Yucaipa City Council
February 13, 2023

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services/City Engineer Benjamin I Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planner /7,_
SUBJECT: Premium Land Development. (Case No. 22-121/APP/GPA/LUCR): A modified Project proposal following the Appeal of Case No 21-085/GPA/L-UCR that now consists of a General Plan Amendment (Ordinance No. 412) to change the land use district from RM-10M (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential) and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a privately gated 172- unit two-story multi -family apartment Project that includes an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement on four parcels totaling 8.39 acres. — The initial project reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council was for a privately gated 200-unit three-story multi -family apartment project; located between 3rd Street to the west and 2nd Street to the east, 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.
. a 117-11VILU
That the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to:

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 (Hig Density Multiple Residential); and

2. 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

3. Approve the Density Bonus Agreement Request and Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 22-12 1), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and 447

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-12 1 /GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

5. 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

7. Review, and if it is considered acceptable, approve the architectural design and conceptual landscaping for the proposed Project.

MAN 111CH
Surrounding Land Uses:

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

Site:

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

RM-IOM
IL-1
Single Family and Multi -Family
Residences
South:

RM-IOM
IL-1
Single Family Residences
East:

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

RM-10M
IL-1
Single Family Residences
Project History:

At the Planning Commission meeting of November 7, 2018, the Planning Commission approve,—] Case No. 16-117/CUP/TTM 2003 1; a Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes and a Conditional Use Permit to develop an approximate 8.6-acre (gross) 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 simultaneously is processing a Land Use Compliance Review with Architectural Review and a Density Bonus Agreement.

Case No. 21-085:

Commission and City Council. For context, that project design had included a minor GPA application to change the land use designation of four (4) parcels totaling approximately 8.39 acres from the City's Multiple Residential (RM-IOM) Land Use Designation to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) Land Use Designation, and a separate Land Use Compliance Review application for development of a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment project on those four (4) subjects parcels. The proposed design had included eight (8) 3-story apartment buildings and one (1) I -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.). The review actions are summarized below:
448

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

Aerial Rendering for 21-085
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 to the August 17ffi, 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 the GPA 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. However, the is did include parking that exceeded the required parking 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 had been designed with an entry and exit on 2 nd Street and 3rd Street, and it could be assumed that the residents would choose to exit to Yd Street during peak hours for Calimesa Elementary 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 449

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-12 I/GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

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 2 d Street and 3 d Street. The traffic analysis took into consideration the two roundabouts that are to be completed at 2 d Street and County Line Road, and the intersection of P 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, the General Plan Amendment would 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 had met the setbacks required for the RM-24 Land Use District; however, the Planning Commission suggested that perhaps an 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, • were raised over
'IN MINW11 1. 1111111 1 1 1 No, a WO
I rcz_ V1
the 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 firidings listed in • 83.020110 • the Yucaipa Development Code. As part • the deliberation, the Planning Commission noted that there has been a considerable increase in land use applications that propose the rezonina • sites to increase the net residential •- • an area, and that • areas, such as corridors and similar areas with increased resources and connectivity to those resources, would be more ajv,,myriate to accommodaletheselarver ji:&cts than such sites that are within the interior of a • ••
YOM along T- �F=r, miu Turulerlrom Lne pr-,-(-' si 7 to tne cr ss wa11K along Z Street to URRR safety and as an additional amenity provided • the • As such a Condition has been added to the Project as follows:
450

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

"Developer shall construct sidewalk along 2 "d Street ftom the proposed development to the existing crosswalk located at Tara Lane to the north� Developer shall Construct sidewalk along 3d 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 83.02011 0(a), (b), (c) and (d).

Following the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of that project, the applicant submitted an appeal application on August 23, 2022. In their request, the applicant contended that the Planning Commission went beyond its purview and ultimately did not review the project from a planning lens.

Following the appeal request, the applicant's team then worked through a site design alternative intended to minimize the compatibility concerns of the proposed density. A conceptual site design was provided that incorporated a two-story project design that had retained a comparable layout to the version reviewed by the Planning Commission but with some modifications to the building footprint, bedroom unit counts, and landscape buffer dimensions to best accommodate the floor reduction.

The appeal and revised project design was reviewed during the regular City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022. The City Council noted that the revised project design was a notable improvement from the Planning Commission -reviewed proposal and helped to address many of the key concerns that the public and Planning Commission had identified. However, the City Council noted that the overall net increase of units that would result with the proposal from the existing RM land use designation remained a concern and that they would not be able to support that scale of project. The property owner, Ivano Stainegna of Nova Homes, responded that they could ftirther revise the project to approximately 175 units, which would remain consistent with the proposed RM-24 designation and may further alleviate the concerns presented. The City Council indicated support to that direction, and ultimately voted to remand the item back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on a revised project that would include no more than 175, two-story units. As such, the proposal presented is a 172-unit apartment project that includes structures that are no greater than two stories.
451

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-12 1 /GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

Case No. 22-121:

Planning Commission Meeting
The revised 172-unit project was presented at the Planning Commission Meeting of January 18, 2023. The Commission reviewed the history of the Project and the changes that have been made following the initial public hearings for the Project. During public comment, several property owners noted continued concerns with the proposed General Plan Amendment, as well as the overall scale of the development that is proposed. However, several commenters also spoke in favor of the Project, noting that the project changes were welcomed, and that the setbacks and buffers were greater than what would otherwise be allowed. The Planning Commission ultimately voted 5- 1-1-0 to recommend the Project for City Council's consideration, and minutes are provided for Council's reference.
11Jk-1K1M-J
Location and Setting:

PRITIM—WITOR, . V I -
we M-
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-4, irn-,tire-of -�-auzechzi g
452

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

the Project site. The Project has frontage, as well as access along both 2 d Street and 3rd Street.

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

Project Design and Description:

The Project applicant has submitted a minor GPA application to change the land use designation of four (4) parcels totaling approximately 8.39 acres from the City's Multiple Residential (RM-IOM) Land Use Designation to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) Land Use Designation. The proposed RM Land Use Designation would pen -nit 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 pen -nit a 172-unit privately gated apartment complex.

Pursuant to the City's development review procedures, the proposed minor GPA 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-
111111
s=vnII0IIIIEM3 NUTIMMIrrol
(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.
453

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

(c) The proposed land use district change does noonflict with provisions of this Code or 2-ny 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.

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, as well as the direction from the City Council following their October 24, 2022, public hearing. The current proposal consists of the development of a privately gated 172-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 (1) 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.
lie IvIlere isci Z,_Stm, a,r. r e •R=oia
each building, and three (3) 2-story apartment buildings that each have 24 units. The Project's floor plans would consist of sixty-four (64) one -bedroom units (685 sq. ft.), one hundred (100) two - bedroom units (1,062 sq. ft.) and eight (8) three -bedroom units (1,309 sq.

Circulation:

The Project would consist of arranging of eight (8) 2-story apartment buildings and a club house aligned linearly in a row with entrances and exits along 2 nd Street and 3 rd Street. The aisle has been designed to provide twenty-four (24) 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 2d 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 Project would complete the street improvements along the Project frontages of 2nd street and 31 Street ' including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and matchup paving, and would also include any necessary gutter transitions to the ad*acent )erties. AS Dart of theDrior rojessin of Case No 21-08 the aghianit h 454

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

tI Kt I I l AC I' G I'W
Site Plan
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 Yd Street.

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 that is provided the private street network. Each residential unit is also provided with a private yard.

OWMAR
Clubhouse Front Elevation
TOTLOT, SIIAOE --- - -­­ FENCED FX)G PARK "I'MAITF. SI IADE ­-'­� " IIIJQ STRUCTUREAND BBQ STRUCIVR F AND 1113Q)
Amenity Locations
455

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-12 1 /GPAJLUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

Architecture:

The applicant has submitted an architectural design package for the proposed subdivision and the conceptual landscape architecture design for the overall site (attached) and requests City Council approval of the architecture at this time as required in the Conditions of Approval. There are eight (8) total apartment buildings proposed with two separate footprint/elevations included, and a clubhouse. The two-story buildings feature a 32' 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 the 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.

Conceptual landscaping is also provided for the City Council'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 building plan check process.

Front Elevations
456

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

The proposed Project consists of 172 units on approximately 8.39 acres. The proposed Project has the following characteristics:

COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL

CRITERIA

REQUIREMENTS

PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT
CODE I
Density
24 dwelling units per acre.

Yes. Overall density is 20.5 dwelling
units per acre
One (1) space per one
Yes. 280 spaces are required, and 346
Parking
bedroom unit and two (2)
spaces are provided (66 surplus). 15% of
spaces per two- and three-
the spaces are provided as compact
bedroom units.
spaces.
-
40% of project area to be
Yes/DBA Waiver. Project provides
Open space
landscaped.

37.2% of total site area as private and
public open space.

One -bedroom units shall be a
minimum of six hundred fifty
(650) square feet; two-
Yes. 685 Sq. Ft. one -bedroom units
Dwelling Unit Size
bedroom units minimum of
1,062 Sq. Ft. two -bedroom units
eight hundred (800) square
1,309 Sq. Ft. three -bedroom units
feet; three or more -bedroom
units minimum of nine
hundred (900) square feet.

Required site amenities
Yes. Project includes two (2) tot lot play
include entry treatment. Each
areas, a fenced dog park, picnic areas,
Amenities
dwelling is required to
open space and common area
provide 3 interior amenities
landscaping, private internal sidewalks,
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.

In addition, the proposed Project supports a number of General Plan policies. 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.

I Compliance provided if the General Plan Amendment is approved 457

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

- --------- -
I MW111411
Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 7 of the Yucaipa Development Code contamis 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 semior households in accordance with State Law, by allowing additional units to offset the costs of providing affordable housing. The licant has submitted a Den�� 11 Bonus re uest to coven
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 (RUINA) Olocation as mandated by State Law.
-OWTV31#7 �919!677
the City Council. This process is identified in the proposed Conditions of Approval and will set 458

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-12 1 /GPAALUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

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 design related to the Case No. 21-085 (200 unit) project were sent to all surroundinto 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 Aniendmen M III k a, -61
UYlll�
Through the public notice process, the City received a number of comments regarding the perceived 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 2 nd Street and Yd Street with an additional exit only lane along 2 d 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 nearby the 3rd and Countyline stop for Ornnitrans 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.

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_ I OM to RM-24 and 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 1 A new Project Notice was not routed for the 172-unit design as this project was remanded back to the Planning Commission and is not a new entitlement application.
459

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

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.

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 be required to 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 to the roadway frontage along 2 d Street and 3 d Street, and be extended to County Line Road and the adjoining school. As a feature of the project, an onsite manager will also be provided.

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 • •. lots consisting • • (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 developments. The GPA area featured a proposal for a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment complex, which has since been reduced to 172 units in two-story structures. The project features Spanish style architecture as •.' • the exterior design • each apartment building.

Therefore, d evelopment of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to the visuala b, ,Awrovidin,,N • uni•rmitA for the .4acent 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 mimimurn side setback of 20 feet, which is more than what was previously required by the RM- I OM land use district and will further reduce the impact of the multi -story structures from adjoining streets. The project provides these required setbacks, and in the current proposal will result in two-story structures that would have greater setbacks than a project developer pursuant to the existing RM-designation.

WMI
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. 460

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-12 1 /GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

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 pri *or to the CEQA review. Finally, awe
s required by State Law all property onrs
within 300 square feet received notices of the meeting by mail prior to the Public Hearing.

The Initial Study prepared for the 200-unit proposal was made available for comment for 20 days beginning on June 10, 2022, and endinia on June 30, 20221. No comments were received on the Initial Study during the public review process by local, re ional or state agencies, or by members of gi
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 for a 200-unit project, all available evidence indicated that any adverse impacts that would occur are at a less -than -significant level. The proposed revised 172-unit design would remain consistent with the analysis of the MND and would result in some reductions to impacts as a result of the reduced Project scale. Consequently, the Planning Commission recommended the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as part of Council's approval.

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 wreconstruction ,yeneral n tsting bird
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 n Droximitv to existing residences.

The proposed Land Use District Change to change the land use designation of the site from RM- IOM 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, which occurred at their regular meeting of January 18, 2023. The required findings for approval are attached. and the,%rugosed Land Use Comfliance Review and Densi-V, designed to be consistent with the RM-24 Land Use District requirements and Development Code standards, provided the General Plan Amendment is approved. The proposed development would therefore meet the standards for access, lot size and dimension, setbacks, and site design required by the RM-24 District. In addition, the proposed design considers the input provided to refine the [•roposal from the initial 21-085 project reviewed previously by the Planning Commission and City Cfurccil.

I Initial Study was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review beginning on June 10, 2021 461

FISCAL IMPACT:

Based on a total number of 172 residential units including 64 one -bedroom, 100 two -bedroom and 8 three -bedroom units on 8.39 net acres, the Project can be expected to generate $2,016,219.19 in W,evelopment Impact Fees after a credit for the four (4) existing single-family residences, using the current 2022 fee schedule, as follows -
Drainage Facilities: $124,838.67
Traffic Facilities: $1,239,582.96
Public Facilities: $171,620.20
Fire Facilities: $123,923.28
Park Facilities: $$356,254.08
TOTAL: $2,016,219.19
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 Findings
Land Use District & Location Map
Yucaipa 2022 Housing Income Range
Resolution No. 2022-41
Ordinance No. 412
Conditions of Approval
21-085 Comment Letters Received
Minutes associated with 21-085
January 18, 2023 Planning Commission minutes
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Environmental Initial Study (attachments provided online at:

NE31=
462

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-12 1 /GPAILUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

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 ••- • 65958.1, an adequate water supply exists or is planned that will serve any firtme 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 subiect site, and would pennit a multiple family development pr ject that provides housing 1 01
•-• to meet the City's Regional Housina .• Assessment requirements • the • Housing Cycle. The proposed Project would allow for 172 residential units, including 10% of the 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, and is generally unniet • the existing market within the • Further, design elements have been included to best integrate the Project and development intensity to the surrounding area.

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. As part of the project design, the proposed Land Use Compliance Review includes a two-story design that would fin-ther integrate to building heights currently permitted under the existing Multiple Residential Land Use District. The Project would pen -nit 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 3rd 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. Specifically, the Project -specific entitlement includes a two-story structure design intended to match the building mass and height of surrounding development in the general area. 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 463

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-12 1 /GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

The proposed Land Use Compliance Review includes several access •• surplus parking, • • amenities to r•• the development and future residents. 464

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

465

Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-12 1 /GPA/LUCR)
City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023

in I � i1m I I - 1 0 - ,
Applicable San Bernardino County Area Median Income: $87,400 for family of four • Yucaipa Median Income: $73,196
• Percent in poverty: 8.5%
I Iff F El rGA. 7_171=1 E Film
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
$39600
,
$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 YCJTJSD Salary: $50,454
• SBCSD Deputy Sheriff. $66,539
• Calfire Fire Fighter 11 (Paramedic): $47,880
• City of Yucaipa Maintenance Worker-
466

I' Oki1 I I I I
103 D1120 I rag In 91 M-1- MM11MINVE1111
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. u win RTA H 11 a 101 ukyj I 11a Wnel )XII tj 11 1 1
It has reviewed and considered the information contained in General Plan Land Use District Amendment No. 22-121, approving the change of the Land Use Designation of four (4) contiguous parcels (APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84) from City's RM- I OM (Multiple Residential — 10,000 • 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.

Kimberly Metzler, City Clerk
Justin Beaver, Mayor
467

Exhibit A
468

LULi I + i 0 V.- I Wei V lamKIK111" IW1T-0#11AN
IN WE]

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
oil
9"PI I
Ordinance • 3 43, is hereby amended as provided in Section 2 herein below.

Section 2. The proposed land use designation contained on the "Official Land UA Districts Map" on file with the City, and bearing the file number Case No. 2 121/GPA/I-UCR, changes the Land Use District designation of four contiguous parce (APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84) from City's Multiple Residential Land Use Distri (RM-10M) to the City's High Density Multiple Residential Land Use District (RM-2 ruoposed 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- 0319-253-281 - 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."
Kimberly Metzler, City Clerk
Justin Beaver, Mayor
469

470

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
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 172-unit, two- story 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.

The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding attacking or seekinq 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.

The Project Applicant shall comply with all Mitigation Measures as identified N-7 the Project -assigned Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP).

5. The applicant/owner shall pay a fee of $2,764.00, pursuant to Senate Bill 1535, This fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division Within three (3) days after the 471

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023

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.

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. 411. 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 titles.

W
mi. 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.

MR on r* MMIT,
"o—MINIONSTAT 11"BUT
472

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023

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.

23. Submit WQMP Plan for Approval.

24. 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

473

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
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. 25Required 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. Continuous water spraying or other approved methods must be used during grading operations to control fugitive dust.
29This 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.

30. 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.

31. 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,

32. 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),

33. 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,
474

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
34i Required fire flow and duration for this project, is determined by California Fire Code Appendix '13. System shall be looped with minimum eight is inch mains, a
six (6) inch laterals; six (6) inch risers; six (6) inch diameter hydrants with one 2 Y2" outlet and one 4" outlet.

35. Approved fire hydrants capable of supplying required fire flow shall be provided to all premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are constructed or moved within the jurisdiction. When any portion of the facility or building protected is in excess of 400 feet from a fire hydrant on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, additional fire hydrants meeting the required fire flow shall be provided. 3& 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.

TAE FOLLO
lif A GRADING PERMIT:

37. 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.

38. 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 CalOSHA, 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.

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

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489228

40. 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.
475

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023

46. 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 476

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
more complete improvement plans and profiles have been submitted to the City Engineer.

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

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

49. Prior to signing of the improvement plans, any proposed grading within the road right-of-way shall be done under the direction of a Solis 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.

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

51. 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.

52. 2nd Street and 3rd Street shall be designed as water -carrying streets and their water carrying capacity shall be maintained.

53. 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.

54. 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 477

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
parking, public sidewalks, and the accessible entrance(s) to the site. California Building Code (CBC) 1 1A 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,
b. Disabled access parking shall be located on the shortest accessible route.

Relocate parking spaces accordingly.

55. Multi -family buildings on the site shall be accessible/adaptable per California Building Code (CBC), Chapters; 1 1A and 11 B.

56. Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patios, block walls and storage buildings. 57Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, this project is required to be designed by a California licensed architect or engineer. 58i New multi -family construction consisting of five (5) or more units shall include readily accessible storage areas identified for the collection of materials i consistent with the City's four -container collection system which includes trash, recycling, green waste, and food waste containers.

59. New commercial construction or additions resulting in more than 30% of the floor area shall include readily accessible storage areas identified for the collection of materials consistent with the City's four -container collection system which includes trash, recycling, green waste, and food waste containers,

60. 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:

N. Be a part of the downhill lot when between individual lots, or as approvet' by the City Planner and City Engineer.

I iili!111111�11 off M of 6 "It
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 CB',. li.l- i •'
478

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
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 gra ing plan. Any such damage allowed to occur will be the responsibility of the applicant.

61. The perimeter of the jobsite shall have a properly installed, 6' high, construction fence with privacy cloth attached. The fencing and cloth shall be maintained and kept in good condition until Such a time that the project has been completed, or a permanent perimeter wall Is In place. All construction entrances/exits shall be approved in advance by city personnel.

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

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

63. 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 !Si and 65995-65997.

64. 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 buildina permits are issued.
65Provide 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. g,6. 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.

V. The applicant/owner shall process a Condition Compliance Review through the City for verification of conditions prior to the issuance of building permits. 479

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023

71. 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,

72. Provide detailed building elevations including materials, finishes, colors, and sigriage 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.

73. 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,

74. 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.

75. A Density Bonus Agreement shall be executed between the City and the Project Applicant.
�MWM
480

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023

76. 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).

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

78. 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.
0 A D A a 0 . I .

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.

79. New multi -family construction consisting of five (5) or more units shall include readily accessible storage areas identified for the collection of materials consistent with the City's four -container collection system which includes trash, recycling, green waste, and food waste containers.

80. New commercial construction or additions resulting in more than 30% of the floor area shall include readily accessible storage areas identified for the collection of materials consistent with the City's four -container collection system which includes trash, recycling, green waste, and food waste containers.

V. Three copies of a Landscape Documentation Package shall be submitted for Building & Safety Division review and approval. Said Landscape Documentation Package shall be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 4, of Division 10, of the Development Code and include all of the following elements:
481

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
(2) Project Applicant
(3) Project Address (if available, parcel and/or lot number(s)) (4) Total Landscape Area (square feet)
(5) Project Type (eg., new, rehabilitated, public, private, cemetery, homeowner -installed)
(6) Water Supply Type (e.g., potable, recycled, well) and identify tIr-MIT local retail water purveyor if the applicant is not served by a priva well i
(8) Project Contacts (to include contact information for the proje M applicant and property owner) I
(9) Applicant Signature and Date (with statement, I agree toMPE with the requirements of the water efficient landscape dZ oranc= and submit a complete Landscape Documentation Package"). I r1l
(1) Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
W, I
(G) Certification of Substantial Completion (to be submitted after installation the project).
nar-MOILOJOIg W11 111rairpig-w-am to Moir,
482

■ Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
information normally forwarded to the property owner or site manager. A copy the Water Conservation Concept Statement • the Certificate • Substanti Completion shall be sent by the project manager to the local retail wat • I
U. Three (3) copies • a landscape and irrigation plan prepared • a Registered Landscape Architect for the planting (drought tolerant landscaping shall be utilized to minimize water consumption) and permanent irrigation system for the development, including setback areas and parkways, shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Division for review and approval. Said plans must be consistent with the City of Yucaipa Landscape Design and Installation Guidelines and include the following details -
A. Voltage boxes, mailboxes, trash enclosures, maintenance structures, backflow devices, automatic controls, air conditionina/heatina units, etc., to be shown on the plan and screened with landscaping and/or decorative •
B. A permanent automatical ly-control led irrigation system.

CLandscaping shall consist • drought tolerant vegetation appropriate to the local climate. Trees, shrubs and ground covers in the following quantities shall •' required as follows-
M=
Compost at a rate of a minimum of 4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of permeable area shall be incorporated to a depth of six (6) inches into the soil. Soils with greater than six percent (6%) organic matter in the top six (6) inches • soil are exempt from adding Compost and •

2. Tree planting (15 gallon size):
a. 1 for each 600 sq. ft. of total landscaped
area (one required, minimum);
b. 80% of total trees required to be 15 gallon;
C. 1 for every 12 parking stalls;
•
483

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
a. small trees* 20 feet O.C.
b. large trees: 30 feet O.C.

C. street trees: 15 gal. min./30 feet
d. min. 6 feet from curbs, paving and sidewalks,
trees in parkway between sidewalk and curb
shall be provided with a linear root barrier.
a. 60% of total shrubs required to be 5 gallon;
b. 10 for each 300 sq. ft. of landscaped area.
•1 gallon shrubs-

7. Ground Cover:
a. Drought tolerant adapted when mature, or native;
b. Maximum spacing: 12 inches O.C., or as suitable for planting material;
C. Hydroseeding (establish recommended mixture); specify weight or volume per unit area.
a. Apply a minimum three- (3-) inch layer of mulch on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding
applications where mulch is contra i nd icated. To provide habitat for beneficial insects and other wildlife, leave up to five percent (5%) of the landscape area Without mulch.

Designated insect habitat must be included in the landscape design plan as such.

D. Parking/vehicular circulation areas screened with landscaped berms adjacent to streets.

E. Landscape detail of trash enclosures, to be located within 200 ft. of building pad.

All walls and fences shall be shown, at the top of slope (if applicable), with the style, design, materials, and colors indicated.
484

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
G. Design features to direct storm water run-off into landscaped pervious areas to achieve percolation into the ground before run-off flows reach the public right-of-way of 2nd Street and 3rd Street.

H. Detector -check valve assembly screening and camouflage, which shall include landscaped berms and/or depressions, shrub screening, and the painting of the equipment to match the landscaping, The height of the equipment shall not exceed the minimum ground clearance established by the applicable code, It is not permitted to be located within the front yard building setback area, unless otherwise approved by City Inspector. 75Site 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) 11 A 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. 1) 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.

76. Multi -family and public use structures on the site shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 1 1A and

77. Multi -family and public use structures on the site shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 1 1A and 11 B.
78i Separate submittals and permits are required for all accessory structures such as but not limited to, trash enclosures, patios, block walls and storage buildings.

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

80. 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

485

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
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. ����14AIKVTI
8Z 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.

V. 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.

UNIN

84. The Project Applicant shall comply with all Mitigation Measures as identified in the Oroject-assigned Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). �;'5. Developers of residential development projects greater than a single dwelling un�� 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 businesseslindividuals 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 2nd and 3'd Streets) shall be provided with a linear root barrier. Provide the City with a Certificate of Substantial Completion 486

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
from the certified professional that prepared the approved landscape and . i gation plans.

91. All roof top mechanical equipment is to be screened from ground vistas. Ground equipment shall also be screened from key vantage points within the site, including the right of way and primary access drives.

92. Developers shall ensure that they recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste

93. Developers of residential development projects greater than a single dwelling unit, commercial properties and multi -family dwellings shall submit a report, including invoices or proof of recovered organic waste product procurement (either through purchase or acquisition) pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18993.1, and submit records to the City's designee, Records shall include the source of product, including name, physical location, and contact information for each entity, operation, or facility from whom the recovered organic waste products were procured, type of product, quantity of product in tons or yards, invoice or other record demonstrating procurement.

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

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

97. Construct driveway approach/entrance. Commercial driveways require radius type approaches.
9& 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.

99. 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 of inconsistency, the Applicant shall revise the WQMP to match the as -built plans.
100. 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 487

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
accommodate the proposed roundabout improvements currently und construction by the City. i
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 225
101. The building(s) shall meet all handicapped requirements. 102. The building(s) shall comply with all structural and non structural provisions of the California Building Code.
103. 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).
104. The building(s) or structure(s) shall meet all applicable requirements of the adopted model codes and amendments.
105. 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.
106. Driveways exceeding 150 feet shall have a Fire Department approved turn- around at the terminus (hammer -head
107. 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.
108. 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 other emergency equipment and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations,
488

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 202
111. Manual operated gates across Fire Department access roadways, public and/o-r 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 .
112. 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. 489

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
materials to be stored (if any), for Fire Department review and approval prior to any installation. Submit copy of California C-16 license. 119Automatic fire sprinkler control devices (PIV. & 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.
490

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
r%
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
129ommercial 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 8DS information as required by the Fire Department.

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.
131. Submit to Fire Marshal's office building and/or structure plans for Fire Department Review.
491

CITY OF 1. P 4 PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
NUMBER:CASE 1i i
APPLICANT -PREMIUM r DEVELOPNIENT
PROPOSAL: Amendment • change the land use designation of properties totaling 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 andapproximately t of • • t a , ' a 1
,84
• ''r'
:R.i Pt .. 1. R ♦..• !.. 6 _. R' ma ! *. .. P ,.. t ... . ..#, n rib ve. If you have no coniment no feply is necessary. If- you have any Questions ar
! opt a t `. � • r t d t �, g t ing this
• ,: t r - • -: R. t _ ! 4 is - R R t. _. ..: R .: , r t ! . a t address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope.decisions ! to an appeal ••.:i1 of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
�5Z7AGENCY--
ON
cc: Surrpuiuiog property Owners R.

Valley Water District
Fire a.r&ent Engineering Divisia
SouthBuilding & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District t a.
ha
492

May 31, 2022
The undersigned affected resident(s) of the City of Yucaipa object to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division Project Notice of'Vlay 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 awry and in others the homeowners did not use their front doer or did not otherwise receive notice.

2. The selection of persons to receive the attempted deli,=ery/ser vice of the Notice failed to include interested parties and homeowners living in the affected area(s) cvho 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 feasibil4y,' 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 G'A 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 can 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.
493

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 FZNNI-72C to RINI-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 2NID ST; 13662 2ND ST; 13644 2NID ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0' ) 19-253-29;0' ) 19-253-30 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, 2022.1Comments 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):
r C) a
cklre cA F( C-\0 -��CAA- (_;\pos
Z2
CA
mm
mm

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 TIME 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
494

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISf;ACEIVED
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:
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):
vroy-C oYA x\Q-at -�O
o
,k \ CkC fex,o
CY 0

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 14EARING 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
495

t t. " � ! • #. a #. • fe # 4 f�# #t #
40 DATE
;IGNATURE6�� &--,Q &±:4-:= — -��/,�ZZAGENCY—
IF YOU DECISION ,ytG THE ABOVEPROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU BE LINIITED TO RA SING ONLY THOSE ISSUES You OR somEoNE mE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED To THE PLANNING

DIVISION
OR PRIOR TO, THE TimE IT mAKEs ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, V A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE „tly a OR somEoNE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGOR ' CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, T14E HEARING. t • l i � t y i ., F, i y
Yucaipacc* Surrounding, Property Owners
Department Valley Water District
Fire Division
BuildingDivision #.-Calimesa School !
South# 'i .
496

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 oil 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.'Neith6r 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 suchdetriments 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.
497

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., APNis:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST; 13662 2ND ST; t3644 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):
as�ck,
\0 6, n Cr� �r` � u
b(>-
SIGNATURE ,Mn-/LJ,,&,&DATE5 &,L&GENCY
PRINT NAME \<,;c� i-14 �l G"�t ADDRESS,35Z_q -i(A-1) C ISIL 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, T14E 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
498

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISIJ;ACEIVED
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:
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):
vroy,(A Xvk&
C,\ C� , elCo_eA "A-k
Xk�
ti
SIGNATURE 1, 111 DATEAGENCY��PrV&6&t)
/11 , 1 J

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
499

PROJECT
•'..,
DATE: May 17, 2022
NUMBER -CASE is «
, • PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAI: A General Plan Amendment to chanee the land use designation of several prowrties totaliniz 8.1 project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road.API 0319-253-28,29,30184
! d
proposal, lease contact'ReWamin Madock at (909) 797-a489, ext. 261. You may send ur comments to th City *fYucaip Planning Division, i, fui�pa, CA 92399, or a 90*790-9203. a ar- a .q f ►s- d• a e ♦ . - •. d `:. f a • •,'-
I.d - «i:• ...•: • :.:d• .. d: e'i ':,f!-. ... i:' :.f .. •. i '.. • . .. de !`. 81 f •. calendardays after an action is taken.

E3���please attach additional pages):

SIGNATI DATE44/
«* N �*
r � •" •• •" 'a r r • • r ""• • e � 1 .• r
YucaipaJall
MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABO TfUS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO M YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING To ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Owners Valley Water District
Fire .. menta' Division
i «. i Divisionf.School District
SouthCompany
500

MUMOM
The undersigned affected resident(s) of the City of Yucaipa ol#ject to the City of Yucaipa Planning DivisionProject 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 ftont door step is not adequate notice under applicable law or constitutional protections. In some cases, the notices were, blown, away and m others the homeowners did not use their front door or did not otherwise receive 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 CPA'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 CPA are not and have not been processed in accordance with applicable provisions of California Government Code, CEQA and other applicable statutory requirements.

Fred Pierce
34961 San Rosen Ct, Yucaipa CA 92399
501

'C-ITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPAALUCR
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 RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment p ject, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road�, APNs- r0i
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13681 2ND ST; 13662 2ND ST, 13644 2ND ST;, APN- 0319-253-29-,0319-253-29,0319-253-30 1 *1 t MIT =3111 yrf 147N,
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/WY
'P41te?F6-v'\� _..._._DATEGENC
4/
PRINT NAME 4-'*'jy)�jQm ADDRESS_Zff0�--AWC'dV_ S"<q2A Vol fr�� C) 23tr�
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECIS1014 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 19 HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC, HEARING OR 11-4 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS INTISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTRVIONY, 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
502

11 .May U22
21-085/GFNLUCR
ILI�. IL ILVIl M i ""
To whom
DEVEWPMENT.
• .- r r rr r•=rr r- r r sr r e � a _..,.
! r r Z r .0 r r •' r A r .r• N r
Thank you,
Signed
503

DATE: MAy 17,2022
1119
$+,±(2:�2 «t±k##=<© �<»;»m:

DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER- 21-085/GPAILUCR
APPLICANT: PkEMI(JM LAM DEVELOPNENT
PROPOSAL- A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-71C 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: 13692 2ND ST,13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN- 0319-253-28;0319-253-29,03 t9-253-30 - fri
address above along with a s ff4ddressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of (10) calendar days iftef an action is taken.
so
cS
DATE, 5A
$4, too. i
THE PROPOSAL. YOU OR SOMEONE ET SE ?vfl HA-VE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT TRE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN -,-=M�GWDYJ tRPPJ0R"iiEARI1NG.

WE AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS •
cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District 7irc Dcpa, cr.1, Eng;rftng D.-vision
South Mesa Water Company
505

Jay Staviski
Elaine Staviski
-34949 Sax-R*sex Ct.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
ammumm
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
,,1 1111111 Irli I q1I IIIII ''I �1111
To Whom It May Concern:
...........
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 wew uliable to e6iitaot the Plawa*og Division R)f f4&iefi itif6rinatio& There may be issues we have not yet had time to consider because we recei'ved 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 • 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 506

14rofevT!M sis-A4'.1 tile Upurtificlit rcsmuilts ank Putulimaill:y I UP-dr will likely have to park on 2nd Street, 3rd 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 7MM777 Tew IT M MOM Mb T-1 —7
reserve the right to raise additional oklections not addressed in this letter at,ftdut& public hearings or court actions.

Sincerely,
Jay and Elaine Staviski
I � PINK RIMINI! i I F � I I' i UUM!
509

.0
CASE li i R '.:. s: r
APPLICANT.
t F. FENHUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL:. Amendment to change the land use designationof properties s taling 8.
acres from !kM-72C to IMM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit rnulti-family apartme project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., 1 #r
all dylical
i) calendar days after an
action
x
1 t )
o • ••• a o 0 0° o t, �. �, R
.o o r o :oo •. ,. • o
0 0 o ► o oJIM
o • • o :o =ono • o
0 o t •s o o .r o
Buildingcc: Surrounding Property Qwnen�
Fire Department
Division
South. ,
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
510

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DivisioN

PROJECT NOTICE
A May 1 , 2022
CASE NUMBER: 1-0 /GP ETA
APPLICANT. PREURM LAND DEVELOPMEqT
PROPOSAL! to rTPnPml 1%lttn A ana.�., f to Wit,..«....
'� r, � . .# � , �, ., . �. 4, ► Ott
^
a
d
. ,. ... a ._w, a s a .r �»a; �►" �.:. �. • ,
511

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT- PREAdTJM LAND DEVELOPN&-NT
&
#
COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):
k-0 bU11c)
0ft� hoill- 4 lwilh cl(-(ec�
14� Ct MO/t
, hel 1wijil)- Icy xod
will 64�qec� -mie 4-)?vr7qt)'0�) 1 it o) P, 1 /1
r? -?1q o'(L--c f �4-74'e" 0 �A- cl L't 4 W 6 )'( P/ 1 " L V, 1l
OcInfli, I e� J'-� 1,(i
-��_
SIGNATURE _ =Ki�t DATE -L).: GENCY_
PRlNT NAME Lrj)L—/ tl �,��ADDREw�(Joq'l 6Lm Li--
i P41,41 TIMUN il 01 � i il VIP
WAN
mv '11W artal. ggm-# Ig
--- 4j

DUE TOTIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIOAS

MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN wRrrNGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLETO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineening Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
512

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE, ?Vlay 17,2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPAILUCR
APPLICANT. PREIMIVAvt LAND DEVELOPI�,IENT
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 1nd Street and approximately -375 feet north of County Line Road., AM:
0319-25-1-28,29,30 ' 84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST-,13662 2N1l) ST; 13644 2NID ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;03 19-253-29;0' ) 19-253-30 11 q1 IIIIII� 11111� 1 11111 1�
--44'w�u �Ilvv'vvpv-kit ucVIS14LI'� ill,: bUE)JCQL to an appeal perioa of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken,
;�e a:t �L
tn''Gau Usual r'11z

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTM, IONY, TINIE RESTRICTIONS MA
Y BE PLACED ON ORAL TEST1?,4ONy AT AN,'' PUBLIC HEARPNIG ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL, YOU MAY WISH TO ?4AKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOUARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: T�Irrcunding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering 6tvision
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa -Cali mesa School District South Mesa Water Company
513

=-
1 0; 'fir I I iiii I �
I S7LW#7SCrV66iZ.-a7IY(TIV7ef - ' - 'ID11-
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 Where will you park these vehicles? Also, how will you provide police and fire help to people in such a small, confined space7 Currently the area in our neighborhood has seen an increase in homeless, crime, 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 BgQs, Located on the street. Before the trailer was moved to the street it was on the property at i3682 2,d St and the people entered the abandoned house located on theq��erL�t and were biamufires inside the abandon home. Nothi a�� subject to several up to 8 trailers on the property all with expired tags and several people living on the A ;-4 '-Fitefimg tpww
had an6thercar parked onthe�propertyan&livingoutof the trailer.

The current conditions of the� property are being supervised by several homeless people living out of trailers. If this is the casel what kind of people will you allow10 live in these units? is this a section 8 property? Is there any guarantee that if not will it ever be converted to • 8? )I IS-17117176(mT =,I =s7rIction Tor a rounaanout, 2-IFIF T units anci CTT the cars where will they park? My quite street?
blocking the whole west entrance and the city has •# nothing to correct • .• his to relocate his work vehicle.

ATill tJ7$fflMCJRJJJJTEV A:TT
cost of speed bumps, traffic lights being considered?
514

DATE: May 17,2022
APPLICANT. PRENffUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
ROPOSAL. A Geieral Plan Amend ",-ha-ge L
UUFUN IM111 UT Ulm U UUM wbc -UHIP11ancr, iLe'lle;r V#1 pEr1M=,1r4r--FuR 711TILL-WRITITY7 UPTUIRRI, project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-78,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST-1 13662 2ND ST; 13644 2ND ST;, APN- 0319-253-28-,0319-253-2910319-253-30 01111,111F I
ii ill"Rill
cz=4 in
Q W
M-1015"10. W-6 "N"W1411101, Q MIM "I,•
cc: SunpundingProperty Owners
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
-----------
I
515

Urr-fIr
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
•« CA 92399
Re: Proposal to change the land use for property located between 2nd Street and 3 Id Street to 200 apartments.
• Main
13630 2nd Street
iiiaina. CA 92"Ofg,
•
T 7eMr',=1Iff
Seriously look at all the issues involved.
516

DATE: May 17, 0?
CASE NUMBER: 21.085/GPA/LUCR
ju
A
at
1 proposal plea;
of Yucaipa Pla
If you wau,
tc
address above'
(0) calendar

COMMENTS
r: r
Yucaipa `Malley Water Oistrict
517

I' t
NUMBER -CASE 0+
APPLICANT-PRENffUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of properties totaling acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartme project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street andapproximately north• Road., s t « # t
• MILWIVISP •WK141 ! • # # # • • ## • # 't• t OFAI
UILUObb aulrlrl ult,116 V71kil d sull-kiturcsseu, swilipcu unvelupe. Au decisions are subject to an appeal period or ten t #.r days after an action
R
III
NAME k MA-1r
ADDRESS/ 12 -3 ruL
• • • i" it A M !." 6 i ► ! •
i•. .�, r �, ► • nay �... •• •
s • • "amlawse e "
4 operty Owners Yucaipa- District
Fire Department Engineering Division
SouthBuilding & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School Distric) Company
•,:.
518

Hello.. My name is Randy w 13630 Second Street and next door to the proposed 200 unit apartment complex. First, I would like to say I lookforward to this new # •
On w previous Councildiscussion, i • ::
decorative block wall on our border -and a FREE Sidewalk in front of my property,. plan?
M concerned about # andlightpollutionbordering
property., play area safely away fromside?
The property proposes apartments, happened #: the
previous •condominiums? -
is
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?
am concerned about privacy,and (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? quick of concerns
BlockWall, Sidewalk., Noiset light pollution, Privacy setba Parking, Street congestion, and my "Rural Feel"
Special Note — Can we be protected from this project "'running out of money" # becoming ghost town?
T k You, � ndy ain�909) 208-1249
use
1 519

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT
M` 1 NOTICE
CASE NUMBER: i% !
APPLICANT: PREIVIIUM LAND DEVELOPIVIENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8. acres from RM-72C to
project, a a between 3rd st and 2ndStreet and approximately 375 feet northof • Road., s i r • t.
• r. " . R a !. sa - < a. # !• * • a #ti it ! t
i-Mae. r
COMMENT (I you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
71a r,.
tIf`-=0 �tf
C
SIGNATURE�® DATE AGENCYPRINT NAMEZS71 &2C,� ADDRESS 311'11?,f M ! M' M I • �• 'M'M • !
M M M M. M ,
Yucaipacc: Surrounding Property 0wrilers District
Fire Department Division
Building & Safety DivisVn Yucaipa-Calimesaa•')
South • r,
520

xv f 'dc
tviI4f
6,1441 Lvt.,r .scar '1A oC7 C) wo-/�t,
wowd W Ne. in')/ 4VIIII
' G ( la c S< Y4eyeit Y.

AVM e � ' a o a, At, 5 1( j- a,5 q a
"Y". tedcif ! 17".Yble" 7/4'
l, �c
dL�y tt5l'4k,
}
woyt 'k" h )kkurdj1ef- 4mj ).a
'v
521

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17,2012
CASE NUMBER: 21-Q8S/GPVLucp

A,PPLICANT- PREWLW LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Aniendmcat to change the land use designation of sev=1 prDpenies totaling 839 acres from FLN,142C to MI-24 and a L 4�
COMMENTS (If need additional space, attach please additional pages):
kA/f, you M,)ve,t Cm b ip 4 noGr- 61— 1A*Vgym'
et (V\
1�o
,)rjj r� 6ear­t r,,1Jch �oo
Iffmiolaym9m, A,
CC' Swrrtlwading Pniperty Owias,
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
esa nriLDittritt
10 522

SIM
DATE. May 17,2022
NUMSER..�21-085/GPA/Lucft
ce r ey 2022. Comments received
no rafe
6-this project by the applicinCs'name and case
. If you have any questions regarding this
.261. You-may�send your co' mments to the City
a, 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. Atli decisions are subject to an appeal period of ran (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):
0!57/z,(/e- Z-
SIGNATLJRE_4ATI�—_AGENCY
PRW NAW \—'�����.ADDRESS 54AI
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT. YOU MAY BE LIMITED To RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ME 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 MARINO IS ON T14F M)PORAL VAtt nD Onx=mw =,De %L"t�,-- ---- - HELD
All, jf=,��fj 6#101 Aj; OJ�PALIOR TO, TM HEARING.
-"u'mavul 'ruO rr%VrVbAL. YUU MAY WISH TO MAE
YOtM CO IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc* aq Yucaipa Valley Water District
apartment ]En gincering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
524

ftY g Y.C. A..4nwn4- ,,..b^ ...`s.,...._..F _ .., . .* . ...

DetWeen Jrd st`and 2ndt and approximately 375 feet north of County mine ad., si 031925328,29,30,8
LOCATION.' 13M_ T,1362 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, z :0319-253- 8;0319-2 34 9; 19«253a30 A ION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWINGAGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because ro e our �` property is n„ ..fie
poseduproj_ Your comments. Musthe received by this offico no later Iay 31, 2022* Co � en received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please' refer to this project by the ppplic is name and number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please con t Wenj. i 'Matlock at (909) 797.2499, ext. 261. ;You maysend 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 d mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. l decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten 10) calendar days after an action is taken
COMMENTS (Iyou need additional space, please attach additional pagers).

IGNA ... i Tl 'i AGENCY
lei w. t 'c ` I7
P .. ,.

TV' VnIT PUAT T TM A— ncr+te—t
x, N
525

l! S
DATE: W Y. 2 e
gr.4.. av+c..Yavpwvs» a c,cu a vuaiu to aaeust 37C c cc"1Y €i :i}r O Ce nC} pater tit I�R y 3 } 4 o end received " after this date t t be considered in the decision. Please refer to prof ." ,by the appli *s . h and c"M number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions re garding this
Proposal, Please ' nta t Aaaj. in Matlock at (90) 797-2489, t. 261. Yowmay-send your co ents to the City Y o Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909M) 79 -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. Ali decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten. (10) calendar days after an action is taken.
(If'you need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE 4W-4 l A G CY

PRUIT NAM
526

*
' �:

NUMBER -CASE DEVELOPMENT
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND
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:
# i
LOCATION:,29,30,84
• r It ## w ! i' 1 ' i i i
I' • i s • i a • • • # i # _ A? a • #
calendarWdress above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope, Alt decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten days after an action
is taken.

COMMENTS Of you need additional space, please attach additional pages):

A4> VPA47 97-

SIGNATURE
i
PRINTr M,.
! f ! f' l « * p 1 ! f* f !
s f•• NIM f =11.♦ 019141 **•• f •
• «s • s• f f f f
Yucaipa Valley Water District
DepartmentFire Division
Building. Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesaas
Southi #.
527

MMMM
The undersigned affected resident(s) of the City of Yucaipa object to the City of Yucaipa am-vH
Amendment described therein (the GPA) as follows:

WO. .9 No 1 .4 R-. I WIN J M-4 I W NO$

2. The selection of persons to receive the attempted delivery/service of the Notice failed to I I I III! � 1
F I

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.

C 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.

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 andwelfare. A 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 requirements.

Fred Pierce
34961 San Rosen Ct, Yucaipa CA 92399
528

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING; DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
mi�
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to han e the landuse designation of seveLal -properties totalin 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RNI-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:
0319-253-28,29,30184
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST-113644 2NID STAPN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-290319-253-30 If 4,f the f rtkW
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):
�JGNATURE/UAIIIZCI�� DATE51�' GENCY 4'�Q "Vy

PRINT NAME
-ADDRESSwit rF'

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED T(

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 19 HELD ON

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

MIA= 1 .1 001M.01 WOM WON1110MIN111411=1
cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School;District South Mesa Water Company
529

2022
ASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPAILUCR �k
9 �
• • g • • • .•• IM • ! •#1 r
r ! ! ; r ! "' ' • A � .r i ! t it 0 • : • .� ,. ` • ! ` .. '" � �: ., :

Thank you,:

Signed
530

531

DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER- 21-085tGPAILUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROMSAL- A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24and a Land Use Comyliance Review to yermit a 200-unit Lnulti-family, apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., s:
0319-253-28,29,3o,s4
LOCATION: 136822ND ST;13662 2ND ST,13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319--)53-29-,0319-253-30 A
ITTIOL4.17 U-- I t-'rr1fr'J 1ITKn I - "' ­ 1 z Q, � 11 � #: # - address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

C 1)
0c heZS
SMNATUu DATF,��GENCY�--
PIK,
ItRINT NAW ADDRESS
REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN CO BE Lriv=-D TO RAISING Fifflymoli �LENGE ANY DECI ION
Met
11019=1=001 Ilia
NMI= =11Z
cc: ii—Irrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District 7i-,c 1)'-pWIt-ment Engineering Division
South Mesa Water Company
532

Jay Staviski
Elaine Staviski
M MM JIMMIE M�MRPTMIMMLI
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
P�1711;11 r,
ip'q� 111�111 IIIIIII-I pill III I III
To Whom It May Concern:

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

The City is using an administrative review, ie., "a written or published notice given to affiected 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 533

Re: Case number: 2J-085/GPA/1,UCR; Applicant: Premium and 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 Orqject 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
534

ME=
Jay and Elaine Staviski
536

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
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 acres from RNI-72C to RIM-24, and a Land Use Com liance Review to cc: Surrounding Property Owners
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
537

538

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
M#�
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPAILUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPNENT
PROPOSAL-. A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 • in RAA02C to RM--24- and a Land Use Conr%,liance Review to i3ermit a 200-unit multi-famitiLAmartment 1arqject, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
1319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION. 13692 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST., APN- 0319-253-28-,0319-253-29;0319-253-30 1VA=@r*NM Mrill
ONM MA'ailm- 400MOR I
-----------------
address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (Ifyou, need additional space, please attach additional pages):
— po��e- cf clrcw+men-�6 -Vkck�-
J—
CV,\ix CA M
C
v Ci I-) e c
W J,1
wi/I -kh, Yonqi�i I/
0 L) I VO
n L) y1f
t
mum
1101"MM, "' low, 6%,WT I
JUT Is amaglual sm-4yawswA4111 wgrallati
cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
539

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICAINT: PRENUL"M LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from Rai-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:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST; 13662 2NID ST; 13644 2N7D ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319.253-29;0-1 19-253-30 fl. J "y ml- --'V'1Vkyy U11 Lill at
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):
cc: Surrounding Properry 0%ners
Fire Department
Building & Safety, Division
South Nlesa Water Company
z'/
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
540

5/24/2022
Catcrattpd resi�4-s:
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 C#1111,X�aWf*A 2 ;*- V -,tZ4
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 veticles.

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 ci pao trl in our area. A trailer has beeon n sitting the street in ity I
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 2n' St and the people entered the abandoned house located on the property and were burning fires inside the abandon home. N2t Wa-niote. T�-,- IgigaU, jigs d,,n yligill 1 11
-W
I low-WOR WIPY
00 't We- It, I'll L 7, 11 P Meet in Tront F
had another car parked on the property and 'living out of th trailer. e 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? i IMIT'Llnels--truen T u nuer consfr-0-cli—on for a rouna about, ailt T u nits and 0 the cars where will they park? My quite street?
blocking the whole west entrance and the city has done nothing to correct or advise his to relocate �his work vehicle.

MACY
ON
cost of speed bumps, traffic lights being considered?
541

NEW
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. acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartme project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., 0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13692 2ND ST, 13662 2ND ST; 13644 2ND ST-APN- 0319-253-28;0319-253-29-10319-253-301 W
address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of (10) calendar days after an action is taken.
e:' CAY ed
I
a 2 =1 NoW Ow *V-11 ON 03 1 N 141MUN, $ 14451 9M 1 961,611 h, 0*11 - owl - X1 P a I i 1611 AIN Im cc: 5tirrquoing Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
542

711.=- MMEMM
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Re: Proposal to change the land use for property located between 2n' Street and 3 d Street to 200 apartments.

Judy Main
136302 nd Street
•
• look at all the issues involved.
543

DATE: May 17,20-72
CASE NUMBEP-- 21-OSS/GPAALUCR
ft—
�t thi-. htnA tico -,r --.-
4 1+ -1 fib Ak�AMWCT BOW AT� OR PRIOR TO, TM H""O�
IvAbburb MAI YQU ARE ABLE TO UPRBS YOtMELF ADEQUATELy.
cc: V Yucaipa Valley Water istrict
fiiebepartrnent Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calirnesa School District South Mesa Water Company
544

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
wz��
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., AP *319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST,13662 2ND ST, 13644 2ND ST,-, APN: 0319-253-280319-253-29,0319-253-30 gimaggralm
'Jw"WWArtW . I "ri", TMPT, I I
address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelopdecisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days a�er an action is ta�ken.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
�41

SIGNATURE DATE AGENCY
PRINT NAME M P ADDRESS 0 3 a 11Y— � �)IJ
cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
545

to say I look forward tothis newproject.

On « previous 4 discussion, an
decorative block wall on our border and a FREE Sidewalk in front of my property, plan?
I am concerned 4 4 # and light pollutionbordering
property, play areasafely# 4'
The property proposes 200 apartments, what happened to the previous 69condominiums?
Is there going 4; be 4• 4 r#• for theproposed 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 I am concerned aboutprivacy, and 3 (or more?)story
apartments be looking into my yard? If sol I would like substantial A quick checklist ofmy concerns
Block Wall, Sidewalk., Noise and light pollution., 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?
J{t�4, t
546

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT

R JECNOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
PREMIUMCASE NUMBER: LUCR
0 " i

DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL:
} A totalingnation of several properties A
.39
acres from . # 9 a i a ' s'i
project, located between 3rd st
2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road, APNs:
+. a # 0
,84
98i is l li . i « j a a a 4
a aaa 9 •. - a . 9' ' - y a a . a

9. ` � 9 ra s. • «'"' • a •Ma s' • �,
r.99 - «Ra.- .. • . - ,.i9 - '� ... a-9 ... - ai- � i• a :.. }.- a COMMENTS (I you need additional space, please attach additional pages}. 7 %, f ' r
J6 If 0 �14
s
TE t � CZENCY
-a•a • a s • � � •• t
*.« .o e • e • •t car o• «. •. • ..r
f e a a a r :• ,i,r
Yucaipacc: Sq"ding,Propert,,y Valley Water District
Fire Department EngineeringDivision
Buildinga Safety ! i,School
South• a,
547

fro
eoc) C r7 y ae? w111 It'.
willrams
pv� t.j
Val
//
"
P7"f
all'J L'y ii-si'4k,
butt p 7 -
)v wal, Not lo A
)kU�"'�4mj -FIVIM".1144
548

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE, May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER, 2l-035/GpvLUCR
APPLICANT. PRENlTM LAND DEVELOPIMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan AmendM0-_nrq__"
acrc,% from RM-72C to RM44, and a Land Use Compliance Review to perraft a 200 unit multifamily aperrimlit project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of'County Line RqA, AM:
0-1 19-253-28,29,10M
LOCATION: 13682 2ND sT-13662 2ND ST;13644 2'7ND ST;, ApjN: 0319-253-28-0319-2,53-29;0319-253-30 ATMN'TION PROPERTY ONVINERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIESThe development proposal listed abow has been filed with tht City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the PrOPOSCd PrOjeCt. Your comments must be received by this office no later than May 31,2022. Cotruncou rcatind after this date nallaht not be
number indicated above. Ifyou have no cornmen4 no reply is necessary, if you har any qucstioas regartling this PrOPOSA Please contact Benjamin 'vfailock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may sonelyour comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FA)� to (909) 790-9201 If you to be notified of the project decision. print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the addrew above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope, All decistisirs are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken,
COHNIENITS (If you need additional space, Please attach additional pages):

W(f� �uS-r, Maw_� hire- R11A W00IJ nOi� V\O,(P6
)e. x
'-a, Fe— bey tk J ;.e"
V
Jcw�i-Rrs 'e A 0
�'a"\
qx & tom C4 , ck
t-fe e
.jvj 14 i,�
o L)
'Z� cc, rA
C)
t'-c lb'�
t
-?e I is 0 vtf K�' n �0 ('
'+'
TES�L- �-AciENcy
HEAMG
—crMill"', a
f"IMAn'
RANG159aw =--- G�- MAMINIANW, moll
M SuimundinS Prupcny 0%witri
Fire Department
Building & Safety Division
Sou thfiles a Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calitaesa School District
549

MY OF Yt
DATE: May 17,2022
L VY, A vAtmi"I'MUTZMAI

19 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 630 PM.

PRESENT: J.R. Allgower, Chair
Christopher Markarian, Vice Chair
Richard Beck, Commissioner
Tony Hicks, Commissioner
Lloyd Rekstad, Commissioner
ABSENT: Bart Brizzee, Commi'ssioner
Aron Wolfe, Commissioner
CITY STAFF: Benjamin Matlock, City Ptanner/Planning Manager Madeline Jordan, Assistant Planner
Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
Katrina Kunkel,
There were no comments received for items not listed on the agenda at Publiccommentna,yucaipa.org or in person,
Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2022
I of I I
551

AGEN
ug�' t igms #1 #2 #5 and

1. SUBJECT: Approve Item No. 1, Planning Commission Minutes of July 20, 2022 Planning Manager ►Ben Matlock noted that there were not enough members will be moved to the
August 17,2022, agenda.

2. SUBJECT-. The Well Church. (Case No. 22-013fLUCR): A Land Use Compliance Review 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:
-M
R) Approve Lan =TTn= 1% 11 =F�= Mlc ?T17717RIF
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,
AC11Q .- MOTION BY Vice Chair Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Hicks, CARRIED, 5-0-2-01 TO APPROVE ITEM 2.

The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be:

Planning commission Minutes Page 2 of I I
August �, 2022
552

City of Yucaipa
Ptanning 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 U&P ompliance 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
MX4141345IN M1. 111130 rill 11111
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
13) Adopt the Special Use Permit Findings as contained in the Agenda Report, and The applicant's representative, Travis Heaps addressed the Commission regarding this project. bl"At MG -ROM, #71-WWWWW.

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, ADU combination structures have been proposed and ultimately approved by the Planning Commission.

JAII.-IN 0 0
&CII : MOTION BY Vice Chair Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Hicks, CARRIED, 5-0-2-0, TO APPROVE ITEM 5.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of I I
August 3. 2022
553

.f,. 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.

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
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 DISCUSSION: Commissioner Richard Beek 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.

No comments received.

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

Planning Commission Minutes
August 3, 2022

554

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 a22 5% increase in land density, a Land Use Compliance Review with Architectural Review to construct a 150-tpit, 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 I 50-units to be I -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 inlieu 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-toot-tall, detached metal garage located on a single -residential property at 12269 Yd Street; APN: 0319-121-78, I M011moulowTOWTIMI Mo-
#
the o=il that tha -
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
Q Approve Density 13onus Request and Land Use Compliance Review No. 21-045, and Variances subiect 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, findiniz 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.

D15CIUSSI1N: 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 Page 5 of I I
August 3, 2022
555

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 Page 6 of I I
August 3.2022
556

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 - is j, garket iate senior pro . * I include more amenities than found Ject that wil
at other types otajects. Ae notedthattheirapproacn was to OR, 3 T middle of town to be closer to grocery stores and restaurants. f hole 4wAzing, a ten vercent 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.

ANSI V
APPROVE ITEM 3.

Me
•
1 0 M NMI
Planning Commission Minutes Page I of 11
August 3,2022
557

C) Approve the Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 21-085), subject to the Conditions of Approval 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-, an;I G) Review, and if it is considered acceptable, approve the architectural design and conceptual landscaping for the proposed Project.

W "0. 1. M-Nm I
noticing practices. Contract Planner Braginton noted that if the Commission determines that the General Plan • 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 •. 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 nro,ject. He also noted tVat based o-t te LQL��**- - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N .ALL 21, ILLITIM41J &JAI5 611%, pvfjv" L'T LI.L'S' RO'V'--rq lines and also agreed • extend the sidewalks .::"• curb/gutter along the neighboring properties to • the i• and the nearby elementary school to the City's County Line Road improvements, and to also better manage existing drainage concerns.

I . Randy Main-2 Id 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 •aa•.- the project.

2. Judy Main-2" 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 Page 8 of I I
August 3,2022
558

Planning Commission Minutes
August,3, 2022

559

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

13. Michael McKinney-2 d Street- He noted that he was very upset to hear about this proje at the last minute and felt that the proposed three-story project does not fit with the are He noted concerns with the land use as there is a horse ranch not too far from his cuirTre home and did not understand how the site could be zoned as multiple family. He also not concern for -the bam owls and the red tail hawks in the area, and that there are no parks sidewalks in the area to support the future residents.

14. Arthur Walter- 2" Street- He noted that he has lived on 2,d Steet since 1985, and traffic a constant issue, and that there is no room for a project like this in that area. He also not safety concerns, particularly because the nearby school does not have enough parking their site do their overflow of parking goes down the entire street. _V_6&-nmP&g,rer- County Line Rd- Mr. Wan oses the prqJiect and feels that his viewsl a resident doesn't matter. He does not want a three-story building in the area, and that property is currently filled with filthy tractors and transients living in the area. -ron -osition to the project and di
ImAT.1 ituawwp- Courfq, Line Rd- Ms. Mwighm noted her orge, not agree with the Developer when he says new businesses witl be coming into the are She noted concerns with the type of businesses that are currently in the area, includi those at Third Street and County Line and that the area is already being overtaken transients. She concluded with that she feels that the proposed project wowd be a bett fit for the Chapman Heights area. I
�7he al,14i6wit, hlrHe.-,*s zgreet tk:zt tkere ve%--iip. ezfilror-mext issues ixAewezA__xd tiat it -ceeds to be cleaned up. He understands the traffic concerns, however he noted that there was a traffir- 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

2.vailability 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, includinp, if he has all his licenses and if he is in good standing? Mr. Heaps, respondei. affirmatively.

The project's Traffic Engineer, Perry llercil from the Gandini Group, noted that the traffic study 7,W, 4Z A - - - 6T� - f•� ­ vo T
IRA 1 _x
'2�, M06
trip generation, The traffic study determined that there will be no level of service issues with the project.

MEETING BY Commissioner Hicks, SEUM141) BFtice Chair MaFKa`r­1-1—n,;XXAW4 1175=11 2-0.

Planning Commission Minutes
August 3. 2022

560

ANNYOUN EMENI&, The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for August 17, 2022.
—Beni minMatlock
PI ing Manager/City Planner
Planning Commission Minutes Page I I of I I
August 3. 1022
561

Agenda Item No. I
City of Yucaipa
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 17, 2022
A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Yucaip., 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 Beek, Commissioner
Tony Hicks, Commissioner
Lloyd Rekstad, Commissioner
Bart Brizzee, Commissioner
Aron Wolfe, Commissioner
CITY STAFF: Benjamin Matlock, City Planner/Planning Manager Madeline Jordan, AssistantPlanner
Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
Katrina Kunkel, Associate Engineer
Maria Koolhoven, Planning Commission Assistant
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 PM, with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Rekstad.

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

Planning Commission Minutes
Atioust 17. 1022
Pave I
562

1. S BJECT., Approve Planning Commission Minutes of July 20, 2022

2. SUBJECT-., Approve Planning Commission Minutes of August 3,2022 : 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.

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 is air -To to tigowfum ILSIC-1#14 t;
Planning Commission Minutes
,%Ugum 1 7. 2022

563

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 Meetin . Plannim , Man er Ben Matlock ex3lained to the.Commission that is u to the Plannina 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 Briizzee 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, and Vice Chair Markarian a reed 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.

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

The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be:

A. Staff Presentation D. Applicant Rebuttal (if necessary) B. Applicant/Representative Presentation 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 comer of Live Oak Canyon Road and the I- 10 eastbound on -ramp. APN(S) 0301- 201-3 8, -39 and 0301-211-11.

Planning Commission Minutes
Augwt 1!. 2022

564

A) Approve the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the Conditions of Approval as contain in the Agenda Report; and
0 1 1
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,
WEE=
j�iSCUSICIN; Commissioner Hicks recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. 11 li�lilxlm M-1 ffcil��'
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.

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

Manning Commission Minutes
Augu:l 17. 2022

565

5. SUBJECT. Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 20- 136/PDP/TDP/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 t2,000 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.

Council that they:

A) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-47, approving a Preliminary Development Plan for 11 Serrano Estates Project, and
B) Approve Final Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map No. 20375 (Case No. 202 136/FDP/TTM 20375), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in th Agenda Report; and I
D) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and g0ation Monitoring and Reporti Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures w Z:7
reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant, and, E) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.
01 got
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, an'i 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 Plaluied 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 Page 5
Aqwk 17. 2022
566

NOW W-0
deliberately designed to make a more logical transition from the vacant areas and the surrounding ?rea 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 I -acre property and iterated that a minimum of I 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 2�wmrpj imirix !^4,;�w ose visitin- the wineni 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 It *Fi
vineyaras in Me area nowever wouta iiKe a oerte e ffff fl 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 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 jC
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. animals. She also noted that the evacuations tney naa aunng Me past ilres T(asIcl SUM-J 703- could not imagine having additional residents in hann'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
Augustl",AO22
567

- FF -f ri M.7=0 T, Y W.J "I T �M 7 U --- I ----
would remain as I -acre lots, and therefore opposes to the project. 568

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 ® the changes that were brought up by Vice Chair Markarian.

I in #7
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 for more housing, stating that if nothing is done to preserve the fifty percent of the land for i viticulture and open space, the entire land may be lost to development in the future. He 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 e 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.
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 pro osed Project should maintain p
*ne acre lots, and that Yucaipa Ridge Road should be improved along the entire frontage north ig li
i ded that the roect ccli
Gina Hadder - Palen -no 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 I -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 znd 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, 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. .022

569

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

The applicant, Mr. Craig Heaps noted that he read the comments regarding the zone change and wanted to clarify that they are not changing the zone nor doing a General Plan Amendment, but instead using an existing process in the City's Code, He understands that there are compromised areas within the property and that would limit the ability to build I -acre lots all over the property, commenting that their approach was designed to take advantage of the best parts of the site. He iterated that if this project doesn't work, then nothing wilt worL He responded to the comment that the project looks square, agreeing that they had some challenges to gym&-g—jilerating this was not an eas.., It tog&
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 commuruity. 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 space and opportunities for vinevards — larger lots would in turn reduce those desired elements.

ViceChair 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 thatadditional 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,
is that the neighborhood does not want any development and stated that such efforts would not zppeal to those that spoke, Vice Chair Markarian added that strict adherence to one acre lots is not z 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 11. '022
Pave 9
Z
570

Commissioner Rekstad felt that the Project represents a clash, of cultures, going from the larger lots that have a "scruffier" appearance to 5 1 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. 11 N111
N 0110
RAM Re c _t I =11 0 C wciv ti w P F, 1, rruj —,I r I "C; C cr V -0- af a-C 11rfF1 --I- ow-0-6 " #'Myfer,f r iro I 9-=T-ffrJ 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, 34-0-0, 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 establishme a construction services site that includes a 3,900 square foot material and equipme storage facility, three (3) 200 square foot on -site storage containers and a future 570 squal foot modular office, and includes a Minor Variance request for a 40 percent reduction in t 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. 2Q12
Page LO
571

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,
"WrIT&ECT611-mm
DI&CUSSION:

Assistant Planner Christian Farmer presented the project.

Planner Christian Farmer noted that several notices were sent to all property owners within 300 who indicated their support for the project.

The applicant's representative, Steve Ritchey, addressed the Commission and requested that the xro�ect -ved, He noted that he was available to answer an��l technical juestion an�,, of them ,c be aiq%cro
might have.

ACTIO►: 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.
ioc& notea trialrTrITUre—mi MTf'l U&MAY941
on August 26, 2022, being hosted by Institute for Local Government.

Bepjimin Mattock --'A� Allgower
,
.'Pfanning Manager/City Planner Chair of the Pan ` g' Commission Planning Commission Minutes Page I I
Aupll I-, 2022
572

A Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yucaipa was called to order in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California, at the hour of 600 P., on the 24ffi day of October 2022 with Mayor Avila presiding.

ROLL CALL PRESENT. David Avila, Mayor
Justin Beaver, Mayor Pro Tem
Bobby Duncan, Councilmember
Jon Thorp, Councilmernber
• r ;•r 111111111111# e-
A quorum of the City Council was present.
do WAINK111MA
i � � � • � '.. i �' ' a s ♦. !: ♦. ♦. `, �.
� 1. Y . r. L. . f ♦ ♦. �' � � ■ •

STREETME
• AT APPROXIMATELY '

ROAD ' A LOT MERGER WILL ALSO BE PROCESSED TO CONSOLIDATE ALL FOUR SEPTEMBER 26,
10 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 • '! 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.
573

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

A. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-4 1, approving the minor General Plan Amendment / La Use District Change of a property from RM- I OM Multiple Residential, 10,000 squ foot minimum lot size) to the land use designation of RM-24 (High Density Multip Residential); • •
B. Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 41 amending Ordinance No.4• • the Official Land Use Plan i Zom Ordinance as adopted by the City of i. and
C. Approve the Density Bonus i 18i i Agreement.'Conditions of Approval i • Agenda •'.

Report; and
It'. Adopt the Findingscontained in this Agenda •, Report; • E. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedureswill reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and F. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and, 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 fori e i proposed 200 units that was presented to the Planning Commission but has been modified to incorporate a two-storydesign intended to ,/!ress a key area of i identified by surrounding property owners.
1 ' W LI I ®K IN 131 1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTYOF ' BERNARDINO

CITY OF YUCAIPA
I, Kimberly J Metzler, City Clerk of the City of Yucaipa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full and correct excerpt of the Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Yucaipa City Council held on the 24t" day of October 2022.

Kimberly J Metzler
City Clerk
574

Agenda Item No.

City of Yucaipa

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting of January 18, 2023
A '-• meeting of the Planning • of the City • Yucaipa, • was called to order in the Community Meeting Room, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, on January 18, 2023, at 6-30 PM.

PRESENT: J.R. Allgower, Chair
Richard Beck, Commissioner
Stacey Chester, Commissioner
Tony Hicks, Commissioner
David Higginson, Commissioner
Donna Snodgrass, Commissioner
Lyle Vick, Commissioner
CITY STAFF: Benjamin Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planner Katrina Kunkle, Assistant City Engineer
Lauren Sanchez, Assistant City Attorney
Madeline Jordan, Associate Planner
Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
Maria Koolhoven, Planning Commission Assistant
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Tony Hicks.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A. CHAIR- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HICKS SECOND BY

COMMISSIONER HIGGINSON TO SELECT JR ALLGOWER AS CHAIR,
MOTION CARRIED 7-0-0-0
B. VICE CHAIR: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SNODGRASS SECOND BY

COMMISSIONER BECK TO SELECT TONY HICKS AS VICE CHAIR,
MOTION CARRIED 7-0-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1
1-18-23 575

PUBLIC COMMENT: Five public comments for items not on the agenda were received. Ramona Etheredge noted that she would like to hear the name of the proposed project instead of just a case number and that she would like the comment section to be opened on the City's YouTube videos. Cesar Roldan thanked the Commissioners for all they do for the community. Hansen Wang welcomed the new Commissioners. Kathy Sellers noted concerns with the recent election, the recent City Manager replacement, and developers now asking to reduce their permitting costs. Bill Tilbury noted that he supports the Planning Commissioners and all the work they do.

Staff introductions were made to the Planning Commissioners.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file the Planning Commission Minutes of November 16, 2022.

2. SUBJECT: Receive and File Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 2022.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file the Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 2022.
�A#
A. Staff Presentation D. Applicant Rebuttal (if necessary) B. Applicant/Representative Presentation E. Public Hearing Closed C. Public Comments F. Commission Discussion

3. SUBJECT: IE Beer Farm (Case No. 22-107/CUP/ARC): A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review for the establishment of a phased restaurant project, with the first phase including the reconstruction of a 1,440 square foot metal building to house a tap room and supporting space, and the second phase including the remodel of an existing residence to allow for the operation of a new restaurant and kitchen; located within the Uptown Business District Specific Plan at 12149 California Street; APN: 0319-061-36.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
1-18-23 576

A) Approve Conditional Use Permit, subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Report, and if acceptable, approved the Architectural Design and conceptual landscaping-, and
I '&) Adopt the Findings for the Conditional Use Permit as contained in the Agenda Report; and C) Adopt a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) and Section 15303 (Class 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; and,
D) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.

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

Assistant Planner Christian Farmer presented the Agenda Report. He clarified parking questions from Chair Allgower and Commissioners Chester and Snodgrass, highlighting the parking program.

The owner, Danny Gibson, thanked the Commissioners for the consideration on the proposed project.

Representative Brian Higginson noted that he is very excited to propose this project in the Uptown Historic District.

Commissioner Chester noted that this would be a great project for the City. Commissioner Beck thanked the applicant for investing in Yucaipa. Commissioner Vick noted that he likes that the Uptown District is growing. Commissioner Snodgrass noted parking concerns but is in favor for the revitalization of the Uptown District. Commissioner Hicks noted that he loves the old building, but understands, that it cannot be saved and thinks that this is a great project. Chair Allgower noted that he hates to see the old building go but that the proposed project would fit in well on that comer.

Public Comments: No comments received.

ACTION- MOTION BY Commissioner Snodgrass, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 6-0-1-0, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
1-18-23 577

4. S411JECT: Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP/GPA/LUCR): A modified Project proposal following the Appeal of Case No 21-085/GPA/LUCR that now consists of a General Plan Amendment (Ordinance No. 412) to change the land use district from RM-10M (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential) and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a privately gated 172-unit two-story multi -family apartment Project that includes an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement on four parcels totaling 8.39 acres. — The initial project reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council was for a privately gated 200-unit three-story multi -family apartment project; located between 3rd Street to the west and 2nd Street to the east, 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,
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. 2022-4 1, 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
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
Approve the Density Bonus Agreement Request and Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 22-121), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and
D) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; anM 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: Commissioner Snodgrass recused herself from this item due to a potential conflict of interest.

RONNIE !III I
rflmm�W%M��
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
1-18-23 578

The applicant's representative, Craig Heaps was in attendance and congratulated the new Commissioners.

Craig Heaps noted that they have been working extensively with the neighboring property owners to make changes to the original project.

Commissioner Chester noted traffic concerns with the proposed project being so close to the school. Craig Heaps noted that they will add a sidewalk to connect the crosswalk and make it easy for kids to walk to school. Craig Heaps noted that a traffic study was conducted, and he understands the concerns, however, the traffic study shows that the area can support the project.

Public Comments: Eight speaker forms were received.

1. Arthur Walter — 2 nd Street — He noted traffic concerns, and that the project is too big for that area.

Arthur Walter stated that this project had been presented to the Planning Commission and had been previously denied, and that, even with the revised project, it is still high density and that there are plenty of better suited locations in the city.

2. Thomas Murphy — County Line Rd. — He disclosed that after researching past projects that have been approved for the area, this proposed project is too big for the location. He noted that unless you live in the area, you don't feel the impact.

3. Judy Main — 2 d Street — Noted she had concerns with the development, but after reviewing the new proposed project with all the updates made, she is in favor the apartment development, referring that the layout gives more space that projects built under the current zoning.

4. Randy Main — 2 d Street — He highlighted that the concerns he had with the original proposed project have been addressed and is in favor of the proposed project.

5. Gabriele Allen Heind — County Line Road — She noted that she has traffic and safety concerns with the roundabouts, and the need of sidewalks. She expressed that the roads are in terrible condition, including potholes and construction in the area.

6. Matt Underwood — Diamond Street— He stated that he is against the zoning change, and has traffic and safety concerns. He would like to see the implementation of bike lanes and sidewalk improvements in the area.

7. Kevin Miskin — Ivy Ave — He expressed that the projects should follow the General Plan, and that there is no reason to increase the amount of units, and suggested something between 86-104 units.

He would like the General Plan upheld.

8. Alec McKinney — 2 nd Street — He noted that the traffic study for the proposed project was conducted in July, 2021, during the height of the pandemic when school was not in session, and that he still has safety and traffic concerns. He would like to see an extension of San Rosen Ct., and that the wildlife in the area should be protected.

The applicants representative, Mr. Craig Heaps responded to comments and noted that schools do have traffic during school start and dismissal times. He also clarified that in fact the project had not been denied by City Council, revisions were asked to be made and that is why he was in front of the Commission through a resubmittal. Mr. Heaps noted that the traffic study conducted used historical data as well.

The Public Hearing was then closed.

ACTION: MOTION BY Vice Chair Hicks, SECOND BY Chair Allgower, CARRIED, 5-1- 1-0, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
1-18-23 579

. I a Olvda
61MR1,1101aff., 1 1 1
DISCUSSION: Assistant City Attorney Lauren Sanchez presented the Agenda Item.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: City Planner, Benjamin Matlock informed the Commissioners that the League of Cities Academy will be held from March 29, 2023, to March 31, 2023, in Garden Grove.

Ben Matlock noted that he is working with Joe Zoba, General Manager for Yucaipa Valley Water District, to conduct a joint workshop between the City of Yucaipa and City of Calimesa Planning Commissions to learn about the shared water department that services both communities. Mr.

Matlock thanked the Commissioners for their service.

The next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for February 1, 2023.

Benjamin Matlock
Planning Manage��--
JR Allgower
Chair of the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Minutes
1-18-23 580
M

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
6WER-ITEO,
W71I 0 rewj 1111:161ALej j-Avj 119101 Z;j 11j:y-ATj-Aj
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
•. Maintenances of records concerning the status of all approved mitigation measures • Quality control assurance of field monitoring personnel City of Yucaipa 1
581

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Coordination with other agencies regarding compliance with mitigation or permit requirements
0 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 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
582

it : + 1+ +' 200 Senior Housing Units
Responsible
.Sanctions for
Responsible for
for
"Mdnitoring, ;
Timing,of
" 'Whdd of
l/erified
Non- ,.

Mitigation Measure
Moniforin
tin terrisniation
Fre uene
Verification
Veriijcatio
Datetini#lal
Com Hance

BIOLOGY
13I0.1 Prior to release of grading permits, the Applicant shall Planning
Project
Prior to
During
Applicant to
Withhold
contractwith a qualified biologist to conduct 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.
r 01111.11
583

21-085/GPA/LUCR/1 A' i'i Senior Housing Units
'
Responsible
Sanctions for
Responsible far
for
'Monitoring
Timing of
Method "of
Verified
• Non-
:Nliti ation Measure
Manitorin
lm cementation
Freciti0cy
Verification
� Ueirificatiorr
:date/initials,
Cornl!Ance
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
584

l • e '0 Seniore a Units
Responsible
' Sanctions far
Responsible for
for
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Yeriflsd
Non-=
Mitt anon Measure'
Monitbeln'
Im lementation
Fre' uenc
' Verification
` : Verlfici lon
'Date/initiais
Com Hance
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
N01-1 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.

N01-1 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.

N01-2 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.

N0W 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 •.
585

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
b16: ,Resp6nsi'
Sanctions, for
Responsible' for
for,, >
Monitoring,,
','Timing of
Mithod 6f,
Non,,
M!!Waelor MeaWre,
Mdn'lior][rig"
jtnieniehtMloa
�,Freuen�c,,
'Verification
VeriffcMlow
Date/lInItWs,Coat
#lance
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
586

Miti ation treasure'
Responsiblafor``'
Monitoriri
Responsible
"` fOr
Im Cementation
:Monitoring-Tlmitrg,of'i8t�M0o
> 1=re uenc
Verification
Veriflcatlon
�%�if�6ii.

Dateiinitials
Sanctions for
��on--
Gom liance'
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 T
587

Miti atiort Measure
"Responsibly for` �. '
Monitorin `
Responsible
for
ir>i Iemeniation
,Monitoring
' Fre uenc
T,irrritig of
° lterificatio�n
� Method of: �
Verification
�: Verifisd� �
Datelinitials ,
Sanctions for
Non-
' Com ianee
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
588

Miti anon Measure
Responsible for.

Monitoen
Responsible
for
im semen#anon
Monitoring =
Fre ueric
imingof
Veri cation),
Meod of
Verification
Verified.
bate/lnitiais
Sanctions for
Non-
Com liance
• 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 Placer 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
589

reviewed by all Parties, and
implemented following the guidelines listed below:

Temporary CUra8on and Storage for Removed
Resources: For resources that cannot be |e0 in
place, they shall be temporarily curatedinasecure
location onsite atanagreed 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 Rmnmm
Resources: For resources that cannot be left in
place, the |@ndownor(s)shall relinquish ownership
of all cultural resources, |ndVd|Ug sacred items,
burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and
non -human remains as part of the required
mitigation for impacts to ou|huna| neonunmm. The
applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through qne
ormore ufthe following methods and provide the
City nfYucaipa with evidence ofsame:

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
City of Yucaipa 10
590

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Mitigation Measure
RospopMble fo
Monitbrin"i
ke"ipprisible,'
�for,­, "
lmpleei�tatloi�
IVIdnitoning-
LjLe�
711mingl6f
'Wriftation,
Aithod,df ,
Veriftatil
lo n
Verifli6d,',
DaWnnitlals
'Sanctions for'
Non",
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 pre -
City of Yucaipa 11
591

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Mitisigion Measure
Responiible, for
Moriltoring
'Responsible
for
jMlementatlon
Mon'lto' ri 1 !9
R
Fr6quencj,
Thnihg�df
VeMcition,
Method o
V41ficatidn,,
V '-fii
on ed"
.'Dat6finitials',
Sanctions for
Non-
Corm fiance
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 MLID 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 MLID to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts.

City of Yucaipa 12
592

The specific locations of Native American burials and
reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed k)the general public. The locations will bedocumented bythe consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and e mpnd of findings will be filed with the Gan Bernardino County Museum.

According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 81OO),and disturbance ofNative American cemeteries ise
felony (Section 7US2)determined inconsultation between the Project proponent and the MLD.|nthe event that the Project proponent and the MLOam in disagreement regarding the
disposition of the remoinn. State law will apply and the median and decision process willoccur with the NAHC(see Public Resources Code Section 5O9T88(e)and 5OA7.84(N)
City of Yucaipa 13
593

G -I

ENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT

FALLBROOK MEADOWS

RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
June 10, 2022
City of Yucaipa
Development Services Department
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
11Page
594

MIEUMUMM

1. Project Title: Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Yucaipa, 34272 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jon Braginton, (909) 797-2489 x 264

4. Project Location: Located between 31 Street and 2nd Street, and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84.

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Premium Land Development: 108 Orange Street #5, Redlands, CA 92373.

6. General Plan Designation: Existing — RM-10M (Multiple Residential) / Proposed — RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential) (minimum lot size 5 gross acres, minimum 20 dwelling units per acre and maximum 24 dwelling units for multi -family).

7. Description of the Project: Case No 21-085/GPA/LUCR: 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 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. A lot merger will be processed to consolidate all four parcels into a single lot.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Multi -family residences along the northwestern half of the subject site, single family residences along the northeastern half of the subject site, and single-family residences to the east beyond 2 d Street and south of the subject site.

9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None at this time; the Project would require an agreement with South Mesa Water Company for potable water service, and a Development Agreement with the Yucaipa Valley Water District for sewer service.

City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
2 1 P a g e
595

This section explains the background and purpose of this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which is the envirom-nental review document prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a General Plan Amendment to designate a property with an existing Multiple Residential Land Use Designation as High Density Residential ("GPA" or "Project"). It establishes the context and scope for the MND, and outlines the process for reviewing the Draft MND and issuing the Final MND. The City of Yucaipa is the lead agency under CEQA. A "lead agency" is defined by Section 21067 of CEQA as "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a Project which may have a significant effect upon the environment." This IS and Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a MND is being circulated for agency and public review and comment for 20 days beginning June 10, 2022. All written comments must be received by 5:30 p.m. June 30, 2022. Written comments or questions concerning this document should be directed to:

City of Yucaipa
ATTN: Jon Braginton
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
The proposed Project consists of an amendment to the City of Yucaipa General Plan ("GPA") to change the Land Use Designation of four (4) subject parcels totaling 8.39 acres (APNs: 0319-253-,28, -29, -30, - 84) from the City's Multiple Residential (RM-IOM) Land Use Designation to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) Land Use Designation. Located between 3rd Street to the west, and 2nd Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road, the proposed Project GPA would facilitate for the permitting of high density multifamily residential development. Concurrent with the GPA, the Project application includes a Land Use Compliance Review (LUCK) to permit for the development of a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment Project on the four subject parcels, which will also include the demolition of four (4) existing single-family residential dwellings, and a Lot Merger that will consolidate the parcels into one lot.

The Project would consist of seven (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.). The Project also includes a 1-story, 4,169 sq. ft. rental office and recreational building with an outdoor private pool and jacuzzi and barbeque, a recreational area consisting of tot lot play areas, a fenced -in private dog park and a walkable pathway encompassing the recreational area.

This environmental document analyzes the Project that could be constructed should the GPA be adopted and also analyzes the proposed apartment community development component under a high -density multiple family residential use (up to a density of 24 units per acre), which could permit up to 201 units with facilitation of the proposed GPA. For comparison, the existing land use designation of RM-10M would permit 8.7 dwelling units per acre as a typical multiple family Project that would result in a total of 73 multiple family homes for the entire size of the subject parcels combined (8.39 acres), not including any 3 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
596

Density Bonus Agreements or Accessory Dwelling Units, should the GPA not be approved. This GPA for the RM-24 designation would therefore result in a net increase of 128 dwelling units from the existing requirements. The Project also proposes an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement. The Project's architectural elevation rendering exhibits have been submitted and would be analyzed consistent with the development Standards listed in the Yucaipa Development Code for the proposed RM-24 District,
Project Setting
The proposed GPA would change the land use designation of approximately 8.39 acres within four (4) parcels located between 3rd Street to the west, and 2nd Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road (Figure I and 2). The subject parcels consist of four (4) existing single family residences fronting 2 d Street and 31 Street with detached garages, sheds and undeveloped graded land situated toward the rear of each lot. The property also contains non -protected trees and shrubbery near to these residences. The area is surrounded by residential uses to the north, south, east, and west. The Project area is generally flat with a slight upward slope from west to east, and the site has no known biological resources or other natural features. The GPA area has street frontage on 2nd Street and 3 d Street, which are paved two (2) lane local streets with an ultimate right-of-way of sixty (60) feet. Proposed Projects within the GPA area would be required to provide the necessary street improvements, including, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and matchup paving to the existing street along the street frontage.

As noted above, a residential entitlement is proposed on four parcels subject to the GPA and has been designed to comply with the proposed Land Use District requirements. The proposed Project features a Spanish style architecture that will be incorporated into the exterior design of each apartment building.

Project Floorplans have been developed with anticipated square footages for the apartment units ranging from 650 square feet for a one -bedroom unit, 890 square feet for a two -bedroom unit, and 973 square feet fora three -bedroom unit.

Private amenities consisting of outdoor patios with enclosed storage rooms to serve the residents of the development are provided as part of the Project. Common areas proposed for the Project include a recreation clubhouse, a swimming pool with spa, two (2) tot lots, shaded structures with picnic tables, outdoor barbeque grills, open space and common area landscaping, access driveways, and a total of 372 standard, ADA and compact car parking spaces consisting of covered parking and guest parking within the Project.

Project Phasing
The proposed Project is expected to be constructed in one single phase will be built out to meet market demand.

City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Develogment
597

Figure I — Aerial Image of Site
Figure 2 — Existing Land Use Designations
City • Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
598

Figure 3 —Site Plan Exhibit

SITE PLAN
Unit Multi-faMIN VeVelopMeft
4 i 0
X
+
+ 3
I + !{
iY zap 4 S
+ °{, , • '``.., `' R 10
I J
tR�.:.tsYan}ra
-- -- — — —
� I ,�
s
AI
l
I'I 1 ; 811bu �' �. I aWr. J/� rF,+ '�� Br�}Iq! t { ; _ 0 k r•jq..L..._�S '•I t •UIYi, { � e
�.lr°hna 1 rA�n 1 I 11 �
�„ f Cld I f` r�ru F r`osw rr�tint r�yxa 1�
�� i �: � yam J
IF
���' I'I � -;� � > �> � 'wxtnr �' adaita: r•^-aw:iE��� � 1 �'� ;+ aarYa�ns ��iX° � � ,- � r ter- � I ,
_ C
ly I
LEI . . El
f,/ gtc�mily e3idenllal g + � � ruMmer.r � rr � � I -
€ tasM
s + a
!r
6 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
599

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
4kCtN.9YYtl`::t•,ix SCALC.YS'+A.'.o-
7IPage
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
600

-

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION

RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
8 1 P a g e
City ufYucaipa
Fal|bnzokMeadows Residential Development
601

—ElevationsFigure 6 Clubhouse

REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION
3iAE.. &Fd c S•y. SLM1IG: A'ei•.. i'8`
RIGHT ` ELEVATION

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCAU:.'kt@ —Y
9 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
602

The environmental factors checked below ( E ) would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Recreation
Agricultural Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality
Transportation/Traffic
Air Quality
Land Use/Planning
Tribal Resources
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Cultural Resources
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Geology/Soils
Population/Housing
Greenhouse Gases
Public Services
!11�� F-Alffrellikows, -
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by x
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed pLoject, nothing further is required.
j6AA June 7, 2022
Signature
• Braginton
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
Im
603

1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as Project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
2) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the infori-nation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to Projects like the one involved (e.g. the Project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on Project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project -specific screening analysis). 3) Must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required,
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(d). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis,
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the Project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a Project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
11 JPage
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
604

9) The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

City of Yucaipa
605

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in X
an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect X
day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Policy PR-4,7, Scenic Resources, of the City's 2016 General Plan states that the City will "Protect Yucaipa's scenic resources, including scenic corridors along roads and views of the hillsides, prominent ridgelines, canyons, and other significant natural features, to the extent practical." Resources identified in the General Plan includes the City's designated Scenic Corridors (Bryant Street, Yucaipa Boulevard, Wildwood Canyon Road, and Oak Glen Road) and the prominent hillsides, ridgelines, and open space areas that surround the City, including Crafton Hills and the San Bernardino National Forest. The Project site is relatively flat, and is not located adjacent to the City's scenic corridors or to any unique open space features such as a prominent hillside or ridgeline. In addition, the existing development pattern within the vicinity of the proposed Project site features a mixture of single and multi -family residences, a commercial retail center located on County Line Road (Tower Center) and an elementary school on 2,d Street (Calimesa Elementary School). The proposed Project consists of a GPA to allow high density multiple -family development that would meet the requirements of the RM- 24 Land Use District. The setbacks and building separation requirements listed in the Development Code have been designed to ensure a compatible development pattern within the residential areas within City, and to ensure that the mass and prominence of future residential Projects are minimized along corridors. Specifically, the RM-24 Land Use District requires a minimum front yard setback of 35 feet (40 feet average) and a side yard setback of 20 feet, which exceeds those listed in the existing RM Land Use District designation. In addition, the Project area will feature maintained landscaping and with installation of sidewalks adjacent to the public right of ways along 2111 Street and 31d Street. In addition, the Project design orients the smaller one- and two-story structures along the periphery of the site, and locates the three story buildings within the interior of the site, to help to minimize the building mass and bulk along public rights of way. As such, the proposed Project would have a less than significant effect on scenic vistas. b) According to Caltrans Scenic Highway Program, there are no official state designated scenic highways that exist within the City of Yucaipa. A portion of State Route 38 passes through the City of Yucaipa, and is an eligible state scenic highway that has not been officially designated; however, this section of roadway is located approximately five miles north from the proposed Project site. The City of Yucaipa has designated Bryant Street, Yucaipa Boulevard, Wildwood Canyon Road, and Oak Glen Road as scenic corridors within the City. The proposed GPA would impact a site that has frontage on 2 ad and 3r1 Street, which are not designated as scenic corridors. As such, there would be no impacts to resources along a scenic route as a result of the proposed Project.
c) The Project is located on four parcel lots consisting of four (4) existing single-family residences fronting 2n1 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 developments. The GPA area features a proposal for a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment Project featuring Spanish style architecture as part of the exterior design of each apartment building. The architectural design and conceptual landscaping for any future development that would be proposed, including the current Project, is required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to any construction as a standard Condition of Approval, and this process serves to confirm that the design would be compatible and consistent with the residential character in the area. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact 13 1 P age
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
606

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
to the visual quality by providing better uniformity for the adjacent residential units that are located along the exterior boundaries of the Project site.
d) Additional lighting will occur due to the development of the Project and the installation of streetlights adjacent to the Project. The proposed GPA would permit the construction of 200 apartment units to the area, which will result in new sources of nighttime lighting, including, but not limited to: onsite street lighting, building -mounted lights on the proposed one- and three-story buildings, covered parking, and ornamental landscaping and pathway lighting. However, the amount of lighting will be similar to other residential areas surrounding the site, and that the Project will be required to comply with the City's Development Code, which contains property development and general design standards that ensure new developments and expansions of existing developments will not have a negative impact upon surrounding land uses. This includes the requirement that any lighting to be added to the Project shall be shielded to minimize light spillage to adjacent properties. Substantiated through the Architectural Review process, the perimeter of the Project boundary would also be developed with drought -tolerant trees to minimize light spillage onto neighboring areas. Therefore, impacts related to light and glare will be less than significant through compliance with the Development Code.

2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board, Would the pr2ject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non - a ricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public X
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or X
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
a-b) According to the State Dept. of Conservation Important Farmland Map, San Bernardino County 2014, Sheet 2 of 2, the proposed Project site is designated "Urban and Built -tip Land" and does not contain any prime, unique, or important farmland. In addition, there are no active Williamson Act contracts within the City of Yucaipa. 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. The property is currently designated as Multiple Residential and proposed to be High Density Multiple Residential, neither of which are agricultural nor forest land designations. In addition, the site is currently improved with existing single-family residences with detached garages and sheds fronting 2nd Street and 3rd Street. No agricultural activities occur onsite. The proposed GPA and the proposed Project would not conflict with zoning for an agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. c-d) No forest land or timberland is located within the Project site.

City of •.

Fallbrook Meadows Residential DeveloUme
607

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) As noted in items a-d above, the area is designated "Urban and Built-up Land" and no portions of the area are currently farmed nor subject to Williamson Act contracts. In addition, no portion of the area is located within a forest area. As such, the proposed GPA would not affect these resources.

3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state X
ambient air quality standard?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed X
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
X
a, c) Air quality plans describe air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or regional air district.

The primary purpose of the air quality plans is to bring an area that does not attain federal and state air quality standards into compliance with those standards pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency Project review by linking local planning and individual Projects to the applicable air quality plan.

The proposed Project is within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources, and responded to this requirement by preparing the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), an air quality management plan covering all portions of the Basin.

The regional emissions inventory for the South Coast Air Basin was compiled by SCAQMD, the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and is used for the AQMP. Regional population, housing, and employment Projections are based, in part, on the City's General Plan land use designations. The proposed GPA would result in a land use change from the City's Multiple Residential (RM- 10M) Land Use Designation to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) Land Use Designation on approximately 8.39 acres comprised of four (4) existing parcels situated between 3rd Street to the west, and 2nd Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant Projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." A proposed Project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the Project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
(2) Whether the Project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of Project buildout and phase.
15 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
608

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Based on the air quality modeling analysis that has been completed (Appendix A), neither the short-term construction nor the long-term operation of the proposed Project will result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance (See Table 1, Construction - Maximum Daily Emissions and Table 2, Operation - Maximum Daily Emissions). The proposed Project is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion.

Furthermore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project site and is consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion because the Project site currently has a residential General Plan designation, and the change of General Plan Land Use Designation from Multiple Residential (RM-10M) to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) will not substantially change the residential nature of the designation. The addition would result in a net increase of 196 apartment dwelling units (upon demolition and removal of four (4) single family residences) and would not result in a substantial change of the built -out Projection for the City and would represent a fractional change to the entire SCAB area. Based on the above, the proposed Project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2016 AQMP, and a less than significant impact will occur
b) The proposed Project would result in the development of approximately 8.3 9 acres into 200 multi -family apartment units.

To quantify Project -related impacts, the proposed Project was evaluated utilizing the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 air quality modeling program for this MND, using very conservative parameters for its assessment. The results of air quality modeling analysis for construction and operational emissions are as follows:
ill 11 r 11111�11rrlpr�,�
undsld
'C
A,
On -Site'

2.64 25.72

20.59 0.04

1.30 1.16
Demolition
Off-Site2

0.07 0.15

0.64 0.00

0.18 0.05
Subtotal

2.71 25.87

21.24 0.04

1.49 1.21
On -Site'

1.95 20.86

15.27 0.03

3.70 120
Grading
Off -Site?

0.06 0.04

0.62 0.00

0.17 0.05
Subtotal

2.01 20.90
I5:89

0.03 3.87

2.25 On -Site'

1.71 15.62

16.36 0,03

0.81 0.76
Building Construction
Off-Site2

1.24 3.87

11.97 0.04

3.44 0.96
Subtotal
194

19.49 28.33

0.07 4.25

1.72 Orl

1.48 10:19

14.85 0.02

0.51 0A7
Paving
Off-sitC2

0.06 0.04

0.57 0.00

0.17 0.05 -
Subtotal

1.54 10.23

15.42 0.A2
OM

0.51 On -Site'

62.38 1.30

1.81 0.00

0.07 0)07
Architectural Coating
Off -Site 2

0.21 0.13

2.00 0.01

0.60 0.16 -
Subtotal

62.59 1.43
181

0.01 0.67

0.23 Total for overlapping phases3

67.07 3LI5

47.56 0.10

5.59 2.46
SCAQMD Thresholds
75 100
550
150
150
55 Exceeds Thresholds?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source:

FallbrookMeadows Residential Project Air Quality, Global Climate Chatige, and Energy lmpactkialysis, Table 6, Gandini Group Inc., September 14, 2021.

CaIEEMod Version 2020.4.0
16 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
609

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Notes:
(1) On -site emissions from equipment operated on -site that is not operated on public roads. On -site demolition and grading PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions show mitigated values for fugitive dust for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. (2) Off -site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. (3) Construction, painting and paving phases may overlap.

Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions
Source:

FallbrookMeadows ResidentialPrvjectAir Quality, Global Climate Change, andEnergy ImpactAnalysis, Table 9 Gandini Group hie., September 14, 2021.

CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0; the higher of either summer or winter emissions.

Notes:
(1) Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. (2) Energy usage consists of emissions from generation of electricity and on -site natural gas usage, (3) Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.

Construction related impacts would be reduced by the appropriate dust control measures implemented during each phase of development, as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. The requirements for Rule 403 include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the lots, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Engineering Department specific Conditions of Approval for any future development proposals would include provisions for Rule 403 that will apply during grading and building activities to minimize fugitive dust. Other SCAQMD rules would also apply, such as Rule 1113 for low VOC paints and materials. Operational impacts would be minimized by adherence to the Building Code and Title 24 requirements. Other SCAQMD rules, such as Rule 445 prohibiting the use of wood -burning fireplaces, would also apply and reduce operational impacts. As such, impacts would be less than significant. d, e) The Project site is adjacent to residences and near to an elementary school (Calimesa Elementary School), which is considered to be sensitive receptor by the City's General Plan. During site improvement construction activities associated with future residential development, there may be some level of odor exposure resulting from asphalt paving and roadway improvements activities. However, the limited duration and area involved in paving activities would not result in significant 17 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
610

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
levels of odors affecting a substantial number of people, as there are a relatively limited number of residences in the direct vicinity of the site. In addition, the operations of residential Projects do not include materials or uses that create substantial odors, and instead would introduce families near the site, allowing for their children to walk to school. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the pLoject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by X
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct X
removal, filling, hydrological interru2tion, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife X
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, X
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat X
conservation plan?
a-c, e, f) The Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Yucaipa. The Project site is not identified in Figure PR-5, Wildlife Corridors of the General Plan. A visual site investigation conducted by Staff confirmed that that the Project site has been disturbed by the existing residence and accessory structure, and does not feature any candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; wetlands; and wildlife corridors.

The properties also do not feature any Coastal Live Oak Trees, which are protected by the City of Yucaipa pursuant to Chapter 5 of Division 9 of the Yucaipa Development Code. d) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The state of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5. All raptors and their nests are protected from take or disturbance under the MBTA (16 United States Code [USC] Section 703 et seq.) and California statute (CFGC Section 3503.5).

The Project site contains trees and shrubs next to the residences that would be removed upon demolition of residences and thus could have a potential impact on nesting birds if present on the Project site at the time of demolition, grading and construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1310- 1, which requires a preconstruction nesting bird clearance survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site, would reduce potential impacts to nesting and migratory birds to less than significant by limiting the removal of trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat to outside the avian nesting season, which generally extends from February I through August

31. If the nesting bird clearance survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, Mitigation Measure 1310- 1 requires buffers 18 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
611

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
to ensure that any nesting birds are protected pursuant to the MBTA. Impacts for both sensitive wildlife species and migratory birds would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1 Prior to release of grading permits, the Applicant shall contract with a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction general nesting bird survey within all suitable nesting habitats that may be impacted by active construction during general avian breeding season (February I through August 31). The 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 hatted 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.

With adherence to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances relating to biological resources, and no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved plans apply to the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no effect on biological resources.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:
ect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
X
a) The proposed GPA is located on four (4) parcels and contains four (4) residences that would be demolished and removed as part of the development. The four residences are located at the following addresses:
9 13644 Second Streei
* 13662 Second Street
0 13682 Seco
' a Third Street
As described in the HistoricallArchaeological Resources Survey Report (Appendix B), the three listed residences on Second Street and the single residence on Third Street have all been extensively altered on the exterior through various additions and replacements and therefore concluded in the Report as not being eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places (NRET). As a result, no adverse change to the significance of a historical resource is expected to occur. b) Figure PR-6 of the City's General Plan identifies that the subject site is not located within a Cultural Sensitivity Area.

The proposed Project consists of a GPA to permit for high density multiple residential development on the subject parcels. Consultation with local tribes, pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52, is required for the proposed Project, and additional details are included within the Tribal resources section of this MND.

City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Developmel
612

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
In accordance with SB 18 requirements, the City sent a letter to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHQ on January 10, 2022, in requesting for a list of all Native American Tribal Agency contacts in having a known cultural relational history with the Project area region.

In accordance with AB 52 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to representatives of the Native American contacts (provided by the NAHC on March 10, 2022) on April 12, 2022, formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the GPA. The intent of the consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work together with the City during the Project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural resources.

Response letters were received on May 11, 2022, from the Yuhaavatiam San Manuel Nation (YSMN), on May 16, 2022, from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and on May 15, 2022 from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in requesting consultation, which concluded on June 5, 2022. The letter from the Augustine band of Calmilla Indians noted for the request for a copy of the Project Cultural Resources Report with copy of records search and copies of any cultural resource documentation available in relation to the Project. The letter from YSMN noted in requesting for conditions to be included pursuant to notifying the Tribe if historic -era resources are discovered and to be immediately followed up by preparation of a Monitoring and Treatment Plan to be created by the Project assigned archaeologist in coordination with YSMN and to provide an onsite monitor representing YWMN for the remainder of the Project development. The letter from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians noted for in the request of a copy of the Project Phase I Cultural Resources Report, mass grading maps (once available), a geotechnical report and shapefiles of the Project area of effect (APE).

As a result of the consultation efforts, Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2 have been developed for the Project and are included as part of the proposed Project's Condition of Approval. No resources were identified by the Historical/Archeological Resources Report that was prepared by CRM Tech. Incorporation of the mitigation measures will ensure a less than significant impact.
• CR-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified 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 Yuhaaviatain 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. 0 CR-2: If significant pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the 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-l. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly. c) There are no known human remains on the site. A review of historic aerial photos and maps at Netronlinecom was conducted and did not identify possible cemeteries in the area, and therefore a low likelihood exists that human remains could be uncovered during ground -disturbing activities. However, there is always a possibility that unidentified human remains could be discovered during Project construction. Consistent with State law, if at any time during grading human remains are found, the Project is to be conditioned to halt work and contact made with the San Bernardino County Coroner's Office. Standard Conditions of Approval are included pertaining to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. In addition, any discoveries of remains would also be assessed to determine if they are of Native American origin, which is further discussed within the tribal resources section of this NIND. Measure TRI-4 is included to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
20 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
613

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• TR-4: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the Project site during grading or earthmoving, 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. • 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)).

6. ENERGY. Would the pLoject:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project X
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
a) This impact analysis focuses on the three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed Project. electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with Project operations as well as the fuel necessary for Project construction. The analysis of electricity/natural gas usage is based on the CalEEMod modeling within the Air Quality Study, which quantifies energy use for occupancy. The Project's estimated electricity and natural gas consumption is based primarily on CalEEMod's default settings for San Bernardino County, and consumption factors provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company, the electricity and natural gas provider for the Project site, respectively.

Project Construction Energy Consumption
During construction there would be a temporary consumption of energy resources required for the movement of equipment and materials. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations would reduce short-term energy demand during the Project's construction to the extent feasible and Project construction would not result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. As summarized in the Table 15 of the Energy Impact Analysis (Appendix A), Project construction electrical usage would total approximately 67,491 kilowatt hours (kWh).

City of •.
21 (Page
614

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
As shown in Tables 16 thru 19 of the Energy Impact Analysis, Project fuel consumption for construction equipment would amount to approximately 42,587 gallons of fuel, approximately 39,303 gallons for construction workers trips, approximately 18,057 gallons for construction vendors trips, and *approximately 1,199 gallons for construction hauling trips. With respect to estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the vendor and hauling trips would generate an estimated 128,563 VMT. Data regarding Project related construction worker trips were based on CaIEEMod 2020.4.0 model defaults.

Construction equipment used over the approximately sixteen -month construction phase would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards and is evidence of related fuel efficiencies. There are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the Project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.

The Project would utilize construction contractors which practice compliance with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off -road construction equipment. Additionally, CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air Contaminants. Compliance with these measures would result in a more efficient use of construction -related energy and would minimize or eliminate wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption
.9ZEE=
Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the Project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities).

Fuel Consumption
Using the CaIEEMod output from the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses (Sections 2 and 3 of Appendix A), it is assumed that an average trip for autos and light trucks was assumed to be 6.9 miles and 3- 4-axle trucks were assumed to travel an average of 16.6 miles. The Project includes the development of the site with residential uses; therefore, in order to present a worst -case scenario, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 20 of the Energy Analysis shows the estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy -heavy trucks would be estimated at approximately 171,045 gallons of fuel throughout the operation of the Project. Furthermore, the state of California consumed approximately 4.2 billion gallons of diesel and 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015.

Therefore, the increase in fuel consumption from the proposed Project is insignificant in comparison to the State's demand. Therefore, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

Electrical and Gas Consumption
Building operation and site maintenance (including landscape maintenance) would result in the consumption of electricity (provided by Southern California Edison) and natural gas (provided by Southern California Gas Company).

As shown in Table 21 of the Energy Analysis, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed Project is approximately 933,207 kWh per year'. In 2019, the residential sector of the County of San Bernardino consumed approximately 5,054 Without the reduction of energy used by the existing residential uses that are to be removed. 22 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
615

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
million kWh of electricity. In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed Project is approximately 3,159,560 kBTU per year. In 2019, the residential sector of the County of San Bernardino consumed approximately 275million therms of gas. Therefore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed Project is insignificant compared to the County's 2019 residential sector demand. b) The proposed Project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Regarding the State's Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the proposed Project will be required to comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for energy efficient buildings and appliances as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company.

Regarding Pavley (AB 1493) regulations, an individual Project does not have the ability to comply or conflict with these regulations because they are intended for agencies and their adoption of procedures and protocols for reporting and certifying GHG emission reductions from mobile sources. However, the vehicles associated with the proposed Project would be required to comply with federal and state fuel efficiency standards.

Regarding the State's Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the Project would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part I I (CALGreen). CALGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant -emitting finish materials.

Therefore, impacts in regard to the Project in conflicting with or obstructing a state or local plan for renewable energy would be less than significant.

T GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the pLoject:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, i Jury, or death involvin (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to X
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
(iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
(iv) Landslides?
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable asa result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site X
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or X
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the X
disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
a) i-iv). The site does not lie within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. However, Southern California is a seismically active area. As such, seismic shaking may occur, and seismic ground shaking and ground rupture due to movement of a fault is a potential 2 Without the reduction of natural gas used by the existing residential uses that are to be removed. 23 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
616

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
hazard in Yucaipa. The Project will be required to comply with the Yucaipa Municipal Code and the Building Code, which is designed to mitigate earthquake hazards. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) has identified groundwater within 50 feet of the surface as a potential problem for seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction.

According to the Yucaipa General Plan, groundwater can vary within the City from depths lower than 300 feet below surface elevation to as close as 40 feet. Based upon information contained within the Yucaipa General Plan, Yucaipa Valley Water District, and the San Bernardino Municipal Valley Water District, the depth to ground water at the subject property and the surrounding Western Heights Sub -Basin is approximately 350 feet. Due to the depth of groundwater, the potential for liquefaction near the subject area is considered minimal. The Project site is also located on and surrounded by relatively flat land and is therefore not susceptible to seismically induced landslides. b) The Project site is not traversed by any USGS identified drainage courses'. The Project would be required to prepare and implement all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and appropriate BMPs (Best Management Practices) through a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). These plans are a standard condition for Projects over one (1) acre in size and are intended to minimize soil erosion and prevent the off -site discharge of pollutants. Compliance with these provisions would ensure less than significant impacts for any future residential Project. c) See above items 6 (a) and (b). Due to the depth of groundwater and relatively flat terrain of where the proposed use is to be located, the potential for liquefaction or landslide is minimal, d) The area subject to the GPA is not identified as being within the City's Geologic Hazard Overlay as shown on General Plan Exhibit S-1, and is not expected to be susceptible to landslides and related phenomenon. The site is relatively flat, and is not located adjacent to any unstable areas, such as steep hillsides. As such, the proposed Project would not impact a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and would not cause such an area to become unstable as a result of the Project.
e) The property is located adjacent to an existing Yucaipa Valley Water District sewer line. Any future development would be conditioned to connect to the District's infrastructure, and the use of septic tanks would not be required, f) Figure 5.5-1 (Paleontological Sensitivity Map) of the General Plan EIR identifies that the subject site is located within a Paleontological Resource Sensitivity Area. According to the General Plan EIR, any development that proposes grading to occur five feet below current elevation and in areas of moderate to high sensitivity or unknown paleontological sensitivity, to prepare a prepare a technical paleontological assessment by a 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. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM GEO I would ensure that that potential impacts to paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Applicants for future development Projects in undeveloped and developed areas where grading is proposed five feet below current elevation and in areas of moderate to high sensitivity or unknown paleontological sensitivity to prepare a technical paleontological assessment prepared by a 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.
3 US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Mapper, htti)s:Hfwsprimary,wim.us)zs.szov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mal2per/ 24 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
617

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 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.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the 12r2ject:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of Eeenhouse gases?
X
a) Constituent gases of the Earth's atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG), play a critical role in the Earth's radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth's natural climate, known as global warming or climate change.

To determine whether if the Project's GHG emissions are significant, the Global Climate Change Analysis (Appendix A) utilized the SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses. CaIEEMod Version 2020.4.0 was used to calculate the GHG emissions from the proposed Project. Each source of GHG emissions is described in greater detail below,
Area Sources
Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. No changes were made to the default area source emissions.

Energy Usage
Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on -site. No changes were made to the default energy usage parameters.

Mobile Sources
25 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
618

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed Project. The vehicle trips associated with the proposed Project have been analyzed by inputting the Project -generated vehicular trips from the TIA into the CalEEMod Model. The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2017 model to detennine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions.

Waste
Waste includes the GHG emissions generated from the processing of waste from the proposed Project as well as the GHG emissions from the waste once it is interred into a landfill. AB 341 requires that 75 percent of waste be diverted from landfills by 2020, reductions for this are shown in the mitigated CalEEMod output values. No other changes were made to the default waste parameters, including any improvements that would occur through implementation of AB 1826 that governs the recycling of organic waste to further reduce GHG emissions.

Water
Water includes the water used for the interior of the building as well as for landscaping and is based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter the water. No changes were made to the default water usage parameters,
Construction
The construction related GHG emissions were also included in the analysis and were based on a 30 year amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009. The construction related GHG emissions were calculated by CalEEMod.

The GHG emissions were calculated based on the above -described parameters. The following table summarizes the Project's total emissions (without credit for any reductions from sustainable design and/or regulatory requirements or removal of existing uses) to be at 2,294.72 MTCO2e per year. Furthermore, with incorporation of the reduction from removal of the existing four (4) residential uses, the proposed Project's emissions would be lowered to 2,231.27 MTCO2e per year. According to the thresholds of significance established above, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the on -going operations of the proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses. Therefore, operation of the Project would not create a significant cumulative impact to global climate change. No mitigation is required.

Project -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Develor)mel
26 1 P a g e
619

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
-existing residential uses to be removed -1.42 -59.51 -60.94 -0.07 0.00 -63.45 Total Emissions 26,28 2,127.56 2,153.83] 1.88 0.10 2,231.27 SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No -1
Source:

FallbrookMeadaws ResidentialPivjectVr Quality, Global Climate Change, andEneigyln;pactAnalysis, Table 11, Gandini Group Inc., September 14, 2021.

CalEEMod Version 2020A.0 for Opening Year 2023.

Notes:
(1) Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. (2) Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. (3) Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. (4) Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. (5) Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. (6) Construction GHG emissions CO2e based on a 30-year amortization rate. b) The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The City adopted the City of Yucaipa Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2015. The CAP presents the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, identifies the effectiveness of California initiatives to reduce GHG emissions, and identifies local measures that were selected by the City to reduce GHG emissions under the City's jurisdictional control to achieve the City's identified GHG reduction target.

The City of Yucaipa participated in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan which presents the collective results of all local efforts to reduce GHG emissions consistent with statewide GHG targets expressed in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006" and Senate Bill (SB) 375. The City has selected a goal to reduce their community GHG emissions by 15% below 2008 baseline levels by the year 2020.

Because the City's CAP thresholds are currently based on the year 2020, and that the proposed Project is to be operational in 2023, a comparison analysis was required to determine consistency between the City's CAP as well as the as well as the CARB Scoping Plan. The procedures for evaluating GHG impacts and determining significance for CEQA purposes are streamlined by (1) applying an emissions level that is determined to be less than significant for small Projects, and (2) utilizing Screening Tables to mitigate Project GHG emissions that exceed the threshold level.

That CAP states that a threshold level of 3,000 MTCO2e per year will be used to identify Projects that require the use of Screening Tables or a Project -specific technical analysis to quantify and mitigate Project emissions.

At a net level of 2,231.27 MTCO2e per year, the Project's GHG emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD threshold 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses and would be in compliance with the reduction goals of the City's CAP, CARB Scoping Plan, AB-32, SB-32 and, does not need to accrue points through the CAP's Screening Tables.

Furthermore, the Project will comply with applicable Green Building Standards and City of Yucaipa's policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City's General Plan). Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pr9ject?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of X
hazardous materials into the environment?
27 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
620

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it X
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X
would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency X
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk X
of loss, ipjury or death involving wildland fires?
a-d) The GPA would pen -nit residential development consistent with the proposed RM-24 land use designation, and allow for multiple -family uses. It is not anticipated that a residential Project would directly involve the routine transport of hazardous materials; however, equipment used at the site during construction activities could utilize substances considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and gasoline from typical construction equipment, and would therefore have the potential to discharge hazardous materials during construction. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state requirements, for which the Project construction activities would be required to strictly adhere to.

These regulations include: the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act; Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CaIOSHA), and the state Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program. The amount of hazardous material discharge during construction is expected to be less than significant, and the Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, ordinances and procedures. Through compliance with the aforementioned laws and requirements, and also through the implementation of a SWPPP and the WQMP requirements to prevent the off -site discharge of pollutants during construction and operation of the Project, impacts would be less than significant During operation of the Project, potential hazardous materials would be limited to routine elements associated with residential development, including the use of yard fertilizers, house cleaners and solvents, and chlorine for the swimming pool amenity, which would not represent a significant hazard. Further, no hazardous materials will be transported to or from the site during Project construction or operation. The site is also not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Because the Project site contains four (4) residences that have existed for more than 45 years, an asbestos containing material (ACM) and lead -based paint (LB?) survey will be required as a condition of approval and required to be conducted prior to the issuance of a demolition pennit 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 LB? removal plan will 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 will then be required to be disposed of at a licensed and regulated facility that accepts ACM and LBP waste materials, consistent with existing regulations. c) The Project site is not within two miles of a public or private airport. The nearest airport is Redlands Municipal Airport (REI), which is located over 7,5 miles northwest from the Project site. In addition, the Project is not within the Redlands Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. No impacts would occur with the Project. f) The proposed GPA would impact four parcels located between 3rd Street to the west, and 2nd Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. The subject site is currently designated for multiple residential uses, and that upon facilitation of the GPA, development of the proposed high density multiple residential use would 28 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
621

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
not impact access to users traveling along the public right-of-way. Further, Figure S-5 of the Yucaipa General Plan does not designate 2 d Street and 3 d Street as a primary evacuation route; only County Line Road approximately 375 feet to the south is designated as a Local Evacuation Route. As such, the proposed Project will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g) The Project site is within an urbanized area and adjacent to existing residential development. The Project site is not within a special Fire Safety Review Area according to the City General Plan, nor adjacent to wildland areas. However, risks to future development from fire hazards are addressed through adherence to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code.

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or X
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater X
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of X
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; X
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner X
which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial X
additional sources of polluted runoff, or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to X
project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or X
sustainable groundwater management plan?
c) Wastewater treatment for the Project area is provided by Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD), and the Project would be required to connect to the YVWD sewer collection and treatment system as a standard condition of approval.

Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project would also be required to comply with all applicable National Discharge Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) requirements through adoption and implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP during the construction and operational phases. The structural and nonstructural BMPs and other measures included in the SWPPP and WQMP would address water quality and waste discharge concerns associated the Project, and along with the sewer connection, a less than significant impact is anticipated. b) The proposed Project site receives potable water service that is provided by the South Mesa Water Company. No hazardous materials or other materials will be injected into groundwater supplies and no wells are proposed for the Project which would have the potential to draw from the groundwater table. Impacts would be less than significant. c (i thru iv), e). The Project site is not located within a drainage course, nor a designated floodway and or 100- and 500-year floodplain, and no defined blue line stream is depicted on the Yucaipa, CA U.S.G.S. Map for the Project area. The Project site is relatively flat, gently sloping upward from west to east, and does not feature any significant drainage features. Onsite runoff upon completion of the Project will be conveyed downslope from cast to west via 29 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
622

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
curb and gutter to where runoff will be discharged into an onsite, 7,000 square foot retention basin designed to accommodate I 00-year storm events.

In compliance with stormwater discharges, the Project will be conditioned by the City to apply to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for coverage under the Construction General Permit (Order No. 99-08-DWQ) (CAS000002), which applies to all stormwater discharges from Projects where clearing, grading, and excavation result in soil disturbance of at least one acre or more. The Project's area of disturbance encompasses approximately 8.39- acres. The Construction General Permit requires an applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would include a list of best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and to contain the potential for discharge of construction -related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. The SVVTPP may include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs:
• Temporary Soil Stabilization: sandbag barriers, straw bale barriers, sediment traps, and fiber rolls; • Temporary Sediment Control: hydraulic mulch and geotextiles; • Wind Erosion Control: water of the construction site, straw mulch; • Tracking Control: staging/storage area and street sweeping; • Non-Stormwater Management: clear water diversion and dewatering; and, • Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control: vehicle and equipment cleaning, concrete waste management, and contaminated soil management.

The Project will also be conditioned to prepare and implement a WQMP that would include BMPs to be implemented during post construction operations in order to ensure compliance with RWQCB water quality standards. Examples of WQMP BMP protocol applicable to the Project would include the following:
• Education for Property Owners, Operators, Tenants, Occupants, or Employees; • Activity Restrictions;
• Irrigation System and Landscape Maintenance;
• Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots;
• Drainage Facility'Inspection and Maintenance; and,
• Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCQ The WQMP will be an active plan to be implemented throughout the life of Project and will require routine inspections by a qualified water quality specialist to assure compliance with the Santa Ana RWQCB. This will assure that the Project's impact with regard to violating any water quality standards will be reduced to less than significant. d) The proposed Project site is not within a 100-year flood plain, based upon a review of the latest FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map, 06071C8745H, revised August 28, 2008. As such, and upon facilitation of the proposed GPA, no future structures built under the High Density Multiple Residential land use designation for the Project site would be placed within a 100-year flood plain, nor would new structures impede or redirect flood flow. 30 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
623

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
T
Source:

Department of Homeland Security, FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://lnsc.fema.gov/portal/home As shown in Figure 4 above, the proposed Project would not be located within the boundaries of the 100- and 500- year flood plain. No upstream levee or dam would affect the Project site.

Based on review of the 2016 General Plan and recent aerial photo maps, the proposed Project is not subject to the potential effects of a seiche, tsunami, or mudflows caused by such due to lack of upstream water bodies. The City of Yucaipa is located just east of the 1-10 freeway and is over 55 miles east of the Pacific Ocean with an average elevation of 2,400 feet above sea level. As such, the City is not under threat of a tsunami, otherwise known as a seismic sea wave. Similarly, the potential for a seiche to occur is remote, given the limited number of large water bodies within Yucaipa and its sphere of influence. Therefore, no impact is expected.

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an X
environmental effect?
a) Dividing an established community typically involves creating a physical barrier that changes the connectivity between areas of the community. The Project site is located on four subject parcels containing four (4) existing residential homes with graded undeveloped land toward the rear of each lot. Currently, the existing RM-10M Land Use Designation either permits for the subject parcels containing single-family residence to remain, or to be City of Yucaipa
I - 11 alAL
624

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
demolished and removed followed by development of multiple family residences through the approval of a planning entitlement. The proposed GPA, with the four (4) parcels merged, would meet the minimum district size of 5 acres to change the land use designation of the property from RM-IOM to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24). The development of the four parcels with either single-family or multiple -family use development would not bisect any portion of the surrounding residential land designations with a non-residential land use designation (i.e., commercial, industrial), and would be completely contained within the Project area parcels. As such, no new structures that could be developed under the proposed GPA would have the potential to physically divide a community, and the Project does not propose any other action that would physically divide an established community. b) The proposed GPA would change the City's General Plan/Land Use Map to allow for High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) development as opposed to the current designation allowing for Multiple Residential (RM- I OM) development. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Land Use Compliance Review (LUCR) is to allow for the development of a high density multiple -residential Project consisting of 200 apartment dwelling units on four (4) subject parcels, which would be merged under a Lot Merger application, Improvements to the Project site are required to occur consistent with adopted development standards and good planning practices. Grading and building improvements would be undertaken consistent with appropriate City standards and drainage design criteria. No policies or plans exist for avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect that have not been taken into consideration.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use X
plan?
a-b) The City General Plan indicates the entire City is within an MRZ-3 (Mineral Resource Zone 3) classification, in which the significance of mineral deposit cannot be evaluated. No mining activities currently occur in the area, and no significant mineral resources are known to exist within the City of Yucaipa. Due to the size of the Project site and proximity to residential uses, the site is unlikely to be considered a viable site for mineral extraction.

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local X
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working X
In the prSJect area to excessive noise levels?
a-b) The Project site is adjacent to residential land uses, which are considered noise sensitive land uses in the City General Plan. The General Plan and Municipal Code identify noise levels for various types of land uses, certain activities, and how noise levels are to be measured.

Project Construction Noise: Construction noise sources are regulated within the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code Section 87,0905(b) which limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 700 PM weekdays and Saturdays with no construction allowed on Sundays or Federal holidays. The City of Yucaipa does not include a numerical noise standard associated with construction noise.

A comparison of existing noise levels and existing plus Project construction noise levels from Table 7 of the Noise Impact Analvsis (Appendix C) are 'oresented below. Several monitoring sites were identified to assess the Proiect:
32 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
625

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
NMI was chosen to represent noise levels at the property lines of the multi -family residential receptors to the north and the multi -family and single-family residential receptors to the west, NM2 was chosen to represent noise levels at the property lines of the single-family residential receptors to the south, NM3 was chosen to represent noise levels at the property lines of the single-family residential uses to the east, and NM4 was chosen to represent noise levels at the property lines of the single-family and church uses to the north and the school use to the northeast of the Project site.

As shown in Table 7, modeled unmitigated construction noise levels ranged between 51.1 and 80.2 dBA Leq at the closest sensitive receptor property lines to the Project site.

Project impacts related to construction noise will be minimized with adherence to Municipal Code Section 87.0905(b) and implementation of Mitigation Measures NOl- I through NOI-7.

Groundbome vibration and noise: There are several types of construction equipment that can cause vibration levels high enough to annoy persons in the vicinity and/or result in architectural or structural damage to nearby structures and improvements. For example, a vibratory roller could generate tip to 0.21 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet; and operation of a large bulldozer (0.089 PPV) at a distance of 25 feet (two of the most vibratory pieces of construction equipment). Groundborne vibration at sensitive receptors associated with this equipment would drop off as the equipment moves away. For example, as the vibratory roller moves further than 100 feet from the sensitive receptors, the vibration associated with it would drop below 0.0026 PPV. Table 5 of the Noise Impact Analysis identifies a PPV level of 0.25 as the threshold at which there is a risk to "architectural" damage to historic and some old buildings.

Structures associated with the single-family residential use to the north are located between approximately four and 17 feet from the northern Project property line. At 4 feet, use of a vibratory roller would be expected to generate a PPV of 3.281 in/sec and a bulldozer would be expected to generate a PPV of 1.391 in/sec. Use of a vibratory roller or large bulldozer could be considered as an annoyance to the single-family receptor to the north; therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-8 will be required.

At 7 feet, which is the distance to the next closest off -site building, the multi -family residential dwelling units to the north, use of a vibratory roller would be expected to generate a PPV of 1.471 in/sec and a bulldozer would be expected to generate a PPV of 0.601 in/sec. Use of a vibratory roller or large bulldozer could be considered as an annoyance to the multi -family receptors to the north; therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-8 will be required.

Structures associated with the single-family residential uses to the south are located as close as approximately 13 feet from the southern Project property line. At 13 feet, use of a vibratory roller would be expected to generate a PPV of

0.56 in/sec and a bulldozer would be expected to generate a PPV of 0.237 in/sec. Therefore, use of a vibratory roller could be considered as an annoyance to the single-family receptors to the south; therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI- 8 will be required.

Annoyance is expected to be short-term, occurring only during site grading and preparation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-8 would reduce potential impacts related to an annoyance that is related to vibration impacts to a level that is less than significant.

Project Operational Noise (permanent): On -site operational noise is usually only evaluated for commercial and industrial Projects. Quantitative analysis of on -site operational noise is typically not conducted for residential Projects as they usually do not include stationary noise sources that could result in substantial increases in ambient noise levels resulting in violation of established standards. Therefore, the evaluation of Project operational noise in this study is limited to the potential impacts associated with Project generated vehicular traffic (off -site noise). Depending upon how many units are proposed and the existing noise environment, Project generated vehicle trips could result in substantial increases in noise levels. Based on previous noise studies prepared for Projects located in the City, Project generated vehicle traffic is considered significant if Project -related traffic increases noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors by 5 dB.
33 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
626

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The City of Yucaipa General Plan identifies exterior noise levels up to 60 dBA CNEL and interior noise levels of up to 45 dBA CNEL as the standard for multi -family residential uses. The Project site is bounded by 2 nd street to the east, 3 rd street to the west, and is approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road to the south. The City of Yucaipa General Plan Transportation Element identifies County Line Road, in the vicinity of the Project site, as a Secondary Highway (Arterial) (80-foot right-of-way) roadway and 2 nd Street and 3 rd Street as local roadways. As local roadways, 2 nd Street and 3' Street will not generate enough vehicle traffic to be acoustically significant.

Figure S-6 of the Public Safety Element of the City of Yucaipa General Plan provides noise contours for modeled future traffic volumes for County Line Road and demonstrates that the proposed Project will not be exposed to noise levels that exceed the City's 60 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for the proposed Project (High Density Multiple Residential). In addition, typical new construction provides at least 20 dB of exterior to interior noise reduction with a closed -window condition. The Project would also not exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard.

Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. c) The Project site is not within two miles of an airport of any type. The nearest airport is Redlands Municipal Airport (REI), which is located 7.5 miles northwest from the Project site. In addition, the Project is not within the Redlands Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. No impacts would occur with development of the Project.

Construction Noise Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 During all Project site excavation and grading on -site, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards.

NI-2 The contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site.

NOI-3 Equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when not in use.

NOI-4 The contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all Project construction,
NOI-5 Jackhammers, pneumatic equipment and all other portable stationary noise sources shall be shielded and noise shall be directed away from sensitive receptors.

NOI-6 The Project proponent shall mandate that the construction contractor prohibit the use of music or sound amplification on the Project site during construction.

NOI-7 The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment.

Vibration Mitigation Measures
NOI-8 The use of vibratory rollers, or other similar vibratory equipment, is to be prohibited within 23 feet, and large bulldozers within 13 feet, of any residential structure to the north and/or south of the Project site. 34 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
627

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, X
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
a) The proposed Project site is located within an area generally developed with single family residences and vacant parcels. The Project includes the development of a net total of 200 dwelling units, or a population increase of approximately 564 people based upon the average Yucaipa household size 2.82 persons per household (Year 202 1) as identified by the California Department of Finance (Table E-5). This increase represents a nominal difference in the City's expected build -out population of over 79,000 people and would result in attainable housing that will help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements for the 61' Housing Cycle. In addition, existing infrastructure (sewer, water, electrical, gas) on 2 nl Street and 3,d Street is adequate to accommodate the proposed Project and GPA. As such, impacts are expected to be less than significant. b) There are three existing residences and one vacant residence located on the Project site, This Project would only create a temporary displacement of the three residences and would not require the construction of replacement housing as new dwelling units (200- units) would be constructed onsite.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
X
b) Police protection?
X
c) Schools?
X
d) Parks?
X
e) Other public facilities?
X
a) The City of Yucaipa is currently served by the California Department of Forestry (CAL FIRE). The Project site is accessible from an existing improved street and new on -site streets will be designed consistent with existing City Engineering and Fire Department standards, and would not require unique or altered fire protection services. As a standard condition of approval, developers are required to pay development impact fees for fire facilities that are assessed from the details of proposed Project. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection services, and would not affect fire department service ratios or response times, nor would it require the construction of any new fire facilities.
b) The San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department currently serves the Project site and surrounding area. As a standard condition of approval, the Project would be required to pay development impact fees for Public facilities based upon the size of the Project site. The proposed Project would not require unique police protection services, since the site has been and will continue to be accessible from 2nl Street and 3' Street and that payment of development impact fees would off -set potential demands for increased facilities. c) The Yucaipa-Calimesa School District would serve future development in the area. As a standard condition of approval, developers are required to pay development impact fees to the District for school facilities, prior to issuance of building permits. Under State law, impacts to school facilities are addressed by the State of California through specific procedures, such as development impact fees and the issuance of bonds. 35 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
628

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) The proposed Project will involve new residential development and, therefore, potentially increase the number of potential park users or affect existing park facilities. The City of Yucaipa has adopted development impact fees to off- set the potential impact of new users caused by new development. Any future residences will be required to pay these development impact fees. In addition, and as shown in Figure 3, Site Plan Exhibit, the proposed Project would provide recreation amenities including a tot lot, picnic tables under covered canopy, open space with jogging path, swimming pool and spa, and a clubhouse to serve the residents of the development. e) 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 will complete street improvements and onsite drainage improvements to meet state and local requirements, and impacts have been addressed as part of this MND. 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.

16. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of X
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect X
on the environment
a-b) See response to 15d. The Project includes open space and recreation facilities as part of the development, which is provided for use by the residents. The property owner of the apartment complex would assume maintenance responsibilities for the proposed recreation facilities as an ongoing condition of approval.

17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the Project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation X
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
a, b) The proposed GPA would change the land use designation from Multiple Residential (RMS-10M) to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24). As a result, a high -density multiple family residential use (up to a density of 24 units per acre) could permit up to 201 units with facilitation of the proposed GPA. For comparison, the existing land use designation would permit 8.7 dwelling units per acre as a typical multiple family Project that would result in a total of 73 multiple family homes for the entire size of the subject parcels combined (8.39 acres), not including any Density Bonus Agreements or Accessory Dwelling Units, should the GPA not be approved. This GPA for the RM-24 designation would therefore result in a net increase of 128 dwelling units from the existing requirements. To assess potential traffic -related impacts, the applicant for the proposed Project commissioned a Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix D) to address the change of use on their four (4) subject parcels. The Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared on September 9, 202 1, by Ganddini Group Inc, documents the existing traffic conditions and the number of trips that would be added by development of Project. The analysis found that the proposed Project would result in approximately 1,426 daily trips, including 89 trips during the AM peak hour and 108 trips during the PM peak hour. Based upon the information provided by the Traffic Impact Analysis and the recommended Project design improvements (one shared left/right turn lane and stop control) for both driveway approaches off of 211 Street and 31 Street, the addition of these trips generated by the Project would not result in a reduced level of service to the existing transportation system, and therefore represents a nominal and insignificant change to the number of trips within the City.

City of Yucaipa
629

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
VMT Screening
A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (November 12, 202 1) was prepared to analyze the amount of vehicle miles generated as a result of the Project (Appendix D-2). In utilizing the San Bernardino County Transit Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool, the analysis obtained a baseline year (2021) VMT per population for the Project Traffic Area Zone (TAZ) equal to 29.7 vehicle miles traveled and a City established a threshold equal to 30.7 vehicle miles traveled.

Therefore, the proposed Project is below the City baseline by approximately 3.29 percent without implementation of any Project design features or mitigation measures that would reduce the Project's baseline VMT. Therefore, the Project satisfies the low VMT screening criteria,
c)The Project would not result in the modification of existing adjacent roadways in such way that would increase hazards to the roadway's geometric design. As shown in Figure 3, the Project will provide one ingress/egress driveway on 2 rid Street, one ingress/egress driveway on 3rd Street and one egress only driveway on 2 d Street. The Project also proposes the widening of 2 d Street and 3d Street to serve for vehicles approaching and leaving the Project, and installation of Project right-of-way pedestrian sidewalks abutting these streets consistent with the City's General Plan and street design standards. Engineering development standards would be incorporated into the design of these improvements to include traffic signage and stop controlled signage to ensure the safety of pedestrian and automobile traffic entering and leaving the Project. To ensure incorporation of safety improvements these roadways, the Project will be conditioned to pay Development Impact Fees for traffic to fund the aforementioned improvements to 2 nd Street and 3' Street and for future improvements to the localized area. These fees are the City's equivalent of the "fair share" contribution to a local fund to upgrade the area's transportation infrastructure. d) The proposed Project is located adjacent to existing paved streets (2 nd Street and 31 Street). Onsite driveways and parking would be designed to be consistent with the City's Engineering and Fire Department standards, and include adequate driveway widths, and adequate ingress and egress width for fire and first responder vehicles.

18. TRIBAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public X
Resources Code section 5020. 1 (k), or
(ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set X
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024. 1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
a) The Project site features four (4) existing single-family residences that would be demolished and removed as part of the development. The four residences are located at the following addresses:
0 13644 Second Street
® 13662 Second Street
• 13682 Second Street
0 13649 Third Street
City of Yucaipa
630

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
As described in the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report (Appendix B), the three listed residences on Second Street and the single residence on Third Street have all been extensively altered on the exterior through various additions and replacements and therefore concluded in the Report as not being eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As a result, no adverse change to the significance of a historical resource is expected to occur. b) Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, public lead agencies, and Project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process.

In accordance with S13 18 requirements, the City sent a letter to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 10, 2022, in requesting for a list of all Native American Tribal Agency contacts in having a known cultural relational history with the Project area region.

In accordance with AB 52 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to representatives of the Native American contacts (provided by the NAHC on March 10, 2022) on April 12, 2022, formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the GPA. The intent of the consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work together with the City during the Project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural resources.

Response letters were received on May 11, 2022, from the Yuhaavatiarn San Manuel Nation (YSMN), on May 16, 2022, from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and on May 15, 2022 from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in requesting consultation, which concluded on June 5, 2022, The letter from the Augustine band of Cahuilla Indians noted for the request for a copy of the Project Cultural Resources Report with copy of records search and copies of any cultural resource documentation available in relation to the Project. The letter from YSMN noted in requesting for conditions to be included pursuant to notifying the Tribe if historic -era resources are discovered and to be immediately followed up by preparation of a Monitoring and Treatment Plan to be created by the Project assigned archaeologist in coordination with YSMN and to provide an onsite monitor representing YWMN for the remainder of the Project development. The letter from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians noted for in the request of a copy of the Project Phase I Cultural Resources Report, mass grading maps (once available), a geotechnical report and shapefiles of the Project area of effect (APE).

Archaeological research in the area indicates the Project area appears to have been inhabited by the Mountain Serrano, but is also within the boundaries of traditional Cahuilla territory, which lies within the geographic center of Southern California and the Cocopa-Maricopa Trail, a major prehistoric trade route that linked the Colorado Desert with the Pacific Coast. Further, the name "Yucaipa" is a form of the Serrano word, "Yucaipat." Given the territory's close proximity to the Cocopa-Maricopa Trail, interactions with surrounding tribes were extensive. As such, future development could uncover such remnants from this history. In addition, the Yuhaavatiam San Manuel Nation identified that resources have been previously discovered within the vicinity of the site, and that there may be a possibility that resources could be uncovered. Due to the sensitivity of the site and the possibility of discovery during ground movement activities, measures have been developed with the tribes to ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant.

To address and mitigate potential impacts to this resource, future development would address the potential discoveries that could occur during land disturbing activities. Based upon the consultation process, the mitigation measures are as follows:
• TRI-1: Prior to grading permit issuance, if there are any changes to Project site design and/or proposed grades, the future developer shall contact the Yuhaaviatam. of San 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 38 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
631

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 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 possibility of present archaeological materials within the Project site, as detailed by the Consulting Tribe, one of the following shall occur:
o 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 geoteclinical 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. o 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:
o Project -related ground disturbance (including, but not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching, etc.) and development scheduling;
39 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
632

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
o 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);
o 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.
0 TRI-3: Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground 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:
o 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 place, a resource -specific mitigation plan shall be developed, reviewed by all Parties, and implemented following the guidelines listed below:
o 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 o 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 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 40 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
633

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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.
o 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 pre -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 human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the Project site during grading or earthmoving, 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.

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)).
41 JPage
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
634

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact -
Mitigation
Incorporated

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or X
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably X
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's X
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste X
reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?
a, b, c) The Yucaipa Valley Water District provides wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed residential development in the GPA area would be required to connect to the sewer system, and would execute a development agreement with the District. As part of the Project application, the applicant has obtained a letter from the District noting that they would be able to accommodate the proposed land use change and development. Potable water would be provided by South Mesa Water Company. As part of the application submittal, the Company noted that there was sufficient infrastructure to serve the proposed development, d) Solid waste services in the City of Yucaipa are provided by Burrtec, and disposed of within the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill. According to information from the CalRecycle website, operated by the State of California, this landfill has an average annual receiving capacity of 500,000 to 730,999 tons per year, and has a remaining capacity of over 21.4 million cubic yardS4. Information on the CalRecycle website provides solid waste characterization databases by types of use, referenced from various environmental documents.

The agency's waste generation rates for multi -family development range from 4 to 8.6 pounds per day per dwelling unit16. With this range provided and in providing the upper threshold estimate (8.6 pounds per day), it is estimated that the Project at full occupancy would generate approximately 1,720 pounds of solid waste daily. e) Per Title 8, Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code, all property within the City is required to subscribe to refuse collection and handling services. The program is designed to collect trash, recyclables, and green waste and to assist the City in meeting mandated AB 939 diversion goals established by the State of California. Solid waste collection and recycling services pursuant to Chapter 8.28 are a mandatory requirement for new development in the City of Yucaipa. The Project will be required to be served by the City -approved waste disposal service. The City of Yucaipa is currently served by a contract through Burrtec Wastes Industries, Inc. for waste collection. With the Project's adherence to Chapter 8.28 guidelines, Project impacts in regard to compliance with federal, state and local management regulations will be reduced to less than significant. 4 CalRecycle. n.d. SWIS Facility Detail, San Timotco Landfill. Accessed March 30, 2022. https://www2,calrecycle,ca..gov/SolidWaste/Site/DataExl2ort . 5 CalRecycle Residential Sector Generation Rates. Accessed March 8, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates 6 Although the State does not officially endorse this information, it does provide some point of reference. 42 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
635

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

20. WILDFIRE
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X
evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire X
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that X
may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope X
instability, or drainage changes?
a) The Project site is located between 2 nd Street and 3' Street which are both existing 2-way, local collector paved roadways, and that development of the site would not impact access to users traveling along both public right-of-way streets. However, because the Project abuts both streets, the Project would be conditioned to construct the ultimate widening of both roadways along with installation of curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements pursuant to the requirements of the General Plan. Figure S-5 of the Yucaipa General Plan does not designate 2nl Street and 3' Street as a local evacuation route; only County Line Road approximately 375 feet to the south is designated as a Local Evacuation Route. Therefore, the Project will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
b-d) The Project site is within an urbanized area, adjacent to existing residential development, and is not adjacent to wildland areas. The Project site is also not located within a Fire Safety Review Area according to the City General Plan (Figure S-3), but would be subject to the standard Fire Department conditions of approval to reduce fire related risks. In addition, the City has also adopted the most recent version of the California Building and Fire Codes, which includes sections on fire-resistant construction material requirements based on building use and occupancy. The construction requirements are a function of building size, purpose, type, materials, location, proximity to other structures, and the type of fire suppression systems installed. Many of these requirements are also included as part of the Project's Conditions of Approval as a uniformly applicable development policy, which includes provisions for adequate fire access, sprinkler water systems within indoor spaces, and placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Through these standard requirements, impacts from fire -related hazards would be less than significant. There are no other factors onsite that would exacerbate wildfire risks, or slopes that would pose significant risks, such as post -fire slope instability, or downstream flooding or landslides.

19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to X
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of X
a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past 43 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
636

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) The proposed Project will not result in significant impacts that have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. No sensitive plant or animal species or habitats are expected to be significantly impacted by the Project site, In addition, no significant earth moving activities are proposed which could impact cultural or tribal resources. The proposed Project consists of a GPA that would facilitate high density multiple -family residential development in lieu of multiple residential development. As part of the Project, a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment Project is proposed on four (4) subject parcels. As noted within this N4ND, the proposed Project development that could occur under facilitation of the GPA, would not have significant impacts.
b) The proposed Project is limited to a GPA that would change the land use from multiple -family residential to high density multiple -family residential and would allow for a variety of residential use consisting of one-, two- and three -bedroom apartment units, and a an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement. .

Given the analysis contained herein related to the potential development that could occur, the cumulative effects of this Project are not expected to result in significant impacts. The evaluation of the proposed Project utilized topical sections related to agriculture, biology, cultural, air quality, geology/soils, greenhouse gases, hydrology, land use, noise, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, traffic, utilities, and services and did not identify potential significant or cumulative impacts that could not be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. c) Future development that could occur as a result of the GPA will involve site improvements that are to be constructed consistent with existing City regulations, standards, and processes, and those of other agencies. The topical issues discussed within this document did not identify the potential for adverse effects due, in part, to the incorporation of mitigation measures and standard Conditions of Approval that be applied to any future development would address potential impacts or adverse effects on human beings.
44 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
637

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, 2016

2. City of Yucaipa General Plan EIR, 2016

3. City of Yucaipa Development Code (as amended). Accessed February 22, 2022. https:Hqcode.us/codes/yLicaipa/

4. Caltrans Web Site for Scenic Highways. Accessed February 22, 2022. www.dot.ca.gov .

5. California State Department of Conservation California Important Farmland Finder Interactive Map, Accessed February 24, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

6. California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State. Accessed March 18, 2022. https:Hdofca.gov/forecasting/demogrUhics/estimates/

7. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Accessed March 10, 2022. www.dtse.ca.gov .

8. Cal Fire Mapping. Accessed March 9, 2022. www.fire.ca.gov .

9. CalRecycle. n.d. SWIS Facility Detail, San Timoteo Landfill. Accessed March 30, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/DataExport . 10, CalRecycle Residential Sector Generation Rates. Accessed March 8, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates

11. CRM Tech. HistoricallArchaeological Resources Survey Report Tentative Tract Map Number 20031, Fallbrook Meadows Project, City of Yucaipa San Bernardino County, California, June 19, 2018.

12. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Accessed March 2, 2022. https://nisc.fema.goy/portal/liome

13. Ganddini Group Inc. Fallbrook Meadows Residential Project Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis, September 14, 2021.

14. Ganddini Group Inc. Fallbrook Meadows Residential Project Noise Impact Analysis, September 14, 2021.

15. Ganddini Group Inc. Fallbrook Meadows Residential Project Traffic ImpactAnalysis, September 9, 2021.

16. Ganddini Group Inc. Fallbrook Meadows Residential Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis; November 12, 2021.

17. South Mesa Water Company. Accessed February 24, 2022. hqps://southmesawater.corn/

18. State Water Resources Control Board. Accessed March 2, 2022. ht!ps:// www.waterboards.ca.gov/

19. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. Accessed February 15, 2022. htlps:Hfwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/qpps/wetlands-mgger/

20. Yucaipa Valley Water District. Accessed February 24, 2022. hLtps:// www.yvwd.us/

21. Yucaipa, CA U.S.G.S. Map
45 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
638

;El

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = V-0--
ldr
WA.Mml

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = V-0--

REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = V-0--
r� \ IV WIM r lII.

Y U C A I P A, C A L I F 0 R N I A
0 WOOD TRELLIS
COLOR: CHATEAU BROWN
SW 7510

RC)C)F APFY
SANTA FE GARRET GRAY COLOR: IRON ORE
SW 6075 SW 7069
I

RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = V-0"
les I I,-,

TWO STORY

APARTMENT BUILDING

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

SPANISH STYLE
639

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: /8" =l'O"
w fi. illlllll 0 :2
SCALE: 1 "= V-0"
REAR

EAR ELEVATION
SCALE: ./8.. yy}"
640

BUILDING A
641

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1 /8" = 1'-0"

FRONT ELEVATION

REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 1 /8" = 1'-0"

Y U C A I P A,

FASCIA / TRIM
COLOR: CHATEAU BROWN
SW 7510
RnnF APFX

STUCCO - ACCENT STUCCO - BODY LIGHT FIXTURE GUARDRAIL
GARRET GRAY SANTA FE COLOR: IRON ORE
SW 6075 SW 7069

C A L I F O R N I A
642

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

TWO STORY

APARTMENT BUILDING

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

SPANISH STYLE

0 SCALE: 1 /8" = 1 -0
SCALE: 1/8r = 1%0""

RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
643

109 SF
t 580 SF �
_.
104 SF
150 SF
Lj
SF
u. -=
1,081 SF
TT
1,081 SF
613 SF I
104 SF
150 SF
150 SF 104 SF FL� N
K2 0 1 580 SF 109 SF
613 S F . _...
a
1,081 SF o
e
—Q
1,081 SF
613 SF
I
150 SF 104 SF
=I
644

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1 /8" = 1'-0"

FRONT ELEVATION
i

REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 1 /8" = 1'-0"

FIXTURE STUCCO - ACCENT STUCCO - BODY GUARDRAIL
GARRET GRAY SANTA FE COLOR: IRON ORE
SW 6075 SW 7069

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

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

TWO STORY

APARTMENT BUILDING

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

SPANISH STYLE
645

Of R '�, I
r
SCALE 1/8" = V-0
& a I I B A
A 9 kk- � A-ff
mz=
.: WWI
646

113 SF 124 SF
€ M�
134 SFcc
{
as
ED ®> <�
r K)J ................... o El 1,081 SF
943SF o -.._..
0 1,061SF
C ._ 0
1,081 SF
1,102 SF
Ivi
aI-A
ue .
150 SF 150 SF
124 SF
Q
Eo:]
1,081 SF
113 S
1,061SF
91 ��EIIVIMIM
M
150 SF
FT
f
__ mein
134 SF
943SF -�
1,102 SF
El
150 SF

BUILDING C
647

FN�mllmlmlllm

REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = l'-O"
12 4

RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = l'-O"

LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = l'-O"
12 4F-
Y U C A I P A, C A L I F 0 R N I A

CLAY TILE ACCENT STUCCO - ACCENT

GARRET GRAY
SW 6075
FASCIA
COLOR: CHATEAU BROWN

L CHATEAU BR
OWN
12 k-j
<41
. . . . . . . . .
"Mwftl a wil 2111
v

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'.0"

ROOF - EAGLE ROOFING
PROFILE: CAPISTRANO

SAN JUAN BLEND

STUCCO -BODY

SANTA FIE

FASCIA / TRIM
COLOR: CHATEAU BROWN
+17'-11"
T.O. RID
+10'-1 11

TOP PLATE
--+8'-0"
WINDOW HT.
-0" FINISH FLOOR
CLUBHOUSE ESN Design Studio

DESIGN & DRAFTING SERVICES
* V I All I 4111110= •

SPANISH STYL
I v%j pp,
ONTARIO, CA 91764
TEL. 909. 374. 3218
648

FRONT ELEVATION
649

CLUBHOUSE
650

STUCCO - BODY

SANTAFE

RAILINGS

IRON ORE
SW 7069

STUCCO -ACCENT

GARRET GRAY
SW 6075

CORONADO STONE

SPLIT LIMESTONE - CREAM

FASCIA / TRIM / TRELLIS

CHATEAU BROWN
SW 7510

ROOF - EAGLE ROOFING
PROFILE: CAPISTRANO
3606 VALLEJO RANGE

FRONT DOOR

HICKORY SMOKE
SW 7027

............... ...............

SYMBOL

STREET TREES

INTERNA
A

BOTANICAL NAME
2nd Street and 3,rd Street
por
L�Slkr!Ll�
Cinriamomum, cam phora
Cupaniopsis aria cardioides
Lagerstroemia farnesia,7u,ni'
RhanliiolePis indica'Maiestic Beaultv'
Olea europaea'Wilson,11'
Platas aceffolia
Jacaran rda mimosifolia
G eiiera parviflora

COMMONNAM E SIZE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME

SHRUBS & GROUNDCOVER
To Match CornrInunity 24" Box
Camphor Tree 48" Box
Carrotwood 24" Box
Bottle Tree 36" Box
Italian Cypress 24" Box
Brisbane Box 24" Box
Southern Magnolia 36" Box
Crape Myrtle (DaTk Lavender) 24" Box
Indian Hawthorne (Std,.) 24" Box
Wilson: Olive 36" Box
London Plane Tree 24" Box
Jacarandra Tree 3611 Box
Australian Willow 36" Box
Abe fia'Edward Goucher'
Azalea Tielder's White'
Brugmanslia versilor
Buxus m., japonica
Camellia sasanqua'Y'ul,eti,de'
Cotonreater lacteus
Diosi-na pulchra
Dodonaea viscose ,'Pure urea'
Feijoa sellMiana
Grevi Ilea 'Noel I iio
Hetnerocal ['is 'Dwarf Yellow'
Lava ndula angustifolia
Leptospermum scoparjum 'Ruby Glow"
Ligustrum japorilcurnTexanum'
Liriope muscari
Moraea bicolor
Nandirna domestica
Phorinriurn tenrax'Brotize Baby'
Photinia firaseri
Pittosportun tobira,'Cretne ditit'
Pitt rya tobira 'Varle(yata'
Prunus caroli niana 'Bright, n'Tiglit
!
Rhaphiolepis indica 'Clara"
Rosa F, 'Ice Berg'
Rosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue'
Trachelosperm,um, jasminoides
Xylosma CODrgeStUM
Sod turf
Basin Hydroseed

COMMONNAME SIZE
Dwarf Abefia
I Gal.

Southern Media Azalea
5 Gal.

Angel, Trumpet
5 Gal.

Japanese Boxwood
I Gal.

Camellia
5 Gal.,
Parney Cotoneaster
5 Gat
Pink Breath of Heaven
5 Gal.

Purple 1iop Seed Bush
5 Gal.

Pineapple Guava
5 Gal-
N.CX
5 Gal.
is Lily
I Gal- 24" oc-
English Lavender
I Gal. Oa 36" oc.

N,C,N-
5 Gal,
Wax Leaf Privet
5 Gal.

Big Blue Lily Turf
I Gal. 24" o,c.

Fortnight Lily
5 GaL.

Heavenly Bamboo
5 Gal.

New Zealand Flax (Reddish)
5 Gal.,
Frasier's Photinia
5 Gal.

Variegated Tobira
5 Gal.

Variegated Tobira
5 GA
Carolina Cherry
5 Gal.

Dwarft Indian Hawthorne
5 Gal.

White Shrub Rose
5 Gal.

Rosemary
5 Gal.

Star Jasmine
I Gal. 36"o.c.

Xylosrna
5 Gal.

Marathon 11 Tall Fescue
To Be Deter minded
Note -
All, landscape shall coniply with city codes, standards and water conservation requirements 11 gig,
', SHADE FENCED DOG.PA K TOT LOT SHADE
STRUCTURE AND BBQ STRUCTURE AND BBQ DATF,12-2-22
SCALE low 40'
I
rj
11 653

Entry Sign
0319-253-28
SUB NO 8 YUCAIPA VALLEY S 82.5 FT N 561 FT LOT 189
0319-253-29
SUB NO 8 YUCAIPA VALLEY S 132 FT N 478.5 FT LOT 189
0319-253-30
SUB NO 8 YUCAIPA VALLEY PTN LOT 189 BEG AT PT IN C/L 2ND ST 214.5 FT S OF NE COR SD LOT TH S 132 FT TH W 660 FT TH N 132 FT TH E 660 FT TO POB
Project Notes

DEVELOPER/APPLICANT
Premium Land Development
108 Orange St., Suite 5
Redlands, CA 92373
(909) 570-9990

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
0319-253-28, 29, 30 & 84

SITE ADDRESS
13699 3rd St.
13644,13662,13682 2nd St.

OWNER
Acosta Investments, LLC
Gorgone Family Trust (7/2/90)
1232 Village Way Ste. A
Santa Ana, CA 92705-4746
(714) 540-1144

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
Existing: RM-10M (10,000 sq. ft. min. lot size)
Proposed: RM-24 (24 du/ac.)

PROPOSED PROJECT
Amend the General Plan Land Use designation to RM-24 from RM-10M.

Develop a multi -family residential project on four parcels with a combined area of 8.39 gross acres, consisting of 8-2 story buildings containing 172 dwelling units, a recreation building, recreation area, and paved parking. A Lot Merger will be processed to combine the four parcels.

Housing Affordability
10% of the total dwelling units (20) will be only be available to tenants with a household annual income not to exceed 80% of San Bernardino County Area Median Income.

An affordability covanent will be recorded reflecting rent and income restrictions on 18 units.

Lot Area (Gross): 365,468 s.f. 8.39 ac.

Lot Area (Net): 364,976 s.f. 8.37 ac.

Total Dwelling Units: 172
Gross Density: 20.5 d.u.s/ac

UNIT SUMMARY
1 Bedroom Unit 665 s.f. 64 units
2 Bedroom Unit 1,062 s.f. 100 units
3 Bedroom Units 1,309 s.f. 8 units
Building A Footprint: 12,128 s.f.

Building B Footprint: 12,346 s.f.

Building C Footprint: 13,128 s.f.

Building Area (Existing):
7,065 s.f. (to be removed)
Building Area (Proposed):

Residential Buildings:
100,678 s.f.

Recreational Building:
4,169 s.f.

Total Building Area:
104,847 s.f. 28.7 %
Parking/Circulation Area:
124,557 s.f. 34.1 %
Landscape/Rec. Area:
135,771 s.f. 37.2 %
Private Patio Area Provided:
150 s.t min. ea. ground floor unit
100 s.f. min. ea. upper level unit
PARKING SUMMARY*
Land Use Parking Ratio
Units Spaces Required
1 Bdrm unit 1.0 sp /unit
64 64 spaces
2 Bdrm unit 2.0 sp /unit
100 200 spaces
3 Bdrm unit 2.0 sp /unit
8 16 spaces
Total Spaces Provided: 346 (2.0 sp/unit)
Including 12 ADA spaces (4 van accessible)
Including 52 compact spaces (15%)
Total Covered Spaces Provided: -0- spaces
Total Garage Spaces Provided: -0- spaces
Note:

1. No regulated trees or plants exist on site.

2. The site is not subject to flood inundation or flood hazard.

3. The project does not accept any drainage offsite from adjacent properties.

4. All streets and utilities to be private.

5. The average slope of feasible access route and feasible building site does not exceed 10%.

6. No hilly terrain or drainage channels exist on site.

7. All landscaping shall amply with City standards, odes, and water conservation requirements.

SERVING UTILITIES:

Water
South Mesa Water Company
391 W. Avenue L
Calimesa, CA 92320
(909) 795-2401
Sewer
Yucaipa Valley Water District
12770 2nd St.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
(909) 797-5117
Electric
Southern California Edison
287 Tennessee St.

Redlands, CA 92373
(909) 307-6748
Gas
Southern California Gas Company
155 S. G St
San Bernardino, CA 92410
(909) 335-7915
Telephone
Frontier Communications
1500 Crafton Ave., Bldg.125
Mentone, CA 92359
(909) 794-8293
CAN
Spgctivm
1 78 E. Hosppitality Ln.

San Bemardino, CA 92408
(888) 406-7063
3M
13699
Cut rock w/polished face
1 mily Residence
Project Site
ON
Vicinity Map
*Parking requirements per YDC 83.010730 for qualifiying housing developments.