Item 01 - Premium Land Development on Behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375 — Yucaipa City Council, April 17, 2023 (part 2 of 7)

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNLNG DIMS J
h.

PROJECTNOTICE
DATE: January OBI, 2023 J
Ct'i� Ci''tl�rd
CASE NUNIBLR: PL20220000150 CITY
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 32, LI,C O[-
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TT-NI 20375: A Planned Devd'fWUMRAproject that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed 5c.oano Estates L-which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet orgreater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) forvineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention bas ins - Please note that this is amodified proposal rTom Cas eNo. 20- 136 1,0CATION: "rlire e parcels totaling 52 acres on tite cast s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09: 03201-81-28
ATTE,t"MON PROP.I;RTY OWiNFRS AND REVILsIVLNG AGMCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed v4th the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your cotnnients must be received by this office no later than January 18, 2023, Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the auolicant's name and case number indicated above. Ifynu have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please co otact Benjamin Matlock at(909)797-2489,e d. 261. You may send your cnmmc.rtts to the Cityo.t:YucaipPPlannine Division. 34272 ucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa. C\ 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

COMMJ NTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):
proy C J CAn d do NOT Wa4lt J'Kt, t uni Vl D"s,.

SIGNATU / DATE j b�-'3AGENCY
PRI1\rI-.NArV1E _GC Ca/--y- _ADDRESS_,
YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL li ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU ORSOMEONEELSE RAISED IN WRii'TENCO, DMS[ON AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THI THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING uK tN w to t i uv CORRESPONIDENCE DEL[VERED TOT HI: HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TOTIMECONSTRAINTSANDTHENUMBEROFPERSONS WISHINGTOGIVEORAL TEsTim m'rLVtERESTRICTIONS MAYBE PLACED ON OlL\L "f ES'1'1bION)' AF ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY %VISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE T'HM' YOU ARE ABLETO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Dcoartment Engineering Division
Building &Safety Division

Page 128 ends

JAN/10/2023/WED 03:38 PM FAX No,
P. 001
CITY OF YUCAIPA PLA.NNWG DIVISION

PROTECT NOTICE
DA'1:>g.January 04,2023
RECEIVED JAN 18 2023
CASENQM M: P1120220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No, 22-150 P]D?/PDF/T'11M 20375: A Planned Development pmjcct that includes a Preliminuty.DcYelopment Plan and Tentative Tract Map (T'TM 20375)ffinal Development Plau for the proposed Serrano FstatesP�rblchwill cstablish 51 Single Family Residential lot, wM 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) forvin.eyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot fur vincyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is a modified proposal fro m Cas a No. 20136 LOCA,T. MThree parcels totaling 52 acres on the eastside of YucaipaRidge Road,south ofthe City limits AM 032(461-09 and 09; 03ZI-81 28
A,.TTE NTION pRopF.M OWNIIMS AND RWIv M1NG AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above itas been fled with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is nearthe proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no faterthan January 19, 2023.

Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's nama•and case number indicated above. rfyou have no commons, no reply is necessary. If YOU have any questions rogardiag this proposal, please eontactBenjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, e)T. 261, You tray send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Divsion 342 ucaipa Boulevard Yucaipa CA 9399 or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

Ifyou want to be notified ofthe project decision, print yourndme clearly and legibly on this tormand 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 takers.

C050O.NTS afyou need additionil space, plea9e attach additional p ages):
pal `t'�r �{ �� Cv�5��.+•-{ ��
�O v IAIA
OI.vG u IL C1IAkt- Yidus l s• ► e
SIGNATU1iE_ DATE ' '�A tNC
PMW NAME BA (-a- AD»
yOU CHAII. NaS ANY DZU5IONREGARDMO THE ABOVE PROF
ONLYTHOSE ISSUESY6Lr OIi somwNE ELSE RAISED IN WRIT i
DMSION AT, ORPRIOIZTO, THE TD;M IT MAKES ITS DECISION..

THE PROPOSAL. YOU Oft SOMI ONEELSE MUST HAVE RAISED TEf05E ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HH.IRWQ OR IN WRnTFN CORRE3POI87ENCE1)EIIVERED TOTM IMARRMBODYAT, OR PRIORTO, THE HEARING.

DUET 0 TIME CONSTRAINTS AND `aiE NUIMER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS htAY 139 PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEAMNG ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY W ISH TO MAKE YOUR CO MivIF M IN WRITING TO ASSUP.E T HAT You SIRE ABLE TO EXP RM YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. sc: Surrounding Prgarty Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District F'= Department Fzghvcdng Division
Building & Safety Division

gjFCatVe

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NOTICE ��
DATE.: January 0,1, 2023 C17),
CP
CASE IYUhHIM 111202200DO150 Y k,AIRJ't
M"PLICANTt Yucalpa52. LLC
PROPOSAL: Cese No, 22-150 PlaprFDP1TTN1 20375: A planned Dcvelopatent project that, inckldes a Ptnikninary Development Plan and Tentative '(Tact k1up (T'T'kt 20375kFural Dcvclupnteni Plait fvr thr proposed Serrano F•'slales 11mjccl, which will establish 51 Singte Fitttsly ResidentiaHoI. with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 agc-restrictcd 1,m to quall(ving seniors on lots grenterthan

12.0 11 square feet, an etlditjail alnurnhered ktt ;clang Yut:aipa Ridge Road. a rcmuinderlot for vineyards and natural open space, and tltreo Icumd tots for open space and detention bus ins - Plcaso notethat tlti, is amadified proposal l'ronlCaseNo.2(-136 LOCAUON:'three parcek iotnii(ij, .52 acres on the 4nst site ol'Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the C ky limiE5 AM 0320.161-06 and r3?; 03201-31-28
iV1"tT:N'V10N PROPUt'j'Y MYNEAS AND R VIMI;NG AMINCIE-S,: T'hc dcveloptnent jimposel listed abaae Jac been lilcd with the City Planning Division. You atc utviled to cottttnent brcausc your property is near tile pro pasrd ptajrct Your canintGnts must be rec:crved by this office no Inter than January 19, 2023 Conuttcnts received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please rcrerto this project by the applkatlt's tlator. and C[i$c nunrbrr indieated above. Ifyotr have ne cnmmant, no raply i, ncuCSsary. (ryou Wye any questions regarding this proposal, please contact licniamin Matlock at (909)797.24 r9,cu, 261, You (In) send your Comments to the City or Yucaipa !'i;lnning Givi►ion, 34272 Yucaipa Fioulcvard, Yucaipa, Q% 92:391), or via FAX Io (909) 7()OL9203.

Ifyoo "vant to be noti0cd o rare ptajcrt dc.cisx)n, print rourname olearlc and legibly on this form and mid it to the address ahove alum %klth a 50f-addrssr41, :tamae,l ,:ttvC47pe. All dcrisiom :ire sobicet to all appeal I)criod Often (IOkitlo.-ndardsys r,Itcrmu action c: t:rten, COMIN \- I-.,� (11-yoll n,:cd ad(jitinttelspat:c,p!.nn.,r alt.tclt jdditionalPat C.5):

SIGN:t i'Ukrf . + yG r1'Cr1lwe-4. AC h1CY
�-
Pitt Kr NAhtF:,�,_L Ze v-ADDR,MS
YW CHALUNQ: ANY DEC191014 RE ARDMTIII; AHQYt: PROPWAL
t7NUl'1 Iftltiii tS5'.tFSYOtt Gn 0!.tC:t)rtEr-.L5t: KAEStiD tN K'RIYrr:t tiIS A:tiD T;tr.Nilti,IQI-;Rof PI:kSgNS u rSFtl Y(i'E'Ca ctvs; r tAt. TLR'IMOAY, T(.tti Hli5't'HtC`j't!}r:s MAY K PL.AC["•.D ON ORAL TrSTBIONY A.7 ANY I'Cfiluc fltAmm, Anour TEds PROI'CKAL YOU MAY WI-91 TO MAU YCAURCOMMUNTS WWRITM. TORtsm,*rHATYOUAIMARIXTOEXI&RrSsYkAJItSkUPADEQUATELY ec: Surrounding Property Owner.: Yuc alp a Valley Water Diattivt Fire Depnttntcttl agioccring DiVtiikm
Buikttng ►@ Safety l7fvision

Page 130 ends

r ` q.

January 17, 2023
City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Dear City of Yucaipa Planning Division,
We are Cindi and Glenn Foster, residents in the City of Yucaipa since the year 2000. We live on Ivy Ave. just east of Jefferson St. We have a ten acre property on which we have our residence, four horses, horse pasture, dogs and cats, as well as approximately 400 olive trees. Obviously this is the perfect environment for our life style. It is quiet with like minded neighbors around - .- -US.-
While we are not adjacent to the proposed Serrano Estates development project we are in complete agreement with our Friends of the North Bench on the violation this project represents to the RL-1 zoning in this area. It is completely out of character to the existing neighborhood, adds dramatically to the traffic on the small neighborhood streets, strains our already marginal water resources and brings in people the are not compatible with our rural lifestyle. And, of course, it does not comply with the one home per one acre of the RL-1 zone.

We therefore ask that you deny this application for development until it is presented in a manner that is consistent with the existing neighborhood and fully complies with the current City of Yucaipa RL-1 zoning regulations.

Thank you for considerati
in4i'8t GI nn Foster -

Page 131 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NOTICE RE�� aN
DATE; January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER: PLI0220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Fina[ Development Plan for the Proposed Serrano Estates Project, which willestablish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots Oil parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) forvineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainderlot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots far open space and detention basins - Please note that this is amodified proposal from Case No. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0324-161-OS-and-09,-03.201-8-1-28
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal fisted above has been tiled 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 January 18, 2023.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATUREC) h� l J�J 0 (3 � C15 DATJ1/I 1/)3 AGENCY
PRINT NAME Chid { le_ dJ _ADDRESS

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN C DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TRYIE IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON T.

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT TILE PUBLIC HEARING; oR IN WRIITEPI CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TOTHC HEARING BODYAT,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 W RITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building &Safety Division
172023

Page 132 ends

January 11, 2023
City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Serrano Estates Project
Case No. PL20220000150
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC
Proposal: Case No. 22-150.PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
To Whom it May Concern:j
This letter is to request that the City of Yucaipa deny the planned Serrano Estates Project Case No 22-150 as currently drafted. While the current development plan Is much better than the previous plan, it still violates development requirements for RL-1 zoning with lots as small as 12,090 square feet (quarter acre). While the owner has a right to develop the property, the property must be developed in accordance with the intent of the current zoning requirements which is one home on one acre (43,560 square feet). It is entirely inconsistent with the rural culture of the north bench to place homes on anything less than one acre. The City has a responsibility to the existing residents to preserve the culture and atmosphere of the neighborhood and to disapprove developments that adversely affect the current neighborhood. The homes should be single story, custom built homes consistent with the majority of the homes in the neighborhood and should not be tract homes. Photographs showing existing homes along Ivy Avenue and Yucaipa Ridge Road are attached. Please note how the existing homes and lots use the natural slopes, and open lot concept (absence of walls).

Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320 defines rural living and clarifies the designation of the RL district. Attached is the full citation of the ordinance. While the definition does include a minimum lot size of one gross acre, it specifically notes a maximum housing density of one dwelling unit per acre. The one -acre gross minimum lot size definition was not intended to be averaged over a large development but allowed for consideration of lot lines extending into right-of- way or easements. Consistent with the maximum dwelling unit requirement in the ordinance there should not be more than 24 homes in this development based on the sum of the 51 lot areas. 1

Page 133 ends

The RL zoning designation allows farm animal husbandry, orchards, etc. Consistent with the Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320, the development must allow for these property uses on each lot.

City Ordinance 84.0320 also specifies home setbacks, lot dimensions, etc. that need to be observed in the development.

Slopes
The development as planned calls for flat lots with unconventionally steep slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1) for residential lots in a high seismic hazard area. Slopes exceed 20 feet in height and occupy nearly a third of smaller lots and are nearly 50 feet high.at the northeast corner lot. These are excessively steep and inconsistent with the area (see attached photographs). Properties in the area use the natural slopes with split level homes and walk out basements. There are no one acre lots in the area with engineered slopes this steep and high. We ask that the development make better use of the land to preserve natural slopes and limit slopes to 3:1 and not more than 10 feet in height.

High Risk Wildfire Area
This area of the North Bench is a high -risk wildfire area and was most recently affected by the El Dorado wildfire.

Closely spaced homes increase the risk to the public. Senior citizens are especially susceptible to the hazards of wildfires, yet the development provides for small, senior citizen housing. Based on wildfire hazard alone, the lot sizes should not exceed the maximum housing density of one dwelling unit per acre and should not be designated by the city for senior housing.

Senior Housing
With regard to the argument for smaller lots for senior housing, we note the single largest demographic in this area of the North Bench are seniors —living on one acre or larger lots. Smaller lots for seniors unnecessary in this area.

The assumptions and parameters used in calculating stormwater runoff and control features should be based on fire - denuded slopes, unvegetated lots with corrals, and lightly vegetated vineyards. This is the new reality of the area.

Page 134 ends

C
In summary, the development must be consistent with city ordinance for RL-1 zoning requirements which specifically establishes a one -acre maximum housing density, allowance for large animal husbandry, and development consistent with the culture of the area (one story homes with lots honoring the natural slopes), with careful attention to public safety, particularly as relates to wildfires and stormwater.

Sincerely,
ce�� Re:yf�61 �s

Page 135 ends

84.0320 Rural Living (RL) District.

The Rural living (RL) District shall be located as specified by the Yucaipa General Plan. (a) Permitted Land Uses
(1) Row, Field, Tree, and Nursery Crop Cultivation
Any structure associated with this activity is limited to 10,000 square feet on parcels of fire acres or less. (2) Single dwelling unit.
(3) Small residential pre facility.
(4) Animal Raising
(A) Animal raising as a primary use of the property must be on a parcel no less than two acres in size. Lot area used to qualify one animal type, either Primary or Accessory Animal Raising, shall not be reused to qualify another animal type.

Proper manure m6nagement will be carried out in accordance with True 3 of the San Bernardino County Code as adopted by the city of Yucaipa.

Page 136 ends

(5) Any structure associated with row, field, tree, and nursery crop cultivation that is greater than 10,000 square feet on Parcels of five acres or less.
(6) Planned development.
m Boarding house (for up to six residents).
(8) Bed and breakfast lodge (for up to six guests).
(9) Parolee homes.
(10) Botanical gardens and arboretums.
(11) Historic and monument sites.
(12) Unmanned public utilities and services uses/structures. (13) Unmanned radio and television stations/towers.
(14) Wildlife and nature preserves.
(c) Property Development Standards
The following property development standards shall apply to all land uses within the RL District.

Maximum Structure Height
35 feet
Minimum Lot Size (map suffix will modify)

1.0 gross acre
Maximum Lot Coverage
q40%
Maximum Building Coverage
210%
Maximum Lot Dimensions (width/depth ratio)
10 acres = 1:4
Minimum Lot Dimensions (widih/depth In feet)
125/125
Front Yard Setback
30 feet
Side Yard Setbacks
15 feet
Rear Yard Setbacks
25 feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (local streets)
20 feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (collector streets)
30 feet
Maximum Housing Density
1 dulacre
Minimum District Size
10 gross acres
5

Page 137 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING

PROJECT NOTICE
j

DIVIS ON
D
i^I!�vEl11's�.. Y
DATE: January 04.2023 C,I`r(
OF
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150 )TC,' gWA
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL- Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTNI 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 lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is amodified proposal 1romCase No_ 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the casts ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81•-28
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 January 18, 2023.

Comments received after this (late might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no continent, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ed. 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.

Ifyou want to be notified ofthe project decision, print yourname 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)calendardays after an action is taken. l COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages): __ eC C�. �� Gt.C. P�2• 4 Y"1`
1_1-7 23
SIGNATURE DATE AGENCY_
PRINT NAME ,>� LA' _�_�^�jGl tJ-4DDRESS_
YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING T I[ E ABOVE PROPOSAL It

ONLYTHOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRFFTEN COG DIVISION AT. OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE 1J CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TOTHE HEARING BODY AT, Olt PRIOR TO, THE HEARING

DUE TOT IME 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 'r0 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

Page 138 ends

t
PUBLIC COMMENT— PLANNING COMMISSION
January 17, 2023
City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Serrano Estates Project
Case No. PL20220000150
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC
Proposal: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing on behalf of my husband, Dwayne and myself. We designed, built and have lived in our home on the North Bench since 1987. We were attracted to the beauty, open spaces, and rural living the North Bench provided.

We are requesting that the City of Yucaipa deny the planned Serrano Estates Project Case No 22-150 as currently drafted. While the current development plan is much better than the previous plan, it still violates development requirements for RL-1 zoning, with lots as small as 12,090 square feet (i.e. a quarter acre). We agree that the owner has a right to develop the property; however, the property must be developed in accordance with the intent of the current zoning requirements which is one home on one acre (43,560 square feet). It is entirely inconsistent with the rural culture of the North Bench to place homes on anything less than one acre. The City has a responsibility to the existing residents to preserve the culture and atmosphere of the neighborhood and to disapprove developments that adversely affect the beauty of the North Bench. The homes should be custom built homes consistent with the majority of the homes in the neighborhood and should not be "cookie cutter" tract homes.

We would like to make sure our objection to the proposed Serrano Estates property land use change from RL-1 to RS is recorded. The long standing General Plan has maintained the RL-1 designation be the maximum density of one unit per acre. It is also discussed in the "General Housing Plan 2021-2029." Several years ago, a developer tried to change the land use designation and the Planning Commission and City Council rejected the request. Additionally, Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320 defines rural living and clarifies the designation of the RL district. While the definition does include a minimum lot size of one gross acre, it specifically notes a maximum housing density of one dwelling unit per acre. The ordinance also specifies home setbacks, lot dimensions, allows for farm animal husbandry, orchards etc. which would need to be observed in the development. The one -acre gross minimum lot size definition was never intended to be averaged over a large development. Consistent with the maximum dwelling unit requirement in the ordinance, there should not be more than 24 homes in this development based on the sum of the 51 lot areas.

Pate 139

Do not be fooled by the developer's comments referencing Senate Bill 9 and similar legislation. These do not apply to the development in question.

The development as planned, calls for flat lots with unconventionally steep slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1). Slopes exceed 20 feet in height and occupy nearly a third of smaller lots and are nearly 50 feet high at the northeast corner lot. These are excessively steep -and inconsistent with the area. We ask that the development make better use of the land to preserve natural slopes and limit slopes to 3:1 and not more than 10 feet in height.

We all know that the North Bench is a high -risk wildfire area which was most recently affected by the El Dorado wildfire. The denuded hillside as a result of the wildfires, have resurrected worries for floods and mudslides. Also, a major concern is the fact that we live in a high seismic area.

We do not want increased traffic in our sub -division. There are only two egresses. One is on Azurite and one is on Topaz. Presently, these two streets service upwards of seventy homes. The current proposal will increase the number of cars by nearly 75%. This will have a profound impact by adding more noise and traffic hazards. Our neighbors five at the end/bottom of Quartz St. This necessitated the planting of several palm trees In their front yard to stop any out of control vehicles from crashing into their home. We know of at least three vehicles that have previously crashed onto the property. There is a palpable empathy for our neighbors on Yucaipa Ridge Road, as well as, Quartz St, Chrystal St, Azurite St, Goldstone St and Topaz St. The residents on these streets will take the brunt of the extra traffic. We want assurance that the increased traffic will not adversely impact our neighborhood's safety including cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrian traffic.

We are extremely concerned with the availability of water. California has been in the midst of a drought for years. Where is this additional water coming from? Is there any guarantee that water pressure will not be adversely affected by these homes? The water pressure is currently irregular.

The images described for this new complex does not flow what so ever with the North Bench. The proposal Includes a brick wall around the complex. That is not appealing to our open spaces and is in fact, contradictory to the spirit of the North Bench.

There is a planned vineyard. That is awesome. If the vineyard is the driving force behind this development, why not make the entire 52 acres vineyards? Why try to squeeze as many houses possible in the smallest parcel allowed?
We watched the State of the City and viticulture was never mentioned as the direction the city wants to make a high priority_ There was much more discussion about the uniqueness of the city with parks and open spaces. Also discussed, was Yucaipa as being a "horse city." Approving this development as is, will deny new residents the opportunity to have horses or farm animals.

We have a few questions that have not been addressed at the Planning Commission or City Council.

Page 140 ends

1) If this development Is approved, who will own the vineyard area? Who will profit from the grapes? Why not sell that acreage to a vintner and develop the remaining acres per the current zoning of one acre, one house? Do we even know If the grapes will make good wine? After many years, it appears that several of the local wineries are still importing their grapes from central California.

2.) Who will own the designated open space? Will it be maintained? If yes, who is responsible physically and monetarily for the maintenance?

3.) Is there a guarantee if the development is required to build a sewer system, our neighborhood will not be required to connect? If we are required, who will pay for that connection?

4.) The plan calls for sixteen lots designated as senior housing_ We believe that this is just another ploy for smaller lots. How will this be monitored and enforced in the future? We ask that you deny this project. It is an unwelcomed addition to the North Bench.

Thank you for your consideration.
wayne Brinks Lucinda Brinks
"Housing should not be an industry driven by profit."

Page 141 ends

City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Serrono Estates Project 0�� ,
Case No. PL20220000150`�
Applicant. Yucaipa 52 LLC
Proposal: case no. 22-150/PDP/FDP/'I'IM20375
Dear City Planning Commission,
I am the President of the Yucaipa Valley Conservancy, we have worked hard with the City for many years to preserve the rural atmosphere that is here. We worked to acquire the State Park, we gave you the El Dorado, thanks to the W.ildlands Conservancy, and we help you purchase the 5 Winds Ranch. We have been able to keep Yucaipa the unique area that it is. Many families bought on the North Bench to have elbow room, keep livestock, and have gardens and orchards. They knew the general plan called for 1 acre lots. So did the developer that now wants to change it. He does not live here. I-Ie should not have a say.

Yucaipa has plenty of other areas that are being developed to increase housing. From what I have read, all the new laws that Sacramento is sending our way, is not a problem because we are meeting their quota.

Please deny this project. The developer can develop the land according to the general plan as it now is written.

Thank you,
DeDe Chudy
President Yucaipa Valley Conservancy

Page 142 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04.2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375yFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project. which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is amodifiied proposal firomCaseNo. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the casts ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits .k-PN- 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
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 January 18, 2023.

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. Ifyou have no continent, no reply is necessary. Ifyou have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2499, e)d. 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.

SIGNATURE DATE ! /2 7,cZAGENCY
PRINTNAME-D6--6005eA1+ D; Vipsp)4 ADDRES

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROP OSA

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED W WRITTEN
DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON.

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TOTI4E HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, T[ME RESTRICTIONS

MAYBE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE-

YOUR COMMENTS IN WRIT ING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXP RESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division

Page 143 ends

January 12, 2023
City of Yucaipa Planning Division
attn: Benjamin Matlock
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Re: Case Number PL2o220000150
Applicant Yucaipa 52, LLC
Dear Mr. Matlock,
RECEIVED JAN f 2 2o23
I own property directly adjacent to the proposed Serrano Estates Project, and have reviewed the modified plan and tentative tract map at length. The Yucaipa General Plan Vision begins by identifying the Community Cornerstones of "small-town rural character with strong neighborhood identities," as well as "scenic vistas, wild lands, ravines, and hillsides." While it looks like they have increased the offset from the street to the surrounding block wall to about 6o feet, that is not nearly enough space from the existing residential homes. The land slopes upward there, and the end result will be like looking at a prison wall.

I'm sure you are aware that existing neighborhoods on the outskirts of Yucaipa are zoned Rural 1 (one acre lots). If you refer to the enclosed map that shows the existing custom homes (identified with a blue square) compared to the modified development plan (homes shown with a red square) you can see that the character of the existing neighborhood is still not remotely preserved. Even though they are including one token 1-acre lot and some half -acre lots, the overall house count is still the same, which brings up other concerns that have not been addressed.

One of the biggest concerns is everyday traffic. Yucaipa Ridge, Crystal, and quartz are all rural streets without sidewalks or stop signs. They both empty onto Azurite, which empties to Juniper, and then out to Bryant Street where there is no traffic light. Even Mtli then existing number of homes that are spread out, it can take several minutes to make a left turn onto Bryant Street during commuting hours today. This proposed development would add 51 homes to that equation that could have 2, 3 or more cars each. Even a few trips a day would create dangerous traffic congestion.

One of the primary reasons for one -acre lot zoning requirements next to undeveloped land is for better emergency control in the event of wildfires, mudslides, or other natural disasters. Having houses so closely packed together would make emergency management of ingress and egress very difficult, since all of these 51 homes would have to channel out through Azurite Street and .Juniper. Two to three roads that all exit to the same road

Page 144 ends

within a quarter mile does not meet the requirements for secondary access, and an emergency evacuation order would be a huge mess. The existing neighborhood is on septic, and the new development is planned to be on a sewer system, although no details have been provided. Sewer construction would make road accessibility even more problematic.

There was a seismic trench excavated in the mid-z000s. It was left open for several years with no erosion controls, and eventually most of it was filled in with a bulldozer for safety reasons. However, there was no compaction or compaction tests from a soils engineer.

This will all have to be dug out and recompacted before building.

The neighborhood already has extremely low water pressure ever since high density housing was built on the west side of Bryant Street. Adding an additional high density development would require additional water infrastructure, and that has not been addressed.

The changes made by the developer to the plan have spread out the same number of lots to make some of the lot sizes larger by reducing the undeveloped land slightly, but they have not addressed any of these other serious issues that have been raised by the community. Please do not let backdoor deals set a precedent that is not in the best interests of Yucaipa. I am requesting that the Planning Commission reject this modified plan until all of these serious concerns are successfully mediated to meet the goals of the General Plan and the concerns of the existing neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration, and for your service to our community.

Sincerely,
s=
Deborah Davidson

Page 145 ends

0 PU
LL
existing custom homes on l acre lots
proposed
homes from 2023 modified pian
MOMY
f •-
s.
_ '
tq
I.
h Ft
1 -

Page 146 ends

9 FA

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
RATE: January 04, 2023
RECMEp ,1qN 172023
CASE NUMBER: PI.20220000I50
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and I6 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins -Please note that this is amodified proposal fivmCaseNo. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits AP-N:-032Q464-end,-03:-03204-84-28- — ---- -
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 January 18, 2023.

Ifyou want to be notified ofthe project decision, print,yourname clearly and legibly on this fbrn 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 (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

W, 5 10C4 RCHP SEo 6UR LA/uD 14,ETR6 /A) /9k83., ivy
IU t:'IZ j57-'0 4 D AL LU b^1ZE / A C 2 E 1'n ilv Yr1 u Pvl IVY= /,,. o,2s tiv fir- A (,0 tqy, 7W /,S /S
�tW EtZ e 4/2 E MPA/y 60Y0 �E L
td'5 /4yQ7'6' % 5— C 11' 01211L }/uc�-
r /z Lu G ,4 L L CO W 7`"1-A /s 7-0 l P4' 7/V iV y!
/UG11Glgj3D NS (,OW ll/.4Ar 7`0
SIGNATURE DATE` AGENCY S m V �Z
PRIM' NAME ] / A) _ADDRE

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPQS

ONLYTHOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN W RITTEI

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THETIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION OD

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THC

CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TOTHE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING,

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAYBE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN W RITING 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
Pate 147

.i�uiN
�v E m,G ,yuC,q j p� s 49sT %�u rz r�- �.

D & "V Y

Page 148 ends

January 16, 2023
Yucaipa City Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa CA 92399
To Whom it May Concern:

Re: PL20220000150
From the General Plan, April 2016, less than 7 years ago:

VW JAN 17-2023
"Yucaipa is the Jewel.of the Inland Empire. Framed by the San Bernardino Mountains, Yucaipa's natural envitoriment=witiiifs cfeaner air and unique,topographq—distinguisheslts-ekceptional•qual1w.6f life -- Yucaipa offers an attractive, peaceful, and safe community for all of its residents. Yucaipa is thoughtfully planned, balancing the needs of residents, the environment, and the business community. Quality public facilities, schools, community services, and other amenities draw residents and visitors of all ages to live, work, play, and retire in Yucaipa." And it goes on about all of the reasons we call Yucaipa home.

Our leaders seem have lost sight of and is ignoring our roots and the needs and concerns of the people whom they work.

Traffic congestion, crime, drugs, homelessness and out of control growth is dramatically changing the quiet, rural, family atmosphere of our Yucaipa forever.

Although the nearby catch basins have been revamped and are being better maintained, there has been very little consideration of any actual infrastructure presented. Poor Oak Glen has suffered mightily from the heavy rains due to the fires we experienced a couple of years ago.

In addition, should Californians continue be forced into "going green," where will those alternative power supply facilities be? We already experience brown outs during the summer months even with the use of solar In roughly 30% of homes in California. My family has been part of the Edison Summer Discount plan for over a decade. Where has that gotten us? What is Edison doing to assure us that they -can--provlde even MORE -sufficient,. stable energy to oar community? This proposal is not huge, and I'm certain it's only a small part of a grander scheme. How can the Planning Division and our City Council imagine that additional residential homes, not to mention the shopping, additional businesses and nightmarish traffic that will explode exponentially along with them, Is of any benefit to those of us who call Yucaipa home. SaveYucaipa Sincerely,
4e& � J/�
Deb Grossheim

I M W21 3:19 AM
Scan_2KN113.jpg
CH"i OF YLICA11"A PLANNING DIVISION
11R0.1 r(-r NOTICE
I) TTa )it fill lit y 6t. +nst
CAS I: N IliNUIER: IIt. 02,'(!(IIIA? 150
APPIA( II•L Yacuipa {2. J.IX
i'ItUI'(iti.IL; c:,::c Vil 1'-I56 I'UVAD11.1"I'M 2017i 1 PlanncJ :IlJndr,. .t I'rc Ian flip tY i)c•rchI pmetot 1111411 -it III Ical: attec 'i eau %Llp IT-1'AI 2031 51, 1-at al l_4a'elopmrnt Plait fur the pmposrd ticrnitw I 51 Sinl;l: F'atrily Rcitdcntta! h,t, uith it tcsldvntol tote an pnrccls 'lillnn s pur test or gormcr. and lb atliarr, mAcaf lets to tialltl•ing. numm an Am t;r+•mo bar! I',Qlk igtiare rect. nti :nIditow. :tI Illlaitierctl lul 1`2) I'ur s IFynnis alone Yucaipa Mdcc 1(t>id a r: imihIder rat till' Yiticyards •tiltl timur.li kipto 51o.wc. and 11ta?•: kltercd h"% of open glace -Intl i1cb71 U00 h.i on trncd.ut)iliaull •.I pawn p:,acc vimb aldd%maipgy .) 9/ac?.23`c
)'ktlN('P:;1M1tI-.?:l�/i.X?.w-,�,� 66a,,Ris,
Cc" I I (i;;+., my I)I•!Ymis RrHARMNU T ail AIWVF Pki U41AL (W '% rIII z https://Mail.google.cotil/mail/u/O/?shva=l#inba0projector=l Page 150 1/1

Benjamin Matlock
From:

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 11:01 AM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Yucaipa Ridge Project PL202200001 SO
Dear Ben Matlock and Planning Commission,
For the Yucaipa Ridge Road Project we oppose the current, redone plans for the project PL20220000150 (to be presented 1/18/2023) and any other projects on the North bench's zone designated rural living. We want it kept rural living, one acre minimum lots. We have been here since 2004 and moved here because of the rural designation. Any other zone of less than one acre lots would ruin this area's character and uniqueness.

This area is zoned for one acre lots, rural living on the North Bench. With or without vineyards, each lot should be one acre, not a small lot for every acre of land that is developed. That does not make it rural anymore.

It they want to place vineyards on the outside of housing area, that would be fine, but do not change the lot size. When the vineyards were first proposed, the lot sizes started to shrink and shrink and shrink. Since the developers cannot help themselves and want to change our area with ever changing exceptions, we need to keep the lots one acre, NO EXCEPTIONS. If the vineyards are suppose to work so well, the developers will not need to develop small lots to make more money and ruin our area on the North Bench. The open areas of the North Bench add so much uniqueness to Yucaipa, please do not ruin it.

Sincerely,
DeEsta West
Palle 151

Vl7123. 12:31 PM Scan 20230113.j1)7
t H ) M 11 t MI \ I'I..\VNINI, 111\ Itilf1\
'\() I ,c 1. RECEIVED JAN 17 2023
ti1'1'i Jt � \ 1 1 rn .,r1i i
t ; I ,
,s S,
htips: llmail.gnogle.com1mail!u101#sent/FNlfcgzrrcFdzzdNlnnPrXhKSWcCml fDz?prnjeclor=l&rnessagPPartld=0.2 page 152 ill

From:

Subject: Yucaipa Ridge Project PL20220000150
Date: January 16, 2023 at 11:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Dear Ben Matlock and Planning Commission,
For the Yucaipa Ridge Road Project we oppose the current, redone plans for the proje, and any other projects on the North bench's zone designated rural living. We want It ke have been here since 2004 and moved here because of the rural designation. Any othE this area's character and uniqueness.

This area is zoned for one acre lots, rural living on the North Bench. With or without vin, small lot for every acre of land that is developed. That does not make It rural anymore.

It they want to place vineyards on the outside of housing area, that would be fine, but d, were first proposed, the lot sizes started to shrink and shrink and shrink. Since the deve change our area with ever changing exceptions, we need to keep the lots one acre, NC to work so well, the developers will not need to develop small lots to make more money open areas of the North Bench add so much uniqueness to Yucaipa, please -do not ruin Sincerely,
DeEsta West

Page 153 ends

CITYOF YLICt IPA PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 1 7 2023

PROJECT NOTICE
i),1'1,F.:lanu.ln IM,;?(I'+
( AtiF NI!NiIIlilt: I'l 'u 't}111H11 50
,kP1'Li( ;t:N''I' 1 ucalpit 52, l.L(
P1tOPOSM' + 1,av No 22.15(1 F1jW'F)i"TikI 2UP4 A Planncrl tkvc!optt ttt prol•icl that mclulkc•'. :I Prchululary lyevc6.+pincnl 111.111 illid icnlativc -Iran: !.l.tgi 1IAWI -'0+75)Fca:tl Lh-velopinenl !'lau fun lilt:
pwPused Anan4• Isl utr 111411cci vsht,;h vvAna A sh 51 Smija hnnnh Rc wimil.,tl11)t,atth 35 r.,ulrlittalh)la (tit parccli _'('i.1HIN;tlnutc feel of t:rr..itcr, and initgc-icstricicd loi, it,+qua!I2In•.• scnim+ (in loi, grewerthin I!!.)N S"Mc fed an addliumul numbered At 15•).t 11)r vnlcynrtls altlttll lli"gm My Ftt)a(1. a immiridu bt for vttlayaldN and u+uucaI (,pen %13aca. ant! lilt a: tt:llcrcd kot;, tiii ul)cn sj?;lcc and delentioll baritli • Please nutetlt,N Iht;, I} ,inwtlilicd k.irr.ii)usalli+.>tnCiur"`h, jl>_I1[) l,f)CATION: I lirlr4: l)ar44•! + i "t4t •V*.'e (it-f in Oki 31% 1 Uh AWYL I'lit)!'rML3NIkit 'xl, zta...0 a nr: 4Nu+4.4....•,.., ,.,-.,
t1):It!!nl,l rioter i, INIIr1N11.1:�1'RAIIi.:3'rl;ti'i+'fl!'i t'r)t!N.t:,f'il,;i)I'7i.'k;Et1311'!KI'll tl!'1lti I'LANrtI^al I'tl1'i'ittN.11 i'Itlt11? lif. tkti JF.;;t"!!.fA}:i;tl't i11,I4itr ti: Illi l'lt rIKL'i:11 t'R.li 11'1'lI1H In+LHL'irll'illill7r)t I It): !'Rd+tIL)SAl i illi toll >(1M tNt El Sit NO $l IIA'.!. I2ALtika) fimsi. wl.'F.5 ,11 I llli I'(;1SLlf:lllbliti:,'Ci(.Ht IN WWI 111:\ hil t,-!'IUP ! "I Ill,' Ili Al'.i?ki latet V. ( 0,*= 11Itt(.P. 1'i, I Ill! W ARII.(k 11111"(1AI I"NY AIM%A` PU1k iilM;xLR(111'lA,`:r.it+`.et'IKIt1`ailtt(il:'I i:!t,U I(til!!.1 WN I1.'.1l HtSARI MNS %IA1 fit fit A( 1,01)N OR AI '. kr,T 1\10NY Al ANY I'i hill li' rI1:Lit12: , Anl ll I i 111t; 1'14f W(-AI 1'11t NIAF t', I'JI I O NIA If "A IHAIic)l,tlilAD; 1lilt WRI'1,1}'<xrHtilLhA!;.ipAlll) c tiurmililt ing k'rupeny ttsvilct% i'uLa:pil �AIIC5 i('ntcr Dkinct Fill: Dcpanmeilt 14l}Iutec:Mg Dwism)
flalhkrlig & 511(ch Fh4 i6fin.

Page 154 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUNIBER: PL0220000150 CITY
vF
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC y
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDPITTNJ 20375: A Planned Development project that includes Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTNI 20375)/Final Development Plan for tii_ proposed Se.trtno Cstates Project which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential !ots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than. 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and dcicntion basins - Plcase note that this is a modified proposal from Case No. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the cast side of Yucaipa Ridge Road. south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
:1TTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND RE1%IEI:`:';:. .'.,::;GIPS: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the C.icy Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is nearthe proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no laterthan January 18.2023. 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 tvlatlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Divis ion. 3-127Z-Yucaipa l3aulevard, Yucaipa_ C46. 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.
lfyou want to be notified ofthe project decision, print yournamc clearly and legibly on this form anti mail it to the address above along with a self addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10)calendardaysafteran action is taken
C.ONItNIENTS (ffyou need add itional space, please attach additional pagesl- I V �
SIGNATURE %GJ ��/� _DATE �a G}S41ENCY
PFdNf NAME C�7/Ei� l._ "`ADDR-F S
;'OU CHALLENGE AW DECISION RLGARDINGTIIEABOVE PROPOSAL
ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE. RAISED [N IVRT['TEN C, DIVISION AT. OR PRIOR TO. THE T[NIE IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON Ti THE PROPOSAL. YOU OR SONIEONE L'LSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBI.IC Iti_4RNG OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELI VEILED 'rO'FHE- i-[E:WNG BODY AT. OR PRIOR TO, Ttll? 11FARING. .)UE'rOTlt,IECONSTRAINTS:%ND'rl-fE NUMBER 01: PERSONS MSIIr;tvr_. nRAL TuTINIONY, T[vtF R-ESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON oILlL TESTIMONY Ax ANY PUBLIC HFARING ABOU'1 THIS PROPOSAL YOU ?`,LAY WISH TO ,14AR-E

YOUR COMMENTS IN WIUT ING TO ASSURE THAT YOUARE ABLETO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY s: Surmundina Progeny Owne s Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire DepartrnenI Engin ccring Division
Bit i Idin R & S afe tv Div is ion

Page 155 ends

�ymMti.. ,>..

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NOTICE3'
2023
[lrlTts; btnItary 0-1, 2023 Cl
CASE NUMBER: I'L20220000150
APPLICANT. 5'ticnlpti 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No, 22-150 PI)P1FDPJTTNt 20375: A Plnnncd Developnllnt project thnt Irioludcs n Prolimillary Deyclopntcnt Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375�111nul Ckvchrpmont ['loll for the proposed Serinno Biates Project, which will establish 51 Slllglc Fornily Residentlal lot, With 35 residential lots oil parcels 20.000square feet or greater, and IG rise -restricted lots to clunlifying Seniors on Iot9 greaterrhnn 12,00 square feet, an additional itutnbered lot (52) for viricynrds along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a rentaindarlot for vineyards and naturul open space, and Ihrce lettered kits for open space and detention basins - Pleasc note that this is amodificd proposal from CaseNo,20-130 L0C,A'rI0N: Thrcc parcels totaling 52 acres on the cast s ide of Yucalpa Ridge Rnad, south of the City limits A1'Nr 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-51-28
AMKFION PROPERTY OWNIRS AND REVIEWING AGMCIES; The development proposal listed above [ins been filed With the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is nearlhc proposed project. Youreonirncnts must be received by this office no Inter than January 19, 2023.

Conaltents received afler this date niight not be considered in the decision, Please refer to this project by the nppIicanl's I) nine and cnsc number Indlcntcd above. If you have no cammonI, no reply is ncccssnry, Iryou have any questions rcgnrding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2499,cm..261, You may send your comments to the. City of Yucnipn Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard. Yucaipa, CA 92399, or vla FAX to (909) 790-9203.

Iryou «Tint to benotff edonlicpmjcet decision,print yournrunr.clearly and legibly on This form and mail It to the address above along Nvith a self-addressed, stanipcd envelope, All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10)calendar days after nn action is taken.

COrMINIE.N S (lfyou nccd additional space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE DATE I - 5 `AGENCY �tc3tWGr.t�i2 r
PRINT NAN1E(� , /' �f I �L°{/
2l�CY'� �� D DKLS S
YOU CHAU.riNGf nf.S EL'I ON REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL ONLYTIIMI-'. ISSUE'S YOU OR SONILOM, C:1.5G RAISED IN WRITTEN C.

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR 1.0, TIlETIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON Tt TILL' PROPOSAL„ YOU OR SONtrONC C-LSE MUST HAVC RAISEDT11061: ISSUES AT TILE PLAILIC IMARINOOR IN WRITTEN CORRGSPOM1T)INT►CE DEUVCRED TOTIIE IIFARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, TIM iWARINO.

DUE To,r1mCCONSFRAINI-S AND TNL' NOMI)FR OP PERSONS WISIIINGTo GIVE ORAL_ TFST'IMONY, 'rime RZ5TIl1C1'ms MAY BE PI-ICFD ON ORAL, TNSTIbIONY rlr ANY 1111111..IC III'.ARIW ABOUT TIIIS PROPWAI, YOU MAY WIS11 TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRIT D40TO ASSUItETHAT YOU AICE AIILETOE11'RESS Y(XtRSELF AD%QUATELY cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Volley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building &Safety Division

Page 156 ends

January 11, 2023
City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard REC,21VED
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Serrano Estates Project BAN I 3 2023
Case No. PL20220000150 Cis
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC Qr
Proposal: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375 Yr'C A1PA
To Whom it May Concern:

This letter is to request that the City of Yucaipa deny the planned Serrano Estates Project Case No 22-150 as currently drafted. While the current development plan is much better than the previous plan, it still violates development regyirements for RL-1 zoning with lots as small as 12,090 square feet (quarter acre). While the owner has a right to develop the property, the property must be developed in accordance with the intent of the current zoning regyirements which is one home on one acre (43,560 square feet). It is entirely inconsistent with the rural culture of the north bench to place homes on anything less than one acre. The City has a responsibility to the existing residents to preserve the culture and atmosphere of the neighborhood and to disapprove developments that adversely affect the current neighborhood. The homes should be single story, custom built homes consistent with the majority of the homes in the neighborhood and should not be tract homes. Photographs showing existing homes along Ivy Avenue and Yucaipa Ridge Road are attached. Please note how the existing homes and lots use the natural slopes, and open lot concept (absence of walls). I am also very concerned about the zoning precedent that this will set for the Area if approved. At some point in the future it is easy to see how the current proposed neighborhood could be separated from the rest of the "parcel" in discussion and then be used as an example by future developers to develop neighborhoods with X acre parcels. This is not acceptable for those of us who bought property and built here specifically because of the rural nature zoning that has existed for decades.

Senpte Bill 9 and Similar Legislation
SB 9 and similar bills referenced in previous comments by developer/owner representatives in city council do not apply to this development. First, SB 9 only applies urbanized areas as designated by the US Census. California discourages urban sprawl into existing rural areas. This property is located outside the urban area designated by the US Census. Second, SB-9 requires owner/occupancy on lots proposed for splitting and does not apply to multi -lot developments. Third, SB 9 excludes areas of high fire hazard severity. This area is prone to and experienced wildfires, most recently, the El Dorado Fire.

RL-1 Zoning
The proposed Serrano Estates property is zoned RL-1 meaning Rural Living, one acre minimum. The developer argyes that, averaged over the entire 52 acres, the proposed 51 lots meets the requirement of one dwelling per one gross acre. Further, Developer representatives falsely claimed to city council that the development met the definition of rural living as the only definition for rural living is found in the dictionary.

Page 157 ends

intended to be averaged over a large development but allowed for consideration of lot lines extending into right-of- way�or easements. Consistent with the maximum dwelling unit requirement in the ordinance there should not be more than 24 homes in this development based on the sum of the 51 lot areas.

The RLzoning designation allows farm animal husbandry, orchards, etc. Consistent with the Yucaipa City Ordnance 84.0320, the development must allow for these property uses on each lot.

City Ordinance 84.0320 also specifies home setbacks, lot dimensions, etc. that need to be observed in the development.

Slopes
The'development as planned calls for flat lots with unconventionally steep slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1) for residential lots in a high seismic hazard area. Slopes exceed 20 feet in height and occupy nearly a third of smaller lots and are nearly 50 feet high at the northeast corner lot. These are excessively steep and inconsistent with the area (see attached photographs)- Properties in the area use the natural slopes with split level homes and walk out basements. There are no one acre lots in the area with engineered slopes this steep and high. We ask that the development make better use of the land to preserve natural slopes and limit slopes to 3:1 and not more than 10 feet in height.

High Risk Wildfire Area
This area of the North Bench is a high -risk wildfire area and was most recently affected by the El Dorado wildfire.

Senor Housing
With regard to the argument for smaller lots for senior housing, we note the single largest demographic in this area of the North Bench are seniors —living on one acre or larger lots. Smaller lots for seniors unnecessary in this area.

Flogd and Stormwater Control
_We psk that the city review the assumptions and calculations behind the design of flood and stormwater control basips and conveyance structures. As a result of the El Dorado Fire, stormwater flows have increased dramatically.

Othgr Development Considerations
In addition to the elements discussed above and consistent with the rural culture of the area, we ask that the development implement the following:
• Dark sky street and home lighting (street and house lights with shades pointing downward • Energy independence (the area is prone to rolling blackouts) i, Use of trees and ranch style fencing in place of block walls which are uncharacteristic of the culture and existing developments in the area (see attached photographs) 2

Page 158 ends

Demonstrate that the additional water requirements will not lead to additional restrictions on existing residents, their orchards, and livestock.

Demonstrate that traffic will not adversely impact neighborhood safety including cycling, pedestrian, and equestrian traffic. The analysis should include the additional traffic from the commercial winery on Yucaipa Ridge Road.

In summary, the development must be consistent with city ordinance for RL-1 zoning requirements which specifically establishes a one -acre maximum housing density, allowance for large animal husbandry, and development consistent with the culture of the area (one story homes with lots honoring the natural slopes), with cargful attention to public safety, particularly as relates to wildfires and stormwater.

Sin rely
l
Dr. Gregory D. Mitchell

Page 159 ends

CITY off+ YUCAIPA. PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED JAN.17 2023

PROJECT NOTICE
I)A rE: )unrutry 01,3023 '
CASE NUMISM: I'L ti0220000151)
APPLICANT-, Y'ucnipn :i L. LLC
PROPOSAL: Cnsc 'No, 22.150 I'D.P r-OW M 20375: A P)nnned Deveioprttent pmJect drat inaiudcs n ^ Preliminary Mvclupnrcat Pluri and Tentative '!'Tact k\;Iap d1"rNI 20375)JFlual Development Plan Or 111c ilroposed Sormno Biates Project. �vliiclrlviliOS1.1' lisll 51 Singly Fami►v'ItusidcntfaIlot,with 35 residuntial lots oil parcels 20,000 square. Ices orgrcnlar, nod 1f ntc-restrictcd•1Pts'lb quaill'yMi., seniors on Muk: greurer 1111111

12.000aquarefcct, an additional numberod lot (52) rarvincy'ards ulanl; Yucuipn Ridge Road., a tcmulnderlut for viticyurdti and natunil open spacc, and three lett.vred lots fur open spacc and dticilliell bus ins •• Plcasc note that this Is araodlrted pmposal fromf aseNo.20-13fi LOCATION- Three p arnelc totaling, 52 aeres•+an .rho cast s Ida ofYocnipn R.idgc Bond, so ndt of the City- limits AM 0320-i61-08 and 0; 03201-31-25
ATIENTION pROPEWrY OWNIMS AND REWIM rING ACEti'CIES: 1'hc development pioposnl lislcd above fmn been filed with the City I1Innn.ing.'17ivision. You arc in1•itcilto comment because your property is ncarthe pmpo;t;•d project, Yourcvm►nenls must be rc•ccive(I by.'lri9 pfftoc nolutcethan lanuury Is.3023, t oinnlrllits. received aflerthis dalt.• might not bb zwWderad In tha dt,cC Ian 111wisL• rcturto tllis project Try 11w appiicnnt's name will cnsc numberindicutcd ahove, ifyoll have no comrnom, no reply is ncccsxnry. ifyoo bnvcA0 riucsliuns regarding this proposal, p►cnsc cotltnct l.Zcnjnnlin Manuel: at (1109) t()7-74WR, ON, 261, Yon nvey scnd'yaur comments lu the City of Yucuipn Planning L)ivisinn, 3,1272 Yuunipri lloulcvard.'Y'ucaipa, CA '):399, or via FAX to (90 1799.9203.
r
If you nnnt to lie not ilied o rthc project decision, prune yo urwimc clearly antl ICZ:ility' till this Ii)rrn nn T1 niait It tfi the nddress above stlonit with it scif-oddres3ed. ssnmpcd anvclopc. All decisions .pro subject lu r111 nppcal perlpd i)f rim (I0) CnICr1(1nr Mtvs Micron action is tnkcri:

C:OMLME TS(ifyou ncad Additional Space, pleaseatlaab additiunnlptibcs.)t —Nuz- �rbt/AAc, AN,.- doh
Azv-,s-k4 vwLA!C6,krk_%•
fw ` At-"r-CA �
�v 7tvu-A
SIGNATURL �" _ _Di1'rfi_, AwslY(:l�_,_�--.---
PRIM' NAME...f1DDRE
YOU C11A11.9t IL ANY r)PCISi4N-MIUARU1NQTt1 i-APOW, PRON.X UNI,Y'rlJc=- M(IIiSWIVUa S0htt:t7; 1 P_1-3CiitAfS'1fn W WRrr'rE� M% q0N A-r, 01Z RRIC)Ii I'Sk.7Uli'S'ihrl'a'C h1AXNS ITtiAliMI ON t)1 ° T Itl; PROPOSAL, YOU OltSO:kltlt?41's tit tits muss r)Avr trR s5wi7Ft.__.... _.

CURRC•tiPC7Nr)tN(;F.OGLltinijif5l2'I'0'f HL•` FIF:hFilt`1(; n.UUY AT. CJk Pk1Uk TG,�'1II:11EA,glNC}, pllti'['[11'Ih1F;l'ONSr'1tAtKPSi\tiKr'f11G41ttit1}lirt (11`J'j?RSfjNn WISM"�G'i'f5 C;EVI� bRAt 'rr;�l [2.SQN1','t Ih1L nG57'1ZIf; l'JCrP:s MAY FII? F'I_tCGU ON OR.A(, TP.; rlM0NY A'r ANY 1'tlltl•IC )Irv1ltlKfi A11(1iJ'f Tllln Pnftl'A5,1i- KRI MA'Y MS 1 1'O AIAnE YOUR COSr11CNTS W MUT14CiTt) Av4uttc'f Itm— YOU Alth AllI,liTtl [ltil'IUitiS 1'U1JIt4L1.1'Anrirlt)r\1'r:[.Y CC. Surtounding Property Owners Yucaq)n 111111cy Wntcr f)islrict Fire Deportment Engineering Dlvisiou
Building & Safety 17iviaion

Page 160 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NOTICE.,
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER: IlUO220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52. I.LC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/1'Tlvt 20375: A Planned Developrrxnt projecr (thgf'inclu es a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Mup (TTM 20373YFinal Dcvchrprncnt *PiP 1 for the proposed Serrano Estates Ptoject. which will establish 51 Single Fattily Residential lot. with 35 residential lots on parcels 20.000squarc feet orgrcatcr. and 16 ngc-restricted lots to quallfying seniors on lots grcatcrrhan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Rond. a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins -Please notclhat this is amod lGcd proposal fromCascNo. 20-136
LOCATION: Thrcc parcels totaling 52 acres an the cast side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AN7) REVnVING AGU4CIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is ncarthe proposed project. Your commcnis must be received by this office no later than January l8, 2023.

Cornments received after this date aught not be considered in the decision. Please referia this project by the applicant's numc and ensc number indicated above. Ifyou hnvc no comment, no reply is necessary, If you hnvc any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Bcnjnmin Matlock at (90M)797-2489, ex. 261, You my send your comments to thc•City of Yucaipn Planning Division. 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard. Yucaipa, GI 92399, or .via FAX to (909) 790-9203,
Ifyou want to be notifiedofthepmject decision, print.yournameclearly and legibly on this form and mail itto the address above along with it self-addressed. stamped envelope, All decisions are subject to an appeal period of Ian (10)calendar days aflcr an action is taken.

CON MENTS (Ifyou need additionalspace, please attach additional pages):

SIGNA ATE " t S ? ALENCY ``�• C� �'� f'�— = ; J.'i_:4 r'

PRINT NAME
YOU CHALLENGE AW DECISION RLCIARDIWTIIEA13OVE PROPOSAL I� ONLYTIIOME ISSU115YOU OR SOMEONE: r1.SG RAISED IN WRITTENCOI DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, TIIrI'IME IT NIAKLq ITS DECISIONON Till Tfit' PROPOSAL, YOU oft SOMrONELISE- MUST IIAVE RAISLI) TI{05t: imuw nn ninerunup rnu�nu�uun nr� wrci n rr� CORRESPONDENCE DrUVCRED TOTAL BEARING BODY AT. OR PRIOR TO, TIUZ BEARING DUF. TOTIME CONSI'RAINTS AND THENUMUP9 OF PERSONS WISHIK TO GIVE, OPAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICT10m ; MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL, TLSTINiONY AT ANY PUBLIC IIEARIW ABOUT THIS PROPOtSAL YOU \PAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS 1NWRIT I,, TOASSURETHAT YOU ARE ABLETOENT RESSYOURSELF ADEOUATELY cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Divuion

Page 161 ends

January 17, 2023
City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Serrano Estates Project
Case No. PL20220000150
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC
Proposal: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
To Whom it May Concern:

GO
This is to request that the City of Yucaipa deny the planned Serrano Estates Project (Case No 22-150).

We have several concerns:

It violates development requirements for RL-1 zoning. All property owners who either built or who purchased with an existing house in this area knew of the provisions in place with this zoning regulation and their decision to purchase and live here was in some degree largely based on this zoning regulation because of what it provided for them and their family. For the developer to justify the plan as meeting the requirements by averaging one house per acre is a very warped way of interpreting the regulation and its intent. If the regulation meant an "average" of homes per acre on a given property, then there are all kinds of very crowded developments that should be allowed on parcels of acreage. We all know whatthe regulation clearly means per Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320. Zoning allows for property owners to have farm animals, gardens and orchards in a way that is not possible on smaller lots, thus the reason for this zoning. Less than the regulation of 1 house/1 acre is not considered rural living, will not allow for the animals and farming and must not be allowed for the special interests of this developer.

Property values are partially based on zoning. To add homes on much smaller lots to the interior of the existing homes which are based on the RL-1 zoning (the current homes would sit between the main road and the proposed development), will significantly affect property values detrimentally. That is unacceptable. Property owners purchased their homes with this consideration as well.

While it is completely acceptable for anyone to purchase property and to build on it in this area, and that in doing so it would affect traffic, it is unacceptable to go outside of the parameters set by the zoning regulations. Property owners purchased their properties know what future building projects could bring as far as homes on the open land and an increase in traffic. They did not make their decision to purchase with an other changes being allowed that are in violation of one home per one acre lot. The traffic through the current homes with the proposed project will be a horrendous increase and burden on the roads, through the existing neighborhoods and additionally on Bryant.

Repeatedly SB 9 and other bills from the State have been stated by City officials as a reason for putting in these homes. Please review the State bills. This project is outside the parameters set by them:

Page 162 ends

1. Urban development is discouraged from moving into rural areas. This project property is clearly outside the urban area.

2. SB 9 requires owner/occupancy on lots proposed for splitting and does not apply to multi -lot developments.

3. SB 9 excludes high fire hazard rated areas. No question on the rating of this property.

All these stated reasons are not the exhaustive list of why this development may not be approved to move forward. There are many more, but the bottom line is this:

This area is zoned for 1 house per 1 acre lot. No one may work around that regulation. It is in place on behalf of the residents of Yucaipa and no developer may put their special interests above that of the residents of the City. And no City representative/s may bend.to the wishes of the developers, extending favors that change zoning requirements and regulations without the complete agreement of the City residents. Our City officials are in their positions as our representatives only, not as representing -- -- themselves or the special interests of developers who have only their own financial gain as their interests.

Please help us to preserve the rural areas of Yucaipa. Our City is the envy of many because of the rural nature of the area. We give In to this project, we have let that go.

Thank you for your time. We trust you will abide by the wishes of the residents of Yucaipa as you represent us
lrmga

Page 163 ends

M
131

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375YFutal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet orgreater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is a modified proposal from Case No. 20-I36 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the casts ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits ---AP-N:-0320-1-61-08-and-09, 03?01-8•I-28- — — -- -- -- — --- 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 nearthe proposed project. Yourcomments must be received by this office no laterthan January 18, 2023, 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. Ifyou have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, a)d. 261. You may send your conunents to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):
140 IS Jr-e-d- y +'e.rr,
RECEIVED JAN 17 2023
SIGNATURE DATE: P-,0AGENCY
PRINT NAM J _PLNA ADDRE
YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPO:

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU ORSOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRIITEI

DIVISION AT, ORPRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION OD

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGORIN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TOTHE HEARING BODYAT, 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 W RITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division

Page 164 ends

James and Nancy Caldwell
'. JAIv n ry
16th January 2023 +Lt'
Benjamin Matlock
Planning Manager / City Planner
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Dear Mr. Matlock.

We are in receipt of the Notice for Case Number PL20220000150 dated January 4. 2023.

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

Our understanding of the Project would chringe the current zoning from 2,5 or

1.0 acres down to 0.5 acre lots or less. In our opinron, this dramatically changes the original intention of the North Bench area as a Rural Living area.

Should the project go forward, we would request that the developer f owner provide horse trails adequate to maintain the current access to the existing trails.

Sincerely.
,lames and Narcy Caldwell

Page 165 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDPITTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375YFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Fancily Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is amodified proposal fromCase No. 20-I36 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits A".-O-0-1-G1-08-and-09•,-03204-94-?8—
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 January 18, 2023.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE DATEi M72, AGENCY
PRINT NAME J-l�S 00 UW'VA� ADDRE

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDINGTHE ABOVE PROPOS

ONLYTHOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRTTTEP
DIVISION AT. OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED
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 WRITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division

Page 166 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION y r 2.U'

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04.2023 {
y1JCNPA
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please notethat this is amodified proposal fromCaseNo. 20-136
LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
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 January 18, 2023.

COIINUMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):
•
l
SIGNATURE..— _
PRINT NAM Ewe-n s S _ ADDR

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING T HE ABOVE PROP(

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTI

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, TIME TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION C

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED T 0 T HE HEARING B O DY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DATE13
AGENCY

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

Page 167 ends

City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Serrano Estates Project
Case No. PL20220000"I 50
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC ,c
Proposal: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
To Whom it May Concern:

This letter is to express my concern and opposition in regards to the Serrano Estates Project. I urge the City of Yucaipa to consider and give weight to the perspectives of the current residents as this community is our home, culture and atmosphere.

The North Bench is a unique location in Yucaipa where custom homes are paired on large 1-acre + lots boasting wonderful locations for raising children and cultivating gardens and animal husbandry.

This sought-after environment, its feel and environment, is a foundational pillar for those who choose to live and raise their families in the shadow of the mountains. Although the allure of living in the foothills of the mountains is attractive, The Serrano Estates Project, as designed, is a clear departure from the design, purpose and feel of established hornes and estates.

Primarily, I urge the City of Yucaipa to reject the Serrano Estates Project for the following reasons:
'I. The misapplication of Senate Bill 9 previously referenced: Senate Bill 9 is applied to urban areas; this property and location are not in an urban area citing the US Census. SB9 excludes properties within areas of fire hazard severity; this property is located in close proximity and/or previously the site of raging wildfires. Additionally, S89 requires owner -occupancy for lot splitting and does not apply to large-scale/multi lot developments.

2. Extreme Fire Hazard: The proposed development location is located in a high fire threat region of the North Bench. The location has open space on three sides of its development Without significant defensible space nor significant/proven water pressure to defend the space.

3. The RL-1 Rural Living District Zoning Violation: T He RL-1 zoning is clear, the maximum housing density is 1 dwelling per acre. Nowhere in the zoning under RL-1 does it carve out an exception for aggregating high density development if it caps the house total at what would be allowed if homes were built at 1-dwelling per acre.

4. The proposed block wall is significantly out of touch with the local design. The block wall belongs in Chapman Heights or other large tract developments. It is out of place, destroys the views of the natural habitat. Other homes in the area have modest fences with natural habitat and local plants and trees. The Serrano Estates should at a minimum match the surrounding flora and remove the block wall altogether as it will be an eyesore and destroy what makes the North Bench Special —its rural feeling.

Page 168 ends

5. It appears the developer of this project is using the promise of a vineyard to sweeten the palate of the city in its efforts to gain approval for this project. The vineyard is a trojan horse tactic used to slide this ill-fitting design and plan into the North Bench neighborhoods where the design and aesthetic leaves all the locals and others wanting. The vineyard will not enhance the high density plan currently proposed. Rather it will appear, over time, to be exactly what it is: Sweetening the city to allow a high density development in a rural setting unfit for such development.

Instead of the proposed plan, if vines are desired, enlarge the lots and place vines on each lot thereby enhancing the aesthetic of the lots to achieve the North Bench feel.

The reasons above are only a small outline of the reasons why I oppose this project as designed.

Many other reasons including the use of scarce natural resources inform my decision and this letter, Please deny and oppose the current plan as designed.

Sincerely,
—.Jake Fry

C'I"I'Y OIi YIiC'AIPA PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 17 2023 PROJEC" 1" NOOK E
I)A IF: htnu,rr) 11,4 201
CAS Nl'�ItfF:fi:I'1?U.'.":(N1(k1Iit)
I't OPOS.m., i .ur No „-Is(i (' A"!'1)ft't !-,tl 201,74 -1 t'.',inncd t)curl,ltre nl {no+ :t th:ft nrrfud•, t Ptrhmmar} I)rttlu(:Inont Him mw I.cnl,luvc 11"ut k1,ip It INI �rj37j1•'15fial L?cvcltlpulcut I'!:nl Ikrr the Ompuse+I kcrrann hicues I Ivl-;sl whlch "Ocsl,thh:,h 51 Sulfur hww, Rcsldcul:el km %"h 35 rc.r•;Icnit.11 lots nit 1t:lr.'ch; ''t1,10) :tjII&c kc1 III _;rcntcI, Inid It, a",c.IVg111r-1_,1 1,tI� 11.)(1ImIf It scnu+n on Ir, III i;rrxrcrrhnn ( tilA) ;,(parr fret, an Itcltluilmnl mm�bcreci lot 1"i 1'+tr t a,evardt. t,l„ttlt 1'ut:a11).1 RIitl; ►;o/-,,>.1 i9, c'¢ 20 Voil 11I11) tcr)d ro:tf t'l>IUIn ,i15 It) the ( nt (%I Yuwlp❑ (olannml: Ihv„i,m. 14272 Yuc:111ta Ifcrtttcvald. Yue:m;,a. CA 911i')(f. or %,;I I•.t N Itr (9(1917thl-9:0
1! P,Iu want ter he not )lied ;• 1 tier {,:meet dev..l+ k,n , prml y:„rr n:1nr..'le,Irl: and N-I�ih jt nn the+ form an,l nnid it III the adtlres: n!•„t 11+,m +ub :I 4e11-:fd,llr,ard. ;Iltnttkcd citrrloltc \II t{t;tlit,,c s Ilrt: .tthy;•,'t 1, ,ut "P11r:tl wtt I!I)I.,Ilrni,I IrJ 15 allcr :uI .ICtrun 1. tal.cit
((].\L\1F.`ri`f't;llf;,Ion:;r;1.tdtllUtltttlfipa::�.pl�,:;r:ttla,:11 ;,I(lisi�r;tallsay'r.t j ,`'I f:' CI r_ t1 r-'� L cI fi,•l..f . Lc
r
SM.-NNA fII}{
HUNT �;.l,tilL i�� IC',L'I+')lt ItfSSC r\IH
'i 1)f1 C,IJAI:.I•NlI! AN'I (Il:r"I5',Iti'i Hlit1,1HC'!f.^ifi t�tlk �\11Ut'C I'(ti)t IIKI) I'Inr;; 1S51'£ `iul'',S.',u,ttltN:( I151 it,,. :]lhlvl:fl It1':I,H,h:.tt Ilr:p1tlt,N i;f, rill is",SI ft alakr;,If III I I'.n>.S I Hlttit'\:::AI 1iq r 0 m>',"Ann I t::t: mr S I IIa1I. iim•dat !.. .. - . t lift fit SP1 I" m Nr { I,.
1 11+1'121 11 I I `'f 14 }tt .t'i7•l, HI t(I\ ;\ f I1't 10, I Ilti II[W'.IkG I.tr, 111IItf111NS1RM0%•\ Dn r,t!,M0A(II1'i'R?TIN\W1',iil`:(i11"if\'I(,r:\1II't.lI\ION"C,IINIIIfINIItN'I)tit, \1A'j ill I'1.R4'I:1ii)N1114A1 11:d1%11t1'1 ,\I .lNN fit 1itl11 1f1a1;IM.AJAW) IIII`:I'ItOPrr;,\1 VI %fA \RI',II IIt\IAFJ 0A'RIAwSUN I\I`:t4111Imilir>Z.;:,1.!1iE I"AI ,'t>t. tm Ah[I III I,V'Itt�•. )"xdtSl•LI A15,11 AIIt'r er UtrouitdnY:( NropeIty Chvnem Niacat{ul \';file\ \Pater 1)ictrlel f nc Ocpoontt'nl Agmiclnik L:WIml
F)utldln� X., ":Brie I)n t,1011

Page 170 ends

Benjamin Matlock
From:

Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:16 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Serrano Estates -Yucaipa Ridge Road Project Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375 Dear Mr. Matlock,
I have lived in the north bench since 2002 absolutely love it. The zoning for one acre lots was a huge factor when I decided to purchase a home in the north bench. Please do not allow changes to the City of Yucaipa's general plan. Please keep the north bench as it is, one home per one acre. Thank you! Sincerely,
Jiatd J'&uwcut

Page 171 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023 RECEIVED JAN 17 2023
CASE NU(V BER: I'L20220004150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP!FDP!T"Ih4 20375: A Planned Development project that includes o 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 lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000square feet orgreatcr, and 16age-restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan t2,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins -Please notethat this is amoditied proposal tiomCase No. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east side of Yucaipa Ridgc Road, south ofthe City limits APN: 0320-161-09 and 09: 03201-91-28
r#TTF.NTION 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 January 18, 2023.

Continents 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. Ifyou have no comment, no reply is necessary. Ifyou have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock a((909)791-2499,eg. 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.

Ifyou want to be notified ofthe project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped cnr•elope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10)calendardays afteran action is taken.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):
r�
Uv s Z) L2-,, 7
P,,
SIGNATURE TENCY —
/'r
PRINT NAM r � _ADDRES;
YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION RE RDIt.G THE ABOVE PROPOSA

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONT ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN, DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, T HE TIMiE IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON' TFIE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARINO OR IN WRIiTFN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEAKIW BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHINGTO 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 WRITMTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE, ABLE TOEXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building &E Safety Division

Page 172 ends

.. ..; J••^ry-.v{ J, ,r•tA:. I^-:..f �y.7�y. •""�i'3's=:; .1�,�''` y.. ^ r"A%i ,r rt'•/,c::l.;:�i'�'± t t,� •• _•'•->�:`,•'•,::h>�••i7i,`aR�•t'•�'rt ,�y,•M: a =^i:,�".: i,r ,,,..ti•t r c:•_�4y;.:.. ` � r �> J Tir '!,� ;ti ` _ �" ;.%>S�{ ctYi 1 �; ; .,• , ,1 :3.;:, ir, ii i' c,•I 1 A.N`�h ,,,,r p�.f�+,. '�y,r„,,+..a�, .,•t.K .;,r• � �f ' � is k.

A� .,4�'tc�"' RE.
�rr
� F
t •.:. �.,,ry ,. ..� \, .,' •: a•::.1% .rl �-i •,�'d•s.ti .. y.-..r{.i�"!. ;•L ' yy��rt f.1 j�j�.r+'►r_ Ji,? r - i.c. �. �' 4"..� �.�... l• •:,f S". ;,�d•r.•.�',,YS.:t`'d,� '. .t;t "•` -- :l+.i -'.�' ,. .r . �, ,� 'r� •;,ta`{'` "'J' `,.•+•rYS.••Y�C:.'+.$- fJ•"I.'r'�„ ,.t. nk�•�Ty '� 4 �} y* '_,+•: t�-t ., r, f'•'�'o �,r., h'�•.;'E; o. r` a;; ✓' ,•rsC r:T • �v r '�„-"�'i''vrj• •',� + r?T�.•.i,;'"•�i '){'1Y,+� •. �..y';;�t,. tr, �S:y4{e,,:,1.y.�:..,i'e•'r,: •t•1,•+;i
g..: y�
+'�iM�.i=1.iV7,•S�'/� `..':-''>Y;, ..jr:u'.� ,r y, '-'^?k r'n'ti,:J,%�:.;- J •.''•,.' G ? Alii .. ~r_�:" s: „ ..i?ii' �5'••2` 'r �'' rt �• rr •' �''J ' \% � ,. � ` - t r •tistlL. ^'l!•+ iL Y:;" ' 1:•p�,t /hr -.,k•FL,f.•K. .�..: 'i`•,°•r.a 4 't� 1ti%7••.t`$'.. ,r;N •.,.1�`, 4y } 'J•)M`a`!,. a I�r ,cS"'•.t 'x c:;~�",
1 '.'f i 2a•W •� � :.+ .;1••'.wktsJ� i . 5•.`, f ii rr, .rr W �i, r. Ji- S'�r {'•!- �r•-.. t"' ..r: + t12
rat-.Ari Yf f3t tilt , itl' 4 �TCc \t , ,ras r `?
IItU t'is�cir•�5giwc� ci:-'l Cry, c trtrc�:To. �'` 3 a;sp3'ccn• � stb�gtio ,,�ra5;f�t5„f '�r..�; ,...;�r,-Y i• , y h 1 . ;,,', i,M i^.._ lr'%rr•i,rr`' � n�n� i�,�`�$,�?Q'��'�.•,';r�_ x�/�ar�.yy `J'wt; , ,.:( >�,M1R.v.J t"rr4 7rt-•� lA, .lr. %.., r r,:0� ^bf ) C7"a'•'.� .•+, >.:. A•Y.•K., �'�'fi�•,'� a ice' tone cd�y �1�dp•}�i�s d �ap"11 �ar�'i �d'o �'�c �1R:•t�t,��C'f•AtS�'�fbA c •y��_.� �� St�4�i`�••• ' ,r� �: '•.�" , �i.4 Y ..nf .' . ,I�:s. -.• W .:.4� .r ; 9 � r[(. C``F +n� , s . �,E/'... �•r �..$�� :.. �) y'%'=:r} � +.1: 1 j:2L�,?E" �f 1 "` L a •t^t .• tiS, f, } +.+ 1 r '1...... '%p f . L: ✓,`. }�� • `' ' AL �, T„ .. ++;. ... tinJri� "usiigyc atr1 liNRbaf;iSbsc4n�ar�t+gfiair'�ictrafiek� trsiXtr(ibatccoa1o„hf�'4�"'Acazgt'nnti'Jvi�ij,
r 'L ti F: ' �i , : Y� 1/^,,•t�' •ltL}.R.� ' i�� Y � �y� -.yr��sr�:��i�.��t1'ti a90y�►?d3,' •`�,_x '' _ 'T�,[., fr-..; . � . �•�:,;,;,��.'', 't.•t=:•'�• • 'Y 4 V ,y � � t .. '.. n`L-.: � .. ',t •. 'r"` l L "e's�Ar Jk ter,.' r. - M�iC' Sr � r + ,7��.
171
�Vl•LP'l,Arrl�`,'� »+ -S. D v r; 3ui�frArt'• ; '' 1; ' �• ' s.�c •.l�. �o�P�t�>��;.- �� 1�- „ .,,., r, �•'•. ��:,. J ��' .:��7U&i'i,�t11�4f'.tSFiji-•`II�t0.V�rtl1'�1'F�:,[lrt$`',tt`r`1�+1'�J11`'R't�.'it'f��'P��G�RS13U�;�1�Efj(1,�;�< , 'y�.;r�;,.c�.�' ,• •• 1 :t,'" • ,'' tell �trn�.Gritlm 'r r�tt5'= if1'tr't Viva ,�n•Yelft�''W�aI�`C��t�ct� [;itOtQttrt�lQlt[r y - i3lrtlii:tdf•171Yt.fRtsy ji;;a•._MC'`t $pscatrrr^Stgiy brt[ou 1 1-'
/F
- Das% i "1-,----
a

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER: PI_20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTivl 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 Projecr, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is a modified proposal fromCase No. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
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 January 18, 2023.

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, e)d. 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,
lfyou want to be notified o fthe project decis ion, print yourname clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10)calendar days aRer an action is taken.

COMNIENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE ./ O DATE AGENCY
PRINT NAME J'J� Z 2_6_6• _ _ADDR!

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISIONREGARDINGTHEABOVE PROP(
ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU dR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRfrTI
DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION O�, ...

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARA1G 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 TEST INIONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE•

Page 174 ends

01/17/2023 ft'V90 JAM
CASE NUMBER: PL20200000150
APPLICANT: Premium. Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC DEVELOPMENT: Serrano Estates
The residents of the North Bench overwhelming rejected the Serrano Estate Developments' initial plan. Not one person from the North Bench was in favor of it. This is an established area of custom-built homes on minimum one -acre rural lots. A tract of cookie-cutterbouses on lots �—_ — too small-fo-li veTior e is not what this aiea was set aside for. Currently there are horse riding and hiking trails through the proposed development that connect to other existing trails. If this development were allowed, it would block access to the other trails. There needs to a dedicated horse trail through the proposed development.

I have lived in the same home for 39-years. I own eleven acres near this development. Before I purchased the property, I researched the surrounding area and it was designated RL-1, one -acre, "minimum" rural living. Every house that has been built here since has been on a one -acre or larger lot. I would not have bought here had I thought a tract of homes would be my view. The land use description had no mention of one -acre "gross" or "net" size lots. Nobody in this neighborhood has ever read or heard the mention of "net" or "gross" size lots until this project.

This is a Ioophole the developer is using to justify smaller lots. This was originally not the intent when the North Bench was designated rural living. At the very most, a gross, one -acre parcel included the property to the center line of the street, not the unbuildable side of a mountain and an earthquake fault that is not part of the lot, like the developer is proposing. No individual can build on a lot of less than one -acre on the North Bench. The rules need to apply to everybody. One -acre is the minimum size that any home can be built on; it has always been this way.
-- When-tha-residents o£the�North Bench-pmviousl-y spoke_on this-development,.they gave -multiple - reasons why this development should be denied. When it came to a vote it appeared to me that the only thing that concerned the City Council members was the size of the lots and that they harmonized with the surrounding homes. At the first vote on the project, I sat and watched as councilman Bobby Duncan, looked down, and smile as he texted on his phone while the concerned residents spoke. some in tears. I sat there thinking how disrespectful he was. I was also thinking, was he texting back and forth to the developer sitting directly in front of him, who was also on his phone. because it sure appeared like he was. Later when Mr. Duncan realized the vote was not going to go in favor of the development or developer and before he voted, he verbally condemned my neighbor that had made the most articulate argument against the project.

He said, "to the distinguished gentleman in the back (in the standing room only section where we had stood for hours) where were you when the development for the wine alliance area was happening. The developer has spent a lot of money on this project based on what we told him we .. Page 175

wanted. I think he has the right to sue the city." I thought wow, A city councilman telling a developer be should sue the city, which is the same as telling him to sue the residents. Bobby Duncan was rude and completely unprofessional. I was left with the feeling he has in the pocket of the developer.

The developer stated at the initial meetings that there was no way a developer could make a profit on lots larger than 12,000 sf and that he could not compromise on the lot size and still make money. Now he has managed to enlarge the lot sizes with the same number of homes. He did not send out any tract maps that were updated, showing how he has managed to have the same number of houses but on larger lots. Where is this extra land coming from? 20,000 sf is just short of a half -acre. These residents still could not have horses yet be surrounded by them. He states 20,000 sf or greater lots but stops short of saying half acre lots. Doesn't matter because they are not the one -acre parcels the RL-1 land use requires. -` D'urmg-Uie imtiMl Fearing he flat ou ied to all of us, including the Planning Commission and City Council on the profitability of larger lot sizes. He has proven that nothing he says can believed. He will say anything to get his project approved. Do not forgive this type of dishonest behavior by considering anything less than the required one -acre lots. If one -acre parcels are not profitable for a large a developer, it is not the problem of the nearby residents. It's the owner and developer's problem for making a bad decision and thinking they are above the rules or can buy off a city council member.

I was here when Yucaipa became a city. What happened was San Bernardino County approved the Rolling Hills Development, homes built on lots as small as 5000' sf. The entire North Bench was against it, yet it was approved by the County. In protest, we organized to succeed from San Bernardino County and become a city where we had a say in what went on here. This is why the City of Yucaipa exists today. Now decades later my neighbors and I are still fighting the developers and the influence they have on politicians.

During the previous meetings, the required CA, new housing starts were discussed, and the pressure Yucaipa is under to meet these quotas. I know that designing a city is a delicate balancing act, but it seems to me we already have built the high -density portions of Yucaipa. The orange groves were torn out to make room for Chapman Heights. Serrano Lakes is being built. - - R-ol-ling-hills-was-built-in-the-late-1-980s. We-have-41-mobile-horse-par-ks-with-approximately-4270 spaces. (You can't get any more clustered than they are). It seems like the scales are tipped toward the clustered housing and we have lost our rural atmosphere. I don't recognize the city I move to back in 1984. Yucaipa can have new housing starts with this project but only the number that can be built on one -acre lots. State of CA is mandating all kinds of things that are not practical. Just because they demand it, doesn't mean it is a good idea and we must do it. The residents know what's best for Yucaipa and not Sacramento. The City of Yucaipa's general plan describes itself with ten different "community cornerstones". The very first one being a "Sniall- town rural character with strong neighborhood identities". The proposed Serrano Estates Development would destroy the strong "rural character" of the portion of Yucaipa that was set aside for rural living. It is truly great place to live. Let's keep it that way.

Sincerely, Jerry Stohler

Page 176 ends

PRO-IF(I NOTICL
( %`II- M NIM K. ; i '.' '";l;
0111LU .1 N 1- I ti; Alf).4 ".1. 1 L(
11 RA W 0S tit i ii. N 1141 0111 Wv 1 1%; W-0 1
Puma& firick.
7riv "n". Wn
Ink7"an Oro, T"VI AV ". . 1:01pno W., %In
0 M W-
-j 1 MW
l.,:,K "Ar"Ahk
I , 4.

F.-win t, vat 151c,jef;
1W
I-"— Yi u- to 1 -1 Vu vim mg )N 2--Ho LA
Va"- j
.3lily -*:-f', , .�, ;,'I-
tk-l-
nquAll fw M. 1A I t A 01 I'll r ulv=f
nf
1-301 Mot 0,11. 1 -:nm. ;N
1-4: 1! At 0 A I -Wwc 1 . d win V" r ju- �q

1.()(' IC)N I kz-, —A 1 0, V x
Wl"N. ,, j.2%
kI It N FKJN PUMI It! (J" 41 Ks k N" RI A HX% 10;
k(AM IIN
11- Pn- PM ..1 p 1
......

Q;r,W7-.
11,4
3 1""1 "M 4PQ to
!"W" "r 1 4- in,
imp, •J&
to -01% d" -w- W-1
'n
RECEIVED .BAN 17 2023

Page 177 ends

I am sorry. I thought you understood that the North Bench does not want ANY Tract houses. We also do not need anymore traffic, trash, noise, or crime. Are we getting anymore security? Only one acre for vineyards, and open space is insulting. We want to have space for wildlife too. We don't want another bear incident like Oak Glen. This is horse country. Where are the trails for them. Not between houses or on the street we hope. Does this tract also include a stop light on Bryant? When there is an emergency is there a street that can accommodate all the traffic? Please I beg of you, do not fall for this conman. Keep North Bench beautiful.

Page 178 ends

Benjamin Matlock
From:

Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:50 AM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Northbench rezoning
Mr. Matlock,
The purpose of this correspondence is to voice my disapproval of the upcoming matter of changing the current zoning laws concerning the North Bench Area. It is my understanding that the properties North of Carter St are all currently protected to be 1 acre minimum. One of the many reasons why I and so many others enjoy this part of Yucaipa is for this reason. I have been a Yucaipa resident since 1995 and moved to the North Bench are in 2004. 1 have been watching and reading the current upheaval with the current Mayor and councilman. It is a sad state of affairs to say the least. The conduct has been very suspect and unprofessional with little regard for the citizens of this fine community. I hope that our community in the North bench is not sacrificed for the needs of the greedy purely for the sake of making a buck. The infrastructure can not successfully support that many homes and population increase. This would open the door for more developers to sub divide other areas as well. I hope that you will heed our reqauests and keep the area currently as it is. 1 Acre minimum. Respectfully, Kent Broersma, Kent Broersma
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments. Thank you.

Page 179 ends

CITY OF YUC:AIPA PLANNING DIVISION
Ptio.rr.(,,-r NOTT CI: RECEIVED JAN 17 2023
DATE, lanu:rry 114, 2021
i:'AS F, Nt1111FfEft: PL202,10000150
ri•i PLICA N'P: Yncnipa i'_, 1A.t:'
PI OPOSM.: (';Ise. NO, 211R) 1'r1r'rF`OR l`T41 2073: A Manned i)cvetoprrwir pro,tect that Includes n f'rc%hinry l)Cvef-ap seta i°litts mutt TatmWe lraw Map t"I'r;t•I 20375)rt`inal N-vc1opuicot flan fur rite lis=::powd Samna E:° tors 1'toject, whicli svlll astabhh 51 Single 35 wslde "411 1015 an parcel. 2q,UCn0.s.,;1awm Ices or grcmuc and l& agr-reMemd kni la uunhjing whoon to E,rcarc Mm" UAW xgtsrlrc fact, all uddurctrsal non6cmd hit 01 tctrKeynrds along Yucaiftn Mdh,c POW. u remainder W Iot vuicy Lrds and uratiml open Space, .end thief letterrd AM It aped 3f71feC iaflil di:1E1ltt�J0 b35ill% - I`1r45C 1101Vthat thi, is itmodilird proposal koin(:'astN4.1.20-13G .I.,0CA110N:'rhrrt; p+trcla tooling .S" fio-es art the enat s kte or Yaeaipa Rid gc Ftoad, willh Of tha i':ity hlllt l APN: 111. 7N 1b1-09 xttd rk): n32014 t.,29
4'1`lipli't(1N PR()i'#•:iON CJWNF34S AND 12F:VIENVIiNG Al E—NCirS: The devf(oprnew p1t117050 lrifed above Ilav been filed with the Oly 11h nrshtg Divt. uww. Yott are invitesf to comment b e.tsttio your property Is nc,tr ttre)t.rctpnScri prttjve s. 1fllis' vtttwrma nEs num,t ttr meth et! by 11)i5 syfrr. a sic► httdr than lnrlum IK, 2023.

C:omtMMS meeivud n0a this date naighi not be conaidewd in the decision PWWC nefcrio It prajael Q the lspitii wltI ann= arsrl disc number indkated above. 1f you have no contlixor, ilo reply it necea5ary. Ifyow hnvc, u.ny gtwitions regarding this propos'-d. lalnase C*ntact Benjamin Mntkock tit flo))797.243I, eui. Mif You HEY' mend your towi,{m to the Chy of Nuoi n Pd;a=Ig Divi illrt.,'142-72 Yuen ipa Fk)lIicvunl, Yucaipa, CA 92199, of via 1,A,\ to (+01h7kK1-9203.
tl'•:ou%vanitttIranwQdofWeptoltstdeniswA,,prwiyownawKuly and Ightt'onitli•itun a"mailato, the addrvsB allovt, 11olig ttith itell ,.icirc;del stamped web:gpu. A11 dcckin m' ;ore su.tinct ti.l an apllCat{ Period urier, Ir1'trl',nl :wG)111 takcri,
CO-NU'iI(KN3'w(If}ou need acidhmnsllxlsmc,piC=;stt.,i:h adduitmalpuwcsl, $i(:, t, 'illtii:4� M ...._�.m .__. i),1'tG v....._ _:lQNi:'Y.

FRIZgr NAME k'v'lh PA" S A)RESI
Y%Y C_)I ALUI.`GL AZIY DEC1 SION FEi1k RU. W TRH A80'w-i PROVO&k 1, INN. t:6IKI, MCI :11AI.1U. UT-114 ei. 114— M611" r:)wY711 mi {SS;:oYm *m1ttYiavT,pt: r RAISED IN WWI` 1'ENC(litpVSFONDfANCE 0111VA41) 10TUF; VLANM NI� UIVISION A i , on PF 11'ro, 1'I1F''rhtti iT 1%40G-S ITS L)1i040N'tall` l'Sif; PROKKU. OP., IF A 11I1SI.IC' 511 tf lhtliIs tiiil.DON t'ILt PICCJNCX,AI., YO.-' QK `t:iM1.UN-E KI-SE NIUSI HAVE, KA1%.'!) TiVAR ISSUES AS` Tiii.. it o".lr:, Ilf;>, }XGNo(Iit IF: wru!"I"«`1 C',1>Sf.KfLitrtmNDfiNCi� t3t11.d1'fiRli.l)':'t?'1`IIt: IV'.ARtlei IVIUY AT, OR S1ftll' T0.1 -' m1l ARINQ I) X TO "T ME a l :1'RAali; S "n ?llc Pf".Ry:olS A'S",•ltlw I C) 0w t`,1tA1. T S1'11 LILY. T IWF ltESTI(Ir1 ?)*'S MAY OF PL AC'til'- ON UKt{. TS:STISIONY AT ANY 1'1r31i.K' {i{;Art1Ys.: AKt.)i T THIS PROPOiA1.. YOU MAY WL Sll TO WKI; YCY.Sli t:{?t.tA.IEyIT` In wgj1'riti13 rrr A`'WAE TIIAC YOU,t.lri; 1 bLt, rfIENPKESS 'tQt `IASCIJ AI9-.Q111ATtil,.1' c4. 4tirraun 1hig Propeity Owners YuUnEpn Vnllcy Wnict INSIricl Fire 1,)g1inment inghswmq 1056 rti
l3etitdinK & Salety 1)ivl...ion

Page 180 ends

The City has a responsibility to the existing residents to preserve the culture and atmosphere of the neighborhood and to disapprove developments that adversely affect the current neighborhood. The homes should be single -story, custom built homes consistent with the majority of the homes in the neighborhood and should not be tract homes. Photographs showing existing homes along Ivy Avenue and Yucaipa Ridge Road are attached. Please note how the existing homes and lots use the natural slopes, and open lot concept (absence of walls).

Page 181 ends

Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320 defines rural living and clarifies the designation of the RL district.

Attached is the full citation of the ordinance. While the definition does include a minimum lot size of one gross acre, it specifically notes a maximum housing density of one dwelling unit per acre. The one -acre gross minimum lot size definition was not intended to be averaged over a large development but allowed for consideration of lot lines extending into right-of-way or easements. Consistent with the maximum dwelling unit requirement in the ordinance there should not be more than 24 homes in this development based on the sum of the 51 lot areas.

The RL zoning designation allows farm animal husbandry, orchards, etc. Consistent with the Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320, the development must allow for these property uses on each lot.

City Ordinance 84.0320 also specifies home setbacks, lot dimensions, etc. that need to be observed in the development.

Slopes
The development as planned calls for flat lots with unconventionally steep slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1) for residential lots in a high seismic hazard area. Slopes exceed 20 feet in height and occupy nearly a third of smaller lots and are nearly 50 feet high at the northeast corner lot. These are excessively steep and inconsistent with the area (see attached photographs). Properties in the area use the natural slopes with split level homes and walk out basements. There are no one acre lots in the area with engineered slopes this steep and high. We ask that the development make better use of the land to preserve natural slopes and limit slopes to 3:1 and not more than 10 feet in height.

Based on wildfire hazard alone, the lot sizes should not exceed the maximum housing density of one dwelling unit per acre and should not be designated by the city for senior housing.

Flood and Stormwater Control
We ask that the city review the assumptions and calculations behind the design of flood and stormwater control basins and conveyance structures. As a result of the El Dorado Fire, stormwater flows have increased dramatically. The assumptions and parameters used in calculating stormwater runoff and control features should be based on fire -denuded slopes, unvegetated lots with corrals, and lightly vegetated vineyards. This is the new reality of the area.

Other Development Considerations
In addition to the elements discussed above and consistent with the rural culture of the area, we ask that the development implement the following:
2

Page 182 ends

• Dark sky street and home lighting (street and house lights with shades pointing downward • Energy independence (the area is prone to rolling blackouts) • Use of trees and ranch style fencing in place of block walls which are uncharacteristic of the culture and existing developments in the area (see attached photographs) • Demonstrate that the additional water requirements will not lead to additional restrictions on existing residents, their orchards, and livestock.
• Demonstrate that traffic will not adversely impact neighborhood safety including cycling, pedestrian, and equestrian traffic. The analysis should include the additional traffic from the commercial winery on Yucaipa Ridge Road.

In summary, the development must be consistent with city ordinance for RL-1 zoning requirements which specifically establishes a one -acre maximum housing density, allowance for large animal husbandry, and development consistent with the culture of the area (one story homes with lots honoring the natural slopes), with careful attention to public safety, particularly as relates to wildfires and stormwater.

Sincerely,
Kevin K. Miskin

84.0320 Rural Living (RL) District.

The Rural Living (RL) District shall be located as specified by the Yucaipa General Plan. (a) Permitted Land Uses
(1) Row, Field, Tree, and Nursery Crop Cultivation
Any structure associated with this activity is limited to 10,000 square feet on parcels of five acres or less. (2) Single dwelling unit,
(3) Small residential care facility.
(4) Animal Raising
(A) Animal raising as a primary use of the property must be on a parcel no less than two acres in size.

Lot area used to qualify one animal type, either Primary or Accessory Animal Raising, shall not be reused to qualify another animal type. Proper manure management will be carried out in accordance with Title 3 of the San Bernardino County Code as adopted by the city of Yucaipa.

Animal Type Animal Density Per Square Foot
Cattle/Buffalo 1 per 10,000
Horses 1 per 10,000

Page 183 ends

Hogs (9 maximum)
Sheep, Female Goats, and Similar
Livestock
Male Adult Goats (4 maximum)
Male Adult Goats (4 maximum)
Rabbits and Chinchillas (200
maximum)
Female Poultry
Female Poultry
Female Poultry
Male Poultry (9 maximum)
Male Poultry (9 maximum)
(B) Small Animal Ranches/Farms
1 per 20,000
1 per 4,000
for parcels of less than 10 acres, 1
for parcels 10 acres+, 1 per 5 acres
50 per 10,000 (min, parcel size 1 acre)
for parcels of less than 1 acre, 25
for parcels of 1 to less than 10 acres, 99
for parcels of 10 acres +, 99 per 10 acres
for parcels of less than 10 acres, 2 per parcel
for parcels of 10 acres +, 2 per 5 acres
Aviaries, apiaries, or similar small animal ranches or farms shall be permitted on parcels that are at least one-half acre in size. Fish raising shall be limited to one pond per acre, with a maximum of four ponds per parcel. Each pond shall not exceed one-half surface acre in area. (5) Accessory uses as specified by Chapter 5 of this division. (6) Small family day care home.
(b) Land Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit
(1) Commercial kennels and catteries—two-acre minimum parcel size. (2) Commercial chicken ranches restricted to a minimum of 10 acres. (3) Agricultural support services.
(4) Mobile home park (not to exceed four spaces per acre on minimum parcel size of 20 acres). (5) Any structure associated with row, field, tree, and nursery crop cultivation that is greater than 10,000 square feet on parcels of five acres or less.
(6) Planned development.
(7) Boarding house (for up to six residents).
(8) Bed and breakfast lodge (for up to six guests).
(9) Parolee homes.
(10) Botanical gardens and arboretums.
(11) Historic and monument sites.
(12) Unmanned public utilities and services uses/structures. (13) Unmanned radio and television stations/towers.
(14) Wildlife and nature preserves.
(c) Property Development Standards
4

Page 184 ends

The following property development standards shall apply to all land uses within the RL District.

Maximum Structure Height
35 feet
Minimum Lot Size (map suffix will modify)

1.0 gross acre
Maximum Lot Coverage
40%
Maximum Building Coverage
40%
Maximum Lot Dimensions (width/depth ratio)
10 acres = 1:4
Minimum Lot Dimensions (width/depth in feet)
125/125
Front Yard Setback
30 feet
Side Yard Setbacks
15 feet
Rear Yard Setbacks
25 feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (local streets)
20 feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (collector streets)
30 feet
Maximum Housing Density
1 du/acre
Minimum District Size
10 gross acres

Page 185 ends

J � Yf
iC':L~1:iiii�Els��1;%v.'� �a. ° ....�. � o- �.'�-.,._�.�

PAZ
.}rvI
oil
1 -
' �...r. / 'Xet�. {. t6`•.�6z�«'II7.r_....� i .....+Z.� - stci i r _
.v5"RAR!,',� �.Y xiliyi6}4'r z7dfn'n _ .. .,!• .. ..� _ ._ �� ' .?>i.eif'�C.,.:S� .�.: 1 "� - - _ — �!r /.`�" f:ll�ilf rffn��t�`rj•r f= g
i'%I rs� 0 1!!lllif.Wfi _ rjF� , •i: 's�� jn ;

7i
171
r
A - �Ml
.14
A PYrA 17-.
lift
511 P)W-
�w
44-
AM
1,a ON
tqL

1 rvr 1
Mart
41�a5'
f j y
-•��j1(�j i...�rk V tt+� 1 6h �t t�f't�,. tT)_._.. Yi �"�•l'yV'iJr7�•^i i• �,•ti. 7 � �AI'� ��oc ��+1 �F��i�r � �h r,' ` y+ ,tAll
1� ,f,t
Ait�Sb .•� - t '� > �'; 1 '
ik�t:Ni f- bIr
�•� . .
_ rim >r• —. — - _ -

`�
\
�f.
�F�JI ��; i V.: ?
.:A..
�-(?.-�•
L4
`� �a I � v'
I` .'j
r. V,
S+
{
r,iv
I Ao
r sYs
•
: ,ice
' � < <
I� � t..
r .
�
+ R
•1
�
,11

lip U PWAS
77-

Benjamin Matlock
From:

Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 11:37 AM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDPfrTM 20375 Premium Land Devel. Yucaipa 52, LLC North Bench Prject
This North bench family is opposing the "revised" plan being submitted on March 15. The owner/developer is just submitting a revised sham of the project. Why is this allowed? The plan, once again, does not meet within the General Plan. Is it not your job to advise and guide the developer with the set guidelines? These GREED DRIVEN grapes vines will grow just fine next to houses on one -acre lots.

Planning Department website states it is the intent of this office to do what is best for the residents, visitors and businesses of Yucaipa. This project does not fall into what is best for Yucaipa, only the greed of the owner/developer.

Thank you for your considerations.

Kathleen Reynolds
Jon Reynolds
Kathleen
Note that this is a new email address. Please use this one in the future.

Page 192 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMER: PLI0220000150
APPLICANT:. Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes 4), Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375YFinal Development Plan for the 3 proposed Serrano Estates Project, which wig establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is a modified proposal from Cas a No. 20-136 LOCA'ITON:Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the eastside of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits - APN:-032{I-I61-08-and-0�; 03241-81-28-• -• __ �.. _ __ __ __.___.

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 continents must be received by this office no later than January tl, 2023.

Ifyou want to b e natified o fthe 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) ealendardays after an action is taken.

COADI--ENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages): I V-)-� U 7` 2 C6-t,\ to'e— S Cu_C� ` C G (9-(,��
0 UJ " -er (cl C- CI-C- d 10-tt- —C/ 0 'P-S " 0 LS
0—o '441 a-/ / -
SIGNATURE DATE �� 13 AGENCY
PRIM' NAME T� n tt-eyi I� �`(r r t ADDRES

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING T HE ABOVE PROP OV

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO. THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHINGTO 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 WRITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOUARE ABLETO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division

January 11, 2023
City of Yucaipa' Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Serrano Estates Project
Case No. PL20220000150
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC
Proposal: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
To Whom it May Concern:]
This letter is to request that the City of Yucaipa deny the planned Serrano Estates Project Case No 22-150 as currently drafted. While the current development plan is much better than the previous plan, it still violates development requirements for RL-1 zoning with lots as small as 12,090 square feet (quarter acre). While the owner has a right to develop the property, the property must be developed in accordance with the Intent of the current zoning requirements which is one home on one acre (43,560 square feet). It is entirely inconsistent with the rural culture of the north bench to place homes on anything less than one acre. The City has a responsibility to the existing residents to preserve the culture and atmosphere of the neighborhood and to disapprove developments that adversely affect the current neighborhood. The homes should be single story, custom built homes consistent with the majority of the homes in the neighborhood and should not be tract homes. Photographs showing existing homes along Ivy Avenue and Yucaipa Ridge Road are attached. Please note how the existing homes and lots use the natural slopes, and open lot concept (absence of walls).

Senate Bill 9 and Similar Legislation
SB 9 and similar bills referenced in previous comments by developer/owner representatives In city council do not apply to this development. First, SB 9 only applies urbanized areas as designated by the US Census. California discourages urban sprawl into existing rural areas. This properly is located outside the urban area designated by.the US Census. Second, SB-9 requires owner/occupancy on lots proposed for splitting and does not apply to multi -lot developments. Third, SB 9 excludes areas of high fire hazard severity. This area is prone to and experienced wildfires, most recently, the El Dorado Fire.

RL-1 Zoning
The proposed Serrano Estates property is zoned RL-1 meaning Rural Living, one acre minimum. The developer argues that, averaged over the entire.52 acres, the proposed 51 lots meets the requirement of one dwelling per one gross acre. Further, Developer representatives falsely claimed to city council that the development met the definition of rural living as the only definition for rural living is found in the dictionary.

Yucaipa City ordinance 84.0320 defines rural living and clarifies the designation of the RL district. Attached is the full citation of the ordinance. While the definition does include a minimum lot size of one gross acre, it specifically notes a maximum housing density of one dwelling unit per acre. The one -acre gross minimum lot size definition was not Intended to be averaged over a large development but allowed for consideration of lot lines extending into right-of- way or easements. Consistent with the maximum dwelling unit requirement in the ordinance there should not be more than 24 homes in this development based on the sum of the 51 lot areas. 1

Page 194 ends

The RL zoning designation allows farm animal husbandry, orchards, etc. Consistent with the Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320; the development must allow for these property uses on each lot.

City Ordinance 84.0320 also specifies home setbacks, lot dimensions, etc. that need to be observed In the development.

Slopes
The development as planned calls for flat lots with unconventionally steep slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1) for residential lots in a high seismic hazard area. Slopes exceed 20 feet in height and occupy nearly a third of smaller lots and are nearly 50 feet high at the northeast corner lot. These are excessively steep and inconsistent with the area (see attached photographs). Properties in the area use the natural slopes with split level homes and walk out basements. There are no one acre lots In the area with engineered slopes this steep and high. We ask that the development make better use of the land to preserve natural slopes and limit slopes to 3:1 and not more than 10 feet In height.

High Risk Wildfire Area
This area of the North Bench Is a high -risk wildfire area and was most recently affected by the El Dorado wildfire.

Senior Housing _�e
With regard to the argument for smaller lots for senior housing, we note the single largest demographic in this area of the North Bench are seniors —living on one acre or larger lots. Smaller lots for seniors unnecessary in this area.

Other Development Considerations
In addition to the elements discussed above and consistent with the rural culture of the area, we ask that the development implement the following:
• Dark sky street and home lighting (street and house lights with shades pointing downward • Energy independence (the area is prone to rolling blackouts) • Use of trees and ranch style fencing in place of block walls which are uncharacteristic of the culture and existing developments in the area (see attached photographs) • Demonstrate that the additional water requirements will not lead to additional restrictions on existing residents, their orchards, and livestock.
• Demonstrate that traffic will not adversely Impact neighborhood safety including cycling, pedestrian, and equestrian traffic. The analysis should include the additional traffic from the commercial winery on Yucaipa Ridge Road.
2 In summary, the development must be consistent with city ordinance for RL-1 zoning requirements which specifically establishes a one -acre maximum housing density, allowance for large animal husbandry, and development consistent with the culture of the area (one story homes with lots honoring the natural slopes), with careful attention to public�safety, particularly as relates to wildfires and stormwater.

Sincerely, r
��Ai+. ��y vµ•ac � ao.�, �� aeP
3

Page 196 ends

84.0320 Rural Living (RL) District.

The Rural Ruing (RL) District shall be located as specified by the Yucaipa General Plan. (a) Permitted Land Uses
(1) Row, Field, Tree, and Nursery Crop Cultivation
Any structure associated with this activity is limited to 10,000 square feet on parcels of five acres or less. (2) Single dwelling unit.
(3) Small residential care facility.
(4) Animal Raising
(A) Animal raising as a primary use of the property must be on a parcel no less than two acres In size. Lot area used to qualify one animal type, either Primary or Accessory Animal Raising, shall not be reused to qualify another animal type.

Proper manure management will be carried out in accordance with Title 3 of the San Bernardino County Code as adopted by the city, of Yucaipa.

Animal Type
Cattle/Buffalo
Horses
Hogs (9 maximum)
Sheep, Female Goats, and Similar
Livestock
Male Adult Goats (4 maximum)
Male Adult Goats (4 maximum)
Rabbits and Chinchillas (200
maximum)
Female Poultry
Female Poultry
Female Poultry
Male Poultry (9 maximum)
Male Poultry (9 maximum)
(B) Small Animal Ranches/Farms
Animal Density Per Square Foot
1 per 10,000
1 per 10.000
1 per 20,000
1 per 4,000
for parcels, of less than 10 acres, 1
for paroels` 10 acres+,1 per 5 acres
50 per 10,000 (min. parcel size 1 acre)
for parcels of less than 1 acre, 25
for parcels of 1 to less than 10 acres, 99
for parcels of 10 acres +, 99 per 10 acres
for parcels of less than 10 acres, 2 per parcel
for parcels of 10 acres +, 2 per 5 acres
Aviaries, apiaries, or similar small animal ranches or farms shall be permitted on parcels that are at least one-half acre in size. Fish raising shall be limited to one pond per acre, with a maximum of four ponds per parcel. Each pond shall not exceed one-half surface acre in area.
(5) Accessory uses as specified by Chapter 5 of this division. (6) Small family day care home.
(b) Land Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit
(1) Commercial kennels and cattedes--two-acre minimum parcel size. (2) Commensal chicken ranches restricted to a minlmum of 10 acres. (3) Agricultural support services.
(4) Mobilehome park (not to exceed four spaces per acre on minimum parcel size of 20 acres). 4 i , v
(5) Any structure associated with row, field, tree, and nursery crop cultivation that Is greater than 10,000 square feet on parcels of five acres or less.
(6) Planned development.
(7) Boarding house (for up to six residents).
(8) Bed and breakfast lodge (for up to six guests).
(9) Parolee homes.
(10) Botanical gardens and arboretums.
01) Historic and monument sites.
(12) Unmanned public utilities and services uses/structures. (13) Unmanned radio and television stations/towers.
(14) Wildlife and nature preserves.
(c) Property Development Standards
The following property development standards shall apply to all land uses within the RL District.

Maximum Structure Height
35 feet
Minimum Lot Size (map suffix will modify)

1.0 gross acre
Maximum Lot Coverage
40%
Maximum Building Coverage
2l0%
Maximum Lot Dimensions (width/depth ratio)
10 acres = 1:4
Minimum Lot Dimensions (width/depth in feet)
125/126
Front Yard Setback
30 feet
Side Yard Setbacks
15 feet
Rear Yard Setbacks
25 feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (local streets)
20 feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (collector streets)
30 feet
Maximum Housing Density
1 dulacre
Minimum District Size
10 gross acres
3

Page 198 ends

CITY OF YiJCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa.52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Prelirriinary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)lFinaI Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single. Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater.than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins -Please note that this is a mod Ified proposal fromCascNo. 20-I36 LOCATION: Three p arc cis-totaling-62.acres-a n-the-cas t side of -Yucaipa• Ridge-Ro ad, so uth-of th e•Gity (irrits APN: 0320461-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AG]ZNCIB.t 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 January 18, 2023.

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. Ifyou have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, eat. 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.

Ifyou want to be notified a fthe project decis ion, print yourname clearly and legibly on this fo rm and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, siamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10) calendardays after an action is taken.

COIVMNTS (Ifyou need add itionalspace, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE f. �GDATE 1 ' AGENCY
PRINT NAME 2 C r if --- ADDRE�

YOU CHALLENGE A DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROP OS
ONLYTHOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRTTTE•P DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO. THET04E IT MAKES ITS DECISION 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, TWE RESTRICTIONS MAYBE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS 1N WRITWGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLETO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building &Safety Division

January 15, 2023
City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Serrano Estates Project
Case No. PL20220000150
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC
Proposal: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioner's:

I am writing to express my strong opposition and request to deny this project Serrano Estates Project Case No 22-150 as currently drafted. Adding 51 homes directly behind my house greatly impacts my view, and my ability to enjoy what my family has built over the past 12 years and contradicts what this area was designated for by the city. 1 have a million -dollar view of the entire valley and these 51 homes as proposed turns my home into a view I would have living in a housing tract staring a roof top's. I moved here and chose my property for the same reason many of the opposition letters you are receiving, not wanting to live in a housing tract. 1 moved to a rural area for that exact reason the rural lifestyle I bought into and have created. Larger clustered development brings more traffic, light pollution, and impacts to resources the city already struggles to maintain. Other than a street sweeper showing up once a month in our entire area, there are no other resources the city provides as a benefit for the taxes paid. While the current development plan is much better than the previous plan, it still violates development requirements for RL-1 zoning with lots as small as 12,090 square feet (quarter acre) not one home on one acre (43,560 square feet). It is entirely inconsistent with the rural culture of the north bench to place homes on anything less than one acre.

I currently work for a large city in the Inland Empire currently as a Public Works Manager. Prior to this position for the same city I worked 19 years as a Senior Engineer in our land development department working on developer driven projects including housing, commercial industrial, and redevelopment. I fully understand the development process through Planning, Building and Safety, and Engineering. I understand the housing constraints the State is placing on cities and the development rights of property owners to develop on their land. While the local community may be unable to prevent development, this project will be detrimental to the area, nearly all residents in the North Bench neighborhood are completely opposed to the addition of the proposed housing development. I know the noticing requirements are typically 600 feet for notification for projects, but this impacts a much larger area than who the notices were sent to. You will receive much more opposition from neighbors just doors down that never received notifications.

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

Page 200 ends

gutter to move this water through the streets. Schools are already over -capacity and create more impacts on class sizes and teachers' abilities to teach our future leaders efficiently. Adding condensed development will continue to destroy local wildlife habitat, the wildlife that have already been impacted and forced down out of the mountains due to the past fire will only be greater impacted with the higher density development. The surrounding larger rural property values have shown a reduction In surrounding property values with the addition of higher density housing.

The project brought before the city does not meet the intent of the zoning that is designated for this entire area. The general plan designates the area zoning district as Rural Living (RL) which allows a Maximum Housing Density of 1 du/acre. Unfortunately, what comes with people that want to live in higher density developments Is complaints for smells of animals and noises. They want the Orange County city lifestyle in a rural setting. Yucaipa has always been a special place that you know you can get away from the standard city life. These words were taken directly form a google search for Yucaipa, "Yucaipa is the jewel of the Inland Empire framed by the San Bernardino Mountains, Yucaipa's natural environment, with its cleaner air and unique topography". This is exactly why I moved to Yucaipa especially the North Bench area. The views of the mountains, the open space and the natural environment and unique topography.

Rezoning this area should be required If this proposal would be allowed. This creates more Issues I'm sure the city does not want to tackle like spot zoning, which needs to analyze if a project is in the best interest of the public.

This project would be a hard sell with its current proposal. l can see the craftiness the developer is trying to use for getting this approved as submitted. I understand more density means more money. They purchased this property in 2014 and the zoning was the same then as it is now. They need to comply with the property they bought and build what the land was designated for long ago by the public and the elected city officials. The developer is trying to sell the picture that they are building 1 house per acre of land that they own, but that is not what they are presenting on paper. The city has a responsibility to the existing residents to preserve the culture and atmosphere of the neighborhood and to disapprove developments that adversely affect the current neighborhood. The homes should be single -story, custom-built homes consistent with most of the homes in the neighborhood and should not be tract homes. i am never against somebody developing their property that they own, it is their right to develop, but they need to develop and bring a project forward that supports the surroundings and compliments the immediate area and build per the approved zoning and general plan.

Senate Bill 9 and Similar Legislation
SB 9 and similar bills referenced in previous comments by developer/owner representatives in city council do not apply to this development. First, SB 9 only applies urbanized areas as designated by the US Census. California discourages urban sprawl into existing rural areas. This property is located outside the urban area designated by the US Census. Second, 513-9 requires owner/occupancy on lots proposed for splitting and does not apply to multi -lot developments. Third, SB 9 excludes areas of high fire hazard severity. This area is prone to and experienced wildfires, most recently, the El Dorado Fire.
2 RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation)
The RHNA numbers are unrealistic for any city and the article that came out this past week shows a lot of the state Is behind and struggling with meeting the unrealistic requirements set by the state. That Is because they are unrealistic. Scare tactics by the developer or the city should not be means for approving this project -based on these numbers. The 4 categories that RHNA requires are very- low, low, moderate, and above moderate. None of these homes that they are proposing fit these descriptions. The developer stated they would be high end $700k homes, which does nothing for the city to meet their RHNA numbers and does not fall under any of these categories. The numbers are unattainable for most titles that aren't Los Angeles which has clustered high density housing already with a good public transportation network already built within their city. Tying this to your need to approve a project like this, is not supported by what is being presented by the developer. If a teacher sets a goal and 90% of their students fail that shows the teachers expectations and guidance are unattainable so failing is the only thing possible.

That same logic goes for the RHNA numbers, the state set a goal that can't be met. Cities and Counties don't build homes we permit and keep developers in compliance with laws set by the state and the local governments codes.

The City of Yucaipa should then follow their development code and comply with the rules set forth by the elected officials and the people of this great city. The program has been around for 54 years and this proposed project in a rural neighborhood will not assist the city in anyway for this argument. So don't approve a project in fear that the state will fine the city, nor do the people of the city need to feel guilty because this project does nothing to assist the city with any of those numbers.

RL-1 Zoning
The proposed Serrano Estates property is zoned RL-1 meaning Rural Living, one acre minimum. The developer argues that, averaged over the entire 52 acres, the proposed 51 lots meets the requirement of one dwelling per one gross acre. Further, Developer representatives falsely claimed to city council that the development met the definition of rural living as the only definition for rural living Is found in the dictionary. Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320 defines rural living and clarifies the designation of the RL district. Attached is the full citation of the ordinance. While the definition does include a minimum lot size of one gross acre, it specifically notes a maximum housing density of one dwelling unit per acre. The one -acre gross minimum lot size definition was not intended to be averaged over a large development but allowed for consideration of lot lines extending into right-of- way or easements. Consistent with the maximum dwelling unit requirement in the ordinance there should not be more than 24 homes in this development based on the sum of the 51 lot areas. The RL zoning designation allows farm animal husbandry, orchards, etc. Consistent with the Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320, the development must allow for these property uses on each lot. City Ordinance 84.0320 also specifies home setbacks, lot dimensions, etc. that need to be observed in the development.

Senior Housing
Regarding the argument for smaller lots for senior housing, the single largest demographic in this area of the North Bench are seniors —living on one acre or larger lots by choice. Smaller lots for seniors are unnecessary in this area. Senior housing requirements typically have close public transportation, restaurants, and grocery stores all within walking distance. This project provides none of that. Using senior housing as a way to promote this project provides no benefit other than to the developer to act as if they are helping the senior demographic, but ultimately not showing any concern for a what a senior development requires. Look at your own general plan section 2 where you discuss senior housing and how they typically are on fixed incomes and require special assistance and smaller spaces, but they want to use seniors as a means to approve this project as well by including a few senior designated lots. Qult using a protected class to make this project sound more attractive to approve.

Page 202 ends

Fire Zone and insurance
As you are all aware there was a large fire in this area that impacted my ability to obtain fire Insurance last year, the State of California allowed my own insurance company to drop me with no regards to what I have paid in nor have made a claim with. The state now requires me to utilize the California fair plan which every one of these homes would have to utilize because no insurance company will write a fire policy in this area. My insurance has doubled because of this, something I'm sure the developer will not disclose because it's not their requirement to provide insurance to them. Combat that with the current fire and medical emergency deficiencies state and city wide.

This does not bode well for response times. Not to mention the current water issues the entire state is combating.

Adding more homes impacts the resources we all need to sustain our homes and adding more only strains the utilities and emergency services ability to serve the customers they already serve. Please consider this and protect the people already struggling to survive in this current environment. i urge you to deny the proposed project and have the developer come back to the table with all of the cities different development teams- and come up with a better plan to fit the surrounding neighborhood and comply with the general plan, development, and zoning code for this area. From recent meetings and discussions with my neighbors, I know my opinions are shared by many who have not managed to attend meetings or write letters and emails.

Thank you for your continued service and support of our community, and i understand the importance and responsibility you have as a public servant to balance right from wrong and protecting the public as well as serving the property owners trying to develop in this great city, we all call home. Please remember "Yucaipa is the jewel of the Inland Empire framed by the San Bernardino Mountains, Yucaipa's natural environment, with its cleaner air and unique topography.
��ii Sincerely,
/lA,C/LG(�"W,
Kyle Scribner

Bev 9097977088 p.2
APPLICANTS NAME: YUCAIPA 52, LLC
CASEM 22-150 PDPjTTM 20375
To whom it may concern,
January17,2023
As long time residents of the North Bench we are filing our disagreement with the above proposed development.

In accordance to the current zoning, it requires one (1) house to he on no less than one (1) acre. The current roads and highways are not suitable for accommodating additional traffic and congestion. Plus with the degrading of the one (1) acre lots it will be a greater fire danger to life and property, not to mention the additional demand of water and power.

Access to this proposed area appears to be very limited and not easily accessible, which will cause serious and dangerous situations if experiencing fires such as the fire in September 2020, The El Dorado Fire, which threatened this entire area.

Please take this and other letters of concerns into consideration before making yourdecision and you will agree that this proposal Is not a good development for this area.

Respectfully,
Larryand Beverly Runyan
c4
=J

Page 204 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
RECEIVED :JAN 17 2023
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (T77M 20375VFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted tots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is amodified proposal fromCaseNo. 20436
LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-I61-08 and 09; 03201-91-28
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 January 18, 2023.

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, eA. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

RW 12L-1
t9-
-kC 0l
SIGNATURE DATE 14 23 AMNCY
PRINTNAMEUture` ADDRES

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSE

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TOTHE HEARINGBODYAT. ORPRIORT0, THE HEARING.

DUE TOTIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUM$ER 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

`1:..z i:,`t'i �.

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DNISION
PROJECT NOTICE )",
DATE: January 04. 20 23
c f,ry
CASENUMBER: PL20220000150 OP,
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC 't',1jC pC,
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-I50 PDP/FDP/T-flvl 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan Ibr (lie proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000square feet or greater, and 16age-restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is amodified proposal from Case No. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the cast side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been tiled 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 January 18, 2023.

Ifyou want to be notified ofthe project decision, print yourname 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)calendardays after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE rl ,,-,. r,�.r' it^t i .L,...'-'1i f DATE '119i �j AGENCY PRINT NAME 'L f1 ( i I"� I v, �1-� �� __ADDRES;

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING T FIE ABOVE PROPOSA

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SUM CONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR 1.0, THETIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON'

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TOTHE• HEARING BODY AT, OR PR10RTO, THE HEARING.

DUE TOT IMECONSTRAINTS 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 tvIr1KE

Page 206 ends

I wish to voice an oppinion about the Serrano Estates Project Case no.22-150.

I am NOT opposed to development of open land in the north bench area. But I want it to be developed responsibly and in keeping with the existing landscape and atmosphere of the surrounding properties.

New homes should be single story custome homes, each with it's own personality, on lots of a minimum of 1 acre. They should be situated on the natural contour of the land without a lot of excavating required. I want
open fencing to mark boundary lines and secure livestock.

The north bench area is in a high fire danger location. If the evacuation during the El Dorado taught me nothing else, I learned that I might have to leave in a hurry. I think that packing 51 homes on smaller lots in such an area with so few ways out is irresponsible and dangerous.

I want the intent of the RL zoning in the north bench area to remain unchanged and I welcome new neighbors who also want to enjoy all the benefits of rural living.

Respectful) submitted,
LM

CITY OF YUCA.IPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
PATE, )m mary w, 2Q1 RECEIVED JAN 1 A
CASE NUMBER: 1'1202200001 S0
APPUCAN`1': Yucllllm 52, IA,('
PROPOSAL.- Case No 22-150 PDRATN'.rTTM 20371: A Planned Developnicat project that includcr it Preliminary Development Plum and Tentative Tn,ct Map (I`17v1 20375)t/Final DevckfpmIent I'lun fur (lie ltropused Serrano ,suites Pm)ect, whet) %Yill establish 51 Single Family Residential lot. with 35 residentr:d lots on parcels 20,000 square Icet orgrcater, nn(I 16 aSc-restricted lots to qua lllying seniors on lots grcaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additkill nl numbered lot (52) for vincyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, if remafndcrlot for vineyurds and natural upe„ space. and three lettered lots Iur open space and detention basins - 11Icnsr• notc(h.,t this is ;)modified pwposal lion)CuseNu. 20-136 I,OC'A,nON: Thrcc parcels totaling 52 acres on the enst side of Yucnlpa Ridge Rund,soutit of the City limits APN; 0320•I61-08 find ()Q: 03201-8 1-28
r nT.,yrION PRUPIERTY OtlN1)111S AND REVIEMING AGIUNCIES: The developn)enl proposal listed above has beet, filed with the City Plamflog Divkion. You arc,nvitcd (o confluent because your propctty is ncar(hc proposed project Yourcommews must he received by this office no lmorthun lnnuuty 18. 2023.

Comments received after this date ,night not be considmd in tic decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's nlunr and case number indientcd above. If you have no eonttnenl, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact 1icnlnmin Matlock at (R(I'?) 797•2489, cm. 261 You rrety send your cumtncnts to lie ('icy of Yucaipn I'lanning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Nfulcvanl, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX' X' to (909) 790.9203,
Ifyou wanl to henotirrcd ofihc pti..)ject decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this fom) and mail it to Iltc address above alon:; with a sell' -addressed, startlped envelope. All decisions me subjccr to fin app(nl period of let) (101calendur days after an action i; laken.

C"OSlllENT!;(ff}'nu need ndditinfill lspncc,plo.tsc ❑,loch additionnlpalr•cs) ,-'rc'4i c' /t' r. �L{ , ; r� � �!E-'l..�,.:' � .��ci' !t` � - � ,+! C � )! `(. (vC f-C) F• CC) �'��1 C"c._..•• f'll ! , ��%..} �i li,�'- .)� =l �` %f.' L• I•i/ `�� !��%�� ! Z 1 C G' c' cX ,�( �: �`t `�C /?' G-1 �(' r'� ; �<< 7• t'�'L= ✓(?=Jc /;2 L��/�Y
J
S1CiNq l'UIZL . \_::. -r' c' r'C.!" �1 �'%CDATF. ! r `• .2 A(A:NC'Y PRIM' NAMif? i�L�''LL_4)�11 `Ar.)17RGSS
YOU CHALLENGE ANY Uf:(_'ISION MCIARD1,W)) T1111 AEIWIL PR4110.AL IN ONI.YT110SE ISSUIiS )'(Ill OR S(1TvILl)Nl_1iLSfi RAISED IN V'Hrl"TL NCORR DIVISION Al, OR PRIOR 1-1), I'IIIi1lMt:IT MAKES ITS I)Et 0,14ON 1 HE 1' 1 IIli PRUPOSA1., YUII (At SOMEONE;EL$E MLIS'I HAVEi RAIS[it)'rllLXE ISSUt:S A'r THL [,U-IILIC I(li',\RINOOR Ill Wi(ITT'FN CQRRIiSI'UNC)t7VCI:' OEl_I'�1RED'rQTllEi IIFARI:VCi [tQl)5' A'f, Oit PRIS.ki T'tl, 71ni 11[iARIM1tG MIE TOT'IME ('t1N51'ttAIKVS AND TIMNUMPIzIt OF 1111M)NS wISHINW1`ls GIVI: ORAL 'tTV'EMCNJY, TIMIi RL.STRICY)OKS MAY III: PLACED r)N MAI, 'rfS'rimmy AT ANY PUBLIC (IFARIt (3 AIIOt1T Tons PROPMAI YOU MAY WISH 1-0 MAU, YCAlltt;OMMENI'SINWRITIN'fi 1-0ASSUItF:1'IIAT YOU Altt,AIWA: I'UEXPRESS VOLIRSLUADCOUATL;LY cc Surrounding Propertv fawners Yuempu Valley Water Disldct Fire Department Dtginccnng Division
building & Safely Division,

Page 208 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023 RECE'VE® f AN 17 2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet orgreater, and l6 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please notethat this is amodified proposal fromCaseNo. 20-136
LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-1-61-08 and 09;"03201-81-28
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 January 18, 2023.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE r/ 15,12 �l DATELl42 AGENCY f �G�11L(�(.Jill Cj� / "
PRINT NAME ( C 11 A.z� �.iti � � __ADDRI

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROP

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN W RATE
DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION 0

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, T HE 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 W RITING 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

Page 209 ends

Case Number PL20220000150
January 16, 2022
Ref: Case Number PL20220000150
North Bench Construction Project adverse impact on existing traffic patterns with solutions.

Sirs:

Overview
In response to your call for comments, I submit the following items for your consideration:

1. Any additional traffic, regardless of the traffic impact report by the developer, will already exacerbate a dangerous traffic speed condition on Bryant St. Additional traffic will result in additional accidents. See Comments and Exhibits 1- 8.

2. Days when non-resident tourists visit the snow already result in stopped traffic from State Highway 38 past the south end of Juniper St. Entering and exiting Bryant St. is difficult and sometimes fully blocked by non -moveable, non-residents. This issue has become much worse since Bryant St. is now open to Interstate 10 via Singleton Road.

3. Resolution will be installation of new traffic signals on Bryant to allow safe ingress and egress for new residents.

This should be the responsibility of the developer.
a. Intersection of Juniper and Bryant, between Ivy and Topaz.

Intersection of Topaz and Bryant.
c. Intersection of Juniper and Bryant, between Ivy and Carter.

Comments
I have lived at the intersection of Bryant Street and Ivy Avenue for approximately 5 years. During my residence, I have observed no less than seven high speed traffic incidents within viewing distance of the stop sign in front of my home. I am attaching Exhibits 1 through 7 to document some, but not all accidents. Exhibit 8 is a map of the area for reference.

I cannot address incidents that have occurred farther north or south of this location. I cannot address the severity of personal injury from any of these accidents. I cannot address the expense to the City of Yucaipa for emergency services.

Traffic on Bryant already exceeds the 50mph posted speed limit regularly. 1 have noted multiple instances of traffic exceeding 80mph passing my home. Southbound traffic slowed behind large trucks regularly passes on the uphill section of Bryant between State Highway 38 and the intersection of Topaz and Bryant. Other southbound traffic under acceleration to climb the hill, sometimes fail to release pressure on the accelerator when reaching the summit at Juniper and increase speed rapidly beyond the summit. Northbound traffic also fails to release accelerator upon approaching the summit.

Visibility on Bryant St. between Carter St. and Topaz St. is limited by terrain and road design. Bryant St. is cut through a hill between Carter St. and Ivy Ave. Bryant St. is curved and begins descent to State Highway 38 at Juniper St.

I believe that any additional traffic entering or exiting Bryant between Carter St. and Topaz St. will result in many additional accidents. Most residents of the North Bench residing on or near Ivy already avoid the intersection of Ivy and Bryant. They use either end of Juniper to enter and exit Bryant. My home has the distinction of being known as the 'Accident House.'

Page 11 ends

Page 210 ends

Case Number PL20220000150
Resolution
As a method of controlling the number of traffic incidents, I propose that the developer be responsible for the installation of three new signals on Bryant St.

I have walked Bryant St. from Topaz St. to the south intersection of Juniper and Bryant St. Due to limited range of visibility, I conclude that the first signal be installed at the intersection of Juniper and Bryant between Ivy Avenue and Topaz St. This is the closest and most logical location for new residents of the proposed construction project to enter and exit Bryant St.

This location is visible from the Topaz/Bryant intersection to the north. It is the highest point between State Highway 38 and Oak Glen Road (as evidenced by the Redlands Bicycle Classic using this as the location for the'King of The Hill' jersey.) It is visible from the south as far as 100 yards south of Ivy Avenue intersection with Bryant. This location allows drivers on Bryant the greatest distance to respond to the signal in both directions.

The second closest access location for the residents to enter and exit would be Topaz St. A signal at Topaz St and Bryant St. is visible from State Highway 38 to the north and Juniper St. to the south.

Both signals would slow the already fast traffic heading southbound on Bryant. Note that 4 of the 7 exhibits represent high speed traffic southbound on Bryant. The signals would also slow northbound traffic on the downhill stretch of Bryant.

The third location will be the intersection at the south end of Juniper St. and Bryant St. between Ivy Ave. and Carter St.

This is the intersection already used by most residents on their way to Stater Brothers, downtown Yucaipa, and Interstate 10 access. It is an optional access point to Bryant for new residents.

Addendum
Based purely on my observations while driving along Bryant, I also recommend that a signal be placed at the Carter intersection with Bryant, possibly replacing the third location mentioned in Comments section. A signal at Carter St. may also be needed due to the number of new homes being built east of Bryant St. and south of Carter St. This is not relevant to the current topic, but relevant to quality of life on the North Bench of Yucaipa.

Respectfully,
Michael Ball 1
Attachments: Exhibits 1— 8.

Page 12 ends

Page 211 ends

Case Number PL20220000150 Exhibits Michael Ball
Exhibit 1- Excessive Speed accident on Bryant St.

April 9, 2020 Approximately 11:00 PM
Solo northbound vehicle failed to brake early enough to turn right onto eastbound Ivy. Vehicle struck my front wall. No skid marks due to rain. Excessive speed for the conditions.

Page 1 ends

Page 212 ends

Case Number PL20220000150 Exhibits Michael Ball
Exhibit 2 - Excessive Speed accident on Bryant St.

November 27, 2020 Approximately 9:30 AM
Solo Southbound vehicle on Bryant drove off west side of Bryant between Juniper and Ivy. No skidmarks.

Excessive speed and inattention at summit.

Page 2 ends

Page 213 ends

Case Number PL202200001SO Exhibits
Exhibit 3 - Excessive Speed accident on Bryant St.

January 17, 2021, Approximately 5:30 PM
Michael Ball
Solo northbound vehicle 1 on Bryant drove off east side of Bryant at Ivy. Vehicle 1 rear -ended a northbound vehicle 2 turning left on to Adams St at Ivy Ave. High speed Vehicle 1 left skid marks from braking for extended range. Vehicle 1 ended up in drainage ditch on east side of Bryant, within 4 feet of my west side fence. Vehicle 2 ended up on west side of Bryant north of Adams St. Excessive speed and inattention.

Page 3 ends

Page 214 ends

Case Number PL20220000150 Exhibits
Exhibit 4 - Excessive Speed accident on Bryant St.

September 2, 2021, Approximately 5:00 PM
Michael Ball
Solo northbound vehicle drove off Bryant at Ivy striking my front wall. Wehicle driver had no explanation for behavior. No skid marks prior to hitting the wall. Significant damage to wall. Excessive speed and inattention.

Page 4 ends

Page 215 ends

Case Number PL20220000150 Exhibits Michael Ball
Exhibit 5 - Excessive Speed accident on Bryant St.

April 28, 2022, Approximately 1:30 AM
Solo southbound vehicle drove over west side of Bryant into creek bed between Ivy and Juniper. High speed solo crash. No skid marks. Excessive speed and inattention.

Page 5 ends

Page 216 ends

i •t
i
lt Y-.(� /
b ;S*
IT
Is
br,MT
Y' ,G , t K � (1� ,� •.... t'�t j��sf,+• .r � `�sb�°`4.� r Y
,

Y `i �N- y t >•?r�� fY .*- F'S.5 .lkl a .� je �f ' i v-!�' -- -7s

Case Number PL20220000150 Exhibits Michael Ball
Exhibit 8 - Area Map
!(;e lwc" Cil V
Ak
q%/ N
Oil
SC11:14icie,
M.:)bt!-anorne E5ta*�e% V
1,
4 E L (;OR 'DIC PAL? -IS
Er, TATES V

Page 8 ends

Page 219 ends

CITY OF Y-[.iCAIPA PLANNING DZVZSION
PROJECT NOTICE J41 16 ' 021
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER. 1'L20220000150
CITY
C F1
h��i'C PII 1,
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTNl 20375. A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Sf raaj o Pstates Proj-e vliiclt will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet orgreater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifyin,a seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainderlot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins -Please note that this is a modified proposal fromCaseNo. 20-136 LOCATION:Threc parcels totaling 52 acres on the eastside of Yucaipa Ridge Road.south of the City [hits A.PN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-5 1-28
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS ANT) RIV1BVL\'G AGITICIES: 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 January is, 2023.

Ifyou want to be notified ofthe project decision, print yournamecicarly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, staraped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10)calendar days afteran action is taken.

COMMENT-S(.Ifyou need additional space,
¢please
attach
�Jadditional pages):
12 SIG1vATUI _ DATE/U��! ?AGENCYeL/{�
PRfNT NAME Y t Y _ADDRESS_
'IOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION GARDINGTIIEABOVL PROPOSAL
ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN Ct DIVISION AT. OR PRIOR TO, THE TLME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON TI -

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELI VERED TO THE HEA.RINGBODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE FEARING, DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, Th�IE RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY Al• ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT TIUS PROPOSAL YOU MAY NVISFf TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN W RITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE A.BLETO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division

Page 220 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
I)ATE.- Ja mory 01,2023
CASENUNIRFR: PL0220000150
APPLICANT: Vucalpn 52. LLC ,,��''��jjjj��
PROPOSAL: Case No. .27-150 POIJIMPIT-1'r41 20375: A Plunnecr`t4t Jp t�35 clud" u
Preliminary Dcvclupment Men unit Tentative Ttuct Map (Ml 20375YFiva viur Ilia proposed Sorrano Fstptcs I'mjcct, tvhich will estnblislt Sl Single Fumily'Residcnliul hitrural kris on parcels 20,000sgttnn; feet grgrcntcr, and l6 agc-restricted Wi to qualityiug lamer» an ]errs grcntcrthnn 12,000 square fact, nu additionalnumbered lot (52) far vineyards along Yucalpn Ridge Road, a n:I1116111cr IOC for vineyards and nutumt opeit space. and'Ihree lettrred lots ror open space and dclenlion bas ins - ['lease notc (hat this is amodiftcd proposal fmm Case No. 20.136 i-00MON_'i'limc. pitmels totaling $2 mere% an the Gust slda of Yucaipa Ridge. Itnad, south grtha City WL5 AM 032G-1 61-M and 09, 03201-81-29
ATM,**TIOttt PROPER•CY OWINFTtS AND RE:VID- VINO AGENClM The development proposal lifted abovc ims been filed with tic City Planning Division. You art: invited to conitnent homise your, propuny is nenrilto proposed project. Yoorcammeuts must he receive([ by this Wee nit later thim January 19, 2023, Conmionts received uCtcr this date ntight not be considered in the decuitin. Hense Teferto this project by ilia applicant's frame and case number indicated above. If you Itava no contrount, no mply is necessary. it'you have any questlon'sregArdinglhlsproposal, please canmctBenjnntlnMatlock at(10)712M,189,ex. 261, Yov may send your continents io the City of Yucu(pu Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa boulcvnrd, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via F.&X to (909) 790-9203.
r
if you want to banotlftcd tifthe project dccis ion. print yaurnnme clearly and legibly nn this form nad mnil K to the address nbovc along with a self-ndtimsned, stamped envelope. All decisfpns um subject it) nit appeal period of ten (IQ) cntendur Clays alter tin action is taken CONil•IEIVTS(Ifynuneed addidanalspace, pleuseattach udditianalpages.), 15z4elL G G��r✓o ��f� �p -c�a ez7a� ¢ 5 a ��,�G�
om
%3 , �`P few A�LPe7,.

S14N 'rURI; �GL2 �Pi�LC�• ACiCiNt'4 '
I11tIAF1' NrlivlE MR EGR rJ J00fa0r)RMS
At YOU CH.LUNGE ANY DECISiON REOAIti)ItiYI'ftll AUOVC mol,m%A atvt.l•'rtlau lssursYau r)R se.>hux)Mtrl_yt:•rt,vtstsrt IN tt'Rrl�9"['Nr:

DIVISION AT, Ott PRIOR TO, THE 7'Mir IT MAKES ITS I)r:C'ISIUN ON TI T114' PROPOSAL.. YOU QR SOh M413- WSP MUST HAVE ttfAISEU'I ll()SIi ,.:, inn.,•- nceMANU UKW(wlit I I LCI CORRIISPOMENCf; 1> --BRED TOTHE IIEARM 11011)Y AT, Olt PRIOR TO, THE IMAR1NQ Dttf CO'rIh1CCt)NSTtt�1 �CSANU'fltl;hlil\1UliltOP PERSONS WIN I14MITQrrVf omi -rrsri tmouv, rII-12RUStRtcmuts htAY AC PLACED ON ORAI. T1 SrwoNY A'r clW PUBLIC HPARING Mimi r 1'IIIS PROPWAI YCtt hiAY 1V[S11 To 16AXV ICIUItC(1h1hICNT$titlVltl'rIVC17fJrlSSl1R[ MA7 1'Oli,IItLAtli,i '171EX!'lA? l'trIR5li1.1'A1)1:r}lli,l'f:LY co; Surrounding property Owners Yuumpu Vallry Water Distriu Ftit: Ucpannient I�ngtneerutg Divis'lon
13111Iding S: Safety DivLsiott
F

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NOTICE RECEIVED JAN 17 2923
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
AP PLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375YFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000square feetorgreater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please notethat this is anaodified proposal from Case No.20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the casts ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEMAING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is nearthe proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than January 18, 2023.

Continents received after this date nught 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, eat. 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.
lfyou want to be notified ofthc project decision, print yourname clearly and legibly on this form and mail itto the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10)calendar days afteran action is taken.

CONUWLNTS(Ifyou need additionalspace,please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE �j'./' - DATE I r1 Z3kGENCY
PRINT NAME __Q`.,(' 0,l ` > I"'��y.rz ADDRE!

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOS
ONLYTHOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WR[TTEt
DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THET[ME IT MAKES ITS DECISION 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 NUMQER 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 YOURCOMMENTS IN WRITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLETO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building &Safety Division

Page 222 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMER: PU0220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000square feetorgreater, and 16age-restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) forvineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainderlot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please notethat this is amodified proposal fromCaseNo.20-136
LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
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 January 18, 2023.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need add itio nal space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE r �' ��f DATE -A ,� 3 AGENCY

PRINT NAME
L .;� 5 r} '� t' ADDRE
YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISIONREGARDINGTHEABOVE PROPO:

ONLYTHOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTE'
DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO. THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION 01

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUWER 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

Page 223 ends

January 16, 2023
City of Yucaipa planning Division
Serrano Estates Project
Case No. PL20220000150
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC
Proposal: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
To Whom it May Concern:

This letter is to request that the City of Yucaipa
The reason is that this Rural Community will be affect with too much noise , heavy road traffic, and also safety for those ride their Bicycles also pedestrian and those who ride their equestrian.

This Rural Equestrian area should be as normal daily living neighborhood .

It is already too much traffic as it is trying to cross over Bryant ave. ( North and South bound), We think that the city of Yucaipa has a responsibility to the existing residents to preserve the Rural Culture of the neighborhood and disapproved the development, at the Serrano Estate Project.

The other reason is that my Wife and I left the city life is that was getting to crowded no respect for the neighborhood and getting to noisy traffic and the housing are too close to each other. Especially the night sky! Up here in Yucaipa rural area. I'm able to see the night sky without the city lights intervening my view of the night sky.

We have been looking for a place that is quit and no city lights. When we had an opportunity to buy a home in Yucaipa...we did it in a rural neighborhood of Yucaipa.

Also don't forget if the developer does go thru building the Serrano Estates they will be taking the environment habitat away. We also need to conserve our natural environment for our future generation.

That the wild animals able to hunt and survive, and have their life with nature.

Is bad enough that the wild animal are coming down to our neighborhood to look for food. We lost 4 pets since moved in to new home and that is sad! Then media comes in blowout proportion regarding these animals .

Then again where is the water coming from. We are already in a water shortage do too this drought we been having for last 3 years. Yes we did got a few good showers this year, but not enough. Also there be no additional water restriction on the existing residents their orchard and their life stocks.

We also complaining about our electricity shortage that the power grit can't support it.

That's why we have power outage or black outs.

And also in summary that the development must be considerate with city ordinances.

Sincerely, ;
Oscar Spier
Lisa Spier Y, 21. 1..

Page 224 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023 RIECaV
G �G1I1rED 1AN 17 2�'3
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375YFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is amodified proposal from Case No.20-i36 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320461=0fiand-0 , 03201=S1Z8 — _ _-�--�---- ____ — — -.-:_ ____ — _ . — 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 January 18, 2023, 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, a)1. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):
6_6", KM�
SIGNATURE Ci0I ,�� DATE a ' AGENCY
PRINT NAME r �_ +.Q_ __ADDRESS_

YOU CHALLENGE- ANY DECISION GARDINGTHEABOV-PROPOSAL

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTENC(

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON TI

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TOTHE I�ARINGBODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME REST RICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WR1TNGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLETO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building &Safety Division

M
To City of Yucaipa Planning Division
Case number PL20220000150
My husband and I purchased our home at , Jan 2010. Prior to that time, we did our research, we were informed that that area was a 1-acre lot and will remain that way.

We moved from a congested area and were in search of a less populated area and we had found our forever home. We are not opposed to the building on the land in question however want them to remain the 1 house per buildable acre. The builder and property owner are not concerned with the people and houses that are currently in this area. They are just wanting to make the most profit at our expense of the long-term residence that were her long before the property owner purchased that lot.

We currently have a beautiful area with lots of mountain's views and serenity, The picture that Yucaipa _, stands-for_at..this-time-w.ill be lost —That proposed -property -builder -will -have -a -hillside -congested -with-- -- - visible roof tops stacked one on top of another. This is not in any way in keeping the surrounding areas as they are now. We ask you to visit the area, so you can see for yourself what we would be looking at.

You will see that the houses will be built along and on top of the hillside stacked up, the beauty and serenity will be gone and all we are left with is congestion. l live directly down from the path on Quartz ends at Diamond St. which would be a main path out of that area for the new houses. That street is a steep hill and we have already had a runaway Trailor and prior to our ownership a car run down to our property. We now have had to keep palm trees lined in front of our house to try and prevent run away cars from going down into our property and into our house. So, we ask you, who will make sure my family will be safe. We ask that you protect the surrounding area and keep the one acre lots and keep our serenity the way it is for the sake of the people that have chosen to reside in that area and not let some outside builder and landowner make a profit at our expense and safety.

Thank you
Patrick and Denise Aguirre

Page 226 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04. 20 23
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-I50 PDP/FDP/TTIv1 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 Fanuly Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000square feet or greater, and 16age-restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins -Please note that this is amodifiied proposal from Case No. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the cast s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-23
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 January 18, 2023.

If you want to be notified ofthe project deck ion, print yourname clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10)calendardays afteran action is taken.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additionalspace, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE - DATE j6 7 AGENCY GW"e v^
PRINT NAME_` t e_YcA
C �ADDRESS
��:

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING ThE ABOVE PROPOSAL

ONLYTHOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WFUTTENC

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TRMIE IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON T THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE I I tit VU13LLU HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TOTHE IC-ARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS W ISHING TO GIVE ORAL TEST NNIONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS

MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MALT

YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXP RESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division

Page 227 ends

January 16, 2023
From: Pierre Assaf
To: City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Re: Serrano Estates Project
Case No. PL20220000150
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC
Proposal: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
a il�r
O
yU,0A1PA
To Whom it May Concern
This letter is to state my opposition to the above development proposal as submitted to tiie city Of Yucaipa planning division. While much better than the previous plan, it still does not conform to the RL-1 zoning of the neighborhood. It is incompatible with the characteristics of our rural area and is backed by Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320. By definition a rural area is an open land that has uncrowded homes or other buildings, and has a low population density. The North Bench residents made their point loud and clear in March 2014 by rejecting a revision of the general plan when it came to possible rezoning the area. The entire neighborhood and beyond were against the possibility of smaller lots, This point of view has not changed regarding the Serano Estates Project for this and many other reasons. Here are few of the concerns:
• This property east of Yucaipa ridge road is located in a very high fire hazard severity zone and is serviced by 2 narrow roads to access Bryant street (Quartz and Crystal) making evacuation of crowded dwellings (some reserved for seniors) very problematic in case of fire or earthquake. Traffic noise, pollution, congestion and safety of pedestrians are other concerns
• The area is outside the urban area designated by the US Census making references to SB 9 to promote proposed housing development moot.
• Since the El Dorado Fire, mudslides have increased dramatically in the region.

So the development of the Serrano Estates Project must respect the city ordinance for RL-1 zoning and has to be mindful of public safety.

Respectfully submitted, ,r
Pierre Assaf V

Page 228 ends

Benjamin Matlock —_
From:

Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 1:26 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Re: PL20220000150 YUCAIPA 52
Attachments: 23.01.18 city notice.tiff
I forgot to include my notice. I don't know if you need that. So I"m attaching here. THanks Patty On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:23 PM Patty
Ben,
i Attached are my comments and a couple of maps showing a suggested redesign. I feel it is important to attempt to keep the rural feel of the area. By adjusting the lot widths to a minimum of 125 feet for the 1/2 acre lots, this will be accomplished. Other comments are also noted in the letter.

One of the maps has been overlaid on the proposed project map so that you can see the areas affected.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments,
Patty
Patricia Ingram
Patricia Ingram

Page 229 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04.2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Developtnent 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 lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000square feet or greater, and 16age-restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthen

12.000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please notethat this is amodified proposal IiomCaseNo.20-136
LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the casts ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
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 January 18, 2023.

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, e:d. 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,
Ifyou want to be notified ofthe project decision, print yourname clearly and legibly on this form and mail ilto 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(Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):
r t-y J
I
SIGNATURE ...DATE/ 11.E AGENCY
PRINT NAME AUUKns
YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION! hRDINdT HE ABOVE PROPOSAL
ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN C1 DIVISION AT. OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON TI THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT 'I'Ht t'UbLB- ncrnri.0 Wn 11• •• • • • -• CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TOT IME 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

Page 230 ends

Page 231 ends

City of Yucaipa
Planning Department
Sent via email
Response to request for comments and suggested map revisions Case Number PL20220000150, Yucaipa 53 LLC
Dear Mr. Matlock,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the above project. I appreciate that the developer has attempted to respond to many comments made on the original submission including some of mine. In particular, Yucaipa Ridge Road right of way, north of Quartz Street now has a 40 foot half width as well as a curve at the north end to correspond with the existing roadway.

The applicant has also provided more Y acres lots, however, I believe he has missed the general intent of the community and that was to keep a rural atmosphere. Section HN-2.4 of the General Plan Housing Element states "development in the North Bench and Wildwood Canyon to be consistent with the rural character of those areas and ensure that they provide high -quality housing opportunities that leverage the unique setting of those areas."
This area is part of the Custom Home Overlay, which according to General Plan Element HN-3.5, projects require "adherence to housing related regulations." In that Overlay, the minimum lot width regulation is 125 feet. This allows for larger side yard setbacks and at least the feeling of large, rural lots as you drive down the street. As presented the average lot width is about 80 feet which is more consistent with R5 zoning and detracts from the rural atmosphere.

I have attached a plan showing a design concept with this in mind. it utilizes just a slight bit of the vineyard area to keep the same number of lots as proposed with 16 lots at 12,000 sf and 35 lots at 20,000 sf. The''/: acre lots with 125' width will allow a driveway beside the house so that the rear yards may be accessed. Those are the types of features that separate RL zoning from RS.

I'm still not convinced that the vineyards should take priority over reaching the 1 acre lot size or at least % acre lot size. The small amount of vineyards proposed are not enough for an independent business and there is no guarantee of their viability or upkeep.

The idea of senior housing as an incentive for smaller lots doesn't really make sense here. If you read the General Plan Special Housing needs regarding seniors, their needs are better met closer to the downtown area where easy access, buses and other conveniences are nearby. The price of housing is also less expensive in this area.

The purpose of the Planned Development process is to make a project better by utilizing variances to the existing zoning. However, there should also be an attempt to conform to the surrounding area and homes. For this reason, I believe it is important to look at a redesign that provides a rural housing atmosphere in conformance with the surrounding area.

Thank you for your anticipated consideration of my comments. 1 would be happy to discuss them further with the developer or staff as needed.

Patty Ingram

Page 232 ends

SECTION 'A' YUCAIPA RIDGE ROAD -` ;"'J ER �'
TYPICAL INTERIOR STREET 1
I I I i wloeswa. wmlomcPw Yi9casmn e1RT v. I .*1
1ISINGLEr o
ca�c ¢ RL-1 SIN E FAMI Y RE DENTIAL na , pcAc C RL-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEN11AL

I I AC BERM
YDNVMEIIT CSC I TO 0E REYO AC BERM I g m
YA1H DECCRATIYE 1 101' L-33' 19 _ 22' 70 BE At.. O
LANDSCAPING ` y` \ \ _ rrYII' EDGE CF PAKEMN _ - T
He9st'sp-w C A RI N • 5 ' I 2z , 2s —
J R
f S5r_ `•ram �- —2Pep - m� �'AC BERN\ -- --
�' �-V� A -
y 5
' I 2gyJ SIDEWALK fJ1NalEL 2G SASH. BOUNDARY
12 $� 17-1 I CNAMIEI 7-
�''1 /BOT.- }.0 I I 2963 }.E-AO I I� YULn-PURPOSE nuR ` f 2470 �5 I"

1.9 I /(1 `` ORNNAQC EASEMENT
— — — —
Q I ?e6' 1
51 - l 40 J9 24 23
/ 20.070 SO 5 2e t70 FT e.01 SO Fr q I 1 ? VINEYARD \ \ L PE.IT9.J 1a dE-29 0.7 t 1... IJ.
tt 1 295a.1 T PE
T40_ I xs ' II PE-2991a �• C 22 A I
R
20,150 50 219 50Ge
-29at.o ,610 FIT- FT 7 50 FT EA�ERr \ BOU1gARr
W I PC-2953.7 �E- ].0 \
4 - PE-1aI's
G241
S03.G Iy p
U 9.0 2920.103755pp nl
\ \�
4e y Sal�0 AR/DE7T PARCEL / \
43 \

0.lea 50 ^ 7 211J9 FT 1 Ff 716 S0
\ S PE-1969.0 29) FT �E-19fi J ,p� I I PE 99 — — }510.0 i71 R , ILL n ~ 21,, µso ` 12 FT, 1 377 - 50 FT
2J,p10 50 FT LI PE-IST..x .o ;, I I IE D le.p # 1 " aE-Jol7.o LLS \% PE-197A.9 — r — — WULTI-PURPO TRAIL 200 0
�X PE-297 _ i2 �166T7 g� I I p �$0 p0p6 $p• 4. 19 `OPEN NATURAL SPACE Q2 Ar
c - -S✓` -I 21 SO FT }pp5,0 f �P FT 21 ..�T : Ir.15 3 Sd p['}3Za 0 Z m
`\ FS l ? }, ` 2 I `' T USEMEN 5 T "t- 16 LOTS AT 12000 SF , T2FT ,101 S0 F'f, '.13.101 FT 20,0700 - 1 ' - 1 <
�\ A -3m1.p 3010.a 6 J— . 1 a — — —,� — 3� 5 LOTS AT 20,000 SF — \ \ t` �`• I: T I uL\-PURPosE TRA. /� O1FR, .r
PE-30O.0 I e
I1 PE-3 .0 I — J, L 76 20.000 1 'Tr ACRE LOTS HAVE
20 _ !ICI-197„� FT ��\ \�\ I/— 125' FRONTAGE �I
\ �. \ "`� \ k� 22 .• 2J zs r 25 I \ \ \
lee ? \
INDICATES 12000
\ pA N91T 1ui� l T � GR C•� ra- - (b OR EASEL IT
~� \ I. \
\ 1 LOT C \ \ � -S \ \ I I'= . 1 la' NCN� d�M �� NAtAL SPACE \\ \ y I �� M
0 \ < - 2:1 MITH UNDULATING SLOPES M
J sa I L
\ \ o B ,rI1�pM a
111 \� \ DRNNAGE EASEY i 15 1i I 1b I. 12 11 10 P Jp42.01 O 1 I 2 5 \ 76} S0 4, 692 905 S0 416 SO 24, 50 FT 4. DRAINAGE CASEMENT \ \ OfINNAGE EASEMENT \ \ PE-J042,0 PE }0430 U I�-, Izi J PE-303 .d PE-303e.01
\ \ \ \ PE PC
}027ry I 5 I, w n-PURPosE III
Nee' S. e000"x �31 J.e N90' 00' 00.00-E a45 at ]' Z
LOT LIIE U m LOT UNE y,
RL-1 VACANT
pRoposEn
N Mm 2:1 MATH UNDULATING SLOPES

Page 233 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNINMM1960AN 17 2023

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT:, Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDPITTM 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 lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is amodified proposal from Case No. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN:-0320-161-08-and-09-03201-84-28 - — - --- -_ --
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to continent because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than January 18,.2023.

Ifyou want to be notified of the project deci_s ion, print yourname clearly and Icgib ly on this form and mail itto the address above along with aself-addressed, stamped er>yelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10) calendardays after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SIGNATURE�l( i
G i� &io��DATEJ*10/2-3A(ENCY
PRINT NAMAb; C 1 a S p(t ('ADDRESS

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDINGTHE ABOVE PROPOSAL

ONLYTHOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN C DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO. THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL wi, it A ruui-iU

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

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

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375yFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is a modified proposal fromCaseNo. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the eastside of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWIlVG 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 January 18, 2023.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

JAN 17823
CITY
OF
SIGNATURE DATE i7 3 AGENCY
PRINT NAME "_ 1 h ,� 4rn" _ADDRESS_

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DEC ION REGARDING T HE ABOVE PROPOSAL

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN C DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON T.

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 WISHINGTO 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 Divis ion
Building & Safety Division

Page 235 ends

us orn- omes on: -I- acre lots
proposed homes from 2023 modified pn
-7ki-s
)rOPOE24 KOM
e. coon- a
gawk, iv
JI
aA �Voo
i.
bz Tee is
71- got
j! J,
CAS-t-
-Apt
KC) rae
T
4 tv,7
cklv
L; ED (26 (1 coo ki -P— C-�(�L
tot RD f 'A io- S PTO-Ced f f
U-7, Uid, un o-kLA4 -17c) c,--c c pm oJ6:1E C-rp-,+.r�,. k
cA,r,jo(n �n. 0,-CL
C-h -Co r V- ejA+
O'\ G &tOnd'vP
age 236

Further, after the lots are sold there is no mechanism (e.g., land use covenant) to protect the set aside land for vineyards and open space from future development.

The City has a responsibility to the existing residents to preserve the culture and atmosphere of the neighborhood and to disapprove developments that adversely affect the current neighborhood. The _ omes should be single story, custom built homes consistent with the majority of the homes in the neighborhood and should not be tract e note
and lots use the
slopes, and open lot concept (absence of walls).

Page 237 ends

Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320 defines rural living and clarifies the designation of the RL district. Attached is the full citation of the ordinance. While the definition does include a minimum lot size of one gross acre, it specifically notes a maximum housing density of one dwelling unit per acre. The one -acre gross minimum lot size definition was not intended to be averaged over a large development but allowed for consideration of .lot lines extending into right-of-way or easements.

Consistent with the maximum dwelling unit requirement in the ordinance there should not be more than 24 homes in this development based on the sum of the 51 lot areas.

The RL zoning designation allows farm animal husbandry, orchards, etc. Consistent with the Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320, the development must allow for these property uses on each lot.

City Ordinance 84.0320 also specifies home setbacks, lot dimensions, etc. that need to be observed in the development.

Properties in the area use the natural slopes with split level homes and walk out basements. There are no one acre lots in the area with engineered slopes this steep and high. We ask that the development make better use of the land to preserve natural slopes and limit slopes to 3:1 and not more than 10 feet in height.

High Risk Wildfire Area
This area of the North Bench is a high -risk wildfire area and was most recently affected by the El Dorado wildfire. Closely spaced homes increase the risk to the public. Senior citizens are especially susceptible to the hazards of wildfires, yet the development provides for small, senior citizen housing. Based on wildfire hazard alone, the lot sizes page 238 Q�nlllll not PYf`PPfi the rnnvirniim hnii6ncr dpm-,ity of one dwellimy unit

per acre and should not be designated by the city for senior housing.

In summary, the development must be consistent with city ordinance for RL-1 zoning requirements which specifically establishes a one -acre maximum housing density, allowance for large animal husbandry, and development consistent with the culture of the area (one story homes with lots honoring the natural slopes), with careful attention to public safety, particularly as relates to wildfires and stormwater.

Sincerely, K to e to �_r�t:s,�,' 'r � �� :�'- �c � f

Page 239 ends

84.0320 Rural Living (RL) District.

The Rural Living (RL) District shall be located as specified by the Yucaipa General Plan. (a) Permitted Land Uses
(1) Row, Field, Tree, and Nursery Crop Cultivation
Any structure associated with this activity is limited to 10,OD0 square feet on parcels of five acres or less. (2) Single dwelling unit.
(3) Small residential care facility.
(4) Animal Raising
(A) Animal raising as a primary use of the property must be on a parcel no less than two acres in size. Lot area used to qualify one animal type, either Primary orAccessory Animal Raising, shall not be roused to qualify another animal type.

Proper manure management will be carried out in accordance with Title 3 of the San Bernardino County Code as adopted by the city of Yucaipa.

Animal Jype
Animal Densltv Per Square Foot
Cattle/Buffalo
1 per 10,000
Horses
1 per 10,000
Hogs (9 maximum)
1 per 20,000
Sheep, Female Goats, and Similar
1 per 4.000
Livestock
Maio Adult Goats (4 maximum)
for parcels of less than 10 acres, 1
Male Adult Goats (4 maximum)
for parcels 10 acres+, 1 per 5 acres
Rabbits and Chinchillas (200
50 per 10,0t10 (min. parcel size 1 acre)
maximum)
Female Poultry
for parcels of less than 1 acre, 25
Female Poultry
for parcels of 1 to less than 10 acres, 99
Female Poultry
for parcels of 10 acres +, 99 per 10 acres
Male Poultry (9 maximum)
for parcels of less than 10 acres, 2 per parcel
Male Poultry (9 maximum)
for parcels of 10 acres +, 2 per 5 acres
(B) Small Animal Ranches/Farms
Aviaries, apiaries, or similar small animal ranches or farms shall be permitted on parcels that are at least one-half acre in size. Fish raising shall be limited to one pond per acre, with a maximum of four ponds per parcel. Each pond shall not exceed one-half surface acre in area.
(5) Accessory uses as specified by Chapter 5 of this division. (6) Small family day care home.
(b) Land Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit
(1) Commercial kennels and cafteries—two-acre minimum parcel size. (2) Commercial chicken ranches restricted to a minimum of 10 acres. (3) Agricultural support services.
(4) Mobilehome park (not to exceed four spaces par acre on minimum parcel size of 20 acres). (5) Any structure associated with row, field, tree, and nursery crop cultivation that is greater than 10,000 square feet on parcels of five acres or less.
(6) Planned development.
(7) Boarding house (for up to six residents)_
(8) Bed and breakfast lodge (for up to slot guests).
(9) Parolee homes.
(10) Botanical gardens and arboretums.
(11) Historic and monument sites.
(12) Unmanned public utilities and services useststructures. (13) Unmanned radio and television stations/towers.
(14) Wildlife and nature preserves.
(c) Property Development Standards
The following property development standards shall apply to all land uses within the RL District.

Maximum Structure Haight 35 foot
Minimum Lot Size (map suffix will modify) 1.0 gross acre Maximum Lot Coverage 40%

Page 240 ends

Maximum Building Coverage
40%
Maximum Lot Dimensions (width/depth ratio)
10 acres = 1:4
Minimum Lot Dimensions (width/depth in feet)
1251125
Front Yard Setback
30feet
Side Yard Setbacks
15 feet
Rear Yard Setbacks
25 feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (local streets)
20feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (collector streets)
30 feet
Maximum Housing Density
1 du/acre
Minimum District Size
10 gross acres
ra

Page 241 ends

CITY OF YtiCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NOTICE -JAl I U 2023
DATE: January 04, 2023 CITY
O4
CASE NUMBER: PL90220000150 j { Alr�,',
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52. LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 2-150 PD.P/FDP/TTi\,I 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed.Scoano L-stares PrQiecr which sill establish 51. Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000square feet or greater, and 16age-restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots .for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is amodified proposal tiomCaseNo.20-136
LOCATION:Threc parcels totaling 52 acres on the cast side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits aPiY: 0320-161-05 and 09; 03201-51-28
ATIT,NTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVILl11ING AGINCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Plannurg Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near die proposed project. Your comments must be received by th is office no later than January 18, 2023.

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 havc no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding [his proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2459, eat. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division. 3427Z Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.y
If you want to be notified oI'the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a sclfaddrrssed, stamped cnvelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10)cale ndardays after an action is taken.

COMMIE -rS (Ifyou need additionalspace, please attach additional pages):
tjo C' t-.-��c -fry -rw C�..,�.-..� Z�wc ,
S IONA TURF i52Y�r---- DA T E l �I?3 A GENCY —
PRINT NAME_ _.J Cr/__ADDRESS
YOU CFIALLENGE ANY ddECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROP OSAI ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SO1btEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN C DMSIONAT, ORPRIORTO, THE TWIEITMAKES ITS DECIStONOVT,.__.._.

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONEELSE rMUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELI VERED TOTHE HEARING BODY AT, OR P RIOR TO, T HE I-MARMG.

DUE TOT IMECONSTR,,VNTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHINGTO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TWE RESTRICTIONS

NIAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTMMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE

YOUR COMMENTS IN W RITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY Cc: Surroundin- Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Digineering Division
Buildin; &Safety Division

Page 242 ends

Jan 18 23,05:03p Mark Etheredge
9097973510 p.2

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023
RECEIVED BAN 1 8 2023
CASENUMBER: PUD220000150
Ja
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL.: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TM1 20375. A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTl4 20375YFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels20,000 square feet or greater, and 16agc-re3tricted lots tDqualifying seniors on lots greater than 1z000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins -Please note that this is a modified proposal from Cas a No. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres oft the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits API : 0320-161-05 and 09; 03201-31-23
ATMTTION 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 projecL Your eommcnts must be received by this office no later than January 18, 2023.

Comments received aflerthis date aught not be considered in the decision. Please referto 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 Mattock at (909) 797-2499, ert. 26 L. 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.

Ifyou want to be notified ofthe project decision, print your name clearly and legioi), on this form and mail itto the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions ate subject to an appeal period often (f0)calcndardays after an action is taken.

CO1V1lY1tENTS (If y ou need add $m nal space, pleas a attach addit ion alp ages):

SIGNATURE U A Vb DATE ACENCX
PRINT NAME - fa i'YIUYI i .� {Q MDDAESS

YOU CHALLEAGE ANY DECISION REGARDINGTHE ABOVE PROPOSAL

ONLYTHOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTENCI

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TWE IT MAIDS ITS DECISION ON TI THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGOR 1N WRITTI34 CORRESPOMENCE DELIVERED TOTIIE HEARING BODYAT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO T111AECONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHINGTO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RE5TRICTIONS MAYBE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU hfAY R'lSH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN W RtTING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrvundmg Property Owners
Fire Department
Building &Safety Division
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Divis Ion

Page 243 ends

Jan 18 23,05:02p Mark Etheredge 9097973510 p.1
r
-To 4`
C°�rc�r-n�r� C�Se
�L-2a°d° j5o ? �j�J Cn��►n j
lbo CA r-e
4rC1i'ri�c•2 � ��o a 32�� L-- 1 Z��t'1 '► n�, _ c�'�-' o n�. 4.cr-� � r- j `ale_
AA'\na
,),zenS -c\I1\. ;gin ,^
`l� i �?G� �"��5 c�� rne-r I
OL
4kQ V,-.)Ov yy
� bey
Alr-\Ns o
Wks L)
l�'YL�1 �Ptl
0�.CV-ecl
c—B ch
RECEIVED JAN 18 2023
_ __ _ Page 244

1/18123, 3:23 AM
Scan_20230113.ipg
C'r"r Y OF YUC AI VA i'LANNING DIVISION
PRO,IFaf"f' vcr *IC'E
UATV: Iaou.try 01. N21
C_ASF.NUj%1KR: Pl202203W130
APPLICANT' Vnizailm It. LLC
PROPOSAL: ('.1:c Nu 21.151) POV:1—nl A IM 2017+ A N,mllcd Developiricni ptnlr,: t 111:0 ;n:lu:lr, a 111%:11 nauly l)ccclupnlcnl i'Litt and 1'cntattve 'Ir:+cl 4(up 11 F\( ;037SM-Final t.k c:.patent i'?"nt ful tlt_- 11 let pilSed Scnait, l Iv, WwS f'nt),:ct. wiltch +:III r-o.iltlrIt 51 S;t,gI. Pattuly Re;utettt al lot, n'tt)t +5 Icstdvtlt A kits mi parcrk 20.000 tittll;+le la: i m i;ro tter, an11 I Q nQc•1,'+Inc:".I Int to rl tl.t.11t\'tit.: tcil Nlr' t1n Lis% 1 Pf..a Cr (h.tt1 11,0(?i) st{uarc fill. au adllit,.asal turllsu.;cd )�+t t5?r rat ru, ;:.laa, .0t+nft Yu"alpn Hittite hn;t:l, t r,'n u1rderktt lur valeyanl. alld I:lutttat :t cu •.i,,.;c, and Ow-, j.Itewd tat•. I,.:r apcll .p.tcc and dctcwwll h,+ials • Vk tic mute that this i.ti a mud iliet) ptuptt sal Itu to C,t, c Nu. IO, 16 LOCATION! I hrcc p: iccis k+tyling, pw td pn+crl Yturcuninkms nnl"tl I?v f",A'cd by lily office tilt hater Illua 1.trivaty M.:02% ibaun,:nts resit ad alley Eli;,, date ntigill not he cansid:red in the dcci.ioii I'lea c rclrr to tlli, ptulc:t hp the applicant's malt• anti c,t•.r Itimthet indi,mcd above IryclII have nu cnrtuncnt, 110 Willy is accessary Irynll have any qucstims reganlin;', Ihls pmpnsnf,plea uc cnnlacl licnpninn Malloc1, at (`Xwlj 797•laX1),c,I 261 Yau ltuy strltd your enOmtwits In the Ciiy (trYucatpa i'!annang I)lvt: 11.11, a1''72 Yuelillm R'okvald, Yucaipa, CA m aia FA \ a) t9091 TX1.9203.
lryou ,vast I,, be not f•.ed oCtile project deco I.1n,print ;:�urnatnc clearly" and Icgtbly on this form end mail it to 11w address above akntp. ".with n ietf•adttr,:.sell. stamped Lnvcbl%. All ticcisions arc iuhiccl In an •kppcal I+eriudurtell (10)raicndardaysaHer aun 6ojit•:telen
COMMENTS IIIyollficulladdillonallp;wc,pkL.'st: l;4tat viditiollall+.tvo) r---- Z 3
t ) / t r�.NI N i2ESt c� �1Ct
PRINT NAME Rj e 4A{ 'O Jo i �f�TD,.t4 Al)I)I:!_tit
VIA, 001.1 t 'vl•: Ati1' 01-04ON rr1 tiAlti 'A; I HE AUUtI. rto\tYl;h,• (r;%11,SNAW,tltSiINII0::1.I.1.:.6KAL'".J)WWWI :1V:4. 11tV1MO:.l,il.IIRPFMIR tu,1'f11-iJ,tt IrMAKINI1SDI4I:-I(1!:nN t 111: 1'ki1Pi:-.,}l 1'1'A't;l: titrtit rtti' i,ltitE kit r:I 11AVI P,,}I:00 11It`,... _...... ... . .... ...,,,..,.., TId.III.10"[+?''}i"I1:'ttrAVINK;11100YA't ORPKir: rC!,11115IIiARINi) 011: 1'tI ',II 10NN 16_A1St', II HO N1'::4tkn ns I` RSAINS WI'•i Nrr; 10 UV) 1,*AI I .:I INTO:}" II\t r:L1 S'1 R1r' 11r I`.`• ♦IAV Ill I'I 4t'I:II Wi IMAE f'N;I IV1t)NY Ai ANV flit' R' 111 ARIM, :1MAtI I IIIS PROPEKAi fill.' `.IAY }%11,11 1:1 MAKI• Yf.Clttt1,:1�IN:".t•'K!1,.',AIItIA-.;IT! IIIAiY,A,U1A1:LPtut•\I'RIt.Qti%11.1'i C;: Sis mtsodirig Property Chviiclz 1"uenipa�'al{cy tt'at::r [)i.Inet hire Ucintauuen t bt gm et: nil It 1) iv k loss
Building & Suictr t)Iv:,iml
11ttpsJlmail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=l#inbox?projector=1

Page 245 ends

January_ 11., 2023
City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
;mot -Sr-
Yucaipa, CA 92399
A
Serrano Estates Projects
Case No. PL20220000150 q 1.

OF
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, L LC i1'
Proposal: Case No. 2.2-1.50 PDP/F.D:P/TTM 20 375
To Whom it May Concern.:]
This letter is to request that the City of Yucaipa dmy the planned Serrano Estates Project Case No 22-1.50 as currently drafted. While the current development plan is much better than the previous plan, it still violates development requirements for RL-I zoning with lots as small as 12,090 square feet (quartet- acre). While the owner has a right to develop the property, the property must be developed in accordance with the intent of the current zoning requirements which is one home on one acre (43,560 square feet). It is entirely inconsistent with the rural culture of the north bench to place homes on anything less than one acre.

The City h.as a responsibility to the existing residents to preserve the culture and atmosphere of the neighborhood and to disapprove developments that adversely affect the current neighborhood. The homes should be single story, custom built homes consistent with the majority of the homes in the neighborhood and should not be tract homes. Photographs showing existing homes along Ivy Avenue and Yucaipa Ridge Road are attached. Please note how the existing homes and lots use the natural slopes, and open lot concept (absence of walls).

RL-1 Zoning
The proposed Serrano Estates property is zoned RL-1 meaning Rural page 246

Living, one acre minimum. The developer argues that, averaged over the entire 52 acres, the proposed 51 lots meets the requirement of one dwelling per one gross acre. Further, Developer representatives falsely claimed to city council that the development met the definition of rural living as the only definition for rural living is found in the dictionary.

Consistent with the maximum dwelling unit requirement in the ordinance there should not be more than 24 homes in this development based on the sum of the 51 lot areas.

The RL zoning designation allows farm animal husbandry, orchards, etc. Consistent with the Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320, the development must allow for these property uses on each lot.

City Ordinance 84.0320 also specifies home setbacks, lot dimensions, etc. that need to be observed in the development.

Slopes
The development as planned calls for flat lots with unconventionally steep slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1) for residential lots in a high seismic hazard area. Slopes exceed 20 feet in height and occupy nearly a third of smaller lots and are nearly 50 feet high at the northeast corner lot. These are excessively steep and inconsistent with the area (see attached photographs). Properties in the area use the natural slopes _ y with split level homes and walk out basements. There are no one acre _ lots in the area with engineered slopes this steep and high. We ask that the development make better use of the land to preserve natural slopes and limit slopes to 3:1 and not more than 10 feet in height.

High Risk Wildfire Area
This area of the North Bench is a high -risk wildfire area and was most recently affected by the El Dorado wildfire. Closely spaced homes increase the risk to the public. Senior citizens are especially susceptible to the hazards of wildfires, yet the development provides for small, senior citizen housing. Based on wildfire hazard alone, the lot sizes should not exceed the maximum housing density of one dwelling unit per acre and should not be designated by the city for senior housing.

Senior Housing

Page 247 ends

With regard to the argument for smaller lots for senior housing, we note the single largest demographic in this area of the North Bench are seniors —living on one acre or larger lots. Smaller lots for seniors unnecessary in this area.

In summary, the development must be consistent with city ordinance for RL-1 zoning requirements which specifically establishes a one -acre maximum housing density, allowance for large animal husbandry, and development consistent with the culture of the area (one story homes with Iots honoring the natural slopes), with careful attention to public safety, particularly as relates to wildfires and stormwater.

Sincerely,

Page 248 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NOTICE RECEIVED JAN 17 2023
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000ISO
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375YFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feat or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 17,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) forvineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainderlot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please notethat this is amodified proposal from Case No. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east sidefofYucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
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 nearthe proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than January 18, 2023.

Ifyou want to be notified o.fthe project decision, print yourname clearly and legibly on this fo.nn and mail itto the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMW,NTS (ffy.ou need add itionalspace, please attach additional pages):
�)ea,-e- S ee
ZUa3
SIGNATURE �J i.., DATE AGENCY
PRINT NAME —'�nbl n 91 St—, r , ADDRESS

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL

ONLYTHOSE ISSUES YOU ORSOMEONEELSE RAISED IN WRITTENC
DMSIONAT. OR PRIOR TO, THETIME IT MAKES ITS DECISIONON T.

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE P UBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODYAT. OR PRIOR TO. THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUWER 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 WRITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLETO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners YucaipaVaUey Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division
Page-2-49

January 17, 2023
City of Yucaipa PIanning Division
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Serrano Estates Project
Case No. PL20220000150
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC
Proposal: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Dear City Planner and City Council:

My purpose in writing is to request that the City of Yucaipa deny the planned Serrano Estates Project (Case No 22-150) as planned. We believe that the current development plan is much better than the previous plan, but it is still inconsistent with the RL-1 zoning. Some ofthe lots are as small as one quarter acre which will not supportrural living as defined by Yucaipa ordinance 84-0320. I recognize that the owner has a right to develop the property but it needs to comply with current zoning.

Consistent with current construction, the new homes should be one-story custom-built homes and should make use of the natural slopes and avoid excessively high slopes greater than 10 feet.

The proposed Serrano Estates property is zoned RL-1 meaning Rural Living, one acre minimum.

Yucaipa City Ordinance 94.0320 defines rural living and clarifies the designation of the RL district.

Attached is the full citation of the ordinance. As clearly stated, the maximum allowable housing density is one dwelling unit per acre —NOT one dwelling unit per gross acre as currently planned. This means that 24 acres are allowed on the 24 acres of land currently designated for construction.

Under Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.0320, the RL zoning designation allows for farm animals including horses, cows, sheep, etc. The lots must allow for these uses on each lot.

The slopes of 2 horizontal to I vertical (2:1) are extraordinarily steep for residential lots heights of 20 feet on small lots and up to 50 feet on the largest lot. It will be very difficult to maintain these slopes and may lead to instability and excessive erosion that plugs backyard drains. Properties in the area use the natural slopes with split level homes and walk out basements. 3:1 slopes are more common and we suggest that the slopes not be higher than 10 feet.

The Nortln Bench has been evacuated several times for wildfires and it a high -risk wildfire area. Less densely packed houses would reduce the risk of homes spreading fires.

With regard to senior housing, most of the homeowners in this area are seniors and doing just fine on one acre or larger lots. Smaller lots for seniors are unnecessary in this area.

Did the storrnwater design features account for increased runoff from denuded slopes from wildfires and Iots from large animal raising? If not; the $tormwater control system needs to. be re -designed for the "new reality" of increased stormwater flows.

In addition to the above, I ask that the development consider the following:
1

Page 250 ends

• Dark sky street and home lighting (street and house lights with shades pointing downward • Energy independence (the area is prone to rolling blackouts) • Use of trees and ranch style fencing in place of block walls which are uncharacteristic of the culture and existing developments in the area
• Show that the additional water requirements for homes and vineyards will not lead to restrictions on existing homeowners.
• Show that tragic will not cause a safeiy concern for cyclists, pedestrians, and horse riders.

To summarize, the development must be consistent with city ordinance for RL-1 zoning requirements which specifically establishes a one -acre maximum housing density, allowance for large animal raising, and development consistent with the culture of the area (one story homes with lots honoring the natural slopes), with careful attention to public safety, particularly as relates to wildfires and stomiwater.

Sincerely yours,
Robin D. Miskin
2 84.0320 Rural Living (RL) District.

The Rural Living (RL) District shall be located as specified by the Yucaipa General Plan. (a) Permitted Land Uses
(1) Row, Field, Tree, and Nursery Crop Cultivation
Any structure associated with this activity is limited to 10,000 square feet on parcels of five acres or less. (2) Single dwelling unit.
(3) Small residential care facility.
(4) Animal Raising
(A) Animal raising as a primary use of the property must be on a parcel no less than two acres in size. Lot area used to qualify one animal type, either Primary or Accessory Animal Raising, shall not be reused to qualify another animal type.

Proper manure management will be carried out in accordance with Title 3 of the San Bernardino County Code as adopted by the city of Yucaipa.

Animal Type
cattle/Buffalo
Horses
Hogs (9 maximum)
Sheep, Female Goats, and Similar
Livestock
Male Adult Goats (4 maximum)
Male Adult Goats (4 maximum)
Rabbits and Chinchillas (200
maximum)
Female Poultry
Female Poultry
Female Poultry
Male Poultry (9 maximum)
Male Poultry (9 maximum)
(B) Small Animal Ranches/Farms
Animal Density Per Square Foot
1 per 10,000
1 per 10,000
1 per 20,000
1 per4,000
for parcels of less than 10 acres, 1
for parcels 10 acres+, 1 per 5 acres
50 per 10,000 (min. parcel size 1 acre)
for parcels of less than 1 acre, 25
for parcels of 1 to less than 10 acres, 99
for parcels of 10 acres +, 99 per 10 acres
for parcels of less than 10 acres, 2 per parcel
for parcels of 10 acres +, 2 per 5 aces
Aviaries, apiaries, or similar small animal ranches or farms shall be permitted on parcels that are at least one-half acre in size. Fish raising shall be limited to one pond per acre, with a maximum of four ponds per parcel. Each pond shall not exceed one-half surface acre In area.
(5) Accessory uses as specified by Chapter 5 of this division. (6) Small family day care home.
(b) Land Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit
(1) Commercial kennels and calteries—two-acre minimum parcel size. (2) Commercial chicken ranches restricted to a minimum of 10 acres. (3) Agricultural support services.

Page 252 ends

(4) Mobile home park (not to exceed four spaces per acre on minimum parcel size of 20 acres). (5) Any structure associated with row, field, tree, and nursery crop cultivation that Is greater than 10,000 square feet on parcels of five acres or less.
(6) Planned development.
(7) Boarding house (for up to six residents).
(8) Bed and breakfast lodge (for up to six guests).
(9) Parolee homes.
(10) Botanical gardens and arboretums.
(11) Historic and monument sites.
(12) Unmanned public utilities and services uses/structures. (13) Unmanned radio and television stations/lowers.
(14) Wildlife and nature preserves.
(c) Property Development Standards
The following property development standards shall apply to all land uses within the RL District.

Maximum Structure -Height
35 feet
Minimum Lot Size (map suffix will modify)

1.0 gross acre
Maximum Lot Coverage
40%
Maximum Building Coverage
40%
Maximum Lot Dimensions (width/depth raflo)
10 acres = 1:4
Minimum Lot Dimensions (width/depth in feet)
1251125
Front Yard Setback
30 feet
Side Yard Setbacks
15 feet
Rear Yard Setbacks
25 feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (local streets)
20 feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (collector streets)
30 feet
Maximum Housing Density
1 dulacre
Minimum District Size
10 gross acres
4

Page 253 ends

G,
CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISVIV-0 JAN 17 2023

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023
v1 ``^11�1
( `iv r,
CASENUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC 1S }Fik
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Plan ned l"Deve lop ment 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 Fancily Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16age-restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additionalnumbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge (toad, a remainder lot For vincyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots far open space and detention basins -Please note that this is a rnodified proposal ImmCase No. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the casts ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320.161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
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 nearthe proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than January 18, 2023.

Comments received aftcr 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, Ifyou have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin iNtatlock at (909) 797-2489, eM. 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.

CONINIENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):
r ,
S IGNA
S_ r')�Lc �t� Cc-r.tC(

TE / / AGENCY
PRINTNAMFZ..��`5:..6�DDRESS--

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDINGTHE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU ORSOME•ONEELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN COR,[ DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THET[ME• IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE,

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS W ISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS

MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT'THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE NG
YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITrTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEq.IATELY cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
P
Building & Safety Division
(9_etW

J J
J /'Z G2�JC-�`� ` i%.G� 1 t (�c�G'c� J`T 6t
.. -- J t
�. a J-- � �J �l -fit �J� ��-�.
oy-

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NOTICE �� +A,'
DATE: January 04, 2023 172023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDPITTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375YFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 square feet or greater, and 16 age -restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please notethat this is amodifed proposal fromCase No. 20-136
LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits ----7�h:�03?O-i-Gi-O$•and�'9;-03-20-1-$•ice-$ ------ —• ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGINCIES: 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 January 19, 2023.

COMMENTS(Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

VC 6 -� --�'l�� S
SIGNATURE DATE 73AGENCY
PRINT NAME_ ea L D 1 __ADDRESS__
YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING T HE ADO VE PROPOSAL 6

ONLY T HOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN W RITTEN COP DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR T0, t14ETIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE THE PROPOSAL. YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT TIME PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR T0, THE HEARING.

DUE TOTIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHINGTO 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 W RITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLETO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yuc aip a Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division

Page 256 ends

CITYOF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 17 2023

PROJEC T NOTICE
0A IF•: 1,titu,ut M. 20!
CASE NUIN1111• . 1'120'00(g,Iit)
AI'PLICAYI: l tic alpa 52, LIA
PROPOSAL: Ca..: Krt 22-1 AND REVIPWCNII; ACF:NC•IP`: I'lio dcvelnptm:rt propns,ll Ifilcd abate h" ho:en lined wall the fly PUnning I)nmion %m alr ntvnwF it) t:oninlerit bccantc ptrlrr p.-pperty :, gear tits pif) po'.cd Pit) jVCI Your corinventt rum tic re,:c;yc.l by thn olht)c tint Lacr than rauuary 18. 2023 Wnumm ievened Act thn wit: might not b Y Is1 t111 *%U il!t',trl•tIII, 1:.'ON Ill I III: LSL Alt 11 R:NI; K;11t,t.11 1111. •i (.., •r..• nr 1 nc r'1 1+t.lt tlPater , uY 1� IYKI 111 ; & tialcly Di%+bolt

Page 257 ends

Benjamin Matlock
From:

Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:49 AM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Building homes Yucaipa ridge
Please don't let them build under 1 acre lot house's on the Yucaipa ridge. Yucaipa is getting so congested already not to mention the school situation, water, roads, keep our town the way it is!

Page 258 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023 `�,V��
� zaz3
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375NFinal Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000square feet orgreater, and 16age-restricted lots to qualifying seniors on lots greaterthan 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder lot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins - Please note that this is a modified proposal fromCase No. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVILVING 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 January 18, 2023, 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. Ifyou have no comment, no reply is necessary. Ifyou have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, e)d. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FA X to (909) 790-9203.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):

SE7E
SIGNATURE A44DATE.[1VA GENCY
PRINT NAME � ADDRESS_
YOU CHALLENGE ANY DE SION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL 1

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU R SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CC DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON TH.... � ��••� •�

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAYBE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN W PIT ING 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

Page 259 ends

Stephen A. Freeman
Cvnthia S. Freeman
January 16, 2023
Benjamin Matlock, City of Yucaipa Planning Manager
Dear Mr. Matlock,
We are residents of the north bench and your district. We are opposed to the proposed Serrano development.

The primary reasons are:

1. The infrastructure will not properly support the proposed population density. There is not enough room to provide streets large enough to handle the traffic. There is no way to provide proper access to utilities without damaging the property and property values of the current residents. The streets will not handle the traffic from 52 more homes.

2. Will emanate domain be used by the city to take the land from current owners to widen the existing streets? Will existing home owners loose property and property value?

3. Will current residents be forced to connect to new sewers?

4. Is the developer going to pay for all the cost to change the roads? The irony will be making existing home owners pay in taxes to have their quality of life reduced.

5. This area represents the rural history of Yucaipa. Development of the north bench on parcels of less than 1 acre with destroy that heritage.

6.. A promise made by government should be kept. All the residents in the area purchased their homes believing that the 1 acre lot size zoning would be kept. They trusted their city government.

Last but not least.

Page 260 ends

inferred that using the northern portion for agriculture was some sort of magnanimous gesture on their part. The seismic issue was not mentioned to the commissioners until noted by one of the speakers from the audience. This northern section of the property is about one half of the total acreage. Looking at that norther section makes one wonder if it will ever successfully support a vineyard or other agricultural purpose. It is steep and very uneven ground that will need a massive amount of excavation to create suitable vineyard land which makes it financially nonviable for a vineyard. The developers efforts to align with the wine commission is no more than a cheap political trick. The whole wine plan is an ugly hoax at worst and a useless pipe dream at best.

Please vote no on the Serrano project.

Steve and Cindy Freeman

Page 261 ends

Beniamin Matlock
From:

Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:37 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Re: Planning commissioners
Mr. Matlock,
Please sent the following to all of the Commissioners.

We are residents of the north bench and your district. We are opposed to the proposed Serrano development.

The primary reasons are:

2. Will emanate domain be used by the city to take the land from current owners to widen the existing streets? Will existing home owners loose property and property value?

3. Will current residents be forced to connect to new sewers?.

4. Is the developer going to pay for all the cost to change the roads? The irony will be making existing home owners pay in taxes to have their quality of life reduced.

5. This area represents the rural history of Yucaipa. Development of the north bench on parcels of less than 1 acre with destroy that heritage.

6.. A promise made by government should be kept. All the residents in the area purchased their homes believing that the 1 acre lot size zoning would be kept. They trusted their city government.

Last but not least.

4. The, at best, disingenuous statements of the developer are an indicator of character. The developer knew, when the property was purchased many years ago, that the northern section was not suitable for homes due to the well known seismic conditions. The developer had to know then how many homes could be built safely on suitable land given a one acre lot size zoning. At the oral presentation made and the earlier planning commission hearing the developer's representatives purposely did not state that fact of the seismic issues and inferred that using the northern portion for agriculture was some sort of magnanimous gesture on their part. The seismic issue was not mentioned to the commissioners until noted by one of the speakers from the audience. This northern section of the property is about one half of the total acreage. Looking at that norther section makes one wonder if it will ever successfully support a vineyard or other agricultural purpose. It is steep and very uneven ground that will need a massive amount of excavation to create suitable vineyard land which makes it financially nonviable for a vineyard. The developers efforts to align with the wine

Page 262 ends

commission is no more than a cheap political trick. The whole wine plan is an ugly hoax at worst and a useless pipe dream at best.

Please vote no on the Serrano project
Steve and Cindy.Freeman
In a message dated 1/17/2023 1:06:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Hi Steve,
The Commissioners are as follows:

JR Allgower
Tony Hicks
Richard Beck
Donna Snodgrass
Stacey Chester
Dave Higginson
Lyle Vick
You can submit letters to myself or to the City Clerk.

Thank you,

Page 263 ends

Benjamin Matlock
Planning Manager / City Planner
City of Yucaipa
City Hall - 34272 Yucaipa Blvd - Yucaipa, CA 92399
Office: 909-797-2489 Ext. 261
www.Kucaipa• ore
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12.42 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Planning commissioners
How do I know who the planning commissioners are and how can I communicate with them via the city websiteas I have done in the past?

Page 264 ends

(ATY OF YUCAIPA I'LA.NNING DIVISION
PROJEC- 1' NOTICE RECIENM
DATE: lanuin W 202;
JAN 18 Z023
(ANF`tAllIrR:PI2022i O01-•11
AP PLICA NT: 1 uc :film 5 2. LIA ' CITY
PROPOSAL; t aic No 22-1{U I't)f"FI71' 1-I'M 20175 :1 I'Linnrd Dceclopiwnt qiaw" On On :i
Prclimi m Uc\'clupmem Phu and lentativc I r u slap i r i`,d 2U3751 Fm.d Dvveiupulenl Plarr tvl the prupnsed Scrnanu 6:atcs Pugcct.. %1iwh wdl cslaWnh 51 4urltle I%tudy IUsidcr: AI lot. W1H1 35 resulrnttal loci on pmucls 2010)squarc Ieci for nrcatcr, and Ihrtp,c-rep meted lids to (Iuaiii),m' scnk-wi on kw; s'reaterillnn 12,011n .quart icct, au addR:onal nu nliewd kit (521 for vn!cyurds A nu: Yuc.upa ltrd!1e Road, a. rRntalrldrr lot ►or virlcyurds and nalund upcn spAcc. and thrc•: le Bred lots Ar open space .curl drtcnhan b::ails - Pk•ate notctl m Ilds 6 amoditicd proposal howCoc tit,,. 211It, L0(''A'I1ON!'rhrec pan:cl., tnUA ng 52 afros on the clot suit- (if' Yucaipa Itidge Ito id, :oath of Ili City fimits AP,44: rli2(LI6!AR tend WJ; (111201-XI.11,
Al FEVVION PROPERTY OWNERS ANl) JOVIENVING AGENCIES: the dcvclopnlcut proposal listed above has been tiled wall fire Cit), Plannwg I�IV)c:nn Y e.tttactlaslditiotlalpngcs) SI(i�I:1il.'K!i �t.tq il�)r�a`/ tlt�r• [):1IL F'1Y,13 ;1(;l,"Y Y4d!C`ll.\IF.2ak.iL ANT UPi:lllClti P.i:ri,\Rt�\ti'I'HI AIr 1tL I'1Lt)N(!iAL tr ON YT1ONS ISSM S %'Oil OR Sr)\llO`.I:I.I.S! UAV;i I) IN 1\'1t1111N 't)t I'rhAgO1NAI.tlttl'ItOR 1r1, 11[1 i1MI I MAXI II%I1[tIAiA ON llli ..... ._...

I III F'1{(JVO:,AL, YtU OR SUNIHSL i..I.S! hl" I lf,\L'I•. RA1%U I II(Z•i 1W.4 S A I I IIf. I'LIrLI(.: III-ARP,16 UR IN' \Vltl l l tN CORRl-NiION'1)i .'JCI. lsl'.1.149'Kl:h !I? 1' IIr iI1.it0[IN' Al r5:; i'3h. t V, T I[I !11 Ili 1: 1 () I11IF. CONSt RAW1 5 AND 1111 \tt!! Ft m I'; ItSO.45 SV!m"M; 10 MV1 r'wm [!-4iMtrt?' y rwr R" I !{tt'tH % .%JAY !►P I'LACi 1) ON ORAL 1 P`.I IM NY AI ANY V11W.R" IFI ARIN,r AtIO ' I HITS PROP(NA1 NTN :IAS' ;\!`ill 10 ;11A?d N'i {It,, 0INIM[IN US IN % RI T 1%1 10 .\'.'.F!R I I M I YUi1 1R1 At!!.! 'f Ml Xl'Iti-S YOU AVM QOAF i I 'I 4e Surroundin;: Propcny Owncrs Yuc:npa \':Ales Wl Iler I kinct Firc Nparrtncnt Fns;ut;;nrtr Ihvl ran
IZurldln, .t: 5 tletl I)tv ,!on

Page 265 ends

City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa CA 92399
Serrano Estates Project
Case No. PI.20220000150
Applicant: Yucaipa 52, LLC
Proposal: case Plo. 77.-150 PDP f FDP/TTM7.037S
To whom it may concern:

This letter is to request LhaL Lhe city of 'fucaipa deny Lhe planned Serrano Estates Project Case No. 22- 150 as currently drafted. The current development violates development requirements for RL-1 zoning with lots as small as 12,090 square feet (quarter acre). While owners have the right to develop their property, it must be within the intent of the current zoning requirements which is one home on one acre (43,560 square feet). This project proposal is completely inconsistent with the rural culture of the north bench to place homes on anything less than one acre and violates existing zoning requirements.

The city is entrusted by its citizens to preserve these zoning requirements and to be the gatekeeper and disapprove developments that adversely effect the current neighborhood.

The proposal violates the zoning requirements in a number of areas. The use of developer's attempt to use legislation SB9 as justification does not apply to this project since the area is not designated by u.s.

CeriSL1S as ar, UlbanlCell ZVeaS. lilt: area Vi i fe propo�ai is d�•Sigiiai e(- n5 rili`cil nii�i i5 VL L]IIIC Cf ihc`' Liri�aii area designated by the u.s, census.

The proposal does not comply with RL-1 and exceeds the existing dwelling ratio of one dwelling per one gross acre with a proposed 4 dwellings per gross acre. The proposal is also inconsistent with 'Yucaipa city ordinance 84,0320 which indicates that development property must allow use on each lot for farm animal husbandry, orchards, etc. City Ordinance 84.0320 also specifies home setbacks, lot dimensions, etc that need to be observed.

The development as planned calls for flat lots with unconventionally steep slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1) for residential lots in a high seismic hazard area. The proposed development is in close proximity to the San Andreas Fault Zone in the area of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

The existing properties in the area use the natural slopes with split level and walk out basements. A Majority of existing properties are single story. There are no one acre lots in the area with engineered slopes this steep and high. We request that the natural slopes be preserved and limited to a 3:1 and not 17i0fe
This area of the North Bench is a high -risk wildfire area and was most recently affected by the El Dorado wildfire. Closely spaced homes increase the risk to the public. Senior citizens are especially susceptible to the hazards of wildfires, yet the development provides for small senior- citizen housing.

The single largest demographics of the North Bench area are senior citizens living on one acre or larger lots.

Page 266 ends

We ask that the city review the assumptions and calculations behind design of flood and stormwater- control basins and conveyance structures. As a result of the El Dorado Fire, stormwater flows have increased dramatically. The assumptions and parameters used in calculating stormwater runoff and ")P�•1"-d !Qt' '144t{'r e;r �j r';.k ,'�i".fl !;,3 i"!ry _
vegetated vineyards.

In addition, we ask the the development implement the following:
-Dark sky street and home lighting (street and house lights with shades pointing downward) -Energy independence (the area is prone to blackouts)
-Use of trees and ranch style fencing in place of block walls which are uncharacteristic of the culture and rievp{r.nm!-nt,� in the
-Demonstrate that the additional water requirements will not lead to additional restrictions on existing residents, their orchards and livestock.
-Demonstrate that traffic will not adversely impact neighborhood safety including emergency evacuations, cycling, pedestrian and equestrian traiiic. The anaiysis shouid include the additional traillic from the commercial winters on Yucaipa Ridge Road.

In summary, the development must be consistent and in compliance with city ordinance for RL-1 zoning requirements which specifically establishes a one -acre maximum housing density, allowance for large animal husbandry, and development consistent with the culture of the area (one story homes honoring the natural slopes) with careful attention to public safety, particularly as it relates to wildfires and storm%voter,
Sincerely,
/fff./, ur/ 7 /

CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150
F'r�::ajr,��.l F'I�aru;ing hJatic�;
City of Yucaipa Planning Division
Benjamin Matlock
4;C1�' till?3
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
�7'1-
t�
Benjamin,
My name is Sarr,uel Sherwood and I live a
received the letter regarding case number PL20220000150 regarding the serrano estates project. This project does not comply with the North Bench RLl zoning. Additionally - this project does not comply with Senate Bill 9 which states "building or modifications to a property need to be in keeping with the look of the neighborhood". We are located in a high risk fire zone and this project would congest the evacuation routes. This project needs to be rejected to rneet the 1 house per acre North Bench RLl zoning requirement. We want the City of Yucaipa to grow and prosper but this is not the legal way to do it, Developers need to stop cutting corners and follow the zoning requirements of Yucaipa.

Sincerely,
_t
Samuel Sherwood

Page 268 ends

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATC: January 04. 2023
CAS E NUMBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT. Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PD1'IFDP/T'Cfv1 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 lot, with 35 residential lots on parcels 20,000 squan: feet or greater, and I6 age -restricted lots to qualifying senior on lots greater than 12,000 square feet, an additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainderlot for vineyards and natural open space, and three lettered lots for open space and detention basins -Please notethacthis is amodified proposal fromCiLseNo.20-136
LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-28
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVILIVING AGGNCIES: 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 January 18, 2023.

Comments received afler this date might not be considered in the decision. Please referto this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. Ifyou have no continent, no reply is necessary. Ifyou have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, eat. 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.

COhIA'1ENTS (Ifyou need additionalspace,please attach additional pages):

Qoeer Cd-VkY W F-0 -f f n'wb .

SIGNATURE DATEI'r7'217 AGENCY
PRIM NA4lE (' Ar-.00q_ _ADDRES:

YOU CIALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING'rHEABOVE PROPOSA.

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE PULISED IN WPJTTEN Cut DMSION A-r, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE _ THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUL•S AT THE PUBLIC HE,\RING OR IN WRITTEN CORRE•SPONDFNCE DELIVERED TOTHE IIEARlNGBODYAT. ORPRIQRTO.TIIC HEARING.

DUE TOT IMECONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBFIZ OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC Ifl ARING ABOUT THIS PROP05AL YOU NIAY WISH TO 6L\KL• YOUR CURIME`rrs INWRITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXI'RESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY cc: Surrounding Properly Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Tire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division

Page 269 ends

Yucaipa City CouncilApril 17, 2023

Yucaipa City Council
April 17, 2023