Yucaipa City Council
October 24, 2022

Agenda Item No. 18

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 Planner
FOR: City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
SUBJECT: Premium Land Development. Case No 22-121/APP, an appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR/DBA: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use district from RM-10M (Multiple Residential) to RM-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. APNs 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84. (Continued from September 26, 2022)
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 Fallbrook Meadows General Plan Amendment and 200-unit 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
2) Deny the minor General Plan Amendment / Land Use District Change of a property from RM-10M Multiple Residential, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) to the land use designation of RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential); and 3) Deny the Density Bonus Agreement Request and Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 21-085), as it is inconsistent with the Development Code (as the site would not be designed as RM-24); and
4) Adopt the Findings for denial as contained in this Agenda Report; and, 5) Find the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(4) and 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines.
-210-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

If the City Council decides to approve the Project, the following motion is provided:

A) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-41, approving the minor General Plan Amendment / Land Use District Change of a property from RM-10M 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 Density Bonus Agreement Request and 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 F) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and, G) Refer the final site plan, architectural design, and conceptual landscaping review for the proposed Project back the Planning Commission for review and approval.

As part of an approval, the City Council may add any additional conditions to reflect infrastructure/capital improvements to best serve the development. Additionally, the applicant has provided an amended site plan design for consideration, which retains the proposed 200 units that was presented to the Planning Commission but has been modified to incorporate a two-story design intended to address a key area of concern identified by surrounding property owners.

BACKGROUND:

Surrounding Land Uses:

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

Site:

RM-10M (Multiple Residential,
10,000 square foot minimum lot size
IL-1
Existing SFRs to be demolished
North:

RM-10M
IL-1
Single Family and Multi -Family
Residences
South:

RM-10M
IL-1
Single Family Residences
East:

RM-10M
IL-1
Single Family Residences
West:

RM-10M
IL-1
Single Family Residences
-211-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

DISCUSSION:

Location and Setting:

The proposed GPA would change the land use designation of approximately 8.39 gross acres on a property located between 2nd and 3rd Street, and between County Line Road and Avenue H, and is within an area designated as multiple -family residential. As apart of the Project, three (3) residential buildings are proposed to be demolished on the northeastern portion of the site and one (1) residential building to be demolished on the northwestern portion of the Project. As part of the analysis completed for the Initial Study prepared as a part of this Project, these structures were found to have no historical or cultural significance. The site is comprised of several different lots that have been previously disturbed through former residential uses and onsite disking for weed abatement. The lot is relatively flat and generally slopes downward from northeast to southwest towards 3rd Street. A mixture of vacant land, and single- and multiple -family development surround the Project site. The Project has frontage, as well as access along both 2nd Street and 3rd Street.

Calimesa Elementary School is also within the vicinity of the Project site.

Previous Entitlement for Site:

At the Planning Commission meeting of November 7, 2018, the Planning Commission approved Case No. 16-117/CUP/TTM 20031; a Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes and a Conditional Use Permit to develop an approximate 8.6-acre property into a 64-unit detached condominium residential Project. The applicant is now proposing to increase the allowable density at this site with a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and is simultaneously processing a Land Use Compliance review with Architectural review and a Density Bonus Agreement.

Planning Commission Hearings for GPA:

The proposed Project was initially presented and discussed at the regular Planning Commission hearing on August 3, 2022, with public comments provided during that hearing. However, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to further consider the comments received and to allow the entire Commission to discuss and ultimately vote on the item. The item was brought back -212-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

to the August 17d, 2022, meeting for the Commission's deliberation. The key elements that were explored during the meeting and provided as part of the Public Hearing pertained to the overall traffic and parking demand that would occur following the development of the Project, the overall height of the apartments, and the appropriateness of a General Plan Amendment in this area. A summary of the key elements identified are as follows:

Parking Capacity and Traffic: Comments by the Planning Commission explored if the proposed parking for the Project were sufficient for 200 units. Concerns by the public were raised that the available spaces would not be sufficient for the number of units and bedrooms, and that parking would therefore overflow into the surrounding neighborhood. It should be noted that the site does exceed the parking requirements for this type of residential project.

Further concerns from the public were related to the traffic that would be generated with the Project, with comments about the existing conditions at Calimesa Elementary School and the potential that this project could further exacerbate these issues. The Project has been designed with an entry and exit on 2nd Street and 3`d Street, and it could be assumed that the residents would choose to exit to 3`d Street during peak hours for Calimesa Elementary School to avoid the traffic generated by the school.

The Project's assigned traffic analysis zone (TAZ) of 29.7 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per day falls below the City baseline VMT jurisdiction of 30.7 VMT per day and therefore satisfies the City's established screening criteria for Projects located within low VMT areas and would provide housing for families that are within walking distance to school. While Level of Service (LOS) Impacts are no longer a criterion for significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) technical study has been prepared to address project -related impacts at the adjoining intersections to ensure smooth vehicular movement along 2nd Street and Third Street. The traffic analysis took into consideration the two roundabouts that are to be completed at 2nd Street and County Line Road, and the intersection of 3`d Street and Countyline Road, which are currently under construction. It found that with the installation of these improvements, the traffic conditions would be at a Level of Service C or better.

Height of Multi -Story Structures: A key element discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting was the proposed height of the three-story buildings, with specific concerns over privacy, neighborhood compatibility and viewsheds. The three-story structures are proposed to be 42 feet in height, and the comments provided during the hearing noted that many of the homes in the surrounding area are currently single story. It should be noted that this area is currently designated as a Multiple Family Residential Land Use District, and the surrounding lots could construct a 35- foot-tall residence as a ministerial action.

Although the Development Code does not protect viewsheds, this General Plan Amendment will require greater setbacks than the existing land use designation as the RM-24 Land Use District requires a minimum front setback of 35 feet and a minimum side setback of 20 feet intended to reduce the impact of the multi -story structures from adjoining streets. The Project meets and exceeds the setbacks required for the RM-24 Land Use District, and the site has been designed to minimize the visual impact and privacy concerns for neighboring properties by locating the three- story structures to the interior of the site, and includes an enhanced perimeter landscaping (trees) in order to further "soften" any impact. The Planning Commission suggested that perhaps an -213-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

additional focus to provide more two-story structures in lieu of the three-story structures would help to better address the compatibility concerns.

Appropriateness of a General Plan Amendment. Through the Planning Commission, concerns were raised over the appropriateness of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and efforts to change to what had previously been planned by the General Plan. The proposed GPA would permit the net increase of 120 dwelling units compared to a project built at the density permitted in the RM-IOM Land Use District with a similar affordability component. The City of Yucaipa utilizes a "one map system" in which the General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Categories are the same and combined onto one map, though the land use classification of multi -family residential would remain with or without the approval of the GPA, and no other sites are proposed to be rezoned with this Project. It should additionally be noted that the General Plan is meant to be a "Living Document," and may be altered when appropriate and when the findings can be made in support of a GPA.

However, the proposed change is a policy decision that is to be weighed through the Planning Commission and City Council and requires approval of the all the findings listed in Section

83.020110 of the Yucaipa Development Code. As part of the deliberation, the Planning Commission noted that there has been a considerable increase in land use applications that propose the rezoning of sites to increase the net residential density of an area, and that other areas, such as corridors and similar areas with increased resources and connectivity to those resources, would be more appropriate to accommodate these larger projects than such sites that are within the interior of a residential block.

During the prior meeting, the project representative, Craig Heaps, committed to providing further improvements to the surrounding area including providing sidewalk from the Project to County Line Road along 3rd Street, and further from the project site to the cross walk along 2nd Street to provide additional safety and as an additional amenity provided for the community. As such a Condition has been added to the Project as follows:
"Developer shall construct sidewalk along 2"d Street from the proposed development to the existing crosswalk located at Tara Lane to the north. Developer shall construct sidewalk along 3rd Street from proposed development to County Line Road.

Improvements at County Line Road shall be designed to accommodate the proposed roundabout improvements currently under construction by the City. " During the meeting, the Planning Commission weighed the public comments that were presented, as well as the key issues as part of their deliberation leading up to a motion to deny the Project. The Planning Commission noted that the proposed design provides a new and attractive apartment development for the City, but that such General Plan Amendments that locate higher density projects within the interior of a residential block was not appropriate, and that they could not meet the requisite findings for approval based on this site's location and characteristics, citing specifically the findings listed under Section 83.020110(a), (b), (c) and (d).

As a result of the Planning Commission's recommendation 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. Following the appeal, the applicant's team has worked through site design alternatives to minimize the compatibility concerns of the proposed density with respect to the surrounding development. A conceptual site design has -214-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-0 8 5/GPA/LUCR)

been provided that incorporates a two-story project design, and while it retains a comparable layout to the versions reviewed by the Planning Commission, minor features such as the building footprint, bedroom unit counts, and landscape buffers have been modified to accommodate the floor reduction.

Project Design and Description:

General Plan Amendment:

The Project applicant has submitted a minor General Plan Amendment application to change the land use designation of four parcels totaling approximately 8.39 acres from the City's Multiple Residential (RM-1 OM) Land Use Designation to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) Land Use Designation. The proposed RM Land Use Designation would permit residential development to be constructed at a higher density than what is currently permitted under the designation RM-IOM.

The Land Use District change would meet the minimum district size of five (5) gross acres as specified by the Development Code and concurrent with the GPA, the Project application includes a Land Use Compliance Review, Architectural Review, and a Density Bonus Agreement to permit a 200-unit privately gated apartment complex.

Pursuant to the City's development review procedures, the proposed minor General Plan Amendment is a policy decision to be considered by the City Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, and certain Findings, as provided under Section 83.020110 of the Yucaipa Development Code, must be made to approve a change in the Land Use District Designation. The relevant section reads as follows:

Prior to approving or recommending approval of a General Plan land use district change, the Planning Agency shall find that the following are true:
(a) The proposed land use district change is in the public interest, there will be a community benefit, and other existing and permitted uses will not be compromised. (b) The proposed land use district change is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and will provide a reasonable and logical extension of the existing land use pattern in the surrounding area.
(c) The proposed land use district change does not conflict with provisions of this Code or any applicable Specific Plan.
(d) The proposed land use district change will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property.
(e) The proposed land use district change has been referred to the public water purveyor, and pursuant to Governmental Code Section 65958.1, an adequate water supply exists or is planned that will serve the proposed project.

The Planning Commission weighed the testimony provided during the hearing, voted to deny the Project based on their inability to meet all the required findings. -215-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

Land Use Compliance Review:

A residential entitlement (Land Use Compliance Review) has been submitted concurrent with the General Plan Amendment and has been designed to comply with the proposed Land Use District requirements and consists of the development of a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment Project on the four (4) subject parcels. As a part of the development, the demolition of four (4) existing single-family residential dwellings would be required, and a Lot Merger would be processed to consolidate the parcels into one lot. The Land Use Compliance Review application implements the multi -family residential development component of the Project as required by the City's Development Code.

As noted previously, following the Planning Commission's denial of the project, the applicant has developed an alternative site layout to accommodate a two-story building design in lieu of the three- story design that was presented. Both versions are identified below for comparison.

Site Design from Planning Commission Hearing_
The proposed design consists of eight (8) 3-story apartment buildings and one (1) 1-story apartment building. The Project's floor plans would consist of fifty (50) one -bedroom units (650 sq. ft.), one hundred (100) two -bedroom units (890 sq. ft.) and fifty (50) three -bedroom units (973 sq. ft.).

Aerial Rendering
Circulation:

The Project would consist of arranging of eight (8) 3-story apartment buildings, one (1) 1-story apartment building, and a club house aligned linearly in a row with entrances and exits along 2nd Street and 3rd Street. The aisle has been designed to provide twenty-six (26) feet of drive aisle, which would facilitate two-way traffic with adjacent pull -in parking and to provide adequate Fire Department accessibility. The Site also includes an exit only drive lane that provides additional access onto 2nd Street. The site features an internal walking path that would provide pedestrian connectivity to the recreational features provided in the development. In addition, the proposed -216-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

Project would complete the street improvements along the Project frontages of 2nd street and 3rd Street, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and matchup paving, and would also include any necessary gutter transitions to the adjacent properties.

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. The overall drainage of the site utilizes the proposed grading to convey the movement of run-off water towards a proposed landscaped detention basin located at the western portion of the site abutting 3rd Street.

Amenities:

Private amenities to serve the residents of the development are provided as part of the Project.

Common areas proposed for the Project include two (2) tot lot play areas, a fenced -in dog park, picnic areas, open space and common area landscaping, private internal sidewalks, a club house, a pool and guest parking within the private street network. Each residential unit is also provided with a private yard. The development also includes a landscaped drainage detention basin that will maintain the historic drainage flows.

Clubhouse Front Elevation

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE : Yf!-- V-0
-217-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

S.I"RUCRIRE AND BBQ STRUCTURE- AND BBQ
Amenity Locations
Architecture:

The applicant had submitted an architectural design package for the proposed three-story project and had requested approval of the architecture as required in the Conditions of Approval. There are ten (10) total buildings proposed including eight (8) three-story buildings as well as two single story buildings including a single -story residential building (Building No. 9) and a clubhouse. The three- story buildings feature a 41.5' max height with the one-story buildings featuring an approximately 18' peak height. Each building is designed with a Spanish architectural influence and will include "Capistrano" clay tile roofs, curved arch ways, balconies, and clay pipe vents. Stucco siding in "Meadowbrook" will be the primary wall material with band accents towards the tile roof in "Chateau Brown" with either an accent "Santa Fe" stucco or a stone veneer wall. Variable roofing elements are included to increase articulation and roof design. The Project site includes a one-story building to act as an entry point to the site along 2nd street, with the taller 3-story buildings located internally to the Project to reduce the building mass along the right-of-way.

Conceptual landscaping is also provided for the Planning Commission's review, and shows the approximate location and types of shrubs, groundcover, and trees to be planted onsite. The landscape palette includes a mixture of drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and ground cover, which will be reviewed as a Condition of Approval by the City's Contract Landscape Architect to verify consistency with the City administrative design guidelines and to ensure that the palette will best perform in Yucaipa's climate zone. In addition, the landscape plans are conditioned to be in conformance with the City's Water Conservation requirements, which will be substantiated during the plan check process.
tl� 177,7
Front Elevation, Buildings 1-8
-218-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

Alternative Site Design:

As noted previously, a key area of concern from both the surrounding neighbors and the Planning Commission was the introduction of three-story structures within the interior of an existing residential block, which would have the potential to substantially highlight the differences between the land use densities. As a result, the applicant has provided a conceptual site plan that facilitates a two-story Project. This site plan is a preliminary layout and, as such, the grading details and building design elements still need to be further developed. If the City Council is supportive of the redesign, the site plan and architecture review process should be referred back the Planning Commission to ensure that these plans are thoroughly reviewed. However, the overall configuration appears feasible, and the following provides a list of key differences between the previously reviewed plan and the alternative site design.

The proposed design maintains 9 detached apartment buildings, with all of them consisting of a 2- story design. The Project's floor plans have been modified to have 88 one -bedroom units (650+ sq. ft.), one hundred and eight (108) two -bedroom units (1,062 sq. ft.) and four (3) three -bedroom units (1,309 sq. ft.).

Circulation:

The amended site design follows a similar circulation layout to the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission, with the same locations provided for the entrances and exits. The only notable change is 24-foot-wide drive aisles in lieu of 26 feet, which was necessary to accommodate the larger footprint of a two-story structure.

Drainage.

The amended site design follows a similar drainage design of the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission.

Amenities:

The amended site design provides the same amenities as the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission.

Architecture:
-219-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

Architectural plans have not been developed following this new site layout. The applicant notes that they intend to provide a similar architectural style to the version previously presented, although a formal architectural review application will be required for review and approval by the Planning Commission.

Consistency with the General Plan and Development Code:

The proposed Project consists of 200 units on approximately 8.39 acres. The proposed Project has the following characteristics:

COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL

CRITERIA

REQUIREMENTS

PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Density
24 dwelling units per acre.

Yes. Overall density is 23.84 dwelling
units per acre
Yes. PC Reviewed Site: 350 spaces are
One (1) space per one
required, and 372 spaces are to be
bedroom unit and two (2)
provided.

Parking
spaces per two- and three -
bedroom units.

Alternative: 312 spaces spaces are
required, and 338 spaces are currently
shown.

Yes/TBD. PC Reviewed Site: 40.5% of
total site area as private and public open
space.

Open space
40% of project area to be
Alternative: Does not provide a
landscaped.
calculation of the total amount — it is
expected that the amount would be less
than the 40%, and would be approved
through the waiver granted as part of the
Density Bonus Process.

One -bedroom units shall be a
Yes. Both projects feature site plan
minimum of six hundred fifty
sizes that meet or exceed the code
(650) square feet; two
requirements.

Dwelling Unit Size
bedroom units minimum of
eight hundred (800) square
feet; three or more bedroom
units minimum of nine
hundred 900 square feet.

Required site amenities
Yes. Project include two (2) tot lot play
Amenities
include entry treatment. Each
areas, a fenced dog park, picnic areas,
dwelling is required to
open space and common area
provide 3 interior amenities I
landscaping, private internal sidewalks,
Compliance provided if the General Plan Amendment is approved -220-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

from approved list. a pool and club house and guest parking within the private street network
The Project meets or exceeds the City's General Plan and Development Code standards for the above referenced items as well as for access and site design, provided that the minor General Plan Amendment request is approved. If the General Plan Amendment is not approved, the Project would not comply with the existing RM-10M land use designation and would require revisions to reduce the overall project density.

It should be noted that the proposed Project supports a number of relevant General Plan policies that pertain to housing. These include the following:
• 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 use located in accordance with the land use and community design element. • HN-3.1 Design Features. Require new and rehabilitated residential units to be well designed, with appropriate attention to site planning, materials and colors, building treatments, landscaping, open space, parking, and environmentally sustainable practices. • CDL-10.5 Private Landscaping and Parks. Require developers to incorporate appropriately sized and drought -tolerant vegetation with sufficient maintenance to provide a mature - looking landscape in three -five years after installation. Require private recreational facilities in new multifamily housing projects.
• CDL-10.9 Building Materials. Use high -quality, natural building materials that evoke a sense of quality and permanence, such as stucco, plaster, stone, and wood; natural colors and textures are preferred.
• CDL-10.12 Architectural Detail. While recognizing sensitivity to budget, require publicly visible sides of a building to contain architectural detail and fagade articulation, strong patterns of shade and shadow, and integrated architectural detail; blank walls are discouraged.
• 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.

Density Bonus Agreement:

Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 7 of the Yucaipa Development Code contains provisions for processing density bonus projects, which are designed to provide incentives for the production of housing for very low-income, low-income, moderate -income, and senior households in accordance with State Law, by allowing additional units to offset the costs of providing affordable housing. The applicant has submitted a Density Bonus request to covenant ten (10) percent (twenty (20) units) of the total two -hundred units proposed as low-income affordable pursuant to Yucaipa Density Bonus -221-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

Standards. Although the applicant is pursuing a Density Bonus Agreement, they are not proposing any additional units, but rather will be utilizing an incentive to meet parking requirements. Section

83.010730(d) of Yucaipa Development Code details that projects which include a Density Bonus Agreement qualify for a modified parking standard that includes a reduction in total required parking spaces and removes the requirement for enclosed garages.

The City of Yucaipa is responsible for providing 493 Low Income Units and 511 Moderate Income units between 2021 and 2029 pursuant to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation as mandated by State Law.

Before the Project is constructed, a formal Bonus Density Agreement is required to be approved by the City Council. This process is identified in the proposed Conditions of Approval and will set forth the reporting requirements and covenants that are necessary to ensure that the target units remain available as intended by the density bonus request.

Processing and Procedural Actions:

Notices of the Project were sent to all surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Project site, and several responses were received with concerns regarding the Project and the increased density proposed by the General Plan Amendment. Most of the comments are addressed with the Initial Study that was prepared for the Project, the project design, or by appropriate Conditions of Approval. Additional comments noted concern about the increased density proposed with the RM-24 Land Use Designation. The concerns with the Project were largely based on the following issues: traffic, density, safety, public services and aesthetics. These concerns were considered and expanded upon through the Initial Study and are summarized below.

Traffic
I Public Services
I Aesthetics
Drainage
I Safety
I Other
I Noticing
12 14
15 1
14 1 1-overcrowding
14 Tra ic:

Through the public notice process, the City received a number of comments regarding the increased traffic that would be caused by this Project. Specific concerns included complaints of existing traffic and how the approval of this Project would worsen existing issues.

The site includes two (2) two-way exit/entrances along both 2r'd Street and Yd Street with an additional exit only lane along 2nd Street. The Project's incorporation of proposed on- and off -site traffic control design features and the completion of roundabouts at the 2nd Street and County Line Road Intersection, and the 3rd Street and County Line Road Intersection would maintain the intersections operating within acceptable Levels of Service as identified by the General Plan.

Furthermore, the Project's assigned traffic analysis zone (TAZ) of 29.7 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per day falls below the City baseline VMT jurisdiction of 30.7 VMT per day and therefore satisfies the City's established screening criteria for Projects located within low VMT areas and would provide housing for families that are within walking distance to school. The Project is also near 3rd and Countyline stop for Omnitrans Route 319 which can provide alternative modes of transit. Finally, any development of this site would be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIFs), including providing funding to City Traffic Facilities. -222-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

Densi :

Through the noticing for this Project, concerns were raised over the compatibility of the development with the existing neighborhood and its impact on the general area.

The site meets the minimum district size for a General Plan Amendment for a change in land use from RM-10M to RM-24 and the applicant's letter of intent notes that the Project is intended to ultimately help the City to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers for low- and moderate -income housing. Further, the proposed Project will utilize available infrastructure including the roundabout improvements, water and sewer lines and its proximity to Calimesa Elementary School to provide housing for the community. However, the Planning Commission concurred with the concerns about the appropriateness of a General Plan Amendment and the unique land use designation within the interior of an existing residential block.

Public Services:

Through the noticing of this Project, concerns were raised over the impact on public services, as well as the condition of the non -improved roadway frontage.

The proposed Project would not require new or altered public facilities or services. The City requires future development to pay development impact fees for a variety of public facilities, including drainage improvements, traffic, and civic center facilities. In addition, the Project would complete street improvements and onsite drainage improvements to meet state and local requirements, and these impacts have been addressed as part of this Environmental Initial Study.

Other necessary improvements, such as water and sewer facilities, would be provided by other agencies that have the ability to require necessary facilities to be installed by the developer and/or require payment of fees to provide for that service. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to provide improved sidewalks along the roadways for 2nd Street and 3`d Street to connect the project to County Line Road and the adjoining elementary school. As a feature of the Project, an onsite manager will be provided.

As the City Council may be aware, the design and access requirements related to meeting the fire code are different for three (3) story buildings, and ultimately, a ladder fire truck will be necessary to maintain the City's Insurance Services Office (ISO). As the Project consists of a General Plan Amendment to "upzone" the property, the City Council may consider adding an additional condition related to an additional fair share contribution to this capital equipment, as the DIF fee would not account for the project scale as currently proposed, should the project ultimately be improved.

Aesthetics:

Through the noticing of this project, concerns were raised over the height of the structures as well as the appearance of the apartment complex.

The Project is located on four parcel lots consisting of four (4) existing single-family residences fronting 2nd Street and 3rd Street with graded undeveloped land toward the rear of each lot. The property contains non -protected trees and shrubbery near to these residences, contains no other notable resources, and is surrounded by a mixture of single-family residences and multiple family -223-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

developments. The GPA area features a proposal for a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment complex. The Project features Spanish style architecture as part of the exterior design of each apartment building. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to the visual quality by providing better uniformity for the adjacent residential units that are located along the exterior boundaries of the Project site. Additionally, although the Development Code does not protect viewsheds, this General Plan Amendment will require greater setbacks as the RM-24 Land Use District requires a minimum front setback of 35 feet and a minimum side setback of 20 feet, which is more than what was previously required by the RM-IOM land use district and will further reduce the impact of the multi -story structures from adjoining streets. The Project provides enhanced setbacks with a building setback of 98 feet from 3`d Street, 70 feet from the southern property line (with the exception of the one-story clubhouse at 10 feet), 35 feet from 2nd Street with the one-story building providing the frontage of the property and the first three-story building being at 160 feet from 2nd Street, and between 20 and 60 feet from the northern property line. The Project also provides enhanced perimeter landscaping (trees) in order to further "soften" any impact. As part of the Planning Commission's deliberations, they suggested that perhaps using the lower density framework of the RM-24 district (20 du/ac) to help allow more two- story structures to better support the transition of the Project from the existing built environment.

Noticing:

Through the noticing of the project, concerns were raised over the City's noticing practices with specific concerns regarding the timing and means of delivery of the City's Notices.

The City's project noticing practices for discretionary projects exceed those required by the State.

Specifically, the City's process includes an additional project notice once a project is deemed complete to proactively collect comments which is not required by law. Additionally, as a project subject to CEQA, this project was posted to the City's website and circulated through the Yucaipa News Mirror prior to the CEQA review. Finally, as required by State Law, all property owners within 300 square feet received notices of the meeting by mail prior to the Public Hearing.

Environmental Review:

The Initial Study prepared for this proposal, was made available for comment for 20 days beginning on June 10, 2022, and ending on June 30, 20221. No comments were received on the Initial Study during the public review process by local, regional or state agencies, or by members of the public.

The Initial Study considers the potential environmental impacts that could occur and assigns mitigation as necessary if recommended in the Project's technical studies in order to reduce impacts to less than significant. Based upon the analysis conducted by staff in reviewing the Project site's environmental setting and provided technical studies, 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 ultimately approve the Project. It should be noted that the overall site conditions and project impacts would be consistent with either the Planning Commission site design or the new amended 2-story layout.
1 Initial Study was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review beginning on June 10, 2022. -224-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

Mitigation Measures for the Initial Study were included to: 1) reflect comments received through tribal consultation as part of Cultural and Tribal Resources pursuant to SB18/AB52, 2) protect nesting bird habitat if grading were to occur during the nesting bird season through the preparation of preconstruction general nesting bird survey pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 3) address grading protocol with preparation of a paleontological assessment and, 4) to address construction noise and vibration impacts during project grading and construction activities that are in proximity to existing residences.

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:

The proposed Land Use District Change to change the land use designation of the site from RM- 10M to RM-24 requires an amendment to the General Plan. Pursuant to the City's development Code, the action requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council. As noted in the agenda report analysis, the Planning Commission could not meet the required findings for approval, and recommended denial of the General Plan Amendment / Land Use District Change.

Their findings and the relevant Planning Commission minutes are attached for Council's consideration, as well as the appeal request submitted by the applicant. 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. 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.

To address some of the key concerns over the density, the applicant has provided an alternative site design that the City Council can consider. This design provides for 200 units but maintains a 2-story building design. The City Council could approve this amended design, and refer the site plan/architecture review back to the Planning Commission for final approval.

It should be noted that the proposed 200-unit residential project, as provided by the Land Use Compliance Review and Density Bonus Agreement application, have been designed to be consistent with the RM-24 Land Use District requirements and Development Code standards, and therefore does not meet the existing City standards without the approval of the General Plan Amendment.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Based on a total number of 200 residential units including 50 one -bedroom, 100 two -bedroom and 50 three -bedroom units on 8.39 net acres, the project can be expected to generate $2,491,411.09 in Development Impact Fees after a $122,693.08 credit for the four (4) existing single-family residences, using the current 2022 fee schedule, as follows:

Drainage Facilities: $65,320.83
Traffic Facilities: $1,575,564.20
Public Facilities: $218,136.72
-225-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

Fire Facilities: $179,577.16
Park Facilities: $1,149,939.00
TOTAL: $2,491,411.09
Fees collected by other agencies, such as Yucaipa Valley Water District and Yucaipa Calimesa School District, are in addition to this total.

Attachments: General Plan Amendment Denial Findings
General Plan Amendment Approval Findings
Land Use District & Location Map
Site photos
Yucaipa 2022 Housing Income Range
August 3, 2022, Planning Commission Minutes
August 17, 2022, Planning Commission Minutes
Conditions of Approval
Resolution No. 2022-41
Ordinance No. 412
Comment Letters Received
Approved by:

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Environmental Initial Study (Under separate cover:
httas://vucaiDa.oriz/wn-content/unloads/dev svcs/MND/Fallbrook-21- 085NEW/AdminDraftISMND-21085%20GPA LUCR-
200units.pdf?_t=1654801063)
Project Plans
-226-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

FINDINGS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.21-085 For Denial

1. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(4) and 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, which state that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

2. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been referred to the public water purveyor, and pursuant to the Governmental Code Section 65958.1, an adequate water supply exists or is planned that will serve any future project that could be proposed.

3. The proposed Land Use District Change is not in the public interest and there would not be a community benefit as the new land use district would be within an existing residential block and would result in a significant change in density and building mass to the adjoining development, including what would be permitted by other future project, and therefore the other existing and permitted uses will be compromised by the reduced land use compatibility. The existing land use designation, as well as the prior land use entitlement for the site can already provide for additional housing opportunities within the City and is consistent with the housing needs identified by the City's adopted Housing Element.

4. The proposed Land Use District Change is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and does not provide for a reasonable and logical extension of the existing land use pattern in the surrounding area as it will result in an approximately three -fold increase in the permitted residential density within the interior of an existing residential block and would otherwise bifurcate the existing the Multiple Residential Land Use District boundary.

The proposed Land Use District Change conflicts with provisions of this Code as it will reduce the compatibility with the surrounding land use designations by bifurcating the existing residential land use, and create a unique transition within the interior of a residential block for the City's High Density Residential District, marking a stark contrast to the existing development pattern or future projects that could be constructed along the surrounding.

6. The proposed Land Use District Change will have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property as the permitted density, infrastructure demand, and building height and mass will be substantially different from the existing requirements of the land use district surrounding the site.
-227-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

FINDINGS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.21-085 — For Approval

1. The Initial Study prepared for this proposal adequately discusses the potential impacts of the Project and indicates that all potentially significant environmental impacts that could occur are at a level that is considered to be less -than -significant. The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

2. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been referred to the public water purveyor, and pursuant to the Governmental Code Section 65958.1, an adequate water supply exists or is planned that will serve any future project that could be proposed.

3. The proposed Land Use District Change is in the public interest, there will be a community benefit, and other existing and permitted uses will not be compromised, because the change will result in an enhanced land use compatibility, and will provide additional housing opportunities within the City. The General Plan Amendment would provide the RM-24 Land Use District to the subject site, and would permit a multiple family development project that provides housing intended to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements for the 6th Housing Cycle. The proposed Project would allow for 200 residential units, including 20 units dedicated as low-income, in an area with proximity to commercial uses and the nearby elementary school. The 2022 Yucaipa Income Table indicates the Low Income (51-80% AMI) ranges from $49,300 annually for a one (1) person household to 70,400 for a four (4) person household.

4. The proposed Land Use District Change is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and it will provide for a reasonable and logical extension of the existing land use pattern in the surrounding area, because the Multiple Residential Land Use District is the current designation of the site, and the change in the Land Use District simply allows for an increased density at the site and will help to meet many of the housing goals in the City. The Project would permit a multiple family development community that has immediate pedestrian accessibility to a variety of uses including proximity to an elementary school and nearby commercial uses. The Project is also nearby the 3`d and Countyline stop for Omnitrans Route 319.

5. The proposed Land Use District Change does not conflict with provisions of this Code, or any applicable specific plan, because it will provide compatibility with the surrounding land use designations, and all applicable residential development standards and would be implemented by future projects, including the proposed Land Use Compliance Review. The subject property is also not located in a specific plan.

6. The proposed Land Use District Change will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property, because any future residential development will be designed and constructed to mitigate any adverse conditions, and appropriate public improvements will be required to provide sufficient capacity in the infrastructure required to support the development. -228-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-0 8 5/GPA/LUCR)

LAND USE - EXISTING: MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
J �aa000Qa�
nnn-n i—
17�
I

LOCATION
-1 1
r
—' j��j c� St 1.. .�. r.S�.�►' 1—� iS.�.._- t {�,t�yN� R�* � 1� `� � `! -229-

City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022
Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP of 21-085/GPA/LUCR)

Yucaipa 2022 Housing Income Range
Applicable San Bernardino County Area Median Income: $87,400 for family of four • Yucaipa Median Income: $73,196
• Percent in poverty: 8.5%
Family Income Cap by RHNA CateQory — 2022
Number in
1 2
3 4
Household
Extremely Low
$18,500
$21 150
$23 800
$27 750
0-30% AMI
'
Very Low
31-50% AMI
$30 800
$35 200
$39,600
$44 000
'
Low
51-80% AMI
$49,300
$56 350
'
$63,400
$70,400
Moderate
80-120% AMI
$73,450
$83 900
$94 400
$104 900
'
Low -Income Example Occupations
• Administrative Assistant
• Delivery Driver
• Truck Driver
• Nursing Assistant
• Graphic Designer
• Teacher's Assistant
Very Low -Income Example Occupations
• Retail Sales Clerk
• Home Health Aides
• Food Prep Workers
• Childcare Workers
• Farmworkers and Laborers
• Telemarketers
Other salaries for those early in their career:
• Tk-12 YCJUSD Salary: $50,454
• SBCSD Deputy Sheriff. $66,539
• Calfire Fire Fighter II (Paramedic): $47,880
• City of Yucaipa Maintenance Worker: $43,709
-230-

Agenda Item No. 2
City of Yucaipa
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 3, 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 3, 2022, at 6:30 PM.

PRESENT: J.R. Allgower, Chair
Christopher Markarian, Vice Chair
Richard Beck, Commissioner
Tony Hicks, Commissioner
Lloyd Rekstad, Commissioner
ABSENT: Bart Brizzee, Commissioner
Aron Wolfe, Commissioner
CITY STAFF: Benjamin Matlock, City Planner/Planning Manager Madeline Jordan, Assistant Planner
Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
Katrina Kunkel,

CONVENE PLANNING COMMISSION
The meeting was called to order at 6:37 PM, with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair Allgower.

ROLL CALL
Roll call was provided.

PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments received for items not listed on the agenda at Publiccommentgyucaipa.org or in person.

Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2022

-231-

AGENDA ITEM SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENT:

Vice Chair Markarian motioned to amend the agenda to go through the items 91, #2, #5, and #6 first, then items #3 and #4. SECOND BY Commissioner Rekstad, CARRIED, 5-0-2-0.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. SUBJECT: Approve Item No. 1, Planning Commission Minutes of July 20, 2022 ACTION: Planning Manager Ben Matlock noted that there were not enough members present from the July 20th to vote on the meeting minutes, and the item will be moved to the August 17, 2022, agenda.

2. SUBJECT: The Well Church. (Case No. 22-013/LUCR): A Land Use Compliance Review for the architectural review of a proposed 12.75-foot-tall and 45.5 square foot freestanding digital sign associated with the Well Church at 12717 14th St., APN: 0301-173-75 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; and:

A) Approve Land Use Compliance Review No. 22-013, subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and
B) Find that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and,
C) Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

ACTION: MOTION BY Vice Chair Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Hicks, CARRIED, 5-0-2-0, TO APPROVE ITEM 2.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be:

Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2022

-232-

Agenda Item No. 2
City of Yucaipa
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 3, 2022
A. Staff Presentation
B. Applicant/Representative Presentation
C. Public Comments
D. Applicant Rebuttal (if necessary)
E. Public Hearing Closed
F. Commission Discussion

5. SUBJECT: Pristine Builders (Case No. 22-065/LUCR/SUP/ARC): A Land Use Compliance Review to construct a 1,190 square foot detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, and Special Use Permit with Architectural Review to construct a 441 square foot garage and 327 square foot patio both attached to the ADU to create a 1,958 square foot structure located at 31264 Tarryton Court; APN: 0300-561-21.

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

A) Review the architectural design of the proposed detached structure that includes an ADU and attached garage, and if acceptable, approve the design subject to the Conditions of Approval; and
B) Adopt the Special Use Permit Findings as contained in the Agenda Report; and C) Adopt a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, Section 15303 (Class 3); and, D) Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

DISCUSSION: Assistant Planner Madeline Jordan presented the Project.

The applicant's representative, Travis Heaps addressed the Commission regarding this project.

Vice Chair Markarian, asked staff about how often a 1,958 square foot ADU has been approved? Assistant Planner Madeline Jordan clarified that the ADU was below the 1,200 square foot threshold, but the total structure size is what has triggered the Planning Commission review.

Additionally, Planning Manager Ben Matlock informed the Commission that 2 or 3 of these larger ADU combination structures have been proposed and ultimately approved by the Planning Commission.

PUBLIC COMMENT: No comments received.

ACTION: MOTION BY Vice Chair Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Hicks, CARRIED, 5-0-2-0, TO APPROVE ITEM 5.

Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2022

-233-

6. SUBJECT: Blake Warner (Case No. 22-081/SUP/ARC): A Special Use Permit for the Architectural Review of a 1,500 square foot and 14-foot-tall, detached metal garage located on a Rural Living property at 10373 Country Lane; APN: 0302-262-35.

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

A) Review the architectural design of the proposed detached structure that includes an ADU and attached garage, and if acceptable, approve the design subject to the Conditions of Approval; and
B) Adopt the Special Use Permit Findings as contained in the Agenda Report; and Q Adopt a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, Section 15303 (Class 3); and D) Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

DISCUSSION: Commissioner Richard Beck excused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest.

Assistant Planner Christian Farmer presented the Project.

The applicant, Blake Warner called in and stated that he did not have additional comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT: No comments received.

ACTION: MOTION BY Commissioner Hicks, SECOND BY Vice Chair Markarian, CARRIED, 4-0-2-1, TO APPROVE ITEM 6.

Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2022

-234-

3. SUBJECT: Randy Citlau — Riverwalk Senior Development (21- 045/GPA/LUCR/MJV/DBA/ARC): A Minor General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a property from RM-72C (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential), a Density Bonus Agreement (DBA) to qualify for a 25% increase in land density, a Land Use Compliance Review with Architectural Review to construct a 150-unit, three story, age -restricted senior housing complex for individuals who are 55 years and older, with two (2) monument signs at the entrance of the 5-acre site, and two (2) Major Variances to allow for a total of eighty (80) percent of the 150-units to be 1-bedroom in lieu of thirty-five (35) percent, and for one (1) bedroom units to provide seventy-six (76) square feet of private open space in lieu of the one hundred fifty (150) square feet required for ground floor units and the one hundred (100) square feet required for above ground units, located at 12836 3rd Street, APN: 0319-112-03. (Case No 22-070/SUP/ARC): A Special Use Permit for the Architectural Review of an existing unpermitted 1,200 square foot, 12-foot-tall, detached metal garage located on a single -residential property at 12269 3rd Street; APN: 0319-121-78.

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. 2022-40, approving the minor General Plan Amendment / Land Use District Change of a single parcel (APN: 0319-112-03) from RM-72C (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential); and B) Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 411, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa; and
C) Approve Density Bonus Request and Land Use Compliance Review No. 21-045, and Variances 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 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.

DISCUSSION: Assistant Planner Madeline Jordan presented the Project. Assistant Planner Jordan noted that one response was received during the Project review period that noted concerns about the development blocking views and detracting from a rural community feel, and how they felt that the previously approved entitlement for the tract map would be a better fit with the surrounding areas.

Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2022

-235-

Assistant Planner Jordan noted that, the Yucaipa's General Plan and Development Code does not have any policies that protect views from private properties and that the current land use designation and the proposed land use designation would allow for Multi -Family Development.

Assistant Planner Jordan noted that if the Commission determines that the General Plan Amendment and the project proposal are acceptable, the Commission would then provide a recommend to the City Council.

Chair Allgower had a question regarding parking and asked if the 146 parking spots would be sufficient for the number of apartments proposed. Assistant Planner Jordan noted that 75 spaces are required pursuant to state law.

Commissioner Rekstad asked if the City of Yucaipa has adequate firefighting equipment to reach the third floor of the building? Planning Manger Ben Matlock informed Commissioner Rekstad that certain design elements are needed for the three-story buildings to provide the necessary access and is validated during the permit process.

Vice Chair Markarian asked if amendments to the General Plan have been made before. Planning Manager Matlock informed him that there have been amendments in that past, including the electronic messaging center project approved earlier this year.

Vice Chair Markarian asked what the threshold is for a project to require an amendment to the general plan. Planning Manager Matlock provided a few examples, such as, a modification to a General Plan policy or any re -zoning requests would trigger a General Plan Amendment.

Vice Chair Markarian asked what would be needed of this Project to not require a general plan amendment? Planning Manger Matlock informed him that it would require a reduction of the number of units and stories to instead conform to the existing RM designation.

Commissioner Rekstad asked how the drainage along the southern area of the site would impact the development of the property? Planning Manger Ben Matlock responded that the drainage channel impacts some of the available building pad area, and avoidance of this feature is part of the reason for the Variance requests.

Commissioner Rekstad noted that he strongly objects to amending the general plan for the convenience of an isolated project, even though he thinks this project design is wonderful and was concerned about location since the general plan amendment would place a project in an area that was not intended for this density. He concluded that he felt that the Commission needs better justification on this Project. Planning Manager Matlock clarified to the Commission that this is not a City initiated request, and instead was submitted to the City on behalf of the property owner.

As part of the process, staff does not make the ultimate policy decision but provides analysis and input towards the Project before it goes to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration.

Vice Chair Markarian asked when the last time was that the General Plan was last made and when will it be revised again. Planning Manager Ben Matlock informed the Commission that the last comprehensive General Plan was adopted in April 2016. However, several minor General Plan Amendments have been approved since then, and in order to stay consistent with state law, the Planning Commission Minutes
August 3,2022

-236-

Housing Element needs to be updated every eight (8) years, which is currently in process.

Additionally, cities may amend any of the required elements no more than 4 times in a year.

The applicant, Craig Heaps, noted that he was a resident of Yucaipa for 28 years and addressed the Commission on the proposal. He stated that this property is already zoned residential multi- family, and the project is a market rate senior project that will include more amenities than found at other types of projects. He noted that their approach was to have a 55+ senior community in the middle of town to be closer to grocery stores and restaurants.

He also noted that The City is mandated to facilitate affordable housing, a ten percent low-income component is included with this proposal.

Mr. Heaps concluded with a note that the senior population in Yucaipa grew by 26 percent over the past several years, and a project like this one would help accommodate the increase in population.

PUBLIC COMMENT: No comments received
ACTION: MOTION BY Chair Allgower, SECOND BY Commissioner Hicks, CARRIED, 4- 1-2-0, TO APPROVE ITEM 3.

4. SUBJECT: Premium Land Development. Case No 21-085/GPA/LUCR/DBA: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use district from RM-IOM (Multiple Residential) to RM-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. APNs 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84.

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. 2022-41, approving the minor General Plan Amendment / Land Use District Change of a property from RM-IOM 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
Planning Commission Minutes
August 3,2022

-237-

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 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.

DISCUSSION: Contract Planner Jon Braginton presented the Project. He noted that several comment letters were received during the project notice period, with responses noting concern with the increased density, traffic, public services, aesthetics, drainage, safety, overcrowding and noticing practices. Contract Planner Braginton noted that if the Commission determines that the General Plan Amendment and the project proposal are acceptable, the Commission would then provide a recommend to the City Council.

The applicant's representative, Craig Heaps addressed the Commission. Mr. Heaps noted that he recognized that traffic was a concern by the neighboring residents, and their Traffic Engineer is also in attendance to answer any questions by the Commission.

Mr. Heaps wanted to reiterate that multi -family apartments are needed and that this is a complex that is comparable to The Bungalows in Chapman Heights, a well maintained and successful project. He also noted that based on neighborhood concerns, he had held a community meeting to help answer questions and concerns. However, he noted that out of the 102 letters mailed out to the area, 10 people ultimately attended the meeting. From the comments received at the meeting, he noted that they will be modifying the project to relocate the trash bins further from the property lines and also agreed to extend the sidewalks and curb/gutter along the neighboring properties to connect the project and the nearby elementary school to the City's County Line Road improvements, and to also better manage existing drainage concerns.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Sixteen speaker forms were received.

1. Randy Main-2"d Street- He noted that he lives next door to proposed project and loves the rural feel of the existing area. He noted that the property has been kept in deplorable condition and despite being told for years that it would get cleaned up, nothing has happened. He noted concerns that a new project would still be treated like a junk pit and opposes the project.

2. Judy Main-2°d Street- She noted that Premium Land Development wants to change the existing zoning, and build nine buildings with seven of them being three stories high. She felt that this project would tower over the existing neighborhood, and that no amount of Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2022

-238-

landscaping or trees will hide buildings of this size. Additional concerns-, with 200 apartments is the additional people to the area, which will create an overflow of parking, and traffic concerns, and that additional efforts for sidewalks, and the building design is needed, and therefore opposes any changes to the General Plan for the project.

3. Fred Pierce -San Rosen Court- Mr. Pierce has noted he had a lot of concerns, and wanted to first know who the applicant is. He indicated that he had researched the applicant's company, Premier Land Development, and that their filing was terminated by the State of California in 2015, due to failure of paying taxes, and there is now a Premier Land Development LLC that is currently suspended by the Franchise Tax Board. He asked why the City is dealing with someone who has been suspended by the Franchise Tax Board and how that would happen? He concluded that he opposes the project.

4. Darrel Mack- County Line Road- He noted that he had lived in their house since 1985, and that his view was initially taken over by the Terra Glen Apartments and will be exacerbated with this project. He also noted that traffic on Second St., from the school will be worse, and that it is already terrible, and is doubtful that the roundabouts will help. He also noted that he is concerned about the water usage, and opposes the project.

5. Thomas Murphy -County Line Road- He noted that his concerns were with traffic as well as water issues, referencing that he has received letters from South Mesa informing him that he needs to reduce his water usage, or they will install a restrictor on his meter. He doesn't understand how an additional 200 families will be moving in with this constraint, and that, a minimum of 400 cars and 200 additional families is too much of a project. He concluded that he has no problem with city growth, but there must be a limit, and we should keep Yucaipa rural in expressing that his opposition to the project.

6. Marla Green- San Rosen Court- Ms. Green noted that she had received her notices late and felt that the proposed development is out of context for the neighborhood that consists of single-family homes. She iterated that parking and traffic will be an even bigger issue as the surrounding roads were not designed for the heavy flow of traffic proposed, and therefore opposes the project.

7. Jon McKinney-2nd Street- He noted that his family has been in Yucaipa for 75 years- and is horrified that this project is even being considered. He commented that the traffic before and after school is a mess, and with the number of cars proposed, the traffic will back up for over a mile. He also noted a concern with the Post -Acute next door and whether emergency responders can reach the site with the projected traffic. Mr. McKinney opposes the project.

8. Walter Pinson Jr.-2nd Street- Opposes project (gave up his time).

9. Olen Main -Tara Lane- He noted that the City has invested a lot of money and time into developing the General Plan and opposes the proposed amendment.

10. Holly Pinson -San Carlos Street- Ms. Pinson opposes the project, noting that she has lived in other cities and moved to Yucaipa for the rural and community feel. She noted that they are currently experiencing a high level of speeding along their streets, and had safety concerns.

11. Scarlett Parisi -San Carlos Street- She noted that the project is too much for the single -story homes in the area, and bringing in a three-story project would affect the aesthetics of the area and cause a parking and traffic issues. She noted that she opposes the project.

12. Ashley Sepulveda -San Carlos Street- She noted that she opposes the project, and disagrees with the notion that our schools need more students. She commented that the schools do not have enough teachers or staff to handle the kids that are currently enrolled, despite the Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2022

-239-

school sites having available capacity. She noted that the Developer is looking at this project from a financial perspective and not the student's best interest.

13. Michael McKinney-2nd Street- He noted that he was very upset to hear about this project - at the last minute and felt that the proposed three-story project does not fit with the area.

He noted concerns with the land use as there is a horse ranch not too far from his current home and did not understand how the site could be zoned as multiple family. He also noted concern for -the barn owls and the red tail hawks in the area, and that there are no parks or sidewalks in the area to support the future residents.

14. Arthur Walter- 2nd Street- He noted that he has lived on 2❑d Steet since 1985, and traffic is a constant issue, and that there is no room for a project like this in that area. He also noted safety concerns, particularly because the nearby school does not have enough parking at their site do their overflow of parking goes down the entire street.

15. Jim Wagner- County Line Rd- Mr. Wagner opposes the project and feels that his views as a resident doesn't matter. He does not want a three-story building in the area, and that the property is currently filled with filthy tractors and transients living in the area.

16. Erika Murphy- County Line Rd- Ms. Murphy noted her opposition to the project and does not agree with the Developer when he says new businesses will be coming into the area.

She noted concerns with the type of businesses that are currently in the area, including those at Third Street and County Line and that the area is already being overtaken by transients. She concluded with that she feels that the proposed project would be a better fit for the Chapman Heights area.

The applicant, Mr. Heaps agreed that there are code enforcement issues in the area and that it needs to be cleaned up. He understands the traffic concerns, however he noted that there was a traffic study conducted that showed appropriate traffic levels following the completion of the County Line Road roundabouts. He also informed the Commission that South Mesa Water has assured him that despite the drought, that there is enough water for the project, and water and sewer availability were not an issue. Mr. Heaps also clarified that he is the President of Premium Land Development and not Premier Land Development LLC as referenced in a public comment.

Vice Chair Markarian asked about the condition and status of Premium Land Development, including if he has all his licenses and if he is in good standing? Mr. Heaps, responded affirmatively.

The project's Traffic Engineer, Perry Ilercil from the Gandini Group, noted that the traffic study was conducted pursuant to the City of Yucaipa's traffic guidelines and the National Standards for trip generation. The traffic study determined that there will be no level of service issues with the project.

The Public Hearing was then closed.

ACTION: MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING BY Commissioner Hicks, SECOND BY Vice Chair Markarian, CARRIED, 5-0- 2-0.

Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2022

-240-

ANNOUNCEMENTS: The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for August 17, 2022.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:47 PM.

Benjamin Matlock JR Allgower
Planning Manager/City Planner Chair of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2022

-241-

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 Planner/Planning Manager Madeline Jordan, Assistant Planner
Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
Katrina Kunkel, Associate Engineer
Maria Koolhoven, Planning Commission Assistant

CONVENE PLANNING COMMISSION
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 PM, with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Rekstad.

ROLL CALL

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

Planning Commission Minutes
August 17, 2022

-242-

CONSENT AGENDA

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

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

ACTION: 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-IOM (Multiple Residential) to RM-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. APNs 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84. (ITEM 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 a property from RM-1 OM 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
August 17, 2022

-243-

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.

DISCUSSION: 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 Plan 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.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be:

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

4. SUBJECT: Case No. 19-116/CUP: 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, and 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 I-10 eastbound on -ramp. APN(S) 0301- 201-38, -39 and 0301-211-11.

Planning Commission Minutes
August 17, 2022

-244-

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

A) Approve the Conditional Use Permit, 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 Report.

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
August 17, 2022

-245-

5. SUBJECT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 20- 136/PDP/FDP/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 directly south of the City limits to unincorporated San Bernardino 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- 136/FDP/TTM 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, finding 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
August 17, 2022

-246-

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 1-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 1-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
August 17, 2022
-247-

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. She 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 noted 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. She 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 - He 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 Wine 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 Planning 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
August 17, 2022

I

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, he 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 Ridge 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 - Palermo 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 1-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 concerned residents. He noted that when he thought about retirement, he Planning Commission Minutes
August 17, 2022

-249-

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 1-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 in the City, and that they need to make a decision that is good for the community.

Commissioner Hicks 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
August 17, 2022

-250-

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 of the 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, CARRIED, 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 California 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 Report; 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 Planning Commission Minutes
August 17, 2022

-251-

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.

DISCUSSION:

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. He 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.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: 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.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:46 PM.

Benjamin Matlock
Planning Manager/City Planner
Planning Commission Minutes
August 17, 2022
JR Allgower
Chair of the Planning Commission

-252-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022

LAND USE COMPLIANCE REVIEW
ON -GOING CONDITIONS/GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

1. This General Plan Amendment, Density Bonus Agreement and Land Use Compliance Review is for the proposal to change the land use district from RM- 10M (Multiple Residential) to RM-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 for a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment project on four parcels totaling 8.39 acres and located between 3rd Street to the west, and 2nd Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. Any alteration or expansion 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. 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.

3. This General Plan Amendment and Land Use Compliance Review 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.

One extension of time, not to exceed three (3) years, 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.

4. The Project Applicant shall comply with all Mitigation Measures as identified in the Project -assigned Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP).

5. 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

-253-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022
effective date of General Plan Amendment and Land Use Compliance 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 $2,548.00 made payable to the "Clerk of the Board". The Planning Division shall 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 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 issuance of building permits.

6. All conditions of this General Plan Amendment, Density Bonus Agreement and Land Use Compliance Review are continuing conditions. Failure of the applicant and/or operator to comply with any or all of said conditions at any time may result in the revocation of the permit granted to use the property.

7. The applicant/owner shall maintain in good condition at all times all permanent plantings as identified on the approved landscape plan.

8. All new utility lines shall be placed underground. Existing overhead distribution lines shall be placed underground when three (3) or more utility poles on the same street are located on or adjacent to the project site.

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

10. All signs proposed by this project may only be lit by steady, stationary, shielded light directed at the sign, by light inside the sign, by direct stationary neon lighting or by an alternating lighting system that changes no more than once per hour.

The glare from the luminous source shall not exceed one-half (0.5) foot candle.

11. Parking and on -site circulation requirements shall be maintained at all times.

A. All markings to include parking spaces, directional designations, "No Parking" designations, and "Fire Lane" designations shall be clearly defined and said markings shall be maintained in good condition at all times.

B. Parking and site circulation surfaces (City Road Specification #39) shall be maintained in good condition at all times.

12. Noise levels shall not exceed City Standards as required by Development Code Section 87.0905(b) Noise Standards.

13. All refuse generated at the premises shall at all times be stored in approved containers and shall be placed in a manner so that visual and public health nuisances are minimized.

-254-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022

14. All refuse containing garbage shall be removed from the premises at least two times per week in conformance with Municipal Code Section 8.24.030(A).

15. The applicant shall implement the approved "Solid Waste Recycling Plan" for any new commercial, industrial, or institutional uses located on the property. The developer and all occupants of the property shall make a good faith effort to fully comply with each component of the approved Plan. Any proposed revision to this Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of Yucaipa Disposal, Inc. (909) 797-9125.

16. The project site shall remain in full compliance with all City Sign Regulations at all times.

17. The applicant/property owner shall be required to apply an anti -graffiti coating to proposed block walls, and/or provide a landscape design of a type and nature that is acceptable to the City Planner, to any publicly viewable surfaces deemed by the City Planner to be likely to attract graffiti.

18. The applicant/property owner, and any and all successors in interest, shall for ten (10) years after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, provide the City with sufficient matching paint and/or anti -graffiti coating on demand for use in the painting over or removal of graffiti from any designated graffiti attracting surfaces.

19. The Project shall maintain compliance with the provisions of the Density Bonus Agreement and the Project's annual reporting requirements. 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.

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 228

20. Submit WQMP Plan for Approval.

21. 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.

22. Required fire flow and duration for this project, is determined by California Fire Code Appendix `B'. 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.

-255-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022

23. Road sections within and/or bordering the project shall be designed and constructed with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks to City Road Standards, and in accordance with the General Plan Circulation Element.

24. 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.

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

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

26. 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.

27. Fire Department access roads and/or public/private streets shall meet the Fire Department minimum width standard of twenty-four (24) feet. Within FR-1 zone minimum width shall be twenty-six (26) feet. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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).

30. Cul-de-sac and dead-end streets shall not exceed 350 feet in FR-1 areas. In all other areas, cul-de-sacs shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet in total length, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department.

31. Required fire flow and duration for this project, is determined by California Fire Code Appendix `B'. 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 Y2" outlet and one 4" outlet.

32. 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

-256-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022
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.

33. Fire hydrants shall be installed at locations to be determined by the California Fire Code (2019) Appendix "CC". Required fire flow to be determined by the California Fire Code (2019) Appendix "B", [Table B105.1(2)]. Minimum fire flow shall not be less than 1500 gpm.

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

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

34. 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.

35. Prior to demolition of the four (4) resident homes onsite, an asbestos containing material (ACM) and lead -based paint (LBP) survey shall be conducted to assess each resident structure for the presence of ACMs and LBPs. If survey results indicate the presence of these hazardous materials, an ACM and/or LBP removal plan shall be required to address the standard protocol for the removal and remediation of materials by a licensed contractor certified by CaIOSHA, prior to or during demolition. Any ACM/LBP materials shall then be required to be disposed of at a licensed and regulated facility that accepts ACM and LBP waste materials, consistent with existing regulations.

36. The Project Applicant shall comply with all Mitigation Measures as identified in the Project -assigned Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP).

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 228

37. 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 1 acre or greater. In addition, the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.

38. Groundwater pollution from urban run-off water generated by the project shall be mitigated using various structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs), 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 Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with the 2010 MS4 permit and most recent regulatory mandates shall be met.

-257-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022

39. The applicant shall provide documentation indicating that the WQMP, 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.

40. The applicant's plans indicate approximately 49.5% of the site to be improved with impervious surfaces. Design features shall be included to direct storm water run-off flows into landscaped pervious areas before any run-off flows into public rig hts-of-way.

41. Permanent drainage improvements are required, per the appropriate Master Plan of Drainage, to intercept and conduct the regional and/or local flows through or around the site in an approved manner.

42. The proposed storm drain facilities will intercept and provide for collection of runoff generated on -site (and off -site flows that drain onsite). All facilities will be designed in accordance with current City and County policy and requirements including applicable Development Code Sections (pertaining to Flood Plain Safety Overlay Districts). Final facility design and location must be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. All on -site storm drain facilities will be designed to convey flows which could be expected from a storm with a 10-year recurrence interval with additional design factors of safety and freeboard to provide a 100-year level of flood protection to inhabited structures. During storms of intensity greater than the 10-year storm, additional flood protection is provided by utilizing the local storm drain system and conveying additional runoff onto streets. Storm drain facilities which intercept canyon flows upstream of development area will be designed to convey the 100-year rather than 10-year design flow. For the sizing of roadway storm drains and locations of catch basins in streets the storm drain system shall be designed to:

A. Collect a 25-year storm recurrence interval within the street section (top of curb to top of curb).

B. Collect and contain the 100-year interval within the roadway right-of-way.

43. 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.

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

45. Existing City roads which will require reconstruction shall remain open for traffic at all times, with adequate detours, during actual construction. A cash deposit

-258-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022
may be required to cover the cost of grading and paving. Upon completion of the grading and paving to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division, the cash deposit will be refunded.

46. 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.

47. A topographic map shall be provided to facilitate the design and review of necessary drainage facilities at the time the site is developed.

48. Additional three (3) foot dedication is required to provide for a thirty-three (33) foot half -width right-of-way. A copy of the Grant Deed for all properties affected by this requirement must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to document preparation.

49. 2"d Street and 3rd Street shall be designed as water -carrying streets and their water carrying capacity shall be maintained.

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 225

50. 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, California Energy Codes, California Accessibility Codes, and Yucaipa Municipal Codes as adopted by the City of Yucaipa.

51. Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access to all entrances and exterior ground floor exits and access to normal paths of travel, and where necessary to provide access. Paths of travel shall incorporate (but not limited to) exterior stairs, landings, walks and sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, warning curbs, detectable warnings, signage, gates, lifts and walking surface material. The accessible route(s) of travel shall be the most practical direct route between accessible building entrances, site facilities, accessible parking, public sidewalks, and the accessible entrance(s) to the site. California Building Code (CBC) 11A and 11 B.
a. City of Yucaipa enforces the State of California provisions of the California Building Code disabled access requirements. The Federal ADA standards differ in some cases from the California State requirements. It is the building owner's responsibility to be aware of those differences and comply accordingly.

-259-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022
b. Disabled access parking shall be located on the shortest accessible route.

Relocate parking spaces accordingly.

52. Multi -family buildings on the site shall be accessible/adaptable per California Building Code (CBC), Chapters; 11A and 11 B.

53. Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patios, block walls and storage buildings.

54. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer.

55. 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.

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 (1/2) 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.

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

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

56. The Project Applicant shall comply with all Mitigation Measures as identified in the Project -assigned Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP).

-260-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022

57. 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.

58. 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.

59. Provide plans for conceptual landscaping, fencing, floorplans and detailed building elevations including materials, finishes and colors for all units for Planning Commission review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

60. The Project applicant shall submit updated Landscape Plans in addressing all conditions and redlined corrections as noted by the Landscape Architect's Site Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan comments (dated May 17, 2022). Please note that additional elements may be necessary following submittal of Landscape Plans as required for plan check/permits, including the project Conditions of Approval and the City's Administrative Design Guidelines.

61. The applicant/owner shall process a Condition Compliance Review through the City for verification of conditions prior to the issuance of building permits.

62. Water service shall be by South Mesa Water Company. The South Mesa Water Company letter dated May 5, 2021, is included as a Condition of Approval.

Submit evidence of service to Building and Safety at time of Condition Compliance review.

63. Sewage disposal shall be by Yucaipa Valley Water District. The Yucaipa Valley Water District letter dated May 12, 2021, is included as a Condition of Approval.

Submit evidence of service to Building and Safety at time of Condition Compliance review.

64. The applicant shall submit a "Solid Waste Recycling Plan" for review and approval. This Plan shall address two (2) principal recycling programs: 1) the recycling of construction waste/debris during the demolition and/or development phase of the project, and 2) the recycling of the solid waste that is generated daily by each proposed use during the operational phase of the project. The construction waste component shall include: complete information on the individual or firm that will be responsible for implementing the recycling plan; complete information on all proposed recycling facilities that will receive waste products; and estimates of the volume or weight of each type of material that will be recycled. The operational waste component shall include: complete

-261-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022
information on the location, access, sizes, and numbers of solid waste and recycling bins needed to serve each proposed use that is located within the project. For information on the types of waste disposal services that are available, you may contact Yucaipa Disposal, Inc. at (909) 797-9125 for assistance.

65. Proof of fee payment of Fish and Game fees and/or County Administrative handling fees pursuant to California State Assembly Bill 3158 shall be submitted.

66. Provide detailed building elevations including materials, finishes, colors, and signage for all buildings for Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Building elevations shall be consistent with those approved by the Planning Commission.

67. The applicant/property owner shall grant to the City, in writing, the irrevocable right of entry over, and access to, such property, upon twenty-four (24) hours' posted notice, by authorized City employees or agents, for the purpose of removing or painting over graffiti on any designated graffiti attracting surfaces.

68. Project shall comply with Chapter 2, High Density Residential Design Standards, of the Development Code and objective design requirements from the City's Design Guidelines.

69. A Density Bonus Agreement shall be executed between the City and the Project Applicant.

70. The Project applicant shall submit a revised Landscape Plan to the City to address all conditions and redlined corrections as noted by the Landscape Engineer's attached Site Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan dated May 17, 2022).

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 228

71. The Project Applicant shall submit engineered road improvement plans to the City Engineer.

72. 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.

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 225

-262-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022

73. 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.

74. 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, California Energy Codes, California Accessibility Codes, and Yucaipa Municipal Codes as adopted by the City of Yucaipa.

75. 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.

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 (1/2) 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.

76. Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access to all entrances and exterior ground floor exits and access to normal paths of travel, and where necessary to provide access. Paths of travel shall incorporate (but not limited to) exterior stairs, landings, walks and sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, warning curbs, detectable warnings, signage, gates, lifts and walking surface material. The accessible route(s) of travel shall be the most practical direct route between accessible building entrances, site facilities, accessible parking, public sidewalks, and the accessible entrance(s) to the site. California Building Code (CBC) 11A and 11 B.
a. City of Yucaipa enforces the State of California provisions of the California Building Code disabled access requirements. The Federal ADA

-263-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022
standards differ in some cases from the California State requirements. It is the building owner's responsibility to be aware of those differences and comply accordingly.
b. Disabled access parking shall be located on the shortest accessible route. Relocate parking spaces accordingly.

77. Multi -family and public use structures on the site shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 11A and 11 B.

78. Multi -family and public use structures on the site shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 11A and 11 B.

79. Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patios, block walls and storage buildings.

80. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer.

81. The perimeter of the jobsite, adjacent to any public right-of-way, shall have a properly installed, 6' high, construction fence with privacy cloth attached. The fencing and cloth shall be maintained and kept in good condition until such a time that the project has been completed, or a permanent perimeter wall is in place.

All construction entrances/exits shall be approved in advance by city personnel.

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

82. 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.

83. 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.

SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED AND/OR USED FOR

PURPOSES APPLIED FOR UNTIL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
HAVE BEEN MET:

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

84. The Project Applicant shall comply with all Mitigation Measures as identified in the Project -assigned Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP).

-264-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022

85. 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.

86. Parking and on -site circulation requirements shall be provided for as identified on the approved site plan.

87. All access drives and parking areas shall be surfaced with a minimum of 2 inches of asphalt concrete surfacing, City Road Specification No. 39, which shall be appropriately striped to accommodate safe vehicular circulation.

88. All access drives shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide to facilitate two-way traffic.

89. Any lights used to illuminate the site shall be hooded and designed so as to reflect away from adjoining properties and public thoroughfares.

90. All landscaping and irrigation shown on the approved landscape and irrigation plans and all required walls shall be completed. Trees in the parkway between sidewalk and curb/gutter (abutting 2"d and 31d Streets) shall be provided with a linear root barrier. Provide the City with a Certificate of Substantial Completion from the certified professional that prepared the approved landscape and irrigation plans.

91. All roof top mechanical equipment is to be screened from ground vistas.

92. The Project Applicant shall comply with all Mitigation Measures as identified in the Project -assigned Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP).

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 22

93. Construct curb and gutter (with match -up paving) twenty-two (22) feet from centerline.

94. Construct sidewalk adjacent to site with landscaped parkway.

95. Construct driveway approach/entrance. Commercial driveways require radius type approaches.

96. 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.

97. The Applicant shall provide written documentation that the WQMP is consistent with the BPMs shown on the as -built grading plans and landscape plans. In case

-265-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022
of inconsistency, the Applicant shall revise the WQMP to match the as -built plans.

98. Developer shall construct sidewalk along 2nd Street from the proposed development to the existing crosswalk located at Tara Lane to the north.

Developer shall construct sidewalk along 3rd Street from proposed development to County Line Road. Improvements at County Line Road shall be designed to accommodate the proposed roundabout improvements currently under construction by the City.

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 225

99. The building(s) shall meet all handicapped requirements. 100. The building(s) shall comply with all structural and non structural provisions of the California Building Code.
101. Any change of occupancy will require submission of plans for approval to Building and Safety. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact the local Building and Safety Division for a pre -construction inspection prior to occupancy of the building(s).
102. The building(s) or structure(s) shall meet all applicable requirements of the adopted model codes and amendments.

CDF FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT. 246
103. 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.
104. Driveways exceeding 150 feet shall have a Fire Department approved turn- around at the terminus (hammer -head tee).
105. Paved 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.
106. 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

-266-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022
other emergency equipment and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations.
107. The public and/or private roadways serving this project shall be named. 108. Street name signs shall be installed with approved names. 109. 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 Prevention Department and shall over -ride 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" ordering is available from www.knoxbox.com .
110. Address numbers shall be placed on all new and existing commercial and multi- family residential structures in such a manner as to be plainly visible and legible from the access roadway or street. Structures shall have numbers of 8" height, 3/8" stroke on contrasting background. Address numbers shall be illuminated so as to be visible and legible from access roadway or street. Industrial occupancies shall have address numbers of 12" height, 1" stroke and shall be illuminated so as to be visible and legible from access roadway or street. Where structure setback exceeds one hundred (100) feet from the access roadway or street, additional non -illuminated numbers 6" in height, 3/4" stroke, on contrasting background shall be displayed at property access entrance. 111. Prior to final inspection, there shall be posted at each entrance of the complex an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the complex showing the locations of the viewer, the unit designations within the complex, and the locations of fire hydrants. The developer shall submit a drawing detail to the Fire Department for approval.
112. "No Parking — Fire Lane" signs shall be posted at locations designated by Fire Department. Fire lane curbs shall be painted red with white letters stating, "No Parking — Fire Lane".
113. On -site fire hydrants capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be installed at locations identified by the Fire Marshall. 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 Y2" outlet and one 4" outlet.
114. Approved fire hydrant pavement markers shall be installed. 115. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed according to NFPA 13R and Fire Department requirements. Submit three (3) sets of shop plans with material cut sheets and hydraulic calculations, indicating the type of occupancy, type of

-267-

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022
materials to be stored (if any), for Fire Department review and approval prior to any installation. Submit copy of California C-16 license. 116. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed according to NFPA 13 and Fire Department requirements. Submit three (3) sets of shop plans with material cut sheets and hydraulic calculations, indicating the type of occupancy, type of materials to be stored (if any), for Fire Department review and approval prior to any installation. Submit copy of California C-16 license. 117. Automatic fire sprinkler control devices (P.I.V. & O.S.&Y.) shall be visible from Fire Department access roadway, and identify system being controlled and address of structure. Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be located no closer than fifty (50) feet and not to exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet from structure. Required fire hydrant shall have a maximum distance from FDC of thirty (30) feet. FDC shall identify address and system of structure being protected.
118. A minimum of one 2A-10BC fire extinguisher shall be installed for each 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Travel distance to any one fire extinguisher shall not exceed 75 feet. Additional fire extinguishers, size and class to be determined by Fire Department, may be required. Fire extinguishers shall be serviced annually and shall have a current sfm service tag attached.
119. An automatic fire detection and alarm system meeting the requirements of CFC Article 10, CBC and NFPA 72 shall be installed. Three (3) sets of shop plans with material cut sheets and calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 120. 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.
121. Carbon Monoxide detectors shall be installed pursuant to manufacturer specifications.
122. 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 '/2" maximum openings.
123. A class "A" roof covering structure with "bird stops" shall be installed. 124. The main electrical panel and all sub -panels shall be labeled on inside cover for all circuits.

Premium Land Development
Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — October 24, 2022
125. 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. 126. A solid core, self -closing door shall be installed between an attached garage and living space.
127. Commercial and industrial structures/occupancies and gated complexes shall have a "Knox box" system installed on the exterior of the buildings or complex.

Location of device to be determined by the Fire Department. The box shall contain keys necessary to gain access and may contain pre -plans and SDS information as required by the Fire Department.
128. Commercial exit requirements:

A. Required exit doors shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times.

B. Required exit doors shall swing outward and away in the direction of exit travel.

C. Obstructions shall not be placed in the required width of an exit. Exits shall not be blocked or locked shut or obstructed in any manner during business hours.

D. Exit paths shall be illuminated when structure is occupied.

E. Exit path illumination shall be supplied from two (2) sources of power when occupant load is one hundred (100) persons or more.

F. When exit way/exit pathway and/or exit doorway is not easily identified, additional exit signs shall be installed.

G. Exit signs shall be internally or externally illuminated by two lamps or shall be of the self -luminous type.
129. Submit to Fire Marshal's office building and/or structure plans for Fire Department Review.

-269-

RESOLUTION NO.2022-41

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRICT
CHANGE NO. 21-085, APPROVING THE CHANGE OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 8.39 ACRES FEATURING
THREE EXISTING RESIDENCES FROM RM-10M (MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL 10,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO RM-24 (HIGH

DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yucaipa (the "City Council") has before it a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment to change a Land Use District designation (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study which has been prepared for the Project evaluates and determines that any potentially significant environmental impacts that occur are at a level that are less -than -significant; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use District Amendment is in the public interest, and there will be a community benefit, because the development would provide housing that is directly accessible to neighborhood serving uses; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use District Amendment is consistent with General Plan goals and policies regarding residential uses, and it will provide additional housing opportunities within the City; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use District Amendment will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding properties as any future project will require improvements and include development standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

It has reviewed and considered the information contained in General Plan Land Use District Amendment No. 21-085, approving the change of the Land Use Designation of four (4) contiguous parcels (APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84) from City's RM-IOM (Multiple Residential — 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to — RM-24 (high density multiple residential) as shown on the attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference, and now approves this project.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this _"' day of October, 2022.

ATTEST:

Jennifer Crawford, City Clerk
David Avilla, Mayor
-270-

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CHANGE AREA
.,
| |p00000r
' .
,
� ____
-- ' -

ORDINANCE NO.412

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 343, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL LAND USE PLAN

AND ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:

Section 1. A public hearing has been held before the City Council of the City of Yucaipa (the "City"), duly noticed and conducted pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Laws of the State of California and applicable provisions of Division 3 of the Development Code as adopted by Ordinance No. 124; and the Official Land Use Plan of the City, as adopted by Ordinance No. 343, is hereby amended as provided in Section 2 herein below.

Section 2. The proposed land use designation contained on the "Official Land Use Districts Map" on file with the City, and bearing the file number Case No. 2 1 - 085/GPA/LUCR, changes the Land Use District designation of four contiguous parcels (APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84) from City's Multiple Residential Land Use District (RM-10M) to the City's High Density Multiple Residential Land Use District (RM-24) proposed as part of a housing project as shown on the attached Exhibit A.

Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the following summary of this ordinance to be published by two (2) insertions in the Yucaipa News Mirror, a newspaper of general circulation that is printed, published, and circulated in the City of Yucaipa, and hereby designated for that purpose by said Council of the City of Yucaipa: "Ordinance No. 412 changes the Land Use Designation of four contiguous parcels (APNs: 0319-253-28, - 29, -30, -84) from City's Multiple Residential Land Use District (RM-10M) to the City's High Density Multiple Residential Land Use District (RM-24) as part of Case No 21- 085/GPA/LUCR."
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this _U' day of October, 2022.

ATTEST:

Jennifer Crawford, City Clerk
David Avila, Mayor
-272-

Exhibit A

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CHANGE AREA
-77_ l
-1 k1loolloo[Mr.oa000noraa
u-nnnn
OT
rm
mmm
.... . ......
-273-

Benjamin Matlock
From: Vero Levy
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2022 3:41 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Map of Countyline and Surrounding Streets
Attachments: Map of Countyline and Surrounding Streets.pdf Hello,
My name is Veronica Levy. I live o My concern about changing the land use from RM-100 to RM-24 on Case No.21-085/gpa/lucr/dba is the overpopulation it will cause. I took a screenshot of the land in question along with its surrounding area. I discovered many rental properties just from 5th street to California St. alone. Below you will find the key that corresponds to the map markings and color shades for my findings.

I would like to see the traffic report for the affected streets; 3rd Street from County Line Road to Avenue H, 2nd Street from County Line Road to Avenue H, Avenue H from 5th Street to California St. as these streets are multi family residential. I assume the Elementary, Calimesa ES, located on 2nd Street would cater to these residents. Vehicles driving to and from the school block 2nd street from entering/exiting as well from Vickey Way, San Carlos St. San Rosen Ct.

I'm also concerned with the children and parents crossing the streets. Currently there is a crossing guard on the corner of County Line Road and 2nd Street. However the planned roundabout will not only keep the flow of traffic going but the residents will have to learn how to travel through them. The children will have a difficult time crossing the street more so with the proposed high density multi family on the land near the school. It's not safe.

Yucaipa would not benefit from the added apartments. They are closer to Calimesa therefore the revenue would go to a different city, employment may be closer in the Riverside County area and the heavy traffic to the the 10 freeway may case jams and accidents.

Across the Street from the ES, is a post acute facility. Emergency vehicles come and go from this facility often. The high density apartments would be a major traffic issues for the emergency vehicles causing lives to be lost.

Thank you for the opportunity to address my concern and opposition to the general plan amendment.

Sincerely,
Veronica Levy
-274-

Be.tBuyPlumbutgo LaRayetir v WesteriinConcreteQ snerrytr+ iieaiung and An Transportation System Vibrationz. Retreat Church Hacienda Farms Mother Natures Goodie
n Entertainment
^ QPageLocksmith
ti
Ave H Ave H Ave H O Ave H Ave H Ave H Ave H
a w �
Condos Isaac Uribe Concrete a Cal's Transport 8 T
4 Fox Pc Repair Flat Fee
t c Computer Repair 80.00 DYNAMii
Bender Sign CompanyQ DIESEL INC 1.
y PINEWOODVickey Way O Vickey Way Vickey
Apartment
❑
u; Apartmentnt Court Homes Jerry's Painting
Am
a Church of Christ
Ambemood PI 0 Pinewood Ct m of Calimesa
Dr e,'ystone Te' Calimesa Post Acute Q
s V Q Yucaipa Hills Post Acute a Bin Horn Motorsport
on Santa Rosa of N 9
----------------------------------r Rainbow Board and Care ® Peaceful PI Calimesa
d n Tara Ln Elementary School
m
tare Ln
Bonanza mobile A --r
home park - - :Cre-,tvy000 Corp rat +Ch %r sale
r C'hul'
+ ion
' Sunrise or - - -"=i
- - -- -, 1-4! i. ice. San Carios St San Carlos St
-----------------------------------
�)L.`-r
cn c�____ ______— -- --------——--'lo.

Acts Appliance
? I Repairs - Yucaipa
cn a I
200 apartments I
soCalRaise Fundraising e�;; The Leak Detective r
Boat Storage S245.00 Linda, Casa Sundance Auto Spa Q
Patrician Mobile Q Treio Mexican P County Line Rd W County Line Home Park <`'° Joshua Stained
QGlass Studio
W County Line Rd Mesa Wo tm
County Line Rd 19 7-Eleven `k,d J
TrrC Tut Mechanic Ccm:er+mce sic+e V n
------------ incomplete gated community Magnolia Gardens existing apart/condos/duplex
Condos under contruction
Existing buildings
Property zoned 19 units or 38 senior housing
-275-

AJD
g A--t> 2�� L-C-.J�
_2,6_

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from IUM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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.

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

SIGNA
I_I MWN_

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, 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 PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING 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 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 Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
-277-

May 31, 2022
The undersigned affected resident(s) of the City of Yucaipa object to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division Project Notice of May 17, 2022 (the Notice) and to the proposed General Plan Amendment described therein (the GPA) as follows:

1. The method of delivery/service of the Notice was inadequate to properly advise concerned parties, in that leaving a written notice on a resident's front door step is not adequate notice under applicable law or constitutional protections. In some cases, the notices were blown away and in others the homeowners did not use their front door or did not otherwise receive notice.

2. The selection of persons to receive the attempted delivery/service of the Notice failed to include interested parties and homeowners living in the affected area(s) who are entitled to notice.

3. The time allotted for a response or objection by the affected residents is too short to permit the affected residents to consider and formulate objections or to consult with counsel.

4. ' Neither the Notice or the procedures for the proposed GPA provide any opportunity for affected residents to review or consider aspects of the proposal, including but not limited to its feasibility; -environmental impact, intent of city policy or other applicable subjects required to be included in the proposal.

5. 'There is no compelling reason for the proposed GPA.

6. The proposal and/or the proposed GPA may exceed the limit on the number of proposals or GPA's permitted to be adopted in a year.

7. No public hearing has been noticed, scheduled or even mentioned in the Notice.

8. The proposed GPA is not in the public interest, nor is there any attempt at a showing of public interest, the burden to do so being on the City of Yucaipa and the proposers.

9. The proposed GPA is detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. A few, but not all, of such detriments include the impacts on water sources, calls for police, fire and ambulance services, and'schools.

IO.'Both the Notice and the proposed GPA are not and have not been processed in accordance with applicable provisions of California. Government Code, CEQA and other applicable statutory requirements.
-278-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-0851GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from R.M-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29, 3 0, 84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
coo nab- �na� �pc�r�r� ���� We (A C 000d f i+ FCr
�L 'this aIC ck , c--,a \C\ CcWk'J�' k c i 1�'10b( �iCitT 'l C . CAOd k4191M.

PRINT

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, 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 PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING 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 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 Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
-279-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISI;4CEIVED
PROJECT NOTICE MAY 2 0 2022
DATE: May 17, 2022 YUCAIPA VALLEY
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR WATER DISTRICT
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
03 19-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;03 t 9-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
c, U wA4-<_,,r V 5w i d

SIGNATURE DATE AGENCY
PRINT NAME Q �.5 i PC:Yn l.1 S ADDRE

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PR

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR "r0, THE TIME IT MAKES rrS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS ITELD 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 NUNIBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY. TINIE 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 Yucaipa -Cal i mesa School District South Mesa Water Company
Oil F

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROTECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RIM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,3 0, 84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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 nurnber indicated above. If you have no conuuent, 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 GEN
SIGNATURE � — �v DATE �Y/ .0 AGENCY
PRINT NAME Y172 6_� ADDRESS —
'v CPFI e)T c vt 7 :1! 7

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, 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 PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING 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 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 Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
-281-

May 30, 2022
The undersigned affected resident(s) of the City of Yucaipa obiect to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division Project Notice of May 17, 2022 (the Notice) and to the proposed General Plan Amendment described therein (the GPA) as follows:

1. The method of delivery/service of the Notice was inadequate to properly advise concerned parties, in that leaving a written notice on a resident's front door step is not adequate notice under applicable law or constitutional protections. In some cases, the notices were blown away and in others the homeowners did not use their front door or did not otherwise receive notice.

2. The selection of persons to receive the attempted delivery/service of the Notice failed to include interested parties and homeowners living in the affected area(s) who are entitled to notice.

3. The time allotted for a response or objection by the affected residents is too short to permit the affected residents to consider and formulate objections or to consult with counsel.

4. Neither the Notice or the procedures for the proposed GPA provide any opportunity for affected residents to review or consider aspects of the proposal, including but not limited to its feasibility, environmental impact, intent of city policy or other applicable subjects required to be included in the proposal.

5. There is no compelling reason for the proposed GPA.

6. The proposal and/or the proposed GPA may exceed the limit on the number of proposals or GPA's permitted to be adopted in a year.

7. No public hearing has been noticed, scheduled or even mentioned in the Notice.

8. The proposed GPA is not in the public interest, nor is there any attempt at a showing of public interest, the burden to do so being on the City of Yucaipa and the proposers.

9. The proposed GPA is detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. A few, but not all, of such detriments include the impacts on water sources, calls for police, fire and ambulance services, and schools.

10. Both the Notice and the proposed GPA are not and have not been processed in accordance with applicable provisions of California Government Code, CEQA and other applicable statutory requirements.

Fred Pierce
caipa CA 92399
-282-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land .use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RNI-72C to Riot-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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.

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

SIGNATURE��I g�i1/!5 Fr✓\_ DATE ' GENCY .

PRINT NAME T>II\I L li�)Ci`71 l ADDRES�,� �% J

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

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED N WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING

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 SO'NIEONE 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 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 Yucaipa-Calime sa School District South Mesa Water Company
-283-

DATE: May 22, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for allowing me to voice my concerns with the above mentioned proposal that has been presented by PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT.

I would like to take this opportunity to say, my family and I moved to Yucaipa a little over 2 years ago. We fell in love with the community. Our neighborhood is quiet. We all look out for each other around here. We back each other up. We want the best for our neighborhood, for our families, and for our children. Most importantly our children.

The school already brings traffic congestion around school hours. 2nd St. is already not able to handle the current amount of traffic that is needed for the school. When traveling from Avenue H and traveling southbound people making a left hand turn into the school, block traffic and create a blockage for through traffic also blocking oncoming traffic as well. People are leaving their trash in our yards. So therefore an apartment complex will not help but only add to worsen the above stated concerns.

Thank you,
Signed H&& I mum

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GP.A/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from Rya-72C to RIM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,94
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWPiG 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 May 31, 2022. Comments received after this date mightnot be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case ataaver iudiiated above. If you have no 1;l imfita4 no Lepiy is u=c: .Jary. 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 taker..

CO1NL TENTS (If you nerd additional space, please attach additional pages):

This development will pose undue burden on traffic in the area and safety to our community.

With such a large complex it will create a dense population in a small area, increasing security and place increase burden on water and sewer services. With such a dense population from this complex added to all the construction of homes in Beaumont and Banning it will place further burden on the local 10 and 60 freeways further compromising quality of life for current residents. County Line is already very busy with traffic going to homes built in Calimesa. The units are too large for the proposed area also putting increased burden on local schools.

There are no large parks in this area to improve the quality of life for current residents. Many who are retired are not able to travel to the parks across town. With the increase in gas it has an increased burden and limits activities for residents on the county line area.

SIGNA'
PRINT
2,3q�

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE FR TO RAISING ONLY ;HOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRII'ILN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES M 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 BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSIRADM AND THE NUMBER Of PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TEST MONY. TIME RESTRICTIONS SAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESIT MONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT 110 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 Yucaipa-Calimesa School District Soutar Mesa Water Company
-285-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPAILUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL- A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30, 84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-3u 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 May 31, 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 nu,�tber inuicatc-d abvvc. if you havc AU conu7lcrit, liu 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):

O Lt r C 0 ►VI ri_fil-. _J
�� SQ -�t �Jsi� STrxwtPt�ul �hve10pe kCtS he&n i1(i��I�2d I , . \)_ 1
9rCNATT.IRF. C '- .J� DATE '- 1/2-AGENCY
PRINT NAME y I ADDRESS

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROP

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, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

EHE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE NFUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN — .. __, icr BODY AT. OR PRIOR TO. THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU M_kY WISH TO iKAKE YOUR COMbiENTS IN i PITI—ING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOU: SEia Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District - Jr a c .t E^ ^ Di:dsian
-_ •••• •-•• • '..,{�,-.+-1�•,,.�nn "v nra�_na_i-aiimPca :�cnnni i �ictrirt South Mesa Water Company
-0

Jay Staviski
Elaine Staviski
Ranpa, RWW
May 31, 2022
Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Re: Case number: 21-085/GPA/LUCR; Applicant: Premium Land Development To Whom It May Concern:

Our understanding is that Premium Land Development has proposed an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation of 8.39 acres of property located between P St. and 2"d St. and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road from RM-72C to RM-24 and has requested a Land Use Compliance Review to permit building a 200-unit multi -family apartment project on those 8.39 acres of land. The land in question is perpendicular to San Rosen Ct., where we live and own a home. As surrounding property owners, we object to the re - designation of the property in question to RM-24, and we object to the construction of a 200-unit multi -family apartment project for the reasons discussed below.

First, the manner of notice to surrounding property owners of this proposed amendment and project was inadequate. We did not receive notice from the City of Yucaipa (hereafter referred to as "the City") of this proposed project. Rather, a concerned neighbor brought this matter to our attention over the holiday weekend. Note that the deadline for comments is today, May 31, 2022, giving us only a few days to comment and no time to inquire regarding the details of the proposal. Apparently, the notices were placed on the front doors of some of the surrounding property owners. However, it does not appear the notice was placed on our door. Someone is home nearly all hours of the day and would have heard if there was a knock on the door.

Moreover, we have a Ring doorbell that notifies us if anyone approaches the door. Thus, had anyone approached to place a notice on our door, we would have been notified. If not for a concerned nui-,iiboc, we would not have been aware of the proposal for this project until after the deadline for comments, if at all. Furthermore, because we were not properly notified, we had insufficient time to prepare a complete objection. Additionally, because of the holiday weekend, we were unable to contact the Planning Division for further information. There may be issues we have not yet had time to consider because we received such late notice.

Second, the City's procedure being used here to consider amending the General Plan is improper.

The City is using an administrative review, i.e., "a written or published notice given to affected and interested parties, followed by a decision by the reviewing authority" (Yucaipa Municipal Code (YMC) 83.010215). However, a public hearing is the proper procedure for decisions to change the classification of land from one adopted land use district to another land use district (YMC 83.020105). Here, Premium Land Development has proposed an amendment to the -287-

Re: Case number: 21-085/GPA/LUCR; Applicant: Premium Land Development General Plan to change the land use designation of 8.39 acres of property along 2"d St. from RM- 72C to RM-24. From the notice, it is unclear if the Planning Division is merely making a recommendation to the City Council or if the result of this project decision will automatically result in a change in the land designation. Thus, we contend that the proper procedure for this action is public hearing unless the Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed amendment.

Third, the proposed land use district change is not in the public interest. The General Plan vision references Yucaipa's "cleaner air" and "peaceful" community (Yucaipa General Plan 2016, p. 12). It boasts that "the City's quiet environment evokes the feel of a foothill community. This peaceful environment is a draw for residents and visitors" (Yucaipa General Plan 2016, p. 43).

Currently, the neighborhood surrounding the lots described in the project notice is, in fact, a quiet and peaceful environment. This is largely due to its designation as RM-72C and/or RM- 1 OM, which allows for no more than 8.7 dwelling units per acre. However, if the proposed General Plan amendment is passed, the quiet and peaceful environment will no longer exist in this neighborhood. According to the project notice, the proposed project located between Yd St. and 2"d St would allow for an additional 200 dwelling units in an area measuring 8.39 acres.

This would result in a significant increase of the number of people and vehicles in this small area, which would affect the air quality and peacefiilness of the community. For example, an additional 200 dwelling units would bring an additional 500+ cars. This number is based on the Yucaipa General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element dated August 23, 2021, where it states that multiple -family residential developments under the RM-24 designation are required to have from

1.5 to 2.5 parking spaces for each unit, depending on the size of the unit (Yucaipa General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element, Table 3-7). This would allow for approximately 400 cars for the residents of a. 200-unit apartment complex_ Moreover, multiple -family residents under the RM- 24 designation are required to have an additional 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking, which allows for 100 more cars (Id.). The addition of 500+ cars to the 8.39 acres between 2"d St. and 3`d St. would inevitably decrease the air quality of the surrounding community. Furthermore, the addition of 200 dwelling units would result in approximately 580 residents (based on an average household size of 2.9 in Yucaipa as reported in the Yucaipa General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element). Undoubtedly, the noise from such a large increase in population within the small location proposed would destroy the current quiet environment. Thus, the increase in noise and traffic would diminish the peacefulness and air quality of the surrounding neighborhood.

Fourth, the proposed land use district change is not a reasonable and logical extension of the existing land use pattern in the surrounding area. The surrounding area is comprised almost exclusively of single residential (RS-20M, RS-1 OM, and/or RS-72C) and multiple residential (RM-1 OM and/or RM-72C) designations. RS designations allow for a maximum density of 4.2 units per acre and RM designations, except RM-24, allow for a maximum density of 8.0 dwelling units per acre (Yucaipa General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element; Table 3-3). The proposed amendment would change the current RM-72C designation for the proposed location to RM-24.

An RM-24 designation allows for a density range of 20-24 units per acre (Id.). Thus, the proposed amendment would allow for an increase of about three times more dwelling units than currently allowed under the General Plan. This is inconsistent with the layout of the surrounding areas. Although there is an apartment complex on 51 St. and County Line Rd., there are traffic lights at that intersection. Moreover. 5°i St. is a main road that extends through to Yucaipa Blvd. 2 Re: Case number: 21-085/GPA/LUCR; Applicant: Premium Land Development and allows for increased traffic. The proposed project would be on 2"d St., which is not a main roadway, as evidenced by it not extending through to Yucaipa Blvd. Furthermore, there is an elementary school on 2"d St., which already contributes to traffic problems during weekday mornings and afternoons. Additionally, other nearby apartment complexes are much smaller in size compared to the proposed project.

Fifth, the infrastructure, circulation, and services are not able to handle higher density housing.

For example, as mentioned above, 2"d St. is not a main roadway that could handle the significant increase in vehicles that would inevitably result from a change in land designation to RM-24 and construction of a large multi -family apartment complex_ Moreover, assuming that some of the future residents would require the use of public transportation, the current public transit system is not adequate for such a large increase in population in the proposed location. As it stands, the public bus for San Bernardino County (Omnitrans) only travels to this area on weekdays. During the week, the bus travels to this area only once every hour. Furthermore, the current school system is not likely prepared for a large influx of children. Additionally, as it is well known, we have limited water resources in California. In fact, Governor Newsom has issued an executive order calling on local water suppliers to activate drought contingency plans_ The addition of approximately 580 residents to the proposed location would further reduce the water resources for the residents of the surrounding properties. We would note that South Mesa Water Company provides water for our home and would likely provide water for the proposed apartment complex. According to an article published in the Yucaipa/Calimesa News Mirror on February 18, 2022, South Mesa Water Company serves about 3,000 households in portions of Yucaipa and Cahmesa. The addition of 200 households equates to a 6.7% increase in water usage if considering only the water usage of the residents in those households. The common areas of the apartment complex will likely have high water needs for things such as open lawn areas, outdoor plants, pool and spa areas, etc. Note that these are listed in the Yucaipa General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element as possible site amenities that are required for apartment projects consisting of 100 to 200 units. For these reasons, a change in land use designation from RM-72C to RM 24 is not a reasonable and logical extension of the existing land use pattern in the surrounding area.

Sixth, the proposed land use district change will have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property. The project will not improve the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, its design proposing a 200-unit multi -family apartment complex would result in increased noise, traffic, water usage, safety problems, and parking issues. Problems with increased noise and traffic affecting the air quality and peacefulness have already been addressed above. Similarly, problems with increased water usage have been addressed above. Safety problems would likely increase due to a drastic increase in traffic along 2"d St. from the additional 500+ vehicles. As it stands, there is significant traffic along 2"d St. in the morning and afternoon because Calimesa Elementary School is located on 2"d St. Adding more vehicles to the mix would not only endanger children walking to and from Calimesa Elementary School but also increase the risk of traffic accidents with other cars. Additionally, the 200-unit apartment complex would create issues with parking for surrounding neighbors. Inevitably, parking for the 200-unit dwelling will spill out onto neighboring streets. Although the proposed apartment complex is required to have parking for residents, it will likely not have sufficient parking for guests of the residents of the 200-unit dwelling. The 100 guest spots required for a 200-unit apartment complex could be adequate for most weekdays, but it would not be adequate weekends, days preceding or -6

Re: Case number: 21-085/GPA/LUCR; Applicant: Premium Land Development following the weekend, or holidays, when the residents would likely invite multiple guests for parties and gatherings. This will most certainly have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property, as guests of the apartment residents and potentially the apartment residents themselves will likely have to park on 2"d Street, Yd Street, San Rosen Ct., and San Carlos St., among other neighboring streets, which will cause undue burden on the surrounding property owners. It should also be noted that should the developer request and the City grant reduced vehicular parking ratios for this proposed project, then the likelihood of nearby streets being used as overflow parking for the residents of the multi -unit dwelling and their guests would significantly increase. Accordingly, the proposed land use district change will have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property.

At this time, we are unable to provide detailed comments on the design quality, whether it adequately fits its intended use, or whether the project makes good use of the site because the notice contained no project design information and we have not yet obtained details regarding the design of the proposed project. Nevertheless, we reserve the right to raise additional objections regarding the design if this proposal is challenged at public hearing or court action.

Additionally, given the time constraints resulting from improper notice to our residence, we also reserve the right to raise additional objections not addressed in this letter at future public hearings or court actions.

Thank you for considering our objections. We look forward to receiving notice of your decision.

Sincerely,
5 fa--�
r� lay and Elaine Staviski
4 -290-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPAILUCR
APPLICANT: PRENHUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from Rift-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-ttnit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,L
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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.

CONINIENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages): rc ,N -I-� bra sal

II , W-
Aflu0 (t �b I � q � Q �M1L'C
3 rl
' I " L+, arai/1o. ,ry •-•) 54M'W J rY O.•. �'R✓�1 , S 1,.. rc bsri �� �LLLw g�,� 5►u- �N~ICL, �•re s w C�^�,w�— �'''�6�J" �� �►� drop b�M AT
7313�39 1 rkSa-
SIGI`T� :TUBE DE ZAGENCY ��
PRINT NAiv1E

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING TYIE ABOVE PR O 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, 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 PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TLvIE CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING 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 IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
-291-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8. 39 acres from RM-72C to-RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road, APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
y AMA UI�1"ufril vv. i�jr r�©r7��N (�j(=
f>4 0T-IF7GT-' Uvr` AL(!F_,av`-I
4V� 7'?4FF! c LUNC-ESrlutJ �Dvr_ j2, 714E
Setfv01-- A-tvT> A-.UD(^)& '�7"�C� 9C4-.27�AEt� ( .r GvovLTA /4k80 JT" ��r2� y �� ��= <_ G��1V�� JDr1t,vN �jvE
TU
SIGNATURE_ neTF �. ��T,

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PRO E LIMITED TO RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR M, THE TRa 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 BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RES RICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COIVMfENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
-292-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,3 0,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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 numberindicated 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):
0-crL6+ruC+1Cy1 CF UP0r-�rn2hA-5
�h�j Mall �G lci, -}- rJi- 0f- q11, I �Y•e c;lpar+me-oIr3 Cfit; bull 4 a,)t11 c1(Fec� +'lrqpC, tv,15 15 CI 5molf ovCni,'G 1 will oibo devolve l lie votuc of- -0)c )-)(:/ JI)JOY 1lcci will aff e(-� 4,,he �Yangoil k� 14 whl6h
LvC, a rro no u,r >'ho� lie /o.6e, oVY �r/vcicl�,
flo p&&-,� va 1 ue"-fyaagt// 1) F1Aofi Se0ovi TI-n, '►oe 71,11,�S rn(idea h?,-i I ) o-4, 0c,l ),I e,1-G , cr l .

SIGNATURE DATE L 'c GENCY
PRINT NAME I )0)1 lq Ati�04--ram ADDRESS Gil "I

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPO RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING

DMSION 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 BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TINIE 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 Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
-293-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PRENHUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8,39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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.

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

SIGMA
PRINT
dI$ea , CA

IF YOU CHALLENGE AW DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PR 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, 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 PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING 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 IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Propem Owners
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
�Z_::51zrl
-294-

5/24/2022
Concerned residents:

In response to your notification of proposal to land between 13682 2"d St. and 3`d street.

We have been residents in the small community for the last 8 years and struggle to understand why you would want to put 200 + apartments across from several small family homes. The proposal states this is for a multifamily apartment, why is it that everywhere else in Yucaipa has 55+ apartments? Multifamily apartment complex would mean 4 -8 people per household (min) and 2 -4 vehicles per household (min)? Where will you park these vehicles? Also, how will you provide police and fire help to people in such a small, confined space? Currently the area in our neighborhood has seen an increase in homeless, crime, stolen mail and stolen vehicles.

The biggest thing I want to know is, why is it okay to build multi family apartments on this side of the wash and they have never been built anywhere else in Yucaipa? We have little to no police patrol or city patrol in our area. A trailer has been sitting on the street in front of this property for the last 3 months and the city of Yucaipa has done nothing. This trailer has several water tanks / propane and BBQs, Located on the street. Before the trailer was moved to the street it was on the property at 13682 2"d St and the people entered the abandoned house located on the property and were burning fires inside the abandon home. Nothing was done. The location was also subject to several up to 8 trailers on the property all with expired tags and several people living on the property and entering the abandoned house. Just today the trailer on the street in front of the property had another car parked on the property and living out of the trailer.

The current conditions of the property are being supervised by several homeless people living out of trailers. If this is the case, what kind of people will you allow to live in these units? Is this a section 8 property? Is there any guarantee that if not will it ever be converted to section 8? The corner of 2"d St and County Line is currently under construction for a roundabout, 200 + units and all the cars where will they park? My quite street?
The neighbor on the corner of our street current is a long-distance hauler and parks his hauler 3x a week blocking the whole west entrance and the city has done nothing to correct or advise his to relocate his work vehicle.

Elementary is located less than a block away and is very crowed with parents in the AM/ and PM drop off and pick up. Also, across from the school is a Outpatient recovery center, this area is very busy. Is the cost of speed bumps, traffic lights being considered?
-295-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from IUM-72C to Riot-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
03 19-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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.

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

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, 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 PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTUvtONY 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 Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
-296-

Date: May 24, 2022
City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Re: Proposal to change the land use for property located between 2"d Street and 3`d Street to 200 apartments.

Judy Main
ucaipa,
Comments:

1. Our property is located to the north of this project. We are requesting concrete block wall with tan natural tones decorative as property boarders. NOT VINYL FENCING.

2. Concerns about population density: 200 apartments is too many for 8.39 acres. 125 apartments sounds much more reasonable. Each apartment could hold up to two or four individuals which comes to 400 to 800 people. That is too many people in such a small residential area.

3. Traffic concerns: Each apartment could generate two vehicles or more which comes to 400 vehicles. 2"d Street already has traffic issues with Calimesa Elementary School. How does this project plan to deal with the flow of traffic entering and exiting their apartments? Do the plans include parking for 400 vehicles within the 8.39 acres?

4. Height concerns: How many stories do they plan to build the apartments? We do not want units to tower over our property with people looking over into our yard. This would be an invasion of our privacy.

5. Pool and recreational concerns: If a pool is included in this project, it needs to be centrally located within the project. Placing a pool along a neighboring boarder would cause noise issues for a project this large.

6. Sidewalk and gutter concerns: Our property boarders the north frontage on 2"d Street. We do not want the sidewalk to end on our grass frontage area. The sidewalk needs to continue across the front of our property at their expense (approx. 66 feet).

7. Location of trash bins: Trash bins should be centrally located within the apartment complex.

Noise from trucks picking up dumpsters and possible flies could be an issue to bordering neighbors.

8. Apartment visual construction concerns: What are the visual exterior plans for these apartments? Rectangle box motel exteriors would not look attractive for this residential area.

Will they have patio and/or balconies? What colors will be used? Will the roofs look more homes or be just flat roofing?
Please do not freely pass this 200 apartment project just because the city needs more housing.

Seriously look at all the issues involved.

Judy Main
-297-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling.8. 39 acres from RM-72C to-RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: -13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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.projgct. Your comments must be received by this office no later than May 31, 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.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, pleas attach additional pages):
a n/ '7� �-
SIGNA -Wlz_
PRINT NAME L E L d2 7)�© h'2ci S' en
1,0 �a i✓4Qc.�- � G�� �E���7T�d�
4) fiCG� 7

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PRO

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, 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 PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING 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 IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
w

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PRENHUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from Rink-72C to IUVI-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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 continent, 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):
j
SIGNATURE -r 1

PRINT NAME
AMP
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE A;

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DEC

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.

JC/

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING 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 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 Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
-299-

Second Street Proposed Apartments
Hello, My name is Randy Main. I live at nd next
door to the proposed 200 unit apartment complex. First, I would like to say I look forward to this new project.

On a previous City Council discussion, I was "voted in" an 8' decorative block wall on our border and a FREE Sidewalk in front of my property, is this still the plan?
I am concerned about noise and light pollution bordering my property, is the play area safely away from my side?
The property proposes 200 apartments, what happened to the previous 69 condominiums?
Is there going to be underground parking for the proposed 400 parked cars?
Can our street, already subject to auto congestion for the Primary School across the street, handle another 400 cars a day? Can a "Round About" safely handle the additional cars?
I am concerned about my privacy, will 2 and 3 (or more?) story apartments be looking into my yard? If so, I would like substantial setback.

Trash truck access location. Can the "trash area" be not near my area? A quick checklist of my concerns is
Block Wall, Sidewalk, Noise and light pollution, Privacy setback, Parking, Street congestion, and my "Rural Feel"
Special Note — Can we be protected from this project "running out of money" and becoming a ghost town?
Thank You, Randy,lai
-300-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,3 0, 84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 %lay 31, 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. .

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

S ,--)7% �G �` 1 156
IS
Co�
SIGNATURE DATE ( Z2AGENCY
PRINT NAN SA Si VZ(, ADDRESS MM �T0C=RA!SIN4(G

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROP

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, 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 PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING 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 IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Propemt Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
G1-�-iZ3"
-301-

Gd �Gr
�lZ aG/�� �✓.v aM ���r,+.wr�u r s��r� � .�u�r l,�vrduu � j��a�t,� ts l.�ar�i��., s
o�
lie -r,�
Lv,{Mo wNA df G/u,�(rY Gvill tGf cllp.se— lar Iic44 rN jt4,avjI �S ;4,(& (�j jkA6
1 r/!i yu�rs 1tiloYG Guys Gi�f j usL S�iei� as c+ (,� - ���y�.

J�5 G{ 19Q1 G
V
I> G YFs/oGG+tfii Ci/1'la o5 U` /
bNrl �j"a j,(v�' a`�✓GG Wi0%t �t/S �l°��G�
'l tib a/ U� oL 5�rocclrl le, 7(,/U�-.
a4c a,GC w A4,y
cv(N1
I'l�lccv�,-�ve.Sr aM) TVl M iu� �... �evrlo wu•K�
-302-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GP,VLUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RIM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road, APNs:
0 319-25 3-28,29,3 0, 84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, AP.N: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND RENTENVING 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 May 31, 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) 790-9103.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this forth 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):

W(f, . U'S-C M )yea We- OPIA J'J00 l not b'_ �'QcP�
a C'-)SS
�►�. jyr --P'
y �.qd� 2 c�c,�c�l k'r5 �►^o t'n lu� ,ia�� �c b` tc2 S G^cl (h�l�i; tni
�,t✓ S�seet �Joilrl 6e(CA-2 r^�ch you n»� A d ,"r;^ �� Ccr'lQlc'k ��•:5 S �� i5 0tf►c,Ii
�uCl^ nnor� Sv;h: Z dal flb� i pre �,
SIGNATURE DA a'1"a1
PRINT/�aERME j�1x^Z �J1 �'.P� ADDRES V!,;4 P°lI C
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PRO _ ING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDINCE ELIVERED TO THE PLANNING

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 BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESMIONY, T51E RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESMfONY AT ANY PUB11C HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS TS IN WRrr[NG TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Prupert) Owners
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
-303-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPAILUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to R_M-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APINs:
0319-253-28,29,30, 84
LOCATION: 13692 2NT) ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 lair than May 31, 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 iru;cated above. if you Lave no cuaiutcut, au iepiy u ucceuary. 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 tak-en.

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

This development will pose undue burden on traffic in the area and safety to our community.

With such a large complex it will create a dense population in a small area, increasing security and place increase burden on water and sewer services. With such a dense population from this complex added to all the construction of homes in Beaumont and Banning it will place further burden on the local 10 and 60 freeways further compromising quality of life for current residents. County Line is already very busy with traffic going to homes built in Caiimesa. The units are too large for the proposed area also putting increased burden on focal schools.

There are no large parks in this area to improve the quality of life for current residents. Many who are retired are not able to travel to the parks across town. With the increase in gas it has an increased burden and limits activities for residents on the county line area.

SIGNATURE ZUa/ A" _DATE GENCY D/rt t° D CA-0h eY
PRINT NAME U (ADDRES YUCl� t Ct

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PR TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISID Lti THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO. THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, 7 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 TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTL'.f.ONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEAR.TNG ABOUT ' TM PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COKMENTS 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 Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
-304-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-0851GPAILUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM42C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,3 0,84
LOCATION:.13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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.

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

SIGNATURE:2—�=�A

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PRO G

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN EG DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR T0, THE TA E 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 BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARWISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS ING 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
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
M__
-305-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPINIENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from Rlvt-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,3 0, 84
LOCATION: _13682.2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 May 31, 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 Planting 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):

SIGNATURE._

GDATE J
PRINT

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PR

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN

DMSION 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 BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HE.ARMG.

DUE TO TINIE CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS PUSHING TO GIVE ORAL TESMIONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR CONWENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Propart) Owners
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
-306-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8. 39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 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 projeet. Your comments must be received by this office no later than May 31, 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.

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

SIGNATURE �..��DA
PRINT NAME`l --1; 1 AL.1 c.e— I,— en

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PR TO RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIIvffi 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 WR[TrEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING Tb GIVE ORAL TESTIbIONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR CONZIENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
-307-

21.085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 200 MULTI -FAMILY UNITS CASE No. 21-085/ GPA/LUCR/DBA/ARC
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines to provide for monitoring of the mitigation measures required by adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a property from RM-IOM (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential), and a Land Use Compliance Review and Density Bonus Agreement to construct a multi -building, 200-unit, housing complex with a Density Bonus Agreement to covenant ten (10) percent of the units as low-income affordable, located between 3rd Street and 2nd Street, and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84.

Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(d) of the CEQA Guidelines require public agencies to "adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes to the Project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." The lead agency must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during Project implementation prior to final approval of the proposed Project.

The City of Yucaipa (City) is the lead agency for the proposed Project and is responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The MMRP stipulates how all required mitigation measures are to be implemented and completed during the appropriate Project phase. It also facilitates documentation necessary to verify that mitigation measures were in fact properly implemented.

3.7.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Procedures This MMRP gives the City the primary responsibility for taking all actions necessary to implement the mitigation measures according to the specifications provided for each measure and for demonstrating that the action has been successfully completed. The City, at its discretion, may delegate responsibility for measure implementation and monitoring, or portions thereof, to other responsible individuals, such as a licensed contractor. Specific responsibilities for the City include:
• Coordination of all mitigation monitoring activities
• Management of the preparation, approval, and filing of monitoring or permit compliance reports
• Maintenance of records concerning the status of all approved mitigation measures • Quality control assurance of field monitoring personnel City of Yucaipa 1

21-0851GPAILUCRI DBAIARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
• Coordination with other agencies regarding compliance with mitigation or permit requirements
Reviewing and recommending acceptance and certification of implementation documentation
Acting as a contact for interested parties or surrounding property owners who wish to register complaints, observations of unsafe conditions, or environmental violations; verifying any such circumstances; and developing any necessary corrective actions

3.7.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first column identifies the mitigation measure.

The second column titled "Responsible for Monitoring," refers to the agency responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The third column "Monitoring Frequency" and the fourth column "Timing of Verification" refer to when monitoring will occur. The fifth column "Method of Verification" will be used by the lead agency to ensure what implementation of the mitigation will look like. The sixth column "Verified Date/Initials" will document the person who verified that the mitigation measure was satisfactorily implemented and will include the date on which this verification occurred. The last column titled "Sanctions for Non -Compliance" will be used to assist the lead agency in determining consequences for failing to comply with the mitigation measure. The mitigation measures are presented by environmental issue area.

City of Yucaipa 2
-309-

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Responsible
Sanctions for
Responsible for
for
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified
Non -
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Implementation
Frequency
Verification
Verification
Datelinitials
Compliance

BIOLOGY
BIO-1 Prior to release of grading permits, the Applicant shall Planning
Project
Prior to
During
Applicant to
Withhold
contract with a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction Division/Engineering
Developer /
grading and
grading and
provide
Grading
general nesting bird survey within all suitable nesting habitats Division
Inspector
or during
construction
preconstruction
Permits
that may be impacted by active construction during general construction
survey to the
avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31). The City
preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to initiation of construction. If no active avian nests are identified within the proposed development Project area or within a 300-foot buffer of the proposed development Project area, no further mitigation is necessary. If active nests of avian species covered by the MBTA are detected within the proposed development Project area or within a 300-foot buffer of the proposed development Project area,
construction shall be halted until the young have fledged, until a qualified biologist has determined the nest is inactive, or until appropriate mitigation measures that respond to the specific situation have been developed and implemented in consultation with the regulatory agencies. Based on the discretion of the qualified biologist, the 300-foot buffer may be expanded as appropriate to the species.

CULTURAL
CR-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered Planning Division
Project
Prior and/or
Prior to
Communication
Issuance of a
during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of Developer /
during
construction
between tribes
Stop Work
the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified Inspector
construction
and developer
Order
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre - contact and/or historic -era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

City of Yucaipa 3
-310-

21-085/GPA/LUCRI DBAIARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Responsible
Sanctions for
Responsible for
for
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified
Non -
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Implementation
Frequency
Verification
Verification
Datelinitials
Compliance
CR-2: If significant pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural Planning Division
Project
Prior and or
Prior to
Communication
Issuance of a
resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are
Developer /
during
construction
between tribes
Stop Work
discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the
Inspector
construction
and developer
Order
archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment
Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1
Planning Division
Project
Prior and or
Prior to
Notification to
Withhold
Developer /
during
grading and
the City by the
Permit/
Applicants for future development Projects in undeveloped Inspector
construction
construction
archaeological
Issuance of a
and developed areas where grading is proposed five feet and/or
Stop Work
below current elevation and in areas of moderate to high paleontological
Order
sensitivity or unknown paleontological sensitivity to prepare monitor and on -
a technical paleontological assessment prepared by a
site inspection
qualified paleontologist in assessing/reporting the sensitivity of a Project site for buried paleontological resources to the City of Yucaipa prior to issuance of grading permits. Fossils include large and small vertebrate and invertebrate fossils; the latter recovered by screen washing of bulk samples.

If resources are known or reasonably anticipated, the
assessment shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ
preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a
qualified paleontologist. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
• A paleontologist shall be retained for the Project
and shall be on call during grading and other
significant ground -disturbing activities.
• Should any potentially significant fossil resources
be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the
area of the discovery until the City concurs in
City of Yucaipa 4
-3ll-

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Responsible
Sanctions for
Responsible for
for
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified
Non -
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Implementation
Frequency
Verification
Verification
Datelinitials
Compliance
writing that adequate provisions are in place to
protect these resources.
• Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for
significance by a San Bernardino Certified
Professional Paleontologist. If significance criteria
are met, then the Project shall be required to collect
and catalogue the fossils per San Bernardino
County Museum guidelines and adequately curate
fossils in an institution with appropriate staff and
facilities for their scientific information potential to be preserved. A report of findings with an itemized
accession inventory shall be prepared as evidence
that monitoring has been successfully completed
and shall be submitted and approved prior to the
granting of occupancy permits.

NOISE
N0I-1 During all Project site excavation and grading on- Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
site, construction contractors shall equip all construction Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and Enforcement
Citation
maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards.

NO1-1 During all Project site excavation and grading on- Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
site, construction contractors shall equip all construction Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and Enforcement
Citation
maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards.

NO1-2 The contractor shall place all stationary
Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project Enforcement
Citation
site.

NO1-3 Equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
not in use.

Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
Enforcement
Citation
City of Yucaipa 5
-312-

21-0851GPAILUCRI DBAIARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Responsible
Sanctions for
Responsible for
for
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified
Non -
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Implementation
Frequency
Verification
Verification
Datelinitials
Compliance
N014 The contractor shall locate equipment staging in
Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
areas that will create the greatest distance between
Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
construction -related noise/vibration sources and sensitive Enforcement
Citation
receptors nearest the Project site during all Project
construction.

N01-5 Jackhammers, pneumatic equipment and all other
Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
portable stationary noise sources shall be shielded and noise Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
shall be directed away from sensitive receptors.

Enforcement
Citation
N01-6 The Project proponent shall mandate that the
Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
construction contractor prohibit the use of music or sound Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
amplification on the Project site during construction.

Enforcement
Citation
N01-7 The construction contractor shall limit haul truck Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
deliveries to the same hours specified for construction Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
equipment.

Enforcement
Citation
N01-8 The use of vibratory rollers, or other similar
Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
vibratory equipment, is to be prohibited within 23 feet, and Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
large bulldozers within 13 feet, of any residential structure to Enforcement
Citation
the north and/or south of the Project site.

Tribal Noticing
TRI-1: Prior to grading permit issuance, if there are any Planning Division
Project
Prior to and
Prior to
Communication
Issuance of a
changes to Project site design and/or proposed grades, the Developer /
or during
construction
between tribes
Stop Work
future developer shall contact the Yuhaaviatam of San
Inspector
construction
and developer
Order
Manuel Nation (YSMN) to provide an electronic copy of the revised plans for review. Additional consultation shall occur between the City, developer and Consulting Tribes to discuss the proposed changes and to review any new impacts and/or potential avoidance/preservation of the cultural resources on the Project. The developer shall make all attempts to avoid and/or preserve in place as many as possible of the cultural resources located on the Project site. In specific
circumstances where existing and/or new resources are
determined to be unavoidable and/or unable to be preserved City of Yucaipa 6
-313-

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Monitoring
Responsible
for
Implementation
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Datelinitials
Sanctions for
Non -
Compliance
in place despite all feasible alternatives, the developer shall make every effort to relocate the resource to a nearby open space or designated location on the property that is not subject to future development, erosion or flooding.

TRI-2: Archaeological Monitoring/Testing. Due to the
Planning Division
Project
Prior and or
Prior to
Communication
Issuance of a
possibility of present archaeological materials within the Developer /
during
construction
between tribes
Stop Work
Project site, as detailed by the Consulting Tribe, one of the Inspector
construction
and developer
Order
following shall occur:
• Archaeological testing shall be conducted prior to
any and all ground -disturbing activity. The testing
plan shall be approved by the Consulting Tribes
and should be created upon review of available
geological information, such as a geotechnical
study, USGS geology maps, and USDS soil maps.

Testing shall be implemented in -field by at least
one Secretary of Interior Standards qualified
archaeologist with at least 3 years of regional
experience in archaeology and at least one Tribal
representative from the Consulting Tribes. Any
findings during testing shall be properly recorded
on -site and reburied within the original find location (no collection shall be permitted). A testing report
shall be completed, to include recordation
documents (if any finds occur) and be provided to
the Lead Agency for dissemination to the
Consulting Tribes. The Lead Agency shall, in good
faith, consult with the Consulting Tribes concerning
the results of the testing plan and, if positive, work
toward avoidance of the resources, if feasible, as
well as implement the monitoring process, by way
of an Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Should no
findings occur during Tribal -approved testing,
monitoring shall not occur on -site and the
Consulting Tribes will be notified of any inadvertent
discoveries.

City of Yucaipa 7
-314-

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Monitoring
Responsible
for
Implementation
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Datelinitials
Sanctions for
Non -
Compliance
OR
• At least 30-days prior to application for a grading
permit and before any ground disturbing activities
on the site take place, which includes but is not
limited to, tree/shrub removal and planting,
clearing/grubbing, grading, excavation, trenching,
compaction, fence/gate removal and installation,
drainage, irrigation removal and installation,
hardscape installation [benches, signage,
boulders, walls, seat walls, fountains, etc.], etc., the future developer shall retain a Secretary of Interior
Standards qualified archaeologist with at least 3
years of regional experience and Tribal monitors
representing the Consulting Tribes shall monitor all
ground -disturbing activities in an effort to identify
any unknown archaeological resources. A
sufficient number of archaeological and Tribal
monitors shall be present each work day to ensure
that simultaneously occurring ground disturbing
activities receive thorough levels of monitoring
coverage. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,
the applicant shall provide the City of Yucaipa
evidence of monitors that meet the requirements of
the YSMN.

Should monitoring occur, the archaeologist, in consultation with Consulting Tribes, the developer, and the City of
Yucaipa, shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the Project site. Details in the AMP shall include:
• Project -related ground disturbance (including, but
not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching,
etc.) and development scheduling;
City of Yucaipa 8
-315-

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Monitoring
Responsible
for
Implementation
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Datelinitials
Sanctions for
Non -
Compliance
• The development of a rotating or simultaneous
schedule in coordination with the developer and
the Project archeologist for designated Native
American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes
during grading, excavation and ground disturbing
activities on the site: including the scheduling,
safety requirements, duties, scope of work, and
Native American Tribal Monitors' authority to stop
and redirect grading activities in coordination with
all Project archaeologists (if the tribes cannot come
to a consensus on the rotating or simultaneous
schedule of tribal monitoring, the Lead Agency
shall designate the schedule for the onsite Native
American Tribal Monitor for the proposed Project);
• The protocols and stipulations that the developer,
City, Consulting Tribes, and Project archaeologist
will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural
resources discoveries, including any newly
discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be
subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

TRI-3: Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In Planning Division
Project
During
During
Communication
Issuance of a
the event that Native American cultural resources are
Developer /
construction
construction
between tribes
Stop Work
inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground Inspector
and developer
Order
disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, archaeological testing, etc., for the proposed Project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:
• Avoidance and Preservation in Place: Avoidance
and preservation in place shall be the preferred
treatment for any and all discoveries of
archaeological materials. Should the resource not
be a candidate for avoidance or preservation in
lace, a resource -specific mitigation plan shall be
City of Yucaipa 9
-316-

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Monitoring
Responsible
for
Implementation
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Datelinitials
Sanctions for
Non -
Compliance
developed, reviewed by all Parties, and
implemented following the guidelines listed below:
• Temporary Curation and Storage for Removed
Resources: For resources that cannot be left in
place, they shall be temporarily curated in a secure
location onsite at an agreed to location that is
secure and accessed only by a limited number of
on -site supervisors, specified Tribal monitors, and
the archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts
from the Project site will need to be thoroughly
inventoried with tribal monitor oversite of the
process; and
• Treatment and Final Disposition of Removed
Resources: For resources that cannot be left in
place, the landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership
of all cultural resources, including sacred items,
burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and
non -human remains as part of the required
mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The
applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one
or more of the following methods and provide the
City of Yucaipa with evidence of same:
• Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the
discovered items with the Consulting Tribes. This
shall include measures and provisions to protect
the future reburial area from any future impacts.

Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing, basic
analysis, and other analyses as recommended by
the Project archeologist and approved by the
Consulting Tribes have been completed, all
documents should be at a level of standard
City of Yucaipa 10
-317-

21-0851GPAILUCRI DBAIARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Monitoring
Responsible
for
Implementation
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Datelinitials
Sanctions for
Non -
Compliance
professional practice to allow the writing of a report
of professional quality;
• A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified
repository within San Bernardino County that
meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and
therefore would be professionally curated and
made available to other
archaeologists/researchers for further study,
should the resources not be candidates for
reburial. The collections and associated records
shall be transferred, including title, to an
appropriate curation facility within San Bernardino
County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees
necessary for permanent curation;
• If more than one Native American tribe or band is
involved with the Project and cannot come to a
consensus as to the disposition of cultural
materials, they shall be curated at the San
Bernardino County Museum by default.
• At the completion of all ground disturbing activities on the site, a Monitoring Report shall be submitted
to the City documenting monitoring activities
conducted by the Project archaeologist and Native
Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of
grading. This report shall document the impacts to
the known resources on the property; describe how
each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document
the type of cultural resources recovered and the
disposition of such resources; provide evidence of
the required cultural sensitivity training for the
construction staff held during the required re -
City of Yucaipa 11
-318-

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Monitoring
Responsible
for
Implementation
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
DatelInitials
Sanctions for
Non -
Compliance
grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix,
include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the
archaeologist. All reports produced will be
submitted to the City and Consulting Tribes.

Should the resources be placed within a curation
facility as a final treatment, copies of all reports will be provided to the facility to remain with the
collection.

TRI-4: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that
Planning Division
Project
During
During
Communication
Issuance of a
human remains (or remains that may be human) are
Developer /
construction
construction
between tribes
Stop Work
discovered at the Project site during grading or earthmoving, Inspector
and developer
Order
the construction contractors, Project archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The Project proponent shall then inform the San Bernardino County Coroner and the City of Yucaipa Community Development Department
immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as
those of Native American origin, the applicant shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (PRC Section 5097). The
coroner shall contact the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant(s)(MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her
inspection and make recommendations or preferences for
treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

The disposition of the remains shall be overseen by the MLD to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts.

City of Yucaipa 12
-319-

21.0851GPAILUCRI DBAIARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for
Monitoring
Responsible
for
Implementation
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Datelinitials
Sanctions for
Non -
Compliance
The specific locations of Native American burials and
reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the San Bernardino County Museum.

According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052) determined in consultation between the Project proponent and the MLD. In the event that the Project proponent and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply and the median and decision process will occur with the NAHC (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)) City of Yucaipa 13
-320-

SITE PLAN
200 Unit Multi -family Development

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
0319-M 84
SUB NOd YUCAIPAVALLEY PORTION OFBLOCK IM DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS THE NORTH ONE AND ONE HA FACRES DFTHE SOUTH 1.82ACRES OFTHESOUTH ISLI DFEETOFTHE N ORTH 38A.SFED OF SAID BLOCK F88TOGETHERWITHTHAT PORTION OF SAIDBLOCK IBB DFSCKINDAS FOLLOWS

COMMENONGATTHE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK US SA O CORNEA BEING ON THE CENTER USE OF THIRD SUED30.00 FEET WIDE ON THE EAST SIDE THENCE SOUTHAO HIS THE CENTERLINE OFSAD THIRD STREET 36330 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE SOUOI WEST CORNEA OF NORTH ONE AND ONE -HALF ACRES OF THE SOUTH 1.81 ACAESOFTHESOUIM25220 FEET OF THE NORTH394M FEET OFILOCA188THENCE CON TINMNG

SOUTH ALONG THE CENTER LINE OFSAIDTHADSTREET SOLMFEEFTHENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHUNEOFSAID BLOCK ]NTOTHE

EAST UNEOFSAID MOCIIMTNENCE NODHALONG
THE [AST LINE OF SAID BUM 10 SOLO FEETTOTHE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE N ORTH ONE AND ONI ACRES OF THE SOUTH 1.82 ACRES OF THE SOUTH 252.60 FEET OF THE NORTH 394.90 FEET OF SAID BLOCK 10 THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK IH ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF AFO RE SAID NORTH ONE AND ONE+QF ACRES TO TH[ TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ALSO TOGETHER WINE THE SOUTH 303.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 516.80 FEET OFSAIDBLOIX 188.EKCEPIING THERE FAOM TKATPORMIN OF SNO SLOCK BS DFSCPIBEDAS FOLLOWS BEGINNING ATTHE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 516.AOlED OF SAID &OCK 198 SAID SOMMINESTCORNEM'G THE INTERSECTON OME CENTER USE OF THIRD STA ET WITH THE SOUTH UNE OF SNdD NORTH 516.SO FEET OF BLOCK 188 TEDI NORTH 89 DEG SIT 55' EAST 170JDD FEET ALONG SAID SOLRH UHEOFTHE NORTH 5162OFFETOF BIOCK1B8THFNCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH USE NORTH00 DEGO)'38'WEST MOO FEET ALONG A USE PARALLEL WITH AND 170.00 FEET EASTERLY OF SAD CENTER UNE OF THIRD STREET THENCE NORTH70DEG 13'D9' WE5753.14 FEETTOA POINT THAT UES III FEET NORTHERLY OF MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES T 0 SAI D SOUTHU N E SAD POINT ALSO UES IWDO FEET EASTERLY OF MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SND CENTER UNIT THENCE SOUTH B9 DEC ST S9' WEST 120.DO FED AL04GA UM PARALLEL WITH AND 98.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF SAID SOUTH LINE TDA POINT ON SAID CENTER LINE OFTHIAD SRED THRCESOUTHOD DEG DI' 38' EAST 88.00 FED ALONG SAID CENTER LINE OF THIRD STREET TOTHE?ONTOI 4GAISO EXCEPTING THERE FROM THE WESTERLY 30.00 RD LYING

WOFLNTH'ROSTRFET
0319-25123
SUB NO8YUWPAVAUEYS In FTN561 FTUDT189
D3194S329
SM NO B YUUIPAVALLEY5132 FT N4785FTLOT189
0319-253-30
SUB NOB YUUIPA VALLEY PTN LOT 189REGATPT IN CA 240ST 214.5 D S OFNE CORSO LOTTHS 132ITIN IN660 FTTH N 1322T TH E660IT TO POS
Project Notes

DEVELOPERIAPPUCANT OWNER
12�46Dp eC�aHDmia ev
b 240 Gaarr BBFIRriFy7q t ILIAC)
(909)57OM 99 !WAb,,�CA%7054745
(714)501144

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
W iR2S}ID, 2B, 305 M

SITE ADDRESS
1359E 3nl SL
135M, i=, I=2rd SL

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
E d13R WHOM 110,013 14It m ,1A I.)
R.P rt RW24 (24 &U.)

PROPOSED PROJECT
Mmtl M Oelral Pln W ILdw�mb RAFRI bn IM101L
OnbP.bllYwOprnry lnYlu Pytlm bu pwN.Ih.mlhYed wdS�Po�.ar, ml.Nbv d nd= Pb91ALcLYIIPIr�WSI ROaeId2 bwi6MlN fu�m4idF no�hnrs, HoLLI A1FdrUE611Ry
10%dlM bb O.IE001db CMM M m'YheM4Sbb1eN1IN rR1l.lnmldtl IrIId Ims nelbmd80%d5m Brradu LSubAlh IMPNS IImn.

MUlbm[� mrNNd W Oenmtl.d nRIRV rrJ rd Rom nWkllv.m 20 viR

STATISTICAL SUMMARY
LMAIs (IiRM} 351 111
LAAA INI 35LPNe1. 8.37 ec
T0WDNk9UNN M
Gnu D.W. 238du

UNIT SUMMARY
1 BedmO DA 050.1. W uYN
2B.dmin Ud WILL IDOLJb
3BedlwnlAVti MAJ. 50L.%
Per ROWFmpR[Mc II

COVERAGE AREAS
ERii9 AI. FAIAak 7,0115.IMIS. I)
ReiY6l Aidlgc 80,/87 r.1.
flmb�I BlldllP 4,1119tt
TdWM Ip Anc 54,655 a1. 237%
PNgtk.hI Alm 13;255J. 353%
- AIs 115,085.1. 103%
PIMP PdM 150Lt I*Lr.Qurtlmw
1W.JIM. r!;: wlw

PARKING SUMMARY'
L..d U. Prtlb Rdo Lift Soda RI
1 Bdbw U.pAN So m.pol
2 B3bw 2.DW Ad 1m 200&I
3 B0bW 2L IF
AIR 60 TOGA_
200 Mq-
Tdd SP Pmdtl.d: 372(1.& p4np
InFk&V IDAA\IPea (4 w eosu2b)
Ind!- 59mnpdI (IB%)
TOHCo ,dSp.MRIpie015D%): d.

ThiCown6Sp-P.Akd: iMq-
TOMGsglSpmbRRgiMI60%S N.

T.W Cage SP.- ftMW: O lPera.
'P.Ih91191I W YDC M.010730 tr WWOV IIdM4Pnla
NON:

1. No r% Wed I-d PI bdd mm1.
2 TM db b M.4,db lOod k dim.*0 h.. d

3.TM PI do. nA.mp "dl, - dI ft. *Imt P¢POdel
. Al* 4NA N UMN bb. PI
I. TIeM W *pI dbI0 mY N III NJSry

5. NRNbWhlm' , dw Ib01Nm Oh

1. L.dldp1+mdlr�'hNWdAmdN, bd
Swim Llrl rr:Sw
JbI
MR:_
utlllYe WlrCmpNlY 1551 G DivnN G.l CNmsp
� M. b� a. BMID
p�je4 8, 5m Wo. "
(BM?wLB101 1WR)3T 7915
PtvirOamlr 10
yV,byWNWDWW
I GaR29R
11YItrN,CA04121
(ROR) 4117
(B0�7pLJ®
B.*
1`rTY
m�� S.
. R.t, LI
(w)3074748
IIEB a5
W4 7083
Entry Sign
Phasing Plan
I I
IIV194 /�I
��+u-■ - - - - - I �I'fiililll' _i
I ,
1= HP
�`�I�'�n4��,1111111111.1111111111.1111111111�I1r �YIIf111111111111111I ^`^� 11I11111111IIII11:1 IIIIIInI �• ,n'I ��' Project
VicAnity Map
-321-

W
LU
Cr
N
0 cc
M
as

I SHADE STRUCTURE

AND BBQ'S
1 PLANT LIST
SYMBOL BOTANICAL. NAME COMMON NAME SIZE
SI'RF.ET TREE'S
2nd Strect and 3rd Street TO Match Community 24" Box
I N 11 `.It NA L STREET TREES
Cinnamomum camphom Camphor Tree 48" Box
Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood 24" Box
I W1 S
°® Brachychilon populneus Bottle Tree 36" Box
C'upressus scmperv•irens Italian Cypress 24" Box
O Tristania contcrta Brisbane Box 24" Box
gmndiflora'Russet' Southern Magnolia 36" Box
Lagerstroemia famesia'7uni Crape Myrtle (Dark Lavender) 24" Box Rhaphiolepis indica'Majestic Beauty' Indian Hawthome (Std.) 24" Box Olen curopaca'Wilsonii Wilson Olive 36" Box
Plalanus accrifolia London Plane Tree 24" Box
/ Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda Tree 36' Box
Geijerr parvitlom Australian Willow 36" Box

SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE

SHRUBS X GROUNDCOVER
00-11. 1111,=INF.a==1.541oiwMI►10
Abelia'EdwardGouchce
DwarfAlrelia
IGal.

Azalea'Fielder's White'
Southern Indira Azalea
5 Gal.

Bmgmansia versicolor
Angel Trumpet
5 Gal.

Buxus m. japonica
Japanese Boxwood
I Gal.

Camellia sasanqua'Yuletide
Camellia
5 Gal.

Coloneater laelcus
Pamey Coloncamer
5 Gat.

Diosma pulchm
Pink Breath of I leaven
5 Gal.

Dodonaca vlscosn'Purpurea'
Purple Hop Seed Bush
5 Gal.

Feijoa scllowianu
Pineapple Guava
5 Gal.

Grevillea'Noellii' -
N.C.N.
5 Gal.

I lemerocallis'Dwarf Yellow'
Day Lily
I Gal. @ 24" o.c.

Lavandula angustifolin
English Lavender
1 Gal. @ 36" o.c.

Leptospcnnum scoparium'Ruby Glow'
N.C.N.
5 Gal.

Ligustrum japonicum Tcxanum'
Wax Leaf Privet
5 Gal.

Liriope muscari
Big Blue Lily Turf
I Gal. O. 24" o.c.

Momca bicolor
Fortnight Lily
5631..

Nandina domLstica
Heavenly Bamboo
5 Gal.

Phormium tenox'Bronzc Baby'
New Zealand Flax (Reddish)
5081.

I•hotinin I'raseri
Fmsicrs Photinia
5 Gal.

Piltospomm tobim'Creme do Mint'
Varicgatcd Tobira
5 GoL
Pittosporum tobira'Variegata'
Varicgalcd Tobim
5 Gal.

Prunus caroliniana'Bright n' Tight'
Carolina Cherry
5 Gal.

Rhaphiolepis indica'Clara
Dwartl Indian Hmuahorne
5 Gal.

Rosa F.'lee Berg'
White Shrub Rose
5 Gal.

Rosmarinus o. Tuscan Blue'
Rosemary
5 Gal.

Trachelospermum jasnrinoidcs
Star Jasmine
I Gal. Q 36" oz.

Xylosma congestmn
Xylosma
5 Gal.

Sod turf
Marathon 11 Tall Fescue
Basin Hydroseed
To Be Determinded
Note:

All landscape shall comply with city codes,
standards and water conservation requirements
I 19 RINI , A I - !I
111119—Irm"No oil
ME
VIA
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
• AN DAVIDSON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
f 3850 Vine Street, Ste. 240
de, CA
I D A P.951!6831283501
L
F. 951683.4352
ATTN.: IAN DAVIDSON
TOT LOT, SI IADE 17ENCED DOG PARK

STRUCTURE AND BBQ

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR

FALLBROOK MEADOWS
200 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT UNITS
TOT LOT, SHADE—`

STRUCTURE AND BBQ
0:I 1
mazu,
Qt
+
ale.
��■
I: t1
�I=
,r
-322-

FILES STOR.
0 0
ID

LEASING

OFFICE (D
0 U
v BREEZE WAY

COMPUTER
I ,

MEN'S /
I ESTR0014 WOMEN'S
1 _ RESTR=

ELECTRICAL/ II STORAGE
POOL EOUIPMEN7
--- -----
\ /I KITCHEN Q
880 AREA I I
I I
I I
❑ I I
I I

YOGA STUDIO GYM MULTIPURPOSE

ROOM I I
OUTDOOR SEATINGcoo I I
AREII
I I

I I I I

I I I I

COVERED PATIO
I I I

I I I I
it II

CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" - V-0"
FALLBROOK MEADOWS ESN DTURgnsRE
fob BIOMES, IIVC. ARCHITECTUR

NOVA AL SERVICES
BuikA"ILLAG WAY for Ho+xww�.wy 1050 N. TURNER AVENUE, STE. 178 123S VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A Y U C A I P A , C A L I F O R N I A ONTARIO, CA 91764 SANTA ANA, CA 92705
TEL. 714. 540. 1144 TEL. 909. 374. 3218
-323-

y uwr ice wc¢nr SNCCO. ACCENT

IA HABM SANTA FE
FASCIA
f
12 u....::.i^ GBy:Lr: t-ri :ti iG-:^^rri..-ri•i S6-i.,. •1. -r-0' :' •�1f _ _ r ! 12
"r
12 a YID
ROM
[ I

REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE : 3116" =1'-0" SCALE: 3116" - V-D"

RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 3116"= V-0"

ROOF- EAGLE ROOFING

PROFILE UPISTRANO

SAN JUAN BLEND
STU=-BODY

IANABMMEADOWBROOA

FASCNITRBI
CO LOR. CHATEAU BROWN .++ -
TO.RD[�
�'k
11 r1
�f
fC�
-tir F--
-
PLA'fE�
'
--TOP
� -WINDOW
M.
iti-: , v._:i '.'.•i ',
n
m;

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 3116" = V-0"
FALLBROOK MEADOWS CLUBHOUSE ESN Design Studio
NOVA HOMES, INC. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 6u.i.lAiA,y ValAw for HoMv�u.,tiy 1050 N. TURNER AVENUE, STE. 178 1232 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A Y U C A I P A, C A L I F O R N I A SPANISH STYLE CINTM1O' CA 91764 TEL 714.540. 1144 TEL 909.374.3218
-324-

CLAY TILE ACLEN!
—ROL .EAGIEROO'ING
/l---STUCCO,ACCEHT

LA I URRA SANTAM
10FILE G 95TR A4G
SW JWN/:ENO
'ASCU
COLOR: GI UTEAU/Ra*N
—El UGf:O.:ODY
AW ;; IGfAm•NBR00A
i
12 � rm
A
12 ��
'
C!TRIM
T.O R10GE�
COLOR CIWTEAU RRI.vI'/
12 4
j
OO
1 �!++�� ��
,.'!d.•ild5:�-.
�
ll II 1�❑, _ 1
� 1�R RATE
'lOWM
U8'

REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE : 3116" = V-0" SCALE: 3115" = 1'-0"

RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 3119— 1'-0"
II

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 3118" = 1'4"
CLUBHOUSE ESN Design Studio
NOVA HOMES, IF _,A MEADOWS ARCHITECTURAISERVICES
elA:�.�:..ivt,,,.�,H,,,o .,�y EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1C50N.TURNERAVENUE.STE.178 1232 VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A Y U C A I P A, C A L I F O R N I A CNTAR10. CA 91764 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 SPANISH STYLE
TEL, 714. 540. 1144 TEL. 909.374. 3218
-325-

(3aR UNIT)
10'-0' S'-11'
1Y-9'
(2aR UHT)
10'-101rs'
10'-10112•
10'-10112'
I— UNIT)
14'-]'
IO-1012•
174,
(IaR UNIT)
5-11' 1D'U' 51-
4-TALL VINYL FENCING
4 m
4•TALL VINYL FENCING
q
0 0
0 BATH 2 ❑
❑
-
-
-
BATH 2
g
2 ;
PATIO
PATIO
e
BATH
(152 SF) Q
K
(152 SF)
y4
cl
BATH 2
W
O
B1o'D-aR-�lo 23 O
O
CBEOBEDROOM2
r
BEDROOM 2
vO�j
lool
A.G.

BEDROOM
O
4•-0•
ID'-0' ❑ ❑
(1a-r=lzsy LPANG
❑(tYL"x12'-0')
O
j j
O
(1YL—T4I•)
LIVING ❑ gAEN
BEDROOM2
(10'-rxtzs")
❑ ❑ t6'-o• r-o•
s;
u
_2
❑,
z
LL
PATIO
�`� -
(150 SFI ❑
DINING/KITCHEN 3
(12'-0' z 13'-2'7 `
o
(�--T�El
° ❑
� 11��4/I
°
rt
z _
a DINING /KITCHEN ❑ PATIO i
C+
y
g
s
3 s
O
0z
9LIVING
s
(12'-0'=10'-Y)
I153SFI t
lo•)�MASTERQBEDROOM
LIVING
BEDROOMprs-=lzs)I
yLJP--'p

STORAGE
wlaoocENTRY
Lc
H2
BATH20
❑❑ O ENTRYDINING/KITCHEN
MASTER
MASTERM:�14'-5-
(t4'-a'xtt'-0•)BATH
BATHr__�13'd'MASTER
..m O_O
"
i w.n iMASTER
BEOftOOM
sa.� rxxlev . - - - ... ..
te
---
It 1•S' z t5-0'1
BATH
a
I rwlav - --.

Q-Q-
r___TY
-..- Q.Q - r.Nru `,rv,MASTER
=mj

DINING / KITCHEN
MASTER
MASTER

DINING/KITCHEN
---BEDROOM
W.I.C.
(ta'a'x 1t'-0-1
BATH 2
BATH
BATH
(ta'-]'xtl'-0-)
BATH
PE
(2
❑❑ 0
°
v:,wc=oee
wnsvoee
JENTRY
�
_
ENTRY
I I
STORAGE0
_
MASTER
MASTER

BEDROOM

STORAGEBEDROOM
LIVING
''(11•s•=12W)
(11-5'=Iz6
tPATIOIt
LIVING'x
t'-Gx12'-10')(1625F)
\\\

KITCHEN/DINING
1 HEN ❑ PATIO�.1162 SFI16'-0'
LIVING
)I

LIVING')
C/BEDROOM2
sc
e
O
Ita-rx12.6')
0(tra'x1Yo')❑

BEDROOM
(1('-)-x 12-)
0 J
16'-0'
❑ ❑
-
tv
❑IF
_ BEDROOM
W
W
_
BEDROOM 2
LWj
O
IL—'VJI
(Ia'-0' x 11'-0')
-
_ W.I.C,
PATIO
b
b
C, PAT10
W.I.C.

BATH
(152 SF)
m
(152 SF)
BATH 2
0❑ 0
§
1?
011 0 "
V-] 12'
10'-r
5'-r
0'-11 1rs'

TALL VINYL FENCING
10'-10 12' 14'-]'
1 1012'
0'-
10-10 t12'
4TALL VINYL FENCING
( IBR UNIT)
(2BR UNIT)
(28R UNIT)
(28R UNIT)
ANOVA HOMES, INC.

61.iLA-3 Value for Nm+ltov..4ery
1232 VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
TEL. 714. 540. 1144

FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES -
SCALE: 3116" m V-0"

1. UNITAMENITIES:

OVERSIZED CLOSETS, WASHER/ DRYER, DECORATIVE DOORS, GARBAGE DISPOSAL, AND A MIN. 125 S.F. OF EXTERIOR LOCKABLE STORAGE.

2. EACH DOOR PROVIDING INGRESS AND EGRESS TO ANY DWELLJNG UNIT SUBJECT TO THIS �+ ORDINANCES SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH THE FOLLOWING DEVICES: ONE STORY a) A PEEPHOLE ALLOWING A PERSON INSIDE THE UNIT TO SEE, AT A WIDE ANGLE, PERSONS OUTSIDE DOOR, BEING SEEN.

EADBOLT LOCK ATTACHED TO HE CONSTRUCTION STUDSTUDDING.h) A DRAPARTMENT BUILDING

FALLBROOK MEADOWS

Y U C A I P A C A L I F O R N I A
ESN Design Studio

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
1050 N. TURNER AVENUE, STE. 178
ONTARIO, CA 91764 la
TEL. 909. 374. 3218 10
-326-

„'���. Diu �� NFIAORA SAHIAFE NNABRAMEAOOWBROOK

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 3116" =1'-0' SCALE: 3116" = T-G"
t�,
x r _ a M ' s ry we c sI L sirs ar
s, IY
'S h .� I>iFrw°' .Sf i�F "'• %'S �h�w' xt'lr �-: r h •''• .. _�, - - 7-W _ _ f.� _`y h { vW; xf.+ !..'. S V h_ - .S�V•h

REAR ELEVATION
SCALE! 3/16" =1'.0"

ALLLIIGHTS AND OR FIXTURES WILL BE HOODED AND/OR
SHIELDED TO PREVENT GLARE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

ONE STORY
ESN Design Studio
feb NOVAHOMES,INC.

FALLBROOK MEADOWS

APARTMENT BUILDING

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
6u;Acf;.y VaLuc for Hmw.nu..ey
1232 VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A

Y U C A I P A C A L I F O R N I A

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1050 N. TURNER AVENUE, STE. 176
ONTARIO, CA 91764
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
TEL.714. 540.1144

SPANISH STYLE
TEL. 909.374.3218
-327-

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 3116" - 1'-0" SCALE: 3116" - V-0"
REAR ELEVATION NOTE:

ALL LIGHTS AND I OR FIXTURES WILL BE HOODED AND / OR
SCALE:3116" =1'.0" SHIELDED 70 PREVENT GLARE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

ANOVA HOMES, INC. FALLBROOK MEADOWS
8u<<A" Val.. for Ho..,u.w. k
1232 VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A Y U C A I P A C A L I F O R N I A SANTA ANA, CA 92705
TEL. 714. 540. 1144

ONE STORY

APARTMENT BUILDING

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

SPANISH STYLE
ESN Design Studio

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
1050 N. TURNER AVENUE, STE. 178
ONTARIO, CA 91764
TEL. 999. 374. 3218
-328-

I' T— ViNn FENCING
milli
IATIO
aTER
ENT
ao
ANOVA HOMES, INC.
81-k&w Valor fr Hm..cov.+.ery
1232 VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
TEL. 714. 540. 1144
FIRST FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES:

SCALE: 3116" - V-0"

1. UNITAMENITIES:

OVERSIZED CLOSETS, WASHER/ DRYER, DECORATIVE DOORS, GARBAGE DISPOSAL, AND A MIN. 125 S.F. OF EXTERIOR LOCKABLE STORAGE.

2. EACH DOOR PROVIDING INGRESS AND EGRESS TO ANY DWELLING UNIT SUBJECT TO THIS ORDINANCES SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH THE FOLLOWING DEVICES:
a) A PEEPHOLE ALLOWING A PERSON INSIDE THE UNIT TO SEE, THOUT THE PERSON IAT A WIDE ANGLE, PERSONS THREE STORY 6) A DTSIDE OF THE UNIT AT THE EADBOLT LOCK ATTACHED TOO THE CONS7 UCTION STUDDING.NSIDE APARTMENT SEEN. APARTMENT BUILDING

FALLBROOK MEADOWS

Y U C A I P A C A L I F O R N I A
ESN Design Studio

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
1050 N. TURNER AVENUE, STE. 178
ONTARIO, CA 91764
TEL. 909. 374. 3218
-329-

��I�� .�il■ 1!
.III'�
1111111�'
111111
i!illl._
�1
��III.

BEDROOM 3
_•1��
�
:III
I■
C
n
r
�,I
�pl';
MEN
®MASTERBEDROOM
o
1 3m-l
1111111 �
�_� •
1•
� �
•I
j �� � �■ID
---
f"7 �7
j IfiIlff�ll
IiiIlr�ll
®:: ®��
C^WE
EI ME

RBEDROOM
I.I I.1 I�MASTER
—
I�1 I�1 I■I
�i
11111111
_
—
�.:.I
1 I
BEDROOME•�III�
— -11
BE
fobNOVA HOMES, INC.
804LA-1 Va4.au. for Pm-tow«uy
1232 VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
TEL.714.540.1144

TYPICAL SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3116" = 1'-0"
FAL.L,BROOK MEADOWS

Y U C A I P A, C A L I F O R N I A

THREE STORY

APARTMENT BUILDING
ESN Design Studio

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
1050 N. TURNER AVENUE, STE. 178
ONTARIO. CA 91764
TEL. 909. 374. 3218
-330-

FASO- .. / PROFAE: CA%$TRANO APS'
COLORR WATEW SRONN SAN JUAHSLENO ���"

FASMITRIM
OJLOR WA1 U BROHM
-7
\.0 0
1 ',.i �I', I � �': If � I 1•. �f1� I ♦ nuRO Ft
J,11- ✓, ttr .i. -_-
4, SECOND FLOOR
FT
,f•«,;.,ht 7 .,a- u-";r :'."', aX• .u; �•�� '1 "1 .'.e-:.r . ..,.,. `,?- ;r .7.... FIRST FtooR� 4 J•
LIOHTFl HIRE STUCCO -ACCENT STUCCO -BODY
T17[7
VENEER

FRONT ELEVATION UHAB PA SANTA FE IAHADRFMEADOWBROOK
_STONEVENEER
SCALE: 118" =1'-0"

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 118" = V-0"
e0h
NOVA HOMES, INC.

81.i1Av.y V." for Ho»unw,.r r
1232 VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A
SANTA ANA. CA 92705
TEL 714. 540. 1144

REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 116" =1'-0"
FALL$ROOK MEADOWS

Y U C A I P A, C A L I F O R N I A

RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = V-0"
NOTE:

ALL LIGHTS AND I OR FDCTURES WILL BE HOODED AND I OR
SHIELDED TO PREVENT GLARE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THREE STORY
ESN Design Studio

APARTMENT BUILDING

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1D50 N. TURNER STE.17
ONTARI
ONTARIO' CA 91764

SPANISH STYLE
TEL. 909. 374.3218
-331-

ANOVA HOMES, INC.
6—iAL.g V." for HP�v..ww�y
1232 VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
TEL. 714. 540. 1144

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/0" - 1'•0"

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE : 116" = V.0"
•ara'
ROOF APE%�

TIRO FLDOR
•10-1'

EECOND FLOOR ,'

RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 116" = l'-O"
�` ® �1 ■��ml MEN
Fyn
1 jq sis
REAR ELEVATION NOTE:

SCALE: 116" = 1'.0" ALL LIGHTS AND / OR FIXTURES WILL BE HOODED AND I OR SHIELDED TO PREVENT GLARE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THREE STORY ESN Design Studio
FALLI3ROOK MEA=ROWS APARTMENT BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1050 N. TURNER ONTARI , STE,174
Y U C A I P A C A L I F O R N I A ONTARIO, CA 91764
SPANISH STYLE TEL. 909.374.3218
-332-

rh NOVA HOMES,INC.

MATERIALS
BOARD
ESN Design Studio
DESIGN & DRAFTING SERVICES f
Bwddug Va'iUt �Ol' H07xlOUfn Gry

FALLBROOK

MEADOWS
1050 N. TURNER AVENUE, STE. 178 � I
1232 VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A

Y U C A I P A, C A

L I F O R N I A
ONTARIO, CA 91764
TEL. 909. 374. 3218
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
TEL. 714. 540. 1144

STUCCO - BODY

SANTAFE

STUCCO -ACCENT

MEADOWBROOK

FASCIA / TRIM

CHATEAU BROWN
SW 7510

RAILINGS

IRON ORE
SW 7069

FRONT DOOR

HICKORY SMOKE
SW 7027

CORONADO STONE

SPLIT LIMESTONE -CREAM
— __m

ROOF - EAGLE ROOFING
PROFILE: CAPISTRANO
SMC 8404 SAN JUAN BLEND
-333-

NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE

TABULATION
APARTMENT BUILDING A - 2
STORY
APARTMENT BUILDING B - 2
STORY
APARTMENT BUILDING C - 2 STORY
APARTMENT BLDG. A, B, BC

BUILDING NAME

NOFBUILDINGS
pUNlTS

BUILDING NAME

NOF BUL DINGS
•UNITS

BUILEN-ME

NOF BUILDINGS
kUNITS
BUILDING IVUnE
A-20 P1E%11

NOF BUILDINGS
NUMTS
2D
2S PLIX
20 24 FLEA
i B
ISS
2B PLIX
]
1 6D
-L.
5 12B
C-2. PLIX
BE
UNITS PER STORY:

UNITS PER STORY

UNITS PER STORY

TOTAL MIX
BLDG. A, S. s C
-1 BEDROOM. 1 BATH, 6555.R.
12BEDROOM, 20ATH, 1D625.F.

BEDROOM 2BATN. I SSF.
<
4 210.2
16-1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH.6ED B.F.
&2I
TOTAL
E
d2BEDROO,20625.F.B-]
12 BEDROOM, 2 BATH, I SE2 S.F.

TOTPI
1D
10 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH.655 S.F.

JBEDROOM. 2 BATH.IJBESF.
iOTAI
�2.

TOTAL UNITS= 2DD
CLUBHOUSE 3.469SF.

COVERED PARKING STALLS REQUIRED.IB
C WERED PARKNG STALLS PROVIDED:NO
-NUMBER OF STALLS REOUIREB.
215
TOTAL NUMBER OF STALLS PROVIDE'318
GROSS Al 1.39
2111139-2313.1 PLLaNABLE 214

SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1 "= 40'-0"
DATE:10/19/2022
PROPOSED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN NOVA FOR: THE CITY OF YUCAIPA el 3)-
1232 VILLAGE WAY SUITEE A. SANTAANA "°.S-NA CA, 92705 FALLBROOK MEADOWS tPHONE: (714) 540-1144 200 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT UNITS -334-