division 5 of the Yucaipa Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Development Plan proposed by the applicant includes development standards that are inconsistent with the existing development standards applicable to the Project site under the Development Code, including but not limited to, Section 84.0320, Rural Living (RL) District of Chapter 3 of Division 4 of the Yucaipa Development Code and Article 5 Custom Horne (CH) Overlay District (Sections 85.040501 and 85.040502) of Chapter 4 of Division 5 of the Yucaipa Development Code; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve the Project, the City Council is required by Development Code Section 83,030220 to find that all of the following are true:
(a) The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan and any other applicable plan.
(b) The physical characteristics of the site have been adequately assessed and the site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking areas, loading areas, landscaping, and other features required.
(c) The site for the proposed development has adequate access, meaning that the site design and development plan conditions consider the limitations of existing streets and highways and provide improvements to accommodate the anticipated requirements of the proposed development.
(d) Adequate public services and facilities exist, or will be provided in accordance with the conditions of development plan approval, to serve the proposed development, and the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of such public services to properties in the vicinity to be a detriment to public health, safety, and welfare. (e) The proposed development, as conditioned, will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property or the permitted use thereof and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area. (0 The improvements required
approval and the manner of development adequately
associated with the proposed development and the
flood, seismic, fire, and slope hazards,
per the conditions of development plan
address all natural and manmade hazards
project site including, but not limited to,

(g) The proposed development carries out the intent of the planned development provisions by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of design greater than that which would be achieved through the application of conventional development standards.
(h) If the development proposes to intermix residential and commercial uses, whether done in a vertical or a horizontal manner, the residential use is designed in such a way that it is buffered from the commercial use and is provided sufficient amenities to create a comfortable and healthy residential environment and to provide a positive quality of life for the residents. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, private open space, private or separated entrances, landscaping, eta; and
WHEREAS, Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code provides the processing requirements for a Planned Development application, which is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations"; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve the Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development flan (FDP), the City Council must also make all findings required by the Subdivision Map Act and Article 2 of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2022, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") was completed for the project and a Notice of Intent ("NOI") was issued. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto, the City analyzed the Project's potential impacts on the environment; and WHEREAS, the City circulated the MND and the Appendices for the Project to the public and other interested parties for a 20-day comment period, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, including posting of the document on the City's website and the State Clearinghouse, from July 15, 2022, through August 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, no written responses were received on the MND during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 15, 2022, to consider testimony on the Serrano Estates Planned Development and ultimately recommended denial of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 12, 2022 to consider the appeal request from the applicant, the denial recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to consider all other testimony on the Serrano Estates Planned Development; and.
:�22-

WHEREAS, the findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the review of the Project, the MND, and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings and in the record of the proceedings. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the Development Services Department, City of Yucaipa, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399. The custodian of records is Benjamin Matlock with the City of Yucaipa Development Services Department. Each of those documents is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, based on the information presented in the MND, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures, The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is hereby incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council reviewed, considered and has exercised its independent judgment in considering the MND and all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings and finds that the MND is adequate and was prepared in full compliance with CEQA. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional recirculation or additional environmental review of the Project under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, The City Council hereby finds that the Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan provides development standards that further support the implementation of the General Plan and are appropriate for the conditions of the site, and makes all required Findings for approval of the Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan pursuant to Development Code Section 83.030220, as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and,
WHEREAS, The City Council hereby finds that Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan (FDP) is consistent with the proposed Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan, subject to the Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, and makes all required Findings for approval of TTM/20375/FDP pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and Article 2 of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code, as set forth in Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference;
NOW THEREFORE, 13E IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Yucaipa, California, hereby adopts the Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan and adopts the findings for the Preliminary Development Plan as set forth in Exhibit B; approves Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan (FDP) for Planned Development and adopts the findings for approval of TTM 20375/FDP and the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibits C and D, respectively; and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Serrano - 23-

Estates Preliminary Development Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are hereby incorporated into the Project and shall be made conditions of the Project, as well as the Conditions of Approval associated with Tentative Tract Map No. 20375/Final Development Plan processed concurrently with the Preliminary Development Plan.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this _ day of , 20
ATTEST:

Jennifer Crawford
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

David M. Snow
City Attorney
David Avila
Mayor
424-

EXHIBIT A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Under Separate Cover)
-525-

Exhibit B
Findings for Approval of Serrano Estates Preliminary Development Plan 1, The proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the current land use district designation is Rural Living, 1-acre minimum (gross) lot size that would permit up to 52 single family lots. The proposed Project includes the implementation of the Planned Development Review procedures listed in Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code in lieu of direct application of the RL-1 standards to permit the approval of 51 single family lots, including 16 lots specifically restricted for qualifying senior residents, and one additional lot for vineyards and permanent open space. Pursuant to Section

83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." The proposed Project does not include the development of units beyond what is currently permissible under the City's General Plan but works to provide development standards intended to achieve different design goals, including the preservation of natural open space, and provide areas for viticulture.

2. The physical characteristics of the site have been adequately assessed through the proposed Preliminary Development Plan, which leverages the areas of the site that have limited topographical constraints to accommodate the residential capacity and preserves areas with greater slopes or naturalized drainage channels to remain as open space. The design also provides an opportunity for agrarian activities along visible areas intended to support a more rural community appearance and the local viticulture industry. As part of the Preliminary Development Plan, 51 single family homes are proposed within the 52 acre site, and development standards are included to accommodate 12,000 or greater square foot lots that includes design requirements pertaining to yards, setbacks, and walls and fences, as well as the three car garage requirement listed for the Custom Home Overlay District, while also establishing landscape buffers between the proposed vineyard and from the adjoining neighborhood along Yucaipa Ridge Road.

4. Adequate public services and facilities will be provided as a condition of development plan approval to serve the proposed development and is identified in Section 4 of the Preliminary Development Plan. This includes the extension of the sewer line from Bryant Street and improvements to potable water service, to support the fixture development. In addition, these improvements consider the development surrounding the site, and through the permit review 1YAS
-526-

process with the utility companies will ensure that there is not result in a reduction of such public services to the surrounding properties.

5. The proposed development has been designed to minimize any adverse effects on surrounding property by creating a land use design that can help buffer the differing lot sizes of proposed development (greater than a quarter (net) acre) to the existing development (one acre gross) through a landscaped basin along Yucaipa Ridge Road, and locating the permitted residential capacity towards interior streets to the Project. The proposed land uses for the site includes single family residences and land for agrarian purposes, which will provide compatibility between land use activities of the surrounding area.

5. The improvements required per the conditions of Preliminary Development Plan approval and the manner of development adequately address all natural and manmade hazards associated with the proposed development and the project site including:
• Flood: The Preliminary Development Plan proposes a land use plan that would avoid any development in drainage areas that may pose a flood risk and would instead preserve the existing drainage channels that feed towards Spoor Creek as natural open space.
• Seismic hazards: The subject site is located within the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone boundary, and prior geotechnical studies completed for the site identify potential fault zone risks along the northern portion of the site. The Preliminary Development Plan would preserve such areas as open space, including natural open space and vineyards, in lieu of residential development. In addition, the proposed residential development would be subject to the California Building Code, and additional geotechnical studies will be completed as part of the permit process to provide for the structural design requirements for the new residences.
• Fire: Risks to future development from fire hazards are addressed through adherence to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a hydrant flow test will be required to verify the flow rate to serve the subdivision, and the development would be subject to any additional water improvements to meet the code requirements for flow. Other key elements supported by the Project is a roadway design that meets the California Fire Code (CFC), including a maximum 12% grade, all weather roadway design capable of supporting 75,000 pounds, and two (2.) points of vehicular ingress and egress from streets.

General Plan Policy 5-1.8, Natural Topography, note that projects should "limit grading for future developments to the minimum amount needed to preserve Yucaipa's natural topography, preserve vegetation, and maintain soil and slope stability.
• Slope hazards: The Preliminary Development Plan has been designed to located future residential uses away from the steeper slopes located along the northern portions of the site, and instead concentrates the development along the flatter -3-
-527-

portion. The steeper areas are also more highly visible to the community at large, and therefore is also proposed for natural open space and vineyards.

7. The proposed development carries out the intent of the planned development provisions by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of design greater than that which would be achieved through the application of conventional development standards as the land use plan provides for the consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site, which would avoid areas of steeper topography that might otherwise create conflicts with access requimments listed in the Development Code, and leverages these other areas for natural open space and vineyards which would not be otherwise feasible with the strict application of the kL-1 Development Standards. -4-
-528-

EXHIBIT C
Conditions of Approval
(Under Separate Cover)
-5-
-529-

EXHIBIT D
TTM/FDP Findings of Approval
(Under Separate Cover)
IN
-530-

Yucaipa 52, LLC Page 1
Case No. 20-1361PDPIFDPITTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22
ON -GOING CONDITIONS/GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

PLANNING DIVISION [909) 797-2489 EXT. 224
This Preliminary Development Plan ("PDP") is for the establishment of development standards that would be applicable to the site and would permit the development of 51 single family lots, as well as one additional lot that will consist of only open space and a vineyard or similar agricultural use. The proposed PDP includes four separate planning areas that would govern the development:

Planning Area A, designated as Agriculture, is the proposed 12 acres for the agricultural planting area; Planning Area B, designated as Low Residential, encompasses 27 acres and would permit the 51 single family residences; and Planning Area. C would provide ten acres of Open Space, which would tie into Area D, three additional acres of open space and serving as a landscaped buffer between the residences and agricultural operations. As part of the PDP, Planning Area B is to include 16 lots that will be specifically age restricted for senior households with qualifying residents pursuant to state law (ages 62 or greater).

With the PDP, Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 would subdivide the property. Any alteration or expansion of these facilities, or increase in the developed area of the site from that shown on the approved site plan, may require the submission of a new application or an additional application for Revisions for review and approval.

2. All lots shall have a minimum area of 12,000 square feet, a minimum depth of 100 feet, and a minimum width of 75 feet as measured at the building setback line delineated on the Composite Development Plan. Where lots occur on the bulb of a cul-de-sac, a minimum lot depth of ninety (90) feet may be permitted.

3. This Tentative Tract Map is for a project to be developed one subdivision phase.

Residential units will not be completed in a "Lot Sales" approach.

4. This PDP and Tentative Tract Map shall become null and void if all conditions have not been complied with and the occupancy or use of the land has not taken place within three (3) years of the date of approval. Up to two extensions of time pursuant to the provisions of Section 83.040220(e) of the Yucaipa Development Code may be granted upon written request and submittal of the appropriate fee not less than 30 days prior to the date of expiration. PLEASE NOTE: this will be the only notice given for the above specified expiration date. The applicant is responsible for the initiation of an extension request. Additionally, expiration of the subdivision map also will result in the expiration of the Planned Development pursuant to Section 83.030225 of the Yucaipa Development Code. -531-

Yucaipa 52, LLC Page 2
Case No. 20-1361PDP/FDPITTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

5. Water and Sewage disposal shall be by the Yucaipa Valley Water District. The Yucaipa Valley Water District letter provided as part of the Project application materials is included as a Condition of Approval,

6. The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer until the transfer to individual ownership or until the maintenance is officially assumed by an approved maintenance authority.

7. Mail delivery shall be by neighborhood boxes or other delivery as approved by the U.S. Postal Service.

8. All future development of this site shall be in accordance with the provisions of the PDP development standards and requirements.

9. A minimum of 12 acres of the proposed development shall be retained as open space for agriculture, and a minimum of 13 acres of the required open space shall remain as ungraded natural open space.

10. Areas to be dedicated for the purpose of meeting the natural open space requirements of this project shall possess no development rights since said development rights have been transferred to other portions of the project. Said open space shall remain in its natural condition, with maintenance occurring in an approved manner. No grading or structures of any type shall be permitted in the natural open space easements, including walls or fencing.

11. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding attacking or seeking to set aside, void or annul the approval of all or part of the matters applied for, or any other claim, action or proceeding relating to or arising out of such approval.

This obligation includes the obligation to reimburse the City, its agents, officers and employees for any court costs or attorney fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees are required by a court to pay as a result of such claim, action or proceeding. The City agrees to notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding promptly after the City becomes aware of it. The City may participate in the defense of the claim, action or proceeding, but such participation will not relieve the applicant of applicant's defense and indemnification obligations, including City expenses.

12. The applicant/owner shall pay a fee of $2,548.00, pursuant to Senate Bill 1535.

This fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division within three (3) days after the date of conditional approval along with a $50.00 administrative handling fee required by the Clerk. Payments shall be made with a Check, Money Order or Cashier's Check for $2,898.00 made payable to the "Clerk of the Board".

The Planning Division snap then file the Notice of Determination within three (3) days after the effective date of conditional approval. The applicant should be aware that Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code provides that any -532-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 3 ends

project approved under CEQA is not operative, vested or final until the required fee is paid. Proof of fee payment will be required prior to Final Map recordation.

13. All future development of this site shall be in accordance with the provisions of Division 7, Chapter 11, of the Development Code regarding Hillside/Ridgeline development standards and requirements where applicable.

14. All future development of this site shall be in accordance with the provisions of Division 9, Chapter 5, of the Development Code regarding Oak Tree Conservation development standards and requirements.

15. The keeping of large animals in residential subdivisions, where such use is permitted by the Development Code, may be reasonably regulated by CC&R's, but it shall not be prohibited.

16. Developers of residential development projects greater than a single dwelling unit shall attempt to ensure that at least 25% of the total cost of the project will be spent with Yucaipa businesses and/or the hiring of Yucaipa residents.

17. All proposed road names shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.

18. The designated open space/agricultural lot shall not be further subdivided and be maintained in perpetuity.

19. The designated open space/agricultural lot shall not include activities that result in an increase in daily trips, as identified by the project proponent.

20. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

CDF FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT. 246

21. This project is protected by the Yucaipa Fire Department/California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the Fire Marshall for verification of current fire protection development requirements. All new construction shall comply with the adopted Uniform Fire Code and all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances, standards and policies of the Yucaipa Fire Department/CDF.

22. This project is in a Fire Safety Review Area 1. This is a high fire hazard area, This project shall comply with the construction and development standards for a FR-1 Area. Contact the Building & Safety Division for FR-1 Area construction and development standards.

23. Fire Department access roads and/or public/private streets shall meet the Fire Department minimum width standard of twenty-six (26) feet for the FR-1 zone. -533-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-1361PDP/FDPITTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 4 ends

Access roads shall be paved (asphalt/concrete) and in place prior to placement of combustible material on site. Fire Department minimum paving thickness shall be no less than four (4) inches. This standard shall not lessen other agency requirements.

24. Fire Department access roads and/or public/private streets and residential driveways shall have a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen (13) feet and six (6) inches.

25. Fire Department access roadways and/or public/private streets and driveways shall not exceed 12% grade (please note: Engineering Division requirements may be more restrictive).

26. Cul-de-sac and dead-end streets shall not exceed 350 feet in length within the FR-1 zone unless otherwise approved by the Fire Marshall.

27. Required fire flow for this project, as determined by I.S.O. Formula, is as follows:
gpm = 1,500; at 20 psi residual; for 2-hour duration. System shall be looped with minimum eight (8) inch mains; six (6) inch laterals; six (6) inch risers; six (6) inch diameter hydrants with one 2'/2" outlet and one 4" outlet.

28. Approved fire hydrants capable of supplying required fire flow shall be provided to all premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are constructed or moved within the jurisdiction. When any portion of the facility or building protected is in excess of 400 feet from a fire hydrant on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, additional fire hydrants, meeting the required fire flow, shall be provided.

29. Fire hydrants shall be installed at locations to be determined by the California Fire Code (2019) Appendix "C". Required fire flow to be determined by the California Fire Code (2019) Appendix "B". Minimum fire flow shall not be less than 1500 gpm.

ENGINEERING DIVISION 1909) 797-2489 EXT. 254

30. Preliminary WQMP shall be submitted for review. If project will not require a WQMP, documentation indicating a WQMP is not required shall be submitted.

31. Submit WOMP Plan for Approval.

32. Groundwater pollution from urban run-off water generated by the project shall be mitigated using various structural and non-structural best management practices (BMP's), per the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region and/or as indicated in the "New Development/Redevelopment Guidelines". All provisions of the Water Quality -534-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No, 20-135/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 5 ends

Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with the 2010 MS4 permit and most recent regulatory mandates shall be met.

33. The natural drainage courses traversing the site shall not be occupied or obstructed.

34. All lots must drain to streets, per the approved WQMP if applicable. If lots do not drain to streets, the cross lot drainage will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer under provision of the Uniform Building Code Appendix 33 and the Development Code.

35. Applicant shall demonstrate that the site does not create concentrated discharges to adjacent properties and/or public right-of-way in excess of historical flows. If project does create concentrated or sheet flows off -site that are greater than historical, the applicant shall demonstrate that the downstream facilities can accommodate flows; otherwise, applicant shall provide on -site detention for excess flows in accordance with the approved WQMP.

36. Yucaipa Ridge Road shall be designed as a water -carrying street and its water carrying capacity shall be retained.

37. Adequate elevations/geometry shall be provided on the entrance roads to the site along Yucaipa Ridge Road to minimize the possibility of street flow entering the site

38. Lots adjacent to water -carrying streets shall be adequately elevated above the top of curb, or block walls provided, or both, to minimize the possibility of street flows entering the lots.

39. Roads within this development shall be entered into the City Maintained Road System.

40. Road sections within and/or bordering the tract shall be designed and constructed with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks to City Road Standards, and in accordance with the .General Plan Circulation Element. At intersections and driveways entering the street, the first 20 feet of slope shall not exceed 6%.

41. Final improvement plans and profiles shall indicate the location of any existing utility facility which would affect construction. Existing utility poles shall be shown on the improvement plans and relocated as necessary without cost to the City.

42. Slope rights shall be dedicated on the Final Tract Map where necessary.

43. An approved type wall/barrier shall be required along the rear of double frontage lots and shall be constructed outside the public right-of-way. -535-

Yucaipa 52, LLC Page 6
Case No. 20-136/PDP/FDPITTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

44. Private roads to be constructed within this development shall be built to public road standards per City policies and requirements (including Standard Number 102-0), and they shall not be entered into the City Maintained Road System.

45. Turnarounds at dead-end streets shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Marshall.

46. A thirty-five (35) foot radius curb return is required for rounding the corner of intersecting roads when the half -width right-of-way of any intersecting road is forty (40) feet or greater. A twenty (20) foot radius curb return is required for rounding the corners of intersecting roads if the half -width right-of-way of all intersecting roads is less than forty (40) feet. At intersections, street dedication (right-of-way) shall be a corner cut-off from point of curb return (PCR) to PCR of property line.

47. Road profile grades shall not be less than 0.5% unless the engineer at the time of submittal of the improvement plans provides justification to the satisfaction of the City Engineer confirming the adequacy of the grade.

48. Waved access is required from each parcel being created to a publicly maintained road. City street name signs shall be installed indicating street names and if publicly maintained or not.

49. Continuous water spraying or other approved methods must be used during grading operations to control fugitive dust.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO
RECORDATON OF THE FINAL MAP:

CDF FIRE DEPARTMENT 909 797-2489 EXT. 246

50. A greenbelt or fuel modification zone plan shall be required and bonded for this project. Fuel modification plan requirements shall be site specific to this project.

The applicant shall submit a fuel modification plan to the Fire Department for review and comments or approval. Maintenance provisions of the fuel modification zone shall be approved by the Fire Department. Maintenance of the fuel modification zone, located in designated open space, and enforcement of the fuel modification zone, within the property of individual property owners, shall be the responsibility of a homeowners' association or other approved maintenance authority that is acceptable to the Fire Department.

51. Two sets of water delivery system plans, designed to meet the required fire flow for this project and/or development, shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
-536-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-1361PDPIFDPITTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 7 ends

52. Applicant -developer shall provide the Fire Department with a letter from the water provider serving the project -development verifying that financial arrangements have been made and bonds posted for the required Fire Department approved water improvements.

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 254

53. A preliminary soils report shall be filed with and approved by the City Engineer.

54. A geology report, prepared by a Licensed Engineering Geologist, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. The report shall also include an updated fault study.

55. Fifteen (15) foot building setback lines shall be shown on the Composite Development Plan to preclude the construction of any structure in the overflow area of the natural drainage courses.

56. Adequate provisions shall be made to intercept and conduct the off -site tributary drainage flow around or through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties.

57. Adequate City Drainage Easements (minimum fifteen (15) feet wide) shall be provided over the natural drainage courses and/or drainage facilities, including WQMP identified BMP areas. The easements shall be designed to contain the 100-year frequency storm flow plus bulking and freeboard per City Standard Criteria. Flowage easements or City Drainage Easements shall be obtained where diversion or concentration of runoff from the site or drainage facilities dewaters onto private property.

58. Detention basins shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria set forth in the City Detention Basin Policy and the approved WQMP. All work shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

59. Detention basins for the purposes of water quality filtration shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria set forth in the project WQMP, landscape plans and City Detention Basin Policy. All work shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

60. Should the use of detention basins be determined not appropriate in this case, the applicant shall design an alternate method, approved by the City Engineer.

61. The WQMP shall be approved and the developer shall provide a financial mechanism for the maintenance of the detention basins which shall be set in place and approved by the City Engineer. The WQMP maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded by the applicant.
-537-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20 136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 8 ends

62. The major natural drainage course(s) traversing the site shall be delineated on the Final Map. Adequate easements and building setback lines should be designed, offered and dedicated on the Final Map as "City Easements". Survey data regarding top of bank and/or channel cross -sections shall be provided to the Engineering Division.

63. In addition to the drainage, traffic related, or other requirements stated herein, other "on -site" or "off -site" improvements may be required which cannot be determined from tentative plans at this time and would have to be reviewed after more complete improvement plans and profiles have been submitted to the City Engineer.
64, A Registered Civil Engineer shall investigate and design adequate drainage facilities to intercept and conduct the drainage flows around or through the site in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties. The Hydrology Study provided shall be revised to include the two existing drainage channels located on the northern side of the subdivision as part of the formal review.

65. A thorough evaluation of the structural road section, to include parkway improvements, from a qualified materials engineer, shall be submitted to the Engineering Division.

66. A traffic analysis shall be completed to provide a stop sign warrant analysis at the intersection of Yucaipa Ridge Road and Quartz Street, and a stop sign/traffic light analysis for the intersection of Bryant Street and Juniper. Street improvement plans and construction/bonding requirements shall be completed prior to recordation, and any required improvements shall be constructed prior to permit finals..

67. Existing City roads which will require reconstruction shall remain open for traffic at all times, with adequate detours, during actual construction. A cash deposit may be required to cover the cost of grading and paving prior to recordation of the map. Upon completion of the grading and paving to the satisfaction of the Engineering ❑ivision, the cash deposit will -be refunded.

68. Trees, irrigation system, and landscaping required to be installed on public right- of-way within this project area shall be maintained by other than the City, with the exception of Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District areas, and shall be as specified in City standards for tree planting. Maintenance procedures acceptable to the Engineering Division shall be instituted.

69. All required public road and drainage improvements shall be bonded in accordance with the Development Code and City Bonding Policy unless constructed and approved prior to recordation.
-538-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 29-1361PDP/FDPITTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 9 ends

70. In the event applicant fails to acquire the required off -site property interests, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the applicant of all costs incurred by the City to acquire off -site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the applicant, at the applicant's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.

71. The applicant shall submit road improvement plans to the Engineering Division and bond for those improvements with the City.

72. A forty -foot grant of easement is required to provide a half -width right-of-way of 40 feet on Yucaipa Ridge Rd,

73. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and eighteen (18) or twenty-eight (28) feet of paving shall be installed on Yucaipa Ridge Road. Additional design elements will include a turnaround cul-de-sac at the terminus of Yucaipa Ridge Road. Plans for all improvements must be approved by the Engineering Division, prior to installation of said improvements. A cash deposit or surety bond may be placed to fulfill this requirement,
74, The applicant shall provide proof of legal and physical access to the proposed subdivision. As proof of access, the applicant shall submit one of the following:
(a) existing dedication; (b) copy of the court decree establishing prescriptive rights that is acceptable to the City Engineer; (c) dedications by separate instrument from all property owners intervening between the proposed land division and the City Maintained Road System.

75. Right-of-way and improvements (including off -site) to transition traffic and drainage flows from proposed to existing shall be required as necessary.

76. Slope stability tests are required for road cuts or road fills in excess of a 2:1 slope.

77. A Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor shall be retained to design the proposed road alignment to the approval of the City Engineer. A contour map at sufficient intervals to determine existing topography (not to exceed five feet) prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer delineating the alignment and grade of the proposed access roads designed to City standards. -539-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No, 20-135/PDP/PDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 10 ends

78. Applicant shall present evidence to the City Engineer that he has obtained a non- interference letter from any utility company that may have rights of easement within the property boundaries.

79. Easements of record not shown on the tract/parcel map shall be relinquished or relocated. Lots affected by proposed easements or easements of record, which cannot be relinquished or relocated, shall be redesigned.

80. Any off -site grading easements shall be obtained and these areas shall be contour graded.

81. Applicant shall provide for street lighting within the tract as per adopted City standards and per Improvement Level requirements.

82. This project shall be required to annex into a Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) or create a Homeowners Association (HOA) for new development if it is determined necessary for the provision of maintenance services per LLMD standards or specifications to public or common areas that may be a part of the development, and the applicant hereby agrees to waive the right to protest the formation of said district. Developer must submit to the City of Yucaipa two (2) blue -lines, full size, one (1) "as built" mylar landscape/irrigation plan, one (1) reduced 11 x 17 set, and one (1) 11 x 17 laminated set for the controller cabinet. Three copies of a Landscape Documentation Package, consistent with Division 10, Chapter 4, of the Development Code shall be submitted for review and approval. An Engineer's report shall be submitted and approved for the LLMD.

83. Prior to approval of the Final Map for recordation, annexation proceedings shall have been completed and the subdivision annexed into the City's Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District for the provision of maintenance services to public and/or common areas within the subdivision. The LLMD shall include a Dormant Homeowners Association to be activated should the LLMD for this project be disestablished. As a condition of this subdivision approval, the applicant consents to the annexation of the subdivision into the Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District, and agrees to waive and shall waive the right to protest said annexation, and assessment thereof for the provision of such maintenance services.

PLANNING DIVISION 909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

84. An approved domestic water system and/or sewage collection system with adequate line and storage capacity to serve each parcel must be installed or bonded for. Contact Yucaipa Valley Water District for information regarding this procedure.
-540-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-1361PDP1FDPITTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 11 ends

85. During installation of water and sewer lines, vehicular access along the public right of way shall be maintained and provide clearance for emergency vehicles.

All necessary improvements shall be located within improved roadways that connect to the subdivision.

86. A Composite Development Plan, complying with Development Code Section

83.040505, shall be filed by the applicant with the Planning Division for review and approval.

87. The following building setback lines shall be delineated/noted on the Composite Development Plan:

A. A variable front yard building setback line of at least 25 feet.

B. A side yard building setback line of at least 15 feet adjacent to side streets on corner lots.

88. The Composite Development Plan shall include the following notes:

A. All parcels may be located within 1,320 feet of existing accessory animal raising uses which existed prior to the creation of this subdivision. Such uses will be protected from nuisance complaints pursuant to the City Development Code, Section 84.0560, entitled "Accessory Animal Raising" B, Prior to occupancy, a minimum number of one (1) inch caliper115 gallon, multi -branched trees and an appropriate groundcover shall be planted in the parkway within street right-of-way as follows:

Small trees: 25 feet on center
Large trees: 30 feet on center
These trees are to be of a type and are to be placed in such a manner as indicated in note above.

C. Street trees in the parkway between sidewalk and curb shall be provided with a linear root barrier.

D. Specify three approved street tree types (actual variety is to be approved by the Planning Division) and detail the planting specifications as outlined in the City's Standards and Specifications for Tree Planting.

E. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, slope planting shall be required for the surface of all out slopes more than five (5) feet in height and fill slopes more than three (3) feet in height. Said slopes shall be protected against damage by erosion by planting with grass or ground cover plants. -541-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-136/PDP/FDPITTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 12 ends

Slopes exceeding eight (8) feet vertical height shall also be planted with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed ten (10) feet on centers; and trees, spaced at not to exceed thirty (30) feet on centers. The plants selected and planting methods used shall be suitable for the soil and climatic conditions of the site.

Trees 50% 15 gal.; 50% 5 gal.

Shrubs 50% 5 gal.; 50% 1 gal;
Groundcover 100% coverage.

F. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, slopes and parkways required to be planted shall be provided with an approved automatic system of irrigation, designed to cover all portions of the slope and parkway. A functional test of the system may be required. All irrigation systems, where required, shall be designed on an individual lot basis unless commonly maintained in an approved manner.

G. No grading or structures of any type shall be permitted in the open space easements, including walls or fencing. Fuel modification improvements, natural vegetation and/or re -vegetation in compliance with resource agency permits and regulations, drainage facilities, and trail improvements are permitted in the natural open space areas.

H. A six (6) foot decorative masonry wall shall be provided at the top of slope (if applicable) along the side and rear of lots adjacent to public roads and other walls as shown on the approved Tentative Map. All decorative walls shall be designed and constructed to incorporate design features such as tree planter wells, variable setback, split block face, columns, or other such features to provide visual and physical relief along the wall face.

Decorative block walls may incorporate see -through features to take advantage of views, such as wrought iron or tubular steel sections between decorative block pillars, but must include a minimum two (2) foot masonry base. Walls along street frontage shall be provided with a seal coat of graffiti resistant paint and/or dense landscaping in front of the wall.

No fence, wall, or retaining wall shall exceed six (6) feet in height (four (4) feet in front yard setback areas) unless a Variance is approved by the City.

89. Should a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District be formed to provide for City services, this project shall annex into the district if it is required by the City, and the applicant hereby agrees to waive the right to protest the formation of said district.
-542-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No, 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 13 ends

90. All lettered lots and open space easements for the preservation of natural undisturbed open space shall be dedicated to the City or other approved maintenance authority.

91. Proof of fee payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to California State Assembly Bill 3158 shall be submitted.

92. The applicant/owner shall process a Condition Compliance Review through the City for verification of conditions prior to final map recordation.

93. The Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), which covenant shall run with the land, in a form satisfactory to the City. Planner, shall require that the owners of the lots shall immediately remove any graffiti placed on publicly viewable trees, rocks or structures thereon to the City's satisfaction.

94. Two copies of the CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval to ensure consistency with City policies and standards.

95. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall record Covenants, Conditions or Restrictions or other covenant establishing the 16 age -restricted lots (62 years and older) in accordance with applicable federal and state law, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney.

96. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 263

97. Three copies of a Landscape Documentation Package shall be submitted for Building and Safety Division review and approval. Said Landscape Documentation Package shall be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 4, of Division 10, of the Development Code and include all of the following elements:

A. Project Information
(1) Date
(2) Project Applicant
(3) Project Address (if available, parcel and/or lot number(s)) (4) Total Landscape Area (square feet)
-543-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-136IPDPIFDPITTM 20375
Conditions of Approval, 9-12-22

Page 14 ends

(5) Project Type (e.g., new, rehabilitated, public, private, cemetery, homeowner -installed)
(6) Water Supply Type (e.g., potable, recycled, well) and identify the local retail water purveyor if the applicant is not served by a private well
(7) Checklist of All Documents in Landscape Documentation Package (8) Project Contacts (to include contact information for the project applicant and property owner)
(9) Applicant Signature and Date (with statement, "I agree to comply with the requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance and submit a complete Landscape Documentation Package"). (B) Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet
(1) Hydrozone Information Table
(2) Water Budget Calculations
(1) Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
(il) Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU)
(C) Soil Management Report
(D) Landscape Design Plan
(E) Irrigation Design Plan
(F) Grading Design Plan
(G) Certification of Substantial Completion (to be submitted after installation of the project).

A copy of the approved Landscape Documentation Package shall be provided to the property owner or site manager along with the record drawings and any other information normally forwarded to the property owner or site manager. A copy of the Water Conservation Concept Statement and the Certificate of Substantial Completion shall be sent by the project manager to the local retail water purveyor.
-544-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9 12-22

Page 15 ends

98. Three (3) copies of a Landscaping and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted for Building and Safety Division review and approval for all proposed lots (including areas to be maintained by a Landscape Maintenance District, which shall have separate landscape plans). Said Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall include all of the requirements specified in the current City of Yucaipa Landscape Design and Installation Guidelines, and shall also include the following:

A. The required slope planting. Slope planting shall be required for the surface of all cut slopes more than five (5) feet in height and fill slopes more than three (3) feet in height. Said slopes shall be protected against damage from erosion by planting with grass or ground cover plants.

Slopes exceeding eight (8) feet in vertical height shall also be planted with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed ten (10) feet on centers; and trees, spaced at not to exceed thirty (30) feet on centers, per City Landscape Design and Installation Guidelines.

Trees 50% 15 gal.; 50% 5 gal.

Shrubs 50% 5 gal.; 50% 1 gal.

Groundcover 100% coverage
B. Parkway planting with trees and appropriate groundcover. Trees in the parkway between sidewalk and curb shall be provided with root barriers.

Tree spacing/location:

Small trees: 25 feet on center
Large trees: 30 feet on center
C. A six (6) foot decorative masonry wall shall be provided at the top of slope (if applicable) along the side and rear of lots adjacent to public roads and as shown on the approved Tentative Map. All decorative walls shall be designed and constructed to incorporate design features such as tree planter wells, variable setback, split block face, columns, or other such features to provide visual and physical relief along the wall face.

No fence, wall, or retaining wall shall exceed six (6) feet in height (four (4) feet in front yard setback areas) unless a Variance is approved by the City.

D. Neighborhood entry monuments, including elevations.
-545-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 16 ends

E. All required and proposed multiuse trails, including specifications for construction.

99. All irrigation systems, where required, shall be designed on an individual lot basis unless commonly maintained in an approved manner.
100. All landscaping and irrigation systems shown on the approved landscape and irrigation plans, all required walls, trails, and/or other improvements shall be completed or suitable bonds shall be posted for their completion. Separate bonds are required for individual lots and Landscape Maintenance District Areas.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT:

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 263
101. This project will require one or more building permits. Permits will require a complete permit application and complete building plans to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of work.
102. The site shall be developed in compliance with all current model codes. All plans shall be designed in compliance with the latest editions of the California Building Codes as adopted by the City of Yucaipa.
103. The structures shall comply with all structural and non-structural provisions of the California Building Code.
104_ Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer. 105. The perimeter of the jobsite shall have a properly installed, 6' high, construction fence with privacy cloth attached. The fencing and cloth shall be maintained and kept in good condition until such a time that the project has been completed, or a permanent perimeter wall is in place. All construction entrances/exits shall be approved in advance by city personnel.
106. Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patios, block walls and storage buildings. 107. Three (3) copies of the grading plan shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. A copy of the grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division when graded slopes exceed five (5) feet in height. All on -site cut and fill slopes shall:

A. Be a part of the downhill lot when between individual lots, or as approved by the City Planner and City Engineer.
-546-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-136IPDPIFDPITTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 17 ends

B. Incorporate recommendations of the approved geology and soils reports.

C. Be contour graded to blend with existing natural contours.

D, Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of two -to -one (2.1) and a maximum vertical height of thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from the top and bottoms of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half (1I2) the slope height or per CBC.

E. Preclude damage to the site and downstream properties during heavy storm run-off, especially during the construction stage by including a stringent slope, erosion, and sediment control program on the proposed grading plan. Any such damage allowed to occur will be the responsibility of the applicant.

F. Be consistent with the requirements of Division 7, Chapter 11, of the Development Code, regarding Hillside/Ridgeline development standards and requirements. All open space easements and natural undisturbed open space shall be indicated as ungraded areas not to be disturbed.

G. Provide letters of consent from adjacent property owners for proposed offsite grading.

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224
108. During installation of water and sewer lines, vehicular access along the public right of way shall be maintained and provide clearance for emergency vehicles.

All necessary improvements shall be located within improved roadways that connect to the subdivision.
109. Any abandoned wells on the property or similar structures that might result in groundwater contamination shall be destroyed in a manner approved by the City. 110. Grading permits shall not be issued for any areas to be graded and remain undeveloped until a revegetation plan is approved by the Planning Division, and until bonds are posted for revegetation.
111. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 254
-547-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 18 ends

112. Applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent and comply with the requirements of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board if the project site is one (1) acre or greater. 113. An on -site grading monitor shall be required in accordance with Development Code Section 87.1010 for all grading operations.
114. Prior to the alteration of any wetland habitats, the required permits or authorized clearance shall be obtained from the Department of Fish and Game in accordance with the Section 1600 et seq. of the State Fish and Game Code, from the United States Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 115. The applicant shall provide documentation indicating that the WOMP, grading plan, erosion control plan and landscape plan are consistent with each other. The documentation shall indicate that each document has been reviewed by the applicant for consistency.
116. Prior to signing of the improvement plans, any proposed grading within the road right-of-way shall be done under the direction of a Soils Testing Engineer, hired by the applicant. Compaction tests of embankment construction, trench backfill, and all subgrades shall be performed at no cost to the City. Prior to placement of any base materials, and/or paving, a written report shall be submitted by the applicant's engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval. 117. For any construction within City owned right-of-way, an encroachment permit, or authorized clearance, shall be obtained by the applicant from the Engineering Division.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET:

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 263
118. This project will require one or more building permits. Permits will require a complete permit application and complete building plans to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of work.
119. The site shall be developed in compliance with all current model codes. All plans shall be designed in compliance with the latest editions of the California Building Codes as adopted by the City of Yucaipa.
120. The structures shall comply with all structural and non-structural provisions of the California Building Code.
52•

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 19 ends

121. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer. 122. The perimeter of the jobsite shall have a properly installed, 6° high, construction fence with privacy cloth attached. The fencing and cloth shall be maintained and kept in good condition until such a time that the project has been completed, or a permanent perimeter wall is in place. All construction entrances/exits shall be approved in advance by city personnel.
123. Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patios, block walls and storage buildings, 124. For all required walls, the applicant shall submit plans to and obtain building permits from the Building and Safety Division.

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224
125. The enrollment of the Yucaipa Joint Unified School District is severely impacted by new development. To mitigate the impact of this project, developer shall pay such taxes as are required by the Yucaipa Joint Unified School District Community Facilities District No. 1, and any other fees assessed by Government Code Section 53080, and 65995-65997.
126. The City of Yucaipa has implemented development impact fees for various infrastructure and capital facilities needs generated by new development. These fees will provide for various capital facilities including, but not limited to, roads, parks, flood control and drainage, public facilities, and fire fighting facilities. This project shall be subject to all such development impact fees which are in effect at the time building permits are issued.
127. Provide plans for conceptual landscaping, fencing, and detailed building elevations including materials, finishes and colors for all houses for Planning Commission review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 128. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring.and Reporting Program.

CDF FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT. 246
129. Prior to any construction, the entire fuel modification zone required and approved by the Fire Department shall be completed. Any phased implementation of the required fuel modification zone shall be done only with prior approval of the Fire Department.
-549-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20376
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 20 ends

130. A fuel break of one hundred (100) feet (brush and weed clearance) is required prior to construction. The clearance shall be maintained on a year-round basis. 131. An additional fuel modification zone of 100 feet shall be provided on all side(s) of the proposed structure(s). Fuels in this zone are to be thinned and/or removed or otherwise modified to provide a reasonable level of fire defense protection to the proposed structure(s).
132. Fire hydrants shall be installed and operational as per approved water system delivery plans prior to any framing, construction, or delivery of combustible materials to project site.
133. An alternative type of construction providing a higher level of fire resistance is required. Contact the Fire Marshall or City Building Official for more information.

SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED AND/OR USED FOR

PURPOSES APPLIED FOR UNTIL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
HAVE BEEN MET:

CDF FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT, 246
134. Residential driveways shall be paved (asphalt/concrete) and shall have a minimum width of twelve (12) feet. Driveways of this standard shall serve no more than two single family dwellings and shall not exceed 12% in grade. 135. Fire Department access roadways and/or public/private streets exceeding one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall have a Fire Department approved turn- around at the terminus (cul-de-sac). Minimum radius shall be not less than 40 feet.
136. Driveways exceeding 150 feet shall have a Fire Department approved turn- around at the terminus (hammer -head tee).
137. Fire Department access roadways and/or public/private streets and driveways shall extend to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of and shall give reasonable access to all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. An access road, approved by the Fire Department, shall be provided to within fifty (50) feet of all structures when the natural grade between access road and structure is in excess of 30%. Where an approved access road cannot be provided, a fire protection system shall be required and approved by the Fire Department.
138. The Development and/or project, and each phase thereof, shall have a minimum of two (2) remote points of access, including a secondary access, for fire and -550-

Yucaipa 52, LLD
Case No. 20-13 /PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 21 ends

other emergency equipment and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations,
139. The public roadways serving this project shall be named. 140_ Street name signs shall be installed with approved names. 141. Manual operated gates across Fire Department access roadways, public and/or private streets and driveways, shall be equipped with approved emergency key - operated ("Knox" type) locks. For automatic gates, a "Knox" keyed emergency access switch shall be installed at location determined by Fire Department, and shall override all command functions and open gate automatically upon activation. All automatic gates shall have a manual over -ride for use during loss of electric power. "Knox box" request forms are available from the Fire Department.
142. Address numbers shall be placed on all new residential structures in such a manner as to be plainly visible and legible from the access roadway or street.

Single-family dwellings shall have numbers of 4" height, 3/8" stroke on contrasting background. Address numbers shall be low voltage, automatically electrically illuminated. Where structure setback exceeds one hundred (100) feet from the access roadway or street, additional non -illuminated numbers 4" in height, 3/8" stroke, on contrasting background shall be displayed at property access entrance.
143. Approved fire hydrant pavement markers shall be installed. 144. Residential automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed according to NFPA 13D, or Section R313 of the California Residential Code, and Fire Department requirements. Submit three (3) sets of shop plans with material cut sheets and hydraulic calculations for Fire Department review and approval prior to an installation. Submit copy of California C-16 license. Minimum water meter supplying a 13D system shall be t" steel pipe, or W if other than steel pipe.

Minimum pipe size for interior use shall be 1" steel pipe, or 3/a" if other than steel pipe (actual pipe size to be hydraulically calculated)_ Residential sprinkler heads of proper temperature rating shall be installed in attic and built-up storage spaces where mechanical equipment (fau, water heater, etc.) is installed. 145. Smoke detectors, hard wired in series with battery back-up, shall be installed in all sleeping areas and in all hallways and areas/rooms leading to sleeping areas.

Smoke detectors shall be installed at the top of all stairways. At least one smoke detector shall be installed on the first floor level.
145. Carbon Monoxide detectors shall be installed pursuant to manufacturer specifications.
-551-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; 9-12-22

Page 22 ends

147. For each chimney used in conjunction with any fireplace or heating appliance in which solid or liquid fuel is used, an approved spark arrester shall be installed and visible from the ground. Spark arrester shall be of stainless steel, copper or brass, woven galvanized wire mesh, twelve (12) gauge, and minimum of 3/8" to 1/z" maximum openings.
148. A class "A" roof covering structure with "bird stops" shall be installed. 149, High Fire Hazard Areas FR-1 & FR-2: one -hour fire resistive construction is required for exterior walls. Contact Fire Marshall or City Building Official for more information.
150. The main electrical panel and all sub -panels shall be labeled on inside cover for all circuits.
151. Water heater (fuel fired) shall be property vented to exterior of structure. Water heater shall be seismic strapped to wall and be located 18" above a garage floor. 152. A one -hour fire rated, solid core, self closing door shall be installed between an attached garage and living space.
153. Submit to Fire Marshal's office building and/or structure plans for Fire Department Review.
154. High fire zone building requirements are required. Refer to California Building Code Chapter 7A and Yucaipa Development Code Section 85.020220.

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 254
155. Construction of private roads and private road related drainage improvements shall be inspected and certified by the City Engineer.
156. All required road and drainage improvements shall be completed. This also includes intersection improvements completed during the stop sign/traffic light traffic warrant analysis.
157. Projects subject to a building permit shall have all required on and off -site improvements, required for each phase, completed and approved prior to final inspection of any buildings or structures. The term "phase" as used here shall mean the following: "The block of building permits drawn on less than the whole project" or "A plan of building construction which indicates blocks of construction of less than the whole project." In each phase the installation of any on or off -site improvements shall be sufficiently completed so as to assure protection from storm or drainage run off, a safe and driveable access for fire and safety, and the ordinary and intended use of buildings or structures. The Building Official, with -552-

Yucaipa 52, LLC
Case No. 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Conditions of Approval; -12-22

Page 23 ends

the concurrence of the City Engineer, may approve any plan or approve a change to an approved plan, which complies with the intent of this policy. 158. Developer shall be required to place construction traffic control in public right-of- way during the construction of off -site improvements. Traffic control devices shall be maintained 24 hours a day 7 days a week as directed by the City Engineer.
159, The Applicant shall submit the signed original Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Certification form to verify consistency of the BPMs shown on the as - built grading plans and landscape plans. In case of inconsistency, the Applicant shall revise the WQMP to match the as -built plans.

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224
160. A minimum number of one (1) inch caliper/15-gallon, multi -branched trees shall be planted in the parkway within street right-of-way as follows:

Small trees, 25 feet on center
Large trees: 30 feet on center
The variety of tree to be provided is subject to City approval and to be maintained by the property owner. Trees in the parkway between sidewalk and curb shall be provided with a linear root barrier.
161. The designated open space landscaping and vineyards identified in the PDP shall be installed.
162. The applicable planting, irrigation, walls, monuments, and other improvements shown on the approved landscaping and irrigation plan shall be installed. 163. Developers of residential development projects greater than a single dwelling unit shall submit a report detailing the percentage of project costs spent in the City of Yucaipa. At a minimum, this report shall contain a list of local businesses/individuals that have been solicited for bids and/or received contracts for materials or services.
164. The project shall implement the mitigation measures listed in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
-553-

PART A: APPEAL REQUEST
Case Number of Project being Appealed: 20-136/PD/TTM 20375 Applicant Name Premium !_and Dev Phone (909) 570-9990
Address 108 Orange St, Suite #5 City Redlands State CA Zip 92373 Date Accepted by City:

Project Description:

A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20376)/Flnal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on Parcels greater than 12,000 square feet.

I hereby appeal the action taken on this project as follows:

1. Detail what is being appealed and what action or changes you seek. Specifically address the findings, mitigation measures, conditions and/or policies with which you disagree. Attach additional pages if necessary.

Above referenced project was recommended for denial, The applicant wishes to appeal that decision to City Council. Applicant hopes to have City Council Approve Project.

2. State wLhy- you are appealing - be specific. Reference any errors or omissions. Attach any supporting documentation.

The applicant believes this proiect met all the required Findings for PD & TTM, and is compatible with the surrounding environment. Discussion by planning commission were beyond its purview & did not discuss the project through the planning lens. Planning Commission did not understand the process of a "Planned Development" and were uninformed.

I certify that I am the:

Legal Owner
Authorized Legal Agent
Other Interested Percnn
Cq
�s
Name: -
UVIAIL A.t.]11KESS ` r` . -
-554-

,ICIII.N K{ dill M,"
MARK (.'. I:L)WARD$

ROBERT W, CANNON'
411CHACL J. LGIVIN
WILLIAM 1'. TOOK1
t o1 i'l 1nil.Yk1.4. 1a1fI.1Ml
.,aM, 11, ,I.ile IWrl�f L'alll�xllia
lh-hl .111 ayfl �j4�Clal,.ah�rr
r 1::11110 K1-if.i.l.IIM.

P.n.1110 14vA11i
l �•.. I M ;I.dc p.,r.•� f,1ldlwhiJ
L.QW C:>FFICE5 CD

MIRAU, EDWARDS, CANNON, LEWIN & TOOK, LIP
City Of YLICaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa_ CA 92399
Attn: Ray Casey, City Manage
David Snow
Yucaipa City Attorney
Richards Watson Gershon
355 South Grand Avenue. Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Ray and David:
106 010Nu Tine tanu, Suile C
11,0 Box 905E
Redloak CA 92375.2258
telephone• 1a49) 70�-020o
Ipf:sim k: (4MI 793-0790
September 7, 2022
Our firm represents Yucaipa 52, LLC and Toni Fitzroy ("Developer") in connection with its application for a Preliminmy Development Plan and Tentative tract map (TTM 20375)/Final Development plan for the proposed SCrrano Estates Project (herein "Project"). The purpose of this letter is to set forth Developers position as to the status of the pr('Iect under the California Housing Accountability Act (Gout Code section 65589.5 et sect) (herein "1-1,4A").

A. St{ttus of Project
An application for a Preliminary Development Plan was filed with the consent of the Community Development Director. The City has accepted the application for the Project as eoMplcte Els of Julie 7, 2022. `File Protect was heard by the Yucaipa Planning Commission on August 17.2022 and was denied without fllldirigs Of Ully specific, adverse impact on public Health or safety, Applicant has tiled an appeal of the Planning Commission denial to the Yucaipa City Council.

0. History of Project Application.

As stated in the star report, a tentative tract neap was previously approved for this property. subdividing the property into 33 lots. The Project was redesigned after passage of SB 330. and after the City (in 2019) approved the 16rmation ol'a AV A (American Viticulture AIV L) Planning C ommiltee Io devclola W1 OVel-laa LO CIICOL111111e %Vinerlc4 within UIC (_ iIN . -555-

„V the url;inQ ol'C'ity stall; Dcyclop+ r lilcd �lrn applicauion 4vllicla included 51 lot5 c11' grialter than 12,000.91, mild parecls l'or a vineyard and opus sluice. The applicaLion �ws OILd ms a Preliminary Development plan (Municipal C'odc- section 83.030205) which provides flux the Planned Dcvc IopmcnI purpo e "IS intendQd to facilitate cicvc:lolanlenL 01'111-Operlics where C,1vattc 1, flexibility in design is desired to provide a more eflicic:nt use of land Lhan would he l)0SSihle througla the strict application 01' laalld use district Te"LlIH6011s.., The Project is designed as RIA. which 1wrimts the clove lolmiwnI. of onc; single fsimily 111lit l rgrosS ac.reS pursuatrtt (0 the C'it)f'S Gelleral P1,111 atncl thus w'uuld l rmlt �3 single family Ices.

The IWOPOSCd PI.0 QCI ineludcs 51 lots, consistent wvith the Generail PI4cn &S'() lauitln.

C. Caxlifomia Housing Accountability Act
The California [-lousing Accountability Act, most recently amended in 2019 and 2021. provides specific statutory standards that must be satisfied by a local governmental agency to disapprove a housing project that complies with "objective standards' set forth in the general plan. zoning code and design standards.

Pursuant to the HAA, the local agency must provide written notice of any inconsistency or nonconformance with city codes and standards. Section 65589.50)(2)(A) provides as follows:

I l the metal 'luency considers a proposed hou.sinu (level opment project to he inconsixt4nL, not in Compliance. or not ill coill1brnlity with an applicable plan, progranl. policy. ordina)ce. standard. requirement., or other Simi lar provision as Speer l-1 d in thiS subdivision, it Shall provid4 rite applicant Nvith written dOCL1mcnLciLion identiNing the provim011 Ot' PrOvisions. .foci sin explamiLion cal the reason or rcatson4 it colisidors the hnusillg dcvtlopmetat to be inconsistent, nor In complimicc, or not in oonllorniiLy as foll(mws:
(i) Within 30 days of the date that the application for the hou inw developmem prq.ject is determined to be complete. if the housing dovelopment project contains 150 Or (ewel' IOUSillll units.'
City has never provided to Developer written documentation that the proposed project is inconsistent or not in compliance with the General Plan, zoning code or design standards. Govt Code section 65589.50)(2)(3) provides for the following remedy il'notice of inconsistency or noncompliance is not given;
"IfHIC local a oency flail”; to provide the required dOCU C11MI.ioil pursuant to suUptlr•€igrapla (A), the homiliL (level opmell1 pro'ice( shall be C1001110d collsisteaat. compliant. and in CUInlOrlTltly Willa tine aappllctibl4 plain. program. policy. ordimmk:Q. standard. rc:quil•en]cnt. of othel• similar provisio�ll."
Once a project is deemed consistent with the General plan. zoning code and city design standards_ the project must be approved unless the city makes findings under Section 65589.5(j)([) that the project would have a specific. adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved with Iowel-density. No such findings were -556-

made by the Planning Commission, and no such findings could be nudes in good faith under these circumstances. Accordingly, the project Mist be approved under the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act.

D. Proi ct is Consistent with Goals and Policies of City.

This required approval under the HAA is consistent with the intent of the Planned Development ordinance for the City oFYuc:nipa. The entire purpose of the Planned Development process is to facilitate development of property with greater Flexibility. In essence, the Municipal Code: includes the Planned Development process as a way to comply with city standards in a different manner. Once the Development Director approved the filing of an application for a Planned Development, City and developer worked together to crali a project that was consistent with General Plan goals and policies and other standards as best applied to this specific property, ft is critical to note the project complies with the limit ofilumber of lots permitted under the General flan and zoning code.

We look forward to working with you in moving this Project Forward to approval and completion.

Copy: Ctiuu
truly yours,
3 Mirau, Esq.

Mirau, Edwards. Cannon, Lewin &: Tooke,
A Lirnitcd Linbility Partnership
-557-

David M. Snow
213.626.8484
F 213.626.0079
F dsnow@rwglaw•com
LAW
September 8, 2022

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
John K. Mirau, Esq.

Mirau, Edwards, Cannon, Lewin & Tooke, LLP
1806 Orange Tree Lane, Suite C
P.D. Box 9058
Redlands, CA 92375-2258
imirau2mechlaw.com
350 South Grand Avenue
37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 9DO71
rwglaw•com
Re: Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC and Tom Fitzroy
Project: Serrano Estates Project (Preliminary Development Plan and TTM 20375/Final Development Plan)
Dear Mr. Mirau:

As you know, this firm represents the City of Yucaipa ("City") and I am the appointed City Attorney. This letter is a follow-up to the conference call held this morning between you, me and Assistant City Attorney Amy Greyson with regard to your letter dated September 7, 2022, addressed to Ray Casey, City Manager, and me on the above project.

The Serrano Estates Project is scheduled for hearing before the City Council at their regular meeting to take place on Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. The City understands that you and your client contend approval of the Project is required by the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code Section 65589.5) on the grounds that the City failed to provide written documentation detailing how the proposed Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and existing development standards contained in the Yucaipa Development Code.

As you know, your client submitted an application for development that, by their own design and admission, deviates from the existing development standards applicable to the Project site, by utilizing the procedures set forth in Article 2, Planned Development Review (Section 83.030205 et seq.) of Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Development Code. These Preliminary Development Review provisions create a process for an applicant to propose new development standards that are, by definition, inconsistent with the existing underlying development standards, but which may be justified based on specific findings made by the City Council. Your client, in submitting its application, has acknowledged from the outset that its proposed development is purposefully San Francisco Orange County Temecula Central Coast
-558-

John Mirau, Esq,
September 8, 2022

Page 1 ends

inconsistent with the existing development standards for RL-1 designated properties, and has acknowledged that it is utilizing the Planned Development Review process because that process allows them to propose new development standards for the site in order to provide more flexibility in developing the site based on its characteristics. From the outset, including the Notice of Acceptance issued on June 7, 2022, the City has advised your client that the Project is inconsistent with the RL-1 development standards, and that the proposed new development standards must be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation and action by the City Council based on findings set forth in the Development Code. (Copies of letters from your client and the City are included with this letter.) Thus, the project is not subject to the provisions of Govt. Code Section 65589.5
Very truly yours, Wuy'-)
David M. Snow, City Attorney
City of Yucaipa
Enclosures:
1) Letter dated May 18, 2021 from Premium Land Development to City of Yucaipa 2) Letter dated September 8, 2021 from Premium Land Development to City of Yucaipa 3) Letter dated June 4, 2022 from Premium Land Development to City of Yucaipa 4) Letter dated June 7, 2022 from City of Yucaipa to Premium Land Development cc: Ray Casey, City Manager
Jennifer Crawford, Assistant City Manager
Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services/City Engineer Benjamin Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planner
Amy Greyson, Assistant City Attorney
10070-0081\27153BOv2,dac
-559-

City of Yucaipa — Planning Division YU F
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
RE: Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20375 - Letter of Intent
To Whom It May Concern,
Premium Land Development, on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC, is proposing a Planned Development (PD) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) application to subdivide the subject 52.02-acre parcel (APN: 0320-161-09 & 09, and 0320-181-28) into 51 low density residential lots with a remainder parcel with the potential for one custom home residence and/or agricultural use, It is the intent of Yucaipa 52, LLC to create a high - quality place to live by utilizing the flexibility permitted by the Planned Development application to establish site -specific development standards that reflect the rural and well -articulated design themes of the underlying Rural -Living (RL-1) and Custom Home overlay (CHO) Land Use Districts.

It should be noted that the Serrano Estates Residential Development does not propose a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site, but rather, a PD application to establish development standards independent of the underlying land use districts while retaining the maximum housing density permitted by the RL-1 land Use District to create a Project of high quality that respects the natural environment more adequately than the existing, approved entitlement forthis property jTTM 14297).

Modifications to the development standards include, but are not limited to setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum dwelling unit street frontage. The Serrano Estates Residential Development proposes 12,000 square foot minimum lot sizes, 54 feet of dwelling unit street frontage, 25-foot front yard setbacks, and 10-foot and 5-foot side yard setbacks within Planning Area "B" (Low Density Residential). It should be noted that pursuant to Development Code Section 84.040501, "Locational Requirements," the CHO District is appropriate when it will serve to protect and enhance the rural residential neighborhood on single family lots that are at least 20,000 square feet in area, Lot sizes proposed typically range between 12,000 to 18,000 square feet; therefore, it is our opinion that the CHO requirements should not apply to lots within Planning Area "B." Realizing the value of the CHO District and its efforts to protect the rural character of the area, the Serrano Estates Residential Development will retain the themes of the CHO District to the greatest extent feasible.

If you have any questions regarding this development project or need any additional information, please contact me.
-560-

Sincerely,
ravis Heaps
Associate Planner
Premium Land Development
(909)283-2827
-561-

t1
..
ii

P R E M I U M

1. A iN 1) 1) 1; V F. I. () F %f 1; N I
September8, 2021
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, Ca. 92399
RE: Yucaipa 52, LLC — Serrano Estates
Ray,
Last October we submitted a Preliminary Planned Development (PAP) application and a Tentative Tract Map for a 51-lot subdivision in the North Bench area. Through the use of the PDP provisions set forth in the Development Code, the lot sizes for the development have been reduced and clustered to preserve natural open space and land for potential use as vineyards. While the PDP can be used for a wide variety of project sizes, the primary intent would appear to be for large scale developments such as Chapman Heights and the application requirements have been organized with that intent in mind.

However, the subject project is essentially a 51-lot subdivision and does not contain the elaborate scale, phasing, impacts, and other concerns that a much larger planned development would typically have, Based on the relatively minor scale of the proposed project, it is our opinion that the City has requested an exorbitant amount of excess work on reports for our North Bench project. I think you will agree that these items are costly and unnecessary for the approval of this project. 1) The City is requesting a base map with contours 500' outside the boundary of our project. This is an unnecessary item.
2) The City is asking for a Slope Analysis Study. We are staying away from all steep slopes on the property and leaving them as Natural Open Space_ Moderate sloped land is likely to be utilized as part of the Agricultural Conservation easement. Again, unnecessary. 3) The Planning Manager is asking for Full Size exhibits of the Land Use Map and Vicinity maps. We already have smaller exhibits for review in the packet. Creating larger maps is time consuming and unnecessary.
4) There is a request for HOA Documents and CUR's. There is no HOA here and if the owners decide to incorporate one, those documents would be part of the Improvement Plans and DRE exhibits.
5) There is a request for Service letters from Gas, Telephone and SCE, Why? Water and Sewer letters have been provided, which is typical of any other subdivision review process. All of the requested letters are from facilities that are already serve the site and again, something that can be provided through the Dry Utility design.
12460 CALIFORNIA ST STE 240
YUCAIPA CA 92399
909.570,9990
-562-

1 ll I
` MIN
Mr; OM

P R E M I U M

1. AN 11 I)Fv 1:1.011M PNT
6) A preliminary WQMP. This was previously completed and anew WQMP would only be overkill at this point as a Final WQMP will be part of the Improvement Plans.

As part of the initial review process the City can determine that certain application items are either not applicable in this case or are not necessary due to the project's characteristics. We request that this application be reviewed for completeness with that in mind and allow this project to move forward without any unnecessary or burdensome delay. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
0" 9feaka
12460 CALIFORNIA ST STE 240
YUCAIPA CA 92399
909.57a.9990
-563-

��j�f
��1
.3
i2 rr
(.

P R E M I U M
I,;1 NI) I)17VI I.Oi" 11 f;.N T
June 14, 2022
Attn: Benjamin Matlock
City of Yucaipa — Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
RE: Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20375 - Letter of Intent and Age -Restriction Information To Whom It May Concern,
Premium Land Development, on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC, is proposing a Planned Development (PD) and Tentative Tract Map PM) application to subdivide the subject 52.02-acre parcel (APN: 0320-161-08 & 09, and 0320-181-28) into 51 low density residential lots and a remainder parcel with the potential for one custom home and agricultural use. Additionally, the project proposes to covenant 16 of the 51 lots (31%) to be sold to senior citizens or qualifying residents aged 55 or older. Pursuant to Civil Code Section

51.3, an additional restriction will be placed on the target units that will establish a temporary occupancy for guests not to exceed 60 days. Further, the proposed project is consistent with Civil Code Section 51.3 and will be compliant with any additional restrictions required by State Law. It is the intent of Yucaipa 52, LLC to create a high -quality place to live for the various community demographics by utilizing the flexibility permitted by the Planned Development application to establish site -specific development standards that reflect the rural and welkarticulated design themes of the underlying Rural -Living (RL-1) and Custom Home Overlay (CHO) Land Use Districts.

It should be noted that the Serrano Estates Residential Development does not propose a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site, but rather, a PO application to establish development standards independent of the underlying land use districts while retaining the maximum housing density permitted by the RL-1 Land Use District to create a Project of high quality that respects the natural environment more adequately than the existing, approved entitlement for this property (TTM 14297).

Modifications to the development standards include, but are not limited to setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum dwelling unit street frontage. The Serrano Estates Residential Development proposes 12,000 square foot minimum lot sizes, 54 feet of dwelling unit street frontage, 25-foot front yard setbacks, and 10-Foot and 5-foot side yard setbacks within Planning Area "B" (Low Density Residential). It should be noted that pursuant to Development Code Section 84,040501, "Locational Requirements," the CHO District is appropriate when it will serve to protect and enhance the rural residential neighborhood on single family lots that are at least 20,000 square feet in area. Lot sizes proposed typically range between 12,000 to 18,000 square feet; therefore, it is our opinion that the CHO requirements should not apply to lots within Planning Area "B." Realizing the value of the CHO District and its efforts to protect the rural 108 Orange Street #5
Redlands, Cry 92373
909.335.1665
-564-

i
�J �} }�{j Y�F �// �T� T IY
1 R E M I V M
1 N1) 1)1: V I;I 011M1.N 1
character of the area, the Serrano Estates Residential Development will retain the themes of the CHO District to the greatest extent feasible.

If you have any questions regarding this development project or need any additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely,
Travis Heaps
Senior Planner
Premium Land Development
(909)283-2827
108 Grange Street #5
Redlands, CA. 92373
909.335.1665
-565-

NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE
June 07, 2022
Premium Land Development
ATTN: Craig Heaps
108 Orange Street 95
Redlauds, CA. 92373
RE: Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project; which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels
Dear Applicant:

This is to inform you that the submittal for the project referenced above has been accepted as a complete application by the City of Yucaipa Planning Division and that I will be the project planner. The plan sets will now be routed to the various divisions (Building and Safety, Engineering, etc.) for their comments and conditions. Once received, any comments and requirements will be forwarded to you to be addressed on the final plans. Please note that this project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, and continued coordination of the technical studies will be necessary to complete the required efforts. Additionally, the project consists of a Planned Development proposal in lieu of the strict application of the RL-1 District standards, and as such, the development standards contemplated by the Planned Development shall need to be approved by the City Council in order to then establish approval of the Tenative Tract Map/Final Development Plan.

The Planning Division is committed to serving you as quickly and professionally as possible in processing this development application. Should you have any questions regarding this project, please call me at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261.

Sincerely,

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
Benjamin Matlock
Planning Manager/City Planner
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399-9950
(909) 797-2489 ♦ FAX (909) 790-9203 + Yucaipa.org
-566-

c rry OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT" NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBED: PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalfofYucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-1361PDPlTTM 20375: A Planned Development project tltat includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TIAI 20375)IFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 032016108;032016109;03201 S 128; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division, You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case rnunber indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is accessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin 14iatlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your Imme clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along %vith a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after as action is taken.

COMMENTS (ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages);

SIGNATURE DATE AGENCY

PRINT NANIE ADDRESS
11" YOU CIIALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING TI-11i ABOVE PROPOSAL. 1N COURT, YOU MAY nr LIMITGU TO RAISIMG ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSF PAiSED IN WRiI'l'L'N CORRESPONDENCE DE LIVERFI) To THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TMIF IT NIAKFS ITS DECISION ON THE PROLIOSAI, OR. IF A PUBLIC 111FARING is HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE NtUST HAVE RAISCI) THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC I11?ARING Old IN Wl'UTI'LN CORRESPONDENCE DCL.IVERC-DTO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, T[IE I II:ARENG.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE Nt1NIBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTLNIONY. TINIC RE91'RIC:TIUNS MAY AC PLACED ON ORAL. TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING AAOLIT-1.111S PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITINGSTO ASSURF THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSC,LI' ADCQLJATEi,Y.

Cc. Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-567-

Agenda. Item No. 1
City of Yucaipa
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 17, 2022
A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Yucaipa, California was called to order in the Council Chambers, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California, on August 17, 2022, at 6,30 PM.

PRESENT: J.R. Allgower, Chair
Christopher Markarian, 'Vice Chair
Richard Beck, Commissioner
Tony Hicks, Commissioner
Lloyd Rekstad, Commissioner
Bart Brizzee, Commissioner
Aron Wolfe, Commissioner
ABSENT: None
CITY STAFF: Benjamin Matlock, City Plaimer/Plaiuiing Manager Madeline Jordan, Assistant Planner
Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
Katrina Kunkel, Associate Engineer
Maria Koolhoven, Planning Commission Assistant
► ►.1,11 ' alill.►► ► purifurrUa. #►
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 PM, with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Rekstad.

One public comment was received by mail from Bill McEwin for an item not on the agenda.

Planning Commission Minutes
August 17. 2022

Page 1 ends

1. SUBJECT:,Approve Planning Commission Minutes of July 20, 2022

2. SUBJECT: Approve Plaiuting Commission Minutes of August 3, 2022 ALTIQN: MOTION BY Commissioner Rekstad, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 4-0-0-3, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS NO. 1.

ACTX: MOTION BY Commissioner Rekstad, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 5-0-0-2, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS NO.2.

OLD BUSINESS:

3. SUBJECT: Premium Land Development. Case No 21-085/GPA/LUCR/DBA: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use district from RM-10M (Multiple Residential) to R.M-24 (High Density Multiple Residential) an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment Project on four parcels totaling 8.39 acres with a Density Bonus Agreement to covenant ten (10) percent of the units as low-income affordable; to be located between 3rd Street to the west, and 2nd Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. A lot merger will also be processed to consolidate all four parcels into a single lot. AM 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84. I( TEM CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING).

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission discuss the project, and if the Planning Commission decides to support the approval of this proposal, recommend to the City Council that they:

A) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-41, approving the minor General Plan Amendment / Land Use District Change of property from RM- l0M Multiple Residential, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) to the land use designation of RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential); and
B) Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 412, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa; and
C) Approve the Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 21-085), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and D) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and E) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and Planning Commission Minutes
AgWl i7.2022
Page
-569-

F) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination, and, G) Review, and if it is considered acceptable, approve the architectural design and conceptual landscaping for the proposed Project.

DISCILSSM: Planning Manager/City Planner Ben Matlock informed the Commissioners that no new information had developed since the August 3, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting.

Planning Manger Ben Matlock remined the Commissioners that Public Comment was closed at the time, however there is the opportunity to re -open if they so choose to.

Commissioner Bart Brizzee and Commissioner Aaron Wolfe both informed staff and the public that they had reviewed the minutes and listened to the audio from the August 3, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Manager Ben Matlock explained to the Commission that is up to the Planning Commission to review and make recommendations to City Council, noting that the General flan Amendment is ultimately for City Council to make the final decision. Commissioner Bart Brizzee noted that he had concerns with the Project and felt that he would have difficulty meeting Findings 4 & 6 that are required for approval of the General Plan Amendment, Commissioner Rekstad, and Vice Chair Markarian agreed with the concerns over the Project and the appropriateness of the General Plan Amendment for this site. Commissioner Wolfe also noted concurrence with the concerns provided regarding the Amendment but iterated that the multiple - family project that was proposed with the Amendment was an attractive proposal.

ACTION: MOTION BY Vice Chair Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 4-3-0-0, TO DENY AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 based on the inability to meet the required findings for approval.

The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be.

A. Staff Presentation D. Applicant Rebuttal (if necessary) B. Applicant/Representative ,Presentation F. Public Hearing Closed C. Public Comments F. Commission Discussion

4. SUBJECT: Case No. 19-1161CUP: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to provide a continuous authorization and holding of Project annual -held events in lieu of Currently holding Special Event Permits. The CUP for the Project (aka Pumpkin Factory L.L.C) includes the construction of permanent vendor booth displays that will replace existing temporary structures and would memorialize implementation of traffic -related elements, traffic control provisions, street improvements, arld other terms to facilitate the annual -held events. The 64-acre Project site is located at the southeast corner of Live Oak Canyon Road and the 1-10 eastbound on -ramp. APN(S) 0301- 201-38, -39 and 0301-211--11.

Planning Commission Minutes
Augwt 13. 2g22

Page 3 ends

-570-

P-ECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; and:

A) Approve the Conditional Use Pennit, subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Report; and
B) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and C) Adopt a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15323 (Class 23), as well as 15301 (Class 1) and 15311 (Class 11), of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; and,
D) Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

DISCUSSION: Commissioner Hicks recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest.

Assistant Planner Madeline Jordan presented the Agenda Deport.

The applicant's representative, Paul Toomey addressed the Commission regarding this project.

Paul Toomey noted that this is an annual event that has been happening for many years, but that it is not a year-round activity. He noted that the completion of this process will give the property owner the certainty that he will be able to have the event every year, while delineating clear requirements, and concluded that this event creates a positive impact to the community.

The applicant's other representative, Jasmine Hancock, also addressed the Commission, regarding this project, and noted that conditions are included to ensure that there is a traffic control plan in place.

The applicant, Chris Rameson addressed the Commission regarding this project. Chris noted that he loves the City of Yucaipa and that he's worked hard to make the Pumpkin Patch a nice place for families to visit. He noted that he employs 700 employees during the season, and that by going through this process, he will have the assurance to hold the event.

Public Comments: No comments received.

ACTION.: MOTION BY Commissioner Wolfe, SECOND BY Commissioner Brizzee, CARRIED, 6-0-0-1, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM NO.4.

Planning Commission Minutes
A-ymt M 2022

Page 4 ends

-571-

5, SUBJECT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 20- 1361PDPIFDPITTM 20375), A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road directly south of the City limits to unincorporated San Pemardino County. APNs: 0320-161-08, 09, and 28.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; and if the Planning Commission decides to support the approval of this proposal, recommend to the City Council that they:

A) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-47, approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the Serrano Estates Project; and
B) Approve Final Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 (Case No. 20- 136lFDP1TTM 20375), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this ,Agenda Report; and
C) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and D) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Ending the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and, E) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

DISCUSSION: Planning Manager/City Planner Ben Matlock presented the Agenda Report. He noted that additional written comments were received and have been added to the packet.

The applicant's representative, Travis Heaps addressed the Commission. Mr. Heaps noted that the development of this site has been in the works for 30 plus years. He emphasized that this was a Planned Development Project and not a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Heaps noted that the density is still consistent with the base density that is permitted, and that because the project is in the hills, the design would maintain the northern end of the property as natural open space. He also noted that their team held a community meeting to help answer questions and concerns, and from the comments that were received at the meeting, they had modified the multi -purpose trail and fencing for the development.

Vice Chair Markarian noted that an issue he has with the project is with the Planned Development design. He noted that he recognizes that the design serves to implement the viticultural goals of the community, but that the flow and transition from the existing neighborhood to the proposed Planning Commission Minutes
AU9U9% 17. 2022
Page
-572-

project with this specific proposal appears too abrupt. He referenced the efforts for the Wine Specific Plan, noting how the proposed land use district locations and development standards were deliberately designed to make a more logical transition from the vacant areas and the surrounding area and asked if potential revisions could be made to improve the transition.

Public Comments, Twenty-three speaker forms were received.

Teri Boon - Yucaipa Ridge Road - She noted that the proposed project is on the main San Andreas fault area and is also a current flood zone. She noted that there will be an issue with the wildlife in the area. She noted that she is not opposed to a project developed on the site but is opposed to less than a 1-acre property and iterated that a minimum of 1 acre is required if a family wants to grow their own food due a manufactured food crisis, and that families should be able to raise their animals on their property. She also noted that while the nearby winery owner has been a great and helpful neighbor, those visiting the winery are driving down the road too fast and concluded that she is opposed to this project.

Heather Dent - Country Lane - She noted that she has lived in Yucaipa all her life. She noted that she likes the 1-acre lot idea and believes that this proposal presents a sweetheart deal with the developer to retain ownership of half of his property after being allowed to build 51 houses on 12 acres and would allow him to lease back the property for perpetual income. She noted that building 51 homes on 12 acres is not congruent with the General Plan and does not want to see what would appear like a mobile home park in the neighborhood. She loves the idea of vineyards in the area however would like a better presented project with i-acre minimum lots.

Lucinda Brinks - Diamond Street - She noted that she and her husband built their home and have lived in Yucaipa since 1987. She noted that they were attracted to the rural living of the North Bench and objects the proposed land use change. Additional concerns she had in regard to past fires, mudflows and earthquakes that have called for mandatory evacuations for that area in the past five years.

Joshua Morgan - Fremont Street - He noted that he was representing his four brothers and himself, and wanted to share a young person's perspective. He noted that they previously lived in a track home area and moved to the North Bench noting that he and his sibling are excited to be in the North Bench. He noted that he would not like to see smaller homes built like where he originally lived.

Daniel Morgan - Fremont Street - He noted that he had written a letter that was included in the Packet and read the letter to the Commissioners to reiterate his opposition to the project.

Ramona Etheredge - Ivy Court - She noted that she loves the I -acre lots and being able to have animals. She also noted that the evacuations they had during the past fires was very scary and could not imagine having additional residents in harm's way from the fires and the floods that from the aftermath. She also noted that the area has low water pressure. Before commenting that she is opposed to the project.

Steve Freeman - Juniper Ave - He noted that traffic is a big concern as well as, a seismic area along the northern side of the project, commenting that this area is not buildable land and therefore should not count towards the development potential. He also referenced that when Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
Aqua 11. 242E
-573-

he purchased his property in 2008, he had met with City Staff, and was informed that that area would remain as 1-acre lots, and therefore opposes to the project.

Ross McGinnis - Azurite Street - He noted he moved to the North Bench 20 years ago, to have a rural lifestyle and that 400 additional vehicles in the area would cause metropolitan traffic conditions that would completely change the atmosphere, and therefore opposes the project.

Alice Ames - Yucaipa Ridge Road - She noted that traffic is a big concern due to there only being one way in and one way out of the neighborhood as well as that the wildlife, such as bears, bobcats, birds, and foxes will all be affected. She noted that this proposed project, is everything the North Bench isn't.

Sherry Todd - Quartz Street - She noted that she has been at her home since 1983 and had at that time always knew she would be on a 1-acre lot, and this proposal is therefore a big surprise to her, and she anticipated it to remain the same. Site noted that the current property owner purchased the property in 2014 and should have been aware of the minimum 1-acre ordinance, disagreeing with the comments made at the community meeting, stating that 1-acre lots were not proposed because the profits weren't there. She concluded that money, is not her nor any of her neighbor's problem and would like the project rejected.

Colleen Wang - Quartz Street - She rioted that the 52 homes should not be channeled down two streets, and instead should have three streets to work. She commented that the neighborhood does not want this development, and neighbors like herself rides horses and, with the proposed project, won't be able to access the trails. Site notes she is not opposed to development but that this should remain with one acre lots.

Hansen. Wang Quartz Street - He noted that the proposed development will restrict his views, traffic is a big cause for concern, and that he shares the same feeling as the rest of his neighbors in opposing the project.

Erik Sahakian - Golden Crown Way -lie noted that he is running for the District 1 council seat and that he is at the meeting to support his friends and community in the North Bench who are against the development of any land for housing that does not support the North Bench's unique beauty. He noted that he lives in Chapman Height, and while he loves his neighborhood noted that the North Bench should not be turned into Chapman heights. He concluded that housing is necessary and important, but :not at the expense of community ideals, and that the North Bench represents the soul of Yucaipa.

Paul Wohlers - Yucaipa Ridge Road - He noted that his concern with the proposed project is from prior seismic trenching that was not correctly compacted, noting that future work will require testing and re -compaction. He also noted concerns with the existing water pressure.

Donna Snodgrass Walnut Grove Court - She noted that she is the Vice President to the Yucaipa Valley Witte Alliance and 18 months ago she circulated a petition to stop cluster housing on the North Bench during the initial review of the wine country discussions. She noted that since that time, she was appointed to the Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Plarttting Committee and is currently the Vice Chair, and while learning more about the properties and legal rights, her approach changed to find workable solutions, She noted that the Wine Country Planning Committee is proposing a new zoning that would provide for the, agricultural and Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
auguat 17.2022
-574-

open space features desired, and that Developer and landowner for the Serrano Estates continues that approach and takes it a step further; by committing to grading and planting the entire vineyard area before pulling a single building permit. She stated that she urges and supports for the plan being presented with some of the changes that were brought up by Vice Chair Markarian.

Cesar Roldan - Pendleton Road - He stated that as a general ideal, lie is not in favor of cluster housing; nor does he want to see the North Bench fully developed with housing. However, he noted that throughout his career as a realtor he tries to create a win, win approach. He commented that current requirements are not set in stone; and could change due to the pressure for more housing, stating that if nothing is done to preserve the fifty percent of the land for viticulture and open space, the entire land may be lost to development in the future. He concluded by commenting that if this project is not approved, it will be devasting to the future of Yucaipa, and supports the project that is proposed.

Landon Myers - Oak Mesa Drive - He noted that he is the Project Manager for Vines of the Valley, and that since 2020, they have over six thousand vines in the Yucaipa region. He noted that as a representative of the community vineyard installers and grape growers, he supports the proposed project.

Kevin Miskin - Ivy Ave - He noted that the City of Yucaipa does not need more wine but that instead need water. He noted he rejects the proposed project from an engineer's perspective, commenting that the flat and square lots proposed do not blend into the current topography.

He noted that the future development should remain as 1-acre, single story custom homes, and therefore opposes the project.

Trevor Leja - Yucaipa midge Road - He noted that he appreciates the inclusion of vineyards and generally supports development of the vineyard. He further states that his concerns are with lot sizes and existing road conditions, noting that the proposed Project should maintain one acre lots, and that Yucaipa Ridge Road should be improved along the entire frontage north of Quartz Street as to allow for development in the County area. He concluded that the project is not consistent with rural character of the current neighborhood and is opposed to the project.

Gina Hadder - Palernno Court - She noted that she is here in support for the people opposing the project, commenting that she has lived in Yucaipa for twenty-four years and had purchased her home for the rural feel from the l-acre lots. She concluded that she has concerns about the noise, light and environmental pollution.

Brian Plein - Ivy ,Avenue - He noted that he has lived in the North Bench for twenty-two years and that the "one acre one house" should not be changed to keep the rural feel. He concluded that the residents of the North Bench should not be penalized because the developer cannot build fifty-one homes of fifty-one acres.

Kathy Dupper - Fremont St - She noted that her concern is the size of residential lots, commenting that Yucaipa has long been an equestrian community and the lots proposed would be too small for horse ownership. She noted that she opposes the project.

Bob Miller - Crystal Street - He thanked the Planning Commission for their service and for listening to all the conceived residents. He noted that when he thought about retirement, he Planning Commission Minutes
AUWUAL 11, 2012
Page B
-575-

wanted to live in a town that was quiet and peaceful, and that he found that in Yucaipa. He noted that the area is special and that he wouldn't want the specialness taken away.

The applicant, Mr. Craig Heaps noted that he read the comments regarding the zone change and wanted to clarify that they are not changing the zone nor doing a General Plan Amendment, but instead using an existing process in the City's Code. He understands that there are compromised areas within the property and that would limit the ability to build I -acre lots all over the property, commenting that their approach was designed to take advantage of the best parts of the site. He iterated that if this project doesn't work, then nothing will work. He responded to the comment that the project looks square, agreeing that they had some challenges to best make the streets work with the grading, iterating this was not an easy project to put together, but they ultimately have still designed a great project. Mr. Heaps also responded to the comments regarding animal keeping, not that there would not be large animal keeping on these lots and that it was not planned as an equestrian community. He also responded to the comments regarding water, not that there is enough water and sufficient water flow as provided by the "will serve" letters from Yucaipa Valley Water District, and they would be responsible for the infrastructure meeting the required water flow and pressure requirements. He also responded to the traffic concerns, iterating that they will assess the stop signs at and near the Project. Mr. Heaps also provided a response to lot sizes, commenting that part of the goal of the Project is to provide open space and opportunities for vineyards — larger lots would in turn reduce those desired elements.

Vice Chair Markarian; stated that he respectfully disagrees with Mr. Heaps' comment that if this does not work, then nothing will work. Mr. Markarian noted that he is not opposed to development, nor that the general concept presented for this particular project is bad but iterated that additional design improvements should be made to better facilitate the transition of the neighborhood, and suggested that Mr. Heaps work with the neighbors to ensure that the rural feel is maintained as part of the site design. Additional efforts to help bridge the design by modifying the Planned Development standards, like the efforts of the Wine Country Specific Plan, would help him to ultimately support the Project.

Commission Wolfe noted that while he understands what Vice Chair Markarian is saying, the fact is that the neighborhood does not want any development and stated that such efforts would not appeal to those that spoke. Vice Chair Markarian added that strict adherence to one acre lots is not a reasonable solution and ultimately misses important opportunities to preserve key features, but that there may be a better middle ground.

Chair Allgower noted that the community has expressed a desire to support agriculture and wine making its the City, and that they need to make a decision that is good for the community.

Commissioner Dicks noted that he has lived in the City for close to 40 years, and that he lives in the transition between large lots, up to 40 acres, in Wildwood Canyon and residential lots that are smaller than those that are proposed. He noted that transitions must occur somewhere, and he likes his large lot neighbors as well as his smaller lot neighbors and acknowledged that the smaller lot neighbors like to have the proximity to the rural areas so they can too enjoy the area. He also noted that the North Bench used to be much larger lots for chicken ranches and has transitioned to what we have now because of prior developers, Opportunities to preserve open space areas free from development is a better way to go.

Planning Commission Minutes
,kt�budl H.2022

Page 9 ends

-576-

Commissioner Rekstad felt that the Project represents a clash of cultures, going from the larger lots that have a "scruffier" appearance to 51 lots that are likely to be highly manicured. He felt that the Commission should honor the wishes of the existing neighborhood. He also noted that the applicant's financial investment for the site and property is not a deciding factor for the Commission to consider.

The Public Hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Wolfe clarified that this project takes an approach that is allowed by the City's codes, and Commissioner Rekstad and Vice Chair Markarian responded that while the process is allowed, they should find something that works best to which Commission Wolfe responded that he does like the Project.

Commissioner Bart Brizzee addressed and thanked the public for attending, as he has not experienced such a big outpouring like this and their willingness to stay until 11:30 p.m., Mr.

Brizzee clarified the role oftho Planning Commission and standards they have to follow, iterating that their role is not to determine which projects they do or don't like, but rather how does the Project meet or not meet the policy directive that has been established, and this project in particular will need Council's final approval whole will consider all of the goals they are trying to achieve for the community. Mr. Brizzee noted that if this was just a zoning, then it would be an easy call for him. However, the level of opposition to the project suggests that the implementation of this tool and the specific standards that have been proposed may not be, appropriate from his perspective but noted that it is ultimately a call for the City Council to make.

ACTION: MOTION BY Commissioner Wolfe, SECOND BY Commissioner Hicks, CAKED, 3-4-0-0, TO APPROVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 5. Motion Fails and project is not recommended for approval.

6. SUBJECT- Case No. 22-053/CUP/MNV: A Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a construction services site that includes a 3,900 square foot material and equipment storage facility, three (3) 200 square foot on -site storage containers and a future 570 square foot modular office, and includes a Minor Variance request for a 40 percent reduction in the side yard setback located at a vacant parcel on Califomia Street. APN:0319-212-09.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; and:

A) Approve the Conditional Use Permit, Architectural Design, and conceptual landscaping subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Deport; B) Adopt the Findings for the Conditional Use Permit as contained in this Agenda Report; and
C) Adopt the Minor Variance Findings as contained in the Agenda Report; and !Tanning Commissioh Minutes
August 11. X22
Page l D
-577-

D) Adopt a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5) and Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; and,
E) Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

Assistant Planner Christian Farmer presented the project.

Planner Christian Farmer noted that several notices were sent to all, property owners within 300 feet of this project and only one verbal comment was received by the neighbor directly to the south who indicated their support for the project.

The applicant's representative, Steve Ritchey, addressed the Commission and requested that the project be approved. Be noted that he was available to answer any technical question any of them might have.

Public Comments: None.

ACTION: MOTION BY Vice Chair Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Hicks, CARRIED, 7-0-0-0, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM NO.6.

ANNOUNCEMENT& The next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for September 7, 2022.

Ben Matlock noted that there will be a Planning Commissioner Training in Rancho Cucamonga on August 26, 2022, being hosted by Institute for Local Government.

The meeting adjourned at 11:46 PM.
a
Be min Matlock , Allgower
fPanning ManagerlCity Planner Chair of the Plan g Commission Planning Commission Minutes
August 17.2022

Page 11 ends

-578-

CITY OF YU'CA IPA, PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL202.00000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL; Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTN4 20375: A Planned Developtttent project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20373)JFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 5inglc Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 032016109;032016109;032018128; ATTENTJON PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with chc City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's natne and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped em,elope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SjONATU
PRINT
E�f
T� ( - )�AC ENCY
�t^- OW N�
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY 17S.CISION IZI,GAkI)ING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY 1BE LIMITED TO kAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE nLSL RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THU PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC TiEARfNG IS HELL) ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST RAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN W'[UTr N CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, Ok PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONS-rRmNTS NNID THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE. PLACER ON QI1,AL I'I;STIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THATYOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-579-

Project Opposition and request to Deny Letter
Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioner's,
I am writing to express my strong opposition and request to deny this project Case Number PL20200000136 for the applicant Premium Land development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC, the proposed Case No- 20-1361PDPITTM 20375. Serrano Estates.

My name is Kyle Scribner and I have lived in the North Bench area for the past 11 years at 10020 Ivy Court. Every night I enjoy sitting on my back patio looking down on the entire valley. What sold me on my property was the view and the quietness of the property and the knowledge that the zoning allowed for 1-acre parcels so the area would stay rural.

I currently work for a large city in the Inland Empire currently as a Public Works Manager. Prior to this position for the same city I worked 19 years as a Senior Engineer in our land development department working on developer driven projects including housing, commercial industrial, and redevelopment. I fully understand the development process through planning, Building and Safety, and Engineering. I understand the housing constraints the State is placing on cities and the development rights of property owners to develop on their land.

While the local community may be unable to prevent development, this project will be detrimental to the area, nearly all residents in the North Bench neighborhood are completely opposed to the addition of the proposed 51-unit housing development. I know the noticing requirements are typically 600 feet for notification for projects, but this impacts a much larger area than who the notices were sent to. You will receive much more opposition from neighbors just doors down that never received notifications.

The 51 homes will add at least an additional 2 plus cars to the roadway that will cause increased traffic congestion and safety concerns. The VMT traffic analysis and mitigation measures for the additional traffic should show the impacts and required improvements for this project as well and should be shared. Bryant Avenue is highly traveled, and it is unsafe at times when trying to enter or exit off the adjacent intersecting roads in this area. The current widths and lacking in designated turn pockets create more issues with more traffic. The current roads are not kept up as needed to maintain the asphalt and are in immediate need of repair and added traffic will make quality of the streets that much more of a necessity. Once we lose the integrity of the asphalt the entire road will break down and the cost to the city will be exorbitant. Most of the area lacks the drainage improvements along with the curb and gutter to move this water through the streets.

Schools are already over -capacity and create more impacts on class sizes and teachers' abilities to teach our future leaders efficiently. :1

Adding condensed development will continue to destroy local wildlife habitat, the wildlife that have already been impacted and forced down out of the mountains due to the past fire will only be greater impacted with the higher density development.

The surrounding larger rural property values have shown a reduction in surrounding property values with the addition of higher density housing.

The project brought before the City does not meet the intent of the zoning that is designated for this entire area. The general plan designates the area zoning district as Rural Living (RL) which allows a Maximum Housing Density of 1 du/acre. The development proposes to build 51 homes on just over 11 acres when you factor in the letter lots for landscape and water quality basins. So that calculates out to 4.5 du per acre. This number exceeds what is allowed in the planned development and single residential development district set forth by the council and the general plan in the city.

The numbers in the letter state 52 acres and the map that I have a copy of show the actual numbers. A lot of this area is non developable due to many factors', including grades, fault lines, and accessibility. There is 27 acres set aside for a potential vineyard, 13 acres as open space, .67 acres for lettered lots. As I have stated that leaves 11.33 acres of buildable space for 51 homes which equates to 4.5 dulper acre.

Please allow that to resonate that is a higher density than Chapman Heights and anything surrounding it. This neighborhood is rural for a reason. People own large animals they enjoy having their additional space that is becoming so much more nonexistent. Unfortunately, what comes with people that want to live in higher density developments is complaints for smells of animals and noises. They want the Orange County city lifestyle in a rural setting. Yucaipa has always been a special place that you know you can get away from the standard city life. These words were taken directly form a google search for Yucaipa, "Yucaipa is the jewel of the Inland Empire framed by the San Bernardino Mountains, Yucaipa's natural environment, with its cleaner air and unique topography". This is exactly why l moved to Yucaipa especially the North Bench area. The views of the mountains, the open space and the natural environment and unique topography. Adding 51 homes directly behind my house greatly impacts my view, and my ability to enjoy what my family has built over the past 11 years and contradicts what this area was set designated for by the city.

Rezoning this area should be required if this proposal would be allowed. Which creates more issues I'm sure the city does not want to tackle like spot zoning, which needs to analyze if a project is in the best interest of the public. This project would be a hard sell with its current proposal. I can see the craftiness the developer is trying to use for getting this approved as submitted. I understand more density means more money. The developer is trying to sell the picture that they are building 1 house per acre of land that they own, but that is not what they are presenting on paper. I am never against somebody developing their property that they own, it is their right to develop, but they need to develop and bring a project forward that supports the surroundings and compliments the immediate area and build per the approved zoning and general plan. -581-

As you are all aware there was a large fire in this area that impacted my ability to obtain fire insurance last year, the State of California allowed my own insurance company to drop me with no regards to what I have paid in nor have made a claim with. The state now requires me to utilize the California fair plan which everyone of these homes would have to utilize because no insurance company will write a fire policy in this area. My insurance has doubled because of this, something I'm sure the developer will not disclose because it's not their requirement to provide insurance to them. Combat that with the current fire and medical emergency deficiencies state and city wide. This does not bode well for response times. Not to mention the current water issues the entire state is combating. Adding more homes impacts the resources we all need to sustain our homes and adding more only strains the utilities and emergency services ability to serve the customers they already serve. Please consider this and protect the people already struggling to survive in this current environment.

I urge you to deny the proposed project and have the developer come back to the table with all of the cities different development teams and come up with a better plan to fit the surrounding neighborhood and comply with the general plan, development, and zoning code for this area. From recent meetings and discussions with my neighbors, I know my opinions are shared by many who have not managed to attend meetings or write letters and emails.

Thank you for your continued service and support of our community, and I understand the importance and responsibility you have as a public servant to balance right from wrong and protecting the public as well as serving the property owners trying to develop in this great city, we all call home. Please remember "Yucaipa is the jewel of the Inland Empire framed by the San Bernardino Mountains, Yucaipa's natural environment, with its cleaner air and unique topography"
Best regards, Kyle Scribner
Please send any correspondence or decisions on this project to my attention:
r�yle Scribner
ZA
-582-

July 29, 2021
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa CA, 97399
Attn: Planning Dept
Benjamin Matlock
Chris Mee
Re.: APN 0320-161-08,09,28
Tent Tract 14297 - Heaps
Proposed residential project on east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, between Crystal and Quartz Streets.

Dear Mr. Matlock and Ms. Mee:

Attached please find mailing labels to be used in reference to the above project. My home may be outside the limits of normal notifications and I wish: to be notified on any items pertaining to this project as the access to my home is through this property.

In particular, I have 4 areas of concern:
• I am concerned about the RW dedication proposed on the northerly end of Yucaipa Ridge Road, Additional dedication should continue to the north property line following our current road alignment at a width of 40-60' as the 30' offer along the property line is not feasible for future improvements plus it would not tie into existing roads. • I have a concern about the 30' width of RW proposed north of Quartz 5t. to the proposed cul de sac. There is an existing 20' access easement on the west side of this project's property line.

However the potential for that to be widened to 30' RW is not feasible, due to the existing house on the NW corner of Yucaipa Ridge Road and Quartz St. I would request that the RW be widened to a minimum of 40' along this project's west property line up to the proposed cul de sac.
+ I also have a concern regarding the drainage course that falls under the proposed cui de sec at the north end of Yucaipa Ridge Road. This needs to be improved with an adequate culvert under the proposed road.
• Finally, the lot labeled Remainder Parcel has the potential to be sold and re -subdivided, allowing for more than the 1 all per 1 acre zoning on the total 51 acre site. The Tentative Map is already using the density allotment transfer from the entire site including the remainder parcel. Even the construction of 1 house on the remainder parcel would violate the zoning. 5o the future pad shown on the remainder parcel should not be allowed if a residence could be built. I understand there is some consideration for this area for another use, such as vineyards. In that case a lettered lot may be a more appropriate designation.

Thank you for considering my comments. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, sincerely,
Patricia logram
'Yucaipa Ridge Road
Yucaipa, CA 92399
-583-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-1361PDP=M 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)IFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 032016109;032016109;032018128; ATTENTION PROPERTY OR'NERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments trust be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not bo considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ex^t. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be- notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and trail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (If you treed additional space, pleaase attach additional paagees):

1. n e, w ill b e-- yr o r� l � � �1 ivtrt � e 1- orr a o 1 e l o v""O"'AI r leek 0,� C, &#Ie key-,�err Ao �e r lei e 1 1r�f 16426r 14ee . .,e x. it/ e ' re- C L ravl-a( ale I mf'dz00 S 1r'e we Biel& WePtt j0e� flab A! ' r i f4P 1't/iCEp f L� d Vie O I W t t V° (Pitt 14,e re—+!2, re, woye— u G� G 1r�'!i%/%i oL' t w+.` v S ar t aW;-r a i e
77 i f�f� b qf l eX t
Lt%e t !rt i. 6P. f! eta ( eve � P.iktvu
SIGNATURE ATE �ENCY
PRINT N 1A e L.J ZdO ADDRESS. Vfi` �►� l

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURVYOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY TBOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WNTTEN CORRESPONDENCE nIELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES rTS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC [TEARIN]3 15 HELD ON

TIME PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DEUVERED TO THE. HEARING AODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEAJUNG, DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS M7SHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY.

Cc' Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNFING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
t'}A•I.L: June 07, 2022
-
CASE TNUM RrR: PL2026(0001'36
APPLICANT: Premium baud 1: evcicpvv n; till behalfMMicaipa 52, LLC PRO'''O"SAL: Case No, 24-k G,7'17R]7'ti7 20375; A Planned DS vdoprnekr, prc+ject iilat includes a Preiiinhiary ! uveloprntlu flan nnd'`antwivc T rues Map (TThi 20377 ji in -it D,vc,loprneui Plan for :he prc,pvsed Serr'ann F'Nj, Pr,ject. which will establish 51 ''n le Family RLsldendal kits can purcels realer ihan 12,000 Scuare rerl, rcvcrill letwrad lot-, fir' wafer cjuvIity basins, and a 27-acre remLiuder loc dlat wauld illtluda space for vincyards Ls wcd as 13 ac' ,•rl�xl. �'[� , -�r•�. � �,�•1'e ar'�s�zz_ >vc;r:ncti� PRNI TNAA7E Nina Valniuswi ,tT,]E]JtLSSiIW Quartz St, Yucaip 1, Ca 92399 If" YOU C HA1.I.I:NUH Alai' I?L-(;ISI["1N RE-.GARDIN;, '1'NE ABOVI: i ROPOSAi. IN �'¢IJ[tT, u(7U t 4!4i' CG l.`t4ri'F;U '1't] 1thi,St\(e r}'dl..Y 'n10I114, ISSIX5 YOU L?k SOMFON- L•LSH ItALIVIT) IN "'LUTMN CC'rl:i(1 4NC,`.h"rlFl+tE IXAJVGRFr) TO '1 KE "LA.1':MNG I NISI( AT, OR MOOR if). TI,1F '[t1•Ir; rr h;,1.hCti ITT, DLt:ICION ON gill PROPOSAL 014- 1,011_IC MARINo JS HLLD ON NIT-. I'-k0PC)1,A ., V011 CIR S.)MLONFI FT-Sf: Mt:ST HAVE R.MSCI) "t80STE IS UI--.S A.I. - H];', I'UBL.IC HF:,;fiING OR IN' W1,11171 L.N t'G}t1LC SPO\I'S1 :V('f: I,r}_!-Iti'T:itl 1]'!'L7 THI.- I EARINc,130DY Xr, aft PRIORI ). THP HF.PAJ.14U, DUC Ttj HNId: L:LJ.NN r14WN IS AND Tlir: ?'IQMBFR t)l: 1'1C1L5UIvS WiSj.!I'm;,i 'w GJ1`I, {)11AL 'M-'STIMONY, TIMP, rk!'SMC"11ONS MAY IIF: 1'l,.hC!,iJ3 ON, Otiril. Tr;S'17'ti4t NY .AT ,kNY 1'r;OUC IILARING AWIFF THIS NtOf'()`,AL YOU MA)' 11ISH TO MAKE YLJt;R CQM,'.[INT5 EN %','kCr NG 10 ?.1 J%C THAT Y()V r RIZ r A.F Tt7 Etit'Ia1SS 1'ilt:R IT-..DEQUATF.I.Y cc; surrolnldiog Nropel-t} Owners
Yucaipa Valley Witter District
Fivo I)Cllsrtlrlcrti
rligiueving Division
Building Rniet} i7it alien
-585-

Regarding: Case 01-20200000136
Arolicant: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC From:

Nino Valmassoi
42W Quartz St
Yucaipa, Ca 92399
r�Eav_al��,�sacyifa rr7ail_c:on•�
Please follow up with Ben Day regarding this. He lives with me at the same address. He is an attorney and his contact information is ,....,.._ a.

COMMENTS:

The proposed plan inchudes property that I own, NOT this development company. I have a forest department easement running through the length my property. The developer has chosen to include this land as if it was their own. They did not have the decency to contact me regarding this. I object to their attempted taking of my land. It is an easement for the forest department, not for the maximization of the developer's profits.

First, they have a proposed pad in their development with a driveway leading to and going through my property. They have plenty of land that they own that they can use for a driveway that leads to a public street, instead of using my land.

Second, the developer is attempting to use my land via the forest department easement as part of a road in their development. Again, they have plenty of their own land that they can dedicate for a roadway instead of taking from others. If the road does end up getting expanded for the forest department, I do not want my land/this easement used by the developer or the development in any way. 1 object to any driveway, gate, opening, etc. that leads from the developer's project onto land that 1 own.

Third, they are also adding a walking path that may be using my land as well. i do not want a walking path on land that I own. Additionally, I am concerned that this path will be at a higher elevation and be looking straight over and into my backyard and pool area. For privacy concerns, if the path is built, 1 object to it being built at a higher elevation than my property.

Fourth, I do not want the developer to use my land/easement in any way for their construction traffic, stockplling of materials, etc.

Finally, these relatively, small lot homes do not fit in with the character of the neighborhood at all. This neighborhood is comprised of large horse properties in a rural environment.

Thank you for your consideration,
Nino Valmassoi
June 16'h, 2022

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20375: A Plaltned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/1~inal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, APN(s): 032016108;032016109,032018128; ATFENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number bidicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797.2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this farm and mail it to the addrtss above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (I0) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATVRE.-- t 1�ATE -2AGENCY 4�
PRTNTNAMEIrrNtr\IAD]]RE r } .

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSlr ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCP DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISIONI AT, OR PRIOR TO. THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING Is HELD ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THU HErARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER Or PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE. ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT 1-141S PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WES14 TO MAKE YOUR CCMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY.

Cc7 Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-587-

C SC -PL 2 c DC]Oo 1 a

�� i �. �.� �+�,. 1 Grit��5
��C� �!� �V�. L,�
�5 [� � �J S•' �. ��•`
�l�•��.+��L�i 4�
—589—

CITE' OF YU'CAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 202.2
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, ILC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-I36/PDP=M 20575; A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)IFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s); 032016108;032016109;032018128; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND RENgEWING AGENCIES, The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797.2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE
�
DATE W 2Z-AGENCY

PRINT NAME
JQ&,c% C"LL,
ADDRESS 40! 2v.4 AV—
WCo.rxs. e_-A
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL W COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAIS[NG ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED rN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR l°WOR TO, T11E TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, 17 A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU Olt SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN COR.RESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING I.3ODY AT, OR PRIOR TO. THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS v,'ISHING TO GI1T ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT T1i15 PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE, YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY_ cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa 'Valley eater District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building& Safety Division
-590-

6116122, 8:08 AM City of Yucaii3s Pfanning Division Protect Notice - Google Dacs James and Nancy Caldwell
&10111110W ivy Ave
Yucaipa, CA 92399
(909) 372-5479
mail.=
16th June 2022
Benjamin Matlock
Planning Manager / City Planner
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Dear Mr. Matlock,
We are in receipt of the Notice for Case Number PL20200000136 dated June 7, 2022.

We acquired our property in July 2017. We were drawn to the North Bench area of Yucaipa because of the Rural Property and the beautiful view of the Yucaipa Ridge Line. Our hope and desire is that the area would remain as a Rural zone for our lifetimes and those of our children's children.

Our understanding of the Project would change the current zoning from 2.5 or

1.0 acres down to 0.25 acre lots. In our opinion, this dramatically changes the original intention of the North Bench area as a Rural Living area.

Sincerely,
James and Nancy Caldwell
RECEIVED J u N 2 2 2022
-591-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-136(1?DPITTM 20375: A Planted Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)IFinai Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION, East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 03201610$;032016109;032018129, A77ENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than .tune 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's Dame and case number indicated above, If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 26). You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along; with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject io an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken,
COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):

CDA// IoA ,vc4 q10 6�v mr'rJ1Rom
/ 2 - - -'

SIGNATURDATE
�AGENCY
/
PRINT NAME. % i' ! / 3 l7 ADDRESS
Ir YOU CEALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMrrrD To RANINC ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO "IBC PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME rr MAKES ITS DECISION ON 77-IF PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON TILIE PROPOSAL, YOU Olt SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED I7TOSE, ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRI011 TO. TILE HEARING DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND TIME NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY. TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC BEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO GxPRGB$ YOURSELF ADCQUATL'LY, cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District RECBVED JUN 2 2
Fire Department 1��l.Gt�
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-592-

CITY OF YUCAIP.A. PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT! Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20373; A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development PIan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)IFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, wliich will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side cf Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side Of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 0.320I6108;032016109;032.018128; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been fled with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not he considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlack at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261, You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203, If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your narne clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (la) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
f�
SIGNATURE( ATE(0 �-2 AGENCY_,_ .__
PRINT NA1vI>~ ADJURES x t 4 - iAt4
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION MCrARDFNG THE. 4nVE PROPOSAL >N COURT, YOU MAY 9E. LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAIS£P IN "rRJIi'L-N CORRESPONDENCE DRUVERED To THE PLANNNC, DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO. THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING $ODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING,,

DUB TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS 'WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC KCAKNG ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH To MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU AR£ AHLF TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-593-

City of Yucaipa Planning Division
Regarding : Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52 LLC Case # PL20200000136
To whom it may concern, my wife and I have lived on the North Bench for over twenty years. The charm of moving to the North Bench was the rural lifestyle. Trails for our horses, no street lights to enjoy the night sky and less traffic. All lots are Zoned 1 acre minimum, by allowing Premium Land Development to chop up the property to "parcels of greater than 12,000 square feet" destroys the entire North Bench.

This equals out to 3 to 3 1 j2 houses per acre. 10 years ago they proposed 60 acres with 60 houses. It's amazing how greedy people get.

In my hiking through the land that they are trying to develop,what will happen to all of the inhabitants that live there? We have seen brown tarantulas migrate, horned toad lizards, kangaroo rats, foxes, deer and coyotes . The cycle of life lives on these parcels , the bald eagle, red tailed hawk, cooper -hawks and many more bird species. None of these will be seen when they there hunting area is pushed farther back.

With all the worry about water rationing what will this impact have on the city. The houses will use water and include 27 acres of vineyards that will need water.

These houses will be built in a fire zone. Everyone on the bench has had their insurance canceled and to get covered through the State of California. This past winter their was a flood through the blue line creek that runs through the property. To date the property has not been cleared of the 50 foot pile that is an eye sore and a fire hazard. It took away cars a barn , tractor equipment and horse corrals. This area floods every three years.

Premium Land Development already states on his website that " Serrano Estates is a 51 unit subdivision high end estate style housing" (estate 12,000 sq feet?) They state this is " the first vineyard estate style housing in the Yucaipa area and will open the door for similar projects in the future" . It sounds like it's a done deal.

Looking over the Premium Land Development website , it puzzles me referring to Travis Heaps it states " Travis joined Premium Land Development as a Project Manager for a brief stint before becoming the Assistant Planner for the City of Yucaipa, where he helped facilitate development for three years before coming back to the team". This sure sounds like a conflict of interest.

Please don't turn us into Redlands or San Bernardino. Make them abide by the rules . A house must be on a one acre parcel.

Sincerely Brian and Liz Plein
4 4 lvy Ave
RECEIVED JUN 21 2022
-594-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NOTICE RECEIVED JUN 21 2022
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, 1,LC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (T TM 20375)fFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which Nvill establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 0320I6108;032016109;032018128; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than Rine 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considercd in the dccisioi;. Please ,•nftr Lu this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
/ CPOS/,-) a �1 C/��af-r /0 ��r�� r"czC� �]OU6y� G3�eololapme,...� /�I /ir_� UPJnrcCr�f74oi { y-
de-)� *f c47�r c t/ ] Cie GtG a Cc C �� Jc le,!Lprj
1 ilea • C,OnCerr) I � Ala'T- M&1*0&7 � { � C' �n '0Si7 d/7 6 "l7C. 17 C�� S U.? G't!!t° ! F7� % I C c�tXo/,70-
nL�irrJ1 SC'f U fi % �5 j�j 6t7 r C -4 9 '�-t C L'b e /l` YI E�?I; e? 5' so c l a/ll eor�o rrl c 5, W-)`{' °UP.Xo,avn1el� Wr`11 .0 oWi e, e17fj
nub �•�'� ��vrrvr��r,•�� • �^ °.s � � .�� 7�
SIGNAT liF._ _SATE ' � aCENCY
PRINTNAME - lc r, , cA 4, 5I un ADDRESS let . W,r
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING TFIE ABOVE PROPOSAL. IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITt D 'M RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THG PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS E)ECISION ON THE PROPOSAL. OR, 1F A PUBLIC HEARING 1S HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMSOTO ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED TMO5E ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE; DELIVERED TO THE. FEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIMF RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-595-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION FRQJEC1' NOTICE
DATE-, Julie 07, 202Z
CASE NUMBa R' pL20200000136
ArPLICANT: Promium Land Deveiaprnant On behalf of Yucaip i _ i.[ .r p%)FOSAL: Case No. 20-13G1FDFIT`x'M 20375: A Planned Developtltent project that•incltsdes a projproect, which ill elpprnent Flan and
Tentative Tract Map (TfM 20375W-inal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano'EStates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Res'ideritial lots an•parcelr greater than
as 1.3 uacres � permanent op l spa�e,wacated anater dty thre�e�exist and pareelsetvtal�ng 52
inder
lot that would include space for via$yard5
acres along the east Side of Yucaipa xidge Road. 032016105;ta;20 I G 149.4324 l $ l2 g:
'LOCATION. Last side of 3lueaipa Ridge Road; A1•''N(s):

ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND RE.v1EWM AUNCIES' The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning 1]iviSiari, You are invited 0 oomtnenl because yourproperty is neat the proposed prajeeE. �fouF so +trticJits must be received by this office ito later than Aunt 21, 207,z. comments received after this date Haight ncn be i=sidu'W uo tltn declsi� Pl Y se refer to this project by the applicant's throe and case number indicated above, TF you have no comment, no reply is nec:ess If you ltava ally, quostsat►c rc+ ard'rng this proposal, please contact Aenj amin Mori r rk at (909) 797-2489. e)tt. 261. Yau MY send Your COp Mcuts Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790.4243 - to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa If you want to be notified of the project decision, pript your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope, All decisions are subject to an appeal period of to 110j calendar days after an acI.idn iti takau,
COIVIIVE.NTS (if Yost need additional Space, please amach additional pages)' I }lave several concerns regarding this project. 1, DO we have encugh water to support all the prcjectS that are planning to be built on seems we hear about water shurtagCs aatti I'Uugllts and the need to eonaerve wator. Will this not continue to the North 13es1ot►'� It
Ws. area will twos be ableto accommodate this much increased traffic Arid will overburden our water supply? 2. The current roads to
imp, t evaryone that tivea in this wek-
SiGNATiTitl3� ( DA NCY
A E

PRDZT NAME ADDRESS
IF YOU 01ALLENGF ANY DECISION Pi4ARDING'L 1 it ��v ENCI3 LMi�ED TR4yT7.hT J AAN�r, DIVISION ft 0 "SING M R, To, TI M TRdIE 11 YOU OIL ggMFONE ELSL7 i2AISED 11*I WRITTEN CC>�tSF3STOND D 01 t TYrE 1'.Ftt7i+0$A)L., YOU 011, F,Q1vfl"CC11d13 }i� SE 1nitJST 14AVJa 2-,u-Lr] MAKES 175 DEG7S[ON Cp�1 TIC PR►�PQSAL [7R,11' A ruJ�J,A� FiEAiLtN IS I1711. 155tDE A•t" I'HF: PlJF31.1[; H> A1ZSNii (]tt IN W'1�01'I'FN GC)1L1tF;41yC)NI]}:NGl; 1)h'lIJVt,RH:I} TO THY, HF:Atili4l(1 1it)I]l" A'I'. lMp.RzlwiG, RE.PLACED ON
DUIR TO I,1ME cON5TRAIIrTIS AmE NUN <TG ABOIl�l�7HIS pRc7FC)SW xOV MAY WISH +ro MAKE YOUR COA1 L TS IN trlC TOASSURE ORAL TRSTWONY AT A14Y l'[1B
THAT Y(iU ARE Ai'i' S TO EXPRESS 'YOURSELF ADFQIJATFLy- 9UJ'fOYtnCli1-1j7 rrilj7L'Tty 0vmuM
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Firt: Departrnerat
Engineering Division
Buitding & Saf ty Division
-596-

CYT Y QP YUCAIPA PLANNING DXVXSION PROTECT NOTICE
M. June 07, 2022
S NL]T,rCB R- pL20200000136
bevel meat Flan anal
PT,IC�.�': Premiurm I..t►nd 7]cvcin]rrrt�nt on beh:►If of ucai9a 5'!, I I.0 ant? includes s Project, which Wsl1 establisk] 51 Silrgle
Case No. fff
20-l3GIP1)PIT M 20375.,A Planned or a OPMR-nproposed Serrano fat l states a >?re whichlylard a sutablcro remainder QPOSAI 43751lFir►al Development Plan i
ntattvC l'ract Map (TTM 2 12 64U stluare feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, an parcels totaling 52 mily Residential lots an parcels greater than , en space, located on t1vee existing t that would include space fur Aoeyard s as well as 13 sores Of perrr►anent op aes along the cast Side of Yucaipa Ridge Ttoad.
3Cf�T1GN• l;.ast, side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; �1I'N(s);0a'-O lGlO&;43-01G109;D3?0I81?8, S A UVMWVG AGENG E& The development proposal listed above lYas been fated with TIENTION PROPERTY OWN1±R is tleax ttfe proposod project. Your comments must t)e t not se consldcrcd In the decislan. Ptease
,e City Planning Division. You are inviTed to comment b�!catssc ^your property l is ncecssary- YOU ;ceived by this afflee no later than June 21, 20 cue [r22. mmentsindicated lved re gyve If y" h °anent' no reply our cdmtpents efer to this pray by the appltcanes 909 790.9203.
uestions ref3�d'nSklsis prroposal, please coritaCr. l3enjgmin Matlack at (909) 797.2A89, e7F FAX t `I W may yen Y
►ave any t Division, pleas Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FA7� ( ) •a the City or"XucalpaPlannr g
of zoject decision, pent your Trams• Clearly arrd legi�lyoon f tenthis and mail it to the address abovegong
if you want to be notified o P
with aself-Addressed, stamped envelope•• ,411 dccisioas are subject to an app� P ('10) calendar days aft(-n• do actiun is tAvlt,
Comm—NTS (lfycu need addittond space, please attach additional Pages ' to he built an ro sets that ere planning
r ems. 1,, Do we have enough water to support all the p ) I have several coneertss regarding ttl s P aj es and d[vu*lals aild 111c aced to ",Serve water. Will thin not nontlnue to
Ilse North 130rh? It seems we hear about water' 5hor 6
ll
overburden our water supply? 2. The eu
Trent roads to this area �viCl not be abCe to acCorarnadate this much increased traffic and ,vi isripack evveyoua that liv0s inthis
AGFNCY
SIGNATUFya
ADDRESS 1410
PRii�f NAME � r k (( �� rO IiAiS>NO ONLY '1HUSF, ISSUES G rKr ABOVE PROPOSAL IN Cot70 . YOU MAX TEE I DIVISION
'
pLCI5XUN RFGARUIN Purl} TO'1i1E PI.ANNItG 1]1v1SZt7N AT, OR PRIOR �a� Tl [T 1p yQT3 cTiALLPNGE A1`O�,pcn+TffCNCE 1?EL
YOU OR SOWONFT ELSE ItAJ5E1� � WRITT]srii
RON W 17R. Lk A Yll.rSL P liLP;lc]l�C* IS ] LI] [ 1 XR1jPtlSAi YaU cry ,yatvlEOr rLs1~ A10E9TL5rirlCISIONoNTHTiP N[ti OR 1N w^1{Cr1']',N ic7ltttk'�l'()NI]h;NGl: I)?{1.lVf:Fi�13'1{)'l'IiH f{�p ]]*ICi H[74)1' AI', []R PKI{)1 '['K) 'IH}:
l4itltir Yti°.lJb;ti A'Y"1'411+ Y11N1.1L �S{ AKI 1RTCTION'S W� y � PLACM ON EEARO a TO GIVE ORAL- TESTII�ri7NY, '1'l[+� XIS 5 IN V.Tj rJ "r0 ASSURE I]U1 `L'U l lhv E Cp]a5'1'StA1NT5 AND NE NUMIk FR OF Pi1i5r]NS WSSISA� AFJNr, A130vr Tius PROP05AL You MAY w151i 7o MA1CF Yo►31Z CO ORAL TESTNO Y AT AZTY »55 YOUILSELF p�]1tit2tJ1k1kLY.

TliXf YOU ART ABLR I() By
..c. uurrQunding (+roporty wner�
Yucaipa Valley waterDistricr
Fire Depanment
Fri,gineerir[g Division
building & Safety Division
C.�
W
LC
-597-

CITE'' OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
BATE: rune 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER. PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-136fPDPITTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20377)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater thin 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Midge Road; A•PN(s). 032016108;032016109;032018128; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND 1 N'IEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail ft to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken,
COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages); �� —brq,1 x W h d �e --fh e 4.bb ilZ �rAff e..,+4 1 ,
ImGr►rt .vf5 I �cJ I�j rJ T,e• 'nl. f
eDu /�r
/ !-(41� -{�,� ' j t zp erg �!
�•• �r-�C.f�CIt �� '��1�. 12f'Y�T6 N�c�'CfL�'C'I
SIGNATURE '��. _ �= DATE L . i_ a '] ENCY r. ' � r ; �,•� f PRWTNAME , ,r .r ADDRE55i_
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL 1N COURT, YOU MAY BE t} IMITED TO RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLAXNENG UMSION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE T1Ml~ iT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL_., YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR 1N WRITTEN CORRESPONDWCB DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE. ORAL. TESTIMONY, TIME PESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HFARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOUASE1l: ADEQUATELY, CC! Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
RECEIVED JuN 2 f 2022
.9

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION RE_CEfVLD

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: rune 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136 (;ITT
OF
APPLICANT. Prrefnium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC YUCAIPA PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-136/PDPJTfM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TM 20375)IFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,0D0 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 0320161 o8;O3201G109;032018128; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES, The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision, Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. if you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2499, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

Ii: you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
() mosrr nz 47-ICA , = W a-[ PP-e'SU 1 Arya T?�",ii�--
%- ivy. OU 0- W6-T&Ri S5U OAS
P-&"DUC6D OVt T)16 PAST- 10 -- 15 Y P-5 e4okp it -tom i.;�u6f-,CR& 2-) TIt6, (SM,tC, `T sNG i1GS N&I-'-D -Q� 56 'Ft L,(,61> I tQ 3 n N D T-I }c- 0 N ,'=' S T-hA-r , WeleEr ri C,/-- 6r->
/IQ 5=--6 I- SA F6-ml 1J&-er-- N o, -
lej 0 U iLrp i I t —C I G'r1.,11qp
SIGNATURE .DATE �Z GENCY
PRINT NAME -PA U LU L � f�-�0 ti 1 � 5 ADDRESS " Y() GA ► PA -r— r.nj& P.D • `>f 06i" r PA, IF YOU C14ALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DMSION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE - n F IT MAKES ITS IECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS FIELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUSTKAVR RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE. PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTFN

CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PMOK TO, THE HEARING, DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WI5HTNO TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS W WR]TING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owgiers
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Uuilding& Safety Division
-599-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION JUN 20 2M.

PROJECT NOTICE CITY
DF
DATE: rune 07, 2022 YUCAlPA
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT. Prer►yiurn Land Development on beliaif of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-136/PDP/T-i'M 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/F'inal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, Iocated on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, APN(s): 032016108,,032016109,,032018128; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed abavc has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments roust be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this data might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly an this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (if you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
?Jps,ge rjar+4+1ts c-le�e 10PflonA5, 1�- (S incc)v)!''s'+�er1 one- - ccre' inn [ r i •r (- 1 V orC-'v,'1e��q-A 4'r ruY-eN ( I t vc �''QC Imo` .L i Y1({ 1,'tl &A-4- Ire- S''�i h Ort G('tY�t7t
[ rI'� 5�'u s''C� I Y1� f' Pit-�-•
t=' SC j S'�j r1� '�!• i•.W .( � [ '�i n . C� i• 1 .i'''}+r- � �Ic' F i L. ' t-.Oo ! C Yl {y''�til t
C", L'_ Y 1- 1 r7 i %Yt -r % • S`� -JPie w
SIGNATURE'- DATE--Z-'Jf GENCY
FRINTNAME_C71"i - 1' l i1►'1AUItESS CIS% 4-1ynr r�JC 70

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVZ PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU K(AY BE LIMITED TO RAISING OMLY THOSG ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRrl TEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO '17145- PLANNING

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HBLE) ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE 1tAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEAR NG OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.,.

DUE TO T ML CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHTNG TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, 77ME,RESMCI'[ONS MAY DLL PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC Hf A UNO ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, YOV MAX• WISH •i•O MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU &RE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
•11

CITY OF Y'UCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL20700000136
APPLICANT: premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family ResideAtial lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 032016108;032016109;032018179; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might nat be c.onsidcred in ncc deelaioi,. }'Muse refer Eu this prujcut by rite applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

COMMENTS (if you need additional space, please attach additional pages):

C
SIGNATURE CLDAT13>�)- 6 I&GENCY
PRINT NAME f^lr'c. L/i/A'ADDRESS WON 111Y AVVF

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, 1F A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL. YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIMC CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY. TIME RESTRICTIONS

MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC BEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN MTJT'1NG TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-601-

06/16/2022
CASE NUMBER. Pl.20200000136
APPLICANT. Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC DEVELOPMENT: Serrano Estates
The City of Yucaipa's general plan describes itself with ten different "community cornerstones".

The very first one being a "Small-town rural character with strong neighborhood identities".

The proposed Serrano Estates Development would destroy the strong "rural character" of the portion of Yucaipa that was set aside for rural living. This portion of Yucaipa was set -aside for horse enthusiasts, for homes with small fruit orchards, its homes on parcels of land that are large enough that people and wildlife can still coexist. It is truly great place to live. It would not be great place to live if this development is allowed to be built.

I was sitting in City Hall, waiting to look at the proposed plans for this development. I was watching the TV screens showcasing people riding horses, mountain biking... the rural activities that make Yucaipa a great place to live and it just seemed ironic to me that here I was trying to prevent a housing tract from being built on the very area of Yucaipa set aside for the rural living that you so proudly display there at City Hall. You need a minimum of one-half acre to own a horse in Yucaipa. Not one parcel in this development, in an area designated rural living would qualify as "horse property''.

We have been through this fight before, the developer that attempted to develop the former Via's Turkey Ranch tried to get lots approved which were smal ler than one -acre. That resulted in a standing room only public hearing of residents that were overwhelmingly against the project.

The developer was told by the city they would "not" deviate from the general plan of minimum one -acre parcels. If there is another public hearing on the proposed Serrano Estates Development, you will see the same response from the residents of the North Bench. I have already started going door-to-door in the RL-1 area and talking with residents outside of the mailer notification zone that are not aware of the project. l have not met one North Bench resident who is in favor of this project.

When we purchased our home back in 1984, we did so with the knowledge that when the surrounding land was eventually developed it would remain a rural atmosphere, that any future homes would be on a minimum one -acre parcel. Years later my wife and I load the opportunity to purchase the adjoining 9.78-acre parcel to our home (that property is 150' directly East of this development). We purchased it to preserve it from ever being developed. Our home is the original 1919 farmhouse that planted the original walnut orchards on North Bench. It is one of the oldest remaining homes on the North Bench. Either our children or our grandchildren will inherit this property. We are fighting to keep this a rural area not only for us but for future generations.
-602-

Our main concern is the 12,000 sf and slightly larger lots that we would overlook. These are closer to quarter -acre lots than the required RL-1 one -acre, 43,560 sflots. They do not meet the general plan's rural requirement of minimum one -acre parcel to build a home on, and for that reason alone the project should be denied. The developer will argue that since they are not building more than one house per acre on the "entire property" it should be approved. Setting aside 27-acres for a vineyard and open space on what is "unbuildable property" will leave what should be a maximum of twenty-five, one -acre buildable parcels.

The Redlands Daily facts reported "Two mostly undeveloped areas in the city's North Bench have the best soil and slopes to become a "wine country," according to a recently completed report by the recipient of the new contract. One is 100 acres east of Yucaipa Midge Road, and the other is 850 acres east of Jefferson Street and north, of Oak Glen Road." That 100-acre study area includes this 52-acre development and my 9.78 parcel. If this is the "best" grape growing soil in Yucaipa it would be a shame to pave over it with homes. At least with the original RL-1 zoning the owners would have the option of having small vineyards on their properties that could generate a profit. It would enhance their values and the values of the surrounding properties. A cluster of 51 homes would lower the value of the surrounding properties and be an eyesore in an already established rural community. Unlike the 850-acre parcel in the study that does not have an established neighborhood. If you were going to have a mixture of clustered homes and vineyards that would be a more appropriate place to do it.

The proposed "vineyard" will be located on the side of the hill, on the San ,Andres Earthquake Fault Zone. Back before the housing bubble crash of 2008, they tried to develop this 52-acre property. It was determined that the northern portion of the property, the top ten lots at that time were not buildable because of the fault. The lots were also located in a high -risk landslide and fire area. That is the property they are setting aside for vineyards, not out of their concern to keep the area rural but because that land is not buildable. The other acreage they want to leave as "open space" contains historic natural drainage channels and is also "not" buildable. Twice now, the runoff from the hills through that proposed "open space" area has buried the 40' wide easement from Juniper to my property tinder several feet of mud and rock. It also borders adjacent high risk fire areas. Who will be responsible of maintaining the "open space area" to prevent a fire spreading from it to the adjacent rural open parcels? Will this area be fenced so people are not trespassing from it to onto adjoining parcels? Since the El Dorado fire, no insurance companies that I am aware are issuing new policies in Yucaipa, "especially" on the North Bench. Many of my neighbors have had their fire coverages dropped from their homeowner's policies. They have had to buy a separate fire insurance only policy from the State of CA. Even my own sister that lives on Kentucky, near the 10 freeway had her fire insurance cancelled because she is in high -risk fire area. No insurance company will issue new policies for these proposed Serrano Estate homes. Unless the buyers have cash, no lender will finance these homes without them being insured.

The city sewer system does not extend to the Northern most portion of the city. Do they propose to connect this development to the sewer system, or will 51 homes be polluting the ground water with their septic tank systems? One -acre parcels would have less effect on ground water pollution if these homes will be built with septic systems. -603-

Another concern of mine is a dangerous situation that already exists if you're trying to turn East onto Juniper, while heading south on Bryant from Highway 38, Juniper is the street that would be the main access from Bryant into the proposed development. Bryant has a curve in it at that location and is a single lane in both directions, there is no center turn lane for Juniper, Right now, if you attempt to turn onto Juniper with oncoming traffic, the traffic can back up behind you on Bryant while you wait to make the turn, what usually happens is the drivers elect go around you at 60 mph, half on the pavement and off in the dirt, it is a nerve-racking situation. I expect to get rear -ended every time I'm waiting to make that left turn onto Juniper. It is so unsafe that I usually elect to go to Ivy Ave and turn there instead. Something should be done now about this dangerous situation. It needs to be fixed if more residents will be utilizing Juniper. Bryant would need to be widened and a left turn lane constructed to prevent future accidents. The developer should pay for the improvements.

Will there be an environmental impact study done on this development? The proposed development is currently home to the rare horny toad, five varieties of snakes, five varieties of lizards. tarantulas it evert has kangaroo rats. I saw one just last week on my properly. Its also home to bobcats, mountain lions, deer, foxes, raccoons, skunks, opossums, rabbits, weasels and several species of hawks and owls that currently hunt on the property. Some of these animals can still exist around homes on one -acre parcels but they cannot exist in a clustered home environment.

I know that designing a city is a delicate balancing act, but it seems to me we already have built the high -density portions of Yucaipa. The orange groves were torn out to snake room for Chapman Heights. Serrano Lakes is being built. Rolling hills was built in the late 1980s. We hav 41 mobile horse parks with approximately 4,270 spaces. (You can't get any more clustered than they are). It seems like the scales are tipped toward the clustered housing and we have lost our rural atmosphere. I don't recognize the city I move to in 1984. The scales need to be tipped back with more rural development and not more clustered homes.

And finally, we do not have enough electricity in Southern California as it is. If they will not build more power plants, we need to stop building more homes. We do not have the electricity to power the existing businesses and homes. There is no possible way to charge the additional electric vehicles they expect everybody to convert to, the math to power all this stuff just doesn't add up. We are already getting daily warnings of potential summer power outages. Another 51 homes will just be that much more burden on the electric grid. And then there is drought, this could be a permanent situation. If I'm not supposed to water my yard, and I'm not supposed to turn on my air conditioning when its 100 degrees outside and I cannot do my laundry until after 9:00 PM why in the world do we continue to keep building in Southern California? Sincerely, Jerry Stohler
•1'

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL,20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LL.0 PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-136fPDPITTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375YFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road,
LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 032416108;032016109;032018128, ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division, You are invited to conirnent because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. comments received after this date might not be considered in the derision. Plozase refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary, If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203, If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space,, please attach (additional pages):
4-tA (� C 1A{a t f �'i ,c c +k%; �L� t` * :.a r_! c k'." k 51 i v� ., U elf c + s
i�.� C' kjl�•Y N-r�•u� �7
+�.U, 1,o C '{J... r V�`�i4 V LA, cl
th
1 ."►t
ti
-i Its ;1 „ c:� h : s, . t' �, 5 -{ , i�t V) + 4ti r,v ,!� ❑ , 0 1 �f � C
t, v4 f►� C r ui tw� 0� t CAS [s• f u v�.,.tr_1
•� (''` l j d r � ft
b1�] v I l t S]GNATURE .1 -+.-(1 � �-� r DATE & -7 Z3ENCY PRINT NAMEEF- l 4a,9--i-Vt�. Ct_."J P ADDRESS ' N�Mc UCA4FA l Ct � IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVF PROPOSAL, rN COURT, YOU AY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY TI•IOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR 1-0, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, 1F A PUBLIC HEARING 15 HELD ON THE PROPOSAL. YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY Ht PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC 14EAMG ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS tN WRITING TO ASSURE THATYOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surroujidnng Property Owners RECEIVED JU N 2 0 2022 Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-605-

CITY OF YUCAIPA. PLANNING WISJON

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE; June 07, 2022
CASE NUXRER: FL20200000134
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf c)fYucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-136,?DF/-rTM 20375: A Plamied DgLvelopment project that includes a Prelirnht9ry laavelopnient Plan and Tentative Tract lt+iap (7TM 20375)ffinaf Deve.lalsinent Plan for the proposed Set -ratio Gates Projoct, which will csiablish 51 5i"91c: Patriib' kesidemial lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, SCVCYAI Ierterel iota far warer quality basins, and a 27.acre rettlaindcrlot that would include space ftirvineyatds as well as 13 acres of permanent open spaoe, localed mt three exislitlg parcels tozalir:g 52 acres atoll" the tact side of Yucaipa Ridgc l�aad.
i3OCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Ruad; A>ylwl(* 0320J 6109;032016109;032018126; AT-aNTfON PROPERTY OW'\,E" AN)3 1fl.EVtEt; EEG AGRNr,11E5: The developntcttt proposai listed above has been filed w•itit Iite City Planning Division. You are itivited to COIn ant because your property L% near the Proposed project. Your DOR=criu must be recelved by this office na later than June 21, 2022, Comments received after Ellis date nkigltt Clot be t:onsidered in the decision, Please- rcfar to this project by die applicant's name and number indicated Above. if you have no cojnment, no reply is Case pectssary, 1f}'ou Itati'e any questions regarding rhis
proposal, please contact Benjamin Matloolc at (909) 797.24$9, ext. 261. 'You may send your t0mrnenis to the City of Yucaipa Flanning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boglevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via. FAX to (909) 790-9203.

Ifyou want to be notifitd of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period Of ter, (I0) caletidar clays after ail action is taken.

CONINIENTS (If you need additional spat. please attach udditiattal pages):

COMMarita are artacned to Wh form, f
51GNATUR1 l+ V I)ATF tL6 22 AGENCY
PRINT NARv Nlnp valmassoi
�ORE 5111111111PIPFftuanx St, YucaE $, Ctt 92399
1F YOU CHALLENCL ANY DECISION MQ-J-RUING THE AJ30VP. PROPOSAL N COURT, YOU MAY lair LLMTfF,Slh ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU -OR 5OMEON'E ELSE RAtM IN K'RITTP,N COP Z -SPOK'OENCr- DELIVt:AED TQ 'rNbt?T4 pI,WtlANN1,r'GO DIVCSION AT OR PlU0A 1'O, THE TIME17 MAKE5 rrS DE IWX CN 713E 11ROPOSAL pity A, A PUBLIC IWARING IS IiELID ON TRF: PROPOSAL YOU ()R SOMrONk EM MUST HAVE PA151Ep TtiOSC ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC NFA.RING bR IN tkHIMFN CORRl:SVONDM4C£ DFJ•Il'ZTFD T0T1'II<HF-ARlN0130l)y AT, OR 17 ONTO, The HEUUNG, one TO WmE UOKSTMIrr5 AND THE Nt.1MZCA Or FnxsONS 1Atst1IF+D TO GIVE pRat TF.S'Y, IT tl►gE t�P.SI1tICT�CiNS MAY 9I Al ACEl7 ON ORAL T65TipfONY AT ANY YVSLIC K-ARJNQ ABOUT T141S PROPOSAL. YOU MAY %A'19H TO MAKE Y011ttCpMtv1E"tTSAiWitlrN0'r0A%UkC7N0YQVAREa11LFToL-)cppES5MRSUrA08E VA'fELV. for Surrounding PropertyOvt'ners
Yucaipa Valley Waiey Distitict
Fire Deparrnuut
Erlglneerlilg Division
stkilding do Safety Division
•1•

Regarding: Case OPL20200000136
Applicant: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC From;
Nino Valmassoi
019M Qua ru St
Yucaipa, Ca 92399
(951) 218 3209, nb m
Please follow up with Ben pay regarding this, He lives with me at the same address. He is an attorney and his contact information Is
COMMENTS:

The proposed plan includes property that I own, NOT this development company, I have a forest department easement running through the length my property. The developer has chosen to include this land as if it was their own. They did not have the decency to contact me regarding this. I object to their attempted taking of my land. It is an easement for the forest department, not for the maximization of the developer's profits.

First, they have a proposed pad in their development with a driveway leading to and going through my property, They have plenty of land that they own that they can use for a driveway that leads to a public street, instead of using my land,
Second, the developer is attempting to use my land via the forest department easement as part of a road in their development. Again, they have plenty of their own land that they can dedicate for a roadway instead of taking from others. If the road does end up getting expanded for the forest department, I do not want my land/this easement used by the developer or the development in any way. I object to any driveway, gate, opening, etc, that leads from the developer's project onto land that I own.

Third, they are also adding a walking path that may be using my land as well. I do not want a walking path on land that I own. Additionally, I am concerned that this path will be at a higher elevation and be looking straight over and into my backyard and pool area. For privacy concerns, if the path Is built, I object to it being built at a higher elevation than my property.

Fourth, I do not want the developer to use my land/easement in any way for their construction traffic, stockpiling of materials, etc.

Finally, these relatively small lot homes do not fit in with the character of the neighborhood at all. This neighborhood is comprised of large horse properties in a rural environment. 'hank you for your consideration,
Nitro Valmassoi
June 1611, 2022
-607-

RFCIiVFD
June 16, 2022
CITY
Yucaipa Planning Division QP
You solicited comments regarding Proposal Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20375 This proposed development brings multiple concernsto mind. As I understand your proposal, you plan to have multiple centrally located homes on small lots with the surrounding land in vineyards and three areas of free space. While this seems, on the face, preferrable to a standard neighborhood with one acre lots I find it is in fact not. While it can be argued that the re will be more area for wildlife to roam than in a normal residential development, that is rarely the case. Vineyards are not free areas, Th ey are agricultural developments. They frequently involve commercial use, and in this case, the addition of high -density housing. Vineyards even draw tourists and othercommercial entities when they are opened to the public, which they inevitably are,
As planned, it is 52 acres with a planned 51 homes. But if you exclude the 27 acres of planned vineyards as well as the 13 acres of Free space (unbuildable areas) you have 12 acres with 51 homes! This is high density housing. Some of these concerns could be decreased by reducing the numberof homes you have planned. Instead of puttingthese homes on X acre lots, put them on % -1 acre lots. Everything else could be keptthe same without losing the feel of this development. Yes, itwould be less commercially viable.

There is already a vineyard off of Yucaipa Ridge Road that has brought increased traffic, both cars and trucks. It has not been an asset to the neighborhood. As I unde rstand yourproposal, the traffic will be funneled down four main streets. Those cars and trucks will bring noise, fumes, and increased pedestriantraffic. This is a quality -of -life issue. Overdevelopment brings with it many strains on the infrastructure of the city. It will strain our electrical grid and will bring waterissuesto the fore. How will the water pressure and the cleanliness of our water be addressed? We already have frequent breaks in our waterlines. It is not at all unusualfor our waterto contain sediment from these breaks. What about septic systems? is this how these high -density homes plan to handle their waste water? This area has historically been 1-5 acre lots and that is the way we like it. That is whywe live here. We would like to see it remain this way.

In summary, i have concerns about: Overdevelopmentwith high -density housing, commercial development, noise, traff iccongestion, quality of life, strain on the electrical grid and the water systems, septic or sewer issues and issues dealing with wild life.

Thank you,
Colleen Wang
.46WbQuartz 5t., Yucaipa, CA 92399
Phone 90OP-OPRPM
•1:

M-'CEIVfzD
CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION J�lf� � 0 2QZ�

PROJECT NOTICE
DACE: June 07, 2022 CITY
O1;
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136 YUCAIPA
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-136/PDPITTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road,
LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa, Ridge Road; APN(s): 032016108;032016109;032018129; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.
pCOMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
1 I�as� i,e `ee.k -{"lio pie, ✓
ti f I ct J1, r -k�, k 4 �11, G o r c- r er .aro', ►, rt .a = rc �, t" ' h , e l�' 'if 40 -}�.e.. v r r u v ^ �'�Or f'� r7 ;, ter •�,x-f 0. rt64 Iir+l �f ct l 1 4 G .�� t'C,�`I � 1 hr� Y.-,[. +'�'� l,J �.., j' i eta �i �Fv [��i �1 tir1 c•-1 ��lti � s� ��' '"� J�� ` 1 �' `1 c: F !' 4 � 't-C- "�'� � f .w C�-tS1�'�''1�^� P��Tr`$.0 �' rT`.� �1'�[, S..m'j"�' �4aG[4v.5+� C� unC��Y��r,��C.b�•C. WITS"�c.'S �-Yi� 'h lh r
• 'T�v-tar ��-��.5 . l j 1 ,�1Rl�a-v�.C4
s-
SIGNATURE IL rin - �.r DATE AGENCY
PR NT NAME "� ;1 {�_ Aq 15J� 1 h ADDR);S Ay ?-;1't , yt U cic j (J f•

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BF- LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRI'rfEN CORRESPONDENCE DF-LIVSRED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECIS30N ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE. RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HfiARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE K6ARINQ, DULL TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF MRSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, T1ME.RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
roll US

��e •�.� w- "�"kCr r� ,.J r- � ¢�} r.-.�•-.'t Y�Vw!' -�. p r[.S�.v v� Yrc...rlur r '�� CxC'•s r-C��O ?�l� � l�trr 1^r�s-+—r'�>.1 `r i�t. }.�'`�' �Y�-. �h Y4'�t.�,a� l i•� -}C-�r'CtiC.t. �\ti7r yam. ... `�. 3 �C �{ t 7,--C, r� �+�.. �R il!•f' NJ� '++� �{:.� t'-Ct.}A �� G.-Y..�R C+ Lf�`..4 �� J-` {�YVy f1., �4 � /�.t_ eM.-Y 'r�'•.�.'�lYS• l � \.'�w� l Y. W � t C: � •`i +^4,tir" C_ 1 � r�r3 "{- lZ'-r�� k+ IJ•i CY�"� fv t.r i•y /11!'. f --v•e,
1 J
ke, J S ",.y I fJ-Y € '�` Q -u } . r�S u �- Cx? 4
Sa�l,tr +^4.w r.,�c*r�ei-.~t I r..`zriG Ja'�1c.,�'- •-r4�J''��cs, - e-f C-i-.ak Yv-r-o-11 v yr P
'{= YtCm-j A-e. e, `,qT V•+��h-�''\ k \� 4r f
G`?-� � �� r,•� W (., Tr-v G`n � v'ti} �E.r �,� �� .•� 1 ►'`�-. G'V-C_t... , Q c rrt- ore. s -IQ r � prc• f e- wV � G►� � � te,,) w� G s k �,� '� �0r (s a $ I rc � c r'�ib � 1'f� A c

RECEIVED
K-le-1 IYA 1 yl1grk v--,
JUN 2 0 2M
CITY
OF
` U Cf PA
�-- � - v C -
-610-

Dear Yucaipa City Council,
RP:

Case number: PL20200000136 (20-136/PDP/TTM 20375)
Applicant: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC I did not receive primary notice on this proposed project, yet traffic into this this new development will enter through our neighborhood streets where our family has lived for 23 years. Running traffic through a rural horse property zoned community into a higher density housing development is poor and irresponsible planning that does not make sense. (An analogy would be putting multilevel apartments that must enter through Chapman Heights).

Traffic into this development will have to weave through our rural zoned streets. Traffic will have to enter through one of two ways:

Bryant st. -> Topaz -> Goldstone -> Diamond -> quartz-> Yucaipa nidge road -> entry into new development
Bryant st, -> Juniper -> Azurite -> Crystal -> Yucaipa nidge road -> entry into new development.

I heard that estimates would be 400 new trips via these routes daily The new development should maintain rural horse property zoning. It's the only thing that makes sense. The developer saying they are putting roughly 50 houses on 50 acres is gimmickry since portions of the land in question are not buildable.

Additional concerns include, but not limited to:

This area has low water pressure and the new development will likely require an ugly water tank on the property.

This development will further disrupt our streets as they will likely be torn up to hook up to sewer on Bryant st.

This land is an under -appreciated wildlife habitat. On it I have seen bear, cougar, bobcat, deer, coyote, quail, doves, great blue heron, and toads in the creek drainage. The creek drainage is also serves a thoroughfare to and from Yuclapa ridge to the Grafton Hills for some of these animals.

I implore you please to not let this project go forward as currently proposed for the sake of current residents, for the sake of responsible planning, and for the sake of what makes Yucaipa and the rural zoned North Bench area beautiful.

Sincerely
'1 RECEIVED
Matthew B. Underwood
Lynda Daniel -Underwood
&=wW@9 Diamond St.

JUL 14 2022
My

YUCAIPA
-611-

t IV
July 5, 2022 '
JUL
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375 y F.

We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as Small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. ,According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project Is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
r 1 T lei 0- Y L iM GL v T1,C1 -e V-e- I CJ �

k-�oh, r-e- od VvKr d1,cr(' cm-t crem s-
hd ids
C09 923�'7
oq-
-613-

)q3 r--Or! a 1 b I ?I
its
L
s ld4 r�x dxu
LkInd
a. ruL
1 dc CL -
�t
-A6 ,,,o -�
I a -�5ctg4 C-+,
RcG
/�lease say /l0 �o � s
ytvn
�i
W) 4
-614-

RECLIVED
JUL '2 5 2022
CITY
OF

YUCAIPA
ZJ
-615-

Stephen A. Freeman
Cynthia 5, Freeman
Juniper Ave.

Yucaipa, Ca. 92399
Phone:

Email: sf
July 29, 2022-
Benjamin Matlock, City of Yucaipa Planning Manager
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa Ca. 92399
RE: Proposed housing development
CASE NO: 20-136/PDP/ DP TTM 20375, "Serrano„
Dear Mr. Matlock,
We are writing you concerning the above captioned development, which I understand involves a proposal for 51 single family homes on an average 12,000 SF lot on parcels APN 0320-161-08, 0320-161-09 and 0320-161-28. We have several concerns, which are also concerns of our neighbors. In general these concerns involve: the lack of infrastructure required to service a development of this size, the resulting impact on existing citizens and home owners near and around the proposed development and the damage done trying to correct these problems near the proposed development. We attended a meeting at Dr. Boone's home some weeks ago where a presentation was given by a gentleman hired by the developer. The presentation covered the size, nature of the homes and lots, as well as seismic issue that limit building on some of the areas in these three parcels. The presentation did not answer questions about the impact to existing residents. The lack of infrastructure was not addressed with any specifics.

The presentation did not address the inadequate street size and traffic control. It was not explained how utilities would be supplied. It is clear that capacities of existing utilities in the area are stretched and in the case of sewers, nonexistent. In past planning it appears that traffic and utility needs were evaluated based on larger lot sizes (fewer people) leaving the area with undersized streets and uncontrolled intersections, There is not enough available street width or access to properly accommodate a development of this size at this location based on current standards for new developments. We were very disappointed in the presentation and its lack of detail, Details matter when people are going to be effected.

QUESTIONS THAT NEED SPECIFIC ANSWERS BEFORE SUCH A PROJECT CAN BE CONSIDERED:
• Traffic impact. Where are the 400 estimated car trips going to be routed? How will the traffic be managed? Where will the project homes be accessed? Using what existing streets? How will the streets be widened without severely impacting the current -616-

residents?
• Will emanate domain be used by the used by the city and developer to take property from existing owners to widen the streets?
• What route will be used to install the needed utilities for the project? Are there existing routes, easements or right of ways or will existing streets be dug up to install utilities? What will be the impact of existing residents? • Will needed widening of streets reduce resident's lot size? • Will existing residents in the area be required to connect to new sewer systems? • What will be the financial impact on property values of existing homes due to over used and stressed infrastructure including street access and traffic? • Is the developer going to pay for all the infrastructure improvements, without the expense being passed on to existing residents and city tax payers? What of the moral issues involved in the project? The current residents, of the impacted area depended on the representation of the county and later the city that the zoning of 1 acre lots and minimum home size would insure that the area would remain a quiet residential area and not a thoroughfare to provide for higher density housing. These residents trusted their elected and appointed government officials. Why should the city's failure to keep its word create a hardship for these citizens? This proposal will damage the current resident's lifestyle and diminish their property values. Is the city going to let this happen in order to allow the developer to have the profit margin he wishes for? I see little need to pity the developer. He knew the zoning issues, seismic limitations and knew there would be push back by the citizens who depended on the city's promise. Will the city put developer profit before promises made to citizens?
Another issue that comes to mind is the naming of the proposed project. While the Serrano people lived in the general area using their name for this project is blatant cultural appropriation of the Native American's heritage. Has the developer gone to the local tribal organizations and discussed this issue? Upon further thought naming the project after a Native American people may be quite appropriate as it may become yet another example of our government going back on a promise. No one knows that better than the Native Americans.

Please do not allow this project to go forward on less that one acre lots. It is your duty to protect the interest of the citizens of this city. As noted before the key question is, will the city put developer profit before promises made to its citizens? Si �Cynthia
LSteeman
cc. City council members, Pay Casey
-617-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375 RECEIVED AUG D 1 201 We believe the elected officials of the city of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. if this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
a)L k d"

July 5, 2022
22 RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375�Er�� Aii�]� We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. if this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.

Respectfully,
Per-ry To d
MMOW Quartz St.

Yucai a CA 2399
-619-

July 5, 2022 F�ECVVED
AUG a 12022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The entire area west of the proposed tract 20375 1s developed with one acre lots and larger. Area in the foothills north of the tentative tract has large homes with very large lots of five acres or more. All the existing homes in this area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says It is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

If 23 acres is developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area,
This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.

Nino Valmassoi
=ROM Quartz St
Yucaipa, CA 92399-2952
-620-

July 29, 2022
f ECOED AUG 01 2022
Benjamin Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planner,
Developmental Services Department, City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Dear Mr. Matlock;
This letter is in reference to the proposed Serrano Estates housing tract number 20375 being proposed on the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road in the North Bench area of the city.

I understand that developers are proposing 51 single-family homes on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet. That means that each home will be on approximately 03 of an acre of land. When I moved to my (some on Jade Court, one of the factors convincing me to live here was the fact that all homes in the area would be built on a full acre of land.

It is disappointing that the city has revised this long -stand provision. The rural lifestyle to which I have grown accustomed seems to be in jeopardy.

I would not object to new homes built on an acre of land, maybe even a half -acre. But more homes will mean more traffic, something I hoped to escape by living in the North Bench.

I am lucky. Jade Court is on a cul-de-sac and I will not fall victim to said traffic as current residents who live closer to the proposed construction site. But I stand in solidarity with them for any negative effects the new homes and increased population will certainly entail.

Nevertheless, I still see some positives coming out of this project.

I do like the fact that 30% of the homes will be designated for seniors. The elderly need our help, and I hope the homes sell for an attainable cost for them.

Something I would welcome if these homes were built would be the possibility of the entire area being put on the city sewer system. I have heard that the city will require the new homes to tie into the existing sewer system, something I have wanted the city to do for my neighborhood for years.

That the proposal sets aside space for a vineyard and 13 acres of permanent open space is an advantage to the project. I hope this idea is not discarded if the homes will in fact be built.

I realize there is a housing shortage in our state. I also realize that developers want to make as much profit as possible. 1 kindly ask that you take this matter into further, deeper consideration for the benefit of residents like myself who have lived here for many, many years.

Please side with quality of life over profit margins.

With best regards,
0�4 6�Ag� / �
Celina Arredondo and Richard Reyna
0EJ O_WJade Court
-621-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375 fZ
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The entire area west of the proposed tract 20375 is developed with one acre lots and larger. Area In the foothills north of the tentative tract has large homes with very large lots of five acres or more. All the existing homes in this area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees, According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical charge to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
lei or-5 4f"a 1 Y►�O►fM 1Cc � GfJ•� J � f �� r
-622-

July 30, 2022
Benjamin Matlock
City of Yucaipa Planning Department
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
0ear Mr. Matlock:

RECFjVL-D AUG
012022
I am writing concerning the tentative Tract no. 20735. 1 attended a meeting where the developer laid out his plans to put 51 houses crammed into 12,700 ft. to 14,500 square foot lots directly across the street from my home on Yucaipa Ridge Road, which is zoned for minimum one acre lots. I have no objection to the developer building homes on one acre lots, but I have HUGE objections to the decrease in property values that will directly affect me if this tract is allowed to proceed as currently designed.

It seems to me that the City Council is not protecting the planned rural atmosphere of Yucaipa for it's citizens in favor of a developer making huge profits. It is my understanding that 23 acres of that land are developable, so am requesting that a MAXIMUM of 23 homes are allowed to be built on one acre lots.

I addition, the current plan includes horse trails through the neighborhood, but none of the lots are large enough to allow potential owners to have a horse. What's the point of that? The current horse owners nearby are not going to ride their horses through neighborhoods crammed with mouses and children, they will ride on the existing trails through the undeveloped open space areas.

The current water pressure is very low at 30 psi. Putting ANY additional homes above us will require additional water upgrades, and that has not been addressed.

One of the biggest problems I see, however, is the additional traffic that so many homes will add to Yucaipa Ridge Road, Quartz, and Crystal. The private owner of the land that might allow another exit road to go out onto Juniper St. has already stated that he has no intention of selling his land for that purpose, so that makes all the traffic dump out through the above mentioned roads onto Azurite, and then onto Juniper. It is already very difficult to turn onto Bryant Street from Juniper during the early marnmg and late afternoon commute hours, and several hundred more car trips a day added to the traffic pattern will make it impossible.

This project will hurt the citizens of Yucaipa that you have been elected to represent, and I am encouraging you to reject this plan as currently designed for something that is fair.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Deborah Davidson
x64111111OYucaipa Ridge Rd,
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Cc: Rachael GusteSon, Yucaipa -Ca I!mesa Dews Mirror Editor -623-

July 5, 2022 . RECSVED AU6 0 12022
RE. Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 1.2,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the .52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots, Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
r
-624-

July 28, 2022 REMVM
Yucaipa Planning Commission +j
RE: Comments on tentative tract no.20375
i sent you a list of concerns in June 16, 2022. This note is in addition.

Some of the residents of the North Bench met with the Developer and owner of the proposed development on 6/30/22. Most of us had absolutely no advance notice that a "planned development" of any kind was being planned for this tract. My house number WAS included in the notice so I was able to alert some of my immediate neighbors. However, after meeting with the owner and developer, and despite the detrimental impact to the neighborhood of their proposal, they seemed to be under the impression that this development will be approved. How is that possible without more public notice and comment? Why has there not been a public planning meeting where the community can make their comments both pro and con? As a member of this neighborhood for more than 20 years, how it, and the surrounding area is developed, is of paramount importance to both my husband and myself. When we moved here from Redlands, one of the deciding factors in making this move was the stated support from the Yucaipa City that the North Bench would always remain rural. They stated in more than one meeting that this area would remain zoned for no more than 1 (one) home on 1(one) or MORE acres permanently. The city stated that it was likely that many areas in this city would be developed with tract homes for families. We were happy to hear that. We love families. We also love the rural way of life afforded by the North Bench. We also loved the commitment by the City that the North Bench would remain rural.

This property owner knew what the zoning was for this area. He had to have walked this property prior to purchase. He also must have checked out the earthquake restrictions involved on this land. It had not been developed previously because the restrictions involved, did not make this a tract look to be, or have a high likelihood, of profitability. This owner chose to purchase this tract hoping to find a way around the zoning and earthquake restrictions. He is exploiting "special provisions" and the city is allowing it. Why is the city choosing to break longstanding and committed zoning and planning rules, to allow this development? It's disturbing.

This developer is using the "there are 52 acres and only 51 homes. But those homes will be built on just over 11 acres. That is 4 houses per acre. I don't care that there are areas designated for wildlife in their plans. Any one acre home has plenty of space for wildlife movement. Much of their wildlife and vineyard acres are just earthquake and unbuildable areas. They shouldn't be allowed to count those acres in their total 52/51 count.

Also, the developer assured us all that there is no plan for a commercial vineyard or winery operation that might draw other development. However there is already a commercial vineyard with a winery operation on Yucaipa Ridge Road that already draws customers and these grape vines will expand their operation! The city has stipulated that the tract put "riding trails" for horses. The problem is, they are putting a wall around the tract without openings for horses to get to them. Unless someone where to ride around the block on the busy road to the entrance to the tract they won't be accessible. Even if one was to ride a horse there, the trail would dead end inside the wall, in high density housing. So, the developer is just putting in trails for the residents to use to walk on. Very nice for them, but certainly not for the neighboring community. Who at the planning commission suggested these trails? They sound good, but they aren't functional or useful. -625-

Our streets do not have lights that remain on at night. Most of them are triggered by movement. We get to see the stars at night. Will this change? our neighborhoods are quiet at night. 20 to 30 vehicles use Quartz Street daily. This development estimates that will go up to about 4001 That is an enormous change. The developer must wonder how anyone would approve such a change, especially without public input, or perhaps it was because there was no public input.

This developer had few answers for the neighbors at the community meeting in June. He didn't seem to be aware of the problems with water pressure in our area. It is significant. He won't be able to build without remediating this somehow, or the whole community will be without enough pressure to take a shower. Sure he might get pressure for his development but the neighborhood will lose theirs. He also doesn't seem to be aware of the condition of the water pipes in our area. They are worked on frequently because of breaks. He said those are issues for the Yucaipa Water District.

The developer says the development will NOT be considered rural. People that buy these homes won't be buying rural homes. They will be purchasing high density tract homes.. They won't have any idea at all, what living surrounded by a rural area means. They will expect street lights, sewers, good water pressure, streets that provide easy access to Bryant. After all their area won't be rural. It won't look rural, it won't feel rural, because it won't be rural. Except, it will be a little bit of city surrounded by cattle, horses, goats, donkeys, chickens including roosters, peacocks and much more.., and all that comes with them. They won't like it and they will complain.

What planning commissioner thinks it's a good idea to put this development in this neighborhood? What happens the first time they fly by a horse on the road and don't give them room? People get hurt. Animals get hurt. There won't be 2-10 cars driving by, they currently estimate 400! The developer does not currently own the property that will give them street access to Bryant. The owner of that property told him at the meeting he does not intend to either sell or allow access to the development. Does that mean we will be dealing with eminent domain issues? The right of way for sewers has not been established yet, but this gets planning approval anyway? How can that be? What about the electrical grid? Is that to be upgraded?
Basically by approving this development the city is changing the north Bench into non -rural. When and how was this changed? Who has the authority to do this without community notice and input? How does a local government just approve something like this using something like these "special provisions"? The developer seemed to think that this is going to be allowed because of the "shortage of homes" in CA. There are areas of Yucaipa that have the proper zoning to build homes to sheet the needs of CA, for housing. The need for more housing in CA does not justify your approving a development like this in one of Yucaipa's nicest rural neighborhoods. It really is one of the few areas left like this in Yucaipa.

This particular development is being proposed this way because the owner thinks he can make more money by putting in tract homes. He told us at the community meeting that he wouldn't be able to make enough money if he followed the current zoning and community plan, so he just decided to get around the restrictions rather than working with them. He could have built bigger custom homes on one acre lots but he said that was too risky and he wouldn't make enough money soon enough. This is why the planning commission is approving this "special development" under these "special provisions"? Mow does this development help the city of Yucaipa? Thank you. Colleen Wang
-626-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
RECEIVED AUG 0 120
22 We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer say$ it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
-627-

Daly 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375 f?ECJE'VEd AUS d zz
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

If 23 acres is developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less ur not. What is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area,
This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project, Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. if this project is approved as proposed, It will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.

RrCUVI= D
July 28, 2022 CITY
or
Yucaipa Planning Commission YUCAIPA
RE: Comments on tentative tract no.20375
I sent you a list of concerns in June 16, 2022. This note is in addition.

Some of the residents of the North Bench met with the Developer and owner of the proposed development on 6/30/22, Most of us had absolutely no advance notice that a "planned development" of any kind was being planned for this tract, My house number WAS included in the notice so I was able to alert some of my immediate neighbors, However, after meeting with the owner and developer, and despite the detrimental impact to the neighborhood of their proposal, they seemed to be under the impression that this development will be approved. How is that possible without more public notice and comment? Why has there not been a public planning meeting where the community can make their comments both pro and con? As a member of this neighborhood for more than 20 years, how it, and the surrounding area is developed, is of paramount importance to both my husband and myself. When we moved here from Redlands, one of the deciding factors in making this move was the stated support from the Yucaipa City that the North Bench would always remain rural. They stated in more than one meeting that this area would remain zoned for no more than 1 (one) home on 1(one) or MORE acres permanently. The city stated that it was likely that many areas in this city would be developed with tract homes for families. We were happy to hear that. We love families. We also love the rural way of life afforded by the North Bench. We also loved the commitment by the City that the North Bench would remain rural.

This property owner knew what the zoning was for this area. He had to have walked this property prior to purchase. He also must have checked out the earthquake restrictions involved on this land. it had not been developed previously because the restrictions involved, did not make this a tract look to be, or have a high likelihood, of profitability. This owner chose to purchase this tract hoping to find a way around the zoning and earthquake restrictions. He is exploiting "special provisions" and the city is allowing it. Why is the city choosing to break longstanding and committed zoning and planning rules, to allow this developmen0 it's disturbing.

This developer is using the "there are 52 acres and only 51 homes. But those homes will be built on just over 11 acres. That is 4 houses per acre. I don't care that there are areas designated for wildlife in their plans. Any one acre home has plenty of space for wildlife movement, Much of their wildlife and vineyard acres are just earthquake and unbuildable areas. They shouldn't be allowed to count those acres in their total 52/51 count.

Also, the developer assured us all that there is no plan for a commercial vineyard or winery operation that might draw other development. However there is already a commercial vineyard with a winery operation on Yucaipa Ridge Road that already draws customers and these grape vines will expand their operation! The city has stipulated that the tract put "riding trails" for horses. The problem is, they are putting a wall around the tract without openings for horses to get to them. unless someone where to ride around the block on the busy road to the entrance to the tract they won't be accessible. Even if one was to ride a horse there, the trail would dead end inside the wall, in high density housing. So, the developer is just putting in trails for the residents to use to walk on. Very nice for them, but certainly not for the neighboring community. Who at the planning commission suggested these trails? They sound good, but they aren't functional or useful. -629-

Our streets do not have lights that remain on at night. Most of them are triggered by movement. We get to see the stars at night. Will this change? Our neighborhoods are quiet at night. 20 to 30 vehicles use Quartz Street daily. This development estimates that will go up to about 400! That is an enormous change. The developer must wonder how anyone would approve such a change, especially without public input, or perhaps it was because there was no public input.

The developer says the development will NOT be considered rural. People that buy these homes won't be buying rural homes. They will be purchasing high density tract homes.. They won't have any idea at all, what living surrounded by a rural area means. They will expect street lights, sewers, good water pressure, streets that provide easy access to Bryant. After all their area won't be rural. It won't look rural, it won't feel rural, because it won't be rural. Except, it will be a little bit of city surrounded by cattle, horses, goats, donkeys, chickens including roosters, peacocks and much more... and all that comes with them. They won't like it and they will complain.

What planning commissioner thinks it's a good idea to put this development in this neighborhood? What happens the first time they fly by a horse on the road and don't give them room? People get hurt. Animals get hurt. There won't be 2-10 cars driving by, they currently estimate 400! The developer does not currently own the property that will give them street access to Bryant. The owner of that property told him at the meeting he does not intend to either sell or allow access to the development. Does that mean we will be dealing with eminent domain issues? The right of way for sewers has not been established yet, but this gets planning approval anyway? How can that be? What about the electrical grid? Is that to be upgraded?
Basically by approving this development the city is changing the North Bench into non -rural. When and how was this changed? Who has the authority to do this without community notice and input? How does a local government just approve something like this using something like these "special provisions"? The developer seemed to think that this is going to be allowed because of the "shortage of homes" in CA. There are areas of Yucaipa that have the proper zoning to build homes to meet the needs of CA, for housing. The need for more housing in CA does not justify your approving a development like this in one of Yucaipa's nicest rural neighborhoods. It really is one of the few areas left Pike this in Yucaipa.

This particular development is being proposed this way because the owner thinks he can make more money by putting in tract homes. He told us at the community meeting that he wouldn't be able to make enough money if he followed the current zoning and community plant, so he just decided to get around the restrictions rather than working with them. He could have built bigger custom homes on one acre lots but he said that was too risky and he wouldn't make enough money soon enough. This is why the planning commission is approving this "special development" under thes "s ecial provisions"? How does this development help the city of Yucaipa? Thank you. H nsen Wang
-630-

IgECEIVED
July 28, 2022
Re: Estate project Tract # 20375
AUG U 1
Benjamin Matlock - planning Manager/City Planner CAITY
F

YU CAI PA
I am a resident of Yucaipa since 1983. I built our home in 1990 (yes I was the owner builder). Most houses in the area are custom built and reflect the choices of the owners to avoid noise, high traffic and light pollution. The openness, and the safety of rural environment we all cherish is threatened by the proposed Serrano Estates project. For me and my family, thirty two years of peace and quiet is ending because someone made a wrong investment.

I attended the Community meeting on 06/302022 during which the developer described the planned development of the track 20375. He placed a map on an easel representing the Tract Map including 51 houses "mostly„ single story houses on the 52 acres of the tract.

It was obvious to all attendees that the units he described ranging from 3,000 to 3600 sq feet on 51 lots from 12,700 square feet to an average 14,500 square feet, were crowded in the southern portion of the map. When asked how close the houses are to each other, the developer estimated from 12 to 15 feet from each other. These 51 units would be shoehorned on 14-15 acres, we were told, due to earthquake zoning precluding development of the remaining acreage. Taking in account the variability of the size of the houses, the lots would be on a 1/3 of an acre or less. The entire North Bench has been developed based on one house per acre or larger. The rest of the tract map included 27 acres of vineyards and apple orchard to be maintained by Mr. Preston (owner of the present North Cork Winery) The remaining 13 acres, not suitable for building, would become permanent open space including horse trails. Who maintains or has access to the trails is unclear.

The neighborhood voiced several concerns during the presentation. The most concerning from my perspective is the fire hazard caused by the close proximity of the dwellings.

As the frequency, extent, and severity of wildfires are surging in Yucaipa, surrounding towns and across the state, the planned proximity and arrangement of the units appear to be very vulnerable to wild -land fire hazards. There are no escape roads eastwards and the foothills flanking the northern part of the lots have been on fire at least twice in the past 32 years Other concerns like water, sewer, power and Internet access were deferred by the presenter to service companies.

When asked how much traffic the new development will create, a staggering 400 ingress and egress per day estimate was suggested based on the number of cars and trucks in a single family house.

Considering that the sole accesses to Bryant street from Yucaipa Ridge Road is through Crystal i Azurite, Juniper,, the answers was scary. Without an EPA spreadsheet tool its hard to guess. The prospective traffic density will rise dangerously in an area were streets were designed for the traffic of one house per acre. The narrow corridor to Bryant will be noisy, dangerous to pedestrians and children and impassable in case of fire or earthquake evacuation.

Special Provisions are being invoked for Planed Development east of Yucaipa Ridge to justify the Serrano Estates project. The City of Yucaipa planning cotnmission has the responsibility to provide special provisions to build new streets eastward and consider regulations and planning to effectively reduce road traffic, insure first responders access and take measures to reduce wild -land fire loss. Short of that, this project will have deleterious effect on the quality of life of our community.

Respectfully submitted, Pierre Assaf
011 ---
-631-

RECEIVED
July 5, 2022 AUG 01 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375 CI TV
OF
YUCAIP
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The entire area west of the proposed tract 20375 is developed with one acre lots and larger. ,Area in the foothills north of the tentative tract has large homes with very large lots of five acres or more. All the existing homes in this area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
-632-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
AnSIV5-1
CITY
OF
` UCAIPA
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The entire area west of the proposed tract 20375 is developed with one acre lots and larger. Area in the foothills north of the tentative tract has large homes with very large lots of five acres or more, All the existing homes In this area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed, The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
s � L IIc,h
s�-
��
-633-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees, According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots, even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Mary of us wi-rr- Mgt notified and caught: by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.

6.P + -t�wyr pt,"V
r O•c YyC s
-634-

Stephen A. Freeman
RE!0-:!V2D J
Cynthia S. Freeman
t
!Juniper Ave.

AUG 02. 2QZZ
Yucaipa, Ca. 92399
Phone:makovIn0
CITY
Email: m

YUC IPA
July 29, 2022
Benjamin Matlock, City of Yucaipa Planning Manager
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa Ca. 92399
RE: Proposed housing development
CASE NO: 20-136/PDP/ DP TTM 20375, "Serrano„
Dear Mr. Matlock,
We are writing you concerning the above captioned development, which I understand involves a proposal for 51 single family homes on an average 12,000 SF lot on parcels APN 0320-161-08, 0320-161-09 and 0320-161-28. We have several concerns, which are also concerns of our neighbors. In general these concerns involve: the lack of infrastructure required to service a development of this size, the resulting impact on existing citizens and home owners near and around the proposed development and the damage done trying to correct these problems near the proposed development. We attended a meeting at Dr. Boone's home some weeks ago where a presentation was given by a gentleman hired by the developer. The presentation covered the size, nature of the homes and lots, as well as seismic issue that limit buifding on some of the areas in these three parcels. The presentation did not answer questions about the impact to existing residents. The lack of infrastructure was not addressed with any specifics.

The presentation did not address the inadequate street size and traffic control. It was not explained how utilities would be supplied. It is clear that capacities of existing utilities in the area are stretched and in the case of sewers, nonexistent. In past planning it appears that traffic and utility needs were evaluated based on larger lot sizes (fewer people) leaving the area with undersized streets and uncontrolled intersections. There is not enough available street width or access to properly accommodate a development of this size at this location based on current standards for new developments. We were very disappointed in the presentation and its lack of detail. Details matter when people are going to be effected.

residents?
• Will emanate domain be used by the used by the city and developer to take property from existing owners to widen the streets?
• What route will be used to install the needed utilities for the project? Are there existing routes, easements or right of ways or will existing streets be dug up to install utilities? What will be the impact of existing residents? * Will needed widening of streets reduce resident's lot size? • Will existing residents in the area be required to connect to new sewer systems? • What will be the financial impact on property values of existing homes due to over used and stressed infrastructure including street access and traffic? • Is the developer going to pay for all the infrastructure improvements, without the expense being passed on to existing residents and city tax payers? What of the moral issues involved in the project? The current residents of the impacted area depended on the representation of the county and later the city that the zoning of 1 acre lots and minimum home size would insure that the area would remain a quiet residential area and not a thoroughfare to provide for higher density housing. These residents trusted their elected and appointed government officials. Why should the city's failure to keep its word create a hardship for these citizens? This proposal will damage the current resident's lifestyle and diminish their property values. Is the city going to let this happen in order to allow the developer to have the profit margin he wishes for? I see little need to pity the developer. He knew the zoning issues, seismic limitations and knew there would be push back by the citizens who depended on the city's promise. Will the city put developer profit before promises made to citizens?
Another issue that comes to mind is the naming of the proposed project. While the Serrano people lived in the general area using their name for this project is blatant cultural appropriation of the Native American's heritage. Has the developer gone to the local tribal organizations and discussed this issue? Upon further thought naming the project after a Native American people may be quite appropriate as it may become yet another example of our government going back on a promise. No one knows that better than the Native Americans.

Please do not allow this project to go forward on less that one acre lots. It is your duty to protect the interest of the citizens of this city. As noted before the key question is, will the city put developer profit before promises made to its citizens? Si c re I , � �� e�
5teph n & Cynthia Freeman
cc. City council members, Ray Casey
-636-

July 31, 2022
Re: Estate project Tract f# 20375
To: City Council Yucaipa
�i�� 0 � 1Q�Z •-
R5C51VED
1y3CA)PA : ' ; 2 2022
1 have been a resident of Yucaipa since 1983. I built our home in 1990. Most housE&+v,the area are custom built and reflect the choices of the owners to avoid noise, high traffic and li Ilution. The openness, and the safety of the rural environment we all cherish is threatened by� osed Serrano , thirty two years of peace and quiet is ending because someone Estates project. For me and my family,
made a wrong investment.

I attended the Community meeting on 06/302022 during which the developer described the planned development of the track 20375, lie placed a map on an easel representing the Tract Map including 51 houses ,mostly„ single story houses on the 52 acres of the tract.

It was obvious to all attendees that the units he described, ranging from 3,000 to 3600 sq feet on 51 lots from 12,700 square feet to an average 14,500 square feet, were crowded in the southern portion of the map. When asked how close the houses are to each other, the developer estimated from 12 to 1.5 feet from each other. These 51 units would be shoehorned on 14-15 acres, we were told, due to earthquake zoning precluding development of the remaining acreage. Tatting in account the variability of the size of the houses, the lots would be on a 1/3 of an acre or less, The entire North Bench has been developed based on one house per acre or larger. The rest of the tract map included 27 acres of vineyards and apple orchard to be maintained by Mr. Preston (owner of the present North Cork Winery) The remaining 13 acres, not suitable for building, would become permanent open space including horse trails. Who maintains ar has access to the trails is unclear, The neighborhood voiced several concerns during the presentation, The most concerning from my perspective is the fire hazard caused by the close proximity of the dwellings.

When asked how much traffic the new development ;mill create, a staggering 400 ingress and egress per day estimate was suggested based on the number of cars and tracks in a single family house.

Considering that the sole access to Bryant street from Yucaipa Ridge Road is through Crystal Azurite --. Juniper _� , the answer was scary. Without an EPA spreadsheet tool its hard to guess. The prospective traffic density will rise dangerously in an area where streets were designed for the traffic of one house per acre. The narrow corridor to Bryant will be noisy, dangerous to pedestrians and children and impassable in case of fire or earthquake evacuation.

Special Provisions axe being invoked for Planned Development east of Yucaipa Ridge to justify the Serrano Estates Project. The City of Yucaipa planning commission has the responsibility to provide special provisions to build new streets eastward and consider regulations and planning to effectively reduce road traffic, insure first responders access and take measures to reduce wild -land fire loss. Short of that, this project will have a deleterious effect on the quality of life of our community.

Pierre Assaf
-637-

RECEIVED
To Yucaipa City Council and Planning Commission, AUG 02 2027 CITY
Now many times have the residents of the North Bench had to fight against fMprAto the zoning in our areal Our area is a hopeful and shining star for people who are interested in living in a rural area. For the Yucaipa Ridge project, the idea of even considering < 1 acre parcels is disrespectful. As the instigator in the push back against the project, I have been privileged to read the letters to the city sent by my neighbors. Among many great considerations is the one about evacuation safety. Yucaipa Ridge Rd is a very narrow street and when I have had to pull my truck and horse trailer out to evacuate my horse, it has been a nightmare with the random people who drive up the this street to watch the fires etc. While I appreciate the police blockades during the last fire, initially there was no control over this situation.

I attended one of the city council meetings when the vineyard wrap around for the North Bench projects was presented and I did not realize that the lot sizes would be less than % acre which would change the zoning from rural and not allow horses etc on the property.

You are alienating the vast majority of tax paying residents with any project in the North Bench that changes the lots to < 1 acre parcels. I have fought this before and will continue to fight against your egregious plans.

Teri Boon MI]
tyJMMYucaipa Ridge Rd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
• 9

July 5, 2022 AUG 0 � ton
RE; Comments on tentative tract no. 20375 My

YUCOAIPA
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approxim4tely 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us In this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

If 23 acres is developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed Is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
-639-

RacrDVI D
July 5, 2022 AUG Ot 2-022
RE. Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
f IT'V
OF

YUCAI PA
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

If 23 acres is developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots, whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, It will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
o

August 3, 2022
Ben Matlock
City of Yucaipa Planning Manager
Our family has been residents of Yucaipa's North Beach for over 30 years. My husband Bill moved to Yucaipa in 1978 as a San Bernardino Police Officer. He was drawn to the peaceful, safe environment,
Years ago, the neighbors on the North Bench successfully argued against a zoning change to allow a developer to cram in as many houses as possible so as to increase their profits. We all saw through the dishonest assurances made at that time and we had the backing of our City Council members.

We beseech you to rise to the occasion once again and not be beguiled by developer fees and taxes. The citizens of Yucaipa depend on our city leaders to hold true to their past promises.

The only changes since then are an increase in fire & flood danger on the North Bench, a drastic water shortage, increased traffic and noise.

As an argument against NIMBY, we are not opposed to development if done in a conscientious manner. The freeway corridor is ripe for continued housing tracts.

We implore you to stand by your past assurances and protect our rural lifestyle.

Kathy & Bill Sellers
MllPalermo Court
Yucai a Ca.
g"
6 k
W-MV,D AW D 3 Ma
-641-

August 3, 2022
RECEIVED AUG 0 3 2022
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am writing to share my concern and request to reject the tentative Tract No 20375 development.

As a newcomer to this area, my expectations have been surpassed with the hospitality and community that is Yucaipa, especially rural Yucaipa. With my training and practice in the Loma Linda area, I have heard for years from my colleagues about Yucaipa being the 'jewel of the Inland Empire", and this has been my experience so far and this is why I feel compelled to write this letter.

While I was not notified by any official correspondenoe, I recently became aware of the project to build Tract No 20375. While housing and growth are concerns of the city, maintaining fhe culture and atmosphere should at least be equally protected. Developing lots that are less than one acre does not reflect on the atmosphere and culture of the rural North Bench area of Yucaipa. By constructing as planned, this will create drastic changes to the area. These drastic and negative changes will affect the atmosphere, culture, population, traffic, and envirorimentjust to name a few. Maintaining current standards and building single family homes on t acre lots at a minimum and as currently zoned would continue to help build on the legacy that has already been established.

While the developer wants to develop this way for their profitability, it is not the city's respbnsibility to approve this radical change based on their desire for larger profit margins, By allowing the developer's to change the zoning with this "special provision" will allow for future development and additional negative change to the rural area of Yucaipa. I agree with my neighbors in asking for the city to stand up for its residents and hold the developer accountable to what is established in this area. With the city holding the developer accountable, they can come up with ways to maintain'.

1. At minimum one acres lots

2. Single story "custom homes"

3. Reduced and minimal street lighting to preserve the rural atmosphere of the area

4. Traffic safety preservation

5. Environmental Preservation through energy independence and water requirements that don't restrict existing residents.

Please don't allow this project to happsnl Please don't be the leaders who allowed "our" rural community to dramatically change. Please stand up forwhy residents and outsiders love this community and preserve what has been created. The city has a responsibility to its existing residents. We are asking that you disapprove this development that would dramatically change our community. We ask you to hold on to your responsibility in preserving the culture and atmosphere of the north bench area of Yucaipa.

Sincerely,
a iel Morgan, DDS, MSD
@OM Fremont St.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
MOOMM"m
-642-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees, According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
-643-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20P5
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The entire area west of the proposed tract 20375 is developed with one acre lots and larger. Area in the foothills north of the tentative tract has large homes with very large iots of five acres or more. All the existing homes in this area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract Parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
s0czrel '
RECEIVED AUG 0 q 2022
�Chad r5 �j �►f e� �r�.mm�
Kom

Aoc— as
, 2022
RE. Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer Is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life, Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. if this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.

Nr7-r afA #
C
-645-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The entire area west of the proposed tract 20V5 is developed with one acre lots and larger. Area in the foothills north of the tentative tract has large homes with very large lots of five acres or more. All the existing homes in this area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer Is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. according to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments. REMVED AUG 0 4 2022 arlle, V
Z�Z,��5,

July 5, 2022
U
RE: Comments an tentative tract no. 20375 RECEIVED AUG
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

If 23 acres is developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less or not. what is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable}'sp�cial pfgision" developments.

G P. 1 cJ L 7' G K t9 1r7
,4 ✓ ,
-647-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375 KMIVED AU-0
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The entire area west of the proposed tract 20325 is developad with one acre lots and larger. Area in the foothills north of the tentative tract has large homes with very large lots of five acres or more. All the existing homes in this area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put: 52 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

The developer states there are" special provisions" in the Yucaipa City regulations that allows reducing the designated minimum one acre lot size planned for this area, to benefit the developer to achieve the desired profit margin.
if 23 acres is developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
1 t� J
Kim:

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the effected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area Is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

The developer states there are" special provisions" in the Yucaipa City regulations that allows reducing the designated minimum one acre lot size planned for this area, to benefit the developer to achieve the desired profit margin,
If 23 acres is developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. if this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
�K- 4 �)A1l*-L Dv�d
RECEIVED AUG 0 4 2022

July 31, 2022
RE: Comment on tentative tract no. 20375
It has recently come to the attention of the existing, long-term residents living in close proximity to the proposed tract development 20375, that the established zoning minimum one acre lots or larger is being overruled in favor of profits to developers siting "special provisions." As a rural community, we relieve the elected officials of our City should protect the unique, small town atmosphere that has drawn residents to this area. The current neighborhood adjacent to the proposed tract 20375 is a minimum lot size of one acre, many with lots up to S acres, with custom and seml- custom homes establishing a unique and peaceful environment for residents looking to reside away from the dense, urban sprawl and crowds. The proposed density of tract 20375 with 51 homes of 14,500 sf lots on 23 acres will adversely impact the rural atmosphere, space and openness that was once considered an important trait of this area.

It has also been proposed that some acreage will be designated for use by a vinery for vineyards. Both the increased housing density and designated property use for business purposes will add significant traffic to rural roads not designed to support heavier traffic patterns, especially in cases of emergency such as fire evacuation which is a serious concern in this neighborhood.

The developer has stated there are "special provisions" in the City regulations that allows reducing the designated minimum one acre lot size planned for this area, however, it has nat been sufficiently established that the "special provisions" are applicable in this situation. Stating a generic State Mandate without providing a population study for this specific area does not provide sufficient proof of need for "special provisions." in addition, it has been suggested that the lot size reduction is motivated by profit and not special circumstances.

Within the meeting minutes the developer has been asked several important questions regarding sewer connections and water, to which the developer had no viable answer. In addition, the developer is stating that residents of the proposed development will need to sign an agreement to not allow horses in this development which is the cornerstone of this area and one of the reasons residents chose this to live here.

This project should only be approved to be developed as minimum one acre lots as the original development plan was laid out by those elected officials who cherished the rural character of our City and in their wisdom made provision to retain that character for future generations.

The existing residents, many who have been living in this area for 20+ years do not want this proposed, radical change to our area and way of life, If this project is approved, it will set a precedent for future developments to seek "special provisions" and destroy the rural character of our City. It is the duty of the City of Yucaipa planning agency to protect the interests of the long-term residents and retain the vision of our City already established by those who have came before them.

Wendy and Allen Derosier
GIP�Ivy Avenue
Yucaipa, CA 92399
RECEIVED AUG 0 4 2022
-650-

July 30, 2022
Re: Tentative Tract No. 20375
Ladies and Gentlemen,
REMVED AUS 0 4 21"22
This letter is to request that the City of Yucaipa reject the tentative Tract No 20375 as currently planned. While the owner has a right to develop the property, the property must be developed in accordance with the intent of the current zoning requirements which is one home on one acre. It is entirely inconsistent with the rural culture of the north bench to place flames on anything less than one acre. The City has a responsibility to the existing residents to preserve the culture and atmosphere of the neighborhood and to disapprove developments that adversely affect the current neighborhood. The homes should be single story, custom built homes consistent with the majority of the homes in the neighborhood and should not be tract homes.

The developer argues that it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots. That 15 not the City's or the neighborhood's problem and is entirely irrelevant. It is not the City's responsibility to provide a profit margin to developers. The responsibility of the City is to represent the people and the vast majority of neighbors are adamantly against the current plan. If there are only 23 developable acres, then there should be not more than 23 homes on that acreage. i previously submitted comments to the city and ask that all of those considerations regarding number of stories, water restrictions, energy independence, stormwater control, open space, housing density, and traffic be taken into account. To the issue of energy and water, we are facing an energy and water crisis. We face roiling blackouts and are being asked to restrict water use as relates to our livestock and properties. If there isn't enough water for the existing residents, then how can the City justify changing zoning laws to allow building with greater housing density? We have lived on the north bench for 22 years and we ask that you respect and listen to the citizens of this community and uphold the intent of zoning laws by requiring the following:
• One acre lots (one home per one acre)
• Single story, custom homes
• Reduced and minimal street lighting to preserve the rural atmosphere of the north bench • Energy independence (net 0 carbon footprint, solar energy) • Demonstrate that the additional water requirements will not lead to additional restrictions on existing residents
• Demonstrate that traffic will not adversely impact neighborhood safety. The Developer may need to install sidewalk throughout the existing neighborhood for traffic safety.

Sincerely,
Robin Miskin
dO Ivy Avenue
Yucaipa, CA 92399
-651-

July 30, 2022
Re: Tentative Tract No. 20375
Ladies and Gentlemen,
RECE;IV) Apt. 0 ,?Z
This letter is to request that the City of Yucaipa reject the tentative Tract No 20375 as currently planned. While the owner has a right to develop the property, the property must be developed in accordance with the intent'of the current zoning requirements which is one home on one acre. It is entirely inconsistent with the rural culture of the north bench to place homes on anything less than one acre. The City has a responsibility to the existing residents to preserve the culture and atmosphere of the neighborhood and to disapprove developments that adversely affect the current neighborhood. The homes should be single story, custom built homes consistent with the majority of the homes in the neighborhood and should not be tract homes.

The developer argues that it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots. That is not the City's or the neighborhood's problem and is entirely irrelevant. It is not the City's responsibility to provide a profit margin to developers. The responsibility of the City is to represent the people and the vast majority of neighbors are adamantly against the current plan. If there are only 23 developable acres, then there should be not more than 7-3 homes on that acreage.

I previously submitted comments to the city and ask that all of those considerations regarding number of stories, water restrictions, energy independence, stormwater control, open space, housing density, and traffic be taken into account. To the issue of energy and water, we are facing an energy and water crisis. We face rolling blackouts and are being asked to restrict water use as relates to our livestock and properties. If there isn't enough water for the existing residents, then how can the City justify changing toning laws to allow building with greater housing density? We have lived an the north bench for 22 years and we ask that you respect and listen to the citizens of this community and uphold the intent of zoning laws by requiring the following:
• One acre lots (one home per one acre)
• Single story, custom homes
• Reduced and minimal street lighting to preserve the rural atmosphere of the north bench • Energy independence (net 0 carbon footprint, solar energy) • Demonstrate that the additional water requirements will not lead to additional restrictions on existing residents
• demonstrate that traffic will not adversely impact neighborhood safety. The Developer may need to ins all sidewalk throughout the existing neighborhood for traffic safety.

Sincerely,
Kevin Miskin
Ivy Avenu
Yucal a CA 92399
-652-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 24375 RECEIVEDAVv a !p 2022 We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
-653-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The entire area west of the proposed tract 20375 is developed with one acre lots and larger. Area in the foothills north of the tentative tract has large homes with very large lots of five acres or more. All the existing homes in this area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed, The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

If 23 acres Is developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots, whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed Is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, It will set a precedent for future undesirable "special pr9yWanIdsulopments.
r M I �aa�m�

I VAR, IN
OR - - NO - I �-N- ! N. - I
A
""E'VED AUG 0 4 2022
-654-

August 2, 2022
Benjamin Matlock
City Planning
RE: Comments on Tentative Tract No, 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atinosphere, space and openness will be Adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf, The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52-acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such sinall lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more, The developer states there are" special provisions" in the Yucaipa City regulations that allows reducing the designated minimum one acre lot size planned for this area, to benefit the developer to achieve the desired profit unargin.

If 23 acres is developable, it should be developed as minimum one -acre lots, whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being; proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of tile drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.

Sincerely,
.Tames lv><. Squire �
Kathleen B. Squire
gpWW Diamond St.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
r
r F5
RECEIVED AUG 4 4 "2
-655-

July 5, 2022
RF: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

If 23 acres is developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less or riot. What is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments. RECEIVED AUS 0 4 2022 F-6 V \ 0, V" a A C
-656-

July 5, 2U22
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375 RIFCE'VCID AUS 0 4 2022 We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf, The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

If 23 acres is developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area,
This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should / have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by sur'prise by0isr} violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as4�b ed, it will set �.precade future undesirable "special provision" developments. ffr Vol,f 9vo 6
Gk
i � q
-657-

City of Yuciapa
Ben Matlock -Planning Manager
Mr. Matlock and City Council,
As you are aware, Premium Land Development is proposing a housing tract on Yucaipa Midge Road, which is currently zoned at one -acre minimum lots. The proposed tract consists of 13,430 to 15,000 square foot lots, with large homes on each lot. The proposal is to build 51 tract homes ❑n approximately 24 acres.

Premium Land Development wants the Yucaipa Planning Commission and the City of Yuciapa to reduce the current lot size to accommodate their needs.

The custom homes surrounding this proposed housing tract are on large lots, as are most homes in the North Bench. Thus, maintaining the rural atmosphere and open space that 1, and the city, are so proud of.

Wr are staunchly opposed to this project, for the following reasons:
a A zoning change allowing small lots is inconsistent with the North Bench neighborhoods, thus creating a negative anomaly and adversely impacting quality of life in the area.
o Other homeowners and my family purchased our homes specifically to not be surrounded by small -lot tract homes, avoiding the dense population and traffic congestion that accompanies such tracts.
a This development would negatively affect the value of surrounding homes as "cookie cutter" tract homes are far less desirable than the current large -lot custom homes.
o Should rezoning be approved it would set a precedence that Yuciapa is now open to cramming tract homes on tiny lots in our rural areas. a The profits of a developer should not outweigh the legitimate concerns of neighboring homeowners.
o our precious open spaces in the North Bench must be protected, rezoning would have a profoundly negative affect on the entire community as we would become just another ugly suburban city.

Yuciapa prides itself on its open spaces while continuing to maintain the charm of semi -rural living. Allowing one developer to build a dense tract of homes in a rural neighborhood is not conducive to the vision of Yucaipa.

Respectfully,

William and Linda Bedford
-659-

August 3, 2022
Benjamin Matlock
City of Yucaipa Planning Dept.
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Dear Mr. Matlock:

RECEIVED AUG 0 B 2022
l am writing to you concerning tentative Tract no. 20735. My wife, Deborah Davidson, wrote you a letter on. July 30 with our shared concerns, and we are in complete agreement.

However, I wish to bring up another concern that l had already raised several years ago at a different hearing for the same property regarding the seismic trench that was dug by the previous owners 12-15 years ago.

The trench was excavated the from the southern -most boundary to the northern -most boundary with the center line of the trench being 90 feet from the east curb of Yucaipa Ridge Road. It was about 15 feet deep and about IS feet wide at the top of the trench. Seismic faults were discovered. But the trench was never properly back filled, compacted, or tested by a soils engineer. It sat open for several years and the piles of spoils on either side of the trench eroded into the trench.

I complained to the city about this because the piles were as high as the houses on Yucaipa Ridge Road. It not only blocked our view, but there were no silt fences or straw wattles in place to stop erosion, so the dirt ran into the street when it rained. It was a potentially dangerous situation for children and pets.

I contacted the owners and complained about this and eventually they came out and started pushing the spoils back into the trench starting at the south boundary. I am told that the City of Yucaipa carve out and made them stop, since this is not the approved way to fill such a trench.

Indeed, you need to separate the large stones, some of which are large boulders, and not just push them into the trench. You also need to compact the smaller rocks and dirt and get a soils engineer to check the compaction as you fill the trench.

The trench still blocked us and our immediate neighbors, and it remained like this for the better part of another year. I then called the owners (at the time) and asked their permission to fill in the trench. I received their permission and we went together and hired a large bulldozer to push the spoils into the trench up to the beginning of the private section of Yucaipa Ridge Road. We should have never had to do this if the City had taken some action to correct the situation.

Now we are told that there will be a Mock fence 33-50 feet from Yucaipa Ridge Road's east curb which is where the parcels will start. If this happens, they will be building roads and houses on top of seismic trench that was never properly filled, compacted, or tested by a soils engineer! How is anyone sure that there won't be subsidence once the build out begins, which may cause cracking in foundations, roads, sidewalks, block walls,...? ••1

I expect to see this concern addressed before arty further movement on approving t1le 7 ntative 'Tract Map, in addition to the marry concerns about lot sire, house density, water pressrue, and traffic that my wife raised.

Please take our concerns seriously. It doesn't seem like any attention has been giveal so far to this potentially dangerous situation, not to mention following proper procedures compacting such a lame, deep trench. in filling and You have been elected to represent Yucaipa's and planned develpublic citizens and to protect the City's open space opment. I don't see how accepting variances that are contrary to the natrtre of the zoning rules in favor of a developer making excessive profits fits the role of #kte f'Iaz>lltUr Department or the Yucaipa City Council Goverttrneat.

Thank you,
rj a-L---
Paul Wohlers
Ytircaipa Ridge Road
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Cc: Raclxael Gusteson, Yucaipa-Calimosa News Mirror Editor -661-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. 1 lie developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

The developer states there are" special provisions" in the Yucaipa City regulations that allows reducing the designated minimum one acre lot size planned for thls area, to benefit the developer to achieve the desired profit margin.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. if this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.

CElVED AUG D 8 2022
-662-

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Mang of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.

IftUrIft
A�
`2
-663-

RECEIVED AU6 D 8 2022
July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City Of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The entire area west of the proposed tract 20375 is developed very argeith �ots of five ne acre acresorlarger.
more All the
thefoothills north of the tentative tract has large home rY existing homes in this area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small
� Jwith an averge of re tentative tract parcels. Some of the developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 5acre the
remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards s it is too expensive a to bu'+ld homesto the +an one reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

The developer states there are" special provisions" for th s area tCity bene itlthe developer t achieve the
llows reducing
the des+gnated minimum one acre lot size planned
desired profit margin.
t dollars
If 23 acres is developable, it should be developed as bminimum a d nary pausing tract w thaut conQe'rn for the are less or not, What is being proposed is nothing but an designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want thhproposed f tpis entire gurrounding e to our area and sho Id f
life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, t people have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
Receive
4a
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf, The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

The developer states there are" special provisions" in the Yucaipa City regulations that allows reducing the designated minimum one acre lot size planned for this area, to benefit the developer to achieve the desired profit margin,
If 2.3 acres is developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
-665-

July 5, 2022
RE., Corn ments on tentative tract no. 20375
9 19
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The entire area west of the proposed tract 20375 is developed with one acre lots and larger, Area in the foothills north of the tentative tract has large homes with very large lots of five acres or more. All the existing homes in this: area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots Is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.

A ,1
f f
I a

July 5, 2022
RE: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the 4967& Yucaipa rural atmosphere. <k2
The entire area west of the proposed tract 20375 is developed with one acre lots and larger. Area In the foothills north of the tentative tract has large homes with very large lots of five acres Ur more. All the existing homes in this area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf, The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says It is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots, Most of us In this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more,
The developer states there are" special provisions" in the Yucaipa City regulations that allows reducing the designated minimum one acre lot size planned for this area, to benefit the developer to achieve the desired profit margin.

If 23 acres ig developable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area,
This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning, if this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
-667-

1ulY 5, 2022
RE.: Comments on tentative tract no. 20375 -
.We believe the elected
Yucai a rur officials of the City of Yucai
p .. al atmosphere, pa should protect the Yucaipa The entire area pa citizens and the foothills north Of the to Of the proposed tract 20375 is develo existin tentative tract has forge homes with peed with One acre g homes in this area are customa lots and larger. Area i bunt, not tract homes y large lots of five acres ar n the The existin prapa5ed more, Ali the
g rural atmosphere, s space
which consists of a p e and openness will be ado
developer pproximatefyp52
a lots erselyimpacted b
per is proposing , as small as 12, 700 sf, with y the proposed tract, rernalnin g t° put 51 lots on 25 acres of the 52 acre tentative t a g acreage Will be average of 14,500 s f, The
reason for such small lots is profit
fit possibly with vine aids and trees,
y rt parcel. Some of the
acre for
even than p afit daHars. The developer According to the developer, neighborhood though the area is planned far per says o t too expensive to build homes the vd have lived one acre fats, Most of us in this o an one here for 20 years or mare.

The developer states they pen space one acre lot
the designated 2 are speClal Provisions,, '
minimum one acre !at size planned for this area, Yucaipa City regIn the
ulations that also
gin. benefit the developerallows reducing
If 23 acres is developable, to achieve the
are less a rat it should be devela
What is heir ped as minimum One acre lots; designated g proposed is nothing but an or ,whether the prat dollars Planning established for the ordinary rY housing tract without concern For the This rural atmosphere
neighborhood class
life. Because of the drastic change not want this
have been ratified Of this g of acreage proposed radical change to our Proposed per lot, the people of this entire Burro area and Way of Violation of established area 1annJ project,
raJeCt fan undin
p y of us were not notified g area should
future undesirable "special n' If this project is and caught b Provision approved as proposed, it will set asurprise by this developments, precedent For

June 14, 2022
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa CA, 92399
Attn: Planning Dept
Benjamin Matlock
Re.: APN 0320-161-08,09,28
Tent Tract 20375 Case # PL20200000136
Case # 20-1361PDP1TTM20375
Premium Land Development
Proposed residential project on east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, between Crystal and Quartz Streets.

Dear Mr. Matlock:

Thank you for sending the Tentative Tract Map for my review on this project. You stated in your email, that you do not have the Conditions of Approval prepared at this time, so some of my comments may be addressed in the COA, but I will list them for your consideration. I wrote to you a year ago when a similar Tract No. 14297 was proposed and most of the items mentioned for that map have not been addressed or revised on this map, so they remain a concern.

I live on Yucaipa Ridge Road and the access to my property is affected by this project.

I have a concern with the following:
the RW dedication proposed on the northerly end of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

Additional dedication should continue to the north property line from the proposed cul-de-sac, following our current road alignment at a width of _.....__
40-
60' as the 30 offer along the property line is not adequate for future improvements due to topography constraints plus it would not tie into existing roads.
the 30' width of RIN proposed on Yucaipa Midge Road between Quartz St. and the proposed cul-de-sac. There is an existing 20 foot USFS access easement on the west side of this project's property line. However, there is no potential for that to be widened to a 30' RW due to the existing house on the NW corner of Yucaipa Ridge Road and Quartz St. and complete build out of Tract 10204 adjacent. It is also unreasonable to believe that the USFS would ever improve or allow the west half of the road to be improved. I would request that the proposed easterly RW of Yucaipa Ridge Road be widened to a minimum of 40', but preferably 50-60', along this project's west property line up to the proposed cul-de-sac. Appropriate pavement widening and berms should also be constructed to match this wider RW. This is consistent with the existing 40' half width RVV that was done for Yucaipa Ridge Road (formerly Zircon St.) in the original Tract 10204.
1 11
•••

• that Yucaipa Ridge Road, up to the Northerly cul-de-sac will be part of the City Maintained Road system. Please confirm,
the drainage course that falls under the proposed cul-de-sac at the north end of Yucaipa Ridge Road. This needs to be improved with an adequate culvert under the proposed road with appropriate erosion protection downstream and upstream,
the proposed lot sizes, In general, I am supportive of density transfers for protection of open space. However, this property was zoned 1 acre lots and the subdivision to the West is 1 acre lots. The adjacent property to the north is zoned 40 acre parcels and my property to the northwest is zoned 2.5 acre parcels. The applicant is requesting a reduction in lot size to 12,000 sf. using the Planned Development guidelines. They are also requesting age restrictions on some of the lots. This is not an infill project downtown. This is a rural area. This small lot size seems extreme and not in harmony with the neighborhood. A more reasonable size would be 20,000 sf min. if a PD is approved. Planning standards would suggest that the proposed small lot sizes next to rural lots who are able to have horses and other animals are not compatible. • To my knowledge sewers have not been brought to this area. According to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, 'h acre is the minimum lot size that can even be considered for septic systems in new development.

Is the developer bringing in sewer?
The lot labeled Remainder parcel has the potential to be sold and re subdivided, allowing for more than the 1 DU per 1 acre zoning on the total 52 acre site. The Tentative Map is already using the density allotment transfer from the entire site including the remainder parcel. It is odd that the developer would not have identified the Remainder Parcel pad as Lot 52 with their small proposed lot size and the remaining property as a Lettered Lot instead of "Conceptual Future Pad" request that a condition be added to identify on the Composite Development Plan that the Remainder Parcel cannot be subdivided. A lettered lot identifies a lot as one that cannot be subdivided. Perhaps a lettered lot was not used because there is some consideration for this lot to be used for vineyards and wine tasting. If this is the proposal, then is the applicant proposing a commercial venture at the pad location? If vineyards with wine tasting or similar commercial use is proposed for this lot, then that is even more reason to have Yucaipa Ridge Road constructed to full width of 60 feet in front of the identified "remainder parcel" since there will be additional traffic not even considered in the subdivision review.
• If vineyards are proposed what is the maintenance guarantee for such vineyards?
-670-

• with the area for our trash bins near the proposed northerly cul-de-sac. We want to advise the developer that we will continue to need access to those bins for us, our neighbors and Yucaipa Disposal. If the developer needs to relocate them, then the location needs to be reviewed by us and possibly Yucaipa Disposal.

Thank you for considering my comments. I have attached a map showing some of the items that I mentioned in my letter. I have requested a copy of the Conditions of Approval and I would also like a copy of the YVWD will serve letters prior to any meetings. I reserve the right to bring up additional items as more information is provided. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Patricia Ingram
&94M Yucaipa Ridge Road
Yucaipa, CA 92399
3 -671-

August 12, 2022
Re: Comments on Tentative tract no. 20375
Case No. 20-136/PDPITTM 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The entire area west of the proposed tract 20375 is developed with one acre lots and larger.

Area in the foothills north of the tentative tract has large homes with very large lots of five acres or more. All the existing homes in this area are custom built, not tract homes as proposed.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,00 sf, with an average of 14,500sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees.(NO GUARANTEE) According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profitability. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more.

The developer states there are "special provisions" in the Yucaipa City regulations that allows reducing the minimum one acre lot size planned for this area, to benefit the developer to achieve the desired profit margin.

If 23 acres is developeable, it should be developed as minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of the established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provisions" developments
Safetv NOTE: As stated by the developer, this development will increase the traffic on Yucaipa Ridge Road, through the existing neighborhood, Juniper ave to Bryant, by 400 trips a day from these 51 homes, That is a massive amount of vehicles traveling an area that has no infrastructure to handle it. I have serious safety concerns for current residents who live and walk these routes as rural pathways. I urge the Yucaipa Planning Commission to see this development as not was is best for the citizens of Yucaipa and to adhere to the Commission's visions of the past to keep the area 1 home 1 acre.

JWhn and Annette Carlo
-672-

July 5, 2022
RE, Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 23 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The develop r says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots; even though the area Is planned for one acre I ts. Most of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years pr more.

The developer states there are" spa r provision in the Yuaalpa City regulations that allows reducing the designated minim . m one acre lot size, pJgAd for this area, to benefit the developer to achieve the desired profit margin. ��Ca
�i�
If 23 acres is developable, it should be develo ( minimum one acre lots; whether the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed is notii��Vg but an ordinary housing tract without concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
-673-

July 5, 2022
RE. Comments on tentative tract no. 20375
We believe the elected officials of the City of Yucaipa should protect the Yucaipa citizens and the Yucaipa rural atmosphere.

The existing rural atmosphere, space and openness will be adversely impacted by the proposed tract, which consists of approximately 51 lots, as small as 12,700 sf, with an average of 14,500 sf. The developer is proposing to put 51 lots on 73 acres of the 52 acre tentative tract parcel. Some of the remaining acreage will be planted possibly with vineyards and trees. According to the developer, the reason for such small lots is profit dollars. The developer says it is too expensive to build homes on one acre lots, even though the area is planned for one acre lots. Mo t of us in this open space one acre lot neighborhood have lived here for 20 years or more. ads:

S' • ��t✓�I lip=>'�
The developer states there are" special provisions" in the Yucai'City regulations that allows reducing 6 the designated minimum one acre lot size planned for this are ; to benefj developer to achieve the desired profit margin.�
I:
1:

If 23 acres Is developable, it should be developed as minimur ' one acre lots; rn tlier the profit dollars are less or not. What is being proposed is nothing but an ordinary housing t�''aFt� 4y .out concern for the designated planning established for the area.

This rural atmosphere neighborhood does not want this proposed radical change to our area and way of life. Because of the drastic change of acreage per lot, the people of this entire surrounding area should have been notified of this proposed project. Many of us were not notified and caught by surprise by this violation of established area planning. If this project is approved as proposed, it will set a precedent for future undesirable "special provision" developments.
-674-

Ben'amin Matlock
From: Jennifer Crawford
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 9:41 AM
To: Benjamin Matlock; Fermin Preciado, P.E.

Subject: Fwd: North Bench project - Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20375 FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Jennifer Crawford
Assistant City Manager / City Clerk
City of Yucaipa
City Hall . 34272 Yucaipa Blvd + Yucaipa, CA 92399
Office: 909-797-2489 Ext, 23fx
r
Begin forwarded message:

From
Date: August 12, 2022 at 1:31:29 PM PDT
To: Ray Casey , Jennifer Crawford
Cc:

Subject. North Bench project - Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20375 Hi Ray, Jennifer,
Happy Friday!
1 understand that the August 17 City Council meeting will discuss the Yucaipa Ridge Development Project and the Planning Agency of the City of Yucaipa determined the development will not have an im act on the environment.

Unfortunately I will be traveling next week and will be unable to attend the meeting. I hope the city council will consider the impact building a significant number of homes (51) on such a small parcel (11 acres) will have on the current residents, the roads, schools, and traffic patterns for those of us that currently live in the area.

Please do not get me wrong, I am all for the growth of our wonderful community. I would like to see homes built on larger parcels of land to help our community continue to have a country and horse property feel. I would not be writing you if the planned construction was for 11 homes on 11 acres as believe that is inllne with what all North Bench residents have come to love about Yucaipa. -675-

I hope the City Council will keep in mind that the residents of Yucaipa rely on them to uphold our high standards by keeping the North Bench beautiful and not turning it into a Fontana or Beaumont, I do hope the City Council will stop the development and Fold future developers accountable for building homes on larger properties
Thank you for your time and have a wonderful weekend,
Sincerely,
Rob
Robert Bly
-676-

Benjamin Matlock
From:

Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2022 9:07 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock, Fermin Preciado, P.F.; Katrina Kunkel Subject: Case # 20-13/PDP/FDPMM 20375 - additional comments Attachments: 8.14.22 letter to city,pdf; 22.06.16 letter to city.pdf; Preliminary COA 20-136 PDP FDP TTM 20375.pdf
Ben, Fermin & Katrina,
I've had a chance to review the Conditions of Approval and have attached some additional comments. I appreciate the extra RW required on Yucaipa Ridge Road, however, it is unclear as to the alignment and width of the RW as it continues to the north. I did not see any corresponding conditions requiring 26' pavement to be within the 40' RW. it appears they are still using the easement pavement for their road. I would appreciate you looking at my comments, especially in relation to the road improvements and see if they might be incorporated.

I've also attached my June letter, just for your reference. I apologize for the length of this letter and I hope you will review it and give it consideration.

Thank you,
Patty
Patricia .Tnaram
MVirus-free.www_avg.com
-677-

8/14/2022
City Of Yucaipa
Planning Dept
Attn.: Ben Matlock
Sent via EMAIL
Re: Case # 20-13/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Yucaipa Ridge Road 51 SFR lots
Mr. Matlock,
Thank you for sending over the Conditions of Approval, Without a corresponding updated Tentative Tract Map it is difficult to follow some of the conditions and review changes. Unfortunately, I will be out of town for the Planning Commission Meeting on August 17, 2022. Therefor, I would appreciate you providing the Planning Commissioners and Council Members a copy of this letter as well as the June 141h letter I sent, also attached.

You will hear from many about the incompatibility of this project with the neighborhood.

I bring to your attention three main Goals from the Yucaipa General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element:

Goals and Policies — Yucaipa General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element HN-1.6 Neighborhood Identify. Recognize, preserve, and enhance neighborhood character through adherence to design, development, and other standards in the municipal code, overlay districts, and specific plans
HN-2.4 North Bench and Wildwood Canyon. Require new residential development in the North Bench and Wfidwood Canyon to be consistent with the rural character of those areas and ensure that they provide high -quality housing opportunities that leverage the unique setting of those areas.

HIV-3.6 Compatibility. Require that residential development and rehabilitation projects are compatible with the character of their neighborhood, comply with municipal code standards, and follow appropriate site planning and project design practices.

This project meets none of these goals.

In reviewing the Conditions of Approval and the original Map sent to me by your department in June, 2022 the major concerns I still have include:
* The RW width and alignment of Yucaipa Ridge Road RW north of guartz street.

As the existing road leaves the west boundary, this should extend to 50 foot wide RW minimum with slope rights and follow the current pavement alignment. • The pavement width of Yucaipa Rid a Road between Quartz Street and the ro osed cull de sac to the north. This should meet the fire department minimum of at least 25 feet of paving (Condition 28) within the developer's 40 feet of half width RW. The TTM cross section needs to be changed to reflect the RW and road widths in conditions.

What is the status of the Remainder Lot? This is unclear in Conditions and no updated map. It is not clear if this is a commercial lot, residential lot or Open Space.
• This design is not compatible with the surrounding lot sizes. it should remain 1 acre lots as zoned. This is the most northerly portion of Yucaipa with 1 acre lots immediately to the west and south, with 2.5 acres minimum lots to the north west and immediately adjacent to the north are 40 acre minimum lots. 12,000 sf lots with the required improvements such as sidewalks, curb and gutter do not blend in with the surrounding properties.

Other concerns and questions relate directly to specific conditions of approval. I will attempt to convey these questions noting the Conditions of Approval Number.

1. This states there will be 51 single family lots and "various planning areas". Those planning areas are unclear without a map to reference, Are age restricted lots providing developer with a density bonus? If not why have them, if so, how much bonus? What about the remainder parcel its use & restrictions?

2. 1 believe the minimum lot size should be 1 acre as zoned

5. Conditions of Approval for YVWD not provided for review. This is important as this area is all on septic and the impact of the construction of sewer to the neighborhood could be critical to know. The existing houses are also in a low water pressure area.

9. The geology trenches that were made 15-20 years ago were never backfilled and the existing terrain should be reviewed for problems that may need to be fixed as these trenches appear dangerous.
15, The lots as proposed do not meet the code for large animals

18. This note regarding "no further subdivision" should be on the CDP- What about the remainder parcel?
-679-

19. What has the project proponent identified as use and trips for the Remainder Parcel, Agricultural and open space areas? There have been many versions of the use of the open space and agricultural lots presented to the community.

23. Road width — Yucaipa Ridge Road between Quartz Street and the cul de sac should be 26' wide within the 40' half width RW. The easement adjacent to the west line is not adequate for public use. The street cross section should be updated.

42. Slope Rights need to be included on Yucaipa Ridge (toad to North boundary

70. Are there off site interests that need to be acquired?

72. Where Yucaipa Ridge (toad leaves the Westerly property line, north of Quartz St. the RW should be widened to 50 feet minimum plus slope easements. Suggested new condition:

72. A forty foot (40') grant of easement is required to provide a half width right -of way of 40 feet on Yucaipa Ridge Road and extend to fifty ( 50) feet wide minimum from the proposed cul de sac north of Quartz Street to the North Property line. The 50 foot minimum RW shall be centered on and follow the existing pavement alignment and extend Northwesterly to the North and West property line.

73. Please clarify if 28 feet of pavement is for the portion north of Quartz street.

Without an updated map showing the street cross sections this is unclear. The improvement level for this area does not include sidewalks normally. Due to the extremely small size of these lots, concrete improvements eliminate the rural life style of the area. (see goals above)

90. Is the Remainder lot a lettered lot now?

95. Does the developer get a density bonus for the age restricted lots? If so, how much? Why would you consider this in a rural area?
I knave this is a lengthy letter and I appreciate the time you have taken to review it. I hope there are suggestions and comments that will be taken into consideration.

Sincerely,
Patricia Ingram
3 ',Jd1�0m
x1n
City of Yucaipa
Ben Matlock -Planning Manager E�1�
Mr. Matlock and City Council,
As you are aware, Premium land development is proposing a housing tract on Yucaipa Ridge Road, which is currently zoned at one -acre minimum lots.

Premium Land Development wants the Yucaipa Planning Commission and the City of Yucaipa to reduce the current lot size to accommodate their financial wants.

The homes surrounding this proposed housing tract are on large lots of one acre or greater, as are most homes in the North Bench. I am staunchly opposed to this rezoning the North Bench, for the following reasons:
o A zoning change allowing tiny lots is inconsistent with the North Bench neighborhoods, thus creating a negative anomaly and adversely impacting quality of life in the area.
o The profits of a developer and landowner should not outweigh the legitimate concerns of neighboring homeowners. The land was knowingly purchased as one -acre minimum lots and that's how it must stay.
o The rural living of the North Bench must be protected, once projects such as this are approved it sets a precedence that the zoning guidelines in Yucaipa are easily manipulated to the financial advantage of developers.
o Developers can still make great profits building homes on the currently zoned lot size.

The City of Yucaipa prides itself on its preserving its rural charm and thoughtful growth, we need to uphold the zoning ordinances as they stand.

Respectfully.

t aIVOM
-30
�d10
City of Yucaapa
Ben Matlock
Planning Manager ti7 �14 s b]
Mr. Matlock and City Council.

As you are awfIre Premium Laud Development is proposing; a housing tract on Yucaipa Ridgc Read, which is currently zoned at one -acre minimum lots. The proposed tract consists of 13,430 to 15,000 square foot lots. with large homes on each lot. The proposal is to build 51 tract homes on approximately 24 acres.

Premium Land Development wants tite Yucaipa Planning
Commission and the City of Yuciipa to reduce the current lot size to accommodate their needs.

The custom (tomes surrounding this proposed housing tract are on large lots, as tire most ltomcs in the North Bcnch, Thus, maintaining the rural atmosphere wid open space that we, and the city, arc: so proud of.

I am staunchly opposed to this project, for the following reasons:
a To change zoning allowing snttrll lots would bo
inconsistent with the North Bench neibhborltoocis, thus creating a negative anomaly.
o Otlie r homeowners and I purchased our homes
specifically so not be surrounded by sntall-lot tract homes and tltc dansc population that accornpunics such tracts. o This development would negatively affect the value. of surrounding homes as "cookie cutter" tract homes are far less desirable than the current large -lot custom homes, a Should rezoning be approved it would set a prcccdcncc that Yuciapa is Row open to crantniiitg tract horttcs on tiny lots in our rural areas.
o There arc plenty of properties available for track homes in Yucaapa, currently zoned for such tracts.
o Our precious open spaces in the North Bench must be
protected, rezoning would have a profoundly negative
affect oil the entire community as we would become just anothcr ugly suburban city.

The Yuciapa I know pridcs itself on its open spaces while continuing to maintain the charttt of semi -rural living. Allowing one developer to build a Genie tract Of 11OLtleS to a rural neighborhood is not conducive to the vision of Yucaipa as I [snow it to be.

Thallk you for your tints.

vrjivonA
:J❑
A110
City of Vticiapa
Ben Matlock
Planning Manager
Mr. Matlock and City Coulicil, LJ�1111� a lb
As you are aware Premium Lund Development is proposing a housing tract on Yucaipa Ridge road, which is currently zoned at one -acre ininimum lots. The proposed tract consists of 13,430 to 1 5,000 sclttare foot lots, with large homes on each lot. The proposal is to build 51 tract homes on approximately 34 acres.
i
Premium Land Development wants the Yucaipa Planning
Commission and the City of Yuciapa to rcdtice the ctirrenl lot size (0 accommodate their needs.

The custom Ironies surrounding this proposed housing tract are on large lots, as are most homes in the North Bench. Thus, maintaining the rum[ titniosphere and open space that we. and the city, tiro so proud ot:

I am staunchly qpposcd to this project, for the fallowing rcnsans:
o To change zoning aliowin.MIMI lots would be
inconsistent with the North Bench neighborhoods, thus
crcaling a negative anomaly.
a Other homeowners and I purchased our homes
specifically wo not he surrounded by small -lot tract homes and the dcnsc population that accompanies such tracts.
o This development would negatively atycct the value. of surrounding homes as "cookie cutter" tract hontcs are far lesq desirable than the current large -lot custom homes. o Should rezoning be approval it would set a precedence that Yuciapa is now open to cramming tract ltonles art
tiny lots in our rural areas.
o Therc are plenty of propertics available for track homes in Yuciapa, currently zoned rot' such tracts.
o Our precious open S mccs in tite North Bench Must be
protected, rezoning would have a profoundly negative
affect on the entire community as we would become just
another ugly suburban city.

Tile Yuciapa I know prides itself on its open spaces while continuing to maintain the clttirm of semi-nual living. Allowing one developer to build a dense tract of homes in a rural neighborhood is not conduclvo to the vitii011 of YucaiVtt 215 1 know it to be.

Thank you for your time,
r- , V\ -e C' z_ 2_

vcfiklo 11a,
JO
Al 10
City ofYuciaptt
Ben Matlock
Planning Manager
Mr. Matlock and City Council, �tAI�Ot
As yofl are aware Premium Land Dcveinpntunt is proposing a housing tract ou Yucaipa Ridge Road, which is currently zoned at one -acre minimum lots. The proposed tract consists of 13,430 to 15,000 square foot lots, with large homes on cac:h lot. The proposal is to build 51 tract hanks on approximately 34 acres.

Prerri turn Land Development wants the Yucaipa Planning Commission and the City of Yuciapa to reduce the current lot size to accommodate their needs.

The custom homes surrounding this proposed housing tract are on large lots, as are most homes in the North Bench. Thus, maintaining the rural atmosphere and open space that we, and the city, are so proud of.
1 am staunchly opposcd to this project, For the following reasons:
a To change zoning allowing small lot% would be
inconsistent with the North Bench neighborhoods, thus
creating a negative anomaly.
a other hoaneawners and 1 purchased our homes
specifically so not be surrounded by small -lot tract It IMS a11)d the dense population that acconlpanlcS Sikh tracts. a This development would negativcly nf%i:ct the value of 4tlrrouttding ltotttes as "cookie c utter `tract homes >are far less desirable than the current large -lot custom humcs. a Should rezoning be approved it .would set a precedcnce that Yuciapa is now open to cramming tract homes on
tiny lots in our rural areas.
o There :arc plenty of properties available for track homes in Yuciapa, currently zoned for such tracts.
a Our pticious open spaces in (lie North Bench mast be
protected, rezoning would have it profoundly negative
at'fcet on the entire community as we would become just another ugly suburban city.

The Yuciapa I know prides itself on its open spaces while continuing to maintain the charm of semi -rural living. allowing one developer to build a dense tract of homes in a rLM-11 neighborhood is not conducive to the vision of Yucaipa as 1 lcatow it to bc.

Thank you fur your tinier
"!�--?- -2-
.:-

v6ivj n.k
10 A110
City of Yuciapa J�IAHOI_sb
Jaen Matlock
Planning; Manager
Mr. Matlock and City Council,
As you fire aware Premiwn Land Development is proposing a housing; Irict on Yucaipa Ridge Road, which is currently zoned at one -acre minimum lots. The proposed tract consists of 13,430 to 15,000squarc foot lots, with large honhcs on caclh lot. The proposal is to build 5 1 tract homes on approximately 24 acres.

Premium Land Development wants tite Yucaipa Planning
Commission and tile: City of Yuciapa to reduce the current lot size to accommodate their nccds.

The ctistom ltnmcs surrounding this proposed housing tract arc oil lasg;c lots, as arc most homes in the North Benclh. Thus, maintaining the rural atmosphere and open space that we, and the city, are so prOLid of
i am staunchly opposed to this project, for 111e following; reasons:
o To change zoning allowing small lots would be
inconsistent with the North Bench neighborhoods, thus
ch-cating a negative anomaly.
o other Iromeowners and I purchased our lhonhes
specifically so not be surrounded by small-Iot tract themes -Ind the (icnsc population that accompanies such tracts. o This development would negatively affect the value of surrounding homes as "cookie cutter`* tract homes are far lesti desirable than the current large -lot custom horncs. o Should rezoning be approved it would set a precedence that Yuciapa is no.%v opcn to cramming tract homes on
tiny lots in our rural tcrcas.
o Therc tu-c plenty of properties available for track homes in Yuciapa, currently zoned for such tracts.
o Our precious often spaces in tile North Bench must be protected, rezoning would ImVe a profoundly negative
affect on the entire community as we would Wconhc just
another ugly suburban city.

The Yuciapa I know prides itself on its open spaces while continuing to maintain the, charm of semi -rural living. Allowing one develaper to build a dense tract of homes in a rural neighborhood is not conducive to the vision of Yucaipa We I know it to he.

Thank you for your time,
4 � � L)
1�
.:

vd vom
do
Allo
City of Yuciapa
Ben Matlock
Planning Manager
Mr. Matlock and City COLUIcil, (33Al.i OBb
As you are aware Prenvtttn Land Development is proposing a housing tract on Yucaipa Ridge Road, which is currently zoned at nice -acre minimum lots. The proposed tract consists oi' 13.430 to 15,000 square foot lots, with large homes on each lot. The proposal is to build 51 tract homcs on approximately 24 acres.

Premium Land Development wants the Yucaipa Planning
Commission and the City of Yttciapa to I'cduce tllc current lot size to nccommodate their needs.

The custom homcs surrounding this proposed housing tract acre on large lots, as are most homes ill the North Bench. Thus, maintaining the rural atmosphere and opera space that we, and the city, arc so proud of.

I am staunchly opposed to this project, for the following; reasons:
o To change zoning; a►Ilowing small lots woWd be
ittconsistcnt with the North Bench neighborhoods. thus
creating a negative anomaly.
o Other homeowners and l purchased our homes
specifically so not be surrounded by small -lot tract homes and the dense population that accornpttrtiies such tracts. o This development would negatively affect the value of surrounding; homcs as "cookie cutter" tract homes are far less desirable thatti tits current large -lot custom homcs. o Should rezoning be approved it would set a precedence that Yuciapa is now open to cramming tract homes on
tiny loti in our rural areas.
* There are plenty of properties available for track Monies in Yuciapa, currently Toned for such tracts.
a Our precious open spaces in the North Bench must be
protected, rezoning would have a profoundly negative
affect on tlic entire corm unity as we would become just another ugly suburban city.

The Yuciapa I know prides itself on its open spaces while continuing to maintain the charm of scmimrur"sl living. Allowing one developer to build a dense tract of homes in a rural neighborhood is not conducive to the vision of Yucaipa as I know it to be.

Thank you for your time, 0 a.

Liz r (-I e V) P42
E

t,1 v&vo ),
AO
k• /W o
City of Yuciapa ?ZU' ,,c 3 qnv
Ben Matlock
Planning Manager
Mr. Matlock and City Council, ��AI3�31J
As you are aware Premium Land Development is proposing a housing tract on Yucaipa Midge Road, which is currently zoned at one -acre tnininium lots. The proposed tract consists of 13,430 to 15,000 square foot lots, with large homes on each lot. The proposal is to build 51 tract homes on approximately 24 acres.

PreniiUm Land Development wants the Yucaipa Plantiinb
Commission and the City of Yuciapa to reduce the current lot size to accommodate their needs.

The custom homes sturounding this proposed housing tract are on large lots, as are most homes in the North Bench. Thus, maintaining the rural atmosphere and open space that %ve, and the city, are so proud of
l all, staunchly opposed to this project, for the following reasons:
o To change zoning allowing small lots would be
inconsistent with the North Bench neighborhoods, thug
creuting a negative anomaly.
a Other homeowners and 1 purchased Our homes
specifically so not be surrounded by small -lot tract kttam4y and the dense population that accompanies such tracts.
o This development would negatively affect the value of surrottn(linb homes as "coolie cutter' tract home; are rar less desirable than the current large -lot custom homes. o Should rezoning be approved it would set a precedence [lint Yuciapa is now open to cramming tract horses on
tiny lots in our rural areas.
o Thcrc are plenty of properties available for tracts !tomes in Yuciapa, currently zoned for such tracts.
a Our precious open spaces in the North Bench must be
protected, rezoning would have a profoundly negative
fitfect on the entire community as we would become just another ugly suburban city.

The Yuciapa I know prides itself on its Open spacofi while conthniing to maintain the charm of semi -rural living. Allowing one developor to build a douse tract of lionies in a rural neighborhood is not conducive to the vision of Yucaipa as I know it to be.

Thank you for your time,
r
-687-

,118kvjp)�,
:10
um)
, t,51, 9 t 13M
Vic bu:k�,.*u Aw 6f-rter4 OffivA., CJ i of • --i:4 Pj pri"T,,CT lhl'Cit..-cm Ind 1`11-7 1w, oil I], mf .I wt,� I, os ! 11v
0h1:'J Wl!'I 1.11W JIJ�' '111),Illd Urgui. Aw-i lit Ow
ve fNa", I.: rkv ,v I I I$ Y4. ry 4Jqo I oh A I iw, oe.r47l; pit 111 rpf'!. n;l Ir I, R 11(i I I IV t ,I IN 41 (,3 Jf I, I i p rojA;,,41j
CX,j;jjjIgfLI1.51 MW411pht-'t, Lira cwm-�neis wul h�-swer-.0i HiPaccad 11tij -01e* P,CsrAlfxl vwt, L-Arf.11 r(lif I cif XrPFOK,,Mmely ;. a4 iri,,i IT n L2.70C V. witty wl aw(.ipv of I -1.y00 St 7h4,. to lilt M Oti L?n avai -it thcr 72 ae,.'r? w%n)t1,.ru tract parcel, L.'Ovle% cif 1w a pL- v,;. Pi ant P.C.* "oss o vo ., h y.n,!,v -t-Lk anal tfms. Aimrd,ng to thu Uelett!GPF-f. ;1-1 ,Ql=uch fmW ;Ct5 'L p(ort 71"f. ',.;5 to build !vmuus ununc, ICLs� Ln*Ugb the MFF'-, % f,,,- wn amy lots. 1ACIT of its iv JA5 Open Spacp we iioe 'IA 1-vLj tw(r. fcr 2C vs C.? lr.,7r!(',
devclopm autei, there af-f, cAipa City rfRd,jliuni tij,3t the desiamrapil rran-Linum onu z,rLe ICL 11:e fcr !H1 've.), "0 n-u-J-1it the j,-ve1OP4!r W. W.HeA, the dcsircd profit margin
If 22 acres is dev,000,Wt. �t Jiou'd c-e n, eNjejj-.jr;j Grjd ucre itt,s: wjetl.v the r fit dd; r P u Pi r er r
;eweIm or It,)!. Wn;§, 'S b,.;n,- -}V*Tllng bUt 3 1 c, &narV -ii�u5ind ',rad w'heutrom t, for Elie plan-}itl� e5taodZfifwd !tNF —14 PLi6a
lit., wra: zl.rncEp!-�Pf-P ace_ nc- want tn°g radical c-lungma TOOur irta and w.V Df life, lit-ear,=t cif ,hu ---jange :-I atre.age _,Cr toL, ;gopld o? :h;i i�rftt� suirourdirig area sho;IJJ have bf..Cr ,Ot�jj;, wop d of 1,,�j 5 . -,sdLrj D-C.:qcl, MF.-sv M us WCTC ri,;. !j0'jfjCd �!-LJJ Z.ILIR'IT by WM;;Q by this vi");atirin 0, i5 4,7prnyad 11 it w+ 2Lt a prautdon-, !Of fuum wmlmirzfSR, -wk,.:.�{ de-,*zcprr-,P-r5.

Fell. H.,

RECEIVED AUG 2 5 2022
23 August 2022
Yucaipa Planning Commission
In Reference to the proposed Serrano Estates PL20200000136 Attending the planning commission meeting on August 17 was quite enlightening. All those that attended now understand how the developer and owner plan to circumvent the present zoning and history in the North Bench.

While the neighborhood most directly impacted by this proposed development would be willing to support a modified development in this area, but as it stands this is not the development we would support.

We now understand the desire of the AVA committee to "enhance our north bench with vineyards". We, however, have great reservations as to their proposed 50150 split idea, "hough the developers might seem "hesitant", it contains a loophole they can use to their benefit. Take for instance this proposed development. Because of the restrictions inherent to this lot of land, no developer would be able to build 52 homes on it.

Earthquake faults and drainage issues would prohibit supporting that number of homes.

They could reasonably build about 30 homes, a number the neighborhood might support, with modifications for traffic flow. However, with the 50150 plan, these builders can take all of the unbuildable areas, call them "vineyard" and gain another 20 homes.

This is not a good trade off. You may gain some vineyards but you could probably work that out anyway. Done the 50150 way the property will be overbuilt and the community will not support it. The state of CA may like high density housing but it is anathema to the North Bench.

The North Bench currently has custom homes along with a few small custom developments. All were laid out on a minimum of one acre. Many, if not most, are on considerably more than an acre. None have been graded into flat lots. We build our homes ever mindful of the existing natural slope. It is why you don't see homes lined up against the streets. If there is a hill, we leave it and build around it or on top of it. Our streets don't lay out in the usual grid arrangement. It is part of the rural lifestyle to live with the land. It is one of the reasons you do not see a lot of grass in front of our homes.

The State of Ca must be delighted when they consider our water usage here in the North Bench. Very little grass is being watered. We support a lot of drought tolerant natural flora in this neighborhood_ We also support a lot of horses, cattle, goats, chickens, peacocks, and much more. We also grow a lot of our own food. Vineyards are welcome. High -density housing is not. This 50150 arrangement can't be the only way to encourage developers to include vineyards in our area. If "cluster housing" is the only way to get vineyards, the cost is too high. It defeats the whole point of the North Bench.

There are many objections to "cluster housing". Let's discuss one; water usage. If you put one family on one acre, (since they usually don't put in lawns up here), with a family of 4-8 you are talking a modest amount of water, If you put 4 families, who aren't rural, (will likely want grass), you will have at minimum, 4 times the water usage. Because their houses are so close together, their only greenery will be a lawn. On the other

hand, if you put 2 homes, instead of the proposed 4, you have reduced your water use by half already. Many people are eager to move to the North Bench, many don't have the "front lawn mentality" and because they know they can have a small family flock of chickens they are happy. These people will find a welcoming community of like-minded people. You probably will still have your vineyard, open space, and lots of houses, just not in a high -density arrangement.

As planned, this development plans to grade the natural slope into small cookie cutter lots that will sit right next to the street. They will look just like developments all over Yucaipa_ There is nothing wrong with those developments, they are very nice. But, they don't look like those in the North Bench_ We have always had a very different way of living up here. The city has always supported that lifestyle. You have always told us, unequivocally, that the North Bench would stay the way it is. Now, the city seems to be saying, "yes but we would like vineyards up there". Well, we say ok to the vineyards, just not to the current proposed "cluster of too many homes on too few acres". In this particular case please cluster the number of homes the property was originally scheduled to support, 30.

As for the traffic flow; this proposal as designed is for 400 vehicles per day down streets that currently get 5-15 cars a day. We feel 400 vehicles a day is the kind of traffic you see on a major city thoroughfare. Perhaps that seems reasonable to some, but certainly not to us_ One of the re ns we purchased our homes here, have lived in them for 20- 30 years (the average or our are ecause we are NOT on a major thoroughfare.

Such a change woul seem #o and a major community meeting before it could be approved
Hansen Wa '�
35150 Q a St.

Yucaipa, A 92399
-690-

23 August 2022
Yucaipa Planning Commission RECEIVED AUG 2 5 7�1"
In Reference to the proposed Serrano Estates PL20200000136 Attending the planning commission meeting on August 17 was quite enlightening. All those that attended now understand how the developer and owner plan to circumvent the present zoning and history in the North Bench.

We now understand the desire of the AVA committee to "enhance our north bench with vineyards". We, however, have great reservations as to their proposed 50150 split idea.

Though the developers might seem "hesitant", it contains a loophole they can use to their benefit. Take for instance this proposed development. Because of the restrictions inherent to this lot of land, no developer would be able to build 52 homes on it.

Earthquake faults and drainage issues would prohibit supporting that number of homes.

This is not a good trade off. You may gain some vineyards but you could provably work that out anyway_ Done the 50150 way the property will be overbuilt and the community will not support it_ The state of CA may like high density housing but it is anathema to the North Bench.

The North Bench currently has custom homes along with a few small custom developments. All were laid out on a minimum of one acre. Many, if not most, are on considerably more than an acre. None have been graded into flat lots. We build our homes ever mindful of the existing natural slope. It is why you don't see homes lined up against the streets_ If there is a hill, we leave it and build around it or on top of it. Our streets don't lay out in the usual grid arrangement. It is part of the rural lifestyle to live with the land. It is one of the reasons you do not see a lot of grass in front of our homes.

The State of Ca must be delighted when they consider our water usage here in the North Bench. Very little grass is being watered. We support a lot of drought tolerant natural flora in this neighborhood. We also support a lot of horses, cattle, goats, chickens, peacocks, and much more. We also grow a lot of our own food. Vineyards are welcome. High -density housing is not_ This 50150 arrangement can't be the only way to encourage developers to include vineyards in our area. If "cluster housing" is the only way to get vineyards, the cost is too high_ It defeats the whole point of the North Bench.

There are many objections to "cluster housing"_ Let's discuss one; water usage. If you put one family on one acre, (since they usually don't put in lawns up here), with a family of 4-8 you are talking a modest amount of water. If you put 4 families, who aren't rural, (will likely want grass), you will have at minimum, 4 times the water usage. Because their houses are so close together, their only greenery will be a lawn. On the other -691-

As planned, this development plans to grade the natural slope into small cookie cutter lots that will sit right next to the street. They will look just like developments all over Yucaipa. There is nothing wrong with those developments, they are very nice. But, they don't look like those in the North Bench. We have always had a very different way of living up here. The city has always supported that lifestyle. You have always told us, unequivocally, that the North Bench would stay the way it is. Now, the city seems to be saying, "yes but we would like vineyards up there". Well, we say ok to the vineyards, just not to the current proposed "cluster of too many homes on too few acres". In this particular case please cluster the number of homes the property was originally scheduled to support, 30.

As for the traffic flow; this proposal as designed is for 400 vehicles per day down streets that currently get 5-15 cars a day. We feel 400 vehicles a day is the kind of traffic you see on a major city thoroughfare. Perhaps that seems reasonable to some, but certainly not to us. One of the reasons we purchased our homes here, have lived in them for 20- 30 years (the average for our area) is because we are NOT on a major thoroughfare.

Such a change would seem to demand a major community meeting before it could be approved
Colleen Wang
351.50 Quartz St.
.�
Yucaipa, CA 92399
-692-

PETITION TO YUCAIPA CITY COUNCIL
375
Subject of Petition: Serrano Estates Residential �evela meat -Case No. 21-T3 PDP TTM20 As a business owner, I encourage the City Council to approve the Serrano Estates housing project that is located just south of North Cork Winery and recognize that the project fills a community need. The City has taken significant steps to enhance the economic climate of the City, which has been exacerbated by competing markets, a lack of community anchor, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The Serrano Estates Residential Development will only further the City's efforts to strengthen the local economy as well as bring in new residents. We also support all development related to the new wine industry on the North Bench.

Business Name
Phone Number
Business Address
Signature
Y •
. I-rfo `47 1fzD1�
el `a'
`? 7G,
011
++.
vej
Y
h4'[�
a Cl) I ! li'- 5 V
305 Z 5 -/L ck1 �Lva
J}
L��l lf1 � .Y fi� � 4�(.�r
� !,. � �jl �•s �S(11 1` 14'(� �x
b
Woo
1 1
i4 �O
-693-

Exhibit I
1 Real Estate Masters Group (909) 908-1772
31604 Yucaipa &vd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
2 La Mexicana (909) 794-3029
31608 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
3 The Foundation Fitness and (760) 408-4986
Therapy Center
31776 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
4 Crown of Life Church (909) 747-2244
31785 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
5 Gateway Tires (909) 794-9497
31504 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
6 G&M Smog (909) 918-0518
32525 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
7 The Goat Smoke & Vape (619) 451-9109
32801 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
8 Aragundi Insurance (951) 300-6864
32999 Yucaipa Blvd. Suite 120, Yucaipa, CA 92399
9 Juan's Super Polio (909) 918-0150
32999 Yucaipa Blvd. Suite 112, Yucaipa, CA 92399
10 YucaBoba (909) 554-0028
32999 Yucaipa Blvd. Suite 102, Yucaipa, CA 92399
11 Leslie's Pool Supplies (909) 797-6660
33527 Yucaipa Blvd. Suite C1., Yucaipa, CA 92399
12 Crown Ace Hardware (909) 797-1166
12157 5th St., Yucaipa, CA 92399
13 155a Vibe Smoke Shop (909) 490-6117
34636 County Line Rd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
14 15.
16 17
18 19
20 r..

PETITION TO YUCAIPA CITY COUNCIL
Subject of Petition: Serrano Estates Residential Development —Case No. 21-I36}PDPITTM20375 As a business owner, I encourage the City Council to approve the Serrano Estates housing project that is located just south of North Cork Winery and recognize that the project fills a community need. The City has taken significant steps to enhance the economic climate of the City, which has been exacerbated by competing markets, a lack of community anchor, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The Serrano Estates Residential Development will only further the City's efforts to strengthen the local economy as well as bring in new residents. We also support all development related to the new wine industry on the North Bench_
Business Name
Phone Number
Business Address
Si nature
pc {

7.kYU C",: ��
I I Lxl ct 8 1
" r S
dal6CV
q 2- a�nLCCAQ1,J
4hh Gt a. E
(qh-q ?q 2—T5011Iti
D �21` 2
-
(wlE
9 - 7?1-6c73
7 Z Of1cCl-riyRP
0 --- 2q 7-- OZ
0 ?
b k
iL5
LOt1
(�P
Gu
1"N-
g0L'8
&1A -
&�W&L-J
3 VIA
-695-

Exhibit 2
1 State Farm Insurance
(909) 794-7707
31321 Outer Hwy 10, Yucaipa, CA 92399
2 7-Eleven
(909) 684-0896
32487 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
3 Shodhan Dentistry
(909) 797-5999
32819 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
4 Las Tortas Mexican Food
(909) 253-4608
32999 Yucaipa Blvd. Suite 115, Yucaipa, CA 92399
5 Manna Donuts
(909) 797-5301
32999 Yucaipa Blvd. Suite 101, Yucaipa, CA 92399
6 Danny's Pizza
(909) 790-0025
33089 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
7 Max Muscle Nutrition
(909) 797-6673
33492 Oak Glen Rd. Suite D, Yucaipa, CA 92399
8 Koritas Tires
(9C9) 797-0289
34996 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
9 Baja Tires and Wheels
(909) 797-6767
35018 Acacia Ave. Suite A, Yucaipa, CA 92399
10 Customized Accounting and Tax
Service
(909) 790-636❑
35067 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399
11 RE/MAX Advantage
(909) 801-4048
33733 Yucaipa Blvd Suite 11, Yucaipa, CA 92399
12 John McMillan
(909) 674-6144
35272 Ave D, Yucaipa, CA 92399
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
•1•

CITY OF YUCA,IP,A PLANI";ENG DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June07, 2022
CASE N-UA?IBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-1361FDPiT7K 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Prcjecc, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, sevtral lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 arms along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road: APN(s): 032016108-0 320l6 L09;032018 L28; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You arc invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlack at (909) 797-2439, e.\t. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this fatm and trail it to the address above along with a ;elf addressed, stamped envrlope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period pf ten (L0) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMIMEIVTS (If you need additional space, Iease attach additional pages):
{'�VCAt)e-
`� �~ ° j� O� • �/tlG�� ca u 3cl U V,%,0-rG A, C. Pin .

SIGNAT DATE ! � +' AGENCY
PRVT NA:4£F cue, 6'r 5,Y) ADDRES ✓! C 1c L4 +t 5g
IF YOU CHAL.LENOE ANY L)E.CISION REGAOINO THE ABOVE PROPOSAL iN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RASED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELWERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT. OR PRIOR TO,17iE TIME IT !YLa ES rfS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU Ok SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED TK05E ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR. IN WR rTEN C0KMSPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE. KEI ARINQ BODY AT. OR, PMOR TO. THE HF_�_% +IG.

DUE TO TIME CONSTKANTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS R'15HING TO GCYE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC DARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISE[ TO MAKE YOUR, COMMZ 1ffS CN WRfnNCr TO ASSURE THAT YOU AUABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire -Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-697-

CTTV OF YUCAIPA PLMNNENG DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE Nk"I. LAMER: PL20200000136
APP%ICANT: Premium band Developrnent an behalf of Yucaipa 32, LLC PROPOSaC: Case No, 20-I36/?DPlTTM 20375; A Planned Developmcrzt project that includes a Preliminary .DevelopmentPlan and Tentative Tracr&fap (MI20373ypinal DevefopmetrtPlan for the proaosod 5ecrrrto Estates Prnjec; which will estabiish 31 Singla Fami[y Residdrttiai lots on parcels greater than 12,000Proposed square feet, several
letter lots far water quality basins, and a 27-acre remaiuder lot that would itt eftcludi space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on throe e)isting parcels totaling 5? lures aact, the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road,
LOCATIq\': I ast side at'Ytrrai Ja Rid, Road; AFN(s). 0320161I03,032OL6104;43?013128; ATT)E:NI-ETON PROPER'Ey OWNERS AND R.EVIEWtNG AGENCIES: The development prapnsal listed above has been filed with dre City Planning Division, You are invited to comrneat beuzuse your ear p ry is near the proposed prgjecr, Your Cornmenra mwt be received by tWj; ofFica no later Shan dune au a You2. ProP8Cornents received _ after this date raight not be considered in dte decision. Please refer to rltis than uti�y the applicant's name and case number indicated above, If you hsve no comment, no reply is necessary, If you Iravc any questions regarding this propose], please contact Seojarrtin 1vfatlook at (909) 797-2499 eNt. 261. You may sand your comracots to the City ofyucaipaPlaming TDiv;sion, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, 4r via FA3C to 009) 740-9203, Ifyou want to be notified ofthe project decision, priatyourname oldwly and legibly lad rrsail it ra the address above along wiCi1 a self-addressed, stamped em.atopc. All decisions aon this Eorrn re subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is raken.

CONMENTS (If you need additional spaca, please attach additions] pages):

SIQNATUi$E ry DATis_ l6E Cy _
PR�fT' NAME ADD
IF YOU C.1!AZLFIGE ANY DECISION REGARt)I'NG TrFE COURT ABOVE PROPOSAI,�COURT YOU WAY BE LIMITED TO RALStTrG ONLY TY;pSE ISSUES Y4G p 34tvifsONE FGL,SE QED V WXr_.FN GORRESPONUEN ; DELC1 UD Tp T,E PI.rW] ItiwlG CJIVISt03J wT OR?RI4R TO, ZZIE TiDiJ IT hi, ,g M "C(SIOK ON THE PROpOSAT- oR,:iF .k PUULIC REAR, 0 IS HILL) ON THE YOU PriOFsQ$tL YOU OR 500.8071E ELSE M.CIST HAVE RAISEZ THOSE ISSUES AT 7." PUBLIC HET.( jNo OEt IN WRITTE,4 COCE DELNER.8D To T-, iE HEARP(G 9oDY AT. OR. PREOILTO, TL 61E4Att+'G.

OUIr 7p 'IMEE COtvSTR l!N iS dQfa THE NUM9 R OF PERSONS WLSttI[VG TO CrIVE ORAL. TESTINX0*lY, TSwIE RESTjtLCl'[ONS KALY BE PLACEP ON ORAL TEST>ht4i+rY AT A,YY PUtN BLIC Hi—z Q ABOUT T'RIS PROPOSAL., YOU . WISH TO 4L�Ks YQUR C0M FNT S IN WRr1WGTD ASSIM THAT YoU .10.E A$LE TO EX?RgSS YMMELF A0EQUAIT-LY. cc- Surrornrdinv Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Warcr District
Fire•DCPArt mnt
Engineering Division
suilding & Safety Division
•s:

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLAN'N- -G DMSION
PROTECT NgTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE YIi141:BER. PL20100000136
APPLMANT' Prcmiurn Land Development an behalf ofYucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case NO, 20•061PDMTW 20375! A Planned Development pmjecr that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20373)/Final Developmea Plea for the proposed Serrano Estates Projee; which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lays aq paresis greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality, basins, artd a 37-acre rcmaindar lot that would inctuda space for vineyards as wall as 13 acres of permanent open space, lacated an three eustin; parcels totaling S2 acres alang the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Read.

LOCATION: EastsfdeofYucaipa .JdvRoad; AFN(s)s032016108;017016109,0720t&13$; -kTTXNTr0N PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWMG AGENCES: TIe development proposal listed above has been filed witi] the City Plonaina Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by tks office no laser than ]ups 21, 2021 Connnents received after this dare might not W considered in the decision. Please referto this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. Lfyou hAvq, no content, no reply is pecestary, if you have any questions regarding this prapbsal, please contact 13eajariun Matlactti at (909j'747-24$9 ext 361: You-may'send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning DiVKFion, 34272 I'ucaipa u(evard "Yp siipal C?L 92399, or vm FAX to (909) 790_02Q3.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name Clearly and legibly on this form and atai[ it to the abavc along wiry a sal£ addretged, sramped cnuelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (101 calendar days after sn action is taknL
COM ENTS (1f you need additional space, please atlach additional paves): 4 LA
DATE' �"��arGEDFCI',
PRDl T rIDD - 1'
IF YOU CH.4UEYGE ANY DECISION R.EC,,4FZR40 TIM ABOVE. I'ROFOSAL EN COURT. yOU M.LY Be LMITW TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OIt SO14i O yE E1S6 RAISED IN.-ylr Mr.N CORRESPONDENCE DELIVEI{EI3 TO THE FLA,YIJQMG I7rvISIO1V AT, 4R PRIOR T0, TIz� 7&Ils IT 4tL�$ rB DESCISION ON THE PRDPQ$;{L OR, IF A FUBISC pE&FjN43 IS HELD ON THS PROPOSAL, YOU Ok S01YMONE ELSE MUST MkVE RAISED Mom ISSUES AT TfM PUBLIC EMAiI G OF, Ih WR 7LN COXAZSPONDENCE DELIVERED TO TIM HEAe� NG, 80D'rAT, OR PRIOR T0, THE HEA G.

DUE TO TD-0 CON'STR,Z4TS AND TIG NUMBER. Or FERsoNs WISHING TO GIVE ORAL Ta;STmiONY, TIME MS"tR.IC 0143 MAY 8E PL4C) L1 ON ORAL T1 STntggNY AT AMX PUBLIC W-ARING ABOUT TIES PROPOSAL YOU M,AY WISH TO MAKE YOUIL CDMtvl1;N7S wRII[NGTO ASSUR!~ TFiAr YOU Ati) LBLE TO E7CPRE35 YOURSELF ADEQUATELY, co: Surrounding Property owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
FirarDepar#alent
Engineeting Division
Building & Safety Iivision
=

CITY 0 P YUCAL'A PLANNLNG DMSION

PROJECT NOTICE
D-kTM Juno 07, 2022
CASE ih VMBER. PU0200000116
kMJC lJ T` Premium raid Uevelupmeat on behilt;'oMuipt S2, LLC PROPWAL: Case No. 20-061PWFITH 20375, A Ptann d Daveloprnent pmjzscr tbst inrludes a Prt[imtnu NYclogmarit plan end Tentatve Tract;Map (TTM 20175YFinad Cleuclnpmera plat fcr the proposed 5erra4o >;sb:tcs Pmjce wltich will etttahilih 51 Sin& Family Residaopal loss oat parcels traattr than 12,000 iqusra feet, lavt ad letrrred lots fnr water quslitY basins, and 4 27-¢era remstlyder lot that would idcludc ipaas far viae W.2 as wall as U ticiai aFpermaticttt open spaca, located on three axis&& patt:ols Otoliag 52 acres along tha east sido of Yucal}sa' Ridge Rol&
LOCATION: Bast sida of Yucaipa Rld.2o lcad' APN s : 012G i6101,0 3014 t09,0320 t 312a; ATTENTION PROVERTY OV4, ERS AND RSXr EWINC AGENCIM Tod dcvelapment Proposal lilted eaove has been filed wtth ft City Plan ogAivisiatt, Ynu art unlit d to rommgnt beca=yaw property is shear tlha proposed prajm YCur cottuneni9 must be mcehred by this afii¢e oo iacr d= Juno 21, 2022. Omments received LAW tlhla dire rnight not be considered bi the decision. Fleece rafer us thls pmject by tha tppllaanc"s n�rne and easy auniber ittdtcerod etba-va Ifyau bi4v no cart a go. l .i .., iF a 6dva' uestiuni ra m tnir P Y '• � Y �Y 4 8� S
prapaetrl, pieaae conimt 8enj4tttirt Matlaak:at.�Q 7 d49 f: ice' You M seed your twattriWa¢s w tho City ai:}r"uealpa Platuilag Division, 3 �2�31rucalQ� �a_ulauaEd, Yn�dl� Cidt,�394, or v1a.,Fe+t� fie (4t79}; TSB-9305.

If You want to be nati$ad of the project decision, print your name cletariy and legibly on WS tiarm and mail it to the zddress abnva along with a self addressed, sL=Ped envelope, AA1 declsians arc. subjact pQ an appeal pefiod of test (10) calendar days aftor an acHatt is taken,
C'OrifMNTS (Ifyou need addtt qrW ipace. pl'-ale att,xch additidis$f, pages):. . 4t "t&freom wov-tJ- bt.;( % C.cvoc Ov wA. ve the, aI ':...

The WAcvvr.btr &f - pl i , "tawt, ivc :a ;, : 4
AL
ry
SIWATU=y _1 [311f .. _. I ROEi�iC7
PfiftW I ,+4tES, aDRESS ,-° �tk LJU
17 VW CKACL WCR ANY DECESION RLECAADING TtM ABOVE MOKSAL N COMT, YOU M.tY BE LZMWM TO LVSENO qraL.Y TI WSE (SSUW YdU OR SOKOKE a4E UiSED R[ WkrCTEN CORISSPON➢ENCS 0KJvMW To *ME Pt IO(NM t Mr ;ON A.T. OR PR10R TO} TIM ME rP MA = rM D$QMQlq ON THE Vp6VSAL OR, ff A PUBLJC iiER�G E Elm ON . IjE p&()p0SAt., yC3U DR SOMEONZ ELSB MUST HAVE ltr, O THOSE L�SUE3 At 7H& PUBLIG' trEAs�[;it} Olt tN wR,cam C0"ZW0NDENCS 0SLNERED TO TH3 EMAMO BOOT AT.Oa PNIOR T0. TH E¢AiLENO.

DUB TO nMr CONSTtF)&M AND TZR Nt moL OF PER',°ONS Wi MqQ TO CtYE OLL L ta=MONY, TW RMFLL l NS KO BE K-ACE33 ON OtLI,L TSTIMOW AS X" "LTC HKAMO ABOUT TW P.RQPMAZ.n -YWJ MAY WESM M KAFLE yOUR CoWt+tBM IN t+Vt3 r *W(j TO M%A19 T KAT YOU AM ABLE TO E7W KWYOU6rSE.V-AOtACx?�TE Y- CC. 5urxotutditt6l*raptrtl' �wne� _ � r _o., ....

YucA4;& Yd)ley Water Di&kt
isina't7G124r't•�arlC rt��:�''�'"'--.:�Aj
64rj0nearl3
SdIdutg & safety Ci wart
-700—

MY OF YUCATPA PLANNI EN•G DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
D.�TE: Luna 07. 2022
CAST- Nti1IBER. Pi20200000136
A.PPLIC,LNT.-.Pt_mium Land Development on behalfo; Yucaipa 32. LLC PRO "OSAL: Cme No, 20-1361ppp,,1TM 20375: A P1wMW Development project that includes a Preliminary Deveropment Plan and Tentative Tract �,fap ('I"l`M 20; 75NFina1 Development Plan for the proposed Sa, raRp Patera Projac which will establish 51 Single Family Lt,sidantial Iots oil parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several letteC:d lots for watiar quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as I3 Beres R permanarat open space, located oa three existing Parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APY(s4:-&•324061+148;9320-L-6-109;0320I & 123; -k'RMNTrOY PROPEM OWNERS AND REVIEWLNG AGENCIES: Tha development proposa! listed above lilts bean filed with the City Plelrtnia� Division. You are invited to epmrnenr because your property, is near the proposed project, Your eatamaats must be received by this ofitce no later than Tuna 31, 30?2. Con=rlts received alter this data might not be considered o the decision. Please refer to this project by the appticint,s name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary, If you have any questions regarftS this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlocit at (949) 797-2439, ext, 261. You may goad your comments to the City Or Yucaipa Planning 1M1ion, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or, via FAX to (949) 794-9343.

If you Want to be notified oftho project decision, print your narne clearly and legibly on this harm and mail it to the address above along with a self-addrMcd, stamped envelope. All decisions ire subject to an appeal period pf ten (10) calendardayx after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (Tryou need additional space, please attach addlciana!" laxim SIGMA
M
PKINITNAME VW1 ;
IF YOU CKALL&NOE At(V DECISION RHQA=DTG TM ABOVE PROPOSAL tN COURT. YOU t4l.+LY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSJlMS YOU Olt SOMMME ELSE BUSED. IN WR1TTENLC0R,4XSP0NDF-'4CE DELIVEAE] TO THE PL, N1N0 17M51ON AT, OR M 1OR TO, THE T•IME.IT l4[.IIS�•. -M DF.C1S19N QN MC:PROPC,9 Ott- 1p A PUBLIC HEAp,I G IS [q= ON nM PROPOSAL YOE; OEL SOL"ZON3 ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED * 55 LRkig wT THZ'PUBLIC HEARMG OR IN WR.MzN CORMSPCiM1 ,iCE ML VECED TO THE KSAZNG BODY At. -Ott' PRIOR TO. THE HE0*G.

DUE TO TIME CONSTR.UNrn ANP THE-%4YMPER OP PERSONS 'ArMHWO TO GLUE CRAI, TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY 8E PLACED Ott ORAL TESTIMONY AT aLTtY [?VeLlC In 1Rit�G ARQVr THIS PROPOSAL YOU riLtY WISEt TTr Y[4rLE YOUR CotatMeM fN WRnWa To ASS'URB T-rATYOU xRE ABEZ TO EXPIESSYOU"ELF ADEQUATELY, cc' Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Vallty Water District
Fire- Department
!~ngirlecring 1']i:vision
Building & Safety Division
-701-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLAINNi;iG DIVISION

PROTECT NOTICE
DATE., ?une 07, 2027
CASE KUNIB ER. PL20100000 L36
A2PLICANT: Premium land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 32, LLC PROPOSAL; Ca3c No, 20-136lPDPIT'i'Ivi 20373; A Planned Development projecr that includes a preliminary Devclopment Flan and Tenraeve Tract Map (TTN12037jg/ 'inal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, wlfich will establish 51 Single Family Resideptiai lots on parcels greater than 12.000 square fe.t, several lettered lots for water quailty basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well M 13 acres of permmricat open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east Side or Yucaipa Ridge R ad,
LOCATIQK: East side of Yucaipa Pidge Road; AFK(s): 03201�a10$;033016109;03341$12$; ATl-ENTION PROPERTY OVV:+IERS AINI) RFV1F, q' ,NG AGENCIES- The development proposal lister[ above has been filed with the City Plar;ar;3Divlsion, You arc invited to comment because your property is near tbt:
proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no lator than June 21, 2022, Corr=erlta received aft thfs date mWit not be considered ire, the decision, Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case numher indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock are (909) 797-2439, ettt. 261, You may send your comments to tiro City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa 13001cvdrd, Yrvaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name Clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self addre$sed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ren (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

CONDIENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages)::
2�
SIGNATURE DA.'fE r4Gf✓Iw'CY
�1 1J
11?JNTNAIL JGht�tL I>�l414 ADDR.Ego" d+�:-�--
IL} YOU C& LLL-fQE ANY DECISION VZGARONG T' M ADO1,Z =POSAL N COUAT, YOU 1i4Y BE LIMUM TO RA:SNG ONLY THOSE LSSUE2 YOU OR SOMZONE ELSE RA44t) lFI WWrTGN COHSt=5PONDet4CE bal WERED To V,E PLA 0flgG DrVtSION Ar. OP, 2RIOR TO. T14E TIME 1T M[AICES M DECISION ON TM PROVO" OR, LF A PUBLIC HEA[t1NG IS HELD ON nM PROPOSAL, YDU OR SOW0%M ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT TFIE PUBLIC ELAN DIG CR IN WRITTEN COX&ESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HF-k LNO BODY AT. OR PRICKYO, TAE HE4RING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS Wi5NM TO GIVE OF ki. TESTDIONY, UME RESTRICTIONS MAY SE PLACED ON ORAL T STWONY AT ANY RMLIC t-t"JNG ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY WISH TO MAZE V0U?L r-0K M%TS IN VJJTNG TO ASSUTLE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO E.TRESS YOURSELF ADEQU- IELY, CC. Surrounding Properly Owners
Yucaipa Valley Eater District
Fire- Department
Bngineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-702-

4gJJJWoss PI. Apt B Yucaipa, CA 92399
August 31, 2022
Yucaipa City Council
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Re: CASE#: 20-136/GPA/POP/TTM 20375
Dear City Council
As a long time resident of the City of Yucaipa I have seen a lot of changes take place, some good, some not so good. I feel the project brought forth by Premium Land Development up on the North Bench will be an asset to the community. Not only in the form of the vineyards but in the beautiful homes in the project. This town needs homes of this quality and price, They will bring in a high quality of persons that this town needs, Let's face it Growth is inevitable you might as well try and control the type of people that move to this town,
The vineyards and the winery already in that area bring in a couple thousand visitors from outside the City who not only spend money at the winery but thousands of dollars at local businesses. More vineyards and the ability to produce other wines will bring in even more visitors. I know the residences up on the North bench don't want to see any housing at all up there and probably don't really want to see vineyards either but as a City Council member it's up to you to make good decisions regrading the growth of this City. You are supposed to have more knowledge and wisdom than the average person. That's why you were selected and voted for. The revenue and tax dollars that these vineyards and buyers of these homes would bring into Yucaipa would be invaluable to the City Fire Department, Police Department, infrastructure and local businesses.

This Project may not be popular with some of Yucaipa but I honestly feel that once those people get use to the homes up there all located in one area and on big lots, not your normal tract housing sizes but 12,000-29,000 sf. Avg. 14,700 sf in the Custom Overlay so they will be extremely nice homes. Granted these are not for Farmers or Ranchers. These are for people who want to live in a nice home in a nice area and get a dog or 2 but they don't want farm animals or yards so big that they have to buy or rent a tractor to take care of it.

Relying on your wisdom,
Respectfully,
! Kre' I }
-703-

i
,4q st 25, 2022
YucaLpa Ckd Co"VLPU/?Lan1AiVLO aOA4vKLSS&Oo,
rz E: -Proposed project- serrawa Fstates
To whOVK Lt � concervu:
l just wavtted to sad that I was prettb excited whem f beard above a project coma cA to YLLac4n that Lwc.Luded vineuards and trails for parses. I have wowed at MPVL� weaWo q venues Lw DMz CjLen and Teru.ecuLa aver the UN rs. There Ls wothLv more appeaLLwe to the eUe thaw roLLLwg hULs and vLneUU lyds and trALLs 1L0,e that Ln TeAA.ecuLa, or even Napa or I>aso R.obLes. ft wouLd bri"no So v:.Luch charru to our GLt�! we are aLreaolo ewjo jLwg the vAnerj that has been ope4 for about a near. we en�o� 004AO up to oar c,Lew for the dQU. f-fow ov+tnzLnq wouLd Lt be to Live avrtonr)st the vLne8ards and have horse propertd and rLde the troLLs or just tcOze avt eveALwe .strOLL. That is what YucaLpa weeds. TK.S Ls nat another Chap min Hdohts wLth houses ovL top of each other. These are Large propertLes that wetcovue ao4nLs avtiol Lush Lavi.dscapLwe.

I hope tKs project nets approved becaLcse Lts evvnavLcLno, sovwetKAq that YuwLpa aLread,� has.....SVKALL town charVu.

ThanOz UO�L,
.4MsovL. ,SvKLtk
:L31" Street
yunEpa
-704-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSA-L: Case No. 20-136/PDPITTM 20373: A Planted Development project that includes a Prelitninary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 31 Single Family Residential lots on parcels 6 cater than 12,000 square feet, several lette,red lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 32 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road,
LOCATION: East side of Yucalpa Ride Road; APN(s): 032016108;032016109;0320 [8 [28; ATTENTrON PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AG>EitiCIIaS: The development proposal listed above has been fled with the City Planning Division- You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022, Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yuoapa planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 90-399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped ertvtlope. .ill decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COibEMENTS (If you need additional space, please artach additional pages):

SIGNAT44 Q?.TE � GFI CY
PRINT NAME 11;00-7 r 4 i ADDRESS _ _ _ J, h S l t iitfQ�{ IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING TIM ABOYE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE UML7ED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE iSSUFS YOU OR SOMEONE rLLSE RALSED IN MU=N COPAESPONDENCS DELNERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, 7142 TIME IT vt arc.ES US DECISION ON TKE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRMEN COR ESPONDENCR DELI'VEFED TO THE HrAPJNC DODY.AT, OR PR]ORTO, THE HSARJN ; DUE TO TDAE CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS 14SHING TO G11'E ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAU YOUR COMMENT$ IN WRITING TO ASSUR£ THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRASS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-705-

CITY OF YUCAIP.A PLANIN NG DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No_ 20-136/PDP/TTivI 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residcmial lou on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lert�red lots for water quality basins, and a27-acre remainder lot that would include spare for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; A.PN(s): 0320[b108;032016109;03201 S 128; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES, The development proposal listed above hers been filed with the City Planning Division, You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022_ Comments received after this data might not be considered is the decision. Please rr;fer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no con7.rrmerit, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 26). You may sand your comments to the City of Yucaipa PiaaMnp Division_' 4272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

COLMNIENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages); SIGNATURE DATE � S 4GENCY
PRINT NAB SFrI ' S DRESS . a
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU 4MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING [ h1;406A—a
ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RALSED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELrVEPRI) TO THE F"NNINC DM;ON AT, OR PRIOR TO, TIi£ TIME IT KkKES 75 DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARJNQ OR IH WR17TF-N COP,R_ESFONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HE.4RNG.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRADM AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS R'iSHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TNME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAY; YOUR: COMMENTS IN WRITINO TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & S afety D ivis io n
-706-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING MVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NON-113ER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-1361PDPf77M 20373, A Planned Development projeet that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Projec,, which will establish 31 Single Family Residential lots on parcels ;neater than 12,000 square feet" several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space Ear vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three e,cistin3 parcels rotalin; 57 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION. East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s)o 0320161081-032016 109;0320 18 128; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEVS'INQ AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited tq comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision_ Please refer to this proje4t by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary_ If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2439, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-920,, If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

CONINIENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE-0
IGNATURE j DATE 'ILAGENCY ,�-j
PRINT NAiV1F. J _ Y1'1t A-D] RES 'Gl �� 1 1 i1? CA
?1Z
T YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDrXG THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO itAr51NG ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE R.ALSED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE P kNNINQ DIVISION AT, OR MOR TO, TIq£ TIMF 17 �LkKF:5 ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEAMNO OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVSREt) TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING, DUE TO TIME CONSTRADgTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS '4USHING TO GnS ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT AM PUBLIC IiEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO ; =-E YOUR COMMENTS N wRITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building& Safety Division
-707-

August 25, 2022
RE: New Yucaipa Development- Serrano Estates
I just wanted to say that I am in favor of this new development in upper Yucaipa. I grew up in Yucaipa and for as long as I remember, people have fought against anything new coming to Yucaipa. And because of this, we don't have the variety of restaurants, stores, and entertainment that other cities have, We end up taking our money and leaving to Redlands or Beaumont. These cities aren't afraid of growth. Bringing in a nice high end housing development will hopefully bring in new families and encourage more businesses to come to Yucaipa.

It would be nice to go down Bryant and see some nice big houses and vineyards taking up the bare hills. I don't feel that traffic will be any different than it is now. 50 homes isn't going to make a difference. People use those streets anyway everyday to go to the mountains, take the back road to Mentone, or go up to Oak Glen for the day. I work up in the mountains and drive that way and back every single day.

Lifelong Yucaipa resident,
Ryan Castro
M:

CITY OF 'YUCAIPA PLANNItiG j WISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER.- PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No, 20-1361PDPlTTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentadve Tract Map (TTM 30375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed. Serrano Estates Project, which will estabUsh 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels ;renter than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent opett space, located on three existing parcels totaling 32 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ride Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 0;2016109;032016109;032018128; .ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed witli the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date mialit not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above, If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, exL 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Roulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this farm and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ren (l0) calendar days after an action is taken.

CONINIENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):

TH& f4ouSe5 r Orif 1KIFO owe CLCCCe Qno 70 HOVe
1�(e reST of 'Td-(e L-0 71W5 C(V10 VWCP-04 5-
SIGNATURE DATECr + �AGEitiC`C
PRINT NIAME PHM-rn Nev Le-Y ADDRESPINAWC IZOSS PL `{UG✓- Pfi C-ig.

IF YOU CI ALLENCE ANY DECISION R.ECAPOING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL tN cOGRT, You MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOM2ONH ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DN1S:QN AT, OR NUOR TO, THE TIME IT IMAKES rf'a DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL. OR, 1F A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU oR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED TH056 ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DI LIVSRED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, Oil PRIOR TO, THE HEAPING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND TFIE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GI'%TE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME R.ESTRlCTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON OPAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC 1TARIN0 ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS Ili WR=G TO ASSUM THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-709-

CITY OF YUCA.IPA. PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATT; rune 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL20100000136
APPLICANTPremium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 32, LLC PROPOSAL; Case No. 20-136/PDP/TPM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)IFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several letter:d lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent ❑pets space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION; East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 032016105;032016109:0320 i 9129; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND RJLVIiEN1`1NC; AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your corments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. if you have any questions regarding this proposat, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 197-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA, 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

COa•In�C NXS (if ou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

F Z) G--a Ma�.1ir5 fit . '► e t0 fXft aju � ,
C o kA n tvc be �It
t.+.+ J%
SIGNATURE DA.TEq � 4kGF CY
PRINT NAME &_17�kU4ADDRESS_ -Il -
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDiNCr THE ABOVE PROPOSAL N COURT. YOU MAY BE LIMITED To R,s.ISINC 1

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELNERED TO THE PLAING DMSION AT, Ok PRIOk TO, THE TIME 1T IMA"S ITS DECISION ON 714E PROPOSAL OR, EF A PUBLIC REARING IS HELD ON THE. PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELBW MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC €1CAR1NO OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO TF'[E KEARINO SOpY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING, DUE TO 7ME CONSTRAiN73 AND THE NUM$ErR, OF PERSONS tt'ISKWQ TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT A -MY PUBLIC REARINO A80UT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO Mk A%E YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-710-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
BATE: June 07, 2022
CASE NUNIB ER. PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, UC PROPOS_41: Case No. 20.136IPDP/rTM 20375; A Planmd Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential locs on pataels greater than 12.000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 5? acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION: East side of Yucaipa Ridge ,Road; APN(s): 032016108;032016109;03201 S 126; ATCENTTON PROPERTY O"ERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES- The developmenc proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision, Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have auy questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlack at (909) 797-2499, est. 261. You may sand your comrnencs to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203, If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and Iegibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addre3sed, stamped covelope. All decisioLls are subject to an appeal perigd of tell (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

CONINIENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional panics):
-� S Sf
FU / % Cyr 7CC�Cr. CrrJciJLC

SIGNATURE A / G - DATE AGENCY
PRINT N�JVIE ADDRESS AjillliW eCLOL5A42EI

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY 'THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE IL+USED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNINO DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, T14E TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE 43IJST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARNG OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HE.4-RiNG, DUE TO TXME CONSTRAOITS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME USTR.IQEONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARJNG ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS N WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire -Department
Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
-%jj-

September 1, 2022
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Attn: City Council
RE: Serrano Estates New Development
TO Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to show my support for the Serrano Estates housing project and vineyards in upper Yucaipa off Yucaipa Ridge Road. I have lived in Yucaipa since 1985.1 have attended Yucaipa schools. All my children have attended Yucaipa schools as well as be involved in all kinds of sports and activities in Yucaipa. We have worked in Yucaipa. We go visit Oak Glen several times a year. We visit the Live Oak Pumpkin Patch every year. We patronize all the restaurants and stores in Yucaipa. We are members of local gyms in Yucaipa. I say all this because in all the years we have been in Yucaipa, we have not been affected by the growth and development happening around our city. As we continue to bring in more residents, we celebrate the new businesses that come to our town and the revenue it creates for our city.

This project has large lot sizes and higher end homes. It will include vineyards to a winery that already exists in the area. It will be nice views for residents and visitors of Oak Glen and the winery. It seems as though that the people opposing this are the same people that don't want any new businesses either, and that forces residents to take their business to other surrounding cities. Growth is inevitable. i support this project and hope that it is strongly considered for our city.

Thank You,
er�Lf- Vz-"/
Wende Smith
Yucaipa Resident
-712-

August 27, 2022
TO: Yucaipa City Council
RE: Serrano Estates Housing and Vineyards
I'm writing to show my support for the new project being proposed to the city in upper Yucaipa. I know there are people complaining about it, but I think this is the kind of project Yucaipa needs. It's a smaller number of homes on large lots and is proposed to have horse trails and vineyards. Not only is that keeping up with the rural feel that Yucaipa has, but it will not be a hunch of houses on top of each other. This project will have vineyards that are very appealing to the landscape. This could also bring some day trippers that are on their way to Oak Glen or the mountains that want to stop by and visit the winery.

I'm happy to see a developer that is still creating a space for horse/animal owners, and they seem to be considering all of the concerns of the residents of this area. I am 100% in favor of this development.

M-4,M-C.

Tim Smith
Schafer Ranch Road, Yucaipa
-713-

August 31, 2022
Yucaipa City Council
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Dear City Council,
I am writing regarding a proposed project I recently learned about from some of my good friends who live in Yucaipa. I don't live in the city, but I have spent a decent amount of time there when visiting with friends. I think this project that is supposed to bring vineyards and new homes to the north side of town is a great idea and can do good things for the city of Yucaipa.

Yucaipa is a beautiful city and has a homey and small town feel to it, and I don't think this project would change any of that. There is vacant land for these homes and vineyards to be built and I don't think that should g❑ to waste. There are not enough homes for people to live in, not just in Yucaipa, but everywhere, This project will put that vacant land to good use by giving people —families —a place to call home, This will increase the city's population, bringing both more customers and more available workers to local businesses.

The vineyards are also a great addition because I believe they are being used for the existing winery in the area and that just provides them with a larger supply to support bringing in more visitors. I have never been to the winery before but after learning of all this, I would love to visit. I'm sure other people from out of town would agree and would love to stop by as well. I think it's a great way to get people from out of town to stop by and support local business on their way through the city. like the fact that it is notjust some big housing project but that there is also so much land dedicated to the vineyards and other open space. I saw a picture of what the finished product is supposed to look like, and it looked beautiful. This seems to be a very promising project and I think it would be very good for Yucaipa's growth.

Thank you,
-714-

Barton Rd ARM Redlands, CA 92373
5eptember9", 2022
Re: Case# 20-136/GPA/PDP/TTM 20375
Dear City Council
I don't live in Yucaipa, but I have very good friends who have been residents of the city for years. And like to think I know the city well. In my opinion I think this project will have a positive impact on the on the City of Yucaipa. Because of the amount of traffic it will bring into the community which should generate more revenue for the city. The projects approval would also complement a local winery because the project will he containing vineyards along the outside walls. Not only would the project help put Yucaipa on the map but as I'm sure you know California is in a housing crisis and more homes need to be developed to compensate for that. This project follows all requirements and guidelines to be approved there is no valid reason this project should project should not be approved.

Thank you,
Anthony Peralta
-715-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE. June 07, 2022
CASE DUMBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT. Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20 136/PI)PITTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary ,Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20373)lFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Projocz, which will establish Si Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for vclater quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder hat that would include space far vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels rotalinQ 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION; East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, APN(s): 032016I08;032016109;03201 B L28; ATTENTION PROPERTY O"E S AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City planning Division, You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments roust be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might net ba considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regardly, this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

COMMENTS (if you treed additional space, please attach additional pages):
o� �is ��ee� ..�L M J>I�J4qej +0 VV� I &�

SIGNATURE DAT GECY
PRINT NAME ADD U7 ,I LA
r
T YCIJ CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL. IN COURT. YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WkITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TtM E IT \AAUS ITS DECISION ON THE PRO?OSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIORTO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMSER OF PERSONS uRSHING TO GI» ORAL, TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARJNC ABOU7 THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAU YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE TI4AT YOU ARE A9LETO EXPRESS YOUR -SELF ADEQUATELY, cc; Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire department
Engineering }'division
Building & Safety Division
C- ! t31�
-716-

CITY OF YUCA.IPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE, June 07, 2022
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000136
APPLICANT: Premium Land Developmew on behalf ofYucaipa 52, LLC PROPOSAL: Case No. 20-1361PDPITTM 20373; A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20373)/f final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 31 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several levered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

LOCATION. East side of Yucaipa Ridge Road; APN(s): 032016108,032016I09;032018128; ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division, You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than June 21, 2022. Comments received after this date might not bo Considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have, no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope.. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (N) calendar days after an action is taken.

CIDIA ENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):

Vow ii-�,Q FL71- fu mb*,� r)CYA , -t-�- W17
r 1f 1� ��" �Q
" k r SIGNA.TURE I DATT: A ENCY Ae xl t
�PRINT NAME Ill `KN ADDRESS �C� � �
T YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU h4AY B !M A -RA 1NG 4 ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WR1T'(EN CORRESPONDENCE B>~L]Vt;RED TO THE PI•A.YN]NG N LIJCA DMSION AT, OR PRIOP TO. '114E TIME ITMAUS ITS
DECISION U THE PIt070SAL, YOU O SOMEONE ELSE 9UST HAVERAISEr) H� E ISSUES AOI T THE PUS Ut A E CF{ AKNG OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR, TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAfNTS ANO T148 NUMBER. OF PERSONS "ISHING TO OI'VE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS r MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS 1RO105AL YOU MAY WISFI TO MAKE + YOUR COMMENTS 1K WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EX?RESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY, 11 cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department
En.9ineering Division
Building & safety Division
-717-

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and 1 am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name H U we) PAY ee
Addres.~ CXIC 3'Sc, Dr''
City, State, Zip CA '
Email address Gt P
-718-

Notice to Yucaipa City Council Member
The proposed housing tract of 51 homes averaging 14,700 square feet over 51 acres, will add open space and acreage totaling more than 20 acres to the North Cork Winery. As a patron of the Winery, I look forward to the various varieties of grapes that will help to expand the selection at this establishment.

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name .S u sA i L• Dy Zz� 1V
Address 4 r — f LSE i?— U/ ELr f �
City, State, Zip111
Email address l
-719-

Preston Todd and his wife have put a lot of time and effort into this business and seeing them with the ability to expand their business with this natural extension of the land that they farm is incredible. Moving the new development of houses to one area to allow the vineyard to grow and expand is a great idea,
New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing For smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Named
Address .?PVr[#
City, State, Zip
Email address
-720-

III Z a- -I -o "� � :1 <� t;� a c.)'�1 `�� I �"�� : y t:):� � :f-] ,�� I'.� sl1l The proposed housing tract of 51 homes averaging 14,700 square feet over 51 acres, will add open space and acreage totaling rnore than 20 acres to the North Cork Winery, As a patron of the Winery, I look forward to the various varieties of grapes that will help to expand the selection at this establishmert.

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Narne c ��
Address '2c (Pa
City, State, Zip zn - C-l1 2::'C T
Email address , fi'k L 4t
-721-

Preston Todd and his wife Have put a lot of time and effort into this business and seeing them with the ability to expand their business with this natural extension of the land that they farm is incredible. Moving the new development of houses to one area to allow the vineyard to grow and expand is a great idea.

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name 1� r�cb tv3
Address Cc -,
City, State, Zip TL, Cr,. CJ 3QQ
Email address
-722-

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base For all of Yucaipa
pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of there_ Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name- Rcrt, e-
Addres (�, �►r
City, State, Zip .-,, VC, Ca
Email address. � �AI.Com
-723-

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring as back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for ail of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Nameyc t1 0 tf(ti C
Address � V/4 /el
City, State, Zip YL(CA %1I- C A- C/ 24c( `i
Email address
-724-

� o iyJ i�y� :11 _i .q;.uJ �J fPr
The proposed housing tract of 51 homes averaging 14,700 square feet over 51 acres, will add open space and acreage totaling more than 20 acres to the North Cork Winery. As a patron of the Winery, i look forward to the various varieties of grapes that will help to expand the selection at this establishment.

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name�'�'
Address
City, State, Zip CkC'flf.

Email address
-725-

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name
Address't'�
City, State, Zip C1av"I A—
r�
Email address
-726-

Notice to Yucaipa City Council Members
The proposed housing tract of 51 homes averaging 14,700 square feet over 51 acres, will add open space and acreage totaling more than 20 acres to the North Cork Winery. As a patron of the Winery, I look forward to the various varieties of grapes that will help to expand the selection at this establishment.

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and ailowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name j /
Address G�a0
City, State. Zip
Email address
-727-

The proposed housing tract of 51 homes averaging 14,700 square feet over 51 acres, will add open space and acreage totaling more than 20 acres to the North Cork Winery_ As a patron of the Winery, I look forward to the various varieties of grapes that will help to expand the selection at this establishment.

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name
Address,~
City, State, Zip
Email address i �,:4n: ,,,��c t. tt` 1 �� (�H
-728-

The proposed housing tract of 51 homes averaging 14,700 square feet over 51 acres, will add open space and acreage totaling more than 20 acres to the North Cork Winery. As a patron of the Winery, I look forward to the various varieties of grapes that will help to expand the selection at this establishment,
Preston Todd and his wife have put a lot of time and effort into this business and seeing them with the ability to expand their business with this natural extension of the land that they farm is incredible. Moving the new development of houses to one area to allow the vineyard to grow and expand is a great idea.

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that 1 am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Addres� �re1 �C', � —L
City, State, Zip m '
Email address
-729-

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of mousing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name �Gzb_f-ti
City, State, Zip
Email address
-730-

The proposed housing tract of 51 homes averaging 14,700 square feet over 51 acres, will add open space and acreage totaling more than 20 acres to the North Cork Winery, As a patron of the Winery, I look forward to the various varieties of grapes that will help to expand the selection at this establishment.

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name
Address 4016 Or
City, State, Zip L ('/t 8�A 3 `2-
Email address
-731-

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs ❑f growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name !l oZ o!"± Ttl. ei-
Address /$ ✓e 1 '
City, State, Zip _Yr/t:Cj'a Q
Email address
-732-

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. Ncrth Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name A l F-6
Address e wer �
City, State, Zipf/GtaT L�11
Email address
-733-

Notice to Yucaip City Council Members
The proposed housing tract of 51 homes averaging 14,700 square feet over 51 acres, will add open space and acreage totaling more than 20 acres to the North Cork Winery. As a patron of the Winery, I look forward to the various varieties of grapes that will help to expand the selection at this establishment.

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa tapes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am {proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone_ Name._ 2f f' Tkae
Address 1-1'e
City, State, Zip Ytl ,r r a"f c f.2.3
Email address
-734-

ull
The proposed housing tract of 51 homes averaging 14,700 square feet over 51 acres, will add open space and acreage totaling more than 20 acres to the North Cork Winery. As a patron of the Winery, I look forward to the various varieties of grapes that will help to expand the selection at this establishment.

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for all of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name-Z A--% 1J
Address
City, State, Zip t% t f 'l 2—,
Email address
-735-

The proposed housing tract of 51 homes averaging 14,700 square feet over 51 acres, will add open space and acreage totaling more than 20 acres to the North Cork Winery. As a patron of the Winery, I look forward to the various varieties of grapes that will help to expand the selection at this establishment,
Preston Tcdd and his wife have put a lot of time and effort into this business and seeing them with the ability to expand their business with this natural extension of the land that they farm is incredible. Moving the new development of houses to one area to allow the vineyard to grow and expand is a great idea.

New growth in the City of Yucaipa is a pleasant sight and this combination of housing with the Vineyards will continue to bring us back to the North Cork Winery and will assist in growing the Customer base for ail of Yucaipa
I pray that the City Council in Yucaipa takes the entire City of Yucaipa, as well as other local Communities into account in approving this project and allowing for smart growth. North Cork Vineyard has thousands of customers, and I am proud to say that I am one of them. Please consider the needs of growth that helps make this area unique for everyone.

Name Alfa I�+-' �11 [ -
Address��C1
City, Stale, Zip UCA 1/111A- (A %�0/
Email address ) 4(
-736-

Yucaipa City CouncilSeptember 12, 2022

Yucaipa City Council
September 12, 2022