Yucaipa City Council
April 17, 2023

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NOTICE RECEIVED JAN 17 2023
DATE: January 04, 2023
CASE NUNIBER: PL20220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTlvI 20375: A Planned Development project that includes 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 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: 0320-161-09 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 19, 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,ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If YOU want to be notified ofthe project decis ion, print yo ur n ame clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a sell -addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10)calendardays after an action is taken, COMIM-ENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach additional pages):
�1iuit
r
S (:

SIGNATURE JZ4' �'��' DATE
II r;
7 PRINTNAME
Z�_ADDRESS--
YOU C1iALLC_NGE ANY DECI510N REGARDINGTHE ABOVE PROPOSAL If

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN COI - DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE T IME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE , • ��• •� T HE PROPOSAL, CORRESPONDENCE ODOLIVEREDONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISD THOSE TOTiIEHEARINGBODY.4TE0RPR10R�O,ES AT THE TFtEIiEARINGLICNEARINGORINWRITTFN DUE TOTIME• CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS W ISHINGTO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS YMAY BE PLACED ON OAL T ESTIMONY AT APUBLIC OUR COMMENTT3 N WRRIT NGTO SSURETHAI' YOU RE BLIETOEXPRESS YOURSENG AOUT THIS LF AY WISH TO MALE LY
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/FDPMM 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).

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, 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

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 fiat lots with unconventionally steep slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:3.) 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.

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:
• 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.

PA

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,
�J

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 We 3 of the San Bernardino County Code as adopted by the city of Yucaipa.

Animal Type
Cattle/8uffato
Horses
Hogs (9 maximum)
Sheep, Female Goats, and Similar
Livestock
Male Adult Goats (4 maximum)
Male Adult Goats (4 maximum)
Rabbits and Chinchllas (200
maximum)
Female Poultry
Female Poultry
Female Poultry
Male Poultry (9 maximum)
Mate 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 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 orfarms 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) Commercial chicken ranches restricted to a minimum of 10 acres. (3) Agricultural support services.
(4) Mobilehome 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.
(n 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
40%
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
30 feet
Side Yard Setbacks
15 feet
Rear Yard Setbacks
25 feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (focal streets)
20 feet
Street Side Yard Setbacks (collector streets)
30 feet
Maximum Housing Density
1 dulacre
Minimum District Size
10 gross acres
5 i

Benjamin Matlock
From:

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 11:05 AM
To: Benjamin Matlack
Subject: Yucaipa Ridge Road project PL20220000150
Dear Ben Matlock and Planning commission,
For the Yucaipa Ridge Road Project we oppose the current, redone plans for the project PL2022ing, one acre minimum lots. We have 0 (lobe presented 111ti/202
and any aother
sincprojects004 ndthe North bench's zone mo moved here because of the rural designted rural ation. Any other zon. We want it vin e of lesst rural thanone acre lots would ruin this area's been bore since
character and uniqueness.
ral living on the North Bench. With or without vineyards, each lot should be one acre, not a small This area is zoned for one acre lots, ru
lot for every acre of land that is developed. That does not make it rural anymore.

If they want to place vineyards on the outside of the 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 vmore ineyards are
supposed to w r make
a ewelof the North Bers wadd so much uniqueness all lots toYucaipa, please do notruin Imony ant ruin our area on the North Bench. The op
Sincerely,
Stephen West

1117123, 12:31 PM
Scan_20230113.jpg
i !I 1 fll' l l ( \II'\ I'I,•1��1�i, I)I� Itiltl'�
RECEIVED JAN 17 2023
1Yiltitlt+� I'IL++PII?Y1 tl�t�,ilt� .�f+kY�llNt�s. �?.k�+ii� �,� �t + ,, •:,:, .:,I' at°, .u,s .., • ., ,. an � .. , � .r; ,+ 1=. t:; � .. 1, „ qa ,... .. .. ,. sue- AJ43
is
hops;11mail.google.comlmaihu/01#sentlFMIcgzGrcrdzzdNInn prXhl<SWcCmIfDz?projector=l&messagePartIII =0.2 111

Yucaipa Ridge Road project PL20220000150
1 message
Stephen West Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:05 AM
To: [email protected]
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.

If they want to place vineyards on the outside of the 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 supposed 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,
Stephen West

CITY car YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 17 2023 PROJEC T N() nC E
OA rF:: )nnttar3 0d 2021
CASE NiAMER: l —102AX-1 114(1
APPLICANT: 1 urnipe 52. 1"1-(
PROPOSAL: i +:e NIO 22-IN) KIPA-DI'TDO 20nt ,t Pi.tnncd Itct'cinllltwnt pmlcct lh;p mcfudr, a Prchminan OCV6111mcnl Ilan anti rrntatn•c 1 rats \t,tp 11 1'\1l 20375) I'mal I,kcc11POW-11i Plan fur dac plopflsed SrRsnu I_ me'; aelticll wlll csl.lbit sh 51 Stn};L: I:uud} Reiidealnl lut•tyllh Ii rcstdcntr.d Intl nil parcels 20.1 M Stlll'tic lecl t•r, grcalcr, rind ih atir•1 lrr:tcd It+It to ((na(ity uu` scmttrs toll Ia1s grealcr than I�hh(r Sal llafC lcel. 111 riljtllllt)ndl latlluhctcd lol 02) lilt vlitt•t'nrtl't llUila! Yncaipa Rid I;Q Road. real ;tit der iltl lur i,,utcytards and rin(1tr.11'.lpcn space, and (h,cc Icttrr:,t hots tar Opc,1 +pace mill deictiilun ba +nt I'Ir,asc Iloicl11.111hi.. 1, r•nutdilictl plup.lsal IlviliCt.c, tiu 4-Ll- L(:IC Aill)N: l htee p(areck tnlal,tiv 52 acres ❑n the a 1st cit(r of lirc:upa Ridge Road, roll!!! of Ihe(lty limits AP\: II:?(LIA1.nc and r1' 1. nI101_el-M
Ar"IEYI'imN 11140PI•"RTY M\N'tRS AND REVIEWING AGINCINN: the dreclnilntcnl ptttposnl "'let' ahuvc has !teen tilcfl a1111 the ('11% 1'Luuun4 Imi.sttln You are invited to comment hecmisc Your prop•:rty a scar tic pfltp(+sad pn+jccl Yfu1 colttntn(• 1nn•:t he recclt cd by ill,-, ullice nil later ibiln j.(nitar,.• 18. 2021 Commenli weer'.ed utter this date fight not be canaldelcd tit the dculs,011 1'Lu— MCI* I') (hl+ Pro),:a by 'tic .lpptiiant'e u.1n1c and case number Indlcatt:d abpi,c if you havc no cornmcnl. no reply 1s ncccssaf) If yell' hnt'c nrty a111c,111fills rel[arding Ibis proposal• pieltic cunlaet 11copni t \1tltFack ill ((01)797-2489• c-d 261 5'r111 nuiy send your cumincnts to file ('itt (11 Yltcalpa Kinl1mg Dlvi� lnn. 1.1 72 Yucmpa mitilmild. Yuc:alpa. CA 92399. or yla FA \ it) i9o'll'71M-920
It you +tart! In be nil !lied o f the pm(ect deer'• kin, print Now riame.. ckcarfy and legibly' on (111% loan and mail it to llic adduce shove nipn^ svitlt a sell=.tddre, actk, shoal+cd erti,dope. All dt:rilu)nt an: cuhjccl to nu :lppral perhul t.l'tcn iftl}c.dcnd:utfay s after an ta0ton c. la%:n C'ONEMENTSill)nultccd addul(,nalspa:e,plc.l¢t ullach .tdditionialpancil UI% Icl,•e �,� C toss. 4-v Tv Ave�au-a-. we AD NOT- Luezl1.�- -
nc�G� • W� bq i j � ke re
I
1:1\rNt%41 I'I.�� .I.t j
Y 1,K1 OlAl 11:,Ait AM Ittt"I•• O Rli(IAKM'-:, 1 lll: .tlt(ri 1, I'k(lpt +A; 1tti) t' I fI C:i Is%f,I ; pttl, 1 11 ; ;tl',1tO1.1 1 1 S1 RA I'd I' -,N WRI1 11 `• IiIN, 1--)'9 kI,tIRprt,Itll: it ili! 11.; 11'mAKI"IINIIilIIhr;�t>N 1 ( Ill, ('kl%f'USAL 5 (X. 1 -1S NUMB (?ii I I tit. Nil :; I IIAVI Il 1MA) I itt'r•t. t."M cs A I I M..1't tt:,tt I11•ARIvt, Ult iN tlrkl l , f4 ( 01OU SlIONVIN(T 1.11:1 I%1-!J.p I "1 ill 11 1�til ll`r IHAI Y01, iltl ABI1• It11 VIII•\`•YtA:N.til',I,I•:1ir,ix.:tilll cc Surmundink t'milelty (htncts 1'u:a.pa\'abet Willer District Fur DelmrtmenI Nli lrtrcrutg rhvt.t)II
I[tlliding & t+:t [C It Di%olon

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 (TTM 20375)/Fina( 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 note that this is a modified proposal fromCaseNo. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the casts ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City limits AlOM-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, wd. 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 of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendardays after an action is taken.

CONrdENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach ad d it ion at p ag es):
n�r
G" P
ci
0*9W

DATE AGENCY

SIGNATURE
PRINT, NAMEn !�k!:20/1 _ADORES

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDINGTHE ABOVE PROPOSP

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THETIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON ... ti •• • .. �+w xo ��cw vtv

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 MAYBE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY W ISH 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
�jI �'
DATE: January 04, 2023
CITi'
CASE NUMBER: P1-20220000150 OF
APPLICANT: Yucaipa 52, LLC
y1j("a.1r F•.

PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDP/TTivl 20375: A Planned Development proiect that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTIvI 20375yFinal Development Plan for the proposed 5ccuino Estates F'roiect 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 bas ins - Please note that this is a modified proposal fiomCaseNo. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the cast side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, south of the City ['units APN: 0320-161-08 and 09; 03201-81-2E
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 after this date might 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 Matlock at (909) 797-2489, e,a. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division- 34272—Yucaipa Boulevard Yucaipa. C 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

Ifyou want to be notified ofthe project decis ion, print yournameclearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additionat space, please attach additional pages): � I G o yv� 0 ? vuvG 11��5 Gv�a �iln►S `Jv��l > `�i �i
NO VUV dli4L�
SIGNATU DATED[ I rO AGENCY
PRINT NAME S11 SIv -_ ADDRESS
7OU CHALLENGE- ANY DECISION RF_GARDINGTHE ABOVE PROPOSAL

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN C DMSION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TDAE IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON The r i. ---- --- THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR 114 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TOTHE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR 1.0, THE HEARING.

DUE TOTIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS YOUR COMMACED ENTS tENTSON ORAL TESTINIONY AT ANY PUBLIC HE,%RING ABOUT TIS IN W RITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOU RE ABLE TO EXPRESSEYOURSEOLFADEQUATELY SAL "' ISF{ TO WIKE cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January Ott. 2023
CASENUMBER: PLI-0220000150
APPLICANT: Yucaipa52. LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No. 22-150 PDP/FDPfTT�I 20375: A Planned Development project that utcludcs' a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract 'tap (TTNI 20375YFinal Development Plan for the proposed �Sc,a ano Estates _Pr will establish 51 Single .Fami(y 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 bas ins - Please note that this is a modified proposal &omCascNo. 20-136 LOCATION: Three parcels totaling 52 acres on the east s ide of Yucaipa Ridge Road. south of the City limits AM 0320-161-09 and 09; 03201-8 1-25
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNLRS AND REVIDMING AGIiCIES: 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. 2021 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 rtn comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2459, e d. 261. You rimy send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Plann� my Division. 342 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yuca ,, CA. 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.
[fyou want to be notified ofthe project de cis ion, print yourname clearly and legibly on this faun and mail it to the address above alon> with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10)calendar days after an action is taken.

COMvIENTS (Ifyou need additionalspace, please attach additional pages):
✓v �s � . 1� �} Want N Vo4 L uA (� V y Yucd� �t dvtd
ht5 Q`a t5 w� `�` _ � d u�vt.ur1� dev��otQd
�alri� c c ko VAcJv- t, o- LONANnwo\) 40 'k5 �
�ucwc(u �� �viel. 1
(w u
Lw W of t, Ny, d eat SL lntiux �f�
�� arc, t1n�5 did �tS� r�
SIGNATURE —
Atk mkte� Ma�,tsA� �1n�5 t
HATE ��t''11� AGENCY "�Lo'""L-/
PRINTNAME_V Y\W\n \,0kV5P ADDP-ES.

YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING T I IE ABOVE PROPOSA

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SONIEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN DMS[ON AT. OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MARES ITS DECISION ON' -

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR INWRITTEN ColtRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TOTHE FEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE 11EARING,

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 [NEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN W RITINGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLETO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc; Surrounding Property O%vners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Deoartment Digineering Division
(iuildinR & safety Division

CITY OF YUCAIP,A.PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 1.7 2023

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04,2023
CASE NUMBER: PL20220000150

APPLICANT-'
Yucalpn 52, LLC
PROPOSAL: Case No, MMI50 PDP/FDPITTtit 20375: A Planned Development project that intiludes a Preliminary Development Plan .and Tivis Tract Map. (TTM 20375yFinal 'Development, Platt ,far (he proposed Serrano Estatos ProJcci. Whicit,vllicstablislt 5t Single FamilyResidcatial loL with 35 residential lots on parcels.20.000 square. feet orgreater, and �14.age-restricted lots to qualiryutg seniors on` lots greater than 12,000 square fact, ant additional numbered lot (52) for vineyards along Yucaipa Ridge Road, a remainder for for vnteyards and natural open space; andthree Icttared lots for -open space and dctenildit basins -Please note that this is a modlficd proposal GornCasrNo.20-136 LOCATION: Three parccls to taling32 acres on the casts hdc of Yucaipa. Ridge-Road,south ofthp City limits APNtb320-1 61•08 and 09; 03201-81-28
Arrwr ON PROPERTY OWN191S AND REV113V'LNG AG NCIFS: 'The development proposal IGted abovc ltas been filed with the City Planning Division. You and invited to comtmcnt because -your, property is- neatihe proposed project, Yourcommenls..must be received by this office no lateethan January .1B, 2023, Comments received a(ic:*04 date night not be considered in the decision.. Please.ic.W.to ibis project by the applicant's name and case numbcr•indica(cd abovc, ifyott• havd no• commant, no rep.ly,•is •aaccssary. 'If.you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock of (9Q9) 797-2489, cz 2G1, You may send your commcnis io 'the City. of Yucaipn Planning Division, 34272'YucailidBottlevard,'Yucatpa, CA 92399, or via Mato (909) 790-9203. . I
Ifyod want to bc-notified oftheprojcct decision.ptutt.yournamecieAdy'attd legibly on this formarsd mail k to the address above along, with a self-addrosscJ, stamped:cnyelope, All decisions' ate-sublcctio all Appeal period often (10)calcndardays aiteran action k Iliken,
CO IEhTS (Ifyou need additionalspocc,picasc attach additionalpages); i
LA 1L ;A1 T !ramS `l'i�.a >✓ C) N e__ r=-���

SIGNATURE DATE ACENCY
PRINT NAME V l C-1-0 (L�7"a-55� ADDRESS
YOU CIIALLCNGCAt,'Y.D[CISION.REOARDib*T11EAeOVC PROPOSAL ONLYTHOSE issue$ YOU OR.SOhir;oNgpLSi RAisno IN WRITT4-N0 'DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR'TO. T. HETIRiE tT htA1tL•S ITSDECISiONONTI Tilt' PROPOSAL, YOU ORSOhmONE ELSE MUST iIAVE RAISED THOSE +.avw n, t naruuc tt llu�nuvu VtC t�v 1Mtur t tP1 CORRL•SPObUENCEDELIVLRE•DTOTIfE IiEARIMIIODYAT.OR PRIORTO,TIIE• HEARING.

DUE'rO TIME CONSTRAii+TS AND UENUNTER OF PERSONS W iSIIINC TO GIVE 6RAL TEsi IMOT Y, TIME Ruvui7r10tS hIAY DE PLACED ON OItALTBTihtONY AT ANY PUDCIQ iIEARiNCADOUTTIUS PROPOSAL YOUMAYWiS11 TO -NIA :E YOURCOhthttlM IN WRIT MTO.ASSURETIfAT YOUARE ADLETOEXPREs9 Y6t1RSELFADEQUATELY ce, Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Vallcy 1Vater District FireDepannncni Eln&ccring Dlvtston
Building &Surety Division

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING [:DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 17 2023

PROJECT NOTICE
DAr'::IitnII'm 01..'.(J2;
(A S 1: NI J,N I itVIt., 111 102 20011t)1>u
AI'PL R AN"I': l tic;tipa 32, 11(
PROMOS.-: ('i;r No 22-Ho III )P'hf1P,'Cf11 20171 A Planned I)rvclopirrin price) Itrtn includes al i'clinnina" Urvcl+l)III it! III Platt an rcn(atI%-c "tnict .bl;ip iI rni 20375i'r'ulaI Di-veltlpment IItill I Iut illy polpoi;Ld Serrilli. L'Iatcr. Project uhtdb 111II rstal)hslt al Shl& Farndv Residrunal lut, will) i resalcntta! lots OII pmecls 211,rWO iMmw Wo vi girt lCt.:1r)(1 Ito agcgcsuwIInd A"; I quality in.: Scnitim in I, it.. gr:7atcr than 1101) i"art: i('e(, m addNiwmhAuntheRd fur i I hu vtne)anl:, ahat, Amps Rlttl;e Had. ;l re"mmder L1t lur r(nUyafds and Italural o11rtl sure, unr( 11MCC i+lnelcd Jttto tier apcD Spar'Ind dQ11:111IV9r llaslns - Plvasc nlilr. (hal Ilik is :I modified prnpnaal flotu(..'aac No, 20-1.36 11C)(111ITION: Hirre parcck toraling 52 acre-: on the en,:r title.. nt'\'ucalpa itidvc Itt)i1(i -watl1 nrihr city Ialn(5 A7TFF_YFICIN PR(y1'F:R'I'Y OWN1,AS AND KF1'IENVING AGINC*S: 'ific dev'cicipnlen( proposil liitcd above )las I)cnn files) wnh be (Ty !'l;tnilmyt t)IYi. wn YIlu am [dinned to V.0nillfent becall3C Yaitll prelp,}rty r near tilt plopmod project 1'om conunt-WN thus) be ra r%cd by ihni ra(u un inter An lanu:uy It 30 Conunauls I'e red An this date ArIj ri mg be tumlducd in the duubk a Phase icier tit At, prole..) by the appitclrlll's namt: and case numbef Ionic 7tcd above If ynn have no Cuntntrut, no reply is Accessary !f VII have tiny qurslloll s rcumutg. Iles pla,"Inl, phase conmul iicupumar matlor:h a"Am 7`020r) eg NO An nrry sent) ynNr c(Amnienls to Iht: ('iiy III' Yuculpii P`:anning, fliv;•• ion. 14272 Yuc:tylt( EM.Iulrti;trd„ Yucaipa, ('A 9134r). m- : is pA\ \ ai (C011 7tNL'!20 i
It via man. In tic not,114-ll e, I the tIMIrct LICCN rin. PrMl ynnr namr cl mW and AMRA ly •in tilt, lone and nod! it In Ike :IdrtA.1 ithovt: itIo Willi a Self-a(it Irc','tC41. ;1011ped 0rivvia) pe A11 .Ic,_i-iinnti ale iul)ycCt lit an apprui p::rluid of tell (III}calc]III :it dav:: it (lot :n7 aet1011 r. taH.cn ('O\iNIF`+}"S Ill y,ut liced addaion;tl sptta'c,pIt! -i ;vF. t t �t. ltnl�a'r) Ir:::4tn Irtit'ttlta 11111 :lt IN :i't 1, 1 Ilk J,Rli It( III, I'lil I1\i.I N.r aK L'. i rs clu, i-got;t N IIII•I l lllr l'itol'i:,ll, 5Y11, 1At "(00EQNFiId\1: Mt.") HA,%T RAlY.I) IIIVNI I\'ilfL-r AI Inn'.t'( Ill It: tll'.\ItIN(iOtt ly W'RII II-N ( nitlt}.:SP(ira)t tr,.f: tq I i'IiRt 1.) I I 011 t(i .tRISXR Ni)PY AL 0!t l'R.IUF I(, 'r 1(i: lli ARING IRK 10 1 MIT (ONO RMM N APAI 11( NIINI;FN (11 14 HNIM1 W1'.111tC 10 tilVl 0NAI iF`rl tCill.I''t", I INtt RFS1 kiC1IftN , VAN' HI III All DAIN II(tAl. Il-,S; lti1I1N%' Al ANY Pt114:.i( itfAMM, All(11'f i Ill!) PRt1p1KAI 'I'(ll NIAF t' Pill 10 SIA1.1' "t,4TI,(jk1Nt N l K IN W1411 h:(i i Ii A!;Sll1;L 111A1 'ir11 \10 MI! 1: 11I t XPltf S', i'1VItS1dJ [f —QPAI I'[ 'I cc Proprtty 0mier. 5'ut:npA Valley Water District
Fire Npurllttent Higmrrring Divniun
141111ditll; k safety Uiv wion

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: January 04, 2023 RECEIVED JAN 172023
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 I6 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 basins - Please notethat this is amodified proposal from Case No.20-136 LOCATION; Three.parcels totaling_52 acres on the east.side.oFYucaipg jWge Road,south of the City limits AgK-0320-L61-08-and-09,-03303-8-128---
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than 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, wd. 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 oftheproject 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 (l0)calendardays after an action is taken.

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

SIGNATU 4 DATEy Gl 0-:5AGENCY
PRINT NAME X'd S!`P' ADDRESS -
YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISIOPqREGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL — ONLYTHOSE ISSUES YOU OR9dMEONEELSE RAISED IN WRITTENCOR:

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

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 TOTIMECONSTRAINTSAND 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 RIT 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

January 11, 2023
RE: Comment on Case No. PL20220000150; Yucaipa 52, LLC
Existing, long-term residents living in close proximity to the proposed tract development 20375, have recently received notice of a revised development plan that STILL does not adhere to the established zoning minimum of one acre lots or larger. As with the previous plan submitted, established zoning for the Yucaipa Ridge area is being usurped in favor of profits to developers siting "special provisions." As a rural community, we believe the elected officials of our City should protectt the unique, small mown atmosphere that has drawn residents to this area. The current neighborhood adjacent to the proposed tract 20375 is a minimum lot size of one acre, many with lots up to 5 acres, with custom and semi - custom homes establishing a unique and peaceful environment for residents looking to reside away from the dense, urban sprawl and crowds. Despite the concession by the developer to increase to mostly 20,000+ square foot lots, the proposal still creates a density not conducive to the rural atmosphere within this established community. The proposed density will adversely impact the rural atmosphere, space and openness that was once considered an important trait of this area.

The proposal still includes acreage to be designated for use by a vinery for vineyards. it is still a concern that both the increased housing density and designated property use for business purposes will add significant traffic to rural roads not designed to support heavier traffic patterns, especially in cases of emergency such as fire evacuation which is a serious concern in this neighborhood.

The developer still has not sufficiently established that the "special provisions" are applicable in this situation. Stating a generic State Mandate without providing a population study for this specific area does not provide sufficient proof of need for "special provisions." The minor adaptation of lot size still indicates that the developer, as suggested in the original development plan, is seeking a variance in lot size motivated by profit and not special circumstances.

Please stop entertaining the token revisions to this proposed development. This project should only be approved to be developed as minimum one acre lots as the original area development plan was laid out by -those elected officials who cherished'the rural character of our -City and in -their -wisdom -made — - provision to retain that character for future generations. j The existing residents, many who have been living in this area for 20+ years do not want this proposed, radical change to our area and way of life. If this project is approved, it will set a precedent for future developments to seek "special provisions" and destroy the rural character of our City. It Is the duty of the City of Yucaipa planning agency to protect the interests of the long-term residents and retain the vision afm City already established by those who have come before them. nd and Allen Derosier

6eniamin Matlock
From:

Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 7:42 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: TTM 20375, APN's 0320-161-08,09 and 0320-181-28 Ben;
Please accept this letter as my statement of opposition to the approval of the submitted Tentative Tract Map No. 20375.1 submit the following information in support of my position.

1. This project, as currently presented, would require the approval as a Planned Development as it is not in conformance with the current General Plan, Zoning ordinance and applicable design standards.

2. The subject land was previously approved as TTM 14297 containing 33 one acre lots on 52 acres gross. This project was compliant with our adopted General Plan,Zoning Ordinance and considered area non -buildable due to steep hillsides as identified by slope analysis (Hillside Overlay, seismic setbacks and areas within natural flood hazards.

3. The current project as presented is requesting the approval of 52 lots, 51 residential, 1 agricultural, under the premise that the land by area is entitled to contain one lot per acre, gross. This. Is an incorrect position. All land has development opportunities and constraints that should be considered within a due diligence period by the developer prior to purchase. Failure to correctly evaluate a property should not become a burden on the community and constitute a reason to deviate from established design standards.

4. This project proposes a density transfer to allow 51 homes to be constructed in a smaller area footprint, yielding an average area per lot of less than 1/2 acre. This design concept is known as cluster development. -in the 1980's this type of density transfer was used in the design of golf course communities. Now that golf courses are being closed due to lack of water and revenue to support, the fairways are being developed into lots that are of the same size as the small surrounding existing development. The planners of the 80's would not have approved these open, green projects if they had foreseen the demise and reuse.

Vineyards are not forever. Look no farther than Rancho Cucamonga. When they fail, they will be replaced with new uses.

5. This is a gateway project. The development community is watching the progress of this application. I have personal knowledge of other adjacent landowners that are wanting to circumvent existing zoning guidelines and employ the clustering of lots, allowing a higher density. I fear that overriding our well established development guidelines for the targeted gain of out of the area developers will cause unrest within our great City.

In closing, I urge that our current development guidelines be upheld for all -properties on the North Bench. They are valid and support orderly development.

Thank you for your review and consideration.

Alan C. Hillwig
Hillwig-Goodrow,Inc.

Land Surveying -Civil Engineering
Sent from my !Pad

Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 2:03 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Serrano project
To whom it may concern,
I would just like to voice my concerns about this project. 1- It isn't okay to change from rural 1 acre lots to less than that 2-The traffic it would cause for me and all of the neighbors here in the north bench 3-The fact that we can't even get homeowners insurance as it is 4- Water and water pressure for homes and vineyards
Also it is in a high burn zone and earthquake zone so in the event of emergency with only a couple roads to escape.

Thankyou
Holly Soffel
Sent from my iPhone

Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 4:33 PM
To: Public Comment ; Justin Beaver ; Matt
Garner ; Jon Thorp ; Chris Venable
; Bobby Duncan ; Benjamin Matlock

Subject: Proposal for Serrano Estates Project
Hello, City of Yucaipa Representatives,
I would like to request, if it would be possible, that a slide of the City organizational chart be available for the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow, as I would like to refer to it.

Thank you so much.

In accepting the positions as representatives or employees of the City, you put aside your own desires and agreed to represent the residents of Yucaipa. The General Plan is in place as one of the things the residents entrusted you with to uphold. Whenever any developer presents plans for a project which doesn't abide by the General Plan, there should not be any consideration of their proposal contrary to what we as the residents know as the guidelines for developments. We trust you to stand for us and uphold that Plan, whether we are available to speak at a Planning or Council meeting or not.

The plan presented by Premium Land Development ignores the General Plan and so you must reject it as well because we the citizens of Yucaipa have stated, through the acceptance of the General Plan and repeatedly since this has been proposed, that we oppose anything that does not follow the General Plan. The General Plan is put into place for a reason that has already been decided. It clearly states this area is zoned for 1 house per 1 acre. It does not make provisions an average of homes. The Plan is very clear. Therefore, it

is the decision of the residents that needs to be abided by and directs your vote as representatives, not your own desires or opinions directing you to vote contrary to what we the residents want. As long as the General Plan is in place, that is to be understood as the clear indication of what the desire of the citizens of Yucaipa is.

The discussion of the development proposal should end simply based on the above, however, additionally, at the recent meeting you, Justin Beaver, held with the residents of North Bench, it was brought up that Premium Land Development had outstanding violations/fines owed to the City of Yucaipa. You stated you were not aware of that, that you were concerned it was not brought to your attention by City personnel, that this was problematic (as you had just stated that EVERYONE must abide by the law no matter...), and that you would look into this and follow up on it. No one else is given a green light with these violations overshadowing them. Premium Land Development must not be allowed to continue with this or any other project with this not settled.

This proposed development does not align with SB 9 in several aspects:
- SB 9 only applies to urbanized areas. The North Bench is zoned agricultural and is a rural area.
- SB-9 requires owner -occupancy on lots proposed for splitting and does not apply to multi - lot developments.
- SB 9 specifically excludes areas of high fire hazard severity. This area has twice in recent years suffered wildfires that required evacuations.

There are many other concerns with this project, again, none of which even need to be named beyond the fact that has been already stated, that it does not abide by the General Plan, but other concerns are significant as well:
- Seniors in a complex built for them this far from town and the amenities they need, let alone the distance this further puts them from medical facilities in case of an emergency should completely strike that part of the plan, not to mention the concerns with evacuating them in case of another wildfire.
- The traffic already is problematic on Bryant, not to speak of the couple exits through the existing residential area that lies between the proposed development and Bryant. How could this even remotely be considered?
- Every one of the homeowners in the North Bench, and specifically those who surround the proposed development, purchased their homes with an understanding of the General Plan and what that allowed for them and others, including empty land around them. It is absolutely not acceptable to allow a developer who has the interest only of profit for himself (as a resident who spoke personally with Craig Heaps revealed he stated when asked why he was pushing for this project this way rather than following the General Plan --his answer was "profit") to proceed with his plans and negatively affect the value of the homeowners in this area. These people (as are all of the citizens of Yucaipa) are at the top of the City organizational chart. They are your who you answer to, whose concerns you need to listen to and then vote accordingly.

I pray that each of you will operate according to the organizational structure and listen to the citizens of Yucaipa and follow the General Plan. Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,
Irmgart Mitchell
North Bench Resident

QIld1Gi, lu:2ti PM Copy of Copy of City of Yucaipa Planning Division Project Notice - Google Docs Jaynes and Nancy Caldwell
13th March 2023
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 22-150 set to appear before the Planning Commission on 15th of March 2023..

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

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

1.0 acres down to 0.5 acre lots or less. In our opinion, 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 / owner provide horse trails adequate to maintain the current access to the existing trails.

Sincerely,
.lames and Nancy Caldwell

/fir/'�n'i�•.\\\
Joni -Lyn Rawson
City of Yucaipa Planning Division
34272Yucaipa Boulevard
r Yucaipa, CA 92399
March 8, 2023
Re: Serrano Estates -Yucaipa Ridge (load Project Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375 DearYucaipa Planning Division,
Please do not approve changes to the City of Yucaipa's General Plan for the project reference above- i lomeowners in this area purchased homes knowing itwas zoned for one home per one acre. Please keep it that way.

Thank you for your consideration.

Benjamin Matlock
From:

Seat:

Friday, March 10, 2023 8:49 AM
To:

Benjamin Matlock
Subject:

Serrano Estates
My husband and I helped build and develop the North Cork Winery several years ago. Of course, it is in the County area, not the City. Its rural charm and soft impact have been areal win. Now the developer who wants to mirror this rural ambiance, hopes to build adjacent to the above mentioned but with extreme changes to the General Plan, etc. I know you have heard repeatedly that most citizens do not agree with the thought of changing the General Plan so drastically for 50+ houses on 51 acres, under the guise of "vineyards and rural living". I admit I was in favor of this gentleman's idea originally and was told it would be mostly vineyards, green belts, and few dwellings. Now it has mushroomed into a greedy monster and I sincerely hope It is not approved. Small wineries and local vintners can be successfully blended into residential neighborhoods as with the Wildwood Oak Winery, that we all know well. This plan of Serrano Estates is an overblown cluster of homes on too -small lots with a few token vineyards tossed in. Please deny this plan! Thank you, Lenore Will

Benjarnin Matlock
From:

Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:56 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Serrano Estates project
My name is Teri Boon, and I live directly across the street from this project at 9794 Yucaipa Ridge Road. I adamantly opposed this project as previously stated and want the planning commission and the developers and the owners to stick with the general plan and 1 acre lots per home.

Sent from my !Phone

Beniamin Matlock
From:

Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 7:28 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Comment on Case No, Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375 Dear Mr. Matlock,
As a resident with property adjacent to the Yucaipa Ridge development, I am speaking out regarding the project's review at Wednesday's planning meeting.

My husband grew up on on 300+ acre farm in northern Minnesota and I grew up in one of Wyoming's larger cities which is still considered small in the grand scheme of city size. Our first home purchase was in your standard, high density housing track which can be found anywhere throughout the Inland Empire. It was our desire for a more rural setting, similar to that which we both grew up with, in which to purchase our long term home. These properties are few and far between and it took us almost 2 years to find a rural setting with a reasonable plot of land. We have enjoyed the peace and tranquility of our current one acre home with a gorgeous view of the mountains for approximately 20 years. We believe the officials of Yucaipa should protect the unique, small town atmosphere that has drawn residents, like us, to this area.

The current neighborhood adjacent to the proposed tract 20375 is a minimum lot size of one acre, many with lots up to S acres, with custom and semi -custom homes establishing a unique and peaceful environment for residents looking to reside away from the dense, urban sprawl and crowds. Despite the concession by the developer to increase to mostly 20,000+ square foot lots, the proposal still creates a density not conducive to the rural atmosphere within this established community. The proposed density will adversely impact the rural atmosphere, space and openness that was once considered an important trait ofthis area.

Despite modifications, the proposed development still includes acreage to be designated for use by a vinery for vineyards. It is still a concern that both the increased housing density and designated property use for business purposes will add significant traffic to rural roads not designed to support heavier traffic patterns, especially in cases of emergency such as fire evacuation which is a serious concern in this neighborhood. There is also a concern for water usage as some residents already struggle to receive proper water pressure.

The developer still has not sufficiently established that the "special provisions" are applicable in this situation. Stating a generic State Mandate without providing a population study for this specific area does not provide sufficient proof of need for "special provisions." Given the number of high density developments currently planned or underway in Yucaipa, I feel the developer needs to provide more evidence as to why this particular project qualifies under the state's "special provision." The minor adaptation of lot size still indicates that the developer, as suggested in the original development plan, is seeking a variance in lot size motivated by profit and not special circumstances.

The existing residents, many who have been living in this area for 30+years, do not want this proposed, radical change to our area and way of life. if this project is approved, it will set a precedent for future developments to seek "special provisions" and destroy the rural character of our City. It is the duty of the City of Yucaipa planning agency to protect the interests of the long-term residents and retain the vision of our City already established by those who have come before them.

Please do not allow this project to proceed with the variances from the current zoning regulation of R1. This project should only be approved to be developed as minimum one acre lots as the original area development plan was laid out by City Planning members who cherished the rural character of our City and in their wisdom made provision to retain that character for future generations.
i

Please help us to preserve a simple and more peaceful way of life here in Yucaipa. Thank you.

Wendy and Allen Derosier
Existing, long-term residents living in close proximity to the proposed tract development 20375, have recently received notice of a revised development plan that STILL does not adhere to the established zoning minimum of one acre lots or larger. As with the previous plan submitted, established zoning for the Yucaipa Ridge area is being usurped in favor of profits to developers siting "special provisions."

From: Pierre Assaf
00MAzurite Street, Yucaipa Ca. 92399
To: Ben Matlock city planner at [email protected]
Re: Case No.22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
Dear Mr. Matlock
This letter is to request that the City Council of Yucaipa deny the planned Serrano Estates Project Case No 22-150 as re -drafted. I noted that the current development plan has been accepted by the planing commission in its latest iteration.

Even though it is by far, better than the previously submitted plan, it's still unacceptable for the following reasons:
• It is at odd with the General Plan vision of the City of Yucaipa as drafted and accepted by the citizenry in 2016. It is "ipso facto" inconsistent with the rural aspect of the north bench and disregards the Yucaipa City Ordinance 84.03201 • Even though the combined parcels of the planned Serrano Estates amount to 52 acres, the land suitable for building, amounts to about 12 acres due to earthquake fault zoning. So even if the RL-1 Zoning is disregarded or changed to 1/2 acre lots, the maximum density would amount to 24 units.

The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act2 is to regulate development near active faults so as to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture.

The stated intent of the Act is to "...provide policies and criteria to assist cities, counties, and state agencies in the exercise of their responsibility to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults." There is causality between earthquake fatalities and occupant density reported in books and research papers3
Government Code 51175-89 directs the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to identify areas of very high fire hazard severity zones within Local Responsibility Areas. The North Bench including the proposed development site, happens to be in that zone according to The Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM)1 A reasonable building density in this "zone" protects life and property. This is in addition to applying measures of fire prevention and assuring access and egress of firefighters.

Several Insurance companies, notably State Farm no longer offer Home Insurance in Yucaipa. As a 40 plus years customer of State Farm, I am allowed to keep my Home Insurance as long as I agree to pay an additional $2,000.00 per year. How is an average family will be able to insure an $800,000 building in a "very high fire hazard zone" and high house density area?
• There are no exit roads eastward of the project, making the entire Serrano development confined to a virtual Cul-de-sac that can be a death trap in case of fires or earthquakes.
• None of the Assembly Bills cited during the STATE HOUSING LAW TRAINING justify implementing a project that the majority of Yucaipa citizens reject because of the negative impact on their life style and well-being. The impact of such a project is expected to cause increased vehicular traffic, noise and air pollution as well as 1 https://library.gcode.us/lib/yucaipa_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/development_code-division_4-chapter_3-84_0320 2 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/documents/publications/special-publications/ 3 http://cidbimena.desastres.hn/pdf/eng/doc85l3/doc8513-6.pdf 4 https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/

accidents resulting from inadequate access roads to and from the area. Citizens of Yucaipa also worry about crowding. Crowding has a potential damaging effect on mental health and increases physiological stress. Scientific literature has demonstrated a linear correlation of increased population due to urbanization of cities, with crime rates'.
• No senior citizens in their right mind, would consider living in a crowded, expensive, bedroom community without access to public transportation and without proximity to available health care. As a senior, I would not rely on the ambiguous Fair Housing Act of California to secure me a shelter or the help of the national Housing and Urban Development Department to avoid homelessness.

I encourage and expect economic development of Yucaipa. I lived here with my family for over 40 years when most of my peers lived in Redlands and Loma Linda. I chose Yucaipa because it embodies "Middle America"with it's quite, slow pace, friendly neighbors and stunning vistas. We built our home when Yucaipa was still unincorporated. I watched over 4 decades, the city grow with vibrant energy guided by the wise stewardship of the City Council. I beseech the current elected members to carefully weigh the pros and the cons before making decisions that appear appeasing to politicians and lucrative to eager money flush developers. Economic Development has many facets. It is a complex step by step evolution rather than a hasty revolution. Slow, adaptive judicious planning will benefit us all as well as the next generation of Yucaipa citizens.

Thank You!
5 Luis M. A. Bettencourt [email protected], Jose Lobo, Dirk Helbing, +1, and Geoffrey B. WestAuthors Info & AffiliationsEdited by Elinor Ostrom, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, and approved March 6, 2007 Chang, Yu Sang and Choi, SungSup and Lee, Jinsoo and Jin, Won Chang, Population Size vs. Number of Crime - Is the Relationship Super -Linear? (August 2, 2013). International Journal of Information and Decision Science(2018), Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 26-39, Available at SSRN: https://ssm.com/abstract=2305136 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2305136

20-1361PDP/FDP/TTM 20375— Serrano Estates

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

FOR THE SERRANO ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
CASE No. 20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines to provide for monitoring of the mitigation measures required by adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for a Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road directly south of the City limits to unincorporated San Bernardino County.

Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Section 1509l(d) of the CEQA Guidelines require public agencies to "adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes to the Pro j e ct which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." The lead agency must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during Project implementation prior to final approval o f the proposed Project.

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

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

20.1361PDPIFDPITTM 20375 - Serrano Estates
• Coordination with other agencies regarding compliance with mitigation or permit requirements
Reviewing and recommending acceptance and certification of implementation documentation
Acting as a contact for interested parties or surrounding property owners who wish to register complaints, observations of unsafe conditions, or environmental violations; verifying any such circumstances; and developing any necessary corrective actions

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

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

City of Yucaipa 2

20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375 — Serrano Estates
Responsible
Sanctions
for
Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified
forNon-
Miti ation Measure
Monitoring
Implementation
Frequency
Verification
Verification
DatelInitials
Compliance

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
B1O-1: Nesting bird nesting season generally extends from Planning
Project
Prior and or
During
Notification to the
Issuance of
February 1 through September 15 in southern California and Division
Developer /
during
grading and
City by the
a Stop Work
specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory
Inspector
construction
construction
Biologist — no-
Order
passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (co m m o n work buffer
and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified established if
Avian Biologist will conduct pre -construction Nesting Bird nests are found
Surveys (NBS) prior to project -related disturbance to
nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no -work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nestin g species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity, and duration of the disturbance, with a minimum buffer of 300 feet. The nests and buffer zones shall be field -checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no -work bufferzone shall be clearly marked in thefield, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is
inactive.

CULTURALRESOURCES
CUL-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered Planning
Project
During
During
Communication
Issuance of
during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of Division
Developer /
construction
construction
between tribes
a Stop Work
the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified Inspector
and developer if
Order
archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall resources are
be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the found
Project outside of the buffered area may continue duringth is assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI)
shall be contacted, asdetailedwithin TCR-1,regarding any pre -contact and/or historic -era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment
City of Yucaipa 3

20-1361PDPIFDPITTM 20375 — Serrano Estates
Responsible
Sanctions
for
Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified
forNon-
Miti ation Measure
Monitoring
Implementation
Frequency
Verification
Verification
Datelinitials
Compliance
CUL-2: If significant pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural Planning
Project
During
During
Communication
Issuance of
resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are
Division
Developer/
construction
construction
between tribes
a Stop Work
discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the
Inspector
and developer if
Order
archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and TreatmentPlan, resources are
the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBM I for review and found -
comment, as detailed within TCR-1.The archaeologist shall Development of
monitor the remainder ofthe project and implementthe Plan Monitoring and
accordingly
Treatment Plan
CUL-3: If human remains or funerary objects are
Planning
Project
During
During
Review by
Issuance of
encountered during any activities associated with the Project, Division
Developer/
construction
construction
County Coroner
a Stop Work
work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the Inspector
Order
find) shall cease and the County Coronershall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1: Applicants for future development projects in
Planning
Project
Prior to
During
Submittal of
Withhold
undeveloped and developed areas where grading is
Division
Developer/
permit
grading and
paleontological
permit
proposed five feet below current elevation and in areas of Inspector
issuance
construction
assessment
issuance
moderate to high sensitivity or unknown paleontological sensitivity to prepare a technical paleontological assessment prepared by qualified paleontologist in assessing/reportin g the sensitivity of a project site for buried paleontological resources to the City of Yucaipa prior to issuance of grad i n g permits. Fossils include large and small vertebrate and invertebrate fossils; the latter recovered by screen washing of bulk samples.

If resources are known or reasonably anticipated, the
assessment shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ
preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a
qualified paleontologist. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:

City of Yucaipa 4

20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375 — Serrano Estates
Responsible
for
Responsible for
Monitoring
Timing of
Method of
Verified
Sanctions
forNon-
Miti ation Measure
Monitoring
Implementation
Frequency
Verification
Verification
Date/initials
Compliance
A paleontologist shall be retained for the project
and shall be on call during grading and other significant ground -disturbing activities.

D Should any potentially significant fossil resources
be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City concurs in writing that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.

U Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for
significance by a San Bernardino Certified Professional Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to collect and catalogue the fossils per San Bernardino County Museum guidelines and
adequately curate fossils in an institution with appropriate staff and facilities for their scientific information potential to be preserved. A report of findings with an itemized accession inventory shall be prepared as evidence that monitoring has been successfully completed and shall be submitted and
approved prior to the granting of occupancy permits..

TRIBAL RESOURCES
TRI-1: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural
Planning
Project
During
During
Communication
Issuance of
Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as
Division
Developer/
construction
construction
between tribes
aStop Work
detailed in CR-1, of any pre -contact and/or historic -era Inspector
and developer if
Order
cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, resources are
and be provided information regardingthe nature of the find, found
so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources
Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the
archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all
subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SM B M I for the remainderofthe Project should SMBMI electto place a City of Yucaipa 5

20-136/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375 — Serrano Estates
Miti ation Measure
Responsible
for
Monitoring
Responsiblefor
Implementation
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
Datelinitials
Sanctions
forNon-
Compliance
monitor on -site..

TRI.2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as Planning
Project
During
During
Communication
Issuance of
a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey Division
Developer/
construction
construction
between tribes
a Stop Work
reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the Inspector
and developer if
Order
applicant and Lead Agencyfor dissemination to SMBMI. The resources are
Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult found -
with SMBMI throughout the life of the project.

Development of
Monitoring and
Treatment Plan
City of Yucaipa 6

Additional Analysis on Serrano Estates

SERRANO ESTATES

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
February 2023
City of Yucaipa
Development Services Department
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399

Additional Analysis on Serrano Estates
Introduction
This Additional Analysis (AA) on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), referred hereafter as the "Additional Analysis," features additional project information as part of the ongoing environmental review process for the proposed Serrano Estates Planned Development and Subdivision Project ("Project"). A Draft MND for the initial Project ("Initial Project") consisting of a planned development for 51 single family homes, 16 of which that would be age restricted, was made available for public comment for a 20-day public review period beginning on July 15, 2022, and ending on August 4, 2022. The previous environmental analysis is available for review from the City of Yucaipa (City). This Additional Analysis is prepared in response to project design revisions made following the public hearing process for Case No. 20-138 and included as part of Case No. 22-150, herein referred to as "Current Project," and provides additional information and analysis that merely clarifies or amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Draft MND after it was circulated for public comment in July, 2022. As such, recirculation is not required pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines; however, this information is being provided for the benefit of public review and disclosure.

Project Review History
Planning Commission Hearing:

The initial Serrano Estates Project was reviewed at the regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 17, 2022. In their discussion, three (3) commissioners identified concerns with the proposed land use plan and the transition that would occur between the existing neighborhood and the proposed Project, while others noted that the overall design and approach does help to meet a variety of goals of the General Plan through the preservation of open space and the establishment of new vineyards. In the discussion, several Planning Commissioners suggested additional elements that could be incorporated into the Preliminary Development Plan standards to help soften the transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed residences, including a larger landscape buffer between Yucaipa Ridge Road and a proposed block wall. Following a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the Project that ultimately resulted in 3 votes in favor, 4 against, therefore constituting a recommendation for denial of the Project pursuant to Section 83.030210 of the Yucaipa Development Code.

As a result of the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the Project, the applicant submitted an appeal application on August 23, 2022.

City Council Hearing:

Following the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, the City Council reviewed the Initial Project at their regular meeting of September 12, 2022. In their discussion, the City Council heard testimony and reviewed the Planning Commission's discussion of the Project design. Several design ideas were identified that would improve the transition to the existing neighborhood and generally aligned with the concepts provided by the Planning Commission. The City Council ultimately voted 3-1 to deny the Serrano Estates Project as originally proposed and suggested that the revisions discussed could improve the Project. In addition, the City Council did not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project as a project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(4) and 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines if the proposal is denied.

Additional Analysis on Serrano Estates
Description and Analysis of New PD Design
Following the denial of the Initial Project, the project applicant has revised the project design to incorporate the suggestions from the Planning Commission and City Council and has resubmitted the Planned Development and subdivision application related to the Current Project (Case No. 22-150). Figure 2 provides a side -by -side comparison of the Initial Project and the Current Proposal. The modifications result in a similar development footprint to the prior project, but with several changes made that are discussed in detail below:

The Current Project retains the residential subdivision for 51 single family lots along the southern portion of the site and maintains vehicular access along the connection for the proposed neighborhood from Crystal Street and Quartz Street. However, the age restriction for 16 lots has been increased to 41 lots that are age restricted to those over 55, representing 80% of the residential lots. In the original design, the residential subdivision included a looped street from Quartz Street that would then connect back to Yucaipa Ridge Road from Street "B," and a separate street from Crystal Street that would end in a cul-de-sac. The roadway network that is now proposed provides for a loop between Crystal Street and Quartz Street, and a proposed "Street A" cul-de-sac within the interior of the subdivision that will specifically serve the proposed age - restricted lots. Additionally, residential units are now proposed along the north side of the Quartz Street extension, in lieu of the landscape transition that had been previously shown. As part of the project design, the buffer between the proposed residential units and the existing neighborhood along Yucaipa Ridge Road has also been increased, and now provides a 172-foot wide "lot 52" that would include a naturalistic drainage channel and a planted vineyard.

The Preliminary Development Plan and the associated Land Use Plan have been amended to specifically include a wider range of single-family lots and the age -restricted lots with proposed lots greater than 20,000 square feet in size along the periphery of the neighborhood, increased from 12,000 square feet from the original proposal, and lots greater than 12,000 square feet within an interior cul-de-sac street. The configuration of the larger lots for within the periphery of the subdivision is intended to facilitate a better transition from the surrounding neighborhood.

Additional Analysis on Serrano Estates
Figure I — Land Use Plan
0' Drair age Easment
Ip
multn-pm2 Trail
Earnest
I& Itz red ty City of
Yucai p:

Area B
• A,
I
Are,3 I..0

Additional Analysis on Serrano Estates
Figure 2 — Comparison of Project Design
imam 7
dow of
r,
13 ''- r.-1-'i �' •� 'S F:ili_ xi_ _w E �i i ,,i 1 •t• a- �61 P`— � .I �F4 � ,4,•�' T ��� {�• � i ,y�� 1 �R.. i i� �R� ■C i' '' p� e , ♦ "t'.'.

T— lir
11 11 '.r .,.; • ifr E+� � w� f i i i . � ; ,i �i• �L '1 �, !' 1 t "1t 1 •} � ?•b tii�-a k ;yu, � � ti� � 6S� I I � ^� ' � ' � `'•� T .. ,�•� �I t,f, i• �~^v � .j., i �.I;�,. � 1 tit o � �, f � �;, � ' �j� 1'p, ,�, �'..s I ,S Y#► rr .Z%.. ' .s.4� I� �ic�.r tl1 t`11 _!., :

It 11"k
' � i � �i �-�a<i'' *, " �i 4 • i 1 I.x�- �`�_ ` -_r„ - .,:;� 0 1 j,,'{s A1�1i�+ �' 'r- Ai-al�" oa A t� . N7•�Y ; iE.' `41� �i' .f �'r" 'fit''' ..'./1 .'v

' S I I r i red• y�r'"' " I ��
41r { .. � • I�1 .� +T� r.. . t y 1

CURRENT DESIGN
,,: '�•� fir.': �L��:�+tfr • ..� f . �r.. .. �JI �'1
November 09. 2022

Additional Analysis on Serrano Estates
Impact Analysis
The following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the Current Project as compared to impacts of the Initial Project.

Aesthetics:

Implementation of the Current Project would result in modified views of the area. As part of the analysis in the MND, impacts to aesthetic resources would be less than significant, and included the use of the proposed natural landscape and agricultural buffers to help support the visual transition of the site from it's surrounding context. With the Current Project, the transition between the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhoods along Yucaipa Ridge Road would be increased by a new 172-foot-wide "Lot 52" that would include graded slope area, planted vineyards, and a landscaped drainage channel. Additionally, the lots located directly off the extension for Quartz Street and Crystal Street have increased from 12,000 square foot lots to over 20,000 square feet, which would further support the transition between neighborhoods. With the Current Project, aesthetic impacts would be consistent with those identified in the discussion of the MND.

Agricultural Resources:

As part of the analysis of the Initial Project, no impacts to agricultural and forest resources would occur, and instead a benefit to agricultural resources would be created through the newly established agricultural area for the proposed vineyards. Implementation of the Current Project would also create land area for vineyards, and as such, impacts would be consistent with those identified in the discussion of the MND.

Air Quality:

An Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc, to quantify the potential impacts that would occur from the development of the Initial Project consisting of 51 single family homes, with 16 units that would be age -restricted for seniors. The analysis found that all impacts would be less than significant, and indicated that the project would also be subject to standard conditions of approval and any applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District requirements. The Current Project would maintain the overall net development, but would increase the total number of age restricted lots to 41. This change would reduce the daily trips generated, reducing the mobile emissions of the project, and as such, the impacts would not increase from those that were identified in the discussion of the MND.

Biological Resources:

A Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation was prepared by Jennings Environmental to provide an assessment of potential biological resources that would be present on the subject site. A sensitive resource identified for the site includes a jurisdictional feature as defined under the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, with an estimated jurisdictional area encompassing 0.4 acres of the site. The Initial Project had been designed to avoid this feature, and had established the area as part of the proposed Open Space district. This approach has been maintained with the Current Project, and no impacts would occur to the resource. The analysis also noted that trees and shrubs would be removed as part of the mass grading activities for the site, and therefore could have a potential impact on nesting birds if they are present on the Project site at the time of grading and construction. Mitigation Measure BI0-1

Additional Analysis on Serrano Estates
would continue to apply to the Current Project, and impacts would be consistent with those identified in the discussion of the MND.

Figure 3 — Avoidance of Jurisdictional Features

DRAINAGE EASEMENT
Cultural Resources:

The analysis of the MND noted that there are no known historical resources on the site, and also provided details of various cultural assessments conducted in the past. As part of the review process for the Initial Project, notification was sent to local tribes for consultation pursuant to AB52. Responding tribes noted that they did not have any particular concerns with the development of the site, and recommended mitigation measures that would address the protocols that should be used if any inadvertent discoveries occur. The development area of the Current Project is similar to the area that was assessed in the MND, and the mitigation measures would continue to remain appropriate. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the discussion of the MND.

Energy:

An Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc, to quantify the potential impacts that would occur from the development of the Initial Project consisting of 51 single family homes, with 16 units that would be age -restricted for seniors. The analysis found that all impacts would be less than significant. The Current Project would maintain the overall net development, but would increase the total number of age restricted lots to 41. This change would reduce the daily trips generated, reducing the mobile emissions of the project, and as such, the impacts would not increase from those that were identified in the discussion of the MND.

Additional Analysis on Serrano Estates
Geoloxy and Soils:

The Current Project would result in the disturbance of the site to accommodate the development of the 51 single family residences, of which 41 shall be age -restricted. To support the analysis of the Initial Project, the MND included a response from the applicant and LOR Geotechnical from a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation previously completed. The Initial Project was designed to avoid a recommended restricted use zone (R.U.Z.) along the northern portion of the site, which is maintained with the Current Project. The analysis found that with standard Conditions of Approval, compliance with the Building Code, and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts would be less than significant. The Current Project would maintain the overall net development and the associated avoidance of the R.U.Z., and as such, impacts would be consistent with those identified in the discussion of the MND.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

An Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc, to quantify the potential impacts that would occur from the development of the Initial Project consisting of 51 single family homes, with 16 units that would be age -restricted for seniors. The analysis found that all impacts would be less than significant. The Current Project would maintain the overall net development, but would increase the total number of age restricted lots to 41. This change would reduce the daily trips generated, reducing the mobile emissions of the project, and as such, the impacts would not increase from those that were identified in the discussion of the MND.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials:

Implementation of the Current Project would result in the use of chemicals and solvents typical of a residential subdivision, and would be within quantities that are comparable to the Initial Project. As part of the analysis in the MND, impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant and would remain consistent with the Current Project. Additionally, the fire department access for the site would also be maintained, with the only changes occurring with the orientation of the Yucaipa Ridge Road looped connection towards Crystal Street.

Hydrology and Water Ouality:

The Current Project would add impervious surfaces to the site in order to accommodate the new roadway and building pads for 51 new homes, which would increase the amount of stormwater discharging off site.

However, all hydrological and water quality impacts would be similar to those analyzed for the Initial Project that also contemplated 51 single family homes on roughly the same area of the site, and impacts would be less than significant. The applicant will be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would include a list of best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and to contain the potential for discharge of construction - related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. As part of the operation of the development, onsite runoff will be conveyed downslope and ultimately be discharged into the several onsite landscaped detention basins that will be designed to accommodate 100-year storm events along the western edge of the site, adjacent to Yucaipa Ridge Road, consistent with an approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).

Land Use and Planning:

Additional Analysis on Serrano Estates
The analysis of the MND noted that the Initial Project was designed to implement the City's Planned Development Review procedures, which "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations. This process is also intended to serve as an alternative site planning process that encourages the more creative and imaginative planning of mixed use, multiphased residential, commercial, or industrial developments within the framework of a single cohesive development plan." The use of the Planned Development process resulted in a design that consolidated the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site to best manage the topographical elements of the site, and comply with the City's Hillside Overlay District. Following the Planning Commission and City Council review of the Initial Project, the Current Project was developed to better accommodate the transition between the surrounding neighborhoods, while applying a similar approach to Planned Development efforts. As such, these conditions would remain consistent with the Current Project, and impacts would be the same as those in the MND. In addition, the design includes several reduced lot sizes within the interior of the subdivision intended by the developer to provide a wider array of options to the age -restricted units and best meet the overall needs of those future residents.

Mineral Resources:

As part of the analysis of the Initial Project, no impacts to mineral resources would occur, as the site is not known to have such resources and would be unviable for mineral extraction. These conditions would remain consistent with the Current Project, and impacts would be the same as those in the MND.

Noise:

A document entitled Appendix G Checklist for Noise for TTM 20375 was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc, to quantify the potential impacts that would occur from the development of the Initial Project consisting of 51 single family homes, with 16 units that would be age -restricted for seniors. The analysis found that all impacts would be less than significant. The Current Project would maintain the overall net development, but with an increase of the total number of age restricted lots that would have the net effect of reducing the total number of vehicle trips generated. As such, impacts would be consistent with (or less than) those identified in the discussion of the MND.

Population and Housing:

The analysis of the MND noted that the Initial Project was designed to implement the City's Planned Development Review procedures to support the development of 51 single family residential lots on the subject 52-acre site, which includes 16 that are age -restricted for seniors. The overall development capacity remains consistent with the General Plan, and the Current Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, nor would any residents be displaced. The project has ben modified to change the orientation of the residential lots, and now 41 of the lots are proposed to be age -restricted Public Services:

The Current Project would result in the construction of 51 new homes, 41 of which would now be age restricted. The analysis of the Initial Project provided under MND, which had concluded that no significant impacts would occur in regard to public services and facilities, would remain applicable as the number of homes would be same. No mitigation is required.

Additional Analysis on Serrano Estates
Recreation:

The Current Project would result in the construction of 51 new homes, 41 of which would now be age restricted. The analysis of the Initial Project provided under MND, which had concluded that no significant impacts would occur in regard to recreational facilities, would remain applicable as the number of homes would be the same. In addition, the proposed multi -purpose trail connections would be maintained with the Project. No mitigation is required.

Transportation/Traffic:

A Transportation Study Screening Assessment was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc, to quantify the potential impacts that would occur from the development of the Initial Project consisting of 51 single family homes, with 16 units that would be age -restricted for seniors. The analysis found that all impacts would be less than significant. The Current Project would maintain the overall net number of units within the development, but the arrangement and sizes of the lots have changed, and the age -restricted lots have now increased to 41. This change would reduce the total number of trips, and as such, impacts would be comparable with those identified in the discussion of the MND.

Tribal Resources:

The analysis of the MND noted that there are no known tribal resources on the site, and also provided details of various cultural assessments conducted in the past. As part of the review process for the Initial Project, notification was sent to local tribes for consultation pursuant to A1352. Responding tribes noted that they did not have any particular concerns with the development of the site, and recommended mitigation measures that would address the protocols that should be used if any inadvertent discoveries occur. The development area of the Current Project is similar to the area that was assessed in the MND, and the mitigation measures would continue to remain appropriate. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the discussion of the MND.

Utilities and Service Systems
The Current Project would result in the construction of 51 new homes, 41 of which would be age restricted.

The analysis of the Initial Project provided under MND, which had concluded that no significant impacts would occur regarding utilities, would remain applicable as the number of homes would be same. No mitigation is required.

Wildfire
The MND for the Initial Project assessed the related wildfire hazards, and found that impacts would be less than significant. The analysis noted the fire department access for the site would be provided, and the only changes occurring for the Current Project relate to the orientation of the Yucaipa Ridge Road looped connection at Crystal Street. However, he use f Quartz Street and Crystal Street would continue to serve the site for access needs. As such, the overall roadway network and localized connectivity, water infrastructure requirements for new fire hydrants, and building code requirements for the proposed subdivision would remain consistent with those assessed in the MND. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the discussion of the MND.

Additional Analysis on Serrano Estates
Mandatory Findings:

The MND prepared for the Initial Project found that all impacts would be less than significant through the application of uniformly applicable regulations and appropriate mitigation measures. The Current Project retains the residential subdivision along the southern portion of the site, and has been modified to increase the lot sizes of the many of the single family residences, and minor modifications to the site grading concept and road layout to accommodate these modified building pads. In addition, the 12,000 lots originally proposed are now located in a designated area within the interior of the subdivision, which is intended to better support the transition of lot sizes, and also provides more housing options that are intended to better meet the needs of the future residents. Additionally, the buffer provided between the existing subdivision and the Current Project has been increased in response to feedback received through the Initial Project's entitlement process. As such, impacts would be consistent with those identified in the discussion of the MND, and recirculation of the MND is not required pursuant to 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Attachments:
• Serrano Estates (TTM 20375) Trip Generation Analysis and VMT Screening • Memo on CDFW Jurisdictional Area

February 24, 2023
Mr. Travis Heaps

PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
543 W. County Line Road
Calimesa, CA 92320
TJW ENGINEERING, INC.

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING &

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

CONSULTANTS
SUBJECT: Serrano Estates (TTM 20375) Trip Generation Analysis and VMT Screening City of Yucaipa
Dear Mr. Heaps,
TJW Engineering, Inc. (TJW) is pleased to submit this Trip Generation Analysis and VMT Screening for the proposed project located at the northeast corner of Yucaipa Ridge Road and Crystal Street in the City of Yucaipa. The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the project Trip Generation Analysis and VMT Screening.

Proposed Project
The proposed site is located at the northeast corner of Yucaipa Ridge Road and Crystal Street in the City of Yucaipa. The proposed project includes a total of 51 single family lots with 41 of those lots dedicated for senior housing. Site entrance will be provided via two access points along Yucaipa Ridge Road. A site plan is attached for reference.

Trip Generation Analysis
Projected trip generation for the proposed project was developed based on the City of Yucaipa Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (August 2020). The guidelines specify a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) which includes a Level of Service (LOS) analysis is required for a proposed project that meets any of the following criteria:
• When either the AM or PM peak hour trip generation is expected to exceed 100 vehicle trips from the proposed development.
• Projects that will add 51 or more trips during either the AM or PM peak hours to any intersection. • When determined by the City Engineer that existing or proposed traffic conditions in the project vicinity have unique characteristics that warrant evaluation. 9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 1 Irvine, California 92618 1 t: (949) 878-3509 www.tjwengineering.com

Mr. Travis Heaps
Serrano Estates (TTM 20375) Trip Gen and VMT Screening
February 24, 2023

The trip generation for the proposed project was determined using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). Based on the proposed project's intended land uses the projected trip generation was determined using the Single -Family Detached Housing and Senior Adult Housing land use codes. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 19 total AM peak hour trips, 21 total PM peak hour trips, and 271 total daily trips. Assuming the project shall construct all on - site and off -site improvements (if any) in accordance with City design standards, the project would not create any new safety or operational concerns. Therefore, the proposed project does not warrant preparation of a TIA with LOS analysis based on City guidelines.

Table 1 — Tria Generation
Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
(ADTs)
Proposed Land Use
Qty
Unit
In:Out
Trips
In:Out
Trips
Rate
Trips
Rate
Split
Rate
split
In
Out
Total
In
Out
I Total
Single -Family Detached
10 DU

9.43 94

0.70 25:75
2 7
9 0.94
63:37
6 3
9 Housing (210)
Senior Adult Housing
41 DU

4.31 177

0.24 33:67
3 7
10 0.30
61:39
8 4
12 Single Family (251)
Total
271
5 14
19 14
7 21
Notes: ITE Trip Generation (1111 Edition, 2021); DU=Dwelling Unit Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 requiring the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For land use projects, OPR has identified Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the new metric for transportation analysis under CEQA. The regulatory changes to the CEQA guidelines that implement SB 743 were approved on December 28th, 2018 with an implementation date of July 15t, 2020 as the new metric.

The City of Yucaipa updated their Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines in August 2020. The document outlines guidelines for CEQA analysis including screening criteria and requirements for VMT assessment of land use projects. The VMT guidelines provide several screening criteria for projects including Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening, Low VMT Area Screening, and Project Type Screening. Per the City guidelines, projects need only to satisfy one of the screening steps.

The City of Yucaipa Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (August 2020) indicates projects generating fewer than 400 daily vehicle trips may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and therefore are not required to submit a detailed VMT analysis. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 271 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project satisfies the City established project type screening criteria.

DIN Engineering, Inc.

PLD23002 Serrano Estates (TTM 20375) Trip Gen and VMT Screening 02242023

Mr. Travis Heaps
Serrano Estates (TTM 20375) Trip Gen and VMT Screening
February 24, 2023

Summary
This memorandum provides an overview of the trip generation analysis for the proposed project. Based on the City of Yucaipa Traffic Analysis Guidelines (August 2020), the proposed project generates fewer than 100 peak hour trips and fewer than 400 daily vehicle trips and does not require additional traffic or VMT analysis.

Please contact us at (949) 878-3509 if you have any questions regarding this analysis.

Sincerely,
Thomas Wheat, PE, TE
President
David Chew, PTP
Transportation Planner
Registered Civil Engineer #59467
Registered Traffic Engineer #2555
'OSEPy
• —No. 2565
Exp. 6,130124
"RA F`r\G
TJW Engineering, Inc.

PLD23002 Serrano Estates (TTM 20375) Trip Gen and VMT Screening 02242023

—,
-
-- 252' 3 _ l PE=2995.0 50 DRAINAGE
22 I� \ / l 2
� / EA
SE
22 072 S FT "' s ° \ �0, 817 SQ FTC MEN T
Q 2
PE=2996.0 &101
— s _0) \ /00
244' p I �i PE 2.0 BUFFER FR
21 I`"—,„ �3. II w OM �lNEygR
I.. - FT 20,300I S(
21,544 SQ FT
PE=3003.0 — .
240 � U-?
20 4
L�, 3 10 "� 20 000 SQ T\ I REMAINDER PARCEL
PE=3010.0
21,288 SQ FT pr-- 0.0- I ��
— -��— T — - ( 7
_ o
-
219 �ih� o1 LI, 5 / VINEYARD
21 293 SQ FT ° °' �� I 20,000 SQ FT \
PE=3018.0
240'
18 H PE=3017.0 T TROP.
9?1, / ULTI—PURPOSE TRAIL
4' OPEN NATUI
II�� 20 000 SQ FT=,302I �
21 347 S( FT 2 � Ej=3026.0
_
2 0_ n' S' 7, PE=3034.0 I (`'s`o'K�
17 7' EASEMEN uo-__ 7 I T AYLIGHT LIMIT OF GRADING
21,372 SQ FT j 20,000 FT «o .
_ PE=3032.0
_ I 3 __ ROP.
-� E C: IULTI—PURPOSE TRAi.

I I
03 07 8 HILLSIDE OVERLAY
PE=3039.0 -� 20,000 SQ FT I I I\ BOUNDARY
16 I C3 4 `` PE=3041.0 \
_ 35,197 SQ FT
56)
\ \
n \ I m n z„ 1) 1 1 ,:Il'i I _ � Page 319

.$
■

P R E M I U M
I. A \ 1) 1) 1: V G L 0 1) \ I G \ "I'
February 16, 2023
Planning Division
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd,
Yucaipa, CA 92399
RE: Case No. 22-150/PDP/FDP/TTM 20375 — Encroachment into CDFW Jurisdiction Mr. Matlock,
You brought to our attention that Lot 15 of the above referenced project is encroaching into the jurisdictional feature on the property. Per your direction, an exhibit was prepared that overlaid the Jurisdictional Delineation map over the site plan and it was found that Lot 15 was encroaching in the CDFW Jurisdiction (Figure 1).

Irro"O),
54' 50.00"W 1513.6
Fixture 1
543 W. County Line Rd.

Calimesa, CA 92320
909.335.1665 Page 320

To avoid any impact and/or encroachment into the CDFW Jurisdiction, Lot 15 has since been revised to remove the limit of grading and property lines outside of the potentially sensitive area, which will remain in its natural condition (Figure 2). An updated TTM 20375 will be resubmitted to the Planning Division as soon as possible to confirm these changes. �-O.y

DRAINAGE EASEMENT
15 14
39563 SQ 14,084 SQ 23,
Limit of Gradin
!' P
PE=3022.0 ; ' PE=3027.0
Lot 15 P/L
CFDW Jurisdiction - I
54" 50.00"W 1513.6
Figure 2
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please reach out to our office at (909) 335-1665.

Sincerely,
is Heaps
Senior Planner
Premium Land Development
543 W. County Line Rd.

Calimesa, CA 92320
909.335.1665

SERRANO ESTATES

AND VINEYARD

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION (MND)
July, 2022
City of Yucaipa
Development Services Department
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399

CITY OF YUCAIPA

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Project Title: Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20375

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

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Benjamin Matlock, (909) 797-2489 x 261

4. Project Location: Located along the eastern edge of Yucaipa Ridge Road, directly south of the City limits to unincorporated San Bernardino County. APNs: 0320-161-08, 09, and 28.

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

6. General Plan Designation: Rural Living, one -acre minimum (RL-1) and the Custom Home (CH) Overlay District.

7. Description of the Project: Case No. 20-136/PDP/TTM 20375: A Planned Development Project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Single family residences are located to the west, vacant land to the east and south, and very low -density residential development and the North Cork Vineyards and Winery to the north.

9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): A Development Agreement with the Yucaipa Valley Water District for water and sewer service.

City of Yucaipa 2
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM.............................................................................................................2 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................4 EnvironmentalReview Process.....................................................................................................................................4 DetailedProject Description..........................................................................................................................................5 Projectand Location Setting......................................................................................................................................5 PreliminaryDevelopment Plan..................................................................................................................................5 Tentative Tract Map/Final Development Plan...........................................................................................................7 ProjectPhasing..........................................................................................................................................................7 Aesthetics....................................................................................................................................................................

I I
AgriculturalResources................................................................................................................................................13 AirQuality ...................................................................................................................................................................15 BiologicalResources...................................................................................................................................................18 CulturalResources.......................................................................................................................................................21 Energy.........................................................................................................................................................................23 Geologyand Soils........................................................................................................................................................25 GreenhouseGas Emissions..........................................................................................................................................28 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...............................................................................................................................30 Hydrologyand Water Quality.....................................................................................................................................33 LandUse and Planning................................................................................................................................................37 MineralResources.......................................................................................................................................................38 Noise............................................................................................................................................................................39 Populationand Housing...............................................................................................................................................40 PublicServices............................................................................................................................................................41 Recreation....................................................................................................................................................................43 Transportation/Traffic.................................................................................................................................................44 TribalResources..........................................................................................................................................................46 Utilitiesand Service Systems......................................................................................................................................47 Wildfire........................................................................................................................................................................49 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................................................................52 Appendices:

Appendix A - Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis Appendix B - Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation Appendix C - Review and Comment: Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Tentative Tract 14297 Appendix D - Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Responses Appendix E - Appendix G Checklist for Noise for TTM 20375 Appendix F - Serrano Estates Project (TTM 20375) Transportation Study Screening Assessment Appendix G - Wildfire Assessment
Appendix H - TTM 20375 Serrano Estates Project - Lot No. 52 Effect on Transportation, Noise, and Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Technical Studies
City of Yucaipa 3
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

INTRODUCTION
This section explains the background and purpose of this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which is the environmental review document prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Planned Development application that would permit 51 single family lots, a 27- acre remainder lot that would include space for a residence, vineyards and 13 acres of permanent open space, and several additional lettered lots for water quality purposes ("Project"). It establishes the context and scope for the MND, and outlines the process for reviewing the Draft MND and issuing the Final MND.

The City of Yucaipa is the lead agency under CEQA. A "lead agency" is defined by Section 21067 of CEQA as "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment."

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
This IS and Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a MND is being circulated for agency and public review and comment for 20 days beginning July 15, 2022. All written comments must be received by 5:30 p.m. August 4, 2022. Written comments or questions concerning this document should be directed to:

City of Yucaipa
ATTN: Benjamin Matlock
[email protected]
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
4

DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proiect and Location Setting
The Project site is located on the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, north of Ivy Avenue., directly adjacent to Quartz Street and Crystal Street. The Project site is currently vacant undeveloped land, with an un-named creek located in the southeast corner of the site that connects with Spoor Creek approximately 300 feet south of the Project's southerly property line. There is a notable change of elevation from the southern edge of the site, at 2,920 feet above sea level, to 3,090 from a ridge located near the northern property line. The site is designated Rural Living, one -acre minimum (RL-1) and the Custom Home (CH) Overlay District and is surrounded by properties also designated RL-1 within the City of Yucaipa, and is adjacent to unincorporated San Bernardino County to the north.

Figure 1 — Site Aerial
Preliminary Development Plan
The Project proposal includes a Preliminary Development Plan ("PDP") that would create the development standards that would be applicable to the site. Consistent with the General Plan designation of RL-1, up to 52 residential lots are permitted on the subject site, and the PDP permits the development of 51 single City of Yucaipa 5
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

family lots, as well as one additional lot that will consist of only open space and a vineyard or similar agricultural use. The proposed PDP includes four separate planning areas that would govern the development: Planning Area A, designated as Agriculture, is the proposed 12 acres for the agricultural planting area; Planning Area B, designated as Low Residential, encompasses 27 acres and would permit the 51 single family residences; and Planning Area C would provide ten acres of Open Space, which would tie into Area D, three additional acres of open space and serving as a landscaped buffer between the residences and agricultural operations. As part of the PDP, the Planning Area B is noted to include 16 lots that will be specifically age restricted for senior households, and the agriculture area proposed as part of Planning Area A would be planted by Yucaipa Ridge Vineyards. Additionally, the age restriction for the development shall comply with all applicable requirements of state law. x •
203' Landscape BUtfer
(Lettered Lot mainlalred'
by LLNID )
J• �y
C .n it imno *
City of Yucaipa
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND
Area A
Area D

LAND USE PLAN
Designation Min. Lot Size
Acreage
❑
Pa`mryhr=a:.- t);i�-sa_n:,
Appiox.Qac
Apoa:.ral
PannmA h a 5 - 12.000 sq. IL
Approa.27 ac
Lux RcsUwad
Rwmn7A-sa C- H'A
Appf=10 ac
R:Ctra I ow �=0
1 Rarrha hasp- HA
Appm Sac
op., °-..pax
Figure 2 - PDP Exhibit
n
s
S
r.
r a �
Vul:ipurposc Trail • iy'-1
Easement },
1 taaln:alned oy City of 9t - i'•
1i Yucaipa( }
�..
tt 7
10,
go
t - r
s
!�. ejs
♦ t ,C .i ar J�+Sy1

Tentative Tract MaD/Final Development Plan
Along with the PDP, the proposed Project includes a Final Development Plan ("FDP") exhibit that implements the provisions of the PDP, which is provided through Tentative Tract Map ("TTM") No. 20375.

The TTM has the following elements:

Sinele Familv Development:

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

Remainder Lot:

An area designated as a "Remainder Lot" is proposed to correspond to Planning Areas A, C, and D of the PDP, and would therefore include the open space elements of the Project, as well as the future agriculture use. The proposed agricultural operations would be accessed from Yucaipa Ridge Road. The PDP specifies that no commercial or residential activities which would result in daily trips will occur on this lot, and the ultimate Tract Map and Conditions of Approval will include these restrictions.

Lettered Lots:

Several additional lettered lots are included to support landscaped detention basins that would accommodate water quality requirements. The majority of these detention basins are located adjacent to Yucaipa Ridge Road, and are intended to support the existing flow of runoff towards the southwest portion of the site, and to create a landscaped section between the 51 residences and the existing neighborhood.

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

City of Yucaipa 7
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

Figure 3 — FDP/TTM Plan Exhibit
• - (6) 91Ope 6Ktbn a Beet Damdwy
1 t '. I " •
fc?, Trammoon - NdaTal to Oawbped
RL-1
Vac" Lend
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20375
Project Not"
ra...Tlsereren
eo.s�r.Tw wunaeowr
ran.l.e w»W... a!uc
RL-1 etry Moment a Lot Ormboge
a+..»u......,..r.,�»....a.
:;'•••—.••••••••w,...,.r+.

SM�s Fe{Nly Resk/snMM
,;a
.e.raeoeerua�rren
�ffa
.4 aMrY.V.n pkl.
i
- creak rueeeemuTcn
�i� .M�ururnww.r.rr. r.Nn
Vacant Land eTAnen t�euWMar� uarnapr.mu.rt4.a
mar u.0
RL (San Bemaldlno County)
So& Famdy Reedenoe

BEGYM A
TION 9
' . Project EQe
_. _ —. _ �� l f-wlr ��. ff
TYPIrd1L
".� `c�z•
"TCRIOR 61RQT
y W°uru'.
iy ley �.
»r �.wr.».r L,w�..r T
- i4:.w. �•"r"? »..� err», ».... I-^...s.0
I%WA a Rldea mom gYU0dVd IU P P—dem-i
r.�r+r».».r
—.'S� .�

TENTATIVE MAP
.evi.iox• r.e...ev er
TS/TATMT�7.,

RIEMIUM UND
.n

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

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

Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gases
Public Services
Agricultural Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Recreation
Air Quality
Hydrology/Water Quality
Transportation/Traffic
■
Biological Resources
Land Use/Planning
■
Tribal Resources
■
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Energy
Noise
Wildfire
■
Geology/Soils
Population/Housing
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

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

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Date
Printed Name

4. r,,/,--t FA -

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

City of Yucaipa 10
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, X
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in X
an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely X
affect da or nighttime views in the area?
a) Policy PR-4.7, Scenic Resources, of the City's 2016 General Plan states that the City will "Protect Yucaipa's scenic resources, including scenic corridors along roads and views of the hillsides, prominent ridgelines, canyons, and other significant natural features, to the extent practical." Resources identified in the General Plan include the City's designated Scenic Corridors (Bryant Street, Yucaipa Boulevard, Wildwood Canyon Road, and Oak Glen Road) and the prominent hillsides, ridgelines, and open space areas that surround the City, including Crafton Hills and the San Bernardino National Forest. The Project site features an approximate 170-foot elevation change from the southern property line to the north, with the most notable change occurring along a ridge that forms along the northern end of the site. The proposed Project would concentrate the residential development towards the southern edge of the site, where the site features less topographical changes and would ultimately reduce the visibility of future residences from surrounding vantagepoints. Directly north of the proposed residential area, a 200-foot landscaped buffer would be provided and serve as a transition to the proposed vineyards. These vineyards would provide a visual extension to the existing North Cork Winery's vineyard on the property directly north of the subject site. In addition, the Project is oriented towards the internal street network, and would feature landscaped detention basins, aligned with boulders and rocks, along Yucaipa Ridge Road to create an ornate buffer of the proposed development from the existing residences west of the site. Based on the proposed subdivision design that maintains the residential development along the lower elevations of the site, and the open space, vineyard, and landscape transitions that are proposed, the Project would have a less than significant effect on scenic vistas. b) According to Caltrans Scenic Highway Program, there are no official state designated scenic highways that exist within the City of Yucaipa. A portion of State Route 38 passes through the City of Yucaipa, and is an eligible state scenic highway that has not been officially designated; however, this roadway is located approximately half a mile north from the proposed Project site and is separated by the Yucaipa Ridge. The City of Yucaipa has designated Bryant Street, Yucaipa Boulevard, Wildwood Canyon Road, and Oak Glen Road as scenic corridors within the City. The proposed Project would impact a site that has frontage on Yucaipa Ridge Road, which is not designated as a scenic corridor. As such, there would be no impacts to resources along a scenic route as a result of the proposed Project. c) The Project is located on three (3) vacant properties that include some vegetation and natural features scattered throughout the site, as well as areas that have been disturbed through annual weed abatement and manmade paths. There are also existing rural residential uses surrounding the Project site. Vegetative visual resources are most commonly protected through tree preservation ordinances that place limitations on the removal of such trees found to be native. Chapter 5 of the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code regulates the protection of oak trees. The conservation program outlined in this chapter contributes to the welfare and aesthetics of the community and retains the value of these trees. However, as further discussed in the Biological Resources section, no protected oak trees are located onsite. The Project site is located within a rural area of Yucaipa, surrounded by hillsides to the north. With the strict adherence to the RL-1 Land Use designation and the CH Overlay District, the development of 52 single family lots would be permitted to occur through the entire site. However, the City of Yucaipa 11
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

proposed Project consists of a PDP and an associated FDP/TTM that would implement the City's Planned Development Review procedures. Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." With the proposed PDP, the residential unit capacity would be consolidated along the southern areas of the site. Directly north of the proposed residential area, a 200-foot landscaped buffer would then be provided and would serve as a transition to proposed vineyards. These vineyards would also provide a visual extension to the existing North Cork Winery's vineyard on the property directly north of the subject site. With the proposed configuration, as well as the PDP standards intended to implement the CH Overlay District standards that includes the requirements for larger home sizes and enhanced architectural features, the impact upon the existing visual character or quality of the area is anticipated to be less than significant. d) Additional lighting will occur due to the development of the Project, and the installation of streetlights that may occur within the interior of the Project. The proposed Project would permit the construction of 51 single family homes to the area, as well as any potential buildings to support the viticultural operations, which will result in new sources of nighttime lighting, including, but not limited to: onsite street lighting, building -mounted lights, and ornamental landscaping and pathway lighting. However, the amount of lighting will be similar to other residential areas surrounding the site, and the Project will be required to comply with the City's Development Code, which contains property development and general design standards that ensure new developments and expansions of existing developments will not have a negative impact upon surrounding land uses. This includes the requirement that any lighting to be added to the Project shall be shielded to minimize light spillage to adjacent properties. Therefore, impacts related to light and glare will be less than significant through compliance with the Development Code.

City of Yucaipa 12
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public X
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 ?
d Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural X
use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
a-b) According to the State Dept. of Conservation Important Farmland Map, San Bernardino County 2012, Sheet 2 of 2, the proposed Project site is designated "Grazing Land" and does not contain any prime, unique, or important farmland. In addition, there are no active Williamson Act contracts within the City of Yucaipa. The City of Yucaipa utilizes a "one map system" in which the General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Categories are the same and combined onto one map. The property is currently designated as Rural Living, which is a residential land use district that allows for some agricultural related activities but is not an agricultural or forest -specific land designation, and is instead oriented towards providing lower density development relative to the City's other residential land use districts. However, the proposed PDP includes provisions to specifically allow for a vineyard or similar agricultural activity, and would therefore result in the creation of new agricultural land. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with zoning for an agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use but would instead contribute to the development of new agricultural lands.

City of Yucaipa 13
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

c-d) No forest land or timberland is located within the Project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur. e) As noted in items a-d above, the area is designated "Grazing Land" and no portions of the area are currently farmed nor subject to Williamson Act contracts. In addition, no portion of the area is located within a forest area. As such, the proposed Project would not affect these resources and no impacts would occur. However, the PDP would permit agricultural -related activities and result in new agricultural opportunities to the City.

City of Yucaipa 14
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or X
state ambient air quality standard?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or X
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely X
affecting a substantial number of people?
To support the analysis of the Project, an Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis, dated June 2022, was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc., and is attached as Appendix A. a) Air quality plans describe air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or regional air district. The primary purpose of the air quality plans is to bring an area that does not attain federal and state air quality standards into compliance with those standards pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the applicable air quality plan.

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

The regional emissions inventory for the South Coast Air Basin was compiled by SCAQMD, the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and is used for the AQMP. Regional population, housing, and employment projections are based, in part, on the City's General Plan land use designations. The proposed site is currently designated as RL-1 which permits one unit per gross acre pursuant to the City's General Plan. Based upon these requirements, the subject site is permitted to accommodate up to 52 single family lots. The proposed PDP and FDP consists of the development of 51 single family lots, with the lots consolidated along the southern portion of the site to create agricultural land opportunities and preserve open space. As such, the proposed Project would have been considered in the assumptions used for the AQMP for the growth expected within the City, and is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2016 AQMP.
b-c) The proposed Project would result in the development of approximately 51 single family homes, with 16 units that would be age -restricted for seniors, on 24.01 acres. Construction would also include exporting 179,000 cubic yards of dirt during grading. To quantify project -related impacts, the proposed Project was evaluated utilizing the CalEEMod version 2020.4 air quality modeling program for this MND, using very conservative parameters for its assessment and information that was provided by the applicant. The results are as follows:

City of Yucaipa 15
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

Construction - Maximum Daily Emissions'
VOC
NOxCO
I S02
LB/DayYear
Peak Overlap 35.09

28.48 43.21
1 0.09 4.58 2.07
SCAQMD Threshold
75 100
550
150 150 55
Exceed?
No
No
No
No No No
Operation - Maximum Daily Emissions'
Category
VOC
NOxCO
S02
Area

2.09 0.81

4.53 0.01

0.08 0.08
Energy

0.04 0.31

0.13 0.00

0.03 0.03
Mobile

1.27 1.70

12.32 0.03

2.91 0.79
Total

3.40 2.82

16.99 0.03

3.02 0.90
SCAQMD Threshold
1 55
55 550
150
150
55 Exceed? I
No
No
No
No
No
No
Construction related impacts would be reduced by the appropriate dust control measures implemented during each phase of development, as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. The requirements for Rule 403 include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the lots, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas.

Engineering Department specific Conditions of Approval for any future development proposals would include provisions for Rule 403 that will apply during grading and building activities to minimize fugitive dust. Other SCAQMD rules would also apply, such as Rule 1113 for low VOC paints and materials. Operational impacts would be minimized by adherence to the Building Code and Title 24 requirements. As such, impacts would be less than significant. d) The Project site is adjacent to residences, which are considered to be sensitive receptors by the City's General Plan.

During site improvement construction activities that are associated with future residential development, there may be some level of odor exposure resulting from asphalt paving and roadway improvements activities. A Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis has been prepared to determine potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during construction of the proposed Project. However, the limited duration and area involved in paving activities would not result in significant levels of odors affecting a substantial number of people, as there are a relatively limited number of residences in the direct vicinity of the site. As such, these impacts would be less than significant. t Table 6 of Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis (Appendix A) 2 Table 9 of Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis (Appendix A) City of Yucaipa 16
Serrano Estates and Vineyards NIND

Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis3
3 Table 8 of Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis (Appendix A) City of Yucaipa 17
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the x
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or x
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct x
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife x
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological x
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or x
state habitat conservationplan?
To support the analysis of the Project, a Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation, dated June 2022, was prepared by Jennings Environmental, and is attached as Appendix B. In addition, prior biological research and surveys had been completed on the prior site for the environmental review efforts associated with TTM 14297. a-c) The Project site is located within a transitional area of the City of Yucaipa, with existing large lot residential uses west of the site, a single-family residence and commercial winery to the north, and undeveloped land directly east and south of the site. There is a small drainage feature that crosses along the southeastern edge of the subject site, but the site is not identified in Figure PR-5, Wildlife Corridors of the General Plan.

The vegetation on -site consists of a mixture of Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance (California buckwheat scrub), Amsinckia (menziesii, tessellata) - Phacelia spp. Herbaceous Alliance (Fiddleneck — Phacelia Fields), Brassica nigra - Centaurea (solstitialis, melitensis) Herbaceous Semi -Natural Alliance (Upland mustards or star -thistle fields), and ruderal/disturbed vegetation, and does feature existing disturbances along the western edge of the site and along manmade trails that cross through the site. The field study completed onsite did not discover any candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; wetlands; and wildlife corridors, which corresponds to prior biological assessments that had been prepared.

As noted previously, a drainage feature is located along the southeastern edge of the site and is considered as a jurisdictional feature under the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, with an estimated jurisdictional area encompassing 0.4 acres of the site, and is also considered as Riverine habitat' under the national wetlands inventory map. However, the PDP and TTM for the Project has been designed to specifically avoid any development within or adjacent to the jurisdictional feature, and instead would designate this area as natural Open Space in perpetuity. This requirement will also be reflected in the Project's Conditions of Approval.
4 US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Mapper, h sttp :Hfwsprimary.wim.usgs.jzov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ City of Yucaipa 18
Serrano Estates and Vineyards N4ND

..7 t M, .1 V
_ Leg
IMProject Boundary
CDFW Jurisdiction
• c
77 Oil
•
0 S •i it i �F� f1. .-� -1 _T.
:i .. t •,, I w i �I `'
1 •.•j a a s � i� r � �y� �� s m 9`
-sue-'% r• :e ,p DrainaceA
CL
Date:
6:5+2022
—1 --
d) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The state of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5. All raptors and their nests are protected from take or disturbance under the MBTA (16 United States Code [USC] Section 703 et seq.) and California statute (CFGC Section 3503.5).

The Project site contains trees and shrubs that would be removed as part of the mass grading activities for the site, and therefore could have a potential impact on nesting birds if they are present on the Project site at the time of grading and construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 13I0-1, which requires a preconstruction nesting bird clearance survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the Project site, would reduce potential impacts to nesting and migratory birds to less than significant impact by limiting the removal of trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat to outside the avian nesting season, which generally extends from February 1 through August 31. If the nesting bird clearance survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, Mitigation Measure 13I0-1 requires buffers to ensure that any nesting birds are protected pursuant to the MBTA; this is a standard protocol for projects and impacts for both sensitive wildlife species and migratory birds would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e) The properties associated with the Project do not feature any Coastal Live Oak Trees, which are protected by the City of Yucaipa pursuant to Chapter 5 of Division 9 of the Yucaipa Development Code. Therefore, there would be no impacts to this resource.

City of Yucaipa 19
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MIND

f) A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a long-term agreement with USFWS designated to offset any harmful effects that a proposed activity might have on federally listed threatened and endangered species. The HCP allows development to proceed while providing a mechanism to conserve listed species and provide for incidental take. A "No Surprises" policy provides assurances to landowners participating in HCP efforts. The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program (NCCP) of CDFW is an unprecedented effort by the State of California and numerous private and public partners that takes a broad -based ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity. An NCCP identifies and provides for the regional or area -wide protection of plants, animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. The City of Yucaipa is not a part of any HCP or NCCP. As such, there would be no impacts to any applicable Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other plans for the site
Mitigation Measure:

BI0-1 Nesting bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre - construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) prior to project -related disturbance to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no -work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity, and duration of the disturbance, with a minimum buffer of 300 feet. The nests and buffer zones shall be field -checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no -work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.

With adherence to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed Project would have less than significant effects on biological resources.

City of Yucaipa 20
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological X
resources pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
X
a) The proposed Project is located on a parcel that is currently vacant and has no records of prior development. Further, the property is not designated with having a historic structure, nor other potential historic artifacts have been reported onsite.

As a result, no adverse change to the significance of a historical resource is expected to occur. b) Figure PR-6 of the City's General Plan identifies that the subject site is not located within a Cultural Sensitivity Area. In 1989, a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment entitled: "A Cultural Assessment of a 52.51 Acre Tract of Land Designated as Tentative Tract 14297 Located Near the Community of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California" was prepared for a previously -approved residential entitlement, and the findings of the report were reviewed by Archeological Associates on June, 1, 2022 (Appendix C). Consultation with local tribes, pursuant to AB 52, is required for the proposed Project, and additional details are included within the Tribal resources section of this MND. In accordance with AB 52 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to representatives of the Native American contacts on June 6, 2022, formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the Project. The intent of the consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work together with the City during the Project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural resources. A response letter was received from the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) requesting consultation, which concluded on June 7, 2022. As a result of the consultation efforts, mitigation measures have been developed for the Project and are included as part of the proposed Project's Condition of Approval, and are intended to address the process should there be any inadvertent discovery of resources. Incorporation of the mitigation measures will ensure a less than significant impact. c) There are no known human remains on the site. A review of historic aerial photos and maps at Netronline.com was conducted and did not identify possible cemeteries in the area, and therefore a low likelihood exists that human remains could be uncovered during ground -disturbing activities. However, there is always a possibility that unidentified human remains could be discovered during Project construction. Consistent with State law, if at any time during grading human remains are found, the Project is to be conditioned to halt work and contact made with the San Bernardino County Coroner's Office. Standard Conditions of Approval are included pertaining to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. In addition, any discoveries of remains would also be assessed to determine if they are of Native American origin, which is further discussed within the tribal resources section of this MND. As a result of the consultation process, measures are included to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:
• CUL-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre -contact and/or City of Yucaipa 21
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

historic -era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. • CUL-2: If significant pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly. • CUL-3: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project:

TRI-1: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the Project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on -site.

TRI-2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the project.

City of Yucaipa 22
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

6. ENERGY. Would theproject:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project X
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy X
efficiency?
To support the analysis of the Project, an Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis, dated June 2022, was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc., and is attached as Appendix A. a) This impact analysis focuses on the three (3) sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed Project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with project operations as well as the fuel necessary for project construction. The analysis of electricity/natural gas usage is based on the CaIEEMod modeling within the Air Quality Study, which quantifies energy use for occupancy, The Project's estimated electricity and natural gas consumption is based primarily on CaIEEMod's default settings for San Bernardino County, and consumption factors provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company, the electricity and natural gas provider for the project site, respectively.

Project Construction Energy Consumption
During construction there would be a temporary consumption of energy resources required for the movement of equipment and materials. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations would reduce short-term energy demand during the Project's construction to the extent feasible and project construction would not result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. As summarized in the Table 15 of the Energy Impact Analysis (Appendix A), Project construction electrical usage would total approximately 20,484 kilowatt hours (kWh).

As shown in Tables 16 thru 19 of the Energy Impact Analysis, project fuel consumption for construction equipment would amount to approximately 62,820 gallons of fuel, approximately 39,503 gallons for construction workers trips, approximately 25,969 gallons for construction vendors trips, and approximately 71,145 gallons for construction hauling trips. With respect to estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the vendor and hauling trips would generate an estimated 628,763 VMT. Data regarding Project related construction worker trips were based on CaIEEMod 2020.4.0 model defaults.

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

The Project would utilize construction contractors which practice compliance with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off -road construction equipment. Additionally, CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air Contaminants. Compliance with these measures would result in a more efficient use of construction -related energy and would minimize or eliminate wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption.

City of Yucaipa 23
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

Project Operational Energy Consumption
Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities).

Fuel Consumption
Using the CalEEMod output from the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses (Sections 2 and 3 of Appendix A), it is assumed that an average trip for autos and light trucks would be 8.7 miles and 3- 4-axle trucks were assumed to travel an average of 14.7 miles. The Project includes the development of the site with residential uses; therefore, in order to present a worst -case scenario, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 20 of the Energy Analysis shows the estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy -heavy trucks would be estimated at approximately 54,283 gallons of fuel throughout the operation of the Project. Furthermore, the state of California consumed approximately 4.2 billion gallons of diesel and 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015. Therefore, the increase in fuel consumption from the proposed Project is insignificant in comparison to the State's demand. Therefore, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

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

As shown in Table 21 of the Energy Analysis, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed Project is approximately 348,524 kWh per year. In 2019, the residential sector of the County of San Bernardino consumed approximately 5,054 million kWh of electricity. In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed Project is approximately 1,232,058 kBTU per year. In 2019, the residential sector of the County of San Bernardino consumed approximately 275 million therms of gas. Therefore, the increase in both electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed Project is insignificant compared to the County's 2019 residential sector demand. b) The proposed Project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

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

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

Regarding the State's Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the Project would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen). CALGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant -emitting finish materials. Therefore, impacts in regard to the Project in conflicting with or obstructing a state or local plan for renewable energy would be less than significant.

City of Yucaipa 24
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for X
the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv Landslides?
X
b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site X
landslide, lateralspreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or X
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the X
disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or X
unique geologic feature?
To support the analysis of the Project, responses have been provided by the applicant, dated July 8, 2022, and LOR Geotechnical dated June 15, 2022, in response to a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation dated November 22, 2005, for the subject site. These various documents are attached as Appendix D. a) i-ii). The site is within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and as a general note, Southern California is a seismically active area. As such, seismic shaking may occur, and seismic ground shaking and ground rupture due to movement of a fault is a potential hazard in Yucaipa. As part of the initial geotechnical investigations, prior fault studies were conducted for the site that includes 2,500 linear feet of trenching at depths up to 25 feet. Based on these prior investigations, the 2005 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation noted that the upper native soils would "not provide uniform and/or adequate support for the proposed structures" and provides several different recommendations to ensure development complies with all applicable codes.

These recommendations include that earth removals averaging approximately 3-5 feet will be necessary as part of the site preparation, which then will be followed by scarifying the soils at a depth of at least 6 inches and followed by 24 inches of properly compacted fill that is at least 90 percent relative compaction. As part of the current Project review, LOR Geotechnical notes that the current PDP/TTM plan generally incorporates the recommendations that had been previously presented including their recommended restricted use zone (R.U.Z.) along the northern portion of the site which would be avoided with the proposed PDP configuration. The applicant is currently updating their geotechnical documents to ensure compliance with today's codes and requirements, which is needed as a uniformly applicable policy to complete the final engineering efforts that are part of the future residential building permits. However, the key conclusions and recommendations would remain applicable, and less than significant impact is anticipated with compliance with standard Conditions of Approval, which include that the required structural calculations be included with the building permit process that demonstrate that structures meet the latest Building Code standards.

City of Yucaipa 25
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

a) iii-iv) The Uniform Building Code (UBC) has identified groundwater within 50 feet of the surface as a potential problem for seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. According to the Yucaipa General Plan, ground water can vary within the City from depths lower than 300 feet below surface elevation to as close as 40 feet. Based upon information contained within the Yucaipa General Plan, Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD), the San Bernardino Municipal Valley Water District, and the depth of YVWD Well # 315, the depth to ground water at the subject property is approximately 380 feet. Due to the depth of groundwater, the potential for liquefaction near the subject area is considered minimal. According to General Plan Figure S-1, the Project site is not located in an area that is susceptible to seismically induced landslides. b) The Project site traversed by a USGS identified drainage course' along the southeastern portion of the site, as noted in the biological resources section of this environmental document, which would be avoided with the proposed PDP design.

The Project would be required to prepare and implement all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and appropriate BMPs (Best Management Practices) through a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). These plans are a standard condition for Projects over one (1) acre in size and are intended to minimize soil erosion and prevent the off -site discharge of pollutants. Compliance with these provisions would ensure less than significant impacts for any future residential project. c) See above items 6 (a) and (b). Due to the depth of groundwater and the absence of landslide hazards per the City's General Plan for where the proposed Project is to be located, the potential for liquefaction or landslide is minimal. d) The area subject to the PDP is not identified as being within the City's Geologic Hazard Overlay as shown on General Plan Exhibit S-1, and is not expected to be susceptible to landslides and related phenomenon. Potential topographical constraints, such as the hillside along the northern portion of the site, would be avoided through the proposed Planned Development application. As such, the proposed Project would not impact a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and would not cause such an area to become unstable as a result of the Project. ' Surface -Water and Ground -Water Quality in the Yucaipa Area, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, 1996-98 https:Hpubs.usgs¢ov/wri/wri004269/odf/wrir004269.udf
6 US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Mapper, hgps://fwsprimary.vAm.usgs.gov/mcdandslat)ps/wedands-mai)pe City of Yucaipa 26
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

e) The property is located within the vicinity of a YVWD sewer line, which would be extended' from Bryant Street along Juniper Avenue, then Azurite and Crystal Streets, to support the development of the Project. Any future development would be conditioned to connect to the District's infrastructure, and the use of septic tanks would not be required. f) Figure 5.5-1 (Paleontological Sensitivity Map) of the General Plan EIR identifies that the subject site is located within a Paleontological Resource Sensitivity Area. According to the General Plan EIR, any development that proposes grading to occur five (5) feet below current elevation and in areas of moderate to high sensitivity or unknown paleontological sensitivity, to prepare a prepare a technical paleontological assessment by a qualified paleontologist in assessing/reporting the sensitivity of a project site for buried paleontological resources to the City of Yucaipa prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 would ensure that that potential impacts to paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

GEO-1
Applicants for future development projects in undeveloped and developed areas where grading is proposed five feet below current elevation and in areas of moderate to high sensitivity or unknown paleontological sensitivity to prepare a technical paleontological assessment prepared by a qualified paleontologist in assessing/reporting the sensitivity of a project site for buried paleontological resources to the City of Yucaipa prior to issuance of grading permits. Fossils include large and small vertebrate and invertebrate fossils; the latter recovered by screen washing of bulk samples.

If resources are known or reasonably anticipated, the assessment shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified paleontologist. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:

A paleontologist shall be retained for the project and shall be on call during grading and other significant ground - disturbing activities.

Should any potentially significant fossil resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City concurs in writing that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.

Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino Certified Professional Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to collect and catalogue the fossils per San Bernardino County Museum guidelines and adequately curate fossils in an institution with appropriate staff and facilities for their scientific information potential to be preserved. A report of findings with an itemized accession inventory shall be prepared as evidence that monitoring has been successfully completed and shall be submitted and approved prior to the granting of occupancy permits. ' Exhibit 8 of PDP
City of Yucaipa 27
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would theproject:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may X
have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose X
of reducing the emissions of greenhousegases?
To support the analysis of the Project, an Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis, dated June 2022, was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc., and is attached as Appendix A. a) Constituent gases of the Earth's atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG), play a critical role in the Earth's radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth's natural climate, known as global warming or climate change.

To determine whether the Project's GHG emissions are significant, the Global Climate Change Analysis (Appendix A) utilized the SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses. CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 was used to calculate the GHG emissions from the proposed Project. Each source of GHG emissions is described in greater detail below.

Area Sources
Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. No changes were made to the default area source emissions.

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

Mobile Sources
Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed Project. The vehicle trips associated with the proposed Project have been analyzed by inputting the Project -generated vehicular trips from the Project's traffic analysis into the CalEEMod Model. The program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2017 model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions.

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

City of Yucaipa 28
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

The GHG emissions were calculated based on the above -described parameters. The Project's total emissions, as identified in Table 11 of Appendix A, is 683.48 MTCO2e per year. According to the thresholds of significance established above, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions created from the on -going operations of the proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses. Therefore, operation of the Project would not create a significant cumulative impact to global climate change. No mitigation is required. b) The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The City adopted the City of Yucaipa Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2015. The CAP presents the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, identifies the effectiveness of California initiatives to reduce GHG emissions, and identifies local measures that were selected by the City to reduce GHG emissions under the City's jurisdictional control to achieve the City's identified GHG reduction target. The City of Yucaipa participated in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan which presents the collective results of all local efforts to reduce GHG emissions consistent with statewide GHG targets expressed in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006" and Senate Bill (SB) 375. The City has selected a goal to reduce their community GHG emissions by 15% below 2008 baseline levels by the year 2020.

Because the City's CAP thresholds are currently based on the year 2020, and that the proposed Project is to be operational in 2023, a comparison analysis was required to determine consistency between the City's CAP as well as the CARB Scoping Plan. The procedures for evaluating GHG impacts and determining significance for CEQA purposes are streamlined by (1) applying an emissions level that is determined to be less than significant for small projects, and (2) utilizing Screening Tables to mitigate project GHG emissions that exceed the threshold level. That CAP states that a threshold level of 3,000 MTCO2e per year will be used to identify projects that require the use of Screening Tables or a project -specific technical analysis to quantify and mitigate project emissions.

At a net level of 683.48 MTCO2e per year, the Project's GHG emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD threshold 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses and would be in compliance with the reduction goals of the City's CAP, CARB Scoping Plan, AB-32, SB-32 and, does not need to accrue points through the CAP's Screening Tables. Furthermore, the Project will comply with applicable Green Building Standards and the City of Yucaipa's policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City's General Plan). Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

City of Yucaipa 29
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would theproject?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of X
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or X
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it X
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X
would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency X
response plan or emergency evacuationplan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk X
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
a-b) The PDP and FDP would permit single family residential development consistent with the proposed RL-1 land use designation, with the lots consolidated towards the southerly portion of the site. It is not anticipated that a residential project would directly involve the routine transport of hazardous materials; however, equipment used at the site during construction activities could utilize substances considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and gasoline from typical construction equipment, and would therefore have the potential to discharge hazardous materials during construction. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state requirements, for which the project construction activities would be required to strictly adhere to. These regulations include: the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act; Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA), and the state Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program. The amount of hazardous material discharge during construction is expected to be less than significant, and the Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, ordinances and procedures. Through compliance with the aforementioned laws and requirements, and also through the implementation of a SWPPP and the WQMP requirements to prevent the off -site discharge of pollutants during construction and operation of the Project, impacts would be less than significant.

During operation of the Project, potential hazardous materials for the residential uses would be limited to routine elements associated with residential development, including the use of yard fertilizers, house cleaners and solvents, and chlorine for any swimming pools developed on individual lots, which would not represent a significant hazard. Further, no hazardous materials will be transported to or from the site during Project construction or operation.

One additional element of the PDP` includes the provisions to establish an agricultural -based operation on the remainder lot for a vineyard. This element is consistent with the City's combined efforts to see a viticulture industry develop in the City and follows the Yucaipa Valley Wine Alliance's petition to establish the Yucaipa Valley American Viticultural Area. As part of the vineyard operations, pesticides and fungicides may be used to support the crop cultivation efforts. As a general practice, maintaining a buffer between these agricultural operations and other residents are helpful to minimize potential City of Yucaipa 30
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

concerns, with a minimum buffer provided of 100 feet. The proposed Project includes a 200-foot landscaped buffer to meet these standard practices. However, it should be noted that the intended operator would be the owners of North Cork Vineyards, which is an existing winery and vineyard located directly north of the subject site, and they would apply similar farming principles used in the immediate vicinity.
c-d) The proposed Project is not located within a quarter mile of a school, nor is it included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impacts would occur. e) The Project site is not within two miles of a public or private airport. The nearest airport is Redlands Municipal Airport (REI), which is located over six (6) miles west from the Project site. In addition, the Project is not within the Redlands Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. No impacts would occur with the Project. f) The proposed Project would result in the development of three (3) parcels along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road.

The subject site is currently designated for single family residential uses, and the proposed PDP would maintain the net residential capacity with a reconfigured layout for the site that would not impact access to users traveling along the public right-of-way. Further, Figure S-5 of the Yucaipa General Plan does not designate Yucaipa Ridge Road as a primary evacuation route, but Yucaipa Ridge Road does connect to a United States Forest Service easement, which would be improved as part of the street improvement requirements for Yucaipa Ridge Road. As such, the proposed Project will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g) According to CAL FIRE, half of the City of Yucaipa is designated as a very high fire severity zone (VHFZ) based on fuels, terrain, and weather, and the Project site is located within Fire Safety Review Area 1 according to the City General Plan. The Project site is located within a transitional area of the City of Yucaipa, with rural residential uses to the west, and vacant lots to the east that are considered as wildland areas.

However, risks to future development from fire hazards are addressed through adherence to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Documentation from the Project applicant notes that the existing hydrants adjacent to the site provide a flow rate of 850 gallons per minute, which exceeds the Code requirement of 500. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a hydrant flow test will be required to verify the flow rate to serve the subdivision.

Other key elements, as identified in the Development Code's adopted amendments to the California Fire Code (CFC) includes that access roads and public and private streets shall not exceed a 12% grade, be capable of supporting 75,000 pounds, and built with all-weather driving capabilities, and that subdivisions must have two (2) points of vehicular ingress and egress from streets, one of which may be used for emergency purposes only. The proposed Project roadway design provides streets measuring 36 feet (curb -to -curb) in width that can meet the accessibility requirements of a fire truck, and the subdivision, which accessed from Yucaipa Ridge Road, provides connections to Bryant Street from Topaz Street and Azurite Street. General Plan Policy 5-1.8, Natural Topography, notes that projects should "limit grading for future developments to the minimum amount needed to preserve Yucaipa's natural topography, preserve vegetation, and maintain soil and slope stability. The proposed Project includes a PDP and associated FDP/TTM that is designed to implement the City's Planned Development Review procedures. Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." Based on the topographical elements of the site, in conjunction with the City's Hillside Overlay District, the Planned Development process that results in the consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site, which would avoid areas of steeper topography that might otherwise create conflicts with the access requirements listed in the Development Code.

City of Yucaipa 31
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

The Project site is also located approximately 2.19 miles, via paved roadways, to Yucaipa Fire Station #1 at 11416 Bryant Street, Yucaipa, CA 92399. Due to the proximity to the more rural areas of Yucaipa and the neighboring unincorporated community of Oak Glen, this fire station is equipped with Paramedic Engine 551, Reserve Engine 551A, and CAL FIRE Engines 3551 & 3569, and also includes a heliopad and quick response rescue equipment to aid in wildland fire response.

City of Yucaipa 32
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater X
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition X
of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; X
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
X
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial X
additional sources of polluted runoff, or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater managementplan?
X
a) The proposed Project has the potential to release water pollutants during the construction and operation phases, which would have the potential to violate water quality standards.

Construction:

Three general sources of potential short-term, construction -related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed Project include: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earthmoving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment.

The proposed Project would disturb approximately 39 acres of land and therefore would be subject to the NPDES permit requirements during construction activities. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable NPDES requirements through adoption and implementation of a submitted SWPPP and WQMP during the construction and operational phases of the Project. The SWPPP shall identify erosion control BMPs to minimize pollutant discharges during construction activities, and would include stabilized construction entrances, sand bagging, designated concrete washout, tire wash racks, silt fencing, and curb cut/inlet protection. The structural and nonstructural BMPs, and other measures included in the SWPPP and WQMP, would address water quality and waste discharge concerns associated with the Project. Compliance with these requirements is included as standard Conditions of Approval for the Project. As part of the review process for these documents, the City also verifies that there is a financial mechanism in place to ensure the continued maintenance of the measures proposed as part of the WQMP. Further, documentation will be provided to ensure all construction -related plans are consistent with each other. Impacts with regard to construction would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations.

City of Yucaipa 33
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

Operation:

The development of the Project would increase the amount of impervious areas onsite by increasing the total hardscape areas onsite for the proposed development, which includes the internal streets, residential buildings, and hardscape features for the homes including their driveways, patios, and yards. To address water quality issues, several landscaped detention basins are proposed to receive and filtrate the runoff generated from the impervious surfaces. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations related to water quality, implementation of BMPs included in the Project construction S WPPP, and design recommendations in the WQMP, would result in less than significant impacts.

Wastewater treatment for the Project area is provided by YVWD, and the proposed Project would be required to connect to the YVWD sewer collection and treatment system. The proposed Project would not generate hazardous wastewater that would require any special waste discharge permits. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations.
b) The proposed Project will use potable water provided by YVWD, and a Preliminary Service Evaluation letter has been provided by the agency indicating that they will be able to serve the Project. No hazardous materials or other materials will be injected into groundwater supplies and no wells are proposed for the Project which would have the potential to draw from the groundwater table. Further, the Project would not impact any existing groundwater recharge areas, or substantially reduce runoff to which recharge facilities would no longer be able to operate. Impacts would be less than significant. c(i-iii)) The Project site does include an existing drainage course along the southern portion that, as noted in the biological resources section of this environmental document, would be avoided with the proposed PDP design. In addition, this channel is not a designated floodway nor is it within the 100- and 500-year floodplain. The Project site features an approximately 170-foot elevation change from the southern property line to the north, with the most notable change occurring along a ridge that forms along the northern end of the site. The proposed Project would concentrate the residential development towards the southern edge of the site, where the site features less topographical changes, but aside from the channel that is avoided with the Project design, the site does not feature any significant drainage features. In addition, the Project would not impede nor redirect flood flows.

Onsite runoff will be conveyed downslope and ultimately be discharged into the several onsite, landscaped detention basins that will be designed to accommodate 100-year storm events. In compliance with stormwater discharges, the Project will be conditioned by the City to apply to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for coverage under the Construction General Permit (Order No. 99-08-DWQ) (CAS000002), which applies to all stormwater discharges from projects where clearing, grading, and excavation result in soil disturbance of at least one acre or more, which would be exceeded with the development of the Project. The Construction General Permit requires an applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would include a list of best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and to contain the potential for discharge of construction -related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. The SWPPP may include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs:
• Temporary Soil Stabilization: sandbag barriers, straw bale barriers, sediment traps, and fiber rolls; • Temporary Sediment Control: hydraulic mulch and geotextiles; • Wind Erosion Control: water of the construction site, straw mulch; • Tracking Control: staging/storage area and street sweeping; • Non-Stormwater Management: clear water diversion and dewatering; and, • Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control: vehicle and equipment cleaning, concrete waste management, and contaminated soil management.

The Project will also be conditioned to prepare and implement a WQMP that would include BMPs to be implemented during post construction operations in order to ensure compliance with RWQCB water quality standards. Examples of WQMP BMP protocol applicable to the Project would include the following:

City of Yucaipa 34
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

• Education for Property Owners, Operators, Tenants, Occupants, or Employees; • Activity Restrictions;
• Irrigation System and Landscape Maintenance;
• Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots;
• Drainage Facility Inspection and Maintenance; and,
• Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) The WQMP will be an active plan to be implemented throughout the life of Project and will require routine inspections by a qualified water quality specialist to assure compliance with the Santa Ana RWQCB. This will assure that the Project's impact with regard to violating any water quality standards will be reduced to less than significant. c(iv)) The proposed Project site is not within a 100-year flood plain, based upon a review of the latest FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map, 06071C8735H, revised August 28, 2008. As such, no future structures associated with the Project would be placed within a 100-year flood plain, nor would new structures impede or redirect flood flow. : dr
(I
Source:

Department of Homeland Security, FEMA Flood Map Service Center. his://msc.femagov/portal/home//msc.femagov/portaUhome As shown above, the proposed project would not be located within the boundaries of the 100- and 500-year flood plain. No upstream levee or dam would affect the Project site.
d) Based on review of the 2016 General Plan and recent aerial photo maps, the proposed Project is not subject to the potential effects of a seiche, tsunami, or mudflows caused by such due to lack of upstream water bodies. The City of Yucaipa is located just east of the I-10 freeway and is over 55 miles east of the Pacific Ocean with an average elevation of 2,400 feet above sea level. As such, the City is not under threat of a tsunami, otherwise known as a seismic sea wave. Similarly, the City of Yucaipa 35
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

potential for a seiche to occur is remote, given the limited number of large water bodies within Yucaipa and its sphere of influence. Therefore, no impact is expected.
e) On May 22, 2017, the City Council, adopted Resolution 2017-18, approving a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to form the Yucaipa Sub -Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (YGSA) with the Cities of Calimesa and Redlands; the South Mesa Water Company; the South Mountain Water Company; the Western Heights Water Company; the Yucaipa Valley Water District; the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District; and the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency. The MOA was formally adopted by all agencies party to the Agreement, and was submitted to the State Department of Water Resources by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) provides the YSGA broad powers in the implementation of the YGSP and collaborative management of the Yucaipa Groundwater Sub -Basin. This includes the adoption of rules, regulations, ordinances and resolutions as may be necessary to manage and protect the basin. One of the many goals of the YSGA is the development of groundwater recharge projects. The City, in cooperation with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and other partners and stakeholders have developed and constructed projects that capture and recharge storm flows for replenishment of the Yucaipa Basin. Future projects will also be developed to allow for active groundwater recharge opportunities. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the efforts of the YGSA.

The City is a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) stormwater permittee and participates with 20 other municipal agencies in the San Bernardino Valley region to establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residents, businesses, students, and governments in preventing and reducing stormwater pollution. Keeping pollutants out of stormwater is an integral component of a sustainable groundwater management program. Under the MS4 permit, the City requires new development to design and implement WQMPs that meet the San Bernardino County Technical Guideline threshold. For the development of the site, the applicant will be required to show implementation of the various structural and non- structural BMPs where applicable, and would therefore not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

City of Yucaipa 36
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a Physically divide an established community?
X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an X
environmental effect?
a) Dividing an established community typically involves creating a physical barrier that changes the connectivity between areas of the community. The Project site is located on three (3) vacant and contiguous parcels along the eastern side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, a partially constructed local street. Currently, the subject site is designated as RL-1 which permits one unit per gross acre pursuant to the City's General Plan. Based upon these requirements, the subject site is permitted to accommodate up to 52 single family lots. The development of these three (3) parcels, either with the direct application of the RL-1 standards or the implementation of the Planned Development Review procedures listed in Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code, would not bisect any portion of the surrounding residential land designations, and would be completely contained within the Project area parcels. As such, no new structures that could be developed under the proposed PDP would have the potential to physically divide a community, and the Project does not propose any other action that would physically divide an established community. b) The proposed Project includes a PDP and associated FDP/TTM that is designed to implement the City's Planned Development Review procedures. Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations.

This process is also intended to serve as an alternative site planning process that encourages the more creative and imaginative planning of mixed use, multiphased residential, commercial, or industrial developments within the framework of a single cohesive development plan." Further, the City's General Plan policy HN-3.3, Housing Incentives, states:
"Facilitate the development of market rate and affordable housing through regulatory incentives (e.g., density bonus), permit processing (e.g., planned development), and other incentives, where feasible and appropriate." Based on the topographical elements of the site, in conjunction with the City's Hillside Overlay District, the Planned Development process that results in the consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site would remain consistent with land use plan, policy, or regulations developed for the purpose of mitigating environmental impacts. Improvements to the project site are required to occur consistent with adopted development standards and good planning practices, and the Project's grading and building improvements would be undertaken consistent with appropriate City standards and drainage design criteria. No policies or plans exist for avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect that have not been taken into consideration, and the Project would have a less than significant impact.

City of Yucaipa 37
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

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

City of Yucaipa 38
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the X
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b Generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a X
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
To support the analysis of the Project, a document entitled Appendix G Checklist for Noise for TTM 20375, received June 2022, was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc., and is attached as Appendix D. a-b) The Project site is adjacent to residential land uses, which are considered noise sensitive land uses in the City General Plan. The General Plan and Municipal Code identify noise levels for various types of land uses, certain activities, and how noise levels are to be measured.

During the construction phases for the Project, noise and vibration will be generated from typical activities associated with new home construction, which includes the use of grading equipment, hammers, nail guns, and other typical construction techniques. No unique construction techniques or pilings would be required as part of construction that might cause excessive ground -borne vibration, and the equipment proposed for the site preparation activities would not exceed a Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of 0.21 at a distance of 25 feet, and would therefore not exceed the threshold of 0.3 to sensitive users as the nearest receptor is over 40 feet from the site. Section 87.0905(e) of the Municipal Code allows for "Temporary construction, repair, or demolition activities between lam and 7pm, except Sundays and Federal holidays." While construction activities will periodically raise noise levels above their current levels, the level of noise increase is not expected to be substantial and will only occur during the limited time associated with these activities. Adherence with the Municipal Code would result in less than significant construction impacts.

The operation of future residential development within the PDP area would be similar to other types of single and multiple - family housing within the City limits. Constructed homes would feature individual HVAC units, and may also include pool pumps and other electromechanical equipment that would produce noise (when operating) but at levels that would be expected to be compliant with local regulations where received by existing residential land uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) The Project site is not within two miles of an airport of any type. The nearest airport is Redlands Municipal Airport (REI), which is located six (6) miles west from the Project site. In addition, the Project is not within the Redlands Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. No impacts would occur with development of the Project.

City of Yucaipa 39
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for X
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
a) The proposed Project is located on three (3) vacant and contiguous parcels along the eastern side of Yucaipa Ridge Road and within an area generally developed with single family residences and vacant parcels. Currently, the subject site is designated as RL-1, which permits the development of one single family unit per gross acre pursuant to the City's General Plan. Based upon these requirements, the subject site is therefore permitted to accommodate up to 52 single family lots. The proposed Project includes the implementation of the Planned Development Review procedures listed in Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code in lieu of direct application of the RL-1 standards. Pursuant to Section

83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." The proposed Project does not include the development of units beyond what is currently permissible under the City's General Plan, and therefore would not induce any substantial population growth that was unplanned for the area. As such, impacts are less than significant. b) The Project site is currently vacant and would therefore not result in the displacement of any people nor would it require the construction of replacement housing. No impacts would occur.

City of Yucaipa 40
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the ublic services:
a Fireprotection?
X
b Policeprotection?
X
c Schools?
X
d Parks?
X
e Other public facilities?
X
a) The City of Yucaipa is currently served by the California Department of Forestry (CAL FIRE). The Project site is accessible from an existing improved street (Yucaipa Ridge Road) and new on -site streets will be designed consistent with existing City Engineering and Fire Department standards, and would not require unique or altered fire protection services.

The Project would result in improvements adjacent to an existing United States Forest Service easement along Yucaipa Ridge Road, which supports fire department access along the ridge directly outside of the city limits. As a standard Condition of Approval, developers are required to pay development impact fees for fire facilities that are assessed from the details of proposed Project. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection services, and would not affect fire department service ratios or response times, nor would it require the construction of any new fire facilities. b) The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department currently serves the Project site and surrounding area. As a standard Condition of Approval, the Project would be required to pay development impact fees for Public facilities based upon the size of the Project site, which includes police department facilities under the City's development impact fee program. The proposed Project would not require unique police protection services since the site has been and will continue to be accessible, and that the payment of development impact fees would off -set potential demands for increased facilities. The proposed Project would therefore have a less than significant impact. c) The Yucaipa-Calimesa School District would serve future development in the area. As a standard Condition of Approval, developers are required to pay development impact fees to the District for school facilities, prior to issuance of building permits. Under State law, impacts to school facilities are addressed by the State of California through specific procedures, such as development impact fees and the issuance of bonds. The proposed Project would therefore have a less than significant impact.
d) The proposed Project will involve new residential development and, therefore, potentially increase the number of potential park users or affect existing park facilities. The City of Yucaipa has adopted development impact fees to off -set the potential impact of new users caused by new development. Any future residences will be required to pay these development impact fees. In addition, the proposed Project includes a lettered lot area with passive open space for the residents, and would also include the installation of multi -purpose trails that would connect to other areas for the greater north bench area of the City, serving both the Project's residents as well as the adjoining neighborhood. The proposed Project would therefore have a less than significant impact. e) The proposed Project would not require new or altered public facilities or services. The City requires future development to pay development impact fees for a variety of public facilities, including drainage improvements, traffic, and civic center facilities. In addition, the Project will complete street improvements and onsite drainage improvements to meet state and local requirements, and those impacts have been addressed as part of this NIND. Other necessary improvements, such as water and sewer facilities, would be provided by other agencies that have the ability to require necessary facilities to be City of Yucaipa 41
Serrano Estates and Vineyards HIND

installed by the developer and/or require payment of fees to provide for that service. Water and sewer line extensions would be provided within the public right-of-way areas to facilitate the proposed development. The proposed Project would therefore have a less than significant impact.
t P-1
N
F
gift
";41t
-
N, leIV•*% of ip
V� J41
- \&
7;
Us
r4
7,
#J ��
Proposed Sevier Ur om
a,
7t�
Ij
MAO
A
r; z
Ak
of
Ik
A!
w
7 4
A.

Southern Project Boundary 771,-7.

N
It TOW:
00 oil I
W
il K
%
City of Yucaipa 42
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

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

City of Yucaipa 43
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation X
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision X
b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
To support the analysis of the Project, a Transportation Study Screening Assessment, dated May 26, 2022, was prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc., and is attached as Appendix F.
a, b) The Project site is located on three (3) vacant and contiguous parcels along the eastern side of Yucaipa Ridge Road, a partially constructed local street. Currently, the subject site is designated as RL-1 which permits one unit per gross acre pursuant to the City's General Plan. Based upon these requirements, the subject site is permitted to accommodate up to 52 single family lots. The proposed Project includes a PDP and associated FDP/TTM that is designed to implement the City's Planned Development Review procedures, and the Project design results in the consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site with 51 single family dwellings proposed, 16 of which will be age restricted for seniors. The development of these three (3) parcels, either with the direct application of the RL-1 standards or the implementation of the Planned Development Review procedures listed in Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code maintains the expected traffic volume from the General Plan.

As part of the Project design, the installation of multi -purpose trails is proposed that would connect to other areas for the greater north bench area of the City, serving both the Project's residents as well as the adjoining neighborhood. These features would enhance the pedestrian connectivity of the area. It should be noted that other than street improvements along the Project's frontage of Yucaipa Ridge Road, all other streets would be interior to the subdivision and would not impact the surrounding circulation system. Additionally, the City's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines specifies that a transportation impact study with level of service (LOS) analysis should be based on one or more of the following criteria:

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

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

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

The proposed Project does not meet any of the above requirements to necessitate a LOS analysis. Further, pursuant to SB 743, LOS impacts are no longer considered as an environmental impact under CEQA. Instead, Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines requires vehicle miles traveled (VMT) be assessed to determine project impacts. The City's TIA guidelines identify screening criteria for certain types of projects that typically reduce VMT and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. One category listed in this screening criteria is for projects generating less than 400 daily vehicle trips.

Based on the trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (I Ith Edition, 2021), the proposed Project that includes 35 single family houses and 16 age -restricted senior housing units would result in an AM Peak Hour trip rate of 29 cars, a PM Peak Hour trip rate of 38 cars, and 399 total daily trips. The proposed Project meets the City -established VMT screening criteria for small projects, and the preparation of a transportation impact study City of Yucaipa 44
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis is not warranted. Further, the proposed Project will have a less than significant VMT impact
c)The Project would not result in the modification of existing adjacent roadways in such way that would increase hazards to the roadway's geometric design. The Project site is located adjacent to Yucaipa Ridge Road, an existing 2-way local paved roadway that is partially constructed. The development of the site would be responsible for completing the Yucaipa Ridge Road improvements, including curb and gutter, and would not impact access to users traveling along the public right- of-way street. All of the proposed residences would receive access from the Project's internal streets, which would connect to Yucaipa Ridge Road via Quartz Street and Crystal Street. Further, the Project would result in improvements adjacent to an existing United States Forest Service easement along Yucaipa Ridge Road, which supports fire department access along the ridge directly outside of the city limits. No farm equipment, or unique road features and geometry would occur that could create an unsafe roadway conditions. Additionally, the Project will be conditioned to pay Development Impact Fees for traffic facilities to fund necessary improvements to the City's transportation network, and these fees represent the City's equivalent of the "fair share" contribution to a local fund to upgrade the area's transportation infrastructure. d) All of the proposed residences would receive access from the Project's internal streets, which would connect to Yucaipa Ridge Road via Quartz Street and Crystal Street. Onsite driveways and parking would be designed to be consistent with the City's Engineering and Fire Department standards, and include adequate driveway widths, and adequate ingress and egress width for fire and first responder vehicles. Further, the Project would result in improvements adjacent to an existing United States Forest Service easement along Yucaipa Ridge Road, which supports fire department access along the ridge directly outside of the city limits. As discussed in wildfire -related topics, several points of access to and from the proposed Project would connect to Bryant Street, which is designated by the General Plan as a local evacuation route.

City of Yucaipa 45
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

18. TRIBAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public X
Resources Code section 5020.1 k , or
(ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set X
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. a) The proposed Project is located on a parcel that is currently vacant and has no records of prior development, and is not designated with having a historic structure, nor other potential historic artifacts been reported onsite. Figure PR-6 of the City's General Plan identifies that the subject site is not located within a Cultural Sensitivity Area. In 1989, a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment entitled: "A Cultural Assessment of a 52.51 Acre Tract of Land Designated as Tentative Tract 14297 Located Near the Community of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California" was prepared for a previously - approved residential entitlement, and the findings of the report were reviewed by Archeological Associated on June, 1, 2022 (Appendix C). Consultation with local tribes, pursuant to AB 52, is required for the proposed Project, and additional details are included within the Tribal resources section of this MND. In accordance with AB 52 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to representatives of the Native American contacts on June 6, 2022, formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the Project. The intent of the consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work together with the City during the Project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural resources. A response letter was received from the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) requesting consultation, which concluded on June 7, 2022. As a result of the consultation efforts, mitigation measures have been developed for the Project and are included as part of the proposed Project's Condition of Approval, and are intended to address the process should there be any inadvertent discovery of resources. Incorporation of the mitigation measures will ensure a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

TRI-1: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the Project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on -site. • TRI-2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the project.

City of Yucaipa 46
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or X
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably X
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dears? c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X
roject's projected demand in addition to theprovider's existing commitments d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid X
waste reductiongoals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?
a-c) The Yucaipa Valley Water District provides potable water and wastewater treatment facilities for the north bench area of the City. The proposed Planned Development would be required to connect to the sewer system and would execute a Development Agreement with the District. As part of the Project application, the applicant has obtained a letter from the District noting that they would be able to accommodate the proposed development, and the PDP includes details on the necessary connections to be made for water and sewer infrastructure. It should be noted that prior infrastructure improvements have been developed to increase the potable water storage capabilities to meet the demand of future residents and businesses based on the City's General Plan. This includes several recharge facilities to increase water supply for potable water purposes that have been developed by the City of Yucaipa, and have helped create a more sustainable water supply as the City approaches it buildout.
d) Solid waste services in the City of Yucaipa are provided by Burrtec, and disposed of within the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill. According to information from the CalRecycle website, operated by the State of California, this landfill has an average annual receiving capacity of 500,000 to 730,999 tons per year, and has a remaining capacity of over 21.4 million cubic yards'. Information on the CalRecycle website provides solid waste characterization databases by types of use, referenced from various environmental documents.

The agency's waste generation rates for single family development range from 10 pounds per day per dwelling unit910. It is estimated that the Project at full occupancy would generate approximately 510 pounds of solid waste daily. Since the daily landfill capacity is 2,000 tons per day, the landfill has the capacity to meet projected demand and impacts would be less than significant.
e) Per Title 8, Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code, all properties within the City are required to subscribe to refuse collection and handling services. The program is designed to collect trash, recyclables, green waste, and organic waste and to assist the City in meeting mandated AB 939 diversion goals established by the State of California. Solid waste collection and recycling services pursuant to Chapter 8.28 are a mandatory requirement for all new development in the City of Yucaipa. 8 CalRecycle. n.d. SWIS Facility Detail, San Timoteo Landfill. Accessed July 7, 2022. httns://www2.calrepycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/DataExport. 9 CalRecycle Residential Sector Generation Rates. Accessed July 7, 2022. httos://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/generaUrates 10 Although the State does not officially endorse this information, it does provide some point of reference.

City of Yucaipa 47
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

The Project will be required to be served by the City -approved waste disposal service, which is currently served by a contract through Burrtec Wastes Industries, Inc. for waste collection. With the Project's adherence to Chapter 8.28 guidelines, Project impacts in regard to compliance with federal, state and local management regulations will be reduced to less than significant.

City of Yucaipa 48
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

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

Incorporated
20: Wildfire: Would theproject:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuationplan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire X
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that X
may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope X
instability, or drainage changes?
A Wildfire Assessment, dated July 8, 2022, was prepared by Premium Land Development to provide additional information on the Project, and is attached as Appendix G
a) The Project site is located adjacent to Yucaipa Ridge Road, an existing 2-way local paved roadway that is partially constructed. The development of the site would be responsible for completing the Yucaipa Ridge Road improvements, including curb and gutter, and would not impact access to users traveling along the public right-of-way street. Figure S-5 of the Yucaipa General Plan does not designate Yucaipa Ridge Road as a local evacuation route, but does include Bryant Street as a Local Evacuation Route, which can be accessed from Azurite Street and Topaz Street. Therefore, the Project will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and would have a less than significant impact. Further, the Project would result in improvements adjacent to an existing United States Forest Service easement along Yucaipa Ridge Road, which supports fire department access along the ridge directly outside of the city limits.

The Project site is also located approximately 2.19 miles, via paved roadways, to Yucaipa Fire Station #1 at 11416 Bryant Street, Yucaipa, CA 92399. Due to the proximity to the more rural areas of Yucaipa and the neighboring unincorporated community of Oak Glen, this fire station is equipped with Paramedic Engine 551, Reserve Engine 551A, and CAL FIRE Engines 3551 & 3569, and also includes a heliopad and quick response rescue equipment to aid in wildland fire response.

Additional firecrews associated with the Mill Creek Hotshots are also located at the Mill Creek Ranger Station that is located at 34701 Mill Creek Rd, Mentone, CA 92359, approximately 1.1 miles away via paved roadways.

City of Yucaipa 49
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

b-d) According to CAL FIRE, half of the City of Yucaipa is designated as a very high fire severity zone (VHFZ) based on fuels, terrain, and weather, and the Project site is located within Fire Safety Review Area 1 according to the City General Plan. The Project site is located within a transitional area of the City of Yucaipa, with rural residential uses to the west, and vacant lots to the east that are considered as wildland areas.

However, risks to future development from fire hazards are addressed through adherence to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Documentation from the Project applicant notes that the existing hydrants adjacent to the site provide a flow rate of 850 gallons per minute, which exceeds the Code requirement of 500. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a hydrant flow test will be required to verify the flow rate to serve the subdivision.

Other key elements, as identified in the Development Code's adopted amendments to the California Fire Code (CFC) includes that access roads and public and private streets shall not exceed a 12% grade, be capable of supporting 75,000 pounds, and built with all-weather driving capabilities, and that subdivisions must have two (2) points of vehicular ingress and egress from streets, one of which may be used for emergency purposes only. The proposed Project roadway design City of Yucaipa 50
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

provides streets measuring 36 feet (curb -to -curb) in width that can meet the accessibility requirements of a fire truck.

Additionally, the subdivision, which is accessed from Yucaipa Ridge Road, provides connections to Bryant Street from Topaz Street and Azurite Street. General Plan Policy S-1.8, Natural Topography, note that projects should "limit grading for future developments to the minimum amount needed to preserve Yucaipa's natural topography, preserve vegetation, and maintain soil and slope stability. The proposed Project includes a PDP and associated FDP/TTM that is designed to implement the City's Planned Development Review procedures. Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." Based on the topographical elements of the site, in conjunction with the City's Hillside Overlay District, the Planned Development process that results consolidation of the residential unit capacity towards the southerly portion of the site, which would avoid areas of steeper topography that might otherwise create conflicts with access requirements listed in the Development Code. Further, additional buffering would occur through the vineyard plantings, the 200-foot landscaped buffer between agricultural uses and the residences, and landscaping provided as part of Lot D in the subdivision.

Through the City's standard requirements and the proposed Project design, impacts from fire -related hazards would be less than significant. There are no other factors onsite that would exacerbate wildfire risks, or slopes that would pose significant risks, such as post -fire slope instability, or downstream flooding or landslides.

City of Yucaipa 51
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to X
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past X
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial X
adverse effects on human beings, either directl or indirectly? a) The proposed Project will not result in significant impacts that have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. No sensitive plant or animal species or habitats are expected to be significantly impacted by the Project site, and potentially sensitive habitat would be avoided through the proposed Planned Development design procedures. In addition, mitigation measures have been included following tribal consultation efforts to address any inadvertent discoveries of cultural or tribal resources. Currently, the subject site is designated as RL-1, which permits the development of one single family unit per gross acre pursuant to the City's General Plan. Based upon these requirements, the subject site is therefore permitted to accommodate up to 52 single family lots. The proposed Project includes the implementation of the Planned Development Review procedures listed in Article 2, Chapter 3 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code in lieu of direct application of the RL-1 standards. Pursuant to Section 83.030205 of the City's Development Code, the Planned Development purpose "is intended to facilitate development of properties where greater flexibility in design is desired to provide a more efficient use of land than would be possible through the strict application of land use district regulations." The proposed Project does not include the development of units beyond what is currently permissible under the City's General Plan, but instead consolidates the lots to create open space and agricultural opportunities. As noted within this MND, the proposed Project development would not have any significant and unavoidable impacts. b) The proposed Project consists of a PDP and a TTM/FDP to permit the development of 51 single family homes, agricultural planting areas, and dedicated natural open areas. As part of the PDP, the Planning Area B is noted to include 16 lots that will specifically be age restricted for senior households. Given the analysis contained herein related to the potential development that could occur, the cumulative effects of this Project are not expected to result in significant impacts.

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

City of Yucaipa 52
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES:

1. City of Yucaipa General Plan, 2016

2. City of Yucaipa General Plan EIR, 2016

3. City of Yucaipa Development Code (as amended). Accessed June 15, 2022. https:Hgcode.us/codes/Aucaipa/

4. Caltrans Web Site for Scenic Highways. Accessed June 15, 2022. www.dot.ca.gov .

5. California State Department of Conservation California Important Farmland Finder Interactive Map. Accessed June 22, 2022. https:Hmaps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CEFF/

6. California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State. Accessed June 22, 2022. https:Hdof.ca.gov/forecasting/dg emogrgphics/estimates/

7. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Accessed June 28, 2022. www.dtse.ca.gov .

8. Cal Fire Mapping. Accessed June 29, 2022. www.fire.ca.gov .

9. CalRecycle. n.d. SWIS Facility Detail, San Timoteo Landfill. Accessed July 7, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/DataExport .

10. CalRecycle Residential Sector Generation Rates. Accessed July 7, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle . ca. gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates

11. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Accessed July 6, 2022. https:Hmsc.fema.gov/portal/home

12. State Water Resources Control Board. Accessed July 7, 2022. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/

13. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. Accessed June 29, 2022. https:Hfwsprimary.wim.usgs. eov/wetlands/apes/wetlands-mapper/

14. Yucaipa Valley Water District. Accessed July 6, 2022. https://www.yvwd.us/

15. Surface -Water and Ground -Water Quality in the Yucaipa Area, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, 1996-98 https:Hpubs.uses.eov/wri/wri004269/pdf/wrir004269.pdf Accessed June 22, 2022

16. Yucaipa, CA U.S.G.S. Map

17. Ganddini Group, Inc, Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis, June 2022

18. Jennings Environmental, Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation, June 2022

19. Archeological Associates, Review of "A Cultural Assessment of a 52.51 Acre Tract of Land Designated as Tentative Tract 14297 Located Near the Community of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California, " June 2022

20. Premium Land Development, Letter and Comment of LOR Geotechnical, July 2022

21. LOR Geotechnical, Comment and Review of prior Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, June 2022

22. LOR Geotechnical, Preliminary Geotechnical investigation, November 2005

23. Ganddini Group, Inc, Appendix G Checklist for Noise for TTM20375, June 2022 City of Yucaipa 53
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

24. Ganddini Group, Inc, Transportation Study Screening Assessment, May 2022

25. Ganddini Group, Inc, TTM20375 Serrano Estates Project - Lot No. 52 Effect on Transportation, Noise, and Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Technical Studies, July 2022

26. Premium Land Development, Wildfire Assessment, July 2022

27. Premium Land Development, Preliminary Development Plan, July 2022 City of Yucaipa 54
Serrano Estates and Vineyards MND

g3ldJi�
Traffic Engineering • Transportation Planning • Parking • Noise & Vibration Air Quality • Global Climate Change • Health Risk Assessment

SERRANO ESTATES (TTM 20375)

AIR QUALITY, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE,

AND ENERGY IMPACT ANALYSIS
prepared by
Katie Wilson, MS
Catherine Howe, MS
GANDDINI GROUP INC.
555 Park Center Drive, Suite 225
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 795-3100 1 ganddini.com
City of Yucaipa
June 9, 2022
Project No. 19521

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY................................................................................................................................................ IV

1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................1 Purposeand Objectives.................................................................................................................................................1 ProjectLocation...............................................................................................................................................................1 ProjectDescription..........................................................................................................................................................1 Phasingand Timing.........................................................................................................................................................1 Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity.......................................................................................................................2

2. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................... 5 ExistingAir Quality Conditions....................................................................................................................................5 LocalAir Quality...................................................................................................................................................5 Pollutants................................................................................................................................................................ 7 OtherPollutants of Concern.............................................................................................................................9 RegulatorySetting...........................................................................................................................................................9 Federal - United States Environmental Protection Agency..................................................................10 State - California Air Resources Board....................................................................................................... 10 Regional............................................................................................................................................................... 11 Local- City of Yucaipa.................................................................................................................................... 16 MonitoredAir Quality.................................................................................................................................................19 Ozone...................................................................................................................................................................19 CarbonMonoxide.............................................................................................................................................19 NitrogenDioxide............................................................................................................................................... 19 ParticulateMatter.............................................................................................................................................19 AirQuality Standards................................................................................................................................................... 22 SignificanceThresholds................................................................................................................................... 22 RegionalAir Quality.......................................................................................................................................... 23 LocalAir Quality................................................................................................................................................ 23 ToxicAir Contaminants................................................................................................................................... 23 OdorImpacts...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Short -Term Construction Emissions........................................................................................................................26 Methodology...................................................................................................................................................... 26 Construction -Related Regional Impacts......................................................................................................27 Construction -Related Local Impacts............................................................................................................27 Construction -Related Human Health Impacts..........................................................................................28 Construction -Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts............................................................................28 Construction -Related Odor Impacts............................................................................................................29 Long -Term Operational Emissions...........................................................................................................................33 Operations -Related Regional Air Quality Impacts....................................................................................33 Operations -Related Local Air Quality Impacts..........................................................................................34 Operations -Related Human Health Impacts..............................................................................................35 Operations -Related Odor Impacts............................................................................................................... 35 CumulativeAir Quality Impacts................................................................................................................................37 ProjectSpecific Impacts..................................................................................................................................37 AirQuality Compliance....................................................................................................................................37

3. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ANALYSIS........................................................................................................39 Existing Greenhouse Gas Environment..................................................................................................................39 WaterVapor....................................................................................................................................................... 39 CarbonDioxide(CO2)......................................................................................................................................39 Methane(CHa)...................................................................................................................................................40 Serrano Estates 20375)
�11 Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis
i 19513

NitrousOxide(N20).........................................................................................................................................40 Chlorofluorocarbons(CFC)............................................................................................................................40 Hydrofluorocarbons(HFC).............................................................................................................................40 Perfluorocarbons(PFC)................................................................................................................................... 40 SulfurHexafluoride(SFe).................................................................................................................................41 Aerosols...............................................................................................................................................................41 GlobalWarming Potential...............................................................................................................................41 Greenhouse Gas Standards and Regulation..........................................................................................................43 International....................................................................................................................................................... 43 Federal................................................................................................................................................................. 43 Stateof California.............................................................................................................................................46 Regional - South Coast Air Quality Management District.................................................................... 56 Local- City of Yucaipa.................................................................................................................................... 58 SignificanceThresholds............................................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines....................................................................................................... 59 Thresholds of Significance for this Project................................................................................................. 59 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................................. 59 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................................................60 Consistency With Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans and Policies ............................................. 62 Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Impacts..................................................................................................................... 66 4. ENERGY ANALYSIS........................................................................... ..................................67
ExistingConditions....................................................................................................................................................... 67 Overview............................................................................................................................................................. 67 Electricity............................................................................................................................................................. 68 NaturalGas.........................................................................................................................................................68 Transportation Energy Resources................................................................................................................ 69 RegulatoryBackground...............................................................................................................................................69 FederalRegulations..........................................................................................................................................69 StateRegulations.............................................................................................................................................. 70 LocalRegulations..............................................................................................................................................75 Project Energy Demands and Energy Efficiency Measures..............................................................................75 EvaluationCriteria............................................................................................................................................ 75 Methodology...................................................................................................................................................... 75 Construction Energy Demands.....................................................................................................................75 Operational Energy Demands....................................................................................................................... 77 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency............................................................................ 79 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................................... 79 S. EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES...........................................................................................................89 ConstructionMeasures...............................................................................................................................................89 OperationalMeasures.................................................................................................................................................89

6. REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................................90

APPENDICES
Appendix A Glossary
Appendix B CalEEMod Model Daily Emissions Printouts
Appendix C CalEEMod Model Annual Emissions Printouts and EMFAC Data g3l:dn'
Serrano Estates (TTM 20375)
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis ii 19513

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.

Local Monthly Climate Data..............................................................................................................................6 Table 2.

State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards.........................................................................................17 Table 3.

South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status................................................................................................... 18 Table 4.

Air Quality Monitoring Summary.................................................................................................................. 21 Table 5.

SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds......................................................................................... 25 Table 6.

Construction -Related Regional Pollutant Emissions................................................................................30 Table 7.

Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day.......................................................................................31 Table 8.

Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors....................................................................... 32 Table 9.

Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions..................................................................................................36 Table 10.

Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes.........................................................................42 Table 11.

Project -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions..............................................................................................61 Table 12.

Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures ............................................... 64 Table 13.

Total Electricity System Power (California 2020)..................................................................................... 80 Table 14.

SCE 2020 Power Content Mix......................................................................................................................81 Table 15.

Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage........................................................................82 Table 16.

Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates..........................................................................83 Table 17.

Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates................................................................................84 Table 18.

Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD & HHD Trucks).....................................85 Table 19.

Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks).....................................................86 Table 20.

Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption................................................................................... 87 Table 21.

Project Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary......................................................................... 88 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1. Project Location Map..........................................................................................................................................3 Figure2. Site Plan..................................................................................................................................................................4 Serrano Estates (TTM 20375)
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis ii 19513

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this air quality, global climate change, and energy impact analysis is to provide an assessment of the impacts resulting from development of the proposed Serrano Estates (TTM 20375) project and to identify measures that may be necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts.

Construction -Source Emissions
Project construction -source emissions would not exceed applicable regional thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). For localized emissions, the project will not exceed applicable Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) established by the SCAQMD.

Project construction -source emissions would not conflict with the Basin Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). As discussed herein, the project will comply with all applicable SCAQMD construction -source emission reduction rules and guidelines. Project construction source emissions would not cause or substantively contribute to violation of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Given the temporary and short-term construction schedule, the project would not result in a long-term (i.e., lifetime or 30-year) exposure to TACs as a result of project construction. Furthermore, construction -based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds. Therefore, impacts from TACs during construction would be less than significant.

Established requirements addressing construction equipment operations, and construction material use, storage, and disposal requirements act to minimize odor impacts that may result from construction activities.

Moreover, construction -source odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect substantial numbers of people. Potential construction -source odor impacts are therefore considered less than significant.

Operational -Source Emissions
Project operational -sourced emissions would not exceed applicable regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. Project operational -source emissions would not result in or cause a significant localized air quality or toxic air contaminant (TAC) impacts as discussed in the Operations -Related Local Air Quality Impacts section of this report. Additionally, project -related trips will not cause or result in CO concentrations exceeding applicable state and/or federal standards (CO "hotspots). Project operational -source emissions would therefore not adversely affect sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the project.

Project operational -source emissions would not conflict with the Basin Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

The project's emissions meet SCAQMD regional thresholds and will not result in a significant cumulative impact. The project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational -source odor impacts. Potential operational -source odor impacts are therefore considered less than significant.

Greenhouse Gases
Project -related GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses.

Furthermore, the project's GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD screening threshold (based on EO S-3-05). The project would not conflict with the goals of the City of Yucaipa CAP, AB-32, SB-32, or the CARB Scoping Plan; therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an 931dii Serrano Estates pact 2Q375)
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis iv 19513

agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Energy.

For new development such as that proposed by the Serrano Estates (TTM 20375) project, compliance with California Building Standards Code Title 24 energy efficiency requirements (CalGreen), are considered demonstrable evidence of efficient use of energy. As discussed below, the project would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies required under other applicable federal and State of California standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet or exceed all California Building Standards Code Title 24 standards.

Moreover, energy consumed by the project's operation is calculated to be comparable to, or less than, energy consumed by other residential uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in California. On this basis, the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. g3THH
Serrano Estates (lTM 20375)
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis v 19513

1. INTRODUCTION
This section describes the purpose of this air quality, global climate change, and energy impact analysis, project location, proposed development, and study area. Figure 1 shows the project location map and Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
This study was performed to address the possibility of regional/local air quality impacts and global climate change impacts, from project related air emissions. The objectives of the study include:
■ documentation of the atmospheric setting
■ discussion of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases ■ discussion of the air quality and global climate change regulatory framework ■ analysis of the construction related air quality and greenhouse gas emissions ■ analysis of the operations related air quality and greenhouse gas emissions ■ analysis of the conformity of the proposed project with the SCAQMD AQMP ■ analysis of the project's energy use during construction and operation ■ recommendations for mitigation measures
The City of Yucaipa is the lead agency for this air quality and greenhouse gas analysis, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act authorizing legislation. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with terms unique to air quality and global climate change, a definition of terms has been provided in Appendix A.

PROJECT LOCATION
The 52.0-acre project site is located at northeast corner of the Yucaipa Ridge Road and Crystal Street intersection in the City of Yucaipa, California. The project site is currently undeveloped and zoned for rural residential (RL-1) with one dwelling per acre. A vicinity map showing the project location is provided on Figure

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves entitlement of a residential tract map with 35 single-family, 16 senior detached - dwelling units, and five lettered lots. Vehicle access to the proposed project will be provided by three access roadways onto Yucaipa Ridge Road. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan.

PHASING AND TIMING
The proposed project is anticipated to be operational in 2025. The project is anticipated to be built in one phase with project construction anticipated to start no sooner than the beginning of June 2023 and being completed by the beginning of January 2025. Even if construction was to occur any time after the respective dates, the analysis represents "worst -case" since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent.' 1 As shown in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) User's Guide Version 2020.4.0, Section 4.3.2 "OFFROAD Equipment" as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.

Serrano Estates pact 20375)
g3p):Hh
Air Quality. Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis 1 19513

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS IN PROJECT VICINITY
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2008). Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not typically remain on -site for 24 hours.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include: the single-family residential property lines located adjacent to the north (associated with the winery) and approximately 50 feet (-15 meters) to the west (across Yucaipa Ridge Road), 44 feet (-13 meters) to the south, and 793 feet (-242 meters) to the east of the boundaries of the project site. Other air quality sensitive land uses are located further from the project site and would experience lower impacts.
g3lddh
Serrano Estates (TTM 20375)
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis 2 19513

7-7%
pc,
g3-)JJH
Figure 1
Project Location Map
TTM 20375 Serrano (Yucaipa)
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis 3 19521

RL-1 RL-1
WA,gue t•7`�- Single Family Residents l I Single Fa it Residential Ld S 12.190If g Y
Lmc�,z!!sN p1wD `� �'--- fi m,r>r�•1wb,. I t` .�
rp
110 t 28 -.i ' \ i C.l weip'ir•,
45 ` ur D.l7c s w.s:o 228
r'-
4v J r Vacant Land
./ 3 t/
sJ n` 44 20 q
p.so e P a
75lN De !lo. '� D 2'8.570N r' 1l071N D.!!0 _ — IU+DiW.^'C b 700 !! V
43 30 s =- 4 y I A
p D. WO D.550 •&.too faluN 0. 130 - ') 23 �- 177/5N ` �J` •°" ��� ' j P. 750 11,023N D..Wo Wc.�. 7pg40J
RL-1 49
42 31.r .rx 2Z 6 ryki\6a y
N De S50 t D. W0 151l1.„. 11lSlJ D..IDe - ��� D• p0 .'150Bi • 1l,112N_off .fEO - a Vacant Land y a, I RL (San Bernardino County)
... �� I
. $o 16979J 41' 32w • 21 REMAINDER PARCEL _ 6*1 '% .

D. toD 7. 6SC 177F I7F]. D. 670 a D..!]a +5,7I7 u.lerr p•070ir 40 6 �s.rnN p.ro0 i' izlz:,t D9loo a rbgj,
!letOJ - Da!!0-`+7drlN Dboso ...yyy���
3934
t �\ r• - XIl.SIN--�'!1g Pa970 _J p..%0 12 tt 0d p.0.100 LI t,� 7 natural open space
p .DlC — 18 9—yy i
slw
D. 100 177.2N 0'. 000 !a!!1N t7 1:776N 1"ISO
z
PeaRae• Area .1
38 78aa 27, If 3t1 _
17 10 t 1
D..oso 1ea1N ,'semN.D.D09
�, Y 37 —. _ ♦ ._ a� J a T
.i D..ffiC strdeC�
Single Family Residence
\ - 1s, 15`1 14 19 12 11
natuipl open space \ ` ,� }_ R w 100,'� D.1s0 of x- ;. 2s0 • . De 300 0..360 •'Isal 1sYAN. !�ynd _ 15,e,0 t: zuN ('.+lidl N
TA
r/ a
a i.. r..p.wll.bamn..am..�dwaWz.w.ee
FO1.•'Dlun.canaYn'.Mh p..d.41M.0lDiHT nNNn..Y. ..

Figure 2
Site Plan
TTM 20375 Serrano (Yucaipa)
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis 4 19521

2. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

EXISTING AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS
Local Air Ouali
The project site is located in the City of Yucaipa in San Bernardino County, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) that includes all of Orange County as well as the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The South Coast Air Basin is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east. Regionally, the South Coast Air Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains to the east forming the inland perimeter. The project site is located toward the northeast portion of the South Coast Air Basin near the foot of the San Bernardino Mountains, which define the eastern boundary of the South Coast Air Basin.

The climate of San Bernardino County, technically called an interior valley sub climate of the Southern California's Mediterranean -type climate, is characterized by hot dry summers, mild moist winters with infrequent rainfall, moderate afternoon breezes, and generally fair weather. Occasional periods of strong Santa Ana winds and winter storms interrupt the otherwise mild weather pattern. The clouds and fog that form along the area's coastline rarely extend as far inland as western Riverside County. When morning clouds and fog form, they typically burn off quickly after sunrise. The most important weather pattern from an air quality perspective is associated with the warm season airflow across the populated areas of the Los Angeles Basin.

This airflow brings polluted air into western Riverside County late in the afternoon. This transport pattern creates unhealthful air quality that may extend to the project site particularly during the summer months.

Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of a project site because they both determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the rate of dispersion near a source.

Daytime winds in western Riverside County are usually light breezes from off the coast as air moves regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean to the warm Mojave Desert interior of Southern California. These winds allow for good local mixing, but as discussed above, these coastal winds carry significant amounts of industrial and automobile air pollutants from the densely urbanized western portion of the South Coast Air Basin into the interior valleys which become trapped by the mountains that border the eastern edge of the South Coast Air Basin.

In the summer, strong temperature inversions may occur that limit the vertical depth through which air pollution can be dispersed. Air pollutants concentrate because they cannot rise through the inversion layer and disperse. These inversions are more common and persistent during the summer months. Over time, sunlight produces photochemical reactions within this inversion layer that creates ozone, a particularly harmful air pollutant. Occasionally, strong thermal convections occur which allows the air pollutants to rise high enough to pass over the mountains and ultimately dilute the smog cloud.

In the winter, light nocturnal winds result mainly from the drainage of cool air off of the mountains toward the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. This forms a type of inversion known as a radiation inversion. Such winds are characterized by stagnation and poor local mixing and trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. While these inversions may lead to air pollution "hot spots" in heavily developed coastal areas of the basin, there is not enough vehicular volumes in inland valleys to cause any winter air pollution problems. Despite light wind conditions, especially at night and in the early morning, winter is generally a period of good air quality in the project vicinity.

The temperature and precipitation levels for the Redlands area, closest monitoring site with data, are shown below in Table 1. Table 1 shows that August is typically the warmest month and December is typically the coolest month. Rainfall in the project area varies considerably in both time and space. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid -latitude storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost completely dry.
g3pldii Serrano Estates pact 20375)
Air Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis 5 19513