Yucaipa City Council
May 8, 2023

Agenda Item No. 9

CITY OF YUCAIPA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services/City Engineer Benjamin J. Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planner
�� $
ram.

FOR: City Council Meeting of May 8, 2023
SUBJECT: RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING (CASE NO. 22- 121/APP/GPA/LUCR): A

MODIFIED PROJECT PROPOSAL FOLLOWING THE APPEAL OF CASE NO 21-085/GPA/LUCR THAT NOW CONSISTS OF A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT (ORDINANCE NO. 412) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DISTRICT FROM RM-10M (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO RM-24 (HIGH

DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) AND A LAND USE COMPLIANCE REVIEW TO PERMIT A PRIVATELY GATED 172-UNIT TWO-STORY MULTI-

FAMILY APARTMENT PROJECT THAT INCLUDES AN AFFORDABILITY

PROVISION THAT WILL BE EXECUTED THROUGH A DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT ON FOUR PARCELS TOTALING 8.39 ACRES. — THE INITIAL

PROJECT REVIEWED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WAS FOR A PRIVATELY GATED 200-UNIT THREE-STORY MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT PROJECT; LOCATED BETWEEN 3RD STREET TO THE WEST AND 2ND STREET TO THE EAST, APPROXIMATELY 375 FEET NORTH OF COUNTY LINE ROAD. A LOT MERGER WILL ALSO BE PROCESSED TO CONSOLIDATE ALL FOUR PARCELS INTO A SINGLE LOT. APNS: 0319-253- 28, -29, -30, -84
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council ensure that the reheard public hearing is conducted in an orderly manner, free from disruptions, and in compliance with due process requirements. For specific actions under City Council consideration, please see the attached original hearing packet from February 13, 2023.

INTRODUCTION
This staff report outlines the circumstances that led to the rescheduling of the public hearing for planning application Case No. 22-121 /APP/GPA/LUCR, submitted by Mr. Ivano Stamegna and Nova Homes, Inc. (collectively referred to as the "Applicant"). The report also provides an overview of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims, which has been entered into between the City of Yucaipa and the Applicant, and outlines the actions to be taken to ensure an orderly conduct of the rescheduled public hearing.
112

For further information on the proposed project and application, please see the attached original staff report for the project which was submitted to the City Council on February 13, 2023.

DISCUSSION:

During the initial public hearing on the Applicant's planning application, certain members of the public in attendance became disruptive, impeding the orderly conduct of the hearing. The Applicant alleges that the City's failure to maintain order resulted in a denial of due process, in violation of their rights under the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and applicable laws. The City denies any wrong doing but acknowledges the potential impact of the disruptions on the Applicant's ability to fully present evidence and testimony. In order to avoid litigation, both parties engaged in good faith negotiations and entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims.

Under federal and state law, when applicants have been deprived of aright to a fair hearing, the proper remedy is to have the City Council rehear the matter and provide a fair hearing. There is no requirement that the City Council come to a different conclusion on the Application.

Per the Settlement Agreement, the following actions are to be taken:
* Rescheduling of Public Hearing:
o The City has agreed to rehear the application within 60 days from the Agreement's effective date (April 10, 2023).
o The City will provide notice of the rescheduled hearing in accordance with state and local laws, at the Applicant's expense.
* Conduct of Rescheduled Hearing:
o The City has agreed to take reasonable steps to ensure an orderly hearing, free from disruptions, and in compliance with due process requirements. o The City has agreed to enforce its rules of decorum and provide security measures, as necessary, to maintain order during the rescheduled hearing.

FISCAL IMAPCT:

None related to the reheard public hearing. For specific actions under City Council consideration, please see the attached original hearing packet from February 13, 2023.

Attachment(s): 1. Original Hearing Packet from February 13, 2023

2. Written Public Comment
Approved by:
113

Attachment 1
Agenda Item No. _19

CITY OF YUCAIPA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services/City Engineer Benjamin J. Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planner 17a .,-....-- FOR: City Council Meeting of February 13, 2023
SUBJECT: Premium Land Development. (Case No. 22-121/APP/GPA/LUCR): A modified Project proposal following the Appeal of Case No 21-085/GPA/LUCR that now consists of a General Plan Amendment (Ordinance No. 4.12) to change the land use district from RM-10M (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High. Density Multiple Residential) and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a privately gated 172- unit two-story multi -family apartment Project that includes an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement; on four parcels totaling 8.39 acres. — The initial project reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council was for a privately gated 200-unit three-story multi -family apartment project; located between 3rd Street to the west and 2nd Street to: the east, approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. A lot merger will also be processed to consolidate all four parcels into a single lot. APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, - 30, -84.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-41, approving the minor General. Plan Amendment / Land Use District Change of a property from RM-10M (Multiple Residential, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) to the land use designation of RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential); and

2. Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 412, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa; and

3. Approve the Density Bonus Agreement Request and Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 22-121), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this. Agenda Report; and

4. Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and 41l4

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

5. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation. Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and

6. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and,

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

BACKGROUND:

Surrounding Land Uses:

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

Site:

RM-IOM (Multiple Residential,
10,000 square: foot minimum lot size
IL-1
Existing SFRs to be demolished
North
RM-1OM
IL-1
Single Family and Multi -Family
Residences
South:

RM-1OM
IL-1
Single Family Residences
East:

RM-1 OM
IL-1
Single Family Residences
West:

RM-IOM
IL-1
Single Family Residences
Proiect History:

Previous Action:

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

Case No. 21-085•
The proposed Project is a revision of Case No: 21-085 that was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. For context, that project design had included a minor GPA. application to change the land use designation of four (4) parcels totaling approximately 8.39 acres from the City's Multiple Residential (RM-10M) Land Use Designation to High Density .Multiple Residential (RM-24) Land Use Designation, and a separate Land Use Compliance Review application for development of a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment project on those four (4) subjects parcels. The proposed design. had included eight (8) 3-story apartment buildings and one (1) l-story apartment building. The project's floor plans would consist of fifty (50) one bedroom units (650 sq. ft.), one hundred (100) two -bedroom units (890 sq. ft.) and fifty (50) three bedroom units (973 sq. ft.). The review actions are summarized below:
41815

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

Prior Planning Commission Meetings:

The proposed Project. was initially presented and discussed at the regular Planning Commission hearing on August 3, 2022, with public comments provided during that hearing. However, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to further consider the comments received and to allow the entire Commission to discuss and ultimately vote on the item. The item was brought back to the August 17d', 2022, meeting for the Commission's deliberation. The key elements that were explored during the meeting and provided as part of the Public Hearing pertained to the overall traffic and parking demand that would occur following the development of the project, the overall height of the apartments, and the appropriateness of the GPA in this area. A summary of the key elements identified are as follows:

Parking Capacity and Traffic: Comments by the Planning Commission explored if the proposed parking for the project were sufficient for 200 units. Concerns by the public were raised that the available spaces would not be sufficient for the number of units and bedrooms, and that parking would therefore overflow into the surrounding neighborhood. However, the site design did include parking that exceeded the required parking for this type of residential project.

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

The project's assigned traffic analysis zone (TAZ) of 29.7 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per day falls below the City baseline VMT jurisdiction of 307 VMT per day and therefore satisfies the City's established screening criteria for projects located within low VMT areas and would provide housing for families that are within walking distance to school. While Level of Service (LOS) Impacts are no longer a criterion for significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality 41A 6

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

Act, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) technical study has been prepared to address project -related impacts at the adjoining intersections
ctions to ensure smooth vehicular movement along 27' Street and 3Td Street. The traffic analysis took into consideration the two roundabouts. that are to be completed at 2nd Street and County Line Road, and the intersection of P Street and Countyline Road, which are currently under construction. It found that with the installation of these improvements, the traffic conditions would be at a Level of Service C or better.

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

Although the Development Code does not protect viewsheds, the General Plan Amendment would require greater setbacks than the existing land use designation as the RM-24 Land Use District requires a minimum front setback of 35 feet and a minimum side setback of 20 feet intended to reduce the impact of the multi -story structures from adjoining streets. The project had met the setbacks required for the RM-24 Land Use District; however, the Planning Commission suggested that perhaps an additional focus to provide more two-story structures in lieu of the three-story structures would help to better address the compatibility concerns.

Appropriateness of a General Plan Amendment. Through the Planning Commission, concerns were raised over the appropriateness of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and efforts to change, to what had previously been planned by the General Plan. The proposed GPA would permit the net increase of 120 dwelling units, compared to a project built, at the density permitted in the RM- IOM Land Use District with a similar affordability component. The City of Yucaipa utilizes a "one map system" in which the General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Categories are the same and combined onto one (1) map, and the land use classification of multi -family residential would remain with or without the approval of the GPA. In addition, no other sites are proposed to be rezoned with the project. It should additionally be noted that the General Plan is meant to be a "Living Document," and may be altered when appropriate and when the findings can be made in support of a GPA. However, the proposed change is a policy decision that is to be weighed through the Planning Commission and City Council and requires approval of the all the findings listed in Section 83.020110 of the Yucaipa Development Code. As part of the deliberation, the Planning Commission noted that there has been a considerable 'increase in land use applications that propose the rezoning of sites to increase the net residential density of an area, and that other areas, such as corridors and similar areas with increased resources and connectivity to those resources, would be more appropriate to accommodate these larger projects than such sites: that are within the interior of a residential block.

During the prior meeting, the project representative, Craig Heaps, committed to providing further improvements, to the surrounding area including providing sidewalk from the project to County Line Road along P Street, and further from the project site to the cross walk along .2 d Street to enhance safety and as an additional amenity provided for the community. As such a Condition has been added to the Project as follows:
41q 7

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

"Developer shall construct sidewalk along 2' Street from the proposed development to the existing crosswalk located at Tara Lane to the north. Developer shall construct sidewalk along 3rd Street from proposed development to County Line Road.

Improvements at County Line Road shall be designed to accommodate the proposed roundabout improvements currently under construction by the City.

During the meeting, the Planning Commission weighed the public comments that were presented, as well as the key issues as part of their deliberation leading up to a motion to deny the project. The Planning Commission noted that the proposed design provides a new and attractive apartment development for the City, but that such General Plan Amendments that locate higher density projects within the interior of a residential block was not appropriate; and that they could not meet the requisite findings for approval based on this site's location and characteristics, citing specifically the findings; listed under Section 83.020114(a), (b), (c) and (4).

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

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

The appeal and revised project design was reviewed during the regular City Council Meeting of October 24, 2022. The City Council noted that the revised project design was a notable improvement from the Planning Commission -reviewed proposal and helped to address many of the key concerns that the public and Planning Commission had 'identified. However, the City Council noted that the overall net increase of units that would result with the proposal from the existing RM land use designation remained a concern and that they would not be able to support that scale of project. The property owner, Ivano Stamegna of Nova Homes, responded that they could further revise the project to approximately 175 units, which would remain consistent with the proposed RM-24 designation and may further alleviate the concerns presented. The City Council indicated support to that direction, and ultimately voted to remand the item back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on a revised project that would include no more than 175, two-story units. As such, the proposal presented is a 172-unit apartment project that includes structures that are no greater than two stories.
4f48

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

Case No. 22-121•
Planning Commission Meeting
The revised 172-unit project was presented at the Planning Commission Meeting of January 18, 2023. The Commission reviewed the history of the Project and the changes that have been made following the initial public hearings for the Project. During public comment, several property owners noted continued concerns with the proposed General Plan Amendment, as well as the overall scale of the development that is proposed. However, several commenters also spoke in favor of the Project, noting that the project changes were welcomed, and that the setbacks and buffers were greater than what would otherwise be allowed. The Planning Commission ultimately voted 5- 1-1-0 to recommend the Project for City Council's consideration, and minutes are provided for Council's reference.

DISCUSSION:

Location and Setting:.

The proposed GPA, would change the land use designation of approximately 8.39 gross acres on a property located between 2nd and 3rd Street, and between County Line Road and Avenue H, and is within an area designated as multiple -family residential. As a part of the Project; three (3) residential buildings are proposed to be demolished on the northeastern portion of the site and one (1) residential building to be demolished on the northwestern portion of the Project. As part of the analysis completed for the Initial Study prepared as a part of this Project, these structures were found to have no historical or cultural significance. The site is comprised of several different lots that have been previously disturbed through former residential uses and onsite disking for weed abatement. The lot is relatively flat and generally slopes downward from northeast to southwest towards 3rd Street. A mixture of vacant land, and single- and multiple -family development surround 4149

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

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

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

Project Design and Description:

General Plan Amendment. -
The Project applicant has submitted a minor GPA application to change the land use designation of four (4) parcels totaling approximately 8.39 acres from the City's Multiple Residential (RM-10M) Land Use Designation to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) Land Use Designation. The proposed RM Land Use Designation would permit residential development to be constructed at a higher density than what is currently permitted under the designation RM-10M. The Land Use District change would meet the minimum district size of five (5) gross acres as specified by the Development Code and concurrent with the GPA, the Project application includes a Land Use Compliance Review, Architectural Review, and a Density Bonus Agreement to permit a 172-unit privately gated apartment complex.

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

Prior to approving or recommending approval of a General Plan land use district change, the Planning Agency shall find that the following are true:
(a) The :proposed land use district change is in the public interest, there will be a community benefit, and other existing and permitted uses will not be compromised (b) The proposed land use district change is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and will provide a reasonable and logical extension of the existing land use pattern in the surrounding area.
41320

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

(c) The proposed land use district change does not: conflict with provisions of this Code or any applicable Specific Plan.
(d) The proposed land use district change will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property.
(e) The proposed land use district change has been referred to the. public water purveyor, and pursuant to Governmental Code Section 6595-8.1, an adequate water supply exists or is planned that will serve the proposed project.

Land Use Cvmnliance.Review:

A residential entitlement (Land Use Compliance Review) has been submitted concurrent with the General Plan Amendment, and has been designed to comply with the proposed Land Use District requirements, as well as the direction from the City Council following their October 24, 2022, public hearing. The current proposal consists of the development of a privately gated 172-unit multi -family apartment Project on the four (4) subject parcels. As a part of the development, the demolition of four (4) existing single-family residential dwellings would be required, and a Lot Merger would be processed to consolidate the parcels into one (1) lot. The Land Use Compliance Review application implements the multi -family residential development component of the Project as required by the City's Development Code.

The proposed Project would consist of five (5) 2-story apartment buildings with a total of 20 units in. each building, and three (3) 2-story apartment buildings that each have 24 units. The Project's floor plans would consist of sixty-four (64) one -bedroom units (685 sq. ft.), one hundred (100) two bedroom units (1,062 sq. ft.) and eight (8) three -bedroom units (1,309 sq. ft.).

Circulation:

The Project would consist of arranging, of eight (8) 2-story apartment buildings and a club house aligned linearly in a row with entrances and exits along 2nd Street and Yd Street. The aisle has been. designed to provide twenty-four (24) feet of drive aisle, which would facilitate two-way traffic with adjacent pull -in parking and to provide adequate Fire Department accessibility. The. Site also includes an exit only drive lane that provides additional access onto 2nd Street. The site features an internal walking path that would provide pedestrian connectivity to the recreational features. provided in the development. In addition; the proposed Project would complete the street improvements along the Project frontages of 2nd street and Yd Street, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and matchup paving, and would also include any necessary gutter transitions to the adjacent properties. As part of the prior processing of Case No 21-085, the applicant has also agreed to complete the necessary roadway and pedestrian improvements to County Line Road. 41421

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

3 x-HCvu
i
Site Plan
Drainae:.

C
A
2 The site has been designed to maintain: historic flows and includes measures that will ensure:that the Project complies with the onsite water retention and City's water quality requirements. The overall drainage of the site utilizes the proposed grading to convey the movement of run-off water towards a proposed landscaped detention basin located at the western portion of the site abutting Yd Street.

Amenities:

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

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

FRONTELEVATION
Clubhouse Front Elevation
TOT LOT, SUTADE —"-- - wwrm Doc. PARK-----` 'roT uYr SIIADE --` BHQ

STRUCTURE AND BBQ STRUCTURE AND BBQ
Amenity Locations
ff L2

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

Architecture:

The applicant has submitted an architectural design package for the proposed subdivision and the conceptual landscape architecture design for the overall site (attached) and. requests City Council approval of the architecture at this time as required in the Conditions of Approval. There are eight (8) total apartment buildings proposed with two separate footprint/elevations included, and a clubhouse. The two-story buildings feature a 32' max height with the one-story buildings featuring an approximately, 18' peak height. Each building is designed with a Spanish, architectural influence and will include "Capistrano" clay tile roofs, curved arch ways, balconies, and clay pipe vents.

Stucco siding in "Meadowbrook" will be the primary wall material with band accents towards the tile roof in "Chateau Brown" with either an accent "Santa Fe" stucco or a stone veneer wall.

Variable roofing elements are included to increase articulation and roof design.

Conceptual landscaping is also provided for the City Council's review, and shows the approximate location and types of shrubs, groundcover, and trees to be planted onsite. The landscape palette includes a mixture of drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and ground cover, which will be reviewed as a Condition of Approval by the. City's Contract Landscape Architect to verify consistency with the City administrative design guidelines and to ensure that the palette will best perform in Y'ucaipa's climate zone. in addition, the landscape plans are conditioned to be in conformance with the City's Water Conservation requirements, which will be substantiated during the building plan check process.

Front Elevations
¢1t3

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

Consistency with the General Plan and Development. Code:

The proposed Project consists of 172 units on approximately 839 acres. The proposed Project has the following characteristics:

COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL

CRITERIA

REQUIREMENTS

PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Density
24 dwelling units per acre.

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

37.2/0 of total site area as private and
public o en space.

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

Required site amenities
Yes. Project includes two (2) tot lot play
include entry treatment. Each
areas, a fenced dog park, picnic areas,
Amenities
dwelling is required to
openspace and: common area.
provide 3 interior amenities
landscaping,private internal sidewalks,
from approved list.
a pool and club house and guest parking .
within the private street network
The Project meets or exceeds the City's General Plan and Development Code standards for the above referenced items as well as for access and site design, provided that the minor General Plan Amendment request is approved..

In addition, the proposed Project supports a number of General Plan policies. These include the following:
• CDL-1.1 Places to Live. Provide sites for a range of housing types, locations, and densities in a variety of neighborhood settings equipped with amenities that support a high quality of life.
1 Compliance provided if the General Plan. Amendment is approved. 4fN

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

• CDL-10:I Development Review. Implement and adhere to development review procedures and design guidelines in the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code that advance the visual quality of the community.
• HN-2.1 Balanced Housing Stock. Designate adequate land for a broad range of types of housing, including single-family attached and detached, multiple -family housing, and mixed use located in accordance with the land use and "community design element. • HN-3.1 Design Features. Require new and rehabilitated residential units to be well designed, with appropriate attention to site planning; materials and colors, building treatments, landscaping, open space, parking, and environmentally sustainable practices. • CDL-10.5 Private Landscaping and Parks. Require developers to incorporate appropriately sized and drought -tolerant vegetation with sufficient maintenance to provide a mature looking landscape in three -five years after installation. Require private recreational facilities in new multifamily housing projects.
• CDL-10.9 Building Materials. Use high -quality, natural building materials that evoke a sense of quality and permanence, such as stucco, plaster, :stone, and wood; natural colors and textures are preferred.
• CDL-10.12 Architectural Detail. While recognizing sensitivity to budget, require publicly visible sides of a building to contain architectural detail and fagade articulation, strong patterns of shade and shadow, and integrated architectural detail; blank walls are discouraged
• HN-3.3 Housing Incentives. Facilitate the development of market rate and affordable housing through regulatory incentives (e.g., density bonus), permit processing (e.g., planned development), and other incentives, where feasible and appropriate.

Density Bonus A,ereement:

Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 7 of the Yucaipa" Development Code contains provisions for processing density bonus- projects, which are designed to provide incentives for the production of housing for very low-income, low-income; moderate -income, and senior households in accordance with State Law; by allowing additional units to offset the costs of providing affordable housing. The applicant has submitted a Density Bonus request to covenant ten (10) percent (seventeen (17) units) of the total 172 units proposed as low-income affordable pursuant to Yucaipa Density Bonus.

Standards. Although the applicant is pursuing a Density Bonus Agreement, they are not proposing any additional units, but rather will be utilizing an incentive to meet parking requirements and a. reduction of onsite landscaping. Section 83.010730(d) of Yucaipa Development Code details that projects which include a Density Bonus Agreement qualify for modified parking standards that includes a reduction in total required parking spaces and removes the requirement for enclosed garages. In addition, the onsite landscaping has been reduced from 40% to 37.2%, which is necessary to accommodate the density proposed while maintaining the two-story structure design.

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

Before the Project is constructed, a formal Bonus Density Agreement is required to be approved. by the City Council. This. process is identified in the proposed Conditions of Approval and will set 418Z5

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

forth the reporting requirements and covenants that are necessary to ensure that the target units remain available as intended by the density bonus request.

Processing,and Procedural Actions:

Notices of design related to the Case No. 21-085 (200 unit) project were sent to all surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site, and several responses were received with concerns regarding the project and the increased density proposed by the General Plan Amendment. Most of the comments are addressed with the Initial Study prepared for the project, the project design and appropriate Conditions of Approval. Addition comments noted concern about the increased density proposed with the RM-24 Land Use Designation. The concerns with the project were largely based on the issues of traffic, density, safety, public services and aesthetics. These concerns were considered and expanded upon through the Initial Study and are summarized below.

Traffic
I Public Services
Aesthetics.

Drainage
I Safety
Other
I Noticing
12 14
S
1 14
1-overcrowding
14 Tra c::

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

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

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

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

The site meets the minimum district size for a General Plan Amendment for a change in land use from RM-10M to RM-24 and is intended to ultimately help the City to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers for low- and moderate -income housing. Further, the proposed project.

A new Project Notice. was not routed for the 172-unit design as this project was remanded back to the Planning Commission and is not -a new entitlement application.
41T 6

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

will utilize available infrastructure including the roundabout improvements, water and sewer lines and its proximity to Calimesa Elementary School to provide housing for the community.

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

The proposed project would not require new or altered public facilities or services. The City requires future development to pay Development Impact Fees for a variety of public facilities, including drainage improvements, traffic, and civic center facilities. In. addition, the project would be required to complete street improvements and onsite drainage improvements to meet state and local requirements, and these impacts have been addressed. as part of this Environmental Initial Study. Other necessary improvements, such as water and sewer facilities, would be provided by other agencies that have the ability to require necessary facilities to be installed by the developer and/or require payment of fees to provide for that service. .Additionally,, the applicant has agreed to provide improved sidewalks to the roadway frontage along 2na Street and Yd Street, and be extended to County Line Road and the adjoining school. As a feature of the project, an onsite manager will also be provided.

Aesthetics:

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

The project is located on four parcel lots consisting of four (4) existing single-family residences fronting 2nd Street and 3rd Street with graded undeveloped land toward the rear of each lot. The property contains non -protected trees and shrubbery near to these residences, contains no other notable resources, and is surrounded by a mixture of single-family residences and multiple family developments. The GPA area featured a proposal for a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment complex, which has since been reduced to 172 units in two-story structures. The project features Spanish style architecture as part of the exterior design of each apartment building.

Therefore, development of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to the visual quality by providing better uniformity for the adjacent residential units that are located along the exterior boundaries of the project site. Additionally, although the Development Code does not protect viewsheds, this General Plan Amendment will require greater setbacks as the RM-24 Land Use District requires a minimum front setback of 3.5 feet and a minimum side setback of 20 feet; which is more than what was previously required by the RM-1 OM land use district and will further reduce the impact of the multi -story structures from adjoining streets. The project provides these required setbacks, and in the current proposal will result in two-story structures that would have greater setbacks than a project. developer pursuant to the existing RM-designation.

Noticing:

Through the noticing of the project,, concerns were raised over the City's noticing practices with specific concerns regarding the timing and means of delivery of the City's Notices. 41627

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

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

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

Environmental Review:

The .Initial Study prepared for the 200=unit proposal was made available for comment for 20 days beginning on June 10, 2022, and ending on June 30, 20221. No comments were received on the Initial Study during the public review process by local, regional or .state agencies, or by members of the public..

The Initial Study considers the potential environmental impacts that could occur and assigns mitigation as necessary if recommended in the Project's technical studies in order to reduce impacts to less than significant. Based upon the analysis conducted by staff in reviewing the Project site's environmental setting and provided technical studies for a 200-unit project, all available evidence indicated that any adverse impacts that would occur are .at a less -than -significant level. The proposed revised 172-unit design would remain consistent with the analysis of the MND and would result in some reductions to impacts as a result of the reduced Project scale. Consequently, the Planning Commission recommended the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as part of Council? s approval.

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

CONCLUSION:

The proposed Land. Use District Change to change the land use designation of the site from RM- 10M to RM-24 requires an amendment to the General Plan. Pursuant to the City's development Code, the action requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council, which occurred at their regular meeting of January 18, 2023. The required findings for approval are attached, and the proposed Land Use Compliance Review and Density Bonus Agreement.have been designed to be consistent with the RM-24 Land Use District requirements and Development Code standards, provided the General Plan Amendment is approved. The proposed development would therefore meet -the standards for access, lot size and dimension, setbacks, and site design required by the RM-24 District. In addition, the proposed design considers the input provided to refine the proposal from the initial 21-085 project reviewed previously by the Planning Commission and City Council.
1 Initial Study was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review beginning on June 10, 2022. 41I8

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

FISCAL IMPACT:

Based on a total number of 172 residential units including 64 one -bedroom, 100 two -bedroom and 8 three -bedroom units on 8.39 net acres, the Project can be expected to generate $2,916,219.19 in Development Impact Fees after a credit for the four (4) existing single-family residences, using the current 2022 fee schedule, as follows:

Drainage Facilities: $124,838.67
Traffic Facilities- $1,23%582.96
Public Facilities: $171,620.20
Fire Facilities- $123,923.28
Park Facilities: $$356,254.08
TOTAL- $2,016,219.19
Fees collected by other agencies; such as Yucaipa Valley Water District and Yucaipa Calimesa School District, are in addition to this total.

Attachments: General Plan Amendment.Findings
Land Use District,& Location Map
Yucaipa 2022 Housing Income Range
Resolution No. 202241
Ordinance No. 412
Conditions of Approval
21-085 Comment Letters Received
Minutes associated with 21-085
January 18, 2023 Planning Commission minutes
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Environmental Initial Study (attachments provided online at:

Project Plans
Approved by:
4f iq

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

FINDINGS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.22-121

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

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

3. The proposed Land. Use District Change is in the public interest, there will be a community benefit, and other existing and permitted uses will not be compromised, because the change will result in an enhanced land use compatibility, and will provide additional housing opportunities within the City. The General Plan Amendment would provide the RM-24 Land Use District to the subject site; and would permit a multiple family development project that provides housing intended to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements for the 6th Housing Cycle. The proposed Project would allow for 172 residential units, including 10% of the units dedicated as low-income, in an area with proximity to commercial uses and the nearby elementary school. The 2022 Yucaipa Income Table indicates the Low Income (51-80% AMD ranges from $49,300 annually for a one (1) person household to $70,400 for a four (4) person household, and is generally unmet by the existing market within the community.. Further, design elements have been included to best integrate the Project and development intensity to the. surrounding area.

4. The proposed Land Use District Change is consistent with the goals and policies. of the General Plan, and it will provide for a reasonable and logical extension of the existing land use pattern in the surrounding area; because the Multiple Residential Land Use District is the current. designation of the site, and the change in the Land Use District simply allows for an increased. density at the site and will help to meet many of the housing goals in the City. As part of the project design, the proposed Land Use Compliance Review includes a two-story design that would further integrate to building heights currently permitted under the existing Multiple Residential Land Use District. The Project would permit a multiple family -development community that has immediate pedestrian accessibility to a variety of uses including proximity to an elementary school and nearby commercial uses. The Project is also nearby the Yd and Countyline stop for COmnitrans Route 319.

5. The proposed Land Use District Change does not conflict with provisions of this Code; or any applicable specific plan, because it will provide compatibility with the surrounding land use designations, and all applicable residential development standards and would be implemented by future projects, including the proposed Land Use Compliance Review. Specifically, the Project -specific entitlement includes a two-story structure design intended to match the building mass and height of surrounding development in the general area, The subject property is also not located in a specific plan.

6. The proposed Land Use District Change will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property, because any future residential development will be designed and constructed to mitigate any adverse conditions, and appropriate public improvements will be ff�0

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

required to provide sufficient capacity in the infrastructure required to support the development.

The proposed Land Use Compliance Review includes several access points, surplus parking, and recreational amenities to support the development and future residents. 4� 1

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

LAND USE - EXISTING: MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL

LOCATION
ff�2

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

Yucaipa 2022 Housing Income Range
Applicable San Bernardino County Area Median Income: $87,400 for family of four • Yucaipa Median Income: $73,196
• Percent in poverty: 8.5% o
Family Income Can by RHNA-Category 2022
Number in
1 2 _T
3 4
Household
Extremely Low
$18 500
$21 150
$23,800
$27,750
0-30% AMI
'
Very Low
31-50% AMU
$30,800
$35 200
$39 600
'
$44,000
Low
51-80% AMI
$49,300
$56 350
'
$63,400
$70,400
Moderate
80-120% AMU
$73,450
$83 900
'
$94,400
$104,900
Low -Income Example Occupations
• Administrative Assistant
• Delivery Driver
• Truck Driver
• Nursing Assistant
• Graphic Designer
• Teacher's Assistant
Very Low -Income Example Occupations
• Retail Sales Clerk
• Home Health Aides
• Food Prep Workers.
• Childcare Workers
• Farmworkers and. Laborers
• Telemarketers
Other salaries for those early in their career:
• Tk-12 YCJUSD Salary: $50,454
• SBCSD Deputy Sheriff: $66,539
• Calfire Fire Fighter II (Paramedic): $47,880
• City of Yucaipa Maintenance Worker $43,709
41C 3

RESOLUTION NO.2022-41

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

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRICT
CHANGE NO. 22-121, APPROVING THE CHANGE OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 8.39 ACRES FEATURING
THREE EXISTING RESIDENCES FROM RM-10M (MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL MAO SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO RM-24 (HIGH

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

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

It has reviewed and considered the information contained in General Plan Land Use District Amendment No. 22-121, approving the change of the Land Use Designation of four (4) contiguous parcels (APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84) from City's RM-10M (Multiple Residential—10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to — RM-24 (high density multiple residential) as shown on the attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference, and now approves this project.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 13rh day of February, 2023.

ATTEST:

Kimberly Metzler; City Clerk
Justin Beaver, Mayor
4R4

Exhibit A

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CHANGE AREA
Ft.
6 ##
V
�q
Y� P
f4�y
i
wN� 7
Fp
1 l�
a
7 7
.✓
7 v
4t�5

ORDINANCE NO.412

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

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

AND ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA

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

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

Section 2. The proposed land use designation contained on the "Official Land Use Districts Map" on file with the City, and bearing the file number Case No. 22 121/GPA/LUCR, changes the Land Use District designation of four contiguous parcels (APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84) from City's Multiple Residential Land Use District (RM-10M) to the City's High Density Multiple Residential Land Use District UZA&24) proposed as part of a housing project. as shown on the attached Exhibit A.

Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the following. summary of this ordinance to be published by two (2) insertions in the Yucaipa News. Mirror, a newspaper of general circulation that is printed, published, and circulated in the City of Yucaipa, and hereby designated for that purpose by said Council of the City of Yucaipa: "Ordinance No. 412 changes the Land Use Designation of four contiguous parcels (APNs; 0319-253-28, -

29., -30, 84) from City's Multiple Residential Land Use District (RM-10M) to the City's High Density Multiple Residential Land. Use District (RM-24) as part of Case No 21 085/GPA/LUCR."
PASSED, APPROVED and. ADOPTED on this 13'' day of February, 2023.

ATTEST:

Kimberly Metzler, City Clerk
Justin Beaver, Mayor
4M 6

Exhibit A

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CHANGE AREA
4J0 7

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

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

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224
1 This General Plan Amendment, Density Bonus Agreement and Land Use Compliance Review is for the proposal to change the land use district from RM- 10M (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential), an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit for -a privately gated 172-unit, two- story multi -family apartment project on four parcels totaling 8.39 acres and located between 31d Street to the west, and 211d Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. Any alteration or expansion or increase in the developed area of the site from that shown on the approved site plan, may require the submission of a new application or an additional application for Revisions for review and approval.

2. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding attacking or seeking to set aside, void or annul the approval of all or part of the matters applied for, or any other claim, action or proceeding relating to or arising out of such approval. This obligation, includes the obligation to reimburse the City, its agents, officers and employees for any court costs or attorney fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees are required by a court to pay as a result of such claim, action or proceeding. The City agrees to notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding promptly after the City becomes aware of it.

The City may participate in the defense of the claim, action or proceeding, but such participation will not relieve the applicant of applicant's defense and indemnification obligations, including City expenses.

3. This General Plan Amendment and Land Use Compliance Review shall become null and void if all conditions have not been complied with and the occupancy or use of the land has not taken place within three (3) years of the date of approval.

One extension of time, not to exceed three (3) years, may be granted upon written request and submittal of the appropriate fee not less than 30 days prior to the date of expiration. PLEASE NOTE.- this will be, the only notice given for the above specified expiration date. The applicant is responsible for the initiation of an extension request.

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

5. The applicant/owner shall pay a fee of $2,764.00., pursuant to Senate Bill 1535.

This fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division within three (3)- days after the

411 8

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21 -085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
effective date of conditional approval along with a $50.00 administrative handling fee required by the Clerk. Payments shall be, made with a Check, Money Order or Cashier's Check for $2,814.00 made payable to the "Clerk of the Board". The Planning Division shall then file the Notice of Determination within three (3) days after the effective date of conditional approval. The applicant should be aware that Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code provides that any project approved under CEQA is not operative, vested or final until the required fee is paid. Proof of fee payment will be required prior to issuance of building permits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41� 9

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

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

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

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

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

19. The Project shall maintain compliance with the provisions of the Density Bonus Agreement and the Project's annual reporting requirements. Developers of residential development projects greater than a single dwelling unit shall attempt to ensure that at least 25% of the total cost of the project will be spent with Yucaipa businesses and/or the hiring of Yucaipa residents.

20. New projects with a landscape area of 500 square feet or More shall comply with Sections 492.6(a)(3)(b) (c), (d) and .(g) of the MWELO including the use of renewable organic waste products such as compost and mulch where applicable.

21. Projects rehabilitating an existing landscape area of 2,500 square feet or more shall comply with Sections 492,6(a)(3)(b) (c.), (d) and (g) of the MWELO including the use of renewable organic waste products such as compost and mulch where applicable

22. Compost and mulch made by the City's franchised hauler, Yucaipa Disposal, Inc. (909) 797-9125, or other designee from recovered organic waste products pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18993.1 shall take precedence over inorganic or virgin forest products when available locally.

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909).797-2489 EXT. 228

23. Submit WQMP Plan for Approval.

24. Applicant shall demonstrate that the site does not create concentrated discharges to adjacent properties and/or public right-of-way in excess of historical flows. If project does create concentrated or sheet flows off -site that

410

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
are greater than historical, the applicant shall demonstrate that the downstream facilities can accommodate flows; otherwise, applicant shall provide on -site detention for excess flows in accordance with the: approved WQMP.

25. Required fire flow and duration for this project, is determined by California Fire Code Appendix '13. System shall be looped with minimum eight (8) inch mains' six (6) inch laterals; six (6) inch risers; six (6) inch diameter hydrants with one. 2 Y2" outlet and one 4" outlet.

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

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

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

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

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

30. Fire Department access roads and/or public/private streets shall meet the Fire Department minimum width standard of twenty-four (24) feet. Within FRA zone minimum width shall be twenty-six (26) feet. Access roads shall be paved (asphalt/concrete) and in place prior to placement of combustible material on site. Fire Department minimum paving thickness shall be no less than four (4) inches. This standard shall not lessen other agency requirements.

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

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

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

4JA I

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
34, Required fire flow and duration for this project, is determined by California Fire Code Appendix '13. System shall be looped with minimum eight (8) inch mains six (6) inch laterals; six (6) inch risers; six (6), inch diameter hydrants with one 2 Y2" outlet and one 41, outlet.

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

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

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

PLANNING .DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

37. Grading permits: shail not be issued for any areas to be graded and remain undeveloped until a revegetation plan is approved by the Planning Division, and until bonds are posted for revegetation.

38. Prior to .demolition of the four (4.) resident homes onsite, an asbestos containing material (ACM) and lead -based paint (LBP) survey shall be conducted to assess each resident structure for the presence of ACMs. and LBPs. If survey results indicate the presence of these hazardous materials, an ACM and/or LBP removal plan shall be required to address the standard protocol for the removal and remediation of materials by a licensed ' contractor certified by C810SHA, prior to or during demolition. Any ACM/LBP materials shall then be required to be disposed of at a licensed and regulated facility that accepts ACM and LBP waste materials, consistent with existing regulations.

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

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 228

40. Applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent and comply with the requirements of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board if the project site is 1 acre or greater. In addition, the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.

4F42

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

41. Groundwater pollution from urban run-off water generated by the project shall be mitigated using various structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs), per the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa. Ana Region and/or as indicated in the "New Development/Redevelopment Guidelines,' All provisions of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) consistent with the 2010 MS4 permit and most recent regulatory mandates shall be met.

42. The applicant shall provide documentation indicating that the WQMP, grading plan, erosion control plan and landscape plan are consistent with each other. The documentation shall indicate that each document has been reviewed by the applicant for consistency.

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

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

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

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

B. Collect and contain the 1 00-year interval within the roadway right-of-way.

46. In addition to the drainage, traffic related, or other requirements stated herein, other `on -site!' or "off -site" improvements may be required which cannot be determined from tentative plans at this time and would have to be reviewed after

'ib

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

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

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

49. Prior to signing of the improvement plans, any proposed grading within the road right-of-way shall be done under the direction of a Soils Testing Engineer, hired by the applicant. Compaction tests of embankment construction, trench backfill, and all subgrades shall be performed at no cost to the City. Prior to placement of any base materials, and/or paving, a written report shall be submitted by the applicant's engineer to theCity Engineer for review and approval.

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

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

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

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 226
51 The site shall be developed in compliance with all current model codes. All plans shall, be designed in compliance with the latest editions of the California Building Codes, California Energy Codes, California Accessibility Codes, and Yucaipa Municipal Codes as adopted by the City of Yucaipa.

54. Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access to all entrances and exterior ground floor exits and access to normal paths of travel, and where necessary to provide access. Paths of travel shall incorporate (but not limited to) exterior stairs, landings, walks and sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, warning curbs, detectable warnings, signage, gates, lifts and walking surface material. The accessible route(s) of travel shall be the most practical direct route between accessible building entrances, site facilities, accessible

4144

Premium Land Development.

Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
parking, public sidewalks, and the accessible entrance(s) to the site. California Building Code (CBC) I IA and 11 B.
a. City of Yucaipa enforces the State of California provisions of the California Building Code disabled access requirements. The Federal ADA standards differ in some cases from the California State requirements. It is the building owner's responsibility to be aware of those differences and comply accordingly.
b. Disabled access parking shall be located on the shortest accessible route.

Relocate parking spaces accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

60. Three (3) copies of the grading plan shall besubmitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. A copy of the grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division when graded slopes exceed five (5) feet in height. All on -site cut and fill slopes shall:

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

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

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

D. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of two -to -one (2:1) and a maximum vertical height of thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from the top and bottoms of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half (112) the slope height or per CBC.

'145

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
E. Preclude damage to the site and downstream properties during heavy storm run-off, especially during the construction stage by including a stringent slope, erosion, and sediment control program on the proposed grading plan. Any such damage allowed to occur will be the responsibility of the applicant.

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

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

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

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

63. The enrollment of the Yucaipa Joint Unified School District is severely impacted by new development. To mitigate the impact, of this project, developer shall pay such taxes as are required by the Yucaipa Joint Unified School District Community Facilities District No. 1, and any other fees assessed by Government Code Section 53080, and 65995-65997.

64. The City of Yucaipa has implemented development impact fees for various infrastructure and capital facilities needs generated ;by new development. These fees will provide for various capital facilities including, but not limited to, roads, parks, flood control and drainage, public facilities, and fire fighting facilities. This project shall be subject to all such development impact fees which are in effect at the time building permits are issued.

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

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

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

ffa6

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

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

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

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

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

70. The applicant shall submit a "Solid Waste Recycling Plan" for review and approval. This Plan shall address two (2) principal recycling programs: 1) the recycling of construction wasteldebris during the demolition and/or development phase of the project, and 2) the recycling of the solid waste that is generated daily by each proposed use during the operational phase of the project. The construction waste component shall include: complete information on the individual or firm that will be responsible for implementing the recycling plan; complete information on all proposed recycling facilities that will receive waste products; and estimates of the volume or weight of each type of material that will be recycled. The operational waste component shall include: complete information on the location, access, sizes, and numbers of solid waste and recycling bins needed to serve each proposed use that is located within the project. For information on the types of waste disposal services that are available, you may contact Yucaipa Disposal, Inc. at (909) 797-9125 for assistance.

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

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

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

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

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

4 M7

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

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

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 228

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

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

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 226

73. This project will require one or more building permits. Permits will require a complete permit application and complete building plans to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of work.

74. The site shall be developed in compliance with all current model codes. All plans shall be designed in compliance with, the latest editions of the California Building Codes, California Energy Codes, California. Accessibility Codes, and Yucaipa Municipal Codes as adopted by the City of Yucaipa.

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

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

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

A. Project Information
(1) Date

4f 48

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
(2) Project Applicant
(3) Project Address (if available, parcel and/or lot number(s)) (4) Total Landscape Area (square feet)
(5) Project Type (eg., new, rehabilitated, public, private, cemetery, homeowner -installed)
(6) Water Supply Type (e.g., potable, recycled, well) and identify the local retail water purveyor if the applicant is not served by a private well
(7) Checklist of All Documents in Landscape Documentation Package (8) Project Contacts (to include contact information for the project applicant and property owner)
(9) Applicant Signature and Date (with statement, "I agree to comply with the requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance and submit a complete Landscape Documentation Package"). (B) Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet
(1) Hydrozone Information Table
(2) Water Budget Calculations
(1) Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
(11) Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU)
(C) Soil Management Report
(D) Landscape Design Plan
(E) Irrigation Design Plan
(F) Grading Design Plan
(G) Certification of Substantial Completion (to be submitted after installation of the project).

A copy of the approved Landscape Documentation Package shall be provided to the property owner or site manager along with the record drawings and any other

lig

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
information normally forwarded to the property owner or site manager. A copy of the Water Conservation Concept Statement and the Certificate of Substantial Completion shall be sent by the project manager to the local retail water purveyor,

82. Three (3) copies of a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a Registered Landscape Architect for the planting (drought tolerant landscaping shall be utilized to minimize water consumption) and permanent irrigation system for the development, including setback areas and parkways, shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Division for review and approval. Said plans must be consistent with the City of Yucaipa Landscape Design and Installation Guidelines and include the following, details:

A. Voltage boxes, mailboxes, trash enclosures, maintenance structures, backflow devices, automatic controls, air cond'itioning/heating units, etc., to be shown on the plan and screened with landscaping and/or decorative fencing/trim.

B. A permanent,automatically-controlled irrigation system.

C. Landscaping shall consist of drought tolerant vegetation appropriate to the local climate. Trees, shrubs and ground covers in the following quantities shall be required as follows:

1. Compost
Compost at a rate of a minimum of 4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of permeable area shall be incorporated to a depth of six (6) inches into the soil. Soils with greater than six percent (6%) organic matter in the top six (6) inches of soil are exempt from adding Compost and tilling.

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

3. 24 to 96 inch box trees:
a. 20% of total trees required (one required, minimum).

4., Tree Spacing/location-

41350

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
a. small trees: 20 feet O.C. max.;
b. large trees: 30 feet O.C. max.;
C. street trees: 15 gal. min./30 feet O.C. max.,;
d. min. 6 feet from curbs, paving and sidewalks;
trees in parkway between -sidewalk and curb
shall be provided with a linear root barrier.

5. 5 gallon shrubs:
a. 60% of total shrubs required to be 5 gallon;
b. 10 for each 300 sq. ft. of landscaped, area.

6. 1 gallon shrubs:
a. 40% of total shrubs required.

7. Ground Cover:
a. Drought tolerant adapted when mature, or native,
b. Maximum spacing: 12 inches O.C., or as suitable for planting material;
C. Hydroseeding (establish recommended mixture); specify weight or volume per unit area.

7. Mulch:
a. Apply a minimum three- (3-) inch layer of mulch on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding
applications where mulch is contraindicated. To provide habitat for beneficial insects and other wildlife, leave up to five percent (5%) of the landscape area without mulch.

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

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

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

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

'N

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

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

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

76. Multi -family and public use structures on the site shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 1 1A and 11 B.

77. Multi -family and public use structures on the site shall be accessible per California Building Code (CBC) 1 1A and 11 B.

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

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

80. The perimeter of the jobsite, adjacent to any public right-of-way, shall have a properly installed, 6' high, construction fence with privacy cloth attached. The

41�2

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023.
fencing and cloth shall'be maintained and kept in good condition until such a time that the project has been completed, or a permanent perimeter wall is in place.

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

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

82. A fuel break of one hundred (100) feet (brush and weed clearance) is required prior to construction. The clearance shall be maintained on a year-round basis.

83. Fire hydrants shall be installed and operational as per approved water system delivery plans prior to any framing, construction, or delivery of combustible materials to project site.

SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED AND/OR USED FOR

PURPOSES APPLIED FOR UNTIL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
HAVE, BEEN MET:

PLANNING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 224

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

85. Developers of residential development projects greater than a single dwelling unit shall submit a report detailing the percentage of project costs spent in the City of Yucaipa. At a minimum, this report shall contain a list of local businesses/individuals that have been solicited for bids and/or received contracts for materials or services.

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

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

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

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

90. All landscaping and irrigation shown on the approved landscape and irrigation plans and all required walls :shall be completed. Trees in the parkway between sidewalk and curb/gutter {abutting 2nd and 3rd Streets) shall be provided with: a linear root barrier. Provide the City with a Certificate of Substantial Completion

41�3

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

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

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

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

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

ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 22

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

96. Construct sidewalk adjacent to site with landscaped parkway.

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

98. Developer shall be required to place construction traffic control n public right-of- way during the construction of off -site improvements. Traffic control devices shall be maintained 24 hours a day 7 days a week as directed by the City Engineer.

99. The Applicant shall provide written documentation that the WQMP is consistent with the BPMs shown on the as -built grading plans and landscape plans. In case of inconsistency, the Applicant shall revise the WQMP to match the as -built plans.
100. Developer shall construct sidewalk along 2nd Street from the proposed development to the existing crosswalk located at Tara Lane to the north.

Developer shall construct sidewalk along 3rd Street from proposed development to County Line Road. Improvements at County Line Road shall be designed to

ff �4

Premium Land Development
Case No.. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
accommodate the proposed roundabout improvements currently under construction by the. City.

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION (909) 797-2489 EXT. 226
101. The building(s) shall meet all handicapped requirements. 102. The building(s) shall comply with all structural and non structural provisions of the California Building Code.
103. Any change of occupancy will require submission of plans for approval to Building and Safety. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact the local Building and Safety Division for a pre -construction inspection prior to occupancy of the building(s).
104. The building(s) or structure(s) shall meet all applicable requirements of the adopted model codes and amendments.

CQF FIRE DEPARTMENT (909) 797-2489 EXT. 246
105. Fire Department access roadways and/or public/private streets exceeding one hundred fifty (150) feet in length shall have a Fire Department approved turn- around at the terminus (cul-de-sac). Minimum radius shall be not less than 40 feet,
106. Driveways exceeding 150 feet shall have a Fire Department approved turn- around at the terminus (hammer -head tee).
107. Paved Fire Department access roadways and/or public/private streets and driveways shall extend to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of and shall give reasonable access to all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any bullding. An access road, approved by the Fire- Department, shall be provided to within fifty (50) feet of all structures when the natural grade between access road and structure is in excess of 30%. Where an approved access road cannot be provided, a fire protection system shall be requited and approved by the Fire Department.
108. The Development and/or project, and each phase thereof, shall have a minimum of two (2.) remote points of access, including a secondary access, for fire and other emergency equipment and for routes of escape which will safely handle evacuations.
109. The public and/or private roadways serving this project shall be named. 110. Street name signs shall be installed with approved names.

4B5

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
111. Manual operated gates across Fire Department access roadways, public and/or private streets and driveways, shall be equipped with approved emergency key - operated ("Knox" type) looks. For automatic gates, a "Knox" keyed emergency access switch shall be installed at location determined by Fire Prevention Department and shall over -ride all command functions and open gate automatically upon activation. All automatic gates shall have a manual over -ride for use during loss of electric power. "Knox box" ordering is available from www.knoxbox.com .
112. Address numbers shall be placed on all new and existing commercial and multi- family residential structures in such a manner as to be plainly visible and legible from the access roadway or street. Structures shall have numbers of 8" height, 3/8" stroke on contrasting background. Address numbers shall be illuminated so as to be visible and legible from access roadway or street. Industrial occupancies shall have address numbers of 12" height, 1" stroke and shall be illuminated so as to be visible and legible from access roadway or street. Where structure setback exceeds one hundred (100) feet from the access roadway or street, additional non-illu.minated numbers 6" in height, 3/4" stroke, on contrasting background shall be displayed at property access entrance. 113. Prior to final inspection, there shall be posted at each entrance of the complex an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the complex showing the locations of the viewer, the unit designations within the complex, and the locations of fire hydrants. The developer shall submit a drawing detail to the Fire Department for approval.
114. "No Parking — Fire Lane?' signs shall be posted at locations designated by Fire Department. Fire lane curbs shall be painted red with white letters stating, "No Parking — Fire Lane".
115. On -site fire hydrants capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be installed at locations identified by the Fire Marshall. System shall be looped with minimum eight (8) inch mains, six (6) inch laterals;: six (6) inch risers; six (6) inch diameter hydrants with one 2 1/2" outlet and one 4" outlet.
1-16. Approved fire hydrant pavement markers shall be installed. 117. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed according to NFPA 13R and Fire Department requirements. Submit three (3) sets of shop plans with material cut sheets and hydraulic calculations, indicating the type of occupancy, type of materials to be stored (if any), for Fire Department review and approval prior to any installation. Submit copy of California C-16 license. 118. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed according to NFPA 13 and Fire Department requirements. Submit three (3) sets of shop plans with material cut sheets and hydraulic calculations, indicating the type of occupancy, type of

ff�6

Premium Land Development
Case No. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
materials to be stored (if any), for Fire Department review and approval prior to any installation. Submit copy of California C-16 license. 119. Automatic fire sprinkler control devices (PIV. & O.S,.&Y.) shall be visible from Fire. Department access roadway, and identify system being controlled and address of structure. Fire. Department Connection (FDC). shall be located no closer than fifty (50) feet and not to exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet from structure. Required fire hydrant shall have a maximum distance from FDC of thirty (30) feet. FDC shall identify address and system of structure being protected.
120. A minimum of one 2A-1 OBC fire extinguisher shall, be installed for each 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area. Travel distance to any one, fire extinguisher shall not exceed 75 feet. Additional fire extinguishers, size and class to be determined by Fire Department, may be required. Fire extinguishers shall be serviced annually and shall have a current sfm service tag attached.
121. An automatic fire detection and alarm system meeting the requirements of CFC Article 10, CBC and NFPA 72 shall be installed. Three (3) sets of shop plans with material cut sheets and calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 122. Smoke detectors, hard wired in series with battery back-up, shall be installed in all sleeping -areas and in all hallways and areas/rooms leading to sleeping areas.

Smoke detectors shall beinstalled at the top of all stairways. At least one smoke detector shall be installed on the first floor level.
123. Carbon Monoxide detectors shall be installed pursuant to manufacturer specifications.
124. For each chimney used in conjunction with any fireplace or heating appliance in which solid or liquid fuel is used, an approved spark arrester shall be installed and visible from the ground. Spark arrester shall be of stainless steel, copper or brass, woven galvanized wire mesh, twelve (12) gauge-, and minimum of 3/8" to Y2" maximum openings.
125. A class "A" roof covering structure with "bird stops" shall be installed. 126. The main electrical panel and all sub -panels shall be labeled on inside cover for all circuits.
127. Water heater (fuel fired) shall be property vented to exterior of structure. Water heater shall be seismic strapped to wall and be located lWabove a garage floor. 128. A solid core, self -closing door shall be installed between an attached garage and living space.

'N7

Premium Land Development
Case No-. 22-121 Amended Project to 21-085/GPA/LUCR
Conditions of Approval — February 13, 2023
129. Commercial and industrial structures/occupancies and gated complexes shall have a "Knox box" system installed on the exterior of the buildings or complex.

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

A. Required exit doors shall be maintained in anoperable condition at all times,
B. Required exit doors shall swing outward and away in the direction of exit travel.

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

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

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

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

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

4?�8

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPAILUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM 24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located, between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30;84
LOCATION:13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0314 253-28;0319-253-29 0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning .Division. Yoware invited to comment because your propertyis near the proposed project: Your comments must be received by this office no later �a *a 31, 022. Comments received -a@er this date might note coiisidereii m the decision. Please refer;fo-this projectbp the applicant's natriee and case number indicated above. If you :have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benlar i oclt at (909 79'7:2 99, ext. 261, You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa planning Division, 342 2 Yucaipa Boulevard; Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203:

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

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

SIGNATURE Q(:G. C�.�a�!-�c.t....a DATE Z- AGENCY
PRINT NAME % r)U r-{ k o ADDREss 3P7 3 S iL , aSeL) Cf o

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

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF AA PUBLIC FIEARING.IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISER THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRM*EN CORRESPONDENCEDELIVERED TOTHE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE :HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME. RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Malley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa:School District South Mesa Water Company
'7�9

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

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

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

3. The tinge allotted fora response or objection by the affected residents is too short to permit the affected residents to consider and formulate objections. or to consult with Counsel.

4.'Ndther the Notice or the procedures for the proposed GPA provide'any'opportunkyy for affected `residents'°to review or consider aspects of the proposal, including brit not `lirmted'to its feasibility, environmental impact, intent of city policy or other applicable subjects required to be included in the proposal.

5. "There is no compeling.reason for the proposed GPA.. ' 6 '. The proposal and/or the proposed GPA may exceed the limit on the nui'hber of proposals or GPA:'s permitted to be adopted in- a year.

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

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

9. The proposed GPA is detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. A few, but not,a11, of s M,
such detriments include the impacts on water sources, calls for police' fire and artmulance servI ces, And" s chools.
fiVl3otli the Notice and the proposed GPA are not and have not been processed in accordance - with . ,
with applicable provisions of.Califomia Government Code, CEQA and other applicable statutory regilretnenfs: `
4$60

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER. 21-085/GPA/LUCR.

APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39. acres from RM-72C to 161-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28;29,30,84
LOCATION: 1.3692 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST; 13644.2ND ST„ APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the CityPlanning. Division. You are invited to comment because your .property is near the proposed project. Your, comments must be received by this office ,no later than May, 31, 2022 Comments received after this" date might not beconsidered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment; no reply is necessary. if you have any questions, regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin. Matlock at (909) 797-2489; ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

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

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages) 1 -)
Cat, -0- ,, nsti . A ov \ t" " � ` ``,, f..t f 'y1s���' n n C> t t�i SIGNATUf -.'" "' DATE-� =AGENCY
PRINT NAME.-, ADDRESS.' S1 Z. S QAQ�` (1 �C► , .� -
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY ;BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR `SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON T14E PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTRvIONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT& IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: SihToiinding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
'1

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISIEIVED

PROJECT NOTICE MAY
DATE: May 17, 2022 YUCAIPA VALLEY
CASE NUMBER:21-085/GPA/LUCR WATER DISTRICT
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use. Compliance Review to permit a 20.0-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375feet north of County Line Road., APNS:
0319-253-28,29;3084
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253=28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than May 31, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary, Ifyouhave any questions regarding this proposal; please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may -send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

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

COMMENTS (If you need additional space,.please attach additional pages):
—7\-v�' vroy(A v6x\
pC, 0," Vj\b�kr Cd
04 St, yu-6100-
IFF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE .ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING

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

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL. TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISI•I TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc; Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
41562

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
P-ROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 9.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24; and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County. Line Road., APNS:
0319-2534'8,29,30184
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST:13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES The development proposal :listed above has been filed with'the City Planning Division. You -are invited to.commentbecause your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later,*a i,May 31; 0 2. Comments received after this 'late might not be cansidered�m't►e �ecisian. 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 yoyHave any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benl2 t n Matiq* at:(909)_,797 24 9, ext. 261. You mAy send your comments to the City OfYucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boiitevaid, Yucaipa, `CA 92399, or via RAX to (909)740-92U3.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (16) calendar days after an: action is taken.

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

SIGMA
PRINT NAME Ait.11-f Q,t1 b ADDRESS JP� 3 S)w2DS80 dtt- G?( ct3A-, f A.

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED I RAISING 23 c} 9

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRMEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE Tug IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY .PUBLIC HEARING" ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO.ASSURE THATYOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS -YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: SutrounzlingProperty, Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
4%3

May 31, 2022
The undersigned affected. resident(s) of the City of Yucaipa object to the Cite of Yucaipa Planning Di ,ision Project Notice of May 17, 2022 (the Notice) and to the proposed General Plan Amend rent. described therein (the GPA) as follows:

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

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

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

4. Neither the`Notice or the procedures for the proposed GPA provide'any'opportunity'for affected residents to review or consider aspects of the proposal, including but not limited to its fear hl�ity;`6tivira6iental impact, intent of city policy or other applicable subjects required to be included in the p oposal

5. There is no compellingreason for the proposed GPA..
6 : Theproposal and/or the proposed GPA may exceed the limit on the iiuinber of proposals or GPA's permitted to be adopted in a year.

7. No Public hearing has been"noticed, scheduled or even mention4 in the Notice.

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

9. The proposed GPA is detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. A few_ , but not all, of such detriments include the impacts on water sources,. calls for police. fire and ambulance'' services, an schools.
10:`13oth cite Notice and the proposed GPA are not and have not been processed in accordance with applicable provisions of California Government Code, CEQA and oilier applicable statutory, requirements:
164

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: ZI-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUNI LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RIM-72C to RM24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street :and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road„ APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-25328;0319=253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project.. Your, comments must be received by this office no later than lbfay 31, 2022_ Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

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

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach-additionalpages) �S 2 f C ,(-oaCX. r\L.'
f\0 b ` v �c%r �t> C.in�� o f 4
7E
- 4
SIGNATURE � - 9,L4 UJZeh DAfE GENCY
PRINT l*IAME t, :'' t G ADDRESS.,��SZ.l-I Srm (` %= al k.16 3- IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT; YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN i UTTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON T14E PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND 'CHE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT' THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY.

W. Surrounding Property Owners
Fire: Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
l!t
4%5

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVIS184CEIVED

PROJECT NOTICE,
DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND I DEVELOPMENT
MAY 2 0 2022

YUCAIPA VALLEY

WATER DISTRICT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-224, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319w253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION- 13682 2ND ST; 13662 2ND ST,- 13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES. The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later than May 31, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be -considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you haveanyquestions regardingthis proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797--2489, ext. 261. You may send; your comments to the City
of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

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

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
'Tins vmy_ c� V&A x\ta 40 -e-xk-r-
ocf
V6LLWA
1i
SIGNA
PRINT

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

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

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

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

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

MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL- YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc, Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water -District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building,& Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
4?66

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200=unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29;30;84
LOCATION: 11682 2ND ST;13662.2ND ST,13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28 0319-253-29;0319-253 30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Ptaming Division. You are invited to comment because .your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office "no !stet than ay 31, 202- 2 Comments received afier ffiiis date mijR not be considered -in the decision. Please refer to tius project by the applicant's name a id case number indicated above. if you have no comment, no, reply, is necessary. If you: have any questions regarding this proposal, please contactattun.#atlock-at91) 797 2489, ext. 261m . You ay send "your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boutevard,"Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

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

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

A-6 J0 l r/ 0 J,+L PA
PRINTNAME_)`"`ir2.�a- K ADDRESS 701 `
IF YOU CHALLENGE` ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOS 'IN COURT, YOU MAY BE L D TO RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN- CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TA E iI MAKES ETS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUSTHAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, Op, PRIOR TO, THE HEARING DUE TO TIME CONSTRARM AND THE:NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS.

MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TES nmoNY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU. ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Swmounding.Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa Catimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
sq%7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred Pierce
34961 San Rosen Ct, Yucaipa CA 92399
IM8

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPAfLUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land ;use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located Between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN; 0319=253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the. proposed project. Your cotmments_must be aeceived by this office no later than May 31, 2022. Comments received after this date might not :be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the "applica f s name and case number indicated above. If you have no comrnent, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding thus proposal, please coniact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797�2 85, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa. Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (509) 790-9203.

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

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

SIGNAT'UREr k �.yDATE. 19 GENCY� Q r

PRINT NAME' ADDRESS
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING `

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, 7 A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MIST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESP014DENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BOGY AT, Olt PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL., YOU MAY WISH TO. MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: -guilourid4 Property owners Yucaipa Valley Water District )+ire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
N9

DATE: May 22, 2022
CASE I NUMBER: 21=085/GPAILUCR
APPLICANT•. PREMIUM LAN©DEVELOPMENT
To whom It,may-concern;
Thank you for attowing-me to voice rry concerns with the above mentioned -proposal that has been.preser►ted IJ 'Pk'_ IUh4 LAND DEVEI OPMENT
I would like to take this 'opportunity to-saj -rmy f--pity prod I moved to Yucaipa;-=1i#tle'over 2 years aga.. We fell'ln Iona with the communi#y Ourne�g1%borhood is quiet. We all look out #or each attic- around here:. We; back each ot%her up: We want th'JAPe best for our" neighborhood for our famlifes, and for`ou�r children. Irslost importantly our children:.

The school already brings traffic congests arou6 school hours 2nd St is already nc t able to handle the currerifiamour # of traffic tha# �s needed"far theschoo When traveling f , ' Avenue-H and "traveling souttbountl people making a Left hand turn into the school, block traffic and:create a blockage, fdr through traffic also blocking oncoming 'ia is as well. People are leaving their trayCi in our:y-rds Sotlierefore'an apartinert +complex will not help, butonly and to worsen the abave'stated ct-ncerr-s:
5g310

%-XJL X WX X %J%..MAA AIL A "AT ALJX%-f11
"LPR%.OqTj1E!JCT NOTICE
DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER:-21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL- A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment pr6ject, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and appro-kimately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13692 2ND ST,13662 2ND ST,13644 2ND ST;,APN: 0319-253-28,0319-25329,0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your properly is near the proposed ect Yburcomm' comments must received by this officeno laterffian_N4Ay31'20t. Comments received - , p;oj e —1. 1 - - ­1 i, I 11,11-1­11"..— .
iftirr ifirii-dii6 mightd iftii) " 6y the applicant's name and case ft(it_6i c"o"nsidered in the e:cWo'_n. Please to project e number indi6aied above. If youhaw q no comment, no reply is ne�essw . If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact .Bepjarnin Matlock at, (400) 70-N89, ext. 261. You may send your comments I to'the.City of Yucaipa PlanAin Ig Divis - 1 . or , 34272 , Yu - c , aipa B oulevirtLYucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you wautto be notified.of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the addrdsg.above along With aself-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions aresubject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
0 llj� C_ 0 M "4J-1
-Adirtssa-d , 1+awipt�
eh\i&l ope
keLs �
e c/r%
so
STONA
r)ATF.

Arl
PRINT NAME t ADDRESS',-,U
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION.REGARDIRG THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU NTAY BE 12YMW TO RAISLNG ONLY THOSE ISSUES You OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED 1N-,-WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISIONAT E PROPOSAL OR� 'IF A PUBLIC'HEARING IS HELD ON , OR PRIORT0, THE TIME IT MAKES US'DECISION
THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE-W8T HAVE RAISED Ti.i6SE, ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN 1ART -A I BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO. TIM HEARIKa
M _qC

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHNG TO ME ORAL TESTWONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON 0 1 PAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS INWRITING TO ASSURE UIAT YOU ARE ABLE TO WRESS Y0-U­R.SEiXADBQ-UA1EL i. cc: Surrounding -Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District cDcpartmicnir F't7 Engincering0hrision
E z
R, Snhnni T)iqtrint
South Mesa Water Company
502

Jay Staviski
Elaine Staviski
34949 San Rosen Ct.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
May 31, 2022
Yucaipa Planning Division
34212 Yucaipa Blvd.

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

Our 9
understandin is that Premium Land Development has proposed an amendment to the ­ I ­
General Plaft"fo change the land use designation of 8.39 acres of property located.between 31 St. and 2nd St. and approximately 37.5 feet north of County Line Road from RM-72C to RM-24 and has requested 6 Land Use Compliatce -Review to permit building a 200-unit multi -family apartment project -on those8.39 acres of -land.. The land in question is perpendicular to San Rosen Ct., where. we live and own a home, As surrounding property owners, we object to the re - designation of the property in -question toRM-241,and we olsjectto the construction of a 200-unit multi -family apartment project for the -reasons I - discussed below.

F irstthe manner of notice to surrounding property owners of this proposed amendment:and project was inadequate. We did not receive notice from the City of, Yucaipa (hereoer referred to as "the City") of this proposed projdct. Rather, a concerned netghbor br-oughtthis matter to our attention over the holiday weekend. Note that the deadline for 'comments is today, May 31, 2022, giving its only a -few days to comment and no time to inquire regarding the details of the proposal. Apparently, the notices were placed on the front doors ofsome of the surrounding property owners. However, it does not appear the notice, wasplaced on ourdoo.r. Someone is home nearly all hours of the day and would have heard if there was a knock on the, door.

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

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

The City is using an administrative review, i.e., "a written or published notice given to affected and interested parties,' followed by a decision by the reviewing authority" (Yucaipa Municipal Code (YMC) 83.010215). However, a public hearing, is -the proper procedure for decisions to change the classification of land from one adopted land use district to another land use district (YMC 83.020105). Here, Premium Land Development has proposed an amendment to the 'q�13

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

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

Currently, the neighborhood surroundingthe lots described inthe project notice is in fact, a quiet and peaceful environment. This is largely clue to its designation as R:lyr172C and/orRM- I OM which allows for no more than 8.7 dwelling units per acre. However, if the proposed General Plan arneridnient is passed, the quiet and peaceful environment will no longer exist, in this neighborhood. According =to the project notice, the proposed project located between P St. and 20 St would allow for an additional 200 dwelling units -in -at area measuring &;39 acres.

This would result in a significant increase ofthe number of people and vehicles in this small area., which would affect the air -quality and peacefidness of the'catnmunit , For example; art additional 200 dwelling units would bring an additional 500+.cars. This number is based on the Yucaipa General flan 2.021-2029 .Dousing Element,dated August 23, 2021, where it states that multiple --family °�sidential developme its under the,iZM:24 designation are required to have from IS fo,2:5 parking spaces for each unit, depending; on the size of -the unit (ucaipa"Genierral Plan:

Fourth., the proposed land use district change is not a reasonable and logical extension cif the existing land use pattern in the surrounding area The surrounding area is comprised almost exclusively of singleresidential (R5-20MM IDS-lOM, andlorRS72CYand multiple re4d, ent ai (RM-10M and/or RM-72C)'designations. RS designations allow for a maximum density of 4.2. units per acre and RM designations, except R1�-24, allow for a maximum density of .0 dwelling units per acre (Yucaipa General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element; Table 3-3). The proposed amendment would change the current RIVE 72C designation for they proposed location to RM24.

An Rout-24 designation allows for a density range of 20-24 units per acre (Id-). Thus, the proposed amendment would allow for an increase of about three times more dwelling units than currently allowed under the General Plan. This is inconsistent with the layout of the surrounding areas. Although there is an apartment complex on 51 St and'County tine Rd., there are traffic lights at that intersection. Moreover. 50' St. is a main road that extends through to Yucaipa Blvd.

IN

Re: Case number: 21-085/GPA/Lt7CR; Applicant: Premium Land Development and allows for increased traffic. The proposed project would be on 2nd St., which is not a main roadway, as evidenced by it not extending through to Yucaipa Blvd, Furthermore, there is an elementary school on 2nd St., which already contributes to traffic problems during weekday mommgs and aftemoons. Additionally, other nearby apartment.comptexes are much smaller in size compared to the proposed project.
approximately sou residents t
for the'residetits ,of the surroui
.es water for our home a
ex...A.ccording to.an anti
ter u
qe proposedt location would nnM
ng propertieS. '% would note th
would likely provide water for t
e published in the;Yucaipa/Calin
� y.servesabout 3,0 house]
apartment complex will likely -rave high water needs
plants; pool andd spa areas, etc hTote liat,#hese are lisi HousingEli
ent;as possible sic ameniies #liar are re
100 to 200 ts_Fnotareasole and logical extension of the existing t South Mesa water Company
N`ews,Mirror,on February
x n portiong,ofYucaipa ar
ceholds The common areas of:the
ilred'fbt apartment prcijects_consisting of
w designation frem R `72G to RM 14 is
id rise pattern ;in the surrounding area.

Sixth, the proposed land use district change will have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property.- The project will not improve the surrounding neighborhood. iu fact, its design proposing a 200-unit multi -fanny apartment complex would result in increased noise, Traffic, water usage,- safety problems, and parking issues. Pioblerns with increased noise and traffic affecting the air quality and: peacefulness have already been addressed above- Surly problems with increased water wrsage'have been addressed above- Safety problems would likely increase due to a drastic increase in traffic along 2°d St. from. the additional 500+ vehicles. As it stands, there is significant traffic along 2nd .St. in the morning and afternoon because Calimesa Elementary School is located on 2 d St. Adding more vehicles to the mix would not only endanger children walking to and from. Calimesa .Elementary School but also increase the risk of traffic accidents with other ears. Additionally, the 20il-unit apartment complex would create issues with parking for surrounding neighbors. inevitably, parking for the.200-unit dwelling will spill out onto neighboring streets. Although the proposed apartment complex is required to have parking for residents, it will likely not have sufficient parking for guests of the residents of the 200-unit dwelling. The 100 guest spots required for a 200-unit apartment complex could be adequate for most weekdays, but it would not be adequate weekends, days preceding or 3 '1�5

Re: Case number: 21-085/GPA/LUCR Applicant: Premium Land Development following the weekend, or holidays, when the residents would likely invite multiple guests for parties and gatherings. This will most certainly have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property, as guests of the apartment residents and potentially the apartment residents themselves will likely have to parr on 2"d Street, 3d Street, San Rosen Ct., and San Carlos St., among other neighboring streets, which will cause undue burden on the surrounding property owners. It should also be noted that should the developer request and the City grant reduced vehicular parkingratios for this proposed project, then thel likelihood of nearby streets being used as overflow parking for the residents of the multi -unit dwelling and their guests would significantly increase. Accordingly, the proposed land use district change will have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
r, Say and Elaine Staviski
5M

Ca11
CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING :DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 2I-a85/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL' A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from IZA-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance' Review to permit a 200=unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 315 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST,13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0314-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has.heen flied with the City'Flanning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed'projeet. `Your comments must be received by this office no later,than'-May31,2a22, Com-ments;received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Flease refer to thisproject ;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 Bepjamm Matlock at.("9) 7972490, eA 261. You may send your comments to the -City of'Yucaipa lYpCA 9239Panning Diyisi6'3, 272 Yucaipa Boiucai9, or via FAX to (09)79-99203.

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

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

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO; THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR; IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL; YOU OR 50MEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES'AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARINGBODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARII+fG:

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

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NoTiCE,
DATE. May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance- Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, locatedbetween3rd st and 2nd Street and apprommately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253=28a9,30,84
LOC ATION: 13692 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;1-3644 2ND ST,, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed :with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property it now the proposed.project. Your comments must be received by this :officezo y3ti-.1022. Continents received -'Ve- cons :ft project y the applicinn name and case
after iderid'in e deiiii6n. Pleaserefeeth
number indicated above. Ift - -ny questions regarding this you have no comment no reply is necesswy- If youhave a
proposal, .please contat tP,B''.
qniJ Ma
tlock atlocl $9, ext. 261. You may send your comments 4othe City okyucaipaPlanni* ftgDivision;1 1427 2 , Yod alptBoulevard; Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (900) 790-9203, If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly andIeRibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of -ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

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

T +
-0(L6fUC+`("yA 0' CIP(A'(+Men-�,5 �ka--
he play, A-0 boila, -! of- cot, ic- �Irp, c1pay-+Mef)--4--) clfc boll- 4 WM Giffec� +Y(L�f 6 14,
pc I G1 6MCM
uJill (21&c, devolue 4ke vowc oj-' )-tic ociJh)JOr),100J foe e"r J- wilt 61 q,) i'�j
WC h1le, W 0,(L-Ct, �77k5 nO 1-61if 71�kll We 106e, 0:U'(P1'-r'VC1t91 ffope&-ticouel -fyonqv ofici beouri+-bj, 6irloe- )Jli-� arEel

PRW NAM
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE MUM Ta-RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES - I Y I OU I OR SOMEONE:ELSE RAISED IN WRATtN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PL419NO DIVISION- AT, OR PRIOR To, THE Tm IT mAXES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HUD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ME MUST HAVE RAISED TROSEMUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING 'OR IN Wkn-MN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR IAUORTO, THE HEARING.

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

MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTMONY AT ANY PUBLIC IMARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO WRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY_ cc: Surrounding
Property .Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District
Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calhuesa School District South Mesa Water Company
�/ &4
qz,Z-61q
51279

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT,. PRE1111 M LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24,. and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and.2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0310-25_3-28,29,30 ' 84
LOCATION: 13682 2NTD ST; 13662 2NID ST; 13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253=28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been. filed with the City Planning Division, You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no Comments received after this date might hot'be considered in thedediAon, Please refer to - this prio"ject'15 y 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, pipse'contact*4400, 1,Matlockrat-(909)797-2499, ext. 261. You may send your comments to I the -City of Yucaipa Planning Dtvffi6ft,'3442' 2 Yucaipa Boulevarii Yatcaipa, CA 92399, or via VAX to (909) 790-9203.

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

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

SIGNA DATE [Z%ENCY
. l
PRINT N ADDRESS ff �y en
IF YOU CHALLENGE. AN� DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL 94 COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN wwmN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN wRrMG TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Sunrunding,Fpe,rl;_y-,O-*.vurs Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District SoutKMesa Water Company
C4
Q 2- _-9q4

5/24/2022
Concerned residents:

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

We have been residents in the small community for the last 8 years and struggle to understand why you would want to put 200'+ apartments across from several small family homes. The proposal states this is fora multifamily apartment, why is it that everywhere else in Yucaipa has 55+ apartments? Multifamily apartment complex would mean 4 -8 people per household (min) and 2 -4 vehicles per household (min)? Where will you park these vehicles? Also, how will you provide police and fire help to people in such a small, confined space? Currently the area inour neighborhood has seen an increase in homeless, crime, stolen mail and stolen vehicles,
The biggest thing -I want to know is, why is it okay to build multi family=apartments on this side of the wash and they have never been built anywhere else in Yucaipa? We have little to no police patrol or city patrol in our area. A trailer has been sitting on the street in front of this -property for the 1WO months and the city of Yucaipa ihas done nothing. This trailer has several water tanks /-propane and 1 61as, Located on the street. Before the trailer was moved to the street it was on the property at 13682 2"tl St and:
nd the people entered the abandoned "house located on
the property and were burning fires.inside the abandon home -Nothing was done. The, location was also subject to several up -to 8-trailers on the property all, with expired tags and severalpeople living on the property, and entering the abandoned house'Just today the trailer on the street in front of the property had another car parked on th4:propertyi ancl:living out of the"trailer.

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

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

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 1.7, 2022
CASE NUMBER:21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM 24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit-multi-family apartment project, "located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., A:PNs:
0319253-28,29,30 84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND. ST,13662 2ND ST,13644 2ND ST , APN: 0319-253 28 0319-253=29 0319.253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development. proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comm entbecause your property is near the proposed pio3ect Yaur comments must be received by this office no later,dvin M 31, 20"V . Comments received after is date Hugh"t not be consideredin the decision. Please refer to this pmjecf by the:spplicant's name and case number indicated above. -If you have nc comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal,'please contact,�amm �atloc at (909) 797 2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard;'Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790 9203:

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

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

JJ
!'1iA1i A.T}771 j•i/�e"f /'-3 �.?w TART!Llf /Yl l.lA ^l'!' PRINT

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR S014EONE ELSE,RAISED IN WRITTENCO] DMSION AT OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE P; THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE Is

CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, /c
3OURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING

PONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING
*AL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN
HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TM RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS "IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: SurroundingPcoperttyt}wners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
s k�2

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

Judy Main
13630 2nd Street
Yucaipa, CA 92399
(909) 709-1075
Comments:

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

2. Concerns'about population density: 200 apartments is too many for 8.39 acres.12"5 apartments sounds much more reasonable. Each apartment could hold up to two or four individuals which comes to 400 to 800 people. That is too many people in such a small residential area.

3. Traffic concerns: Each apartment could generate two vehicles or more which comes to 400 vehicles 2"d Street already has traffic issues with Calimesa Elementary School. How does.this project plan to deal with the flow of traffic entering and exiting their apartments? Do the plans include parking for 40G vehicles within the 8.39 acres?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously look at all the issues involved.

Judy Main
5M

0329 253=29;29,,30,&4 - - - -
GOCATiQN• 136 2Nt} ST;23bG2 2#, F3444 IN- b' ST;, AFN• 03 T9 253 ;.0329-233-29;03 F 253 3iF ATTENTIGIN PRt)PEItTY. ©WIrfERS ANTI. REYI> ,'WING AGEFY ,iESz" ?he develeeitiee t. nrrin;,ani �I act Your comments rnust�be received by tFus afiice na tactet than May 32, 2022 CQnments i�ece�veil might not be considered w tea RIP;, Please refe to ihls project by the applic�i's a�c:a� case led above If you have no comment, na reply Is n ' if you eve anyquesttotis regarzng this Ie contact Ben3amin Matlock at (9p52) ? =2489, eieF. ' 2,. 'au may4end"your canunents ta't6e EFty rutuag Bivrsion, 342?Z Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucatpa;'CA 92399, oi' ,iaFAXo " {949} 790.92t)3. be notified of the. pra}cct decutoa, print yogr naine:citarFy aad Fegibty an; this form"and matt it to tFte along with.a set£ -addressee€ stazriped enyeFope Ail ;dec�sons are. subjaat to an "apgeaF period of ten Pays``;after an'action i taken:

I'RTNTI�TAME
IF YtitJ CHALiHt+iGi ANY iaECiS[©N" iE�rIIiG THE. ABOVE' Pl€OPaSAL ICI COURT, Yt)U 14IAYBE T.tM1�fiB T{? RAIs1NQ;

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-0,85/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A, General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a, 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., Al?Ns:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST; 13662 2ND ST; 1,3644 2ND ST;1 $ APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;03119-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning -Division. Y64 are finvited to comment because your pro erty is -near the proposed project: Your domments:musube received by this office'no latet.AWMay' -_,202r 2. Comments received afterthis date mighttconsidered
- s applicant's name and - '
no be con- idered4n the decision. Please case'
refer this, project ythe-app,
numbet'indicated a -hove. If you have n6 comment- .4o reply "is necessary. Ifyou .11fave any questionsI regarding this proposal, .please contact .,B,,eOjamu:Matlock ,at(909)-,-797-2,499,e c .261. You :may send your comments 'tt-)'-the City =aipa,tAg2399,lorvia FAX to(909)790-9203.,
If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a selfaddrissed, stamped -envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (0) calendar days 'after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space,_please:attach additional pages), SIGNATURE.

DATE AGENCY
6 ADDRESS
PRINT NAME 156-301-zi-
A
V

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE E I LSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO. THE PLANNIITCr DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION 'ON THE,PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS 14ELD ON

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: .,S',ttrrpun.ding:prppqrty.,ONvners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division' Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
518
185

Second Street Proposed Apartments
Hello, My name its Randy Main. I live at 13630 Second Street and next door to the proposed 200 unit apartment complex. First, I would like to say l look forward to this new project.

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

Trash truck access location. Can the "trash area" be not near my area A quick checklist of my concerns is
Block Wall, Sidewalk, Noise and light pollution, Privacy setback, Parking, Street congestion, and my "Rural Feel
Special Note -- Can we be protected from this project "running out of money" and becoming a ghost town?
1249
519
186

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE. NUMBER: 2.1-085/GPA1LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of'several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between.3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319453 28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST 13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;031.9-253-29;0319-253-30

ATTENTION 'PROPERTY OWNI
above'has been filed with the CityPh
proposed, project: Your.comments:rut
after tEiis `da`te mrght not 6 eonsrdCerer
number .indicated above. If you Have.
proposal, please contacttBe ' .'6
Of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34242
REVIEWING AGENCIES:. The development proposal listed
ion. You are invited' to comment because your property is near the ved by this office na, "later Ixt 2022. Comments received rston. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case at, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions. regarding this 09) 797=2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City utevard, Y ucaipa, CA. 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of tile: 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 (I0) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS {i you need additional. space, please attach additional pages):
r lit/ t /�
10#156 V
'v e
SIGMA
PRINT
Ti-, �4 92AGENCY
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL.IN COURT YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN "CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR To. THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL. OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL. TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH. TO MAKE.

YOUR COMMENTS IN WMMG TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrotmdin&VropertyqTr7
Fire Department'
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water:Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa.School District

6d k,
UV t1r 1 O ` �avx,- a44 f .�`�'kr/ . ve.,Y j�!/IUrl�t/1�i �(tl, Alta G! aufG�� G
u df Wa it (,t1i ( 1 4'Gr`tr�S 5i t t r "tu ' ra4 1 �
Cv - 7 59 04 WWY,
Xyt' aicli
Irtl �6f rlPi` SaGf2 yLtoYG C'aYS G/l uSL t1G�s� 5/�G �5 C+ Cklvekw JaMqaj
!� ulv� �US �`, � es � r� v ✓� Gar ,/j � %'
l llw till d l� "0, 4(lj/ iG Au 4�c � � � Y ��sr
lu
w��ve f 4m) `%Y A4

! BM
! Wally
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-08S/GPA/I.UCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 839 acres from PNI-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment Project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and apprommately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:

Q319-2S3-28,29,3 0, 84
LOCATION; 1368212ND ST 13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;,-ATti:03I9-253-28;0319-233-29;0314- 53-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVUIVI.NG 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 coma"Irits must be received by this office no later than.May 31, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision; Please refer to this project by the applicant's name and case purnber indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have -any questions regarding this Proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797 2489, exL 261, You may send your co=' ents to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

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

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

WP J��-� M �v�d ht,t'E� a�t� ""o,j �� kat b% ►gat' Q�
�► h t^ n ae :r f"1.n far. � Je x � t'aSS
1 {"� ©�+' d `mo t f e lot �k � `i •ZL �,,/" j : V 1 5
hc1J� � GiCvt3k,�{5 1:4,0 i!A�01� 1 1nq� 3ti� 61 ic2. `) �G 6eCcn-Q. f-,%1JCIn ko0 6U5�5, A CcM?
Oj�;Ss�f r5 d%4,rk',If?�hrS Qr+I�f,21�7Q GTt3J�.

SIGNA
,!Z

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANM 40 DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR T0, THE'III«f IT MAKES US DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRMEN CORRESPONOUXE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO. THE HEARING, DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE_NI M ER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE .ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICnONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COKNIENT5 IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc 1ptt tti" S m.
�re�Deparrment
Building & Safety Division
South l4lesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
ICA
5Y89

:. the laid use .desintion of sevL-iml nMnne+tae +"11.... 4-7o 51W

}y7,T-,13d. 2-,2i4 ] s'Ti13Y,�2 JT:: ELw,4_ Q.flRtCS.eCiH.4rx ~�.,,� 5192

q
r--r n: d • ••••• ��+ �u ;tuuat ug,ta ctvcct ray, tars vmcc no tawr man !!4a + 31, ZOZ2 Comments ICCCtvCd air thi3 date ,
mtgt►t not canstdered w tie decision ,Please refer to this praJect ,byAP- -',appitcsai's name and csa
number mduted above if you have na cammenta na reply is necessary : If you have at�y questions regarding this'. proposal, please cgtt#act Benlamm Matlack at (9QQ) 797 2489, ext: 26I You may send your camtients to`the City of Yucaipa plannuiig itnrtsion, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard; Yucatpa,'A 92399, ar.via FrC,ta (9C19M0.9Zd3. . 5193

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT NOTICE.

DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-0851GPAILUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the Iand use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C tO RM-24, and a.Lanii Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located -between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29;30;84
LOCATION: 136922ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644.2ND ST;,APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEEWING. AGENCIES: The development proposal listed aboveUs been filed with the City PlanIning Division. You are invited to continent because your property is near the proposed project Your comments must- be received by this ofitce no later;thaanMay 31„ 2tf22. Comments received 4- after is date might not tie considered in the decision. Please -refer to this projYect;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 Aenlam, Aattg&at (999) 797 48.9, ext♦ 261. You may send your aoirunents to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 342721'ucaipa 1 oulevard,`Y ucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909)190,9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and.1egibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

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

SIGNATURE DATE 5"/ AGENCY
PRINT NAME ? f 1 '12 i rt ADDRESS % s,WAkiqv
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL. IN COURT, YOU MAY BE L1MII`ED TO RAISING

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

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL„YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR: T0, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING. TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surroului n&,Praperty Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
T94

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred Pierce
34961 San Rosen Ct, Yucaipa CA 92399
52s
195

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIW LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land .use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM 24; and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30;84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319253-28;0319 253-29;0319»253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment because your property is near the proposed project. Your comments must be received by this office no later. than May 31, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the,applicant`s name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin Matlock at (909) 797-2489, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX. to (909) 790-9203.

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

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

SIGNAO)� ,
'I'URE� � �'"�'
/� )''�?i"a�-� DATE�GENC'Y UQ
PRINTNAMrr ADDRESS ' 4��t � j� fPt S ;i "' VCVJ+ j
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO.RAISING y r

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

DUE TO TIME. CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL.TESTiMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL., YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY.

CC' Surrounding Property. Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa. School District South Mesa Water Company
'fN

DATE: May ,22, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21=085/GPAJLUCR

APPLICANT PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
530
197

%_11 X UV I Ulk—luk1r1k r1j1.N1'UU11kY UIV101UPW

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-0851GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT-. PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL- A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and aLand Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, l6cat6d between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APN s:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13692 2ND ST,13662,2ND ST,13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319253-28,03'19-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OVMRS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above'lies been filed with the City Planning Division. Youare invited to comment because your property is near the proposed protect. Your comments must be received. by this office no later than AUy.31-, 2922. Comments received after this d a 6 might nic')—t1he", considered mili-e-dec"isio-n.' Pleaserefer to the applicant's name - and case number indicated -above. If you have no commeA ito reply is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this prop6siL. please ,contactI . _-_B6ftj'*amin Maflock-,Imt (009),1972499, ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa.Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard; Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (969) 790-9203, If you want to be notifleif of the, project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along With a self-addressed, -stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an, appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action is taken.

COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
ckj\
CkA -4 rvssad +awipt� L,hv 9,1 lope- kets L.e,&,\ 'multotiel J _ S 0
SKINATT.TRE DATE -31ZZL AGENCY-_
PRINT NAME VAN ADDRESS KIU-Se/'A
IF you caALLENGE.AwY DEMION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU _IMAY BE Li MED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE "USE RAISED IN WRITTEN CODEIAF$01) TO THE PLANNING DIVISION At, OR PRIOR To, THE TIME IT Ma1ICFS ITS RECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC H , EARINO ISELD ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE AT THE PUBLIC BEARING OR IN WRITTEN 'ED TO a 1M4R1R\TG BODY AT, OR PRIOP TO, THE HEARING
DUE TO. TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL, TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS

MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC BEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR, COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSFix-, ADLQU,0—E- cc: Surroundina Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Tire Depaftment Engineering Division
Rnhnnf Ili-trint
South Mesa Water Company
532
199

Jay Staviski
F,laine Staviski
34949 San Rosen Ct.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
May 31, 2022
Yucaipa Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

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

Our understanding is that Premium Land Development has proposed an amendment to the General Plan 'to- changee I
the land use designation of 8.39 acresof property located between 3r St. and 2"' St. and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road from RM-72C to RM-24 and has requested a Land Use Compliance Review to Permit building a 200-unit multi -family apartment project on those:8.39 acres of land. The land in question is perpendicular to San RosewCt, where we live and own a home. As surrounding property owners, we object to the re - designation of the property in question to RM-24, and we o I bject to the construction of a 200-unit multi --arm apartment oJect for the reasons discussed below.- iy pro)
First, the manner of notice to surrounding:property ow.ners, of this proposed amendment and project was inadequate. We did not receive notice from the City of Yucaipa (hereafter referred to as "the City") of this proposed project. Rather, a concerned neighb btotght,this ut ter to
our attention over the holiday weekend. Note that'the deadline for comment is today, May 31, 2022,, giving us only a few days to comment and no time .to inquire regarding the details of the proposal. Apparently, the notices were placed on the front doors of some of the surrounding property owners. However, it does not appear the notice -was placed on our door. Someone is home nearly allhours of the day and would. have heard if there was a knock on the door.

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

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

The City is using an administrative review, i.e., "a written or published notice given to affected and interested parties, followed by a decision by the reviewing authority" (Yucaipa Municipal Code (YMC) 83.010215). However, a public hearing is the proper procedure for decisions to change the classification of land from one adopted land, use district to another land use district (YMC 83.020105). Here, Premium Land Development has proposed an amendment to the 533
200

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

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

Currently, the neighborhood:surrdunding the -lots described in the project notice is, in fact, fi quiet and peaceful environment. Thisislargely due to its designation, as RM-71C and/of.RM.- I OM, which allows for no more than :8.7 dwelling units, per acre. However, if the proposed General Plan amendment is passed, the quiet and peaceU environment will no longer exist in this neighborhood. According to the -project notice, Ah project located between, 1rd St. and 2nd St would allow for an additional:200 m!W proi
units in an area measuring 9.39 acres.

This would result in fec t infa sign
of the number of.people and vehicles, in this small
area,,which w Id peaceftilness of the community. For example, an additional 200 dwelling units would bring AOI additional- 500+ cars. This number is based on the Yucaipa General Plan, 2021-2029 Housing Element dated August 23, 2021, where it states that niultiple,.;family.t6side"ntiaI developments under the XM-14 designation i, n tion are required to have from

1.51to,2.5'parking spaces for each unit; de�" di" on the size -of the unit (Yucaipa General Plan depending allow f 4
26212029. Housing Element, Table 3-7)� This or-ap q -cars-for the residents, of a 200-unit apartmient-complex. moreover, multiple-fainiIVe,,;id6n -, under the RM- 14 -designation are required to .have an additional 03 spates per unit for guest, p parking, h
, V which
allows for 106 mare ''dais,(Id.). The addition o'f.5'010t cars to the 8391'eres between 2 nd St. and 3 id St; would inevitably. decrease the air'; u ality of the surrounding ng community. Furthertnore the
q
addition- of 200 dwelling units would result m— approxfinate-IT580 residents used. on an average household size of 2.0 in Yucaipa as reported in the Yucaipa General Plan.. 202120N Housing Element). Undoubte,dly, the noise frorn such a. large increase in population within the. small location proposed would destroy the current quiet environmeJnt Thus, the increase innois e and
traffic would diminish the peacefulness and air quality of the 'surrounding n-e- ighboihood.

Fourth, the proposed land use district change is not a, reasonable andlogical. extension ofthe existing land use pattern M' the surrounding area,- The surroundin9area is, comprised, almost "
exclusively of single residential (RS-20M, R,8-10M, andlo-rRS-72C)'and:multiple re-,identtat (RM-10M. and/or RM-72C) designations. RS designations allow for a maximum density of 4.2 units per acre and Ruud designations, except RM-24, allow for a. maximum density of-8.0 dwelling units per acre (Yucaipa General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element, Table 3-3). The proposed amendment would change the current RM-72C designation for the proposed location to RM-24.

An RM-24 designation allows for a density range of 20-24 units per acre (Id.). Thus, the proposed amendment would allow for an increase of about three times more dwelling units than currently allowed under the General Plan. This is inconsistent with the layout of the surrounding areas. Although there is an apartment complex on 50'St and County Line Rd., there are traffic lights at that intersection. Moreover. 51h St is a main road that extends through to Yucaipa Blvd. 'Iti

Re: Case number: 21-0851GPA/LUCR; Applicant: Premium Land Development and allows for increased traffic. The proposed project would be on 2 d St., which is not a main roadway, as evidenced by it not extending through to Yucaipa Blvd. Furtliermore, there is an elementary school on 2n, St., which already contributes to traffic problems during weekday mornings and afternoons- Additionally, other nearby apartment complexes are much smaller in size compared to the proposed project.

Sixth, the proposed land use district change will, have a. substantial adverse effect on surrounding property. The project will not improve thurroundingneighborhood. In fac4 its design e�s
proposing a 260--unit multi -family aparim eht complexI would result *in increased noise; traffic; water ,usage, safetyd traffic problems,,atid parking issueg.� lhdblerns�wiih increased noise an affecting'the air quality and peacefulness have alreadybeeii addressed above- Similarly, problems with increased:waterusage have been addressed.above., -Sdety problems WoWdlikely increase due to a drastic increase in traffic along 27' SL from the additional, 506+ vehicles. As it stands, there is significant trafficI - along 2nd St. in the, morning -and aftem oon . because Calimesa Elementary School is,located on 2qd St Adding more vehicles to the mix would ribt only endanger children walking to and from Cffinesa Elementary School but also increase the risk of traffic accidents with other cars. Additionally, the 200-unit apartment complex would create issues with parking for surrounding neighbors. Inevitably, parking for the 200-wunit dwelling will spill, out onto neighboring streets. Although the proposed apartment complex is required to have parking for residents, it will likely not have sufficient parking for guests of the residents of the 200-unit dwelling. The 100 guest spots required for a 200-unit-apartment complex could be adequate for most weekdays, but it would not be adequate weekends, days preceding ., or 3 535
202

Re: ease number. 21-085/GPA/LUCR; Applicant: Premium Land Development following the weekend, or holidays, when the residents would likely invite multiple guests for parties and gatherings. This will most certainly have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property; as guests of the apartment residents and potentially the apartment residents themselves will likely have to park on 2°d Street, 3d Street, San Rosen Ct. and San Carlos St., among other neighboring streets, which will. cause undue burden on the surrounding property owners. It should also be noted that should the developer request and the City grant reduced vehicular parking ratios for this proposed project, then the likelihood of nearby streets being used as overflow parking for the residents of the multi -unit dwelling and their guests would significantly increase. Accordingly, the proposed land use district change will have a substantial adverse effect on. surrounding property.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Jay and Elaine Stavisk
'N

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT., PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A Genera
l Plan Amendment to change. the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance "Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, Iodated between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of eounty Line Road., APNs:
0319.2.53-28,291,30jjA
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST-13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253-29,,0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been. filed with the City Pla,tining,Div sion. You' I invited to comment because .your property is near the
d Your comments 'Mutt be received by this Office no �a thari-:Mayj 1 1,2 , 022. Comments received propose project. te"
considered the -d6cisi to
after this date might not be '' this fi, the 1, , rs,name and case on lease refer project y , 9: app ican -
number, indicated above. If you have no comment, no, reply Js necessary— If you have any 4uestions; ie grding this proposal, please contact -,Benjamin, allock,at(960)-170717,2489,ext.-261. You may send r you 'comments to ;the city
1vision, d9j, _
ofYuciti�aPanningI) "if 272 YucatpaBloukVird��'Yucaipa, CA 92399, of via FAX to (9 790-9203.

If you want to be ndtified.of the prqject decision, print your name a clearly and legibly on this form and mail. it to the
address above, along with e a self-addressd stamped ft
- ­ j s . pe :envelope. All decisions areisubject to an appeal period of ten (10) calendar days after an action isuken.

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

IV, rill
AM
0 co i't's I V% A iN
Af t,
61" vt
&V 7 � I -
Will 1,3 "s �ADVJ6A, I',- 5
'ply to-
t, w4t
pvtos*1 C, vt,
51-1 1V_f
*4
SIGNATURE DATE! iAGENCY
DPTxTT7%TAA= t1_4 A 1-%rAn"On /.-a q 2-�
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING Tkeaow PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING

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

DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING 19 HELD ON
THE PROPOSAL, YOU "OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE'RE . ARINd BODY AT, Olt PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER. OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE. ORAL TESTIMONY,, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE, ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURS -ELF ADEQUATELY. cc: nding'Propqrty.Owners
Fire Department
Building& Safety -Division
South Mesa. Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
'YO 4

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER: 21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUMLAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APXs:
03t9-253-28.,29,36,84
LOCATION- 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND S% APN: 0319-25328;031925329,0319253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City PlaimingDivision. You are invited tozomment because your property is near the proposed project Your comments must bereceived eby this office no later .than May 31,2022. Comments received Plea4refer tDthis project by the applicant's
' name. and case
number indicated above. If you Have no I comment, no reply is necessary. Ifyou have any que stions regarding "tins pmppsal, please. contacti1lenjaminUatlock- at (009) _70248 ext. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa?lanning Division, 34272 Yucaipa goulevard, Yucalp a, CA 92399,or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

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

COMMENTS (Ifyou need additional space, please attach,additional pages):
q-
nfc bult+ 4 wtlt affec� -+y 16 Ct bm'-fif
Will 'q�16c' de-volue vowc Of )-he )J0y1'100d
wl"/1 af(ec� )yctnqoilc' hA of wJlt*(.Il
i
LIVC )IV6 P17 orco LT, no we io6c'
CC% I j
rao'e17 kc; ( I'LC4
SIGNATURE_-:s� -PATF,���{'iENCY
=Z
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, You MAY BE LwrED Tdlmm ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR "SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DEIX4EREI) TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE Tait IT MAKES ITS DtbisidN 014 THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE, ELSE MUST HAVE WED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN

CORRESPONDENCEDELMMED TO THE HEARING BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING DUE TO TIME CONSTRAR41S AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS

MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING, ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE yOUR COMMUM IN WRMNGTO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY cc: Surrounding -Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
qzlzelq
T06

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER:.21-085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PRENUUtyl LAND DEVELOPIIENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RN02C to ni-24, and a Land Oise Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30j84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND :ST; 13662 2ND ST; 13644 2ND ST', APN: 0319-253-28;03 19-253-29;03 19-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNIRS 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_jka oJ Jjy, I t,k 2q7 . Comments received
after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer this - ' _b "applicant's--'-' - name - - , ' er to this project y the name and case
number indicated above. If you have no co mment, no reply is necessary. If You have any 4uestions regarding this proposal, please contact; Ben '--.I,=Lin,,4Nfattockatfgo-9),797,,.2499, kt.261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Pla*nning't)'tv'ts-)tot"'n',';a4'427:2,-Y'�u�-cla,ipa'18'6u-lev----a--"r-d', ucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203, If you want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it to the address above along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. All decisions are subject to an appeal period of ten (10.) calendar days after an action is taken.

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

IFIXMIAMF
-DATE
ss m, �yq3ov (1�myveeft
aADDRE

IF YOU CHALLENGE AW DECISION REGARDING TEE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISWG

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

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

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

CA
qz��
SSA

5/24/2022
Concerned residents;
In response to your notification of proposal to land between 13682 2°d St. and 3`d street.

We have been residents -in the small communityfor the last 8 years and struggle10-understand why you would want to put 200 + apartments across from several smalifamily homes. The proposal states this is for a multifamily apartment, why is it that everywhere else in Yucaipa has 55+ apartments? Multifamily apartment complex would mean 4 -8 people per household (min) and 2 -4 vehicles per household (min)? Where will you park these vehicles? Also, how will you provide police and fire help to people in such a small, confined space? Currently the area in our neighborhood has seen an increase in homeless, crime; stolen mail and stolen vehicles.

The biggest thing l want to know is, why is it okay to build multi family apartments on this side of the wash and they have never been built anywhere etse in Yucaipa? We have little to no police patrol or city patrol in our area. A trailer has been sitting on the street in front of this property for the last3 months and the city of Yucaipa has done nothing. This trailer has several, water tanks / propane and 680s, Located on the street. Before the trailer was moved to the street it was on the property at 13682 god Stand the.people entered the abandoned house located on the,property and were burning fires inside the >abandon home Nothing was done. The location was also subject -to several up to 8 trailers on the" property all with expired tags acid !I people living on the property and entering the abandoned house. Just today the -trailer on the street in front of the property had another car, park ed=on the property and living out of the trailer.

The current.conditions of the propertyare being supervised by -several homeless people living out of trailers. If this is the case, what kind of people will "you allowto live'in these units? is this a section property? Is there any guarantee that if not will it ever be converted to section 8? The corner of 21d St and County Line is currently under construction for a roundabout, 200 + units and all the cars where will they park? My quite street?
The neighbor on the corner of our street current is along -distance hauler and parks his hauler 3x a week blocking the whole west entrance and the city has done nothing to correct or advise his to relocate his work vehicle.

Elementary is located less than a block. away and is very crowed with.parents in the AM/ and AM drop off and pick up. Also, across from the school is a Outpatient recovery center, this area is very busy. is the cost of speed bumps, traffic lights being considered?
541
208

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER- 21.085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIiJl1+f LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to- permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319-253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST,13662 2ND ST 13644 2ND S% APN: 0319-253-28;0319:253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development proposal listed abovehas been flied 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.;thah Maly 31, 2t3 2. Comments received after this date might not�be considered in the dec'ison.� Please efer to this project by the applicant's name and case number indicatedabove. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If ,you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contactain'
janiW,Matlo,it.(909),79.7-2499, ext. 261. You, may send your comments to the City ofYucaipa.Planning Division, 342T2 Yucaipa Boutevard, ilieaipa,:CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If You want to be notified of the project decision, print your name clearly and legibly on this form and mail it 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 (lf you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
at n ) /v
[�T!'V1TA TY77f 1'_• 1- iAw T1 A. ?5/AQ lY l'.�T'aTt4�l PMT-NA9 Ju l t' .ri`Ir� —ADDRESS

IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RALSED. IN witntEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED to THE PLANKING DIVISION AT OR PRIOR TO, THE TIMETT MAKES IT$ DECISION ON.THE PROPOSAL OR 7 A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON.

THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN WRITTEN:

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER: OF PERSONS 'WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED- ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding;Property E7wners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
'59

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

Judy Main
13630 2"d Street
Yucaipa, CA 92399
(909)709-1075
Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously look at all the issues involved.

Judy Main
543
210

29,3Q,84..;
13682Np ST;13f62 2ND ST;i3G4"2I ST;, AFN: 0319 2;3 Z8,0319:23 29,t)3I9-25 1 PROPERTY OV4 HERS AND REVt9Wl d AGE"tGIES The development proposal i[sted n filed with the City i'lanacng D►vrsianYou.are invited W comnnent because �rour property zsnear the eat Your comments mush received by this office no laurthan May 31, In Comments receFvcd might nor be coasidcrcd"ia the decision Please refer to thls p%jectby the appFCcant's one -and case ,ted a6ave If you have no comment, no reply is necry If you 3save aay questions regariizng this ;:
se contact Bejnmunriatlock at (909} 7'[i rZ489, eft: "6i you �+: snd your 9c0o9rn7ne9n0r9s 3La03. rjthe Ci
uDivision3#2YBouevd; YpCt92399omr tiaeFAXto ,2a
beiotified ofthe pra,Fecr decision,, Bruit your name elearty and legibly on this form and mailit to. the; aiang with aself-addresser sraineF envelope . All deccsions are s6ject s� an apgeai periori often lays aRei an action u taken:

COMF4'�NT
tG
7 SIGNAn
GC:

Department .

Building & Safety Dh&ion
S61LA vleIu Water Company
OR PRIORIT— O., HE HEARING:

Yucaipa Valley Water )istrict
Engineering Revision
Yucaiga•Calimesa School District
amy.

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21.085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM.24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a.200-unit mufti=family apartment project, located Isetween 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north- of County Line Road., APNs-. 0319 253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2Nf7 ST;13662.2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319-253-28;0319-253 290319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES: The development .proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to comment becaus your property is near the proposed project. Your comments. must be "received by this a ce no later-thIao:May 31,,2b22. 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 cornment,,no reply is: necessary. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, .please contact Benjamin tvlatlock: at (909) 797-2489, ext: 261. You may send your co11 mmments to .the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92394, or via FAX to1(909) 790-9203.

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

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

SLR k�-Gk�� ��i6z�2
PRINT

TE AGENCY
�%
,DRESS l 1 _ 30 �i

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

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR To, THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS: PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District South Mesa Water Company
545
212

Second Street Proposed Apartments
Hello, My name is Randy Main. I five at 13630 Second Street and next door to the proposed 200 unit apartment complex. First, I would like to say I look forward to this new project.

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

Trash truck access location. Can the "trash area" be not near my area? A quick checklist of my concerns is
Block Wall, Sidewalk, Noise and light pollution, Privacy setback, Parking, Street congestion, and my `:Rural Feel"
Special Note — Can we be protected from this project "running out of money" and becoming a ghost town?
k You, i andy laMJ909) 208-1249
'Ml 3

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17, 2022
CASE NUMBER: 21.085/GPA/LUCR
APPLICANT: PRENIIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 8.39 acres from RM-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi. -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road., APNs:
0319; 253-28,29,30,84
LOCATION: 13682 2ND ST;13662 2ND ST;13644 2ND ST;, APN: 0319,�253-28 0319-253-29;0319.253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND REVIEWING AGENCIES:. The development proposal listed above has been filed with the City Planning Division. You are invited to commentbecause your property is near the proposed; project. Your comments must be received bythis office no later tt,�€ 31, �. Comments received _ur, _.�._ _ v -
after is Ate might not be considered in the decision. Please iAr to this,project by the applicant's name and case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. f you have any questions -regarding this proposal, please contact Be*, 4mi ►Matlock at (909) -79742499, east. 261. You may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division; 34272 Yucaipa Eou[evard, Y ucaipa, CA-92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

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

COMMENTS ,a you need additional space, please attach additional pages):
31v X� ��
oaf
. � r
PRINT
.TE 0&?AGENCY
W -1Icy` �FA r� . -� G1�` `l r✓1 �t /Z 3`1C
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IN COURT; YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING

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

DIVISION AT, OR --PRIOR TO THE TIME IT MAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR, IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON

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

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS MAY BE PLACED ON ORAL TESTIMONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO EXPRESS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY. cc: Surrounding Property.Owners Yucaipa Valley Water District Fire Department Engineering Division
Building & Safety Division Yucaipa-Calimesa School District _South Mesa Water Company
5114

xet Id r)�5'
J444f Aav"v ai4 �Itpuzmtia P 5ckpl oJ uff
�' Wi�� lt��Y �, cdS�" d vY � ; • u wt�il
►'� i'tta � t tW t� roc,/ dv� rojec--v too/! Aekj-
t
`(J11 man- & YS
7,/v 1�tic i yf u �' u
�1(r` f5 fd0l�2r' �Zry
G at jti(yLAI v - divr 1�r ly► u , �% U
548
215

CITY OF YUCAIPA PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT NOTICE
DATE: May 17,2022
CASE NUMBER: 2148$/GPfVLUCR
APPLICANT. PREMIttM LAND DEvELommNr
PROPOSAL: AGeneral Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of several properties totaling 4.39 acres ftm MI-72C to RM-24, and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a 200-unit multi -family apartment project, located between 3rd st and 2nd Street and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Roact, AFNs:
03 19-253-28,29,30,94
LOCATION: .1. 3642,2ND ST; 13662 2ND ST; 13644 2ND ST;, ANN: 0319=253.28-10319-253-29;0319-253-30 ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNERS AND RE8,UWIN,G 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, PMJeCL Your comments must be received by this offico no later than May 31, 2022. Comments received after this date might not be considered in the decision. Please refer to this project by the applicant's name W case number indicated above. If you have no comment, no reply is necessary. If you have arty questions regarding this proposal, please contact Benjamin
erjantin Matlock at (909) 797-2499, ext. 261. You -may send your comments to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, or via FAX to (909) 790-9203.

If you want to be notified of the project decision, priest your name clearly and legibly an this form and mail it to the address above along with a self4ddressed, stamped envelope. AJ.1 decisions are subject to an appeal period often (10) calendar days after an action is taken,
COMMENTS (If you need additional space, please attach additional pages):

We JuS-6 M-)ve.a hLre- omA 140olj Pei-& lot, V%dt(96
M
V'e 5 -�r
bf A
vie-, ( '10 ve
t!A�05 i4d 61&.S C4A
t
,)QJIA 6e(v,-t r-,,Jch �oo bu�3. A cor-q
'IS ovtrk''11 �or ql"ql A
§i�v rl'4_1 I r-A
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY DECISION REGARDING THE ABOVE:,PROPOSAL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED To RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED IN WRMEN CORRESPONDENCE DELINUED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE TIME IT 1AAKES ITS DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL OR. IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD ON THE PROPOSAL, YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE RAISED THOSE ISSUES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IN wRrn-EN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE k8A.MG BODY AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE HEARING.

DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WISHING TO GIVE ORAL ItMIONY, TIME RESTRICTIONS XLAY BE PLACED.ON OPAL TES71MONY AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THE PROPOSAL. YOU MAY WISH TO MAU YOUR COMMENTS N WRITING TO ASSURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO E)"MS YOURSELF ADEQUATELY, cc.
414' Department
Building & Safety Division
South Mesa Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District
Engineering Division
Yucaipa-Calimesa School District
'?16

Agenda Item No.
2 City of Yucaipa
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 3, 2022
A. Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Yucaipa, California was called to order in the Council Chambers, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard; Yucaipa, California, on August 3, 2022, at 6:30 PM.

PRESENT: X.R. Allgower, Chair
Christopher Markarian, Vice Chair
Richard Beck, Commissioner
Tony Hicks, Commissioner
Lloyd Rekstad, Commissioner
ABSENT: Bart Brizzee, Commissioner
Aron Wolfe,, Commissioner
CITY STAFF: Benjamin Matlock-, City Planner/Planning Manager Madeline Jordan, Assistant Planner
Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
Katrina Kunkel,
The meeting was called to order at 6:37 PM, with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair Allgower:

Roll call was provided.

There were no comments received for items not listed on the agenda at Publiccornmenta,yucaipa.org or in person.

Planning Commission Minutes Page I of I
August 3, 2022

AGENnA rrEM SCHEMILE ADJUST +'_ s
Vice Chair Markarian motioned to amend the agenda to go through the items #l, #2, 0, and #6 first, then items #3 and #4. SECOND BY Commissioner Rekstad, CARRIED, 5-0-2-0.

CONSENT AGENDA

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

2. SUBJECT: The Well Church. (Case No. 22-013/LUCR): A Land Use Compliance Review for the architectural review of a proposed 12.75-foot-tall and 45.5 square foot freestanding digital sign associated with the Well Church at t2717 14th St., APN: 0301-173-75 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; and::

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

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

PUBLIC HEARD
The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be - Planning Commission Minutes Page 2, i l
Altbtist d, 2022
'�3 9

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

5. SUBJECT: Pristine Builders (Case No. 22-0651LUCR/SUP/ARC): A Land Use Compliance Review to construct a 1,190 square foot detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, and Special Use Permit with Architectural Review to construct a 441 square foot garage and 327 square foot patio both attached to the ADU to create a 1,958 square foot structure located at 31264 Tarryton Court; APN: 0300-561-21.

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

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

DISCUSSION Assistant Planner Madeline Jordan presented the Project..

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

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

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

Commission.
gUBL C COMMENT: No comments received.

A,N: MOTION BY Vice Chair Markarian, SECOND BY Commissioner Hicks, CARRIED, 5-0-2-0, TO APPROVE ITEMS.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 1 l
August 3.
,��o

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

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

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

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

Assistant Planner Christian Farmer presented the. Project.

The applicant, Blake Warner called in and stated that he did not have additional comments, PUBLIC CON ENT: No comments received.

AC110N: MOTION BY Commissioner Hicks, SECOND BY Vice Chair Markarian.,.

CARRIED, 4-0-2-1, TO APPROVE ITEM 6.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of l C
August 3, 2022
554
221

I SUBJECT: Randy Citlau — Riverwalk Senior Development (21- 045/GPAILt:JCR/MJV/DBA/ARC): A. Minor General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a property from RM-72C (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential), a Density Bonus Agreement(DBA) to qualify for 25% increase in land density, a Land Use Compliance Review with Architectural Review to construct a 150-unit, three story, age -restricted senior housing complex for individuals who are 55 years and older, with two (2) monument signs at the entrance of the 5-acre site, and two (2) -Major Variances to allow for a total of eighty (80) percent of the 150-units to be 1-bedroom in.lieu of thirty-five (35) percent, and for one (1) bedroom units to provide seventy-six (76) square feet of -private open space in'lieu of the one hundred fifty (150) square feet required for ground floor units and the one hundred (100) square feet required for above ground units, located at 12836 3rd Street, APN: 031-9-112-03. (Case No 22-070/SUP/ARC): A Special Use Permit for the Architectural Review of an existing unpermitted 1,200 square foot, I ZFoot-tall, detached metal garage located on.a single -residential property at I2269-Yd Street; APN: 0319=121-78, RECOMMENDATION: That, the Planning Carnm_;'on egndUgI a,public hegring, and if A) Adopt Resolution No. 2.022-40, approving the minor General Plan Amendment/ Land Use District Change of a single parcel (APN: 0319-112-03) from RM-72C (Multiple Residential) to RM-24:(High Density Multiple Residential); and B) Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff.', of Ordinance No. 411, amending OrdinanceNo..343, amending the Official .Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City ofYucaipa; and
C) Approve Density. Bonus- Request and Land Use Compliance Review No. 21-045, and Variances subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report and D) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and E) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will. reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and F) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and, G) Review, and if it is considered acceptable, approve the architectural design and conceptual landscaping for the proposed Project.

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

Planning Commission Minutes Page 5of I I
i pupst 3. 2022
555
222

Assistant Planner Jordan noted that, the Yucaipa's General Plan and Development Code does not have any policies that protect views from private properties and that the current land use designation and the proposed: land use designation would allow for Multi -Family Development, Assistant Planner Jordan noted that if the Commission determines that the GeneralPlan Amendment and the project proposal are acceptable, the Commission would then provide a recommend to the City Council,
Chair Allgower had a question regarding parking and asked if the 146 parking spots would be sufficient for the number of apartments proposed. Assistant Planner Jordan noted that 75 spaces are required pursuant to state law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vice Chair Markarian asked when the last time was that the General Plan was last made and when will it be revised again. Planning Manager Ben. Matlock informed the Commission that the -last comprehensive General Plan was adopted in April 2016. However, several minor General Plan Amendments- have been approved since then, and in order to stay consistent with state law, the Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 1 I
August ), 2422
'h3

Housing Element needs to be updated every eight (8) years, which is currently in process, Additionally, cities may amend any of the required elements no more than 4 times in a. year..

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

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

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

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

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

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

A) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-41, approving thel minor General Plan Amendment 1 Land Use District Change of a property from RM-10M Multiple Residential, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) to the land use designation of RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential); and
B) Approve first reading, by- the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 412, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending, the Official Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa; and
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11
August3,'2622
'5�4

C) Approve the Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 21-085), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and
D) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and E) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental :impact to less than significant; and F) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and, G) Review, and if it is considered acceptable, approve the architectural design and conceptual. landscaping for the proposed Project.

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

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

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

PUBLIC COMMENT; Sixteen speaker forms were received.

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

2. Judy Main-2"d Street- She noted that Premium Land Development wants to change the existing zoning, and build nine buildings with seven of them being three stories high. She felt that this project would tower over the existing neighborhood, and that no amount of Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 1-1
Angust 1. 2021
558
225

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

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

4. Darrel Mack- County Line Road He noted that he had lived in their house since:198.5, and that his view was initially taken over by the Terra Glen Apartments and will be exacerbated with this project. He also noted that traffic on Second.. St., from the school will be worse, and that it is already terrible, and is doubtful that the roundabouts will help. He also noted that he is concerned about the water usage, and opposes the project:

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

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

7. 3on McKinney-2nd Street- He noted that his family has been in Yucaipa for 75 yearn- and is horrified that this project is even being considered. He commented that the traffic before and after school is a mess, and with the number of cars proposed, the traffic will back up for over a mile: He also noted a concern with the Post -Acute next door and whether emergency responders can reach the site with the projected traffic. Mr. McKinney opposes the project.

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

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

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

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

12.. Ashley Sepulveda -San Carlos Street- She noted that she opposes the project, and disagrees with the notion that our schools need more students. She commented that the schools do not have enough teachers or staff to handle the kids that are currently enrolled, despite the Ptanning Commission Minutes Page 9 of i i
August 3, 2023
'Ih

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

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

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

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

15.3im Wagner- County Line Rd- Mr. Wagner opposes the project and feels that his views as a resident doesn't matter. He does not want a three-story building in the area, and that the property is currently filled with: filthy tractors and transients living in the area. 1-6. Erika Murphy- County Line Rd- Ms. Murphy noted her opposition to the project and does not agree with the Developer when he says new businesses will be coming into the area.

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

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

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

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

The Public Hearing was then closed.

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

Planning Commission Minutes Page iQ of 1 t
August 1,2022
'fib

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

The meeting adjourned at 947 PM.

Ben' min Matlock
Planning Manager/City Planner
Planning -Commission Minutes Page I l of i 1
Aogust:3. 2Q22

Agenda Item No. 1
City of Yucaipa
Planning Commission. Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 17, 2022
A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Yucaipa, California was called to order in the Council Chambers, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California, on August 17, 2022, at 630 PM.

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

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

Planning Commission Minutes
Augum 17.2022

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

2. SUBJECTS Approve Planning Commission Minutes of August 3, 2022 aC1'IQL�[; MOTION BY Commissioner Rekstad, SECOND BY Commissioner Beck, CARRIED, 4-0-0-3, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS NO.1.

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

OLD BUSINESS:

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

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

A) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-41, approving the minor General. Plan. Amendment / Land Use District Change of a property from RM- I OM Multiple Residential,l'0,000 square foot -minimum lot size) to the land use designation of RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential); and
B) Approve first reading, by the title only; as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 412, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa; and
C) Approve the Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 21-085), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and D) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and E) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and Planning Commission Minutes Pave 2
\ugm 17..2022
'50

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

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

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

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

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

The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be:

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

4. SUBJECT: Case No. 19-116/CUP: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to provide a continuous authorization and holding of Project annual -held events in lieu of currently holding Special Event Permits. The CUP for the Project (aka Pumpkin Factory LI.C) includes the construction of permanent vendor booth displays that will replace existing temporary structures and would memorialize implementation of traffic -related elements, traffic control provisions, street improvements, and other terms to facilitate the annual -held events. The 64-acre Project site is located at the southeast corner of Live Oak Canyon Road and the 1-10 eastbound on -ramp. APN(S) 0301- 201-38, -39 and 0301-211-11.

Planning, Commission Minutes
Augut t-.;zuzz

564
231

RECOIYIMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; and; A) Approve the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Report; and
B) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and C) Adopt a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15323 (Class 23), as well as 15301 (Class 1) and 15311 (Class 11), of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; and,
D) Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.
lIfSCUSSION: Commissioner Hicks recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest.

Assistant Planner Madeline Jordan presented the Agenda Report..

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

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

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

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

Public Comments: No comments received.

AC-TIM: MOTION BY Commissioner Wolfe, SECOND BY Commissioner Brizzee, CARRIED, 6-0-04, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO.4.

Planning. Commission Minutes Page 4
Au#USLA 7. 022
'��2

5. SUBJECT: Premium Land Development on behalf of Yucaipa 52, LLC (Case No. 20- 136/PDPiTDP/TTM 20375) A Planned Development project that includes a Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 20375)/Final Development Plan for the proposed Serrano Estates Project, which will establish 51 Single Family Residential lots on parcels greater than 12,000 square feet, several lettered lots for water quality basins, and a 27-acre remainder lot that would include space for vineyards as well as 13 acres of permanent open space, located on three existing parcels totaling 52 acres along the east side of Yucaipa Ridge Road directly south of the City limits to unincorporated San Bernardino County, APNs; 0320-161-08 09, and 28.

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

A) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-47, approving a Preliminary Development. Plan for the Serrano Estates Project; and.

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

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

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

Vice Chair Markarian noted that an issue he has with the Project is with the Planned Development design. He noted that he recognizes that the design serves to implement the viticultural goals of the community, but that the flow and transition from the existing neighborhood to the proposed Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
AWgust 17. 2022
566
233

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

Public Comments: TNventy-three speaker forms were received.

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

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

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

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

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

Ramona Etheredge - Ivy Court She noted that she loves the 1-acre lots and being able to have animals. She also noted that the evacuations they had during the past fires was very scary and could not imagine having additional residents in harm's way from the fires and the floods that from the aftermath. She also noted that the area has low water pressure. Before commenting that she is opposed to the project.

Steve Freeman Juniper Ave - He noted that traffic is a big concern as. well as, a seismic area along the northern side of the project, commenting that this area is not buildable land and therefore should not count towards the development potential. He also referenced that when Planning Commission Minutes
nupsr 17. 2022

'Y34

he purchased his property in2008, he had met with City Staff, and was informed that that area would remain as l-acre lots, and therefore opposes to the project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Wohlers - Yucaipa Ridge Road - He noted that his concern with the proposed project is from prior seismic trenching that was not correctly compacted, noting that future work will require testing and re -compaction. He also noted concerns with the existing water pressure, Donna Snodgrass - Walnut Grove Court - She noted that she is the Vice President to the Yucaipa Valley Wine Alliance and 18 months ago she circulated a petition to stop cluster housing on the North Bench during. the initial review of the wine country, discussions. She noted that since that time, she was appointed to the Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Planning Committee and is currently the Vice Chair, and while learning more about the properties and legal rights, her approach changed to find workable solutions. She noted that the Wine Country Planning Committee is proposing a new zoning that would provide for the agricultural and Planning Commission Minutes
AUJUSI 11; 2022

568
235

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gina Hadder - Palermo Court - She noted that she is here in support for the people opposing the project, commenting that she has Iived in Yucaipa for twenty-four years and had purchased her home for the rural feet from the 1-acre lots. She concluded that she has concerns about the noise, light and environmental pollution.

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

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

Bob Miller - Crystal Street - He thanked the Planning Commission for their ;service and for listening to all the concerned residents. He noted that when he thought about retirement, he commission
AUSUA 17..2022

'B6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
August 17..2022
5237

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

The Public Hearing was then closed.

Commissioner Wolfe clarified that this project takes an approach that is allowed by the City's codes, and Commissioner Rekstad and Vice Chair Markarian responded that while the process is allowed; they should find something that works best to which Commission Wolfe responded that he does like the Project
Commissioner Bart Brizzee addressed and thanked the public for attending, as he has not experienced such a bib outpouring like this and their willingness to stay until 11:30 p.in., Mr.

Brizzee clarified the role of the Planning Commission and standards they have to follow, iterating that their role is not to determine which projects they do or don't like, but rather how does the Project meet or of meet the policy directive that has been established, and this project in particular will need Council's final approval whole will consider all of the goals they are trying to achieve for the community. Mr. Brizzee noted that if this was just a.zoning, then it would be an easy call for him. However, the level of opposition to the project suggests that the implementation of this tool and the specific standards that have been proposed may not be appropriate from his perspective but noted that it is ultimately a call for the City Council to make., AS?L: MOTION BY Commissioner Wolfe, SECOND BY Commissioner Hicks, CARRIED, 34-0-0, TO APPROVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 5. Motion Fails and project is not recommended for approval.

6. SUBJECT.- Case No. 22-053/CUP/MNV: A Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a construction services site that includes a 1,900 square foot material and equipment. storage facility, three (3) 200 square foot on -site storage containers and a future 570 square foot modular office, and includes a Minor Variance request for a 40 percent reduction in the side yard setback located at a vacant parcel on California Street. APN.:0319-212-09, RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing; and:

A) Approve the Conditional Use Permit, Architectural Design, and conceptual landscaping subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the Agenda Report; B) Adopt the Findings for the Conditional Use Permit as contained in this Agenda Report; and
C) Adopt the Minor Variance Findings as contained in the Agenda Report; :and Planning Commission Minutes Page tO
zWgusc 17. 2022

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

DISCUSSION:

Assistant Planner Christian Farmer presented the project.

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

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

Public. Comments: None.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS: The next Planning. Commission Meeting is scheduled for September 7, 2022.

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

The meeting adjourned at 11:46 PM.

Be 'min Matlock Allgower
.Xianning Manager/City Planner Chair of the Pan ` g Commission Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 t
Augocl-.1.7. 2022
, 39

CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT
A Regular meeting. of the City Council of the City of Yucaipa was called to order in the City Hail Council Chambers, located at 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California, at:the hour of 6:00 PM., on the 241h day of October 2022 with Mayor Avila presiding.

ROLL CALL PRESENT: David Avila, Mayor
Justin Beaver, Mayor Pro Tem
Bobby Duncan, Councilmember
Jon Thorp, Councilmember
ABSENT: Greg Bogh, Councilmember
A quorum of the City Council was present.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1$
SUBJECT: PREMIUM LAND DEVELOPMENT. CASE NO 22-121/APP, AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF CASE NO. 2:1- 085/GPA/LUCR/DBA: A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DISTRICT FROM RM-10M (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO RM-24 (HIGH DENSITY

MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) AN AFFORDABILITY PROVISION THAT WILL BE

EXECUTED THROUGH A DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT AND A LAND USE COMPLIANCE REVIEW TO PERMIT A PRIVATELY GATED 200-UNIT MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT PROJECT ON FOUR PARCELS TOTALING 8.39 ACRES WITH A DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT TO COVENANT TEN (10) PERCENT OF THE UNITS AS LQW- INCOME AFFORDABLE; TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN 3RD STREET TO THE WEST, AND 2ND STREET TO THE EAST, AT APPROXI.MATELY 375 FEET NORTH OF COUNTY LINE ROAD. A LOT MERGER WILL ALSO BE PROCESSED TO CONSOLIDATE ALL FOUR PARCELS INTO A SINGLE LOT. APNS 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER. 26,2022)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and consider the appeal request regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of the Fallbrook Meadows General Plan Amendment and 200-unit development Project. Should the City decidel to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the Project, the following motion is provided:

1. Deny the appeal request; and

2. Deny the minor General Plan Amendment / Land Use District Change of a property from RM-14M Multiple Residential,10,000 square foot minimum lot size) to the land use designation of RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential); and

3. Deny the Density Bonus Agreement Request and Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 21-085), as it is inconsistent with the Development Code (as the site would not be designed as RM-24); and

4. Adopt the Findings for denial as contained in this Agenda Reports and,

5. Find the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(4) and 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines.
'340

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

A. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-41, approving the minor General Plan Amendment / Land Use District Change of a property from RM-10M Multiple Residential, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) to the land use designation of RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential), and
B. Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 412, amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use ,Plan and. Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Yucaipa; and
C. Approve the Density Bonus- Agreement Request and Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 21-085), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and
D. Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and E. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedureswill reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and F. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and, G. Refer the final site plan, architectural design, and conceptual landscaping review for the proposed Project back the Planning Commission for review and approval.

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

AC'T M: MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BEAVER, SECOND BY MAYOR AVILA., CARRIED 24-2-0 (COUNCILMEMBER DUNCAN VOTED NO, COUNCILMEMBER

BOGH ABSENT,, COUNCILMEMBER THORP RECUSED HIMSELF), TO REMAND

THIS PROJECT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW, TO

INCLUDE TWO-STORY HOMES (AS OPPOSED TO THREE-STORY HOMES) AND A REDUCTION FROM 200 UNITS TO 175 UNITS AS AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO }
CITY OF YUCAIPA } ss
I, Kimberly J Metzler; City Clerk of the City of Yucaipa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full and correct excerpt of the Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Yucaipa City Council held on the 24' day of October 2022.

Kimberly J Metzler
City Clerk
T41

Agenda Item No..

City of Yucaipa

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

PRESENT: J.R. Allgower, Chair
Richard Beck, Commissioner
Stacey Chester, Commissioner
Tony Hicks; Commissioner
David Higginson, Commissioner
Donna Snodgrass, Commissioner
Lyle Vick, Commissioner
ABSENT: None
CITY STAFF: Benjamin Matlock, Planning Manager/City Planner Katrina Kunkle, Assistant City Engineer
Lauren Sanchez, Assistant City Attorney
Madeline Jordan, Associate Planner
Christian Farmer, Assistant Planner
Maria Koolhoven, Planning Commission Assistant

CONVENE PLANNING COMMISSION
The.meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Tony Hicks.

ROLL CALL
• ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A. CHAIR: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HICKS SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER HIGGINSON TO SELECT 3R ALLGOWER AS CHAIR,
MOTION CARRIED 7-0-0-0
B. VICE CHAIR: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SNODGRASS SECOND BY

COMMISSIONER BECK TO SELECT TONY HICKS AS VICE CHAIR,
MOTION CARRIED 7-0-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1
1-18-23 52

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

Staff introductions were made to the Planning Commissioners.

CONSENT AGENDA
L SUBJECT: Receive and File Planning Commission Minutes of November 16, 2022.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file the. Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 2022.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: The order of Business for the Public Hearing Shall Be:

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

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

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

Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
1-18-23 'N3

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comments:- No comments received..

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

Planning; Commission Minutes Page 3
1-18-23 '144

4. SUBJECT: Premium Land Development (Case No. 22-121/APP/GPA/LUCR): A modified Project proposal following the Appeal of Case No 21-085/GPA/LUCR that now consists of a General Plan Amendment (Ordinance No. 412) to change the land use district from RIND-10M (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High,Density Multiple Residential) and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit a privately gated 172-unit two-story multi -family apartment Project that includes an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement on four parcels totaling 8.39 acres. — The initial project reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council was for a privately gated 200-unit three-story multi -family apartment project; located between 3rd Street to the west and 2nd Street to the east, approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. A lot merger will also be processed to consolidate all four parcels into a single lot.

APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84.

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

A) Adopt Resolution No. 2022741, approving the minor General Plan Amendment / Land Use District Change of a property from RM-10M (Multiple Residential, 10;000 square foot minimum lot size) to the land use designation of RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential); and
B) Approve first reading, by the title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 412,. amending Ordinance No. 343, amending the Official Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance as adopted o
by the City of Yucaipa; and
C) Approve the Density Bonus Agreement Request and Land Use Compliance Review (Case No. 22-121), subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in this Agenda Report; and
D) Adopt the Findings as contained in this Agenda Report; and E) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, finding the mitigation measures and standard measures and procedures will reduce the potential level of environmental impact to less than significant; and F) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; and, G) Review; and if it is considered acceptable, approve the architectural design and conceptual landscaping for the proposed Project.

DISCUSSION: Commissioner Snodgrass recused herself from this item due to a potential conflict of interest.

Planning Manager/City Planner Benjamin Matlock presented the Agenda Report.

Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
1-18-23 5245

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

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

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

Public Comments: Eight speaker forms were received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He would like the General Plan upheld.

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

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

The Public Hearing was. then closed.

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

Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
1-1;8-23 '3U

STUDY SESSION:

5. SUBJECT: Brown Act Presentation.

DISCUSSION: Assistant City Attorney Lauren Sanchez presented the Agenda Item.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: City Planner, Benjamin Matlock informed the Commissioners that the League of Cities Academy will be held from March 29, 2023, to March 3`1, 2023, in Garden Grove, Ben Matlock noted that he is working -with Joe Zoba, General Manager for Yucaipa Valley Water District, to conduct a joint workshop between the City of Yucaipa and City of Calimesa Planning Commissions to learn -about the shared water department that services both communities. Mr.

Matlock thanked the Commissioners for their service.

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

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting adjourned at 907 PM.

Benjamin Matlock JR Allgower
Planning Manager/City Planner Chair of the Planning Commission Planning. Commission Minutes g Page 6
1-18-2'3 SL47

21-085/GPAILUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units

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

Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Section 1.5091(d) of the CEQA Guidelines require public agencies to "adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes to the Project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." The lead agency must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during Project implementation prior to ,final approval of the proposed Project.

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

3.7.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Procedures This MMRP gives the City the primary responsibility for taking all actions necessary to implement the mitigation measures according to the specifications provided for each measure and for demonstrating that the action has been successfully completed. The City, at its discretion, may delegate responsibility for measure implementation and monitoring, or portions thereof, to: other responsible individuals, such as a licensed contractor. Specific responsibilities for the City include:

Coordination of all mitigation monitoring activities
• Management of the preparation, approval, and filing of monitoring or permit compliance reports.
• Maintenance of records concerning the status of all approved mitigation measures • Quality control assurance of field monitoring personnel City of Yucaipa 1
5�48

21-085/GPALLUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
• Coordination with other agencies regarding compliance with mitigation or permit requirements
• Reviewing and recommending acceptance and certification of implementation documentation
Acting as a contact for interested parties or surrounding property owners who wish to register complaints, observations of unsafe conditions, or environmental violations; verifying any such circumstances; and developing any necessary corrective -actions

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

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

City.of Yucaipa-2
5Y49

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
F*!'h,+C��\ .. .L
,.. ;+ ^x,v S ... . �, .,_µ: .. as ,.._ r' ,`4. ...� >�..._.�.: b r� � ., -, .:e�� �N�- .,. z-.,�,, s �2�"�„^r�,., �„a.s?•"" 4;+. � r:

MO ON
+oa c is `'� ➢ '"� fi Ys ^52.i"x �i .:'iR .. '£ �iE! . £a- , a:..=",a� E'i.0 e,i a",�.'4'x c'.^�',�ai ".v 810.1 Prior to release of grading permits, the Applicant shall Planning
Project
Prior to
During
Applicant to
Withhold
contract with a qualified biologist to conducta preconstruction Division/Engineering
Developer /
grading and
grading and
provide
Grading
general nesting bird survey within all suitable nesting habitats Division
Inspector
orduring
construction
preconstruction
Permits
that may be impacted by active construction during general construction
survey to the
avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31). The City
preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to initiation of construction. If no active avian nests are identified within the proposed development Project area or within a 300-foot buffer of theproposed development
Project area;:no further mitigation is necessary. If active nests of avian species covered by the MBTA are detected within the proposed development Project area or within a -300-foot buffer of the proposed development Project area,
construction shall be halted until the young have fledged, -until a qualified biologist has determined the nest is inactive, or until appropriate mitigation measures that respond to the specific situation have been developed and implemented in consultation with the regulatory agencies. Based on the discretion of the qualified biologist, the 300-foot buffer may be -expanded as appropriate to the species.

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

City of Yucaipa 3
583
250

21-085/GPALLUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
..�. �-�+. ..:. 2 .., - ,.,az'..a � 4 z' .
i ,
��'�-
..'P '.�....
t.. �b�
`-k}V�4�w."
3'v.
`Y ? �
...........
v ... �
��+> ,t.�7'fh.3:
f,:. k �..
ra,>d s v �.
. 1 . `!�, ,..., -'f
✓::llf #a
. *�
�u.'�.�»`" X
:.. �-
m.. '�'..
r,,, t 1 n
,�^�`� ,
3��
-- ., ,K:=
3 ':x �-Y+�.�'..�,
.. ' -
f;.zin eS-x
->.
����
,.n'' l
`
�
;1:•'. xwv .''xp">�,
F'. n .., .
5,. ..
-y.,.+i
- ,. ta- 4„`4^
aw"ri t: y,
�"•� .{:.
r4� =.,�� #ti
�«.��"rv'r 4.
,.�`u'r �ri!-.
�, fl's �
� .
_
�?��E��a+i'y
,,4 x•
*�
'} f�i.
�x. ,s.,t
4dt ..st rv{-...
y.
k�J �' v'�,n .5'��#''" �'Y,S
�`+.'r� �"-§-e'=-.,£r � ;r�."e.
0 ��_:r�r .
��� !►may(
4,�qt,
CR-2: If significant pre -contact and/or historiesera cultural Prior and or
Prior to
Communication
Issuance of a
;resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are
Developer /
during
construction
between tribes
Stop Work
discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the
Inspector
construction
and developer
Order
archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment
Plan, the drafts ofwhich shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly.

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

If resources are known or reasonably anticipated, the
assessment shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ
preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a
qualified paleontologist. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements.
• A paleontologist shall be retained for the Project
and shall be on call during grading and other
significant ground -disturbing activities.
• Should any potentially significant fossil resources
be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the
area of the discovery until the City concurs in
City of Yucaipa 4
584
251

21-085/GPAILUCR/ DBA/ARC- 200 Senior Housing Units
i ,,_.. 3 .. ....A ,^, , .x,:,aU�...�%a .3�.. > wc-,. . ay=y: ✓.,..� ,,.a ,, a -{.. _cam >{{.. xA „< .... �a%, +• �s "'n.,'s ,.: .t n _fix _p 5.,±"i■�..k 4,. Mv_... ,";-x. ?"' +. ksn
3 Y�� � h �
!. .....,.. .} �. ,.
r :: u.. uz $ a.
! ,�,2 'v
4,.... , .. ..
.$t.. - `A'-„
�. '�' k
s.
n v;..,'Y
��
��?�
'4 -. .`
d"£4 .,tx
.: im:h t.x
„k-
"e.
�tici
.'Y. Y`f.. fS;
#T, l�... 1 �
��rtir.
writing that adequate provisions are in place to
protect these resources:.
• Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for
significance by a San Bernardino Certified
Professional Paleontologist. If significance criteria
are met, then the Project.shall be required to collect
and catalogue the fossils per San Bernardino
County Museum guidelines and adequately curate
fossils in an institution with appropriate staff and
facilities for their scientific information potential to be preserved. A report of findings with an itemized
accession inventory shall be prepared as evidence
that monitoring has been successfully completed
and shall be submitted and approved prior to the
granting of occupancy permits.
:NOISE,: :.

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

N01-1 During all Project site excavation and grading on- Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
site, construction contractors shall equip all construction Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and Enforcement
Citation
maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards.

N01-2 The contractor shall place all stationary
Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project Enforcement
Citation
site.

N014 Equipment shall be shut off and not left to .idle when Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
not in use.

Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
Enforcement
Citation
City of Yucaipa 5
585
252

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
,..,
,.? �' �:( ,v*Y'+:; ,.. 45`. � - .a'=ra;' `e,k. '?,., xT�'?,""*"1r£v��:,y.. 'A t. f :zr... 3 �.. �. f r ,; �.''.:�.. ` . ;� , f.f.. b „<. ::."; ski• .. _ � ..�. ,'x3 �ss'k�""rr "d,
iRam,- `, �.' ..,
,. u <. a'- .
.. .x�.E'`,�'��;"�" _
"c.`�:G 2 ! :. e
„{'�'
a<.• ':.: , ,x
' '�� _.w,
f. r.
: y,." T- y-.a
.�,^ at2 �`L�,•.'�..
:. �
�{ns,s 'S' Ji r '-<`v",,'
�S,.G n � ,. .. ", s� ..a
$L ;�YI,
"o �%`{ ,.
._ �"�° =.'i
�.
/c ►T
.s f N. T �A `{•±S x. �.'�°w�.. i.b: „$;,.., .,} ,....
..
2:„�r
6'T ..� .: f:&
�Ss`L�a� jy y�������.�
pj y Y
,,,
jy S1•�
+'
py+� E,�3
:f7"'
� ".v,�`/A �p j'a
G
� �.j�{({ j
1{O
5'}�}./} i �4
N014 The contractor shall locate equipment staging in
Planning Division
Project
Ongoing.

Ongoing
Noise
Code
areas that will create the greatest distance between
Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
construction -related noise/vibration sources and sensitive Enforcement
Citation
receptors nearest the Project site during all Project
construction.

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

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

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

Enforcement
Citation
N01.8 The use of vibratory rollers, or other similar
Planning Division
Project
Ongoing
Ongoing
Noise
Code
vibratory equipment, is to be prohibited within 23 feet, and Developer
Ordinance/Code
Enforcement
large bulldozers within 13 feet, of any residential structure to Enforcement
Citation
the north and/or south of the Project site.,
;;Tribal Noticin ':.'
TRI.1: Prior to grading permit issuance, if there are- any Planning Division
Project
Prior to and
Prior to
Communication
Issuance of a
changes to Project site design and/or proposed grades, the Developer /
or during
construction
between tribes
Stop Work
future developer shall contact the Yuhaaviatam of San
Inspector
construction
and developer
Order
Manuel Nation (YSMN) to provide an electronic copy of the revised plans for review. Additional consultation shall occur between the City, developer and Consulting Tribes to discuss the proposed changes and to review any new impacts and/or potential avoidance/preservation of the; cultural resources on the Project. The developer shall make all attempts to avoid and/or preserve in place as many as possible of the cultural resources located on the Project site. In specific
circumstances where existing and/or new resources are
determined to be unavoidable -and/or unable to be preserved City of Yucaipa 6
586
253

21.085IGPA/LUCR/ DBAIARC- 200 Senior Housing Units
c�?�9..e '. .i : ap_ ,. r1,�i ... ,. -)
-'x�4�,d'S��t'''..�i.*y �"�'�, 5�4 �'x .l-:x �"i �°� 'vR`:; W �$r,�✓s' Sy�.. o�„{ in place despite all feasible alternatives, the developer shall make every effort to relocate the resource to a nearby open '. +T'r•... w. °tY,�.°.+.5
�✓� ';u.r
m
a
�+� /�
h
' :. > `'§,8
...E �._ s`�,
y
t1"S.v yy .,.h l"'
i ``'-S'fi�3.

37.' 2.u.' ,
.,}. °`. G
'3,r": �' i..,
.i.w;.
apy 4'�t � /� "'?,..
space or designated location on the property that is not subject to future development, erosion or flooding.

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

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

City of Yucaipa 7
587
254

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
..%,. .-
fi.:.+' J 7 �' '"'.' �4",A`•y.`'�L.a : et""yy ,.ycYim ,.> �y,xxfavF v n. - � .if+y..,, ., �� �vs„ ��t� �� ��« �-��,� '� �,:n,,_� �� .. .�. �a �, , s
OR
• At least 30-days prior to application for a grading
,. ., � �,« „r ., `�
�"� �, . � . � r;
kA,. �'.

M -
�
m
r' f.:n � *fwe x
- �
_vrt`L ',�... f6.,H
�, �� �;
�
Y�y(' yy'' 55
, $�,� �
Q
r" t '_
;_• and ion . fob .
permit and.before:any ground disturbing activities
on the site take place, which includes but is not
limited to, tree/shrub removal and planting,
clearing/grubbing, grading, excavation; trenching,.
compaction, fence/gate removal and installation,.
drainage, irrigation removal and installation,
hardscape installation [benches, signage,
boulders, walls, seat walls, fountains, etc.], etc., the future developer shall retain a Secretary of Interior
Standards qualified archaeologist with at least 3
years of regional experience and Tribal monitors
representing the Consulting Tribes shall monitor all
ground -disturbing activities inan effort to identify
any unknown archaeological resources. A.
sufficient number of archaeological and Tribal
monitors shall be present each work day to ensure
that simultaneously occurring ground disturbing
activities receive thorough levels of monitoring
coverage. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,
the applicant shall provide the. City of Yucaipa
evidence of.monitors that meet requirements of
the YSMN.

Should monitoring occur, the archaeologist, in consultation with Consulting Tribes, the developer, and the City of
Yucaipa, shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) to address the details; timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the Project site. Details in the AMP shall include:
• Project -related ground disturbance (including, but
not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching,
etc.) and.development scheduling;
City of Yucaipa 8
588
255

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
Y ^� *s. k _; ,Fe. rs:5; 5 ., 'r `4+:dj7 „S" ..,,..
„.. ... ... v^ 91 ...- � . £., ,.. _:, k .%_ ter..-u . Rk! k. 1 �-Y .�*.�,. .� nt,. -.�S` ., „. : � ,^'�sr :r, ., ,w��'c'�''�';fa. x
„� »,a. .. ,, .x u.. e,. x.,..
,. .. S ,,
Y ,.. y' �a �
.. a t' ,x-.s:✓. ;.v , ,..;
`"z: _...,., :�'3^.
.h
.,,.�_.
,. ., A rXi. •,
...
, . ,Y 4.s."� k`
;�..,�* �
,•:" .E " 'y 1 .-f
-3b� yid., . -#*•
:: b 5 ,:..'..
.k,.. y'l. 3'. ','
v.,a- , +
• The development of a rotating or simultaneous
schedule in coordination with the developer and
the Project archeologist for designated Native
American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes
during grading, excavation and ground disturbing
activities on the site: including the scheduling,
safety requirements, duties; scope of work, and
Native American Tribal Monitors' authority to stop
and redirect grading activities in coordination with
all Project archaeologists (if the tribes cannot come
to a consensus on the rotating or simultaneous
schedule of tribal monitoring, the Lead Agency
shall designate the schedule for the onsite Native
American Tribal Monitor for the proposed Project);
• The protocols and stipulations that the developer,
City, Consulting Tribes, and Project archaeologist
will follow in the event of °inadvertent cultural.
resources discoveries, including any newly
discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be
subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

TRW: Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In Planning Division
Project
During
During
Communication
Issuance of'a
the event that Native American cultural resources are
Developer)
construction
construction
between tribes
Stop Work
inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground Inspector
and developer
Order
disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, archaeological testing, etc., for the proposed Project; the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition ofthe discoveries:
• Avoidance and Preservation in Place: Avoidance
and preservation in place shall be the preferred
treatment for any and all discoveries of
archaeological materials. Should the resource not
be a candidate for avoidance .or preservation in
lace, a resource -specific mitigation plan shall. be
City of Yucaipa 9
589
256

21-085/GPA/LUCRI DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
>.ro; i'"" :`Y ' asY �'� � s.

L4;"
..,:-
.sa
. � y ^
fiQ
� � "w.,'+3. _�r � �....
f
implemented following the guidelines listed below:
• Temporary Curation and Storage for Removed
Resources: For resources that cannot be left in
place, they shall be temporarily curated in a secure
location onsite at an agreed to location that is
secure and accessed only by a limited number of
on -site supervisors, specified Tribal monitors, and
the archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts
from the Project site will need to be thoroughly
inventoried with tribal monitor oversite of the
process; and
• Treatment and Final Disposition of Removed
Resources: For resources that cannot be left in
place, the landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership
of all cultural resources, including sacred items,
burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and
non -human remains as part of the required
mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The
applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one
or more of the following methods and provide the
City of Yucaipa with evidence of same:
• Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the
discovered items with the Consulting Tribes. This
shall include measures and provisions to protect
the future reburial area from any future impacts.

Reburial shall not occur all cataloguing, basic
analysis, and other analyses as recommended by
the Project archeologist and approved by the
Consulting Tribes have been completed, all
documents should be at a level of standard
City of Yucaipa 10
590
257

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBAIARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
....
._..
..,,:,• ,a ,�v �,.�: v ,*t: ,.., _v ; r !� :-z .?., .,' .ai='..'F� .x g
:eY .:. ' ?:�#. ..
��e .� � ��
K. S
"ta 3^ ` 1
..,. 4 T M.,. r,.. ..
,. ..?.. =.T`` >,. F.+e
L, ..t9 Jk%.,,, ,. ,, .N�.,
s.:�
h .r. .. t a
-"^,
e
, ��rtficaf�1
C '.,z
�r „w, k_,
,, .. ,�§*M
d C$, 9t�'
*X-a.. '�"'
,...,. 90 „T
}:�...
'
��'
�Ve ��9a� �'�r
--
:�.itl � � '�:,°'r
�ateittiats�
f,�
� �or►� l.tat�ce.,
professional practice to allow the writing of a report
".
of professional quality;
• A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified
repository within San Bernardino County that
meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and
therefore would be professionally curated and
made available to other
archaeologists/researchers for further study,
should the resources" not be candidates for
reburial. The collections and associated records
shall be transferred, including tide, to an
appropriate curation facility within San Bernardino
County, Ito be accompanied"by payment of the fees
necessary for permanent curation;
• If more than one Native American tribe or band is
involved with the Project and cannot come to a
consensus as to the disposition of cultural
materials, they shall be curated at the San
Bernardino County Museum by default.
• At the completion of all ground disturbing activities on the site, a Monitoring Report -shall be submitted
to the City documenting monitoring activities.
conducted by the Project archaeologist and Native
Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of
grading. This report shall document the impacts to
the'known resources on the property; describe how
each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document
the type of cultural resources recovered and the
disposition of such resources; provide evidenceof
the required cultural sensitivity training for the
construction staff held during the required re -
City of Yucaipa 11
591
258

21-085/GPAILUCRI DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
.�`'...
.,,3 _.
cx.•,..'X Y..... -.,, ^z;.:`* wi ,'✓ ..'�,,. � x. ... ?. 5n_„�k :?Fy G`...62'�': i" .: �",r�' ��'.A 3;z' �" r�3. � ii �,rd.(:...wu(y'4'�u�'�t u�,"yX•r'.titivvvw* F�a'. , �s5 . ti l�r
.,Z^�c-
s_�
grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix,
include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the
._. .,+�,
.: ,.
r-� z';"i ......=°�'
x {
..�.
4 ..
r,=,.
^r'.. ,z�r �"S).,
,t«
.£N rzfi...
r+.a
`,"..a." �',
X. r'-5'.

E,.e.. , .f_d fi
.. ,,.
y . fi x f.,.,te'�` ,. ,:.
,. ::. xr•. . M1
, .7.., ,. ��';- u."
u...,yw ra'
archaeologist. All reports produced will be
submitted to the City and Consulting Tribes.

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

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

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

City of Yucaipa 12
592
259

21-085/GPA/LUCR/ DBA/ARC— 200 Senior Housing Units
,._ Y•?:. 4. 4.i ;.^'+� Xk'x. .r . . ,x4)J 1� .J" jj. � .i et, r sue. `4� ..s.. - �,... ,.,.--,:i ,i .. '. -.� .,... ... .. � MX �+�,N+. , ..,. j.. -
��+ Y'
w r k
r fo. , .-
•r-. .r..
r n
' .F
,. Fa r,.-. "'".k ,..t .,
y,. , . ae' _. ,. ��
�.
�
n. .'Z�.+#�..fr...N $�;'
v
.z'-^. ....����
�
1%ci#iriatlia��}},s,�y1(T�'/ry'N{{jy$r
...
� �,. 5
♦P'uE v4'r ,_.'�iz*�65,i� v..x
F=-� ' %'sty w'�
@ ��zQt. a§..
,�, ,,.,ffi.a {"
..}� # '�-a
� s.'
�4� �,.�:

MR 7'��`,,.v
n �
�,� a�
�F- Y=B1ill�{L
,�,q ,-.sr'.,��k
'�t 'w,w,
.Y�fil�*�x��UR4A�ISv�u'L✓xr,.Y��...!�.��Anit
OWN
'�..
w.. ,» ,[/ •'z.
q. K ..x',; <i u
"'
a�
� , 0 . < ��
- �a, .s�
'#�� _
-
.�`rc*:�`:` ifs
}p� I,
The specific locations of Native American burials and
reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the San Bernardino County Museum.

According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052) determined in consultation between the Project proponent and the MLD. In the event that the Project proponent and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply and the median and decision process will occur with the NAHC (see Public Resources: Code Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)) City of Yucaipa 13
593
260

GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT

FALLBROOK MEADOWS

RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION (MND)
June 1.0, 2022

CITY OF'
City of Yucaipa
Development Services Department
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
City of Yucaipa
Falbrook Meadows Residential Development
11 P a g e
'A I

CITY OF YUCAIPA

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
L. Project Title: Case No. 21-085/GPA/LUCR

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

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:, Jon Braginton, (909) 797-2499 x 264

4. Project Location: Located between 3r1 Street and 211 Street, and approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, -30, -84.

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

6. General Plan Designation: Existing — RM40M (Multiple Residential) / Proposed — RM-24 (High.

Density Multiple Residential) (minimum lot size 5 gross- acres, minimum 20 dwelling units per acre and maximum 24 dwelling units for multi -family).

7. Description of the Project: Case No 21-085/GPA/LUCR: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use district from .RM-10M (Multiple Residential) to RM-24 (High Density Multiple Residential)an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement and a Land Use Compliance Review to permit for a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment Project on four parcels totaling 839 acres and located between 3rd Street to the west, and.2nd Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. A lot merger will be processed to consolidate all four parcels into a single lot.

8. Surrounding .Land Uses and Setting: Multi -family residences along the northwestern half of the subject site, single family residences along the northeastern half of the subjectsite, and single-familyresidences to the east beyond 21 Street and south of the subject site..

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

City of Yucaipa
Falibrook Meadows Residential Development
21Page
595
262

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 General Plan Amendment to designate a property with an existing Multiple Residential Land Use Designation as High Density Residential ("GPA" or "Project"). It establishes the context and scope for the MND, and .outlines the process for reviewing. the Draft MND and issuing the Final MND. The City of Yucaipa is the lead agency under CEQA. A "lead agency" is defined by Section

21.067 of CEQA as "thepublic 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 June 10, 2022. All written comments must be received by 5:30 p.m. June 30, 2022. Written comments or questions concerning this document should be directed to:

City of Yucaipa
ATTN: Jon Braginton
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Detailed Project Description
The proposed Project consists of an amendment to. the City of Yucaipa General Plan ("GPA") to. change the Land. Use Designation of four (44) subject parcels totaling_ 8.39 acres (APNs: 0319-253-28, -29, -30, - 84) from the City's Multiple Residential (RM-10M) Land Use Designation to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) Land Use Designation. Located between 3rd Street to the west, and 2nd Street to the. east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road, the proposed Project GPA would facilitate for the permitting of high density multifamily residential development. Concurrent with the GPA, the Project application includes a Land Use Compliance Review (LUCK) to permit for the development of a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment Project on the four subject parcels, which will also include the demolition of four (4) existing single-family residential dwellings, and a Lot Merger that will consolidate the parcels into one lot.

The Project would consist of seven (8).3-story apartment buildings and one (1) 1-story apartment building.

The Project's floor plans would consist of fifty (50) one -bedroom units (650 sq. ft.), one hundred (100) two: bedroom units (890 sq. ft.) and fifty (50) three -bedroom units (973 sq. ft.). The Project also includes 1-story, 4,.169 sq. ft., rental office and recreational building with an outdoor private pool and jacuzzi and barbeque, a recreational area consisting of tot lot play areas, a fenced -in private dog park and a walkable pathway encompassing the recreational area.

This environmental document analyzes the Project that could be constructed should the GPA be adopted and also analyzes the proposed apartment community development component under a high -density, multiple family residential use (up to a density of 24 units per acre), which could permit up to 201 units with facilitation of the proposed GPA. For comparison, the existing land use designation of AM-10M would permit 8.7 dwelling units per acre as a typical multiple family Project that would result in a total of 73 multiple family homes for the entire size of the subject parcels combined (8.39 acres), not including any 3 1 P a g e
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
5N3

Density Bonus Agreements or Accessory Dwelling Units, should the GPA not be approved. This GPA for the RM-24 designation would therefore result in a net increase of 128 dwelling units from the existing requirements. The Project also proposes an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement. The Project's architectural elevation rendering exhibits have been submitted and would be analyzed consistent with the development Standards listed in the Yucaipa Development Code for the proposed RM-24 District.

Project Setting
The proposed :GPA would change. the land use designation of approximately 8.39 acres within four (4) parcels located between 3rd Street to the west; and 2nd Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road (Figure 1 and 2). The subject parcels consist of four (4) existing single family residences fronting 2nd Street and 3`d Street with detached garages, sheds and undeveloped graded land situated toward the rear of each lot._ The property also contains non -protected trees and shrubbery near to these residences. The area is surrounded by residential uses to the north, south,. east, and west. The Project area is generally fiat with a light upward slope from west. to east, and the site has no known biological resources or other natural features. The GPA area has street frontage on 2" d Street and 3rd Street, which are paved two (2) lane local streets with an ultimate right -of --way of sixty (60) feet. Proposed Projects within the GPA area would be required to provide the necessary street improvements, including, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and matchup paving to the; existing street along the street frontage.

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

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

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

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

City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
4(Page
597
264

Figure 1— Aerial Image of Site
Figure 2 — Existing Land Use Designations
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
J1
5 1 P a g e
5N5

Figure 4 Elevations —1-story Apartment Building
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT. SIDE ELEVATION

REAR ELEVATION
shuE�uu�.rr:

City of Yucaipa. g e
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
600
267

Figure 5 —Elevations — 3-story Apartment Building
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT sbE ELEVATION
'v.*teis,r-r,r
ECAt6:ttf`s4Y'
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development

REAR ELEVATION
wi,6: xn•* ax
601
268

Figure 6 —Elevations — Clubhouse
-

REAR ELEVATION
City of Yucaipa
FmUbmookMeadows Residential Development

LEFT SIOSELEVATION
60 269

FRONTALEVATION
Q1page

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
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Recreation
Agricultural Resources
HydrologyAVater Quality
Transportation/Traffic
Air Quality
Land Use/Planning
Tribal Resources
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Cultural Resources
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Geology/Soils
Population/Housing
Greenhouse Gases
Public Services
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 re ared.

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 (1) 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,
Aon June 7, 2022
Signature
Jon. Bragnton
Date
Printed Name For
City of Yucaipa
Falibrook Meadows Residential Development
101Page
603
270

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)(5)(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.
11IFage
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
604
271

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
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development

1.21Page
6212

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

1. AESTHETICS. Would the ro`ect:
a Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not Iimited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in X
an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic uali ?
d) Create a new sourceofsubstantial light.or glare which would adversely affect X
day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Policy PR-4.7, Scenic Resources, of the City's 201.6 General Plan states that the City will "Protect Yucaipa's scenic resources, including scenic corridors along. roads and views of the hillsides,, prominent ridgelines, canyons, and other significant natural features, to the extent practical" Resources identified in the General Plan includes the City's designated Scenic Corridors (Bryant Street; Yucaipa Boulevard, Wildwood. Canyon Road, and Oak Glen Road) and the prominent hillsides, ridgelines, and open space areas that surround the City,. including Crafton Hills and the San Bernardino National Forest. The Project site is relatively flat, and is not located adjacent to the City's scenic corridors or to any unique open space features such as a prominent hillside or ridgeline. In addition, the existing development pattern within the vicinity of the proposed Pro1ect site features a mixture of single and multifamily residences, a commercial retail center located on County Line Road (Tower Center) and an elementary school on 2°1 Street (Calimesa Elementary School). The proposed Project. consists of a GPA to allow high density multiple -family development that would meet the requirements of the RM- 24 Land Use District. The setbacks and building separation requirements listed in the Development Code have been designed to ensure a compatible development pattern within the residential areas within City, and to ensure that the mass and prominence of future residential Projects are minimized along corridors. Specifically, the RM-24 Land Use District requires a minimum front yard setback of 35 feet (40 feet average) and a side yard setback of20 feet, which exceeds those listed in the existing RM Land Use District. designation. In addition, the Project area will feature maintained landscaping and with 'installation of sidewalks adjacent to the public right of ways along 2" d Street and 3rd Street. In addition, the Project design orients the smaller one- and two-story structures along the periphery of the site, and locates the three story buildings within the interior of the site, to help to minimize the building mass and bulk along public rights of way. As such, the proposed Project would have a less than significant effect on scenic vistas. b) According to Caltrans Scenic. Highway Program, there are no official state:designated scenic highways that exist within the City of Yucaipa. A portion of State Route 38 passes through the City of Yucaipa, and is an eligible state scenic highway that has not been officially designated; however, this section of roadway is located approximately five miles north from the proposed Project site. The City of Yucaipa has designated Bryant Street, Yucaipa. Boulevard, Wildwood Canyon Road, and Oak Glen Road as scenic corridors within the City. The proposed GPA would impact a site that has frontage on 2nd and 31 Street, which are not designated as scenic corridors. As such, there would be no impacts to resources along a scenic route as a result of the proposed Project.
c) The Project is located on four parcel lots consisting of four (4) existing single-family residences fronting 2n1 Street and 3' Street with graded undeveloped land toward the rear of each lot.. The property contains non -protected trees and shrubbery near to these residences, contains no other notable resources, and is surrounded by a mixture of single-family residences and multiple family developments. The GPA area features a proposal for a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment Project featuring Spanish style architecture as part of the exterior design of each apartment building. The architectural design and conceptual landscaping for any future development that would be proposed, including the current Project, is required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to any construction as a standard Condition of Approval, and this process serves to confirm that the design would be- compatible and consistent with the residential character in.the area. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact 131Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
'1�3

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

2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies .may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest; resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,, lead agencies may refer to 'information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the states. 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 Farmland X
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 use: or X
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
a-b) According to the State Dept. of Conservation Important Farmland Map, San Bernardino County 2014, Sheet 2 of 2, the proposed Project site: is designated "Urban and Built-up Land" and does not contain any prime; unique, or important farmland. In addition, there are no active Williamson Act contracts within the City of Yucaipa. The City of Yucaipa utilizes a "one map system" in which the General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Categories are the same and combined onto one map. The property is currently designated as Multiple .Residential and proposed to be High. Density Multiple Residential, neither of which are agricultural nor forest land designations. In addition, the site is currently improved with existing single-family residences with detached garages and sheds fronting 2nd Street and 3rd Street. No agricultural activities occur onsite. The proposed GPA.and the proposed Project would not conflict, with zoning for an agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. c-d) No forest land or timberland is located within the Project site.

City of Yucaipa
Falibrook Meadows Residential Development
141Page
607
274

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

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

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

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

The regional emissions inventory for the South Coast Air Basin was compiled by SCAQMD, the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and is used for the AQMP. Regional population, housing, and employment Projections are based, in part, on the City's General Plan. land use designations. The proposed GPA would result in a land use change from the City's Multiple Residential (RM- l OM) Land Use Designation to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) Land Use Designation on approximately 8.39 acres comprised of four (4) existing parcels situated between 3rd Street to the west, and 2nd Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including. land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant Projects must be analyzed for consistency With the AQMP." A proposed Project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the Project will result in an. increase in- the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations: or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
(2) Whether the Project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of Project buildout and phase.
151Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
6L�5

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

Furthermore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially exceed theAQMPassumptions for the Project site and is consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion because the Project site currently has a residential General Plan designation, and the change of General Plan Land Use Designation from Multiple Residential (RM-10M) to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) will not substantially change the residential nature of the designation. The addition would result in a net increase of 196 ,apartment dwelling units (upon demolition and removal of four (4) single family residences) and would not result in a substantial change of the built -out Projection for the City and would represent a fractional change to the entire SCAB area. Based on the above,. the proposed Project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2016 AQMP, and a less than, significant impact will occur
b) The proposed Project would result in the development of approximately 8.39 acres into 200 multi -family apartment units.

To quantify Project -related impacts, the proposed Project was evaluated utilizing the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 air quality modeling program for this MND, using very conservative parameters for its assessment. The results of air quality modeling analysis for construction and operational emissions are as follows:

Construction -Related Regional Pollutant Emissions -
Demolition
On -Site'

2.64 25.72

20.59 004

1.30 1.16
Off-S10

0.07 0.15
0,64
U0

0.18 0.05
Subtotal

2.71 25.8:7

21.24 0:04

1.49 1.21
Grading
On -Site'

1.95 20.86

15.27 0.03

3.70 2.20
Off -Site?

0.06 0.04

0.62 0.00

0.17 0.05
Subtotal

2.01 20:90
15,89
0 03

3.87 2,25
Building Construction
On -Site[

1.71 1562

16.36 0.03

0.81 0.76
Off-Sitez

1.24 3:87
11,97
0:04

3.44 0:96
Subtotal

2.94 19A9

28.33 0.07

4.25 1.72
Paving.

On -Site'

1.48 10;19

14.85 0.02

0.51 0.47
Off-Sito

0.06 0.04

0.57 U0

0.17 0:05
Subtotal

1.54 10.23

15.42 0:02

0.68 051
Architectural Coating
On -Site)

62.38. 1.30

1.81 0.00

0.07 0:07
Off -Sit 2
0:21

0.13 2.00

0.01 0.60

0.16 Subtotal

62.59 1.43

3.81 0:01,

0.67 0.23
Total for overlapping phases3
67,07

31.15 47.56

0.10 5.59

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

FallbrookMeadowsResidattial Project Air -Quality, Global Climate Change, and EnergylmpactAnalysis, Table 6, Gandini Group Inc., September 14,2021.

CaIEEMod Version 2020.4.0
161Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development

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

Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions
Area Sourcest

5.37 3;18

17.82 0.02

0.33 033
Energy Usage'

0.09 0.80

0.36 0.01

0.06 006
Mobile Sources3
5,07

7.00 49..92,

0.11 10.65

2.89 Subtotal Emissions

10.53 10.98

68.09 0.13

11.04 3.29
-existing single-family
residentialuses to be
-1.28
-0.32
-3.75
-0.01
-0.58
-0.38
removed
Total Emissions
9:25

10.66 64.35
0,13

10.46 2.91
SCAQMD Thresholds-
55 55
550
150
150
55 Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source:

FallbrookMeadowsResidmtialPrvjectAzi Quality, Global Climate Change, and EneygylmpactAnalysls, Table9, Gandin Groupinc, September 14, 2021.

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

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

Construction related impacts would be reduced by the appropriate dust icontrol measures implemented during each phase of development, as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust, The requirements for Rule 403 include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the lots, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Engineering Department :specific Conditions of Approval for any future development proposals would include provisions for Rule 403 that will apply during grading and building activities to minimize fugitive dust. Other SCAQMD rules would also apply, such as Rule 1113 for low VOC paints and materials. Operational impacts would be minimized by adherence to the Building Code and Title 24 requirements. Other SCAQMD rules, such;as. Rule 445. prohibiting the use of wood -burning fireplaces, would also apply and reduce operational impacts. As such, impacts would be less than significant. d, e) The Project site is adjacent to residences and near to an elementary school (Calimesa Elementary School), which is considered to be sensitive receptor by the City's General Plan. During site improvement construction activities associated with future residential development, there may be some level of odor exposure resulting from asphalt paving and roadway improvements activities. However, the limited duration and area involved in paving activities would nottresult in significant City of Yucaipa
Falibrook Meadows Residential Development
610
277

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

Significant
Significant
Impact
With.

Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
levels of odors affecting a substantial number of people, as there are a relatively limited number of residences in the direct vicinity of the site. In addition; the operations of residential Projects do not include materials or uses that create substantial odors, and instead would introduce families near the site, allowing for their children to walk to school. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and'Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife X
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, h, drolo ical 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 resources, X
such as:a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat; Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat X
conservationplan?
a-c, e, f) The Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Yucaipa. The Project site is not identified in Figure PR-5, Wildlife Corridors of the General Plan. A visual site investigation conducted by Staff confirmed that that the Project site has been disturbed by the existing residence and accessory structure, and does not feature any candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; wetlands; and wildlife corridors.

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

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

31. If the nesting bird clearance survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires buffers 18[Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
6k7g

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

Mitigation Measures:

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

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

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project:
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 GPA is located on four (4) parcels and contains four (4) residences that would be demolished and removed as part of the development. The four residences are located at the following addresses:
• 13644 Second Street
• 1-3662 Second Street
• 13,682 Second. Street
• 13649 Third Street
As described in the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report (Appendix B), the three listed residences on Second Street and the single residence on Third Street have all been extensively altered on the exterior through various additions and replacements and therefore concluded in the Report as not being eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places (1`RI-IP). As a result, no adverse change to the significance of a historical resource .is expected to occur. b) Figure PR-6 of the City's General Plan identifies that the subject site is not located within a Cultural Sensitivity Area.

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

City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
19GPage
6279

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

In accordance with AB 52 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to representatives of the Native American contacts (provided by the. NAHC on March 10, 2022) on April 12,. 2022, formally inviting tribes to consult with the.

City on the GPA. The intent of the consultations is to ,provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work :together with the City during the Project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural resources.

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

As a result of the consultation efforts, Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2 have been developed for the Project and are included as part of the proposed Project's Condition of Approval. No resources were identified by the Historical/Archeological Resources Report that was prepared by CRM Tech. Incorporation of the mitigation measures will ensure a less than significant;impact.

CR-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60400t 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 Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre -contact and/or historic -era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. • CR-2: If significant pre -contact and/or historic -era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN..for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist -shall monitor the remainder of the Project and implement the Plan accordingly. c) There are no known human remains on the site. A review of historic -aerial photos and maps at 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. Measure TRI-4 is included to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
201Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook. Meadows Residential Development
'So

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
significant
significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• TR-4: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the Project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, Project archaeologist; and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The Project proponent shall then inform the San Bernardino County Coroner and the City of Yucaipa Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 70505 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the applicant shall comply with the state relating to. the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage" Commission (NAHC) (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall :contact the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant(s)(MLD): The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The disposition of the remains shall be overseen by the MLD to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts. • The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials- will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting archaeologist in conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the San Bernardino County Museum.

According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052) determined in consultation between the Project proponent and the MLD. In the event that the Project proponent and: the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply and the median and decision process will occur with the NAHC (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) and 5097:94(k)).

6. ENERGY. Would the.project:,
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 7
a) This impact analysis focuses on the three.sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed Project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with Project operations as well as the fuel necessary for Project construction. The analysis of electricity/natural gas usage is based on the CalEEMod modeling within the Air Quality Study, which quantifies energy use for occupancy, The Project's estimated electricity and natural gas consumption is based primarily on CalEEMod's default settings for San Bernardino County, and consumption factors provided by Southern California. Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company, the electricity and natural gas provider for the Project site, respectively.

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

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
As shown in Tables 16 thru 19 of the Energy Impact Analysis; Project fuel consumption for construction equipment would amount to approximately 42,587 gallons of fuel, approximately .39,303 gallons for construction workers trips; approximately 18,057 gallons for construction vendors trips, an&approximately 1,199 gallons for construction hauling trips. With respect to estimated vehicle miles traveled:(VMT),. the vendor and hauling trips would generate an estimated 128,563 VMT: Data regarding Project related construction worker trips were based on CalEEMod 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
Project Operational Energy Consumption
Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operationswould 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 was assumed to be 6.9 miles and 3- 4-axle trucks were assumed to travel an average of 16.6 miles. The Project includes the development of the site with residential uses; therefore, in order to present a worst -case scenario, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 20 of the Energy Analysis shows the estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy -heavy trucks would be estimated at approximately 171,045 gallons of fuel throughout the operation of the Project. Furthermore the state of California consumed approximately 4.2 billion gallons of diesel and 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015.

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

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

As shown in Table2,1 of the Energy Analysis, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed Project is approximately 933,207 kWh per year'. In 2019, the residential sector of the County of San Bernardino consumed approximately 5,054 Without the reduction of energy used by the existing residential uses that are to be removed.

City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
221Page
6A2

Issues and Supporting Information
potentially
Less than
Less Than
No.Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
million kWh of electricity. In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed Project is approximately 3,159,560 kBTU per year. In 2019, the residential sector of the County of San Bernardino consumed approximately 275million thermsof 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.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, jur.y, 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 X
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
(ii) Sarong seismic ground shaking?
X
i 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 .resultin on- or off -site X
landslide,. lateral. spreading,. subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994.), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or X
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ofseptic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the X
disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
a) i-iv). The site does not ;lie within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault .Zone as defined by State of California AlIquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. However, Southern California is a seismically active area. As such, seismic shaking may occur, and seismic ground shaking and ground rupture due to movement of a fault is a potential 2 Without the reduction of natural gas used by the existing residential uses that are to be removed. 231Page
City of Yucaipa
Failbrook Meadows Residential Development
'A3

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

Incorporated
hazard in Yucaipa. The Project will be required to comply with the Yucaipa. Municipal Code and the Building Code, which is designed to mitigate earthquake hazards. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) has identified groundwater within 50 feet of the surface as a potential problem for seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction.

According to the Yucaipa General Plan, 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, and the San Bernardino Municipal Valley Water District, the depth to ground water at the subject property and the surrounding Western Heights Sub -Basin is approximately 350 feet. Due to the depth of groundwater, the potential for liquefaction near the subject area is considered minimal. The Project site is also located on and surrounded by relatively flat land and is therefore not susceptible to seismically induced landslides. b) The Project site is not traversed by any USGS identified drainage courses'. The Project would be required to prepare and implement all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and appropriate BMPs (Best Management Practices) through a Storm Water Pollution. Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). These plans are a standard condition for Projects over one (1) acre in size and are intended to minimize soil erosion and prevent the off -site discharge of pollutants. Compliance with these provisions would ensure less than significant impacts for any future residential Project. c) See above items 6 (a) and (b). Due to the depth of groundwater and relatively flat terrain of where the proposed use is to be located, the_potential for liquefaction or landslide is minimal. d) The area subject to the GPA is not identified as being within the City's Geologic Hazard Overlay as shown on General Plan Exhibit S-1, and is not expected to be susceptible to landslides and related phenomenon. The site is relatively flat, and is not located adjacent to any unstable areas, such as steep hillsides. As such, the proposed Project would not impact a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and would not cause such an area to become unstable as a result of the Project.
e) The property is located adjacent to an existing Yucaipa Valley Water District sewer line. Any future development would be conditioned to connect to the District's infrastructure; and the use of septic tanks would not be required. f) Figure 5.5-1 (Paleontological Sensitivity Map) of the General Plan EIR identifies that the subject site is located within a Paleontological Resource Sensitivity Area. According to the General Plan EIR, any development that proposes grading to occur five feet below .current elevation and in areas of moderate to high sensitivity or unknown paleontological sensitivity, to prepare a prepare a: technical paleontological assessment by a qualified paleontologist in assessing/reporting the sensitivity of a Project -site for buried paleontological resources to the City of Yucaipa.prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM GEO 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. Fossil& include large and small vertebrate and invertebrate fossils; the latter recovered by screen. washing of bulk samples.
3 US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Mapper, httos:Hfwsprimary.win usgs,._jzov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ 241
P:ag
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
US

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
If resources are known or reasonably anticipated, the assessment shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, includinga monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified paleontologist. The mitigationplan 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 gradingshall occur in the area of the discovery until the City concurs in writing that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.

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

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

To determine whether if the Projecfs 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. 2020A.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 weremadeto the default area source emissions.

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

Mobile Sources
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
251Page
'55

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

Water
Water includes the water used for the interior of the building as well as for landscaping and is based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter the water. No changes were made to the default water usage parameters.

Construction
The construction related GHG emissions were also included in the analysis and were based on a 30 year amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009. The construction related GHG emissions were calculated by CalEEMod.

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

Project -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
261Page
.t

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

Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
-existing residential uses to be removed
-1.42
-59:51
-60.94
-0.07

0.00 -63.45
Total Emissions

26.28 2,127.56
2,153 83

1.88 0.10
2,231.27
SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold
a,000
Exceeds Threshold?
No
Source:

FallbrookMeadous Residential ProjectAir- Quality, Global Climate Change, and Energy Impact Analysis, Table 11, Gandini Group inc., September I4, 2021.

UEEN4od Version 2020.4,0 for Qpening Year 2023.

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

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

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

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

At a net level of 2,231.27 MTCO2e per year, the Project's GHG emissionsdo 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, S13-32 and, does not need to accrue points through the CAP's Screening Tables.

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

9.. HAZARDS AND, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would theproject? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X
routine trans , ort, 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?
271Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
'57

Issues and Supporting. Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X
substances, or waste within one- uarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is.included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 659,62.5 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-d) The GPA would permit residential development consistent with the proposed R1VI-24 land use designation, and allow for multiple -family uses. It is not anticipated that a residential Project would directly involve the routine transport of hazardous materials; however; equipment used at the site during construction activities could utilize substances considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and gasoline from typical construction equipment, and would therefore have the potential to discharge hazardous materials during construction-. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling; use, and disposal of these -materials are regulated by federal and state requirements, for which the Project construction activities would be required to strictly adhere to.

These regulations include: the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (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 theoff-site discharge of pollutants during construction and operation of the Project, impacts would be less than significant During operation of the Project, potential hazardous materials would be limited to routine elements -associated with residential development, including the use of yard fertilizers, house cleaners and solvents, and chlorine for the swimming pool amenity; which would not represent a significant hazard. Further, no hazardous materials will be transported to or from the site during Project construction or operation. The site is also not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compileid pursuantto Government Code Section 65962.5.

Because the Project site contains four (4) residences that have existed for more than 45 years, an asbestos containing material (ACM) and lead -based paint (LBP) survey will be required as a condition of approval and required to be conducted prior to the issuance of a demolition permit to assess each resident structure for the presence of ACMs and LBPs. If survey results indicate the presence of these hazardous materials, an ACM and/or LBP removal plan will be required to address the standard protocol for the removal and remediation of materials by a licensed contractor certified by CalOSHA, prior to or during demolition. Any ACM/LBP materials will then be required to be disposed of at a licensed and regulated facility that accepts ACM and LBP waste materials, consistent with existing regulations. 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 7.5 miles northwest from the Project site. In addition, the Project is not within the. Redlands'Airport,Land Use Compatibility. Plan. No impacts would occur with the Project. f) The proposed GPA would impact four parcels located between 3rd Street to, the west,. and 2nd Street to the east, at approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road. The subject site is currently designated for multiple residential uses, and, that upon facilitation of the GPA, development of the proposed high density multiple residential use would 281Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development

Issues and. Supporting Information
Potentially
Less. than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
not .impact access to users traveling along the public right-of-way, Further, Figure S-5 of the Yucaipa General PIan does not designate 2nd Street and 31 Street as a primary evacuation route; only County Line Road approximately 375 feet to the south is designated as a Local Evacuation Route. As such, the proposed Project will not impair implementation. of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g) The Project site is within an urbanized area and adjacent to existing residential. development. The Project site is not within a special Fire Safety Review Area according to>the City General flan, nor adjacent to wildland areas. However, risks to future development from fire hazards are addressed through adherence to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as required by the City Fire Department, which includes provisions for adequate fire access that are addressed through the.Project's internal circulation design, sprinkler water systems within habitable living spaces, and the placement of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals that meet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code:.

1.0. HYDROLOGY AND WATERQUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. or X
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water qualityZ b) Substantially decrease.groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater X
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of X
impervious- surfaces, in a manner which would:
result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; X
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner X
which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial X
additional sources of`polluted runoff, or
iv . impede or redirect4lood flows?
X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to X
project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or X
sustainable groundwater managementplan'?
c) Wastewater treatment for the Project area is provided by Yucaipa Malley Water District (YVWD), and the Project would be required to connect to the YV WD sewer collection and treatment system as a- standard condition of approval.

Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project would also be required to comply with all applicable National Discharge Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) requirements through adoption -and implementation of a SWPPP and WQMP during the construction and operational phases. The structural and nonstructural BMPs and other measures included in the SWPPP and WQMP would address water quality and waste discharge concerns associated the Project, and along with the sewer connection, a less than significant impact is anticipated. b) The proposed Project site receives potable water service that is provided by the South Mesa Water Company. No hazardous materials or other materials will be injected into groundwater supplies and no wells are proposed for the Project which would have the potential to draw from the groundwater table. Impacts would be less than significant, c (i thru iv), e). The Project site is not located within a drainage course, nor a designated floodway and or 100- and 500-year floodplain, and no defined blue line stream is depicted on the Yucaipa, CA U.S.G.S. Map for the Project area. The Project site is relatively flat, gently sloping upward from west to east, and does not feature any significant drainage features. Onsite runoff upon. completion of the Project will be conveyed downslope from east to west via 291Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
6_0

Issues and Supporfing Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With.

Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
curb and gutter to where runoff will be discharged into an onsite, 7,000 square foot retention basin designed to accommodate 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. The Project's area of disturbance encompasses approximately U9 acres. The Construction General Permit requires an applicant to. prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution.

Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would include a list of best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and to contain the, potential for discharge of construction -related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources... The 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:
• 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,.
a 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'simpact with regard to violating any water quality standards will be reduced to .less than significant. d) The proposed Project site is not within a 100-year flood plain, based upon a review of the latest FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map, 06071C8745H, revised August 28, 2008. As such, and upon facilitation of the proposed GPA, no future structures built under the High Density Multiple Residential land use designation for the Project site would be placed within a 1.00-year flood plain, nor would new structures impede or redirect flood flow. 301Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
io
t-

Issues -and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
Figure 4 FEMA Flood Map
Source:

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

Based on review of the 2016 General Plan and recent aerial photo maps; the proposed Project is not subject to the potential effects of a seiche, tsunami, or mudflows caused by such due to lack of upstream water bodies. The City of Yucaipa is located just east of the 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 potential for a seiche to occur is remote, given the limited number of large water bodies within Yucaipa and its sphere of influence. Therefore, no impact is expected,

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would 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 four subject parcels containing four (4) existing residential homes with graded undeveloped land toward the rear of each lot. Currently, the existing RM-10M Land Use Designation either permits for the subject parcels containing single-family residence to remain, or to be 311Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
6J� 1

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
demolished and removed followed by development of multiple family residences through the approval of a planning entitlement. The proposed GPA, with the four (4) parcels merged; would meet the minimum district size of 5 acres to change the land use: designation of the property from RM-IOM to. High DensityMultiple. Residential (.RM-24). The development of the four parcels with either single=family or multiple -family use development would not bisect any portion of the surrounding residential :land designations with. a non-residential land use designation (i.e., commercial, industrial), and would be completely contained within the Project area parcels. As such, no new structures that could be developed under the proposed GPA would have the potential to physically divide a community,, and the Project does not propose. any other action that would physically divide an established community. b) The proposed GPA would change the City's General Plan/Land Use Map to allow for High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24) development as opposed to the current designation allowing for Multiple Residential (RM-1On development. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Land Use Compliance Review (LUCK) is to allow for the development of a high density multiple -residential Project consisting of 200. apartment dwelling units on four(4) subject parcels, which would be merged under a Lot Merger application. Improvements to the Project site are required to occur consistent with adopted development standards and good planning practices. Grading and building improvements would be undertaken consistent with appropriate City standards and drainage design criteria. No policies or plans exist for avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect that have not been taken into consideration.

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

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

Project Construction Noise: Construction noise sources are regulated within the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code Section 87.0905(b) which limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 700 PM weekdays and Saturdays with no construction allowed on Sundays or Federal holidays. The City of Yucaipa does not include a numerical noise standard associated with construction noise.

A comparison of existing noise levels and existing plus Project construction noise levels from Table 7 of the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix C) are presented below. Several monitoring sites were identified to assess the Proiect:
321Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
'ik

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

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

Project impacts related to construction noise will be minimized with adherence to Municipal Code Section 87.0905(b). and implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-7.

Groundborne vibration and noise: There are. several types of construction equipment that can cause vibration levels high enough to annoy persons in the vicinity and/or result in architectural or structural damage to nearby structures and. improvements. For example, a vibratory roller could generate up to 0.21 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet; and operation of a large bulldozer (0.089 PPV) at a distance of25 feet (two of the most vibratory pieces of construction equipment). Groundborne vibration at sensitive receptors associated with this equipment would drop off as the equipment moves away. For example, as the vibratory roller moves further than 100 feet from the sensitive receptors, the vibration associated with it would drop below 0.0026 PPV. Table 5 of the Noise .Impact Analysis identifies a PPV level of 0.25 as the threshold at which there is a risk to "architectural" damage to historic and some old buildings.

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

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

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

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

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

Project Operational Noise (permanent, On -site operational noise is usually only evaluated for commercial and industrial Projects. Quantitative analysis of on -site operational noise is typically not conducted for residential. Projects as they usually do not include stationary noise sources that could result in substantial increases in ambient noise levels resulting in violation of established standards. Therefore, the evaluation of"Project operational noise in this study is limited to the potential impacts associated with Project generated vehicular traffic (off -site noise). Depending upon how many units are proposed and the existing noise environment, Project generated vehicle trips could result in substantial increases in noise levels: Based on previous noise studies prepared for Projects located in the City, Project generated vehicle traffic is considered significant if Project -related traffic increases noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors by 5 dB.
331Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
9�3

Issues and Supporting. Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
significant
Significant
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The City of Yucaipa General. Plan identifies exterior noise levels up to 60 dBA CNEL and interior noise levels of up to 45 dBA CNEL as the standard for multi -family residential uses. The Project site is bounded by 2nd street to the east} 3`d street to the west, and is approximately 375 feet north of County Line Road to the south. The City of Yucaipa General Plan Transportation Element identifies County Line Road, in the vicinity of the Project site, as: a Secondary Highway (Arterial) (80=foot right-of-way) roadway and 2nd Street and 3' Street as local roadways. As local roadways, 2°1 Street and 31 Street will not generate enough vehicle traffic to be acoustically significant.

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

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

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

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

N0I-3 Equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when.not in use.

NOI-4 The contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all Project construction.

NOI-5 Jackhammers, pneumatic equipment and all other portable stationary noise sources shall be shielded and noise shall be directed away from sensitive receptors.

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

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

Vibration Mitigation. Measures
NOI-8 The use of vibratory rollers, or other similar vibratory equipment, is to be prohibited within 23 feet, and large bulldozers within 13 feet, of any residential structure to the north and/or south of the Project site. 341Page
City of Yucaipa
Fal{brook Meadows Residential Development
'B4

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 inanarea; either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, X
through. extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing.people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement, housing elsewhere?
X
a) The proposed Project site is located within an area generally developed with single family residences and vacant parcels. The Project includes the development of a net total of 200 dwelling units, or a population increase of approximately 564 people based upon the average Yucaipa household size 2.82 persons per household (Year 2021) as identified by the California Department of Finance (Table E-5). This increase represents a nominal difference in the City's expected build -out population of over 79;000 people and would result in attainable housing that will help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements for the 611 Housing Cycle. In addition, existing infrastructure (sewer, water, electrical, gas) on 2"d Street and 3rd Street is adequate to accommodate the proposed Project and OPA. As such, impacts are expected to be less than significant. b) There are three existing residences and one vacant residence located on the Project site. This Project would only create a temporary displacement of the three residences and would not require the construction of replacement housing as new dwelling units (200- units) would be constructed onsite.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new orphysically 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 and new on -site streets will be designed consistent with existing City Engineering and Fire Department standards, and would not require unique or altered fire protection services. As a standard condition of approval, developers are required to pay development impact fees for fire facilities that are assessed from the details of proposed Project. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection services; and Would not affect fire department service ratios or response times, nor would it require the construction of any new fire facilities.
b) The San Bernardino County 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. The proposed. Project would not require unique police protection services, since. the site has been and will continue to be accessible from 2"d Street and 31 Street and that payment of development. impact fees would off -set potential demands for increased facilities. c) The Yucaipa-Calimesa School District. would serve future development in the area. As a standard condition of approval, developers are required to pay development impact fees to the District for school facilities, prior to issuance of building permits. Under State law, impacts to school facilities are addressed by the State of California through specific procedures, such as development impact fees and the issuance of bonds. 351P'age
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
628
295

Issues and Supporting information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) The proposed Project will involve new residential development and, therefore, potentially increase the number of potential park users or affect existing park facilities. The City :ofYucaipa.has adopted development impact fees to off- set, the potential 'impact of new users caused by new development. Any future residences will be required to pay these development impact fees. In addition, and as shown in Figure 3, Site Plan Exhibit, the proposed Project would provide recreation amenities including a tot. lot-, picnic tables under covered canopy, open space with jogging path, swimming pool and spa, and a clubhouse to serve the residents of the development. e) The proposed Project would not require new or altered public facilities or services. The City requires future development to pay development impact fees for a variety of public facilities, including drainage improvements, traffic, and civic center facilities. In ,addition, the Project will complete street improvements and onsite drainage improvements to meet state and local requirements, and impacts have been addressed as part of this MND. Other necessary improvements, such as water and sewer facilities, would be provided by other agencies that have the ability to require necessary facilities to be installed by the developer and/or require payment of fees to provide for that service.

16. RECREATION. _
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of X
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include:recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might: have an adverse physical effect X
on the environment
a-b) See response to 1.5d. The Project includes .open space and recreation facilities as part of the development, which is provided for use by the residents. The property owner of the apartment complex would assume maintenance responsibilities for the proposed recreation facilities as an ongoing condition of approval.

17. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the. Project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation. system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and. edestrian facilities? X
b Conflict or be inconsistent with CE A Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision ? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a. geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dan erous :intersections} or inmin atible uses (.e.., farma u ment ? X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
a, b) The proposed GPA would change the land use designation from Multiple Residential (RMS-10M) to High Density Multiple Residential (RM-24). As a result, a high -density multiple family residential use (up to a density of 24 units per acre) could permit up to 201 units with facilitation of the proposed GPA. For comparison, the existing land use designation would permit 8.7 dwelling units per acre as a typical multiple family Project that would result in a total of 73 multiple family homes for the entire size of the subject parcels combined (8.39 acres), not including any Density Bonus Agreements or Accessory Dwelling Units, should the GPA not be approved. This GPA for the R1VI44 designation would therefore result in a net increase of 128 dwelling units from the existing requirements. To assess potential traffic -related impacts, the applicant for the proposed Project commissioned a Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix D) to address the change of use on their four (4) subject parcels. The Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared on September 9, 2021, by Ganddini Group Inc, documents the existing traffic conditions and the number of trips that would be added by development of Project. The analysis found that the proposed Project would result in approximately 1426 daily trips, including 89 trips during the AM peak hour and 108 trips during the PM peak hour. Based upon the information provided by the Traffic Impact Analysis and the recommended Project design improvements (one shared left/right turn lane and stop control) for both driveway approaches off of 2nd Street and 31 Street, the addition of these trips generated by the Project would not result in a reduced level of service to the .existing transportation system, and therefore represents a nominal and insignificant change to the number of trips within the City.

City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
361Page
'i%

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

Therefore, the proposed Project is below the City baseline by approximately 3.29" percent without implementation of any Project design features or mitigation .measures that would reduce the Project's baseline VMT. Therefore, the Project satisfies the low VMT screening criteria.
c.),The Project would not result in the modification of existing adjacent roadways in such way that would increase hazards to the roadway's geometric design. As shown in Figure 3; the Project will provide one ingress/egress driveway on 2n1 Street, one ingress/egress driveway on 3'a Street and one egress only driveway on 2nd Street. The Project also proposes the widening of 2°1 Street and 3rd Street to ;serve for vehicles approaching and leaving the Project, and installation ofProject right-of-way pedestrian sidewalks abutting these;streets consistent with the City's General Plan and street design standards. Engineering development standards would be incorporated into the design of these improvements to include traffic signage and stop controlled signage to ensure the safety of pedestrian and automobile traffic entering and leaving the Project. To ensure incorporation of safety improvements these roadways, the Project will be conditioned to pay Development Impact Fees for traffic to fund the aforementioned improvements to 2nd Street and 3' Street and for future improvements to the localized: area. These fees are the City's equivalent of the "fair share contribution to a local fund to upgrade the area's transportation infrastructure. d) The proposed Project is located adjacent to existing paved streets (2" Street and 31 Street). Onsite driveways and parkingwould be designed to. be consistent with the City's Engineering and -Fire Department standards, and include adequate driveway widths, and adequate ingress and egress width for fire and first responder vehicles.

18. TRIBAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public ResourcesCodesection 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 discretionand 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 § 50241, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
a) The Project site features four (4) existing single-family residences that would be demolished and removed as part of the development. The four residences are located at the following addresses:
• 13644 Second Street
• 13662 Second Street
+ 13682 Second Street
• 13649 Third Street
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
371Page
630
297

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

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

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

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

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

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

To address and mitigate potential impacts to this resource, future development would address the potential discoveries that could occur during land disturbing activities. Based upon the consultation process, the mitigation measures are as. follows:
• TRI-1: Prior to grading permit issuance, if there are any changes to Project site design and/or proposed grades; the future developer shall contact the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) to provide an electronic copy of the revised plans for review. Additional consultation shall occur between the City, developer and Consulting Tribes to discuss the proposed changes and to review any new impacts and/or _ 381Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
0 Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
potential avoidance/preservation of the cultural resources on the Project. The developer shall make all attempts to avoid and/or preserve in place as many as possible of the cultural resources located on the Project site. In specific circumstances where existing and/or new resources are determined to be unavoidable and/or unable to be preserved in place despite all feasible alternatives; the developer shall make every effortto relocate the resource to a nearby open space or designated location on the property that is notsubject to future development, erosion or flooding. • TRI-2: Archaeological Monitoring/Testing. Due to the possibility of present archaeological materials within the Project site, as detailed by the Consulting Tribe, one of the following shall occur:
o Archaeological testing shall be conducted prior to any and all ground -disturbing activity. The testing plan shall be approved by the Consulting Tribes and should be created upon review of available geological information, such as a geotechnical study, USGS geology maps, and,USDS soil maps. Testing shall be implemented in -field by at least one Secretary of interior Standards qualified archaeologist with at least 3 years of regional experience in archaeology and at least one Tribal representative from the Consulting Tribes. Any findings during testing shall be properly recorded on -site and reburied within the original find location (no collection shall be permitted). A testing report shall be completed, to include recordation documents (if any finds occur) and be provided to the Lead Agency for dissemination to the -Consulting' Tribes. The Lead Agency shall, in good faith, consult with the Consulting Tribes concerning the results of the testing plan and, if positive, work toward avoidance of the resources, if feasible, as well as implement the monitoring process, by way of an. Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Should no findings occur during Tribal -approved testing, monitoring shall not occur on -site and the Consulting Tribes will be notified of any inadvertent discoveries.

N•
o At least 30-days prior to application for a grading permit and before any ground disturbing activities on the site take place, which includes but is not limited to, tree/shrub removal and planting, clearing/grubbing, grading, excavation, trenching, compaction, fence/gate removal and installation, drainage; irrigation removal and installation, hardscape installation [benches, signage, boulders, walls, seat walls, fountains, etc.], etc., the future .developer shall retain a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified archaeologist with at least 3 years of regional experience and. Tribal monitors representing the Consulting Tribes shall monitor all ground -disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. A sufficient number of archaeological and Tribal monitors shall be present each workday to ensure that simultaneously occurring ground disturbing activities receive thorough levels of monitoring coverage. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide the City of Yucaipa evidence of monitors that,meet the requirements of the YSMN.

Should monitoring occur, the archaeologist, in consultation with Consulting Tribes, the developer, and the City of Yucaipa, shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the. Project site.

Details in the AMP shall include:
o Project -related ground disturbance (including; but not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching, etc.) and development scheduling;
39P'age
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
632
299

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
o The development of a rotating or simultaneous schedule in coordination with the developer and the Project archeologist for designated Native American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site: including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of work, and Native American Tribal Monitors' authority to stop and redirect grading. activities in coordination with all Project archaeologists. (if the tribes cannot come to a consensus on the rotating or simultaneous schedule of tribal monitoring; the Lead Agency shall designate the schedule for the onsite Native American Tribal Monitor for the proposed Project);
o The protocols and stipulations that the developer, City, Consulting Tribes, and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, 'including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
• TRI-3: Treatment. and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In the event that Native Americancultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, archaeological testing, etc., for the proposed Project, the following procedures will be carried outfor treatment and disposition of the discoveries; o Avoidance and Preservation in Place: Avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred treatment for any and all discoveries of archaeological materials. Should the resource not be a candidate for avoidance or preservation in place, a resource -specific mitigation plan shall be developed, reviewed by all Parties, and implemented following the guidelines listed below:
o Temporary Curation and Storage for Removed Resources: For resources that cannot be left in place; they shall be temporarily curated in a secure location onsite at an agreed to location that is secure and accessed only by a limited number of on -site supervisors, specified Tribal monitors, and the archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from- the Project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversite of the process; and o Treatment and Final Disposition of Removed Resources: For resources that cannot be left in place, the landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods; and all archaeological artifacts and non -human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Yucaipa with evidence of same:

Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the Consulting Tribes. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the fixture reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing, basic analysis, and :other analyses as recommended by the Project archeologist: and approved by the Consulting Tribes have been completed, all documents should be at a level of standard professional practice to allow the writing of a report of professional quality; ■ A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore would be professionally curated and -made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study, should the resources not be candidates for reburial. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within San 401Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
%0

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
with
Impact_
Mitigation
Incorporated
Bernardino County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;
■ If more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the Project and cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum by default.
o At the completion of all ground disturbing activities on the site, a Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the Project archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre -grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City and Consulting Tribes. Should the resources be placed within a curation facility as a final treatment, copies of all reports will be provided to the facility to remain with the collection. • TR1 4:: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event,that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the Project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, Project archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The Projectproponent shall then inform the San Bernardino County Coroner and the City of Yucaipa Community Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the applicant shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant(s)(MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The disposition of the remains shall be overseen by the MILD to determine the most appropriate means .of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts..

The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. The locations will be documented by the consulting :archaeologist in: conjunction with the various stakeholders and a report of findings will be filed with the San Bernardino County Museum.

According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052) determined in consultation between the Project proponent and the MLD. In the event that the Project proponent and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition ofthe remains, State law will apply and the median and decision process will occur with the NAHC (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e)and 5097.94(k)).
411Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
634
301

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact.

Significant
Significant.

Significant
Impact
With
Impact -
Mitigation
Incorporated,

1.9. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the:project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or X
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and.reasonably X
foreseeable future development during normal,dry and multiple. dry years? c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment.provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity toserve the project's X
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 waste X
reduction pals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?
a, b, c) The Yucaipa Valley Water District provides wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed residential development in the GPA area would be required to connect to the sewer system, and would execute a development agreement with the District. As part of the Project application, the applicant has obtained a letter from the District noting that they would be able to accommodate the proposed land use change and development. Potable water would be provided by South Mesa Water Company. As part of the application submittal, the Company noted that there was sufficient infrastructure to serve the proposed; development.. d) Solid waste services in the City of Yucaipa are provided by Burrtec, and disposed of within the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill. According to information from the CalRecycle website; operated by the State of California, this landfill has an average annual receiving capacity of500,000 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 multi -family development range from 4 to 8.6 pounds per day per dwelling uniel. With this range provided and in providing the upper threshold estimate (8.6 pounds per day), it is estimated that the Project at full occupancy would generate approximately 1,720 pounds of solid waste daily. e) Per Title 8; Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code; all property within the City is required to subscribe to refuse collection and handling services. The program is designed to collect trash, recyclables, and -green waste and to assist the City in meeting mandated AB 939 diversion goals established by the State of California. Solid waste collection and recycling services pursuant to Chapter 8.28 are a mandatory requirement for new development in the City of Yucaipa. The Project will be required to be served: by the -City -approved waste disposal service. The City of Yucaipa is currently served by a contract through Burrtec Wastes Industries, Inc. for waste collection. With the Project's adherence to Chapter 8.28 guidelines; Project impacts in regard to compliance with federal, state and local management regulations will be. reduced to less than significant. 4 CalRecycle. n.d.,SWIS Facility Detail, San Timoteo Landfill. Accessed March 30, 2022. https://.www2.calrec cl� e.ca.gov/Soli(fWaste/`Site/DataExport. 5 CalRecycle Residential Sector Generation Rates. Accessed March 8, 2022. hfps://www2,.calrecycle.ca.gov/Wastecharacterization/general/rates 6 Although the State does not officially endorse this information, it does provide some point of reference. 421Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
%2

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

20. WILDFME
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X
evacuationplan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire X
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, .fuel breaks., emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that X
may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant,risks, including. downslope-or downstream flooding or landslides; as a result of runoff, post -fire slope X
instability,.or drainage changes?
a) The Project site is located between 2°1 Street and 31 Street which are both existing 2-way, local collector paved roadways, and that development of the site would not impact access to users traveling along both public right-of-way streets. However, because the Project abuts both streets, the Project would be conditioned to construct the ultimate widening of both roadways along with installation of curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements pursuant to the requirements of the General Plan. Figure S-5 of the Yucaipa :General Plan does not designate 2"d Street and 3' Street as a local evacuation route, only County Line Road approximately 375 feet.to the south is designated as;a Local Evacuation Route. Therefore, the Project will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
b-d) The Project site is within an urbanized area, adjacent to existing residential development, and is not adjacent to wildland areas. The Project site is also not located within a Fire Safety Review Area according to the City General Plan (Figure S-3), but would be subject to the standard Fire Department; conditions of approval to reduce fire related risks. In addition, the City has also adopted the most recent version of the California Building. and Fire Codes, which includes sections on fire-resistant construction material requirements based on building use and occupancy: The construction requirements are a function of building size, purpose, type; materials, location, proximity to other structures, and the type of fire suppression systems installed. Many of these requirements are also 'included as part of the Project's Conditions of Approval as a uniformly applicable development policy, which includes provisions for adequate fire access,, sprinkler water systems within indoor spaces, and placement:of new fire hydrants at applicable intervals thatmeet the water flow requirements of the Fire Code. Through these standard requirements, impacts from fire -related hazards would be less than significant. There are no other factors onsite that would exacerbate wildfire risks, or slopes that would pose significant risks, such as post -fire slope instability, or -downstream flooding or landslides.

19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or X
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of X
a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
431Page
%3

Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Less than
Less Than
No Impact.

Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) The proposed Project will not result in significant impacts that have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. No sensitive plant or animal species or habitats are expected to be significantly impacted by the Project site.

In addition, no significant earth moving activities are proposed which could impact cultural or tribal resources: The proposed Project consists of a GPA that would facilitate high density multiple -family residential development in lieu of multiple residential development. As part of the Project, a privately gated 200-unit multi -family apartment Project is proposed on four (4) subject parcels. As noted within this N4ND, the proposed Project development that could occur under facilitation of the GPA, would not have significant impacts.
b) The proposed Project is limited to a GPA that would change the land use from multiple -family residential to high density multiple -family residential and would allow for a variety of residential use consisting of one-, two- and three -bedroom apartment units,, and a an affordability provision that will be executed through a Density Bonus Agreement. .

Given the analysis contained herein related to the potential development that could occur; the- cumulative effects of this Project are not expected to result in significant impacts. The evaluation of the. proposed Project utilized topical sections related to agriculture, biology,. cultural, air quality, geology/soils, greenhouse gases, hydrology; land use, noise, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, traffic, utilities; and services and did not identify potential significant or cumulative impacts that could not be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. c) Future development that could occur as a result of the GPA will involve site improvements that are to be constructed consistent with existing City regulations; standards, and processes, and those of other agencies. The topical issues discussed within this document did not identify the potential for adverse effects due, in part, to the incorporation of mitigation measures and standard. Conditions of Approval that be applied to any future development would address potential impacts or adverse effects on human beings..
441Page
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
%4

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

Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 February 22, 2022. https://gcode.us/codes/yucaipa/

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

5. California State Department of Conservation California Important Farmland Finder Interactive Map. Accessed February 24, 2022. hops;//maps.conservation.ca.aov/DLRP/CIFF/

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

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

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

9. CalRecycle. n.d. SWIS Facility Detail,. San Timoteo Landfill. Accessed March 30, 2022. ht!ps://www2.calre2yele.ca.gov/SolidWaste/`Site/DataExport,

10. CalRecycle Residential Sector Generation Rates. Accessed March;8, 2022. hags://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecha racterization/generaUrates

1.1. CRM Tech. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Tentative Tract Map Number 20031, Fallbrook Meadows Project, City of Yucaipa San Bernardino -County,. California, June 19, 2018.

12. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Accessed March 2, 2022. htt.ps://.msc.fema.gov/portal/home

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

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

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

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

17. South Mesa Water Company. Accessed February 24, 2022. hgps://southmesawater.com/

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

19. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. Accessed February 15, 2022. hqps://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetiands/qRl?s/wetlands-mgpl2er/

20. Yucaipa Valley Water District. Accessed February24, 2022. https://www.yvwd.us/

21. Yucaipa, CA U.S..G.S. Map
45(Pa-ge
City of Yucaipa
Fallbrook Meadows Residential Development
'A5

w
306

307

lum
309

310

312

313

Ei I
Illim

E

SCALE: 3116" = V-0"
316

NOVA 1g0MES, JNc. MATERIALS BOARD
So� Vgue-ftw, H° k FAL,L,BROOK z\IEADO
1232 VILLAGE WAY, SUITE A Y U C A I P A C A L I F O R N I A SANTA ANA, CA 92705
TEL. 714. 540. 1144

STUCCO - BODY

SANTA FE

STUCCO -ACCENT

GARRET GRAY
SW 6075

FASCIA / TRIM / TR

CHATEAU BROI
SW 7510

`
320

SITE PLAN
lon Unit Multi -family Development

Attachment 2
Elena A. Labastida
W
a CA 92399
May 2, 2023
City of Yucaipa
Council Member and Mayor
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
RE: 172 UNITS-2nd Street
Dear Honorable Council Members and Mayor,
Please accept this correspondence in support of the above mentioned project.

As a mental health therapist in the public education setting, it is imperative we provide persons and especially families with children adequate housing for them to thrive both physically, emotionally, and psychologically. There is ample research to support that poor quality housing or lack of quality housing creates stress for parents, increases their own mental health problems and limits their ability to regulate family activities. Moreover, housing quality plays an important role and lays the foundation for children's mental health.

The City of Yucaipa has a weighty decision to make with this project and upcoming multi -family high density housing projects. These apartments will provide many with safe and comfortable housing.

Projects near schools would be most advantageous since students can walk to school.

I am confident, as the elected leaders, you all see the need for these types of housing projects. Further, the State of California will likely pass further legislation for higher density projects and substantial fines for failure to adhere to these laws.

I support the 172 units proposed for approval. I am confident the elected officials will do what is best for the majority in this beautiful city.

Elena A.Labastida, M.A. M.F.T.
322

05/02/2023
Loan Kim N u en
Yucaipa CA 92399
Letter of Support for 172 Units
City of Yucaipa
Attn: Honorable Councilman and Mayor Beaver
Ref: Apartment Project (2nd Street)
Please approve the project for 172 units in the City of Yucaipa. Currently, we are building our home in Yucaipa to raise our three children.

I have an adult brother and close relatives that have been seeking to rent while they save to buy a home in Yucaipa. There is NOTHING to offer them. Staying close to family is especially important to our families. I see homes being built, but not enough apartments. These homes are for sale and not rent. We need rental housing, too.

I am hopeful that the City of Yucaipa will see the need for nice apartments in town and approve this project.

Regards,
Loan Kim Nguyen
323

• Jenaru Mion, MSN, RN
• Yucaipa, California 92399
•
May 3, 2023
RE: 2nd Street 172 Units
Dear Honorable Mayor Beaver and Councilman,
Please accept this letter of support with regard to the 172 apartment project.

As a resident, I have seen first hand just how limited housing options are for close family and friends in the City of Yucaipa. These are people that are committed to residing in the city. Many have been raised in this community and want to remain here. Moreover, I have had to open my home to several family members looking for decent, quality housing to rent in this great city.

My husband and I are both RN's, and enjoy our community with our three young children and extended family living in Yucaipa. We are confident the leaders of this city will not succumb to the few that are opposed to quality, growth with various economic development projects.

The City has made many advancements and continues to be progressive with the new leadership. Additionally, the State of California can mandate low income housing projects with even more density bonuses or we can be mindful and plan out and approve high quality multi -family projects whereby hardworking residents can enjoy and contribute to the economy of Yucaipa. Many will work and live in Yucaipa if they have the housing opportunity.

Thank you for your service. I respectfully petition you approve this project.

FnaruNion,RN
324

Jasmine W. Eastland
Yucaipa CA 92399
May 2, 2023
o:Dl. : :W::n►1.N-
Dear City Council Members,
I just sold my home in Yucaipa with the above -mentioned address. Unforeseen circumstances have arisen, and we had to sell our home we recently purchased. Also, lived at 34326 Forest Oaks Drive in Yucaipa with my family.

My husband and I just had our first child approximately five months ago. I work as a licensed dietician with the County of Riverside in a local hospital.

It has been exiting to the City of Yucaipa changing for its residents. Thank you for bringing so many conveniences to our city. We love the In-N-Out Burger, Chick-fil-A, Panera, and other businesses recently opened in our city. The upper downtown area of Yucaipa is so much better! I write to kindly request the City of Yucaipa approve the 172 units on 2nd street. We desperately need nice apartments. Ideally, everyone would own their home, but that is not realistic due to so many different situations and circumstances. Renters still purchase services and merchandise in the city. Their children still need education by attending schools and a welcoming and safe place to live.

I had approval with ADU on my home since it would have been an economic hardship to pay close to $4,000.00 per month as first time buyers and first time parents. An nice apartment option would have been ideal, but now we must move in with family until circumstances improve.

Please approve the 172 units on 2nd Street and other well designed apartments for our city. imm
Wasmine W. Eastland
Rcsidcnt
325

Gina Saad
Yucaipa, CA 92399
May 2, 2023
Honorable Mayor Justin Beaver
Honorable Council Members
City of Yucaipa
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
As a real estate broker for over 25 years and a homeowner in Yucaipa, I wish to provide my support for the proposed 172 units on 2nd Street.

At this time, my daughter, her husband and my two grandchildren reside with my husband and I along with our children. They have sought to rent an apartment or home in Yucaipa. It is these circumstances that have brought to light the dire rental situation and minimal housing opportunities for renters in this great city. Many families work in the City and need quality housing. Especially families with school aged children. Planning and supporting multi -family housing projects near schools where they can minimize traffic and walk their children or have their age appropriate children walk to school is vital. Families need housing and schools need students!
The City of Yucaipa is a gem in the Inland Empire! Let's be courageous and support well planned market rent projects where families enhance our great City. The 172 units is a drop in the bucket for what is needed in this City, but it is a fantastic step in the right direction. 326

Katrina Fonseca
Yucaipa CA 92399
05/0212023
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa CA 92399
Re: 172 APARTMENT PROJECT -2nd Street
This letter is to state I would like the City of Yucaipa to approve the 172 units proposed on 2nd Street. This City has very little options for my family. My husband and I are expecting our first child and have been married close to two years.

It is our desire to raise our family here in Yucaipa. We visit the parks frequently and love this city. We look forward to bringing our son to the Yucaipa Regional Park to play.

At this time, we live with family, while we search for a place to rent. The options are slim to none. It has been years since the City of Yucaipa built any nice apartments for residents. Now, we have grown up and want to stay near family and need housing. We do not want to move to another city!
Please approve the 172 apartment project. It is much needed! Currently, I am finishing up my college work at Crafton Hills Community College. I would like to pursue a career in teaching.

When we qualify for our home,one day in the future,it is our hope and dream to live here. In the meantime, please approve this project so we can have a place we can be proud to call home while we save to buy and raise our children.

WM
Katrina Fonseca
Yucaipa Resident
327

328

Christopher Bentley
Yucaipa CA 92399
05/02/2023
TO: City of Yucaipa
Council and Mayor
REF: 172 MULTI -FAMILY PROJECT
I respectfully request that you approve the 172 units that are proposed on 2nd Street in Yucaipa.

Locating an apartment for rent has been nearly impossible after the sale of our home.

The couple choices for rentals that were available and previewed are old and dilapidated.

Yucaipa needs high quality housing projects. We do not need low income Section 8 projects. We need housing for people who are working and earning a good living.

Please approve this project to provide stability and options for families to have a place to call home here in Yucaipa.

I hear so many opposers to growth speaking out, but that does not represent the majority of the Yucaipa population! What of all the employees at the restaurants off Yucaipa Boulevard and the I-10? What of the Sorenson Engineering employees? All these jobs we need and want here in Yucaipa! With jobs comes some responsibility to provide housing for these employees to live. Saving commute time and our resources is important, and this can be achieved with providing housing for these employees working in this wonderful city.

Thank you for your service! Please vote yes on this project. woom
Christopher Bentley
329

Eunice Alvarez
Yucaipa CA 92399
May 2, 2023
RE: Fallbrook Meadows Project
172 Unit Apartments
Dear Honorable Council Members and Mayor,
am writing this letter of support of the 172 quality apartments in the Fallbrook Meadows housing project along with others that create quality living environments for families. have lived in Yucaipa for over 18 years. We are excited over all the eateries, stores and how Yucaipa has improved for the better over these years. There are many improvements for all of the residents to enjoy.

As a senior citizen, I have been privileged to have a large family with adult grandchildren raising families that need housing options to stay living here in The City of Yucaipa. They want to stay close to be by their parents, uncles, aunts, cousins and of course their aging grandparents.

Having my family around to assist me with support. such as doctor's appointments. is priceless.
trust you will make the right decision for the majority residents in the City, which are families that desperately need quality housing options.

M
ion,
Eunice Alvarez
Resident of Yucaipa
330