Yucaipa City Council
March 27, 2024

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
habitat for special-status species. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or
ecosystem processes. This can be accomplished using a
variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular
maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems.
• Toxicants. Land uses that use chemicals or generate
bioproducts such as manure, fertilizer, or vineyard waste that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect plant species, wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharges. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented.
• Lighting. Night lighting shall be directed away from
proposed open space and/or suitable habitat for special- status species to protect species from direct night lighting.

Shielding shall be incorporated in Project designs to ensure ambient lighting is not increased. Any trails that intersect proposed open space will not include night lighting.
• Noise. Proposed noise-generating land uses affecting
suitable habitat for special-status species shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards.
• Invasive Species. When approving landscape plans for
future development, emphasis will be placed on using native species that occur in the region. Invasive, nonnative plant species listed on the most recent California Invasive Plant Council inventory ( https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/) 14803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 19
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
with a rating of moderate or high shall not be included in landscaping.
• Barriers. Future development shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs, to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation,
illegal trespass, or dumping in proposed open space and/or suitable habitat for special-status wildlife. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms. Any
proposed trails through open space will have gates that close at nighttime, as well as signage and appropriate barriers to keep people and domestic animals on the trail.
• Restoration of Temporary Impacts. Prior to issuance of a grading or construction permit within the Project, grading and construction plans shall include the following note regarding any temporary impacts to uplands:

Site construction areas subjected to temporary ground disturbance in undeveloped areas shall be subjected to revegetation with an application of a native seed mix, if necessary, prior to or during seasonal rains to promote passive restoration of the area to pre-Project conditions (except that no invasive plant species will be restored). An area subjected to “temporary” disturbance means any area that is disturbed but will not be subjected to further
disturbance as part of the project. If any grading occurred in areas intended to remain undeveloped, the site will be
recontoured to natural grade. This measure does not apply to situations in urban/developed areas that are temporarily impacted and will be returned to an urban/developed land use. Prior to seeding temporary ground disturbance areas, the project biologist will review the seeding palette to ensure that no seeding of invasive plant species, as identified in the most recent version of the California Invasive Plant Inventory for the region, will occur.
14903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
BIO-4 Pre-construction Pond Check. A pre-construction pond check shall occur within the construction area prior to the rainy season before start of construction activities. If no potential habitat for western spadefoot is found during the survey, no further mitigation would be required.

If potential habitat for western spadefoot is identified, construction fencing appropriate for amphibian exclusion will be installed around the construction area. A pre-construction pond check and focused survey for western spadefoot will be conducted the winter prior to grading activities within the construction area. The pond check will occur within 24 hours of the winter season’s first three rain events and prioritize ponded features that hold water for 45 days or greater.

Ideally, these rain events would produce a minimum of 0.2 inches during a 24-hour period.

If western spadefoot are detected during surveys within the fenced construction footprint, then biologists shall collect western spadefoot adults from areas within 300 feet of known occupied pools. Adults shall be relocated outside of the construction footprint to portions of Wilson Creek (see MM BIO-5) that have suitable breeding habitat and few or no western spadefoot individuals. Relocation of western spadefoot will follow the latest amphibian handling guidelines provided by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
Prior to Rainy Season,
Before Start of
Construction
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

BIO-5 Open Space Conservation. Future development of the project outside of Wilson Creek Estates will prioritize the configuration of open space such that a minimum 1,000-foot corridor is created along Wilson Creek where feasible with the limits of the project boundary. In areas where creating a minimum 1,000 foot corridor is not feasible, the constricted part of the corridor will occupy a length no longer than 500 feet. Throughout the open space, the following measures will be implemented:

Future Project Applicants Prior to Grading Permit
Issuance and On-going
Operation
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

15003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 21
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
• Lighting will be directed toward development and shielded away from the open space.
• Trails will not be in use from dusk to dawn, pets must be on leashes, and the trails will only be used for hiking and biking. • Trails may be temporarily closed to control unauthorized access.
• When feasible, the open space corridor will be buffered by vineyards, parks, or naturally landscaped berms to reduce light and noise affects within the corridor.

BIO-6 Pre-construction Nesting Bird Survey. Construction activities shall avoid the migratory bird nesting season (typically January 1 through September 30) to reduce any potential significant impact to birds that may be nesting within the construction area. If construction activities must occur during the migratory bird nesting season, an avian nesting survey of the Project site and within 500 feet of all impact areas must be conducted to determine the presence/absence of fully protected species (including white-tailed kite), protected migratory birds, and active nests. The avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to the start of construction in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If an active bird nest is found, the nest shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with an appropriate buffer established around the nest, which will be determined by the biologist based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and special-status species). The nest area shall be avoided until the nest is vacated and the juveniles have fledged. The nest area shall be demarcated in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. On-site construction monitoring shall also be conducted when an active nest buffer is in place. No Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
During Construction
Outside of Bird Nesting
Season
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

15103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
project activities may encroach into established buffers without the consent of a monitoring biologist. The buffer shall remain in place until it is determined the nestlings .

BIO-7 Pre-construction Burrowing Owl Surveys and Avoidance.

One pre-construction burrowing owl survey shall be
completed no more than 14 days before initiation of site preparation or grading activities and a second survey shall be completed within 24 hours of the start of site preparation or grading activities. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction surveys, the project site shall be resurveyed. Surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted in accordance with
protocols established in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game [now California Department of Fish and Wildlife;
CDFW]) in 2012 or current version.
• If burrowing owls are detected, a burrowing owl relocation plan shall be prepared and implemented in consultation with the City of Yucaipa. The relocation plan shall discuss the avoidance of disturbance to burrows during the nesting
season for burrowing owls (February 1 through August 31), as well as appropriate buffers to be established around occupied burrows as determined by a qualified biologist. No project activities shall be allowed to encroach into
established buffers without the consent of a monitoring biologist. The buffer shall remain in place until it is determined that occupied burrows have been vacated or the nesting season has completed.
• Outside of the nesting season, passive owl relocation techniques approved by CDFW shall be implemented. Owls
shall be excluded from burrows in the immediate Project area and within a buffer zone if there is a threat to the surface or subterranean burrow structure by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors will be placed at least 48 Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
No More than 14 Days
Prior to Site Preparation
or Grading Activities
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

15203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 23
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
hours prior to ground-disturbing activities. The project area shall be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm owl departure from burrows prior to any ground-disturbing activities.

Compensatory mitigation for permanent loss of owl habitat will be provided following the guidance in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation or current version. • Where possible, burrows will be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible plastic pipe shall be inserted into the tunnels during
excavation to maintain an escape route for any wildlife inside the burrow.

BIO-8 Pre-construction Clearance Surveys. Pre-construction clearance surveys for special-status wildlife shall be
conducted by a qualified Project biologist within 14 days of the initiation of ground disturbance or vegetation clearing within and adjacent to construction areas. Surveys shall be
appropriate for detecting potentially occurring species, such as Dulzura pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket
mouse, San Diego desert woodrat, southern grasshopper
mouse, Los Angeles pocket mouse, Southern California
legless lizard, California glossy snake, coastal whiptail, red diamondback rattlesnake, Blainville’s horned lizard, and coast patch-nosed snake. Surveys need not be conducted in all areas simultaneously, as long as they are conducted within 14 days of the initiation of ground disturbance or vegetation clearing in each area individually. If special-status species are detected, appropriate buffers shall be established, as
necessary and as appropriate for the species, unless it is not feasible to avoid the species. If possible, nonlisted special- status wildlife species may be captured and relocated to suitable habitat nearby where they are safe from construction activities. Surveys and relocation of these species may only be conducted by the qualified project biologist.

Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
Within 14 Days of
Initiation of Ground
Disturbance or
Vegetation Clearing
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

15303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
• If nonlisted special-status reptiles or small mammals are detected, they will be moved out of harm’s way.
• The project biologist shall remain available at all times after initiation of ground disturbance or vegetation clearing, in case special-status wildlife species enter the construction area. If non-listed special-status species are detected in the construction area after initiation of ground disturbance or vegetation clearing, the qualified project biologist shall take measures to move the species, or encourage it to move, to a safe place away from construction activities.

BIO-9 Pre-construction American Badger Surveys and
Avoidance. Impacts to American badger individuals and
wintering and natal dens shall be avoided and minimized during construction activities through the following measures. • Pre-construction Surveys (Wintering). During the colder months (generally between November 1 and February 15, when daily temperatures do not exceed 45°F), pre-
construction surveys shall be conducted by the project
biologist in suitable habitat no earlier than 14 days prior to construction act ivities to determine whether American
badger winter dens are present within the construction zone or within 100 feet of the construction zone boundary.
• Avoidance Measures (Wintering). If an American badger winter den is occupied within the construction zone or within 100 feet of the construction zone, then the den location shall be clearly marked with fencing or flagging in a manner that does not isolate the badger from intact adjacent habitat or prevent the badger from accessing the den, to avoid
inadvertent impacts on the den. If it is not practicable to avoid the wintering den during construction activities, an attempt will be made to trap or flush the individual and relocate it to suitable open space habitat. Additionally, badgers can be relocated by slowly excavating the burrow, either by hand or Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
During the Colder
Months, No Earlier Than
14 Days Prior to
Construction Activities
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

15403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 25
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
mechanized equipment under the direct supervision of the project biologist, removing no more than 4 inches at a time.

After necessary trapping, flushing, or burrow excavation is completed, construction may proceed and the vacated
winter den may be collapsed. If trapping is required, trapping will be limited to November 16 through the last day of
February in accordance with Section 461, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR 461). A written
report documenting the badger removal shall be provided to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife within 30 days of relocation.
• Pre-construction Surveys (Natal Dens). During the late winter and summer (generally from March 15 through July 31), when American badgers may use natal dens for birthing and pup rearing, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by the project biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing construction activities to determine whether American badger natal dens are present within the project construction zone or within 200 feet of the
construction zone.
• Avoidance Measures (Natal Dens). If natal dens are
detected during construction, construction activities shall be halted within 200 feet of the natal den. This buffer may be reduced based on the location of the den or type of
construction activity, based on the direction of the project biologist. Construction activities shall not preclude the ability of the documented badgers to disperse to on-site open
space or off-site habitat when the natal den is vacated (i.e., habitat suitable for dispersal must be maintained until dispersal occurs). Construction will be postponed or halted in these areas until it is determined by the project biologist that the young are no longer dependent on the natal den. To avoid inadvertent impacts during construction and to ensure that construction activities are at least 200 feet from active 15503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
natal dens, any active natal dens within the survey area shall be clearly marked with fencing or flagging in a manner that will not inhibit normal behavioral activities (e.g., foraging and dispersing from the site) by the mother and pups.

BIO-10 Pre-construction Survey for Crotch Bumble Bee. A pre- construction survey for Crotch bumble bee shall occur within the construction area during the primary flight period for workers and males (March 1 through June 30) prior to the start of construction activities. The survey shall ensure that no nests for Crotch bumble bee are located within the
construction area. Crotch bumble bee is a habitat generalist, ground-nesting bee. For the purposes of this mitigation measure, nest resources are defined as small mammal
burrows, bunch grasses with a duff layer, thatch, hollow trees, rock walls, and brush piles. While no standardized survey methodology is currently available from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for Crotch bumble bee, the following survey methods were reviewed to develop one: (1) U.S. National Protocol Framework for the Inventory Monitoring of Bees (2017) for North American bumble bees, prepared by S. Droege, J.D. Engler, E. Sellers and L.E.

O’Brien; and (2) Survey Protocols for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis), a federally listed bumble bee located in the Midwestern United States, prepared by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service in 2019. This protocol generally follows previous CDFW-approved methods developed to accomplish similar surveys related to 1600 Streambed
Alteration Agreement conditions and Incidental Take Permit conditions. Any official protocol released by CDFW will supersede the protocol outlined in this mitigation measure.

The pre-construction survey will be performed by a biologist with expertise in surveying for bumble bees and include four survey passes that are disturbed throughout the survey
period. The timing of these surveys shall coincide with the Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
During Primary Flight
Period for Workers and
Males (April 1 through
August 31) and Prior to
Construction
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

15603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 27
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
flight period for workers and males (March 1 through June 30), which avoids the peak flight times for mature and new queen bees. Surveys shall occur between 0800 and 1600
hours, or when there are sunny to partly sunny skies that are greater than 65° Fahrenheit. Surveys may be conducted
earlier if other bees or butterflies are flying. Surveys shall not be conducted when it is windy (i.e., sustained winds greater than 8 mph). Within non-developed habitats, the biologist shall look for nest resources suitable for bumble bee use. Ensuring that all nest resources receive 100% visual coverage, the biologist shall watch the nest resources for up to 5 minutes, looking for exiting or entering worker bumble bees. Worker bees should arrive and exit an active nest site with frequency, such that their presence would be apparent after 5 minutes of observation. If a bumble bee worker is detected, then a representative shall be identified to species. Biologists should be able view several burrows at one time to sufficiently determine if bees are entering/exiting them depending on their proximity to one another. It is up to the discretion of the biologist regarding the actual survey viewshed limits from the chosen vantage point which would provide 100 percent visual coverage; this could include a 30- to 50-foot-wide area.

Identification will include trained biologists netting/capturing the representative bumble bee in appropriate insect nets, per the protocol in U.S. National Protocol Framework for the Inventory and Monitoring of Bees. The bee shall be placed in a clear container for observation and photographic
documentation if able. The bee will be photographed using a macro lens from various angles to ensure recordation of key identifying characteristics. If bumble bee identifying
characteristics cannot be adequately capt ured in the container due to movement, the container will be placed in a cooler with ice until the bumble bee becomes inactive (generally within 15 minutes). Once inert, the bumble bee shall be removed from the container and placed on a white sheet of paper or card for 15703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
examination and photographic documentation. The bumble
bee shall be released into the same area from which it was captured upon completion of identification. Based on
implementation of this method on a variety of other bumble bee species, they become active shortly after removal from the cold environment, so photography must be performed
quickly. If Crotch bumble bee nests are not detected, no further mitigation would be required. The mere presence of foraging Crotch bumble bees would not require implementation of additional minimization measures because they can forage up to 10 kilometers from their nests.

If nest resources occupied by Crotch bumble bee are detected within the construction area, no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of the construction zone, or as
determined by a qualified biologist through evaluation of topographic features or distribution of floral resources. The nest resources will be avoided for the duration of the Crotch bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31).

Outside of the nesting season, it is assumed that no live individuals would be present within the nest as the daughter queens (gynes) usually leave by September, and all other individuals (original queen, workers, males) die. The gyne is highly mobile and can independently disperse to outside of the construction footprint to proposed open space (see MM BIO-5) or other suitable areas beyond that have suitable hibernacula resources. Because construction will have
occurred in the area outside of the occupied nesting
resources, no suitable habitat will be present in the impact area, and it is assumed that new queens will disperse to habitat outside of the construction area.

A written survey report will be submitted to the City and CDFW within 30 days of the pre-construction survey. The report will include survey methods, weather conditions, and survey results, including a list of insect species observed and 15803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 29
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
a figure showing the locations of any Crotch bumble bee nest sites or individuals observed. If Crotch bumble bee nests are observed, the survey report will also include
recommendations for avoidance, and the location information will be submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) at the time of, or prior to, submittal of the survey report.

If the above measures are followed, it is assumed that the project shall not need to obtain authorization from CDFW through the California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit process.

If the nest resources cannot be avoided, as outlined in this measure, the project applicant will consult with CDFW
regarding the need to obtain an Incidental Take Permit.

Any measures determined to be necessary through the
Incidental Take Permit process to offset impacts to Crotch bumble bee may supersede measures provided in this CEQA document and shall be incorporated into the habitat mitigation and monitoring plan.

In the event an Incidental Take Permit is needed, mitigation for direct impacts to Crotch bumble bee will be fulfilled through compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 nesting habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, or as otherwise determined through the Incidental Take Permit process. Mitigation will be
accomplished either through off-site conservation or through a CDFW-approved mitigation bank. If mitigation is not
purchased through a mitigation bank, and lands are
conserved separately, a cost estimate will be prepared to estimate the initial start -up costs and ongoing annual costs of management activities for the management of the conservation easement area(s) in perpetuity. The funding source will be in the form of an endowment to help the
15903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
qualified natural lands management entity that is ultimately selected to hold the conservation easement(s). The
endowment amount will be established following the
completion of a project -specific Property Analysis Record to calculate the costs of in-perpetuity land management. The Property Analysis Record will take into account all
management activities required in the Incidental Take Permit to fulfill the requirements of the conservation easement(s), which are currently in review and development.

BIO-11 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Protocol Survey. A protocol coastal California gnatcatcher shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in Phases 4 and 5 prior to ground- disturbing activities. Surveys shall be conducted in
accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) 2019 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey
Protocol, or current version. The results of the survey shall be summarized in a report and would be valid for a maximum of 2 years. If no coastal California gnatcatcher are found during the survey, no further mitigation would be required.

If coastal California gnatcatcher are detected, the Project shall receive authorization from the USFWS through the federal Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit process,
including the preparation of a Biological Assessment, for take of coastal California gnatcatcher. Any measures determined to be necessary through the Incidental Take Permit process to offset impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher may
supersede measures provided in this CEQA document and
shall be incorporated into the habitat mitigation and monitoring plan.

Mitigation for direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher will be fulfilled through compensatory mitigation at a 2:1 habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, or as otherwise determined through the Incidental Take Permit process. Mitigation will be Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
Prior to Ground-
Disturbing Activities for
Phases 4 or 5
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

16003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 31
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
accomplished either through off-site conservation or through a USFWS-approved mitigation bank. If mitigation is not
purchased through a mitigation bank and lands are conserved separately, a cost estimate will be prepared to estimate the initial start-up costs and ongoing annual costs of management activities for the management of the conservation easement area(s) in perpetuity. The funding source will be in the form of an endowment to help the qualified natural lands
management entity that is ultimately selected to hold the conservation easement(s). The endowment amount will be established following the completion of a Project-specific Property Analysis Record to calculate the costs of in-
perpetuity land management. The Property Analysis Record will take into account all management activities required in the Incidental Take Permit to fulfill the requirements of the conservation easement(s), which are currently in review and development.

BIO-12 Burrowing Owl Protocol Survey. A protocol burrowing owl survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in Phases 4 and 5 prior to ground-disturbing activities. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation or current version. The results of the survey shall be summarized in a report and would be valid for a maximum of 2 years. If no burrowing owl are found during the survey, no further mitigation would be required; however, the project must comply with MM BIO-7.

If burrowing owl are detected, the full extent of the occurrence of occupied burrowing owl habitat within the survey area shall be recorded using GPS. The outer extent of each occurrence shall be flagged for avoidance (to the extent feasible).

For direct impacts to burrowing owl, impacts to burrowing owl shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible and minimized where avoidance is not feasible. Where project impacts to Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
Prior to Ground-
Disturbing Activities
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

16103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
burrowing owl cannot be avoided, a burrowing owl protection plan will be prepared and implemented, as summarized in MM BIO-7.

BIO-13 Aquatic Resource Avoidance, Permitting, and Protection.

The project site supports aquatic resources that are
considered jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Future development will fully avoid aquatic resources. If aquatic resources are fully avoided, no further mitigation would be required; however, the project must comply with MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3.

If full avoidance is not possible, prior to construction activity, the applicant shall coordinate with USACE and the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8) to assure conformance with the
requirements of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Prior to activity within CDFW-jurisdictional streambed or associated riparian habitat, the applicant shall coordinate with CDFW (Inland Deserts Region 6) relative to conformance to the Lake and Streambed Alteration permit requirements.

Future development shall mitigate to ensure no-net -loss of waters at a minimum of 1:1 with establishment or re-
establishment credits for impacts on aquatic resources as a part of an overall strategy to ensure no net loss, or at a higher ratio if establishment or re-establishment credits are not available. Mitigation shall be completed through use of a mitigation bank or other applicant-sponsored mitigation. Final mitigation ratios and credits shall be determined in consultation with USACE, RWQCB and/or CDFW based on
agency evaluation of current resource functions and values and through each agency’s respective permitting process.

Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
Prior to Construction City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

16203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 33
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
Should applicant -sponsored mitigation be implemented, a habitat mitigation and monitoring plan shall be prepared in accordance with resource agency guidelines and approved by the agencies in accordance with the proposed program
permits. The habitat mitigat ion and monitoring plan will include but is not limited to a conceptual planting plan including planting zones, grading, and irrigation, as applicable; a conceptual planting plant palette; a long-term maintenance and monitoring plan; annual reporting requirements; and proposed success criteria. Any off -site applicant-sponsored mitigation shall be conserved and managed in perpetuity.

BIO-14 Culvert Undercrossing. A wildlife undercrossing shall be constructed where proposed improvements to Jefferson
Street cross over Wilson Creek. The undercrossing will
adequately convey coyotes, mule deer, and smaller-sized wildlife. The wildlife undercrossing shall utilize existing or manufactured topography. The crossing shall be designed to provide a greater or equal to 0.6 openness ratio (calculated as width times height divided by length in meters). Crossing shall have a raised floor and/or side platform to allow dry passage for wildlife when water is flowing. The design should consider the use of berms to protect the undercrossing from light and noise.

Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist,
Construction Contractor
Land Use Compliance
Review and During
Construction
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

BIO-15 Wildlife Movement. In accordance with the recommendations of General Plan Mitigation Measure 4-6, the future development will implement the following design standards to facilitate wildlife movement through the project site:
• Adhere to low density zoning standards.
• Adhere to clustering of development.
• Provide shielded lighting adjacent to sensitive habitat areas. • Encourage wildlife-passable fence designs (e.g., 3-strand barbless wire fence) on property boundaries.

Future Project Applicants Land Use Compliance
Review
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

16303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

16403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 35
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
CUL-2 Prior to recordation of the final map for Wilson Creek Estates, Wine Country Subdivision (TTM 20567), the following security measures shall be implemented by the project proponent to the existing Casa Blanca residence to prevent arson and further vandalism:
• Installation of an alarm system to the main residence. • Installation of a locked gate at the lower end of the driveway by Oak Glen Road.

Future Project Applicant s Prior to Recordation of
the Final Map for Wilson
Creek Estates
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

CUL-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits to restore the Casa Blanca residence, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department for review and approval. The landscaping plan shall show how the landscaping and
plantings in the area immediately surrounding the house shall be preserved for the Casa Blanca residence’s integrity of setting. Keeping the olive trees on the hill slope would have the added effect of maintaining the historical visual barrier between Oak Glen Road and the house. Retaining the Casa Blanca house and its immediate surroundings would provide an aesthetic focal point for any new residential development, as well as an important link to the history of the region and its pioneers. Additionally, any restoration shall be done in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.

Future Project
Applicants/XX
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits to
Restore Casa Balance
Residence
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

CUL-4 Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground- disturbing activities, the project proponent/operator shall retain a Qualified Archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior 2011). The contact information for this Qualified Archaeologist shall be provided to the City of Yucaipa’s Planning
Department prior to the commencement of any construction Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Archaeologist
Prior to Issuance of Any
Permits Allowing Ground-
Disturbing Activities
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

16503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
activities on-site. Further, the Qualified Archaeologist shall be responsible for ensuring employee training provisions are implemented during implementation of the project. The project proponent/operator shall also enter into a Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians (MBMI).
• Prior to any ground disturbance, the Qualified Archaeologist or their qualified designee shall provide worker
environmental awareness protection training to construction personnel in conjunction with the Consulting Tribe[s] Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and/or designated Tribal Representative for the protection of cultural
(prehistoric and historic) resources. As part of this training, construction personnel shall be briefed on proper
procedures to follow should unanticipated cultural resourc es be made during construction. New construction personnel shall also receive the worker environmental awareness
protection training.
• Prior to any ground-disturbing activities the Qualified Archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource
Management Plan (CRMP) and/or Archaeological
Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) to address the
details, timing, and responsibilities of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site. This plan shall be written in consultation with Consulting Tribe[s] and shall include the approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/Conditions of Approval (COA), contact information for all pertinent parties, parties’ responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the project schedule. • The retained Qualified Archeologist and the Consulting Tribe[s] representative shall attend the pre-grade meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan.
16603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 37
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
• The MBMI Tribal Monitor shall be on-site during all ground- disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation,
excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind). The Qualified Archaeologist shall also be present during all ground-disturbing activities to identify any known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural
resources. The frequency of inspections shall depend on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and any discoveries of tribal cultural resources as defined in
California Public Resources Code Section 21074.

Archaeological and tribal monitoring shall be discontinued when the depth of grading and the soil conditions no longer retain the potential to contain cultural deposits. The Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal Monitor, shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.
• In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are encountered during any phase of project construction, the Qualified Archaeologist and the Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert and/or temporarily halt ground- disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources.

Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits shall be
minimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored grading can proceed. All construction work within 60 feet of the find shall cease, and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier
constructed. All work shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the Qualified Archaeologist and Tribal Monitor in coordination with the City’s Planning Department. Construction activities may continue in other areas. The Archaeologist shall notify the Consulting Tribe[s] of said discovery. The Qualified
16703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
Archaeologist, in consultation with the City’s Planning Department, Consulting Tribe[s] and the Tribal Monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resource. If the discovery is determined to not be significant by the Qualified Archaeologist and Tribal Monitor, work will be permitted to continue in the area.
• If a find is determined to be important by the Qualified Archaeologist and the Tribal Monitor, they shall immediately notify the City’s Planning Department. The City’s Planning Department in consultation with the Qualified Archaeologist shall determine whether the resource is eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). If the City determines the resources is eligible for inclusion on the CRHR, project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to significant
historical resources.
• Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the Lead Archaeologist shall develop additional treatment
measures in consultation with the City, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures. The City shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives and the Qualified Archaeologist in determining appropriate treatment for unearthed cultural resources if the resources are prehistoric or Native American in nature. Diagnostic archaeological materials with research potential recovered during any investigation shall be curated at an accredited curation facility. The Lead Archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting evaluation and/or additional treatment of the resource. A copy of the report shall be provided to the City and to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.
• The final report[s] created as a part of the project (AMTP, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, 16803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 39
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
etc.) shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department and Consulting Tribe[s] for review and comment. After approval of all parties, the final reports are to be submitted to the Eastern Information Center, and the Consulting
Tribe[s].

CUL-5 The project proponent shall retain a qualified paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology’s Professional Standards (SVP, 2010), to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological
resources.
• Prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities, the qualified paleontologist shall conduct a Paleontological Resources Awareness Training program for all construction personnel working on the project. A Paleontological
Resources Awareness Training Guide approved by the
qualified paleontologist shall be provided to all personnel. A copy of the Paleontological Resources Awareness Training Guide shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department.

The training guide may be presented in video form.
• Paleontological Resources Awareness Training may be
conducted in conjunction with other awareness training
requirements.
• The training shall include an overview of potential
paleontological resources that could be encountered during ground disturbing activities to facilitate worker recognition, avoidance, and subsequent immediate notification to the qualified paleontologist for further evaluation and action, as appropriate; and penalties for unauthorized artifact collecting or intentional disturbance of paleontological resources. • The Paleontological Resources Awareness Training Guides shall be kept available for all personnel to review and be familiar with as necessary.

Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Paleontologist
Prior to Ground-
Disturbing Activities
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

16903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
CUL-6 A qualified paleontologist or designated monitor shall spot check ground disturbing activities when excavations are expected to exceed a depth of 5 feet in areas mapped as having moderate sensitivity for paleontological resources and mapped as older alluvial-fan deposits to inspect for the presence of older paleontologically sensitive geologic units at depth. If it is determined that Holocene- to Pleistocene-age older alluvium is present at depth, full-time monitoring shall be implemented in those areas during excavation. A qualified paleontologist or designated monitor shall monitor all ground- disturbing activity (with the exception of vibratory or hydraulic installation of tracking or mounting structures and foundations or supports) in areas mapped as Pleistocene-age older
alluvium.

The duration and timing of monitoring shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist in consultation with the City’s Planning Department and shall be based on a review of
geologic maps, project-specific geotechnical reports, and grading plans.

During the course of monitoring, if the paleontologist can demonstrate based on observations of subsurface conditions that the level of monitoring should be reduced, the
paleontologist, in consultation with the City’s Planning Department, may adjust the level of monitoring to
circumstances, as warranted.

Paleontological monitoring shall include inspection of exposed rock units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The qualified paleontologist shall have authority to temporarily divert excavation operations away from exposed fossils to collect associated data and recover the fossil specimens if deemed necessary.

Following the completion of construction, the paleontologist shall prepare a report documenting the absence or discovery Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Paleontologist
During Grading and
Construction
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

17003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

17103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for
loading/unloading in accordance with California Air
Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec.
2485).
• Use off -road equipment (e.g., tractor and loader) that meet the United States EPA United States Environmental
Protection Agency Tier 4 Final (model year 2008 or newer) or stricter emission limits for engines between 50 and
750 horsepower.
• Use electric-powered or zero-emission only forklifts. • Provide preferential parking spaces for low -emitting, fuel- efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.2 of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential
Voluntary Measures).
• Applicant-provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, stoves, ovens, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) and
plumbing fixtures (e.g., water heater) shall be electric powered and be Energy Star–certified or of equivalent
energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances and plumbing fixtures shall be verified by the City during plan check.
• No wood-burning or gas-powered fireplaces shall be
installed in any of the dwelling units.

OR
If there is an adopted City of Yucaipa Climate Action Plan (CAP) updated to meet post -2020 greenhouse gas
emissions reduction targets consistent with Senate Bill 32 17203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 43
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
and/or Assembly Bill 1279, and satisfies the requirements of a qualified plan under CEQA Guidelines Section
15183.5, the following shall be implemented:
• Prior to issuance of building permits, each proposed
viticultural development project within the Wine Country Specific Plan shall demonstrate incorporation of the minimum measures that would be deemed to achieve consistency per the future updated CAP in effect at the time of the development review process. The applicant/project proponent shall submit documentation showing the required measures to achieve CAP consistency to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division for review and approval.

GHG-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, each development proposal within the Wine Country Specific Plan shall
demonstrate attainment of at least 100 points under the 2015 City of Yucaipa Climate Action Plan (CAP) Screening Table for the appropriate land use type. If a future update to the CAP is adopted, then each development proposal shall
demonstrate incorporation of the minimum measures that
would be deemed to achieve consistency per the future
updated CAP in effect at the time of the development review process. The applicant/project proponent shall submit
documentation showing the required measures to achieve CAP consistency to the City of Yucaipa Planning Division for review and approval.

Future Project Applicants Prior to the Issuance of
Building Permits
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

GHG-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, each development proposal located within the WCE—Wine Country subdivision shall demonstrate that the development of each lot would attain at least 100 points under the Screening Table for residential projects in the 2015 City of Yucaipa Climate Action Plan (CAP). If a future update to the CAP is adopted, then each development proposal shall demonstrate incorporation of the minimum measures that would be deemed to achieve Future Project Applicants Prior to the Issuance of
Building Permits
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

17303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

17403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

17503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
requirements, such as use of less-vibration-intensive
equipment or construction techniques, shall be implemented during construction (e.g., nonexplosive blasting methods, drilled piles as opposed to pile driving, preclusion for using vibratory rollers, use of small- or medium-sized bulldozers, etc.). Vibration reduction measures shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project.

N-3 The developer shall consider options for and implement measures(s) such as an earthen berm or wall of sufficient height and extent between 11114 Cherry Croft Drive and the primary roadway traffic noise sources (e.g., engine exhaust and tire pavement contact) on Jefferson Street so that 4 dBA of Jefferson Street traffic noise reduction can be achieved as quantified at 11114 Cherry Croft Drive. Noise reduction benefit could be estimated prior to mitigation measure design and installation as part of Jefferson Street roadway upgrading, and field verified with pre-construction and post -construction outdoor noise level measurements similar to those performed for the baseline sound environment data collection for Wilson Creek Estates EIR (see Appendix I, WCE EIR).

Future Project Applicants Prior to Building
Occupancy
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

N-4 For outdoor amplified special events:
• Conclude all amplified speech, music, or movie nights by 10:00 pm. Property management shall incorporate the
following measures for outdoor events: orient
speakers/speaker systems away from nearby residences,
and position speakers below the heights of property walls or between project buildings and off-site residences to break line-of -sight with residential uses.
• Prior to outdoor amplified events, the sound system
contractor shall confirm that a noise limit of 55 dBA Leq at the property line is achieved, and the PA speakers shall be Property Management for
Wineries
During Operation City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

17603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 47
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
situated at a distance of 175 feet or greater from the nearest residential property line. The PA system contractor shall perform a system check to verify that PA system noise levels do not exceed 55 dBA Leq at any outdoor recreation area associated with the nearest residences. Design measures may include, but are not limited to, band width and peak limiter installation, temporary shielding or barriers between the special event and nearby residences, and speaker angle and directivity techniques.

For future residences within the project boundary that are proposed adjacent to large wineries (e.g., boutique and artisan wineries):

In order to comply with the City’s Municipal Code noise ordinance requirements and avoid any exceedance of the
exterior noise standards, design measures such as band
width and peak limiter installation, temporary shielding or barriers between the special event and nearby residences, and speaker angle and directivity techniques shall be used to reduce noise levels at outdoor recreation areas such as backyards or balconies associated with residences adjacent to a large winery where noise-generating events would occur.

Upper floor windows associated with future residences that would be directly exposed to the noise-generating events at the winery shall be upgraded with a sound transmission class (STC) rating higher than standard building provides (typically up to STC-28 and provide a minimum of 20 dBA exterior-to- interior noise reduction) to ensure that the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard is achieved.
17703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

17803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 49
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
W -5 Yucaipa Fire Department Funding. Prior to approval of recording any final map, a Community Facilities District (CFD) or Fire Service Agreement (FSA) shall be approved and
implemented to support the needs of the Yucaipa Fire
Department to serve the WCSP. In particular, the CFD or FSA shall address the equipment requirements related to an
identified need for a Type 6 Medic Patrol or Medic Squad to adequately ensure Station 1 availability. The CFD or FSA shall be approved in cooperation with the Yucaipa Fire
Department, City of Yucaipa Planning Department, and
property owners (or residents if a CFD is approved requiring voter approval [greater than 12 property owners]). The parties may agree to an alternate funding mechanism from the
options described in the Specific Plan, Section 6.2.3, Funding and Financing, as desired.

Future Project Applicants Prior to Approval of Final
Map
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division/City of Yucaipa
Fire Department

17903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

This page intentionally left blank.
18003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 3
18103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ORDINANCE NO. 441

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN
The City Council of the City of Yucaipa does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Adoption of Overlay District Changes.

The proposed Wine Country Specific Plan bearing Case No. 24-015/SP/GPA, is hereby approved, and is hereby adopted by the City and incorporated into General Plan Figure CDL-3 , Land Use Modifications Overlay District.

Section 2. Adoptio n of Specific Plan.

The Wine Country Specific Plan, including its Appendix A, dated March 2024, as contained in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and adopted.

Section 3. Sever ability.

The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance and Exhibit “A”, or the amendment to the City’s Official General Plan Figure CDL- 3, as adopted herein be found, rendered or declared by a court of competent jurisdiction or by preemptive legislation to be invalid, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of the Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 4. Effective Date.

This ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions, requirements, and orders and matters established and adopted hereby, shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final passage and adoption, or until otherwise superceded by action of the City Council or by operation of State law.

Section 5. Posting .

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. 441 adopts the Wine Country Specific Plan (Case No. 24-015) on 1,093.6-acre area in the northeastern portion of the City of Yucaipa, specifically the North Bench Area of the city, to facilitate a phased development that would subdivide the land into lots (i.e., homes/estates) and nonresidential areas for vineyards, wineries, trails, and open space.”
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED the __th day of _______, 2024. _________________________
Justin Beaver, Mayor
18203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTEST:

_________________________________
Ana V. Sauseda, CMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Steven Graham Pacifico
City Attorney
18303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Exhibit A

Wine Country Specific Plan (Under Separate Cover)
18403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 4
18503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

18603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

18703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

18803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

18903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

19003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

19103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

19203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

From:Benjamin Matlock
To:derek
Subject:RE: Yucaipa Wine Specific Plan
Date:Wednesday, February 21, 2024 6:05:00 PM
I’m not sure. I know that Calimesa noted that any vacant land would be developed there, and not be planned for ag uses.

From: derek.

Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 5:25 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Yucaipa Wine Specific Plan

Hi Benjamin,

I just read the Notice of Public Hearing on the 1,093.6 acre initiative for 50% houses and 50% wine industry.

I’m in favor of the wine industry but my question to you is, do you know if there are any surrounding cities are also trying to build out a wine industry such as Beaumont or Cherry Valley? It seems Yucaipa should seize opportunity before another with the same geographic and climate area does.

Derek Emery
Yucaipa Area

19303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

From:Claudia Barlow
To:Benjamin Matlock
Subject:Hello
Date:Friday, January 12, 2024 1:04:46 PM
I like your intentions to create jobs and residential areas. The only thing is that raising grapes to eat for food is better than making wine with them. Wine creates social problems such as alcoholic issues and crime, etc.

Please reconsider your plan before presenting it to the powers that be Claudia Barlow.
19403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Jeff Johnson

General Comments:

1. The proposed Wine Country Specific Plan does NOT maintain the rural character which I bought into when I purchased my house in 2002. One reason I was drawn here was it “felt” like where I was raised in the Woodcrest area of Riverside County.

2. The additional traffic associated with commercial businesses within what is now a residential zone. The plan indicates there would be 99,400 visitors annually to the area. That vehicle count was not accounted for in the traffic analysis for the previously permitted (under zoning) of just 1000 houses which would now turn into 1000 houses and 99,400 visitors.

3. The thought of commercial operations within or immediately adjacent to residents is a bad idea.

4. Since there was mention of meeting with the City of Temecula (see 3 below). The same group should have met with Riverside County staff to see what issues exist today as a result of the Wine Country Temecula plan. You would hear many struggles about short term rentals, in other words, incompatible uses with commercial and residential being imbedded with each other.

Specific comments on the Wine Country Specific Plan:

1. Guiding principles- I think there is a fundamental miss here. There should be mention of a #11 item which is titled - “Minimize adverse impacts to current residents of the surrounding area.”

2. There is mention of lack of “Agricultural Zoned land”. Just convert the zoning to Ag

3. There is mention of meeting City of Temecula staff and others. What does that have to do with anything? The Temecula Wine Country was processed and is wholly within the unincorporated area of Riverside County. Other than hearings being held within the city and city sphere of influence, all the development which has occurred in Temecula Wine Country is within the County of Riverside and NOT within any of incorporated Temecula.

4. The “mobility plan” is woefully inadequate. (3.3)

5. If an owner owns multiple lots, they can generate a lot merger, otherwise, each lot should have its own structures per the plan. (4.3.1)

6. Micro wineries - 2.5 acres are NOT sustainable according to the experts. So why are such lots/ options being proposed? (4.3.2)

7. Phasing indicates “home first”- IF this plan gets approved, it should be built out equitably. NOT just residential first. Also, according to many experts, we are already 20 years too late for this type of project. By building the residential component first, that ensures failure as wineries and vineyards are seemingly not a priority within the younger generation. (6.2.1) 19503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

19603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

19703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

19803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

19903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

20003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

20103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

20203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

20303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

20403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

20503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

20603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

20703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

20803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

From:Richard Schell
To:Benjamin Matlock
Subject:The Yucaipa wine region
Date:Tuesday, February 20, 2024 12:42:18 PM
Hello Mr. Matlock,
My name is Richard Schell. My family and I have been residents of Yucaipa for nearly 17 years. I own a home on Deerbrook Road near the Pendleton nature preserve area. I have a small vineyard and bottle my own wine for family and friends.

As a 4th generation farmer, I grew up in the Yakima Valley AVA of Washington state and I have seen the tremendous positive impact of AVA areas. I am optimistic about the Yucaipa wine region, and how it will add value to our special geography and quality of life for generations to come.

In addition to new estate homes, I encourage Yucaipa to consider adding ‘more’ acreage to the proposed 500 acres of the wine region to expand it beyond boutique status, and into an area that is more comparable to Paso Robles and Temecula.

For example, Paso Robles currently has 40,000 acres of wine grapes, being grown and produced.

Temecula Valley currently has 33,000 acres of wine grapes.

I think it’s important that we take into consideration the long-term positive effects of a substantial wine region.

For example, in the last five years, property values in the Paso Robles area have more than doubled.

If we have a substantial and legitimate wine region here in Yucaipa, home and land owners could look forward to a similar increase in property values and businesses and restaurants would have more revenue due to a rise in socioeconomic status of folks living here.

Perhaps, the land dedicated for “Villas” home development could be lowered slightly to allow for more estates.

I feel that a total of around 800 acres for the Yucaipa Wine country would be a good compromise.

An extra 300 acres of wine grapes in the Yucaipa wine region, would equal around 432,000 extra bottles of wine per year.

A total of 800 acres would yield approximately 1,152,000 bottles of wine per year (at full production levels).

Having over 1 million bottles of wine per year, would definitely make Yucaipa more than just a “boutique“ wine region.

To put things into perspective, if the Yucaipa wineries sell 1 million bottles of wine annually, at a cost of $50 per bottle, that would equate to about $4,000,000 in annual sales tax revenue. Schools, parks, community centers and businesses could benefit, from the sales tax revenue.

Finally, expanding the Yucaipa wine region would create wonderful agritourism opportunities that is already bolstered by Oak Glen.

In closing, I understand that moving forward with housing growth is important, and we cannot continue in limbo.

A compromise would be to allow estate homes to be built coupled with expansion of the Yucaipa AVA. The United States of America has always flourished when a compromise happens! 20903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

I look forward to seeing you at the YPAC meeting this evening.

Best regards,
Richard Schell
21003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

From:Tom Solury
To:Benjamin Matlock
Subject:Response To WCSP Citizen Concern Over Micro Winery Business Model Date:Friday, January 19, 2024 11:02:20 AM
Morning Ben,

At the December 12th WCSP a concerned citizen voiced his comments over the operational viability of a 2.5 acre vineyard and winery operation citing research he had done.

Two issues with the business model he ran that I would like to point out:

1. The proposed WCSP plan does not limit any on-premises winery to production only from its attached (same parcel) vineyard. A winery would likely plant a unique “signature” varietal on their own premises for production each year, and source other grape varietals from nearby growers for additional production needs.

2. Unfortunately, his data apparently did not include grape cost information from a local Southern California district. A grower is naturally going to plant varietals offering the greatest monetary return and unique characteristics of the region. Most recent data from the annual California Department of Food And Agriculture Grape Crush report shows the average price per ton for Cabernet (from our neighbors in Temecula) at $2,181.14, and Cabernet Sauvignon at 2,110.07, which is very different from the $700 he referenced in his model.

Regards,

Tom Solury
Vineyard Manager & Winemaker
Owl's Point LLC

21103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

From:Tom Solury
To:Benjamin Matlock
Subject:YPAC Meeting & Audience DUI Statistics Presented Date:Sunday, January 14, 2024 8:32:10 AM
Dear Mr. Matlock,

During the January 11th WCSP meeting Kevin Miskin publicly spoke against the plan and presented Napa county DUI statistics referencing 1.2 arrests per 100 drivers, and comparisons with other bay area counties having much lower rates.

I was able to track down the online article (from 2012) that detailed those quoted statistics and the link is below.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/wine-country-dui-investigation/1946966/

What’s interesting is that Mr. Miskin naturally didn’t provide all the article statistics which goes on to read, “In fact, the majority of those arrested for DUI in wine country are not tourists visiting wineries”. Article goes on to state the following facts:

1. Above average arrests by the Napa Police department are due to “our aggressiveness in dealing with drunk drivers.”

2. According to the Napa Police Department, “82 percent of those who were arrested for DUI over the past three years were Napa County residents. In Sonoma County, 80 percent of those arrested in Sonoma County are also residents, according to the California Highway Patrol.”
Yes, of course DUI issues are challenging and important. In fact, the state of California as recently as August of 2022 enacted AB 1221 (Responsible Beverage Service training compliance) which became mandatory on July 1, 2022. If you are a server or alcohol manager you were required to get the new RBS certification by the August 31, 2022 deadline. Responsible Beverage Service training teaches servers to responsibly serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and mitigate alcohol- related harm in California communities.

My background:

Presently, I’m a small grower and support the WCSP. We planted our first vines back in 2016 and expanded the vineyard in 2021. To better educate myself in the industry, I’ve completed courses in Viticulture, Enology, and Winery Business Operations through Mt. San Jacinto College Temecula Extension facility. To better understand vineyard pests and responsible potential control, I’ve recently completed and obtained a Private Applicator Certificate from the State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Sincerely,

Tom Solury
Vineyard Manager & Winemaker
Owl's Point LLC
21203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

21303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

21403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

From:Benjamin Matlock
To:Matthew Underwood
Subject:RE: wine plan
Date:Tuesday, January 2, 2024 7:40:00 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi Matt,

Sorry to hear about the crazy holiday workload and getting sick on top of it. I feel like illnesses know just when you’re about to rest to make their move.

Let’s do 4pm on the 10th. I would prefer to do one on ones just so I can dedicate my attention to your specific questions and have a more casual discussion. Anyone else interested should also reach out and I’ll commit the same effort of attention to their questions and feedback.

From: Matthew Underwood [email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 6:04 AM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Re: wine plan

Thanks Ben,
Even though I worked most of the holiday season and caught covid it still has been good.

Let me know which date and time. Some other acquaintances were talking about this issue and might want to come also so you don't have to explain some things more than once.

Matthew B. Underwood MD
Vice Chairman / QI Director
Emergency Department
Riverside Community Hospital
Phone:

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, is for the sole use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain confidential and privileged information, including HIPAA Protected PHI or Peer Review protected material per California Evidence Code 1157.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this message and its attachments in its entirety.

From: Benjamin Matlock
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2023 9:33 PM
To: Matthew Underwood
Subject: Re: wine plan

Hi Matt,

The 8th or 10th would work for me. I hope you were able to have a restful and enjoyable holiday 21503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

from the busy December you had. Have a great New Year’s, too!

Benjamin Matlock
Deputy Director of Community Development / City Planner City of Yucaipa
City Hall • 34272 Yucaipa Blvd • Yucaipa, CA 92399
Office: 909-797-2489 Ext. 261
www.yucaipa.org
From: Matthew Underwood >
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2023 2:48 PM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: wine plan

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your voice message. Hope holiday's are going well. I've been working too much to follow up. I can meet with you to discuss the wine plan Jan 3, 4, 8, or 10 if any of those days work for you.

Thanks

Matt

21603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

From:Matthew Underwood
To:Chris Mann; Benjamin Matlock
Subject:Wine plan
Date:Sunday, December 17, 2023 9:40:39 AM
Hi Ben, Chris:

Thanks for having the presentation on the Wine plan. I hope there are more thorough answers forthcoming with additional meetings to the concerns raised. A few that come to the top of my mind:

1. ADU's the good the bad and the ugly. What is the minimum lot size that can still apply for an ADU?

2. If the wine industry is so viable why does it have to be linked to the poison pill of density housing to put it in place? (I know, we all know, profit feasibility for developers). If people want to do wineries with their land why can't they just do it? If I were researching wine in Yucaipa like I would research a stock pick then I would not place such a large bet on it. What happens if this plan were to approve and the wineries end up not being viable, then what happens with that designated portion of land?

3. Over concern of drunk driving through residential neighborhoods it was said that people leaving the wineries would exit out Jefferson only. What makes that a certainty? One way entrance and exit? People coming and going from highway 38 (perhaps 50% of traffic) will use Carter, Fir, and possibly Ivy/Juniper. Will developers be responsible for capital improvement and widening of these roads? As known reference North Cork winery exits through residential neighborhoods and I have had to dodge tipsy drivers barreling down from the winery many times.

4. Will Oak Glen be widened to 4 lanes east of Bryant? Particularly where it is narrow from approximately Cherry Croft to Casa Blanca? A pedestrian or cyclist is going to get killed here (narrow one lane, no shoulder, blind hill rise). I have almost been hit here.

5. No mention of school infrastructure. What is the capacity at the elementary and middle school on Sunnyside? Already this is often a traffic disaster and Serrano Lakes not even fully occupied yet. Plans for additional schools in the area?

6. Bryant street. It seems to me this needs to be addressed before any additional development in upper Yucaipa/North Bench. For any additional growth Bryant needs to be 4 lanes out to the freeway at Singleton.

That's just a few that come to my mind without looking over the EIR, but I hope you compile all the concerns through public comment and other means and address them all. I think this plan would be a very easy sell to North Bench and upper Yucaipa residents if lots were kept to one acre zoned for animals. You might even find willing compromise to ½ acre lots if adequately addressing the surrounding infrastructure.
21703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Sincerely,
Matthew B. Underwood MD
Vice Chairman / QI Director
Emergency Department
Riverside Community Hospital

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, is for the sole use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain confidential and privileged information, including HIPAA Protected PHI or Peer Review protected material per California Evidence Code 1157.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this message and its attachments in its entirety. 21803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

From:Craig Eilander
To:Benjamin Matlock
Subject:Voice of support
Date:Tuesday, January 23, 2024 1:56:36 PM
Hi Mr. Matlock,
My name is Craig Eilander and I live here in town. Let me start with a show of support for Yucaipa Wine Country. I love our town to have an identity supporting this. I also wish to express my support for the college square, especially as a Crafton Hills employee. These investments will breathe new life into our town. Reading the general plan, I like what I see. On a side note, I emailed you recently voicing my advocacy for a non-car-centered infrastructure and I realized I was extremely vague. My wish along with others is having an infrastructure that would make other means of transportation a safe alternative to driving. Multiuse trails, buffered bike lanes, etc. If it is built, people will use it. I thank you and your department for what you do and I am excited to see what the future holds for Yucaipa. 21903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

From:Benjamin Matlock
To:Holly Warner
Subject:RE: Wine Country EIR
Date:Wednesday, January 10, 2024 1:48:00 PM
Hi Holly,

Would sometime next week work for you? City Hall is closed on Monday in observance of Martin Luther King day, but I can make myself available the rest of the week.

From: Holly Warner
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 9:49 AM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Wine Country EIR

Good morning Mr. Matlock,
I have some concerns about the Wine Country Specific Plan, specifically the section on cultural resources. As a local archaeologist, I wrote numerous EIRs, and this one does not meet professional standards. I would like to meet with you to discuss the errors and omissions prior to the report being finalized and approved, but I cannot attend tomorrow night's public meeting. When would be a convenient time for you?
Thank you,
Holly Warner
22003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

From:Matthew Underwood
To:Benjamin Matlock; Denise Work; Chris Mann; Chris Mann; Benjamin Matlock Subject:WCSP
Date:Wednesday, February 21, 2024 7:41:24 AM
Hi Ben, Chris
Thank you for the forum last night and patiently answering questions last night, some multiple times.

Denise Work asked a great question last night that didn’t have an answer. The city council has approved projects throughout the city that have increased density beyond what is called for in the general plan. What is the total number of units already approved beyond general plan density since the inception of the general plan? Why can’t this number be applied as a transfer to reduce the number of houses allowed in the WCSP? As she mentioned, why should we be giving landowners more unit buildout than what the buildout would be under RL-1 in the general plan because of what the natural topography allows? This is the same disingenuous sleight of hand used that was so unpopular with the Serrano Estates. If there is some compromise to be reached, this would be a major element. (My other one: vineyards, yes. alcohol businesses in residential area, no) As I mentioned last night I think everyone north of Bryant from Juniper to Oak Glen Road should get official notice about a proposed project that puts alcohol establishments in and through their neighborhoods and streets. This is such a monumental change that the city should go well above what is required by law to inform citizens. Notice in the News Mirror is not adequate, only a small percentage of people subscribe.

Also ADU questions:

Is there a minimum ADU size? You mentioned 750 square feet exempt from certain types of fees I believe. Can someone really do a 750 square feet ADU? That is smaller than a shed you can buy at Home Depot. If that is the case then anyone in the WCSP villas could put in an ADU. Yes? No? Thanks,
Matt
22103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Evacuation Routes. Written Comments to go with the Minutes by JoEva Peabody

You still have not addressed Gov. Code 65302(g) (5): that states in part, you must “identify residential developments in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes.”
The CAL FIRE Safety Element checklist also requires cities to address evacuation routes . …” This completed checklist still has not been provided nor posted as previously requested.

Wine Country, is in a “Very High Fire Hazard” area. Oak Glen Road is one designated evacuation route.

Oak Glen Road, and the small side streets of Ivy, Carter, and Fir, which are not designated evacuation routes, will not be sufficient to accommodate your potential minimum 2,182, vehicles/residents (629 Villas, 462 Estates = 1, 091 homes with minimum two vehicles and two people per home); along with the current residents, all trying to get down Oak Glen Road or the small non-designated evacuation roads, to get to Bryant, and then to the other exit routes. You state that evacuation streets Bryant and Oak Glen Road are located adjacent to the wine country area, but you don’t address the issues of HOW residents will be able to safely evacuate with only one evacuation road (and small non-evacuation roads) before they reach another evacuation road.

You say that you have enough fire response capability for the proposed area? I don’t think so. Fire departments can only respond as fast as they are able. What if the closest fire response is at another fire? If a fire happens in the proposed area, it is highly likely that enough engines will not be able to get there fast enough to save lives and property.

Fire spreads very quickly as we saw with Paradise. That fire spread so quickly, there was no time for many to get out, even with at least two evacuation routes. God forbid a fire happens in your proposed area with insufficient ways to get out. Vineyards burn quickly as seen in Napa Valley. By putting in 1,091 homes surrounded by vineyards, you are setting up your wine country for the loss of many lives if the surrounding mountains and vineyards catch fire. Which as we all know happens more often than we care for. There will be no way to stop a fire spread of that magnitude and folks will not be able to get out.

And what about flooding and mud over Oak Glen Road? That happens. Clean up from the last flooding is still ongoing as seen when you go up Potato Canyon Road and other streets. What then?

Mark my words, people will die if this is not resolved and their lives will be on your heads if this is approved before proper evacuation routes are put into place.

JoEva Peabody

22203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

22303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1 Tara Davis
From:Joanne Harwick
Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2024 5:57 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan
Hello,
My name is Joanne Harwick. I am a resident of Yucaipa for the past 20 years. I think the Yucaips Wine country Specific.

Plan is a great project for our city because of agricultural and the wineries it will bring to our community. Please vote YES for the YVWCSP. Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon.

Joanne A. Harwick

Sent from my iPad, Joanne
22403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1 Tara Davis
From:Philip Schneider
Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2024 11:00 PM
To:Public Comment
Cc:Philip Schneider; Philip Schneider; Ray Horspool; Ralph Ramirez Subject:Public Comment, March 25, 2024

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN BREAKS THE LAW

In my studied opinion, Wine Country Specific Plan (WCSP) violates two state laws: California Government Code §65454 and §65300.5. Because WCSP breaks the law, it should not be approved by the Yucaipa City Council.

§65454 VIOLATIONS

The City of Yucaipa states “… a Specific Plan must adhere to, and be consistent with, the City’s land use policies that are established in the General Plan.” This statement is absolutely correct, but only part of the story. More exactly, a specific plan must be consistent with the entire General Plan, not just its policies. To wit:

Gov’t Code §65454 requires specific plans to be “… consistent with the general plan.” Also, General Plan Guidelines issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) state “Specific plans must be consistent with all facets of the general plan …” Let me repeat that: consistent with all facets. WCSP is not consistent with the following three facets of Yucaipa’s General Plan:

(Facet 1) RL-1 Land Use Designation description on page 2-7 of the General Plan, which specifies rural living on minimum one-acre lots. WCSP is designated RL-1, but proposes hundreds of quarter- acre lots packed together in single-family tracts. These lots are extremely inconsistent with the RL-1 description, a violation of Gov’t Code §65454.

(Facet 2) RL-1 Development Standards on page 3-13 of the General Plan Housing Element, which specify a minimum lot size of one acre. The WCSP proposes a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (approximately one-quarter acre). This tiny fraction of the Development Standard is an extreme inconsistency and a violation of Gov’t Code §65454.

(Facet 3) Policy HN-2.4 on page 3-10 of the General Plan (not the stripped-down version in the Housing Element) reads: “Require all new residential development in the North Bench and Wildwood Canyon to be consistent with … adopted density and development standards …” This policy requires WCSP to be consistent with its RL-1 Development Standards, including a minimum lot size of one acre. WCSP’s proposed minimum lot size is one-quarter acre, making WCSP extremely inconsistent with Policy HN-2.4, a violation of Gov’t Code §65454.

APPENDIX A IS USELESS

Appendix A of the WCSP is titled “General Plan Consistency.” It reviews most of the General Plan policies (and nothing else) and concludes: “This review revealed the Specific Plan and the General Plan to be complementary and consistent.” While this statement may be true for the policies reviewed, it does not apply to all of the other General Plan facets because they were not included, 22503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2 considered or reviewed in Appendix A.

Facet 1, Facet 2, and Facet 3 are not consistent with WCSP (see above) and are not included in Appendix A. These facets are just as important as General Plan policies and their legal status is equal to the legal status of policies (per OPR). Appendix A has failed to consider Facet 1, Facet 2, and Facet 3, making it useless.

§65300.5 VIOLATIONS

WCSP depends heavily on a misconstrued facet of the General Plan: Planned Development and/or Specific Plans (Facet PDSP). It’s on page 6-16 of the General Plan Housing Element.

The intention of Facet PDSP is to promote flexibility in site design by not requiring strict application of current Development Standards when tailoring those standards for a specific plan. Because non- strict application of Development Standards is still required, changes to Development Standards, logically, must be minimal. To remain representative of the Land Use Designation, changes to Development Standards must be minimal.

Furthermore, by making only minimal changes, Development Standards will not be tailored so much that they become inconsistent with other facets of the General Plan. If extreme changes are made to Development Standards, the resulting Tailored Standards will be inconsistent with other facets, violating Gov’t Code §65300.5. Gov’t Code §65300.5 forbids internal inconsistencies within a General Plan.

Proponents of WCSP have misinterpreted Facet PDSP to permit huge changes in Development Standards. They made alterations so extreme that the resulting Tailored Standards resemble Development Standards for an entirely different land use: RS-10M, Single Residential.

The proponents claim that because they adhere to WCSP’s RL-1 density standard, they are entitled (apparently by Facet PDSP) to “… consolidate the residential capacity …” into a much smaller area, even though that requires illegally crushing the RL-1 minimum lot size standard to 23 percent of its original size. The proponents’ seeming interpretation of Facet PDSP appears to give them cover to pick and choose which Development Standards they will use as-is and which ones they will make extreme changes to. However, I don’t find any mention or authorization for such maneuvers in any Government Code or the OPR’s General Plan Guidelines. I believe the proponents’ irrational implementation of Facet PDSP is nothing more than a scheme to reduce minimum lot size without amending the General Plan.

And so, the proponents have reduced minimum lot size by an extreme 77 percent, into the realm of single-family residential. If the City Council approves this charade, they will be accepting and authorizing the proponents’ mangled interpretation of Facet PDSP. Also, the Council’s new, approved interpretation of Facet PDSP will not be consistent with Facet 1, Facet 2, and Facet 3, creating internal inconsistencies within the General Plan, a violation of Gov’t Code §65300.5 and the OPR’s General Plan Guidelines.

MY CONCLUSION

While I am not an attorney, I can read the law. To me, it is obvious that WCSP violates California Government Code §65454 and §65300.5. Because of that, WCSP should not be approved by the City Council.

22603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

3 Everything here is my own non-professional opinion, which is based entirely on my reading and interpretation of California Government Codes and the Yucaipa General Plan.

Philip Schneider
Yucaipa, California

22703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1 Tara Davis
From:Susan Tilbury
Sent:Friday, March 22, 2024 9:36 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:SAY YES TO THE WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN

Along with many, if not most, of the residents of Yucaipa I support the wine country plan. I believe it it our last best chance to preserve acreage in the North Bench and prevent a housing explosion.

I also believe the opposition wants the same thing but have become caught up in their own rhetoric, much of which is not based in fact. Unfortunately.

If this fails to pass, we will not forget at election time. Do you want your legacies to be that of giving our land away to developers? I surely hope not.

Do the right thing. Thank you.

S. Tilbury
Peach Tree Circle
Yucaipa
Sent from my iPad
22803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

22903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

23003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

23103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

23203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

23303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

23403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

23503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

23603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

23703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

23803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1 Tara Davis
From:Benjamin Matlock
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:24 AM
To:Tara Davis
Subject:FW: Wine country specific plan

Benjamin Matlock
Deputy Director of Community Development / City Planner City of Yucaipa
City Hall • 34272 Yucaipa Blvd • Yucaipa, CA 92399
Office: 909-797-2489 Ext. 261
www.yucaipa.gov

From: Chris Mann
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:00 AM
To: Monica Anne Harwood Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Re: Wine country specific plan

Ms. Harwood,

I understand your concerns. The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District is a wholesaler of supplemental water (i.e., water imported via the State Water Project). They then sell that water to retailers, such as the Yucaipa Valley Water District. They do not sell or deliver water directly to residential customers, nor do they make or involve themselves in land use decisions. It is primarily up to the Yucaipa Valley Water District to plan for and ensure adequate water supplies within their service area, which includes the cities of Yucaipa and Calimesa. The Yucaipa Valley Water District was involved in discussions about the proposed Wine Country Specific Plan. The Environmental Impact Report addresses water supply, and concludes (with the concurrence of Yucaipa Valley Water District) that adequate supplies exist.

Traffic and road infrastructure was also studied as part of the Environmental Impact Report. Even with the development envisioned by the Wine Country Specific Plan, road usage would remain significantly below capacity. Costs for new or expanded infrastructure would be the responsibility of the developers. Those costs would not be borne by the City.

I encourage you to read through the sections of the Environmental Impact Report that address the issues about which you are concerned. Water supply and distribution is addressed in Section 5.19.2 of the EIR. Transportation is addressed in Section 5.17. The EIR can be accessed here: https://yucaipa.org/wp- content/uploads/dev_svcs/EIR/YVWCSP/WCSPDraftSEIR.pdf?_t=1701989572.

23903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2 For any specific questions, please reach out to Ben Matlock.

Thank you again for reaching out.

Chris Mann
City Manager
City of Yucaipa
City Hall • 34272 Yucaipa Blvd • Yucaipa, CA 92399
Office: 909-797-2489
www.yucaipa.gov

From: Monica Anne Harwood
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 at 8:21 PM
To: Chris Mann , Benjamin Matlock
Subject: Re: Wine country specific plan
Mr. Mann,
Thank you for your prompt response. I’m also including Mr. Matlock in my response.

Still the “Groundwater Assessment” is not set to be updated until 2027 and, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District has not been notified or involved in this process. So, how can the project be legally approved without these issues being addressed and updated? Secondly, the infrastructure has not been addressed adequately. What is the plan to accommodate the increased traffic, update the roads and who will pay for this? I remain adamantly opposed to this the Wine Country Specific Plan.

Monica Harwood
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, March 25, 2024, 7:10 PM, Chris Mann wrote:

Ms. Harwood,

Thank you for your message.

The Environmental Impact Report that studied the proposed Wine Country Specific Plan reviewed and addressed the issue of water supply. To make a long story short, there is sufficient water supply to serve the homes and vineyards/wineries contemplated by the Plan. As the number of homes called for in the Plan is the same as the number of homes allowed by the current zoning, the residential portion of the Plan does not result in an increase in potable water usage. The vineyards 24003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

3 would be required to utilize recycled water, which Yucaipa Valley Water District has confirmed that there is an adequate supply to serve the Plan area.

Should you have more specific questions on this matter, please feel free to reach out directly to Deputy Director of Community Development/City Planner Ben Matlock, who is the expert in this area. He can be reached at [email protected].

Thank you.

Chris Mann
City Manager
City of Yucaipa
City Hall • 34272 Yucaipa Blvd • Yucaipa, CA 92399
Office: 909-797-2489
www.yucaipa.gov

From: Monica Anne Harwood
Date: Sunday, March 24, 2024 at 5:36 PM
To: Chris Mann
Subject: Wine country specific plan
Mr. Mann,
I have been in contact with Heather Dyer, Chief Executive Office/General Manager of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, regarding if the Yucaipa Valley Water District, has factored in the proposed wineries in the North Bench of Yucaipa in the Sustainable Groundwater Management. Ms.

Dyer replied directly to me, she is unaware if this has been completed or updated. The SBVMWD has not been notified of any changes. Therefore, as a very concerned citizen, who is opposed to the implementation and changes to the North Bench for the Wine Country Specific Plan, I wrote to Ms. Ares (YVWD) as suggested to ask directly about the water issues that will ultimately impact Yucaipa if this change is approved. I am still waiting for a reply.

Below you will see the original email correspondence I sent to to all the Yucapia City Council members but have Not received any reply as of this date. It is of utmost importance that I receive a 24103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

4 response immediately since the next Yucaipa City Council meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 27, 2024. In addition what is the position of YVWD of the Wine Country Specific Plan? Respectively submitted (2nd request) by,
Monica A. Harwood
A seventeen year resident of Yucaipa, North Bench
THIS EMAIL WAS SENT TO All Yucapia City Council members on Feb. 26, 2024 There is not enough water to support vineyards with new homes. According to the General Manager of San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (the umbrella water authority for the Inland Empire), Heather Dryer, the ground water is Not to capacity to support this kind of growth, despite the recent rain. Ground water at a minimum must be at 90% capacity. When Ms Dryer was asked if her agency was consulted, she said: “No!” As stated by Ms Dryer, “The future does not look like past. It requires strategic support to ensure reliable and sustainable water supply.” (I heard Ms Dryer speak at an event recently.) In addition I researched Yucapia Valley Water assessment plan, filed with the CA Dept. Of Water Resources, filed in January, 2024 and, will not be reviewed until again until 2027. There is No provision taken into account for the establishment of vineyards, which take five years to produce grapes! Currently, our area is in quarantine for the Chinese fruit fly. How can we even bring anything like grapevines to plant? There is literally minimal snowfall with subsequent runoff available due to climate change and our recent draughts.

The infrastructure needed for the projected project does not exist! Who is supposed to pay for this?! Above Jefferson at both Ivy & Carter, the road narrows significantly and eventually becomes a dirt road. Between Ivy & Carter along Jefferson is a dirt road and, runs through a culvert that is subject to flooding and closures.

I strongly object to this project!
Respectively submitted by,
Monica A Harwood
Seventeen year resident of the North Bench

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
24203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1 Tara Davis
From:Benjamin Matlock
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:25 AM
To:Tara Davis
Subject:FW: WCSP traffic

Benjamin Matlock
Deputy Director of Community Development / City Planner City of Yucaipa
City Hall • 34272 Yucaipa Blvd • Yucaipa, CA 92399
Office: 909-797-2489 Ext. 261
www.yucaipa.gov

From: Matthew Underwood
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 8:05 AM
To: Benjamin Matlock
Subject: WCSP traffic

Dear Mr. Matlock,

At the planning commission meeting for the WCSP one of the commissioners asked you about known DUI data resulting from North Cork Winery. You stated that you weren't aware of any. I agree, I think that would be hard data to measure, know, and quantify, particularly if for instance a DUI incident was recorded down in Mentone, Redlands, or the Interstate that might be related to North Cork.

I didn't listen to the exact playback, but I believe you also went on to make a more generic statement that you weren't aware of any DUI traffic concerns in general. Respectfully, I have brought up concerns on at least two occasions in face-to-face meetings with you, including the very day before this PC meeting, in regards to my personal experience of North Cork traffic on Juniper/Azurite/Yucaipa Ridge/Crystal/Quartz/Goldstone streets.

Anyone else on these streets would tell you the same concerns.

A few years ago, there was a DUI incident in which a car crashed through a block wall at a residence at the corner of Quartz and Diamond. About a month ago the street sign on the corner of Azurite and Crystal was broken and snapped to the ground that could only result from a vehicle hitting it. I don't know if these were North Cork related, but I think you can understand the that it is not a giant leap to wonder about a connection. I do know for a fact the times I have had to jump of the road walking my dogs are related to North Cork traffic.
24303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2 My simple ask is that if you get asked a similar question in public meetings that you at least acknowledge the concerns and experience of residents that you have heard.

Sincerely,
Matt

Matthew B. Underwood MD
Vice Chairman / QI Director
Emergency Department
Riverside Community Hospital

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, is for the sole use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain confidential and privileged information, including HIPAA Protected PHI or Peer Review protected material per California Evidence Code 1157. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this message and its attachments in its entirety.
24403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

24503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 5
24603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

24703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

24803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

24903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

25003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

25103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 1-A
YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA: WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

PROPOSED LAND USE SCENARIO

LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARY
I Developable Land Use Description
A Projected Residential Land Uses Number of Units [1]
Single Family Home 1,091
B Projected Non-Residential Land Uses Acreage [1]
Wineries 465.5
I Residential Land Use Population
A Projected Residential Land Uses Persons per Household [2] Single Family Home 2.726
II Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan, Public Preview Draft, November, 2023 A Projected Non-Residential Land Uses Acreage per Employee Wineries NA
I Projected Residential Population
A Projected Residential Land Uses Number of Units Residential Population Single Family Home 1,091 2,974
II Projected Direct Employees
A Projected Non-Residential Land Uses Total Direct Employees Wineries [3]47
I Total Projected Residential Population 2,974
II Total Projected Direct Employees 47
III Total Persons Served Population [4]2,998
NOTES:
[1] Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan, Public Preview Draft, November, 2023 [2] State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2023.
[3] Based on the estimate by the IMPLAN model.
[4] An employee is typically assumed to be equivalent to 50% of a resident given they would spend only eight active hours in the City per day versus a resident who is active for 16 hours per day. *All figures subject to rounding
Population and Employees (Totals)
Future Land Use Data
Demographic Data
Population and Employees (Calculations)
25203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 1-B
YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA: WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

PROPOSED LAND USE SCENARIO

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
I Property Tax Allocation (as a Portion of the 1% General Property Tax Levy) [1] A Category / Code Allocated to City [2]
General Fund 22.652628%
Total 22.652628%
II Homeowner's Exemption
Homeowner's Exemption (Annually)$7,000
Percent of Sale Units Taking Homeowner's Exemption [3]90% I Residential Land Uses
A Single Family Home
Number of Units [4]1,091
Estimated Sales Price per Unit [5]$897,823
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value $972,651,593
II Non-Residential Land Uses
A Wineries
Estimated Number of Acres [4]465.5
Estimated Valuation per Acre [6]$69,000
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value $32,119,500
III Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan, Public Preview Draft, November, 2023 $1,004,771,093 I Unsecured Property Taxes - Assumptions [7]
A Unsecured Taxes as a % of Secured
Residential Property 2.50%
Non-Residential Property 10.00%
II Property Tax Transfer - Assumptions [8]
A Turnover Rate
Residential Property 10.00%
Non-Residential Property 3.00%
B Other Assumptions
Transfer Tax as a % of Assessed Value 0.11%
Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan, Public Preview Draft, November, 2023 50.00% III Motor Vehicle Licensing Fees - Assumptions
Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan, Public Preview Draft, November, 2023 NA IV Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee - Assumptions Total City of Yucaipa Gross Assessed Value [9]$5,921,197,900 City of Yucaipa Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee [10]$6,500,000 Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Increase per $1,000 Assessed Value $1.10 General Property Tax Assumptions
Assessed Valuation Assumptions
Other Property Tax Revenue Assumptions
25303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

25403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 1-C
YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA: WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

PROPOSED LAND USE SCENARIO

SALES TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
I Indirect Sales Tax Assumptions - Residential
A Mortgage/Rent Assumptions
A.1 Single Family Home
Projected Sales Price per Unit [1]$897,823
Average Mortgage (20% Down Payment)$718,258
Annual Mortgage Payment (5% for 30 Years)$46,269
Additional Annual Taxes & Insurance (2.00%) $17,956
B Disposable Income Assumptions
B.1 Single Family Home
Average Household Income (3:1 Income to Household Payment Ratio)$192,677 Retail Taxable Expenditures (as a % of Disposable Income) [2]23.10% II Indirect Sales Tax Assumptions - Annual Tourist Spending on Local Restaurants Indirect Local Restaurants [3]$2,950,000
III Indirect Sales Tax Assumptions - Employees
Annual Spending per Employee [4]$951
IV Retail Taxable Sales Capture
City of Yucaipa Retail Taxable Purchase Capture [5]50%
I Non-Residential Direct Sales Tax Assumptions
A Non-Residential Land Uses Taxable Sales per Acre [6]
Wineries $31,213.75
I Percent to the City of Yucaipa
City of Yucaipa Municipal Code §3.16.050 1.00%
I Fiscal Impact Category Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
A Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan, Public Preview Draft, November, 2023 A.1 Projected Residential Land Uses
Single Family Home $242,754
A.2 Projected Non-Residential Land Uses
Indirect Local Restaurants $29,500
A.3 Employee Taxable Sales
Direct Employees $224
B Direct Sales Tax
B.1 Projected Non-Residential Land Uses
Wineries $145,300
II Total Sales Tax Revenues $417,778
Indirect Sales Tax Assumptions
Direct Sales Tax Assumptions
Other Sales Tax Assumptions
Fiscal Impact Calculation
25503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 1-C
YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA: WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

PROPOSED LAND USE SCENARIO

SALES TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
NOTES:
[1] Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan, Public Preview Draft, November, 2023 [2] Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022 Consumer Expenditure Survey [3] Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan, Public Preview Draft, November, 2023 [4] Based on the average spending on Fast Food/Deli/Lunch Eateries for workers with annual income between $50K and $75K. Source: "Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age," ICSC (2012).

Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate. [5] Based on typical DTA baseline assumptions.
[6] Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan, Public Preview Draft, November, 2023 *All figures subject to rounding
25603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 1-D
YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA: WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

PROPOSED LAND USE SCENARIO

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
City of Yucaipa [1]10.00%
II Other Assumptions
Occupancy Tax Loss from Extended Stays at Hotel [2]3.50% IV Annual Hotel Revenue
Indirect Local Lodging [3]$3,660,000
I Fiscal Impact Category Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
A Transient Occupancy Tax
Indirect Local Lodging $353,190
II Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues $353,190
NOTES:
[1]Accoridng to Municipal Code §3.20.030, the City currently receives 7%, however, the rate will increase to 10% at the build-out of the WCSP.
[2]Based on typical DTA baseline assumptions.
[3]Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan, Public Preview Draft, November, 2023 *All figures subject to rounding
Transient Occupancy Tax Assumptions
Fiscal Impact Calculation
25703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

25803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 2-B
YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA: WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

CURRENT LAND USE SCENARIO

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
I Property Tax Allocation (as a Portion of the 1% General Property Tax Levy) [1] A Category / Code Allocated to City [2]
General Fund 22.652628%
Total 22.652628%
II Homeowner's Exemption
Homeowner's Exemption (Annually)$7,000
Percent of Sale Units Taking Homeowner's Exemption [3]90% I Residential Land Uses
A Single Family Home
Number of Units [4]1,091
Estimated Sales Price per Unit [5]$849,000
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value $919,385,700
III Total Land Use Net Taxable Value (Includes Takeout from Homeowner's Exemption)$919,385,700 I Unsecured Property Taxes - Assumptions [6]
A Unsecured Taxes as a % of Secured
Residential Property 2.50%
II Property Tax Transfer - Assumptions [7]
A Turnover Rate
Residential Property 10.00%
B Other Assumptions
Transfer Tax as a % of Assessed Value 0.11%
Property Transfer Tax Passed Through to City of Yucaipa 50.00% III Motor Vehicle Licensing Fees - Assumptions
Vehicle Licensing Fees per Capita NA
IV Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee - Assumptions Total City of Yucaipa Gross Assessed Value [8]$5,921,197,900 City of Yucaipa Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee [9]$6,500,000 Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Increase per $1,000 Assessed Value $1.10 I Fiscal Impact Category Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
A Secured Property Tax
A.1 Projected Residential Land Uses
Single Family Home $2,082,650
B Unsecured Property Tax
B.1 Projected Residential Land Uses
Single Family Home $52,066
C Property Transfer Tax
C.1 Projected Residential Land Uses
Single Family Home $50,566
General Property Tax Assumptions
Assessed Valuation Assumptions
Other Property Tax Revenue Assumptions
Fiscal Impact Calculation
25903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

26003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 2-C
YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA: WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

CURRENT LAND USE SCENARIO

SALES TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
I Indirect Sales Tax Assumptions - Residential
A Mortgage/Rent Assumptions
A.1 Single Family Home
Projected Sales Price per Unit [1]$849,000
Average Mortgage (20% Down Payment)$679,200
Annual Mortgage Payment (5% for 30 Years)$43,753
Additional Annual Taxes & Insurance (2.00%) $16,980
B Disposable Income Assumptions
B.1 Single Family Home
Average Household Income (3:1 Income to Household Payment Ratio)$182,199 Retail Taxable Expenditures (as a % of Disposable Income) [2]23.10% II Retail Taxable Sales Capture
City of Yucaipa Retail Taxable Purchase Capture [3]50%
I Percent to the City of Yucaipa
City of Yucaipa Municipal Code §3.16.050 1.00%
I Fiscal Impact Category Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
A Indirect Sales Tax
A.1 Projected Residential Land Uses
Single Family Home $229,553
II Total Sales Tax Revenues $229,553
NOTES:
[1] Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan, Public Preview Draft, November, 2023 [2] Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022 Consumer Expenditure Survey [3] Based on typical DTA baseline assumptions.
*All figures subject to rounding
Indirect Sales Tax Assumptions
Other Sales Tax Assumptions
Fiscal Impact Calculation
26103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

26203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

26303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 6
26403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

26503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

26603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan
Wine Country Specific Plan
Adopted: X, 20XX
Ordinance Number: XXXXXXX
26703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

26803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Project Vision .................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Executive Summary .......................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Guiding Principles ............................................................................ 1-2

1.4 Relationship to the General Plan .................................................... 1-3

1.5 CEQA Compliance ........................................................................... 1-4

1.6 Authority and Scope ......................................................................... 1-4

1.7 Public Outreach ................................................................................ 1-4 Chapter 2: Context and Existing Conditions

2.1 Regional Setting ................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Local Setting and Surrounding Land Uses .................................... 2-1

2.3 Existing Land Use ............................................................................. 2-5

2.4 General Plan Land Use .................................................................... 2-7

2.5 Topography and Floodplain ............................................................ 2-7

2.6 Farmland ............................................................................................ 2-7

2.7 Market Conditions ......................................................................... 2-12 Chapter 3: The Plan

3.1 Rural Design Concept ...................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Land Use Plan ................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Mobility Plan ..................................................................................... 3-6

3.4 Open Space Plan ............................................................................. 3-13

3.5 Grading Concept ............................................................................ 3-13

3.6 Water, Sewer and Storm Drains ................................................... 3-14

3.7 Fuel Modification Zones................................................................ 3-15

3.8 Utilities and Public Services .......................................................... 3-15 Chapter 4: Development Standards

4.1 Purpose .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Residential Development Standards .............................................. 4-1

4.3 Winery Development Standards .................................................... 4-9

4.4 Public Use development Standards .............................................. 4-19

4.5 Outdoor Lighting ............................................................................ 4-20

4.6 Signage ............................................................................................. 4-20 Chapter 5: Design Guidelines

5.1 Purpose .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Site Planning Principles and Area Character ................................ 5-2

5.3 Overall Design Guidelines and Requirements .............................. 5-3

5.4 Landscaping..................................................................................... 5-11

5.5 Residential Specific Guidelines ..................................................... 5-12

5.6 Architectural Styles ........................................................................ 5-15 Chapter 6: Administration and Implementation

6.1 Administration.................................................................................. 6-3

6.2 Implementation ................................................................................ 6-8

26903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ii Public Hearing Draft 2023
Figures
Figure 2.1 Regional Map ............................................................................ 2-2 Figure 2.2 Regional Vicinity – North Bench ........................................... 2-3 Figure 2.3 Site Arial .................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-4 Parcel Map ................................................................................ 2-6 Figure 2-5 General Plan Land Use ............................................................ 2-8 Figure 2-6 Land Use Modification Overlay Districts (Custom Home) ........................................................................................ 2-9 Figure 2-7 FEMA Floodplain and Slope Map .......................................2-10 Figure 2-8 Important Farmland ..............................................................2-11 Figure 3-1 Land Use Plan ........................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3.2 Planning Areas ......................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3.3 Existing and Proposed Circulation ........................................ 3-7 Figure 3.4 Limited Access Collector - Oak Glen Road .......................... 3-9 Figure 3.5 Residential Collector – Jefferson Street, Carter Street, Ivy Avenue ...............................................................................3-10 Figure 3.6 Residential Streets – Neighborhood Roadways .................3-11 Figure 3.7 Wine Country Roundabout ..................................................3-12 Figure 3.8 Wine Country Trail ..............................................................3-13 Figure 3.9 Fire Safety Overlay Districts .................................................3-16 Figure 4-1 Land Use Illustrative ................................................................ 4-2 Figure 4-2 Residential Lot Size: Estates .................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-3 Residential Setbacks: Estates................................................... 4-4 Figure 4-4 Residential Lot Size: Villas ...................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-6 Projections and Encroachments............................................. 4-8 Figure 4-7 Winery Site Standards ........................................................... 4-13 Figure 4-8 Micro Winery Illustrations ................................................... 4-16 Figure 4-9 Artisan Winery Illustration .................................................. 4-17 Figure 4-10 Boutique Winery Illustration ............................................... 4-18 Figure 5-1 Illustration of Articulation Elements .................................... 5-4 Figure 6-1 Conceptual Phasing Plan ........................................................ 6-9

Tables
Table 2 -1 Assessor Parcel Numbers ........................................................ 2-6 Table 2 -2 Direct Employment, Estimate and Range Viticultural Operations in Yucaipa ........................................................... 2-13 Table 2 -3 Indirect and Induced Employment, Estimate and Range; Viticultural Operations in Yucaipa ......................... 2-13 Table 2 -4 Total Annual Wages and Salaries ($), Estimate and Range; Viticultural Operations in Yucaipa ......................... 2-14 Table 2 -5 Value of Grape Production, Estimate and Range; Vineyards without Wineries in Yucaipa .............................. 2-14 Table 2 -6 Winery Revenue, Estimate and Range; Wineries in Yucaipa .................................................................................... 2-15 Table 2 -7 Project Site Summary ............................................................ 2-17 Table 2 -8 Residential Unit Breakdown ................................................. 2-17 Table 3.1 Wine Country Statistical Summary ....................................... 3-5 Table 3.2 Land Use Summary by Planning Area .................................. 3-5 Table 4.1 Residential Densities ............................................................... 4-1 Table 4 -2 Permitted Uses by Type of Winery ...................................... 4-12 27003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan iii
Table 4 -3 Winery Development Standards by Type ...........................4-12 Table 4 -4 Winery Parking Requirements .............................................4-14 Table 4.5 Public and Open Space Permitted Uses ..............................4-19 Table 5 -1 Craftsman Design Elements .................................................5-17 Table 5 -2 Spanish Colonial Design Elements ......................................5-19 Table 5 -3 Farmhouse Design Elements ................................................5-21 Table 5 -4 Traditional Design Elements ................................................5-23 Table 5 -5 Northern European Design Elements .................................5-25 Table 5 -6 Mission Design Elements ......................................................5-27 Table 6 -1 Review, Approval, and Appeal Authority .............................. 6-4 Table 6 -2 Development by Phase ............................................................ 6-8 Table 6 -3 Maintenance Responsibilities ...............................................6-12

Appendices
Appendix A General Plan Consistency
Appendix B Economic Impact Study
Appendix C Residential Market Study

27103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

iv Public Hearing Draft 2023
This page intentionally left blank.

27203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

27303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

27403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

27503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

27603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

27703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1-4 Public Hearing Draft 2023
development proposed. The Specific Plan gives more detailed regulatory guidance and provides the essential link between General Plan policies and actual development on-site.

The Specific Plan is within the Rural Living Land Use District (see Figure 1-1, General Plan Land Use Map), in which single-family residential is the primary use, and open space and agriculture coexist. The maximum development density is one unit per acre.

The WCSP maintains the land use requirement and buildout capacity of the General Plan, with the same total number of units on the entire site. But the WCSP would allow residential at a higher density, up to approximately four units per acre, while maintaining the effective one-acre density over the entire plan area, and would balance the remainder of the land to create areas that specifically support viticultural uses or open space.

A detailed statement of consistency of the WCSP with the City General Plan is in Appendix A of this document.

1.5 CEQA COMPLIANCE
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to the General Plan EIR has been prepared as a companion document to this Specific Plan and will provide California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) review for approval.

1.6 AUTHORITY AND SCOPE
This Specific Plan includes details, regulations, and conditions necessary for the implementation of the City’s General Plan pursuant to California Government Code Section 65451, including:

1. The distribution and location of housing, agriculture, and open space, together with regulations establishing height, bulk, and setback limits for such buildings and facilities, including the location of areas, such as floodplains or excessively steep or unstable terrain, where no building will be permitted in the absence of adequate precautionary
measures being taken to reduce the level of risk to that comparable with adjoining and surrounding areas.

2. Standards for existing and proposed transportation, sewage, water, and drainage.

3. Standards for the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources, including the prevention, control and correction of soil erosion caused by subdivision roads or any other sources, and the protection of watershed areas.

1.7 PUBLIC OUTREACH
It should be recognized that the WCSP represents a unique planning endeavor that started from an initial dream to build a meaningful industry in the community. This dream began years ago when various local enthusiasts would participate in wine tasting 27803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan 1-5
events to share their appreciation, then travel to other regions of the state and beyond to experience the setting of the vineyards that made those wines. As their appreciation and knowledge of wine grew, several began purchasing grapes to begin amateur
winemaking operations and learn about the work needed to produce great-tasting products. These amateurs ultimately evolved, establishing their own bona fide wine businesses, and interest grew in establishing vineyards in Yucaipa to fulfill the dream of developing a successful winemaking industry.

However, creating a new winemaking industry in Yucaipa is impeded by the lack of agriculturally zoned land; most wine regions in California were created on lands previously zoned for agriculture and have been historically developed for vineyards. From this growing interest, the initial question that ultimately led to this specific plan was simply “How can we make this happen here?” To help understand the best approach for the City to encourage the development of a sustainable wine industry, and how this development would fit within the existing built environment and regulatory context, a two-phased approach was implemented— Phase I is the research and initial outreach phase, and Phase II is development of the actual tools necessary to develop a wine country in the community.

The Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan represents Phase II and was developed after an extensive outreach program that spanned several years. It combines the input received from a variety of community groups and citizens about how to best achieve the community’s vision for the greater North Bench area as it develops a wine industry that matches the “Yucaipa way.” This vision guided the dream to establish a new viticultural industry in the community and has been deliberately planned to provide an agrarian and rural atmosphere that protects key natural features, promotes the development and ongoing success of a wine industry, and provides opportunities for high-quality housing that was already permitted by the General Plan. These outreach efforts are summarized in the remainder of this chapter.

Initial Kick-off
As part of the start of the land use visioning process, the City Council held a special meeting and workshop on September 12, 2019, which included a tour of three wineries in the Temecula Wine Country and a Viticulture Roundtable discussion held at the City of Temecula Civic Center. The workshop was intended as an
immersive experience for the council members, representatives of city committees, and the Yucaipa Valley Wine Alliance. The three wineries that were toured represented a range of sizes—from a smaller boutique winery to a large-scale commercial operation, wine tasting room, and resort. The roundtable discussion featured City of Temecula staff, the Temecula Chamber of Commerce, and local winery-related businesses to give a sense of what has and has not worked for the Temecula region. The roundtable panel noted 27903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

28003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

28103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

28203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

28303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1-10 Public Hearing Draft 2023
This page intentionally left blank.

28403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

28503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

28603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan 2-1

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING
Yucaipa is 10 miles east of San Bernardino, along the southern edge of San Bernardino County (see Figure 2-1, Regional Map). It was known as “Yucaipa Valley” because it lies at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. As shown in Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity, the city is bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest to the north and east, by the city of Calimesa to the south, by the city of Redlands to the west, and by unincorporated land to the northwest.

Regional access is provided by State Route 210 (SR-210), SR-60, and the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10), which passes through the city.

Yucaipa Valley (including Yucaipa, Calimesa, unincorporated areas of Oak Glen, and surrounding county areas with natural borders) encompasses premier farming territory and important agricultural lands in the county. It has a rich history of cultivating oranges, peaches, plums, walnuts, and, most notably, apples. Grape cultivation in the Yucaipa Valley can be traced as far back as the late 19th century. Yucaipa gained acclaim for the quality of its produce and is known for its near perfect agricultural environment. In addition, the Serrano Native Americans’ history provides cultural heritage to the area.

2.2 LOCAL SETTING AND

SURROUNDING LAND USES
Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan Area (Plan Area) includes approximately 1,040 acres in the northeast corner of the city. It is one of the largest undeveloped areas in Yucaipa’s North Bench. The Plan Area is bounded by Martell Avenue on the east, Oak Glen Road on the south, and Fremont Street on the west. The major north-south thoroughfares include Fremont Street, Jefferson Street, and Martell Avenue; major east-west thoroughfares include Ivy Street, Carter Street, and Oak Glen Road (see Figure 2.3, Local Vicinity).

Surrounding residential properties are characterized by single- family detached homes to the west and south of the Plan Area. The El Dorado Park and Five Winds Ranch are situated east of the project. The foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains provide a striking natural backdrop to the north and east of the Plan Area.

28703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

28803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

28903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

29003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

29103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

29203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan 2-7

2.4 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
The 2016 Yucaipa General Plan designates the Plan Area Rural Living (RL) within the Custom Home Overlay (as shown in Figure 2-5, General Plan Land Use, and Figure 2-6, Land Use Modification Overlay District), which allows low-density rural residential development that is enhanced by special design standards. Single- family residential is the primary use allowed, along with conservation of open space, watershed, and habitat areas. It also includes areas where animal uses, agriculture, and compatible uses may coexist or be permitted. The maximum density allowed is one dwelling unit per acre, with allowed uses including single-family detached residential, agriculture and related uses, recreation facilities, and neighborhood-scale public and semipublic uses.

2.5 TOPOGRAPHY AND

FLOODPLAIN
The topography of the site slopes gently down at approximately 8 percent from northeast to southwest, as shown in Figure 2-7, FEMA Floodplain and Slope Map. The elevation ranges from 2,920 feet to 3,600 feet above sea level.

Wilson Creek flows from northeast to southwest. A small portion of the creek crosses the Plan Area and is within the 100-year floodplain, as defined by the Federal Flood Insurance Regulations.

Projects proposed near the floodplain shall be subject to a Land Use Compliance Review and a Flood Hazard Development Review.

2.6 FARMLAND
The California Department of Conservation only designates three acres of Prime Farmland on the project site, corresponding to an existing olive orchard. However, approximately 40 percent of the overall site is designated “Farmland of Local Importance,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Prime Farmland” by combining the orchard area with areas farmed for dry harvest wheat. The designations for prime, important, and unique farmland mean the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supplies are suitable to produce sustained high yields, are important to the local agricultural economy, and are therefore suitable for the development of a viticultural industry. Approximately 50 percent of the site is designated “Grazing Land,” and 10 percent is “Other Land,” as shown in Figure 2-8, Important Farmland.

29303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

29403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

29503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

29603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

29703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2-12 Public Hearing Draft 2023

2.7 MARKET CONDITIONS
The following is a summary of an economic impact study on viticulture and associated development that was undertaken to inform the Specific Plan. In addition, a residential market study was undertaken to determine the market demand, optimal lot size, and feasibility for a wine-oriented master planned community. The reports are summarized below and provided in Appendix B and Appendix C.

2.7.1 ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY OF

VITICULTURE AND ASSOCIATED

DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of the economic impact study was to provide a base- level understanding of how the development of a viticultural industry might generate benefits to the local economy. Since there is no way to predict exactly how the Wine Country will unfold, the scenario evaluated was configured as a conservative estimate of development of vineyards and winery operations. The potential scenario quoted was configured by PlaceWorks for the purpose of analysis and did not represent a predetermined direction; the specific plan used the scenarios as a reference point and ultimately tailored the planned approach to suit the community’s needs.

This report is based on economic benefits assessments conducted for other wine regions in California that have more fully developed supply chains. For the sole purpose of this economic impact study, it is assumed that viticultural operations would include the following:
• 406 acres of vineyards with no on-site wine production • 60 acres of vineyards with on-site wine production / tastings / sales / events. For purposes of analysis, this study has assumed 12 wineries of varying size within the acreage.

There is no clear time horizon for how long it will take to reach this level of viticultural development. For comparison, wine-grape production in Temecula Valley began 50 years ago, and the region now has 2,460 acres of wine-grape cultivation and 45 wineries. In the proposed Yucaipa Valley AVA, wine-grape production began about a decade ago, and there are currently two wineries. The amount of viticultural activity listed above may be 15 to 20 years in the making. However, the approval of the federal Yucaipa Valley AVA designation, along with the Wine Country Specific Plan, may increase public demand and interest to facilitate more rapid growth of the wine industry. The potential economic benefits described in the remainder of this memo are based on the following studies:
• Napa Valley Visitor Industry, 2018 Economic Impact Report • The Economic Impact of the San Luis Obispo County and Paso Robles AVA Wine Industry, 2015
29803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

29903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

30003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

30103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2-16 Public Hearing Draft 2023
through extensive research of the regional economy. Appendix B includes the full report, existing and projected demographics from the California Department of Finance, pricing of both resale and new residential construction, and current real estate market trends.

The following are the conclusions and recommendations from the report:

1. The desirable location and attractive character of the Wine Country and immediate surroundings supports the price
positioning of homes at the high end of the market, related to the establishment of a viticulture / wine-making industry in Yucaipa.

2. The existing RL-1, rural living, one-acre zoning does not fit the demand of today’s home buyers according to recent sales and current market trends.

3. The beauty of the Wine Country is to be enhanced by
adopting neighborhood crafting and residential design
principles related to sensitive habitat areas, vineyards, a trail system, and the creation of attractive streetscapes.

4. New high-end housing opportunities will likely tap the potential, pent-up demand from local owners of older
homes as well as those employed within the greater market area who are in search of upscale housing opportunities.

5. The Wine Country will be capable of attracting higher income households from the medical employment in Loma
Linda and other major employment centers to the west once higher-end homes that suit their preferences and incomes are introduced.

6. The Primary buyer segments to attract are Baby Boomer / Active Adults (57 to 75 years old in 2021), Generation X (41 to 56 years old in 2021) and the leading edge of Generation Y (25 to 40 years old in 2021).

7. New home offerings are not likely to exist when the Wine Country community enters the market. The absence of
competition will result in increased prices, values, and sales rates.

8. A dated housing stock exists in most neighborhoods in Yucaipa. Existing homeowners in Chapman Heights, for
example, are a ready pool of buyers that will be interested in moving up once new homes are introduced.

9. The recommended location of proposed land uses is based on the desire to create an aesthetically pleasing community (avoid the subdivision appearance) with buffers enabled by the integration of homes and vineyards. An example is the design and implementation of a scenic view corridor along Oak Glen Road.

10. Transitioning between existing land uses (one-half- to one- acre lots) and new development (10,000-square-foot to half- acre lots) respects the desire of current residents for compatible lot sizes to be offered in adjacent neighborhoods. 30203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

30303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2-18 Public Hearing Draft 2023

19. Implementation of the community design should include a Healthy Communities Program to increase value and
homeowner health, wellness, and well-being.

20. Current property owners could be incentivized to dedicate agricultural land for viticulture by supporting a mix of Moderately Higher Density lot sizes (compared to one-acre lots) that will result in increased land values.

21. The allowance of zoning for homes on 10,000 to 14,000 SF lots will incentivize builders to purchase land and potentially invest private funding to kick-start the new wine industry by investment in front-end infrastructure improvements
(improvement of Wine Corridor streets and providing
public water and sewer connections).

30403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

30503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

30603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

30703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

3-2 Public Hearing Draft 2023
This Plan was specifically created to enhance the Yucaipa Valley Viticulture Region. The development of this region is supported by the Yucaipa Valley Wine Alliance, an association of vintners and growers, whose goal is to create a thriving American Viticultural Area (AVA) that strengthens and expands the wine industry in the Yucaipa Valley Region.

Livable Community
Neighborhoods in the WCSP are intended to add character to the community. Residential designations provide for homes that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and the vision of this Plan.

The Plans outlined in this Chapter support sustainable land use, vehicular, bike and pedestrian mobility, and the infrastructure necessary to support development.

3.2 LAND USE PLAN
The Specific Plan includes five land use designations:
• Residential- Villas and Estates
• Non-Residential- Agriculture/ Winery, Water District and Open Space
Residential and non-residential uses are approximately a 50/50 split of the entire WCSP area. Non-residential uses include 73.6 acres open space, 465.5 acres agriculture (wineries), and 7.1 acres public use (water district and open space). 547.4 acres, or 50% of the total 1,093.6-acre planning area is designated for residential uses. As shown in Table 3-1, the maximum residential development potential is 1,091 dwelling units, consistent with the existing zoned capacity of the General Plan. All the units are anticipated to be single family detached residences, with individual lot sizes ranging from 10,000 square feet (net) to 0.5 acre (gross), as further discussed in Chapter 4, Development Standards. Figure 3.1, Wine Country Land Use Plan and Table 3.1, Wine Country Statistical Summary provide details and location for the buildout of this Plan.

3.2.1 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The following Land Use Plan and designations were crafted in collaboration with the Plan’s Advisory Committee, the efforts to support the Yucaipa Valley petition to become an American Viticultural Area, and to provide land uses and development that are consistent with the goals of the City’s General Plan. Permitted uses and applicable development standards for each designation are provided in Chapter 4, Development Standards.

Non-Residential
Agriculture/Winery
This designation identifies land within the WCSP area where the primary uses are vineyards and wine production. This designation accounts for approximately 465 acres of land. This area is suitable for grape growing due to its geographic and climatic features. Three 30803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan 3-3
types of wineries are permitted for the Area: Micro, Artisan, and Boutique. Definitions for each type of winery, permitted uses, and applicable development standards are provided in Chapter 4, Development Standards. It should be noted that the terms refer to the minimum property size of the vineyard, not the production volume of a winery.

Public Use
The Public Use areas are comprised of two land use designations:

Water District and Open Space.

Water District
Areas designated as Water District are owned by the Yucaipa Valley Water District and provide for utility and other related public services including preservation areas. The water district makes up approximately 7.1 acres of the WCSP area.

Open Space
The Open Space designation is intended to provide publicly accessible active and passive public park areas and trail connections, while preserving natural habitat along Wilson Creek. This designation is centrally located within the WCSP area accounting for approximately 73.6 acres. Standards for land designated as Open Space are provided in Chapter 4, Development Standards, and are intended to leave as much of the area as natural open space as feasible. These open space areas will also provide connections to the vineyard and residential development to create a comprehensive trail network for the community, and would consolidate a number of unpermitted trails into a defined natural pathway pursuant to the City’s Trail Master Plan.

Residential
Villas
The wine country Villas designation is intended to provide for low density residential at a maximum of 4.3 dwelling units per acre (10,000 square foot lots (net)). This single-family designation accounts for approximately 315 acres of land. This area will be connected by trails and open space areas to separate development from vineyards, and it generally includes terrain with steeper topography or parcels that are intended to prioritize natural open space areas along Wilson Creek.

Estates
The wine country Estates designation provides for well-designed single-family homes on large lots at up to 2 dwelling units per acre.

Land designated as Estates makes up approximately 232 acres of the WCSP area. Estate neighborhoods are intended to provide a transition between the wine country area and the surrounding larger-lot residential neighborhoods of the North Bench.

30903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

31003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

31103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

31203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

31303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

3-8 Public Hearing Draft 2023

3.3.2 PROPOSED VEHICULAR

CIRCULATION AND WINE

COUNTRY STREET SECTIONS
As shown on Figure 3.3, Oak Glen and Jefferson will continue to provide connectivity to the WCSP area. Development in the area will also continue to be supported by Ivy and Carter, and new connections from all existing streets will create a complete roadway network supporting both neighborhoods and wineries.

The following roadways have been designed to make Wine Country a destination, not a circulation corridor leading to somewhere else.

The goal is to maintain modest roadways with low traffic volumes and leisurely traffic speeds that allow travelers to enjoy the scenic, rural setting of the WCSP area.

Collector Streets – Public Right-of-Way
Oak Glen Road is a two-lane city-designated scenic corridor. It serves as the primary access to the WCSP area. Oak Glen Road is a Controlled/Limited Access Collector which will accommodate two lanes and a class II bike lane with a typical right-of-way width between 60 and 66 feet. As required in Chapter 4, Development Standards, a 150-foot setback is required along that roadway for any structure on an agriculture/ winery property that has frontage to Oak Glen Road. This corridor is also a City designated truck route that delivers goods and materials to and from Yucaipa.

Jefferson Street is an existing unpaved rural road. Roadway widening and improvement will be necessary for buildout of the WCSP area. It will be developed as a 2-lane collector with a right-of- way of 60 feet and class III bike access. As required in Chapter 4, Development Standards, a 100-foot setback is required for any structure on an agriculture/ winery property adjacent to Jefferson Street.

Carter Street is a paved one-lane rural roadway that provides east- west access between Bryant Street and the Bears Den Ranch. It will be developed as a 2-lane collector with class III bike access and a right-of-way of 60 feet. As required in Chapter 4, Development Standards, a 100-foot setback is required for any structure on an agriculture/ winery property adjacent to Jefferson Street.

Residential Streets – Neighborhood Roadways
Residential streets will provide direct access to future neighborhoods and individual properties. A typical street section consists of 2 drive lanes with a 55-foot right-of-way. At a minimum, the street will have a 5-foot sidewalk on one side. To maintain the rural character of the roadways, curbs and gutters are generally discouraged. However, low curbs shall be permitted on up to 50% of all streets within a Planning Area. Proposed locations of new Residential Streets in the WCSP area are provided on Figure 3.3, Existing and Proposed Roadway Network. The exact location of future residential streets will be determined during the tentative tract map phase of development.
31403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

31503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

31603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

31703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

31803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

31903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

3-14 Public Hearing Draft 2023
Most of the WCSP area has a gentle slope that less than 10 percent.

In these areas, grading shall be permitted up to the boundary of any lot or developed open space and contiguous lots may be graded contiguously. For development on slopes of between 10 and 20 percent, grading shall be limited to roads, driveways, and the building envelope as defined by the applicable setbacks.

Consistent with the City’s Hillside Ordinance, where development requires cut and fill grading, such cut and fill shall not exceed a ratio of 3:1 and shall be contoured to match the natural terrain. No development shall occur on any portion of a site that contains, or could affect or be affected by, an identified active or ancient landslide, fault zone, or other geologic hazards. Proposed site plans shall be accompanied by a report prepared by an engineering geologist certified by the State of California.

3.6 WATER, SEWER AND

STORM DRAINS
Water
Potable and recycled water are provided by the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). The WCSP will require the construction of new water infrastructure onsite and off-site, including new potable and recycled water lines and pumps, as well as any potential reservoirs. It is anticipated most on-site improvements will be 8” lines while off-site improvements within the public right of way could range from 12” to 24” depending upon the hydraulic analysis completed by YVWD. For the southern portion of the plan area, the point of connection for water will be off Oak Glen Road. Other areas of the plan may be able to connect to the services found in adjoining neighborhoods. A water demand analysis and an infrastructure plan have been developed to support the WCSP and demonstrate YVWD’s capacity to serve the area.

Sewer
The sewer network within the City is provided by YVWD. An infrastructure plan has been developed to support the WCSP and found that the implementation would result in a roughly 0.3 million gallons per day (MGD) over the development that would otherwise be permitted in the plan area and is within the capacity of YVWD’s treatment facility. Similar to the process for YVWD’s water infrastructure, the sewer network design for individual projects would be subject to hydraulic analysis completed by YVWD, and it is anticipated that on-site improvements would consist of 8” sewer lines.

Storm Drains
The City of Yucaipa manages the network of storm drains that capture runoff to convey them to the natural drainage channels or San Bernardino County Flood Constrict channels. As part of new development, projects in the WCSP would be required to develop new storm drains and also provide onsite drainage retention to ensure that the net amount of runoff does not increase. The use of 32003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan 3-15
detention basins with infiltration of the design capture volume (required volume for treatment) are anticipated to be the primary Best Management Practice (BMP) type to address the net runoff amount. These BMPs are consistent with the City’s Master Plan of Drainage and are found in other development in the City. As part of the rural design concept, the use of landscaped basins, bio-swales and other similar designs that provide both a form and functional benefit to the area are encouraged.

From these basins, the historical flow volume and roadway runoff would connect to new underground storm drain facilities. Most of the underground storm drain facilities are anticipated to generally follow the proposed roadway alignment but may be through a drainage easement along private property to accommodate the necessary hydrology. All projects that have off-site runoff will be responsible for implementing proper debris basins to manage off- site flows and route them through the project area, and the ultimate project-specific approach will be subject to review and approval by the City’s engineering division.

3.7 FUEL MODIFICATION
ZONES
A 100-foot-wide fuel modification zone (FMZs) will be required around new structures to provide an enhanced buffer from adjacent fuels. The Project’s FMZs would be maintained in perpetuity by the owners of each lot, the respective community HOA, or similarly responsible entity. However, where the full 100-foot FMZ is unable to be met, certain enhanced construction features may also be implemented. These features are identified as part of the fire protection plan was developed to support the environmental analysis of the WCSP.

3.8 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC

SERVICES
Development must ensure that the site has adequate public services available to support residences and employers. The Specific Plan may trigger the need for new or expanded services and facilities to provide acceptable service levels for municipal services. These services include fire and police protection, waste management and recycling, electricity, natural gas, access to schools and libraries, and communication services such as telephone and Wi-Fi. All development will be subject to the City’s Development Impact Fee Program to cover the “fair share” costs related to the expansion of such services.

Fire protection
A large portion of the WCSP area is within very high to extremely high fire hazard severity zone (FR1). And rest of the area is in FR2 zone, which are lands vulnerable to fire due to proximity to a FR-1.

These districts are shown on Figure 3.9, Fire Safety Overlay District and are regulated by YMC Section 85.020215. Responsibility for 32103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

32203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan 3-17
The Yucaipa-Calimesa joint unified school district offers public education for children from elementary through high school. San Bernardino County operates the Yucaipa Branch library. Both of which will serve residents of the WCSP area.

Lastly, OmniTrans provides transit services throughout the San Bernardino Valley. As the WCSP area is developed expanded services would be considered pending demand. Privately-operated shuttle services may also occur to connect between wineries and other key points of interest in the community.

32303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

3-18 Public Hearing Draft 2023
This page intentionally left blank.

32403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

32503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

32603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

32703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

32803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

32903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

33003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

33103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

33203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

33303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

33403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

33503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

4-10 Public Hearing Draft 2023
winery tasting facility when specifically requested and addressed as part of the discretionary permit application for the winery tasting facility or as a subsequent permit application process.

Special Winery Event. Any events hosted by the on-site winery or off-site wine cellar, such as charitable events, promotional events, and facility rental events that are not the tasting and marketing activities described above.

Dining Facility. The dining facility shall be subordinate to the sale of wine. Areas of a winery that are temporarily set up for winemaker dinners are not considered part of the dining facility.

Distilleries. A processing facility that makes alcoholic spirits, process such as whiskey, gin, vodka, or similar, through the distilling process. A distillery shall be bonded through the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and have a current California ABC License. Distilleries are only allowed with a conditional use permit in conjunction with a winery on the same lot. Allowed activities include, but are not limited to, blending, aging, wine storage, bottling, and warehousing operations; tasting facilities; wholesale and retail sales; and administrative functions.

Commercial Kitchen. A food preparation facility that is intended to provide food to the public, including customers, guests, or the general public, for on-site or off-site consumption; that complies with the California Health and Safety Code requirements; and is permitted by the San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services. It shall be accessory to the winery, tasting room, and any other authorized accessory use.

Retail Sales. Retail sales of merchandise, art, and prepackaged food items shall only be allowed within the tasting facilities and not in a separate structure. The sale of prepackaged food items shall comply with the California Health and Safety Code and be permitted by San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services. Sale of merchandise other than wine shall be subordinate to the wine sales.

Catering. Use of a commercial kitchen for the preparation of food to be served to the public either on- or off-site. Use of an on-site commercial kitchen for catering off-site events may be allowed by conditional use permit and only when the catering use is found to be subordinate to the winery’s wine sales.

Campground. Any area or tract of land where one or more lots or campsites are rented or leased, or held out for rent or lease, to accommodate tents, trailers, cabins, yurts, dormitories, and RVs for transient occupancy.

Picnic. Picnic areas shall be subordinate to the winery and tasting room.

Small Bungalow Resort. A specialty short-term, overnight accommodation provided either as hotel guest rooms, suites, or individual cottages. May include a restaurant as an accessory use. 33603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan 4-11
Bed and Breakfast Inn. A small hotel that provides lodging and breakfast for short-term overnight occupants for compensation.

Viticulture. The process of growing grapes for wine.

Vinification/Viniculture. The process of making wine.

4.3.3 PERMITTED USES
A variety of wine-related uses are permitted for the WCSP area.

Table 4-2, Permitted Uses by Type of Winery, provides the permitted, conditionally permitted, and temporary use for each type of winery. For more information about the approval process for the WCSP, see Chapter 6, Administration and Implementation. For any use not identified in Table 4-2 or described in this chapter, and in cases of uncertainty, the Community Development Director has the authority to determine whether an undefined use shall be permitted.

Types of Permit Authorization
• Permitted uses (P) are allowed without discretionary
approval unless site plan and architectural review applies, and subject to all applicable provisions of the WCSP. A permitted use replacing another permitted use at the same tenant space and size shall be processed as by-right use. • Conditional use permits (CUP) are intended to provide an opportunity to review the location, design, and manner of development of land uses prior to implementation. Uses
subject to CUPs are established through public hearing or administrative review procedures. CUPs are subject to the requirements in YMC Division 3, Chapter 3, Article 1,
“Conditional Use Permit,” and may be accommodated
through the land use compliance review process at the
discretion of the Community Development Director.
• Temporary use permits (TUP) require approval by the
Community Development Director according to YMC
Section 84.0701 and are subject to the procedures of YMC Section 83.030705.
• Land use compliance review applies to an administrative- level site plan review process.

4.3.4 WINERY DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS
The standards in this section are requirements for all wineries, accessory uses, and structures listed in Table 4-2, Permitted Uses by Winery Type. Table 4-3, Winery Development Standards by Type, lists the applicable standard and requirement to establish the building envelope for development. Figure 4-7, Winery Site Standards, demonstrate how these standards are implemented into a site design concept for each type of winery. Illustrative Figures 4-8 through 4-10 depict conceptual site plans for each the three winery types. Additional requirements may be added through the discretionary permitting process.
33703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

33803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

33903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

34003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan 4-15

4.3.6 LOADING
Loading activities shall occur within designated areas for wineries in the WCSP area. A site plan with detailed locations for loading shall be submitted for approval through the applicable review permit.

Both passenger and commercial loading zones must be addressed as required by this section.

Passenger

1. For any winery type, site design shall accommodate at least one permanently maintained, off-street, passenger loading area to be designated as a drop-off / pick-up zone.

2. The loading zone shall be no less than 10 feet in width, 20 feet in length, and 14 feet clear in height.

3. Commercial deliveries may not use the passenger loading zone.

Commercial

1. Commercial deliveries shall be confined to designated off- street areas.

2. The loading zone shall be no less than 10 feet in width, 20 feet in length, and 14 feet clear in height.

3. Loading docks shall be screened and sited away from
residences in the WCSP area or public streets.

4. Loading, unloading, and maintenance activities shall be conducted at times that avoid annoyance to adjacent
residences.

4.3.7 REFUSE AND RECYCLING AREAS
Accessory buildings, structures, and equipment used to house refuse and recycling areas shall be shielded from the view of adjacent neighborhoods and public rights-of-way.
• Refuse and recycling areas shall be at the rear of the primary winery building and shall be screened on all four sides; the top shall also be screened if adjacent to a residential neighborhood.
• Design elements such as architectural features, trellises, walls/ fences, and landscaping can be used to achieve the required level of screening, as described in Chapter 5, Design
Guidelines.

34103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

34203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

34303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

34403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

34503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

34603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

34703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

34803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

34903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

5-2 Public Hearing Draft 2023
The Specific Plan identifies six specific types of architectural styles: Craftsman, Farmhouse, Spanish Colonial, Mission, Northern European, and Traditional, for both residential and non-residential development within the YVWC area. With these six styles, the Design Guidelines provide suggestions/
recommendations as well as specific objective criteria. In combination, these help to elevate the built environment and ensure compatible development throughout the plan area.

Specific objective criteria are identified by the use of “shall” or a similar direct term in the description. Additional enhancements are also noted throughout to help elevate the overall appearance through greater attention to detail, consistent with the intent of the City’s Custom Home Overlay.

Additionally, the City adopted Citywide Design Guideline in 2019. Where the guidelines of this Chapter are silent, the Citywide Design Guidelines shall apply.

5.2 SITE PLANNING

PRINCIPLES AND AREA

CHARACTER
Projects in the Specific Plan should be designed and oriented to create a cohesive, attractive layout that provides adequate opportunities for connectivity and to take advantage of scenic views and the natural topography in the greater north bench area. In addition, a variety of styles and designs shall be included in neighborhoods to provide for a custom-feeling, high-caliber environment expected by the General Plan and that can
complement the adjoining wineries.

Design Considerations
• Setbacks, street standards, and landscaping should provide for an intimate setting within neighborhoods. This
includes providing landscape features such as a defined tree canopy, along with plants that add color and texture that work to develop the street scene and soften the
appearance of homes.
• Neighborhoods and wineries shall include a 100 feet buffer zone between residential and non-residential uses, which may include trails, landscaping, and other features.
• Landscaped slopes should be used to provide transitions between different grades along publicly accessible areas in lieu of exposed retaining walls.
• Landscape plant material along slopes and within the
buffer areas between wineries and residential
neighborhoods shall consist of California native species that will not invade or hybridize with agricultural areas. • Contour grading principles, which include rounded
grading corners and changes in hillside slope, should be used along publicly accessible slopes to provide for a more naturalistic appearance.
35003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

35103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

35203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

35303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

5-6 Public Hearing Draft 2023

5.3.2 BUILDING MATERIALS AND COLORS
Building materials and colors are an important element in accomplishing the true representation of a specific architectural style and shall be incorporated in a manner that is as authentic as possible to the selected style. Material breaks, transitions, and terminations should also produce complementary and clear definitions of separation while keeping within a prescribed tone.

Further, it is recognized that the character and personality of an area is significantly affected by the composition of building materials and the colors framing them. For neighborhoods it is therefore required that consideration be given to selecting a variety of color and material palettes along any given street to avoid a monotone appearance of multiple buildings of the same tones, while maintaining an overall cohesive and complementary design.

1. The basic color palette of the building should be true to the historic architectural style while expanding subtly to respond to the contemporary market.

2. Identical building facades on the same street must be minimized, where the same façade is not visible along the same viewshed. Variations in the selected colors and
materials shall be incorporated to minimize likeness and provide a sufficient degree of architectural variation and diversity throughout the neighborhood.

3. Color palettes should vary from elevation to elevation within each style.

4. Variations in materials from elevation to elevation should occur as appropriate to each style.

5. Selected colors and materials shall be consistent with the color schemes in the architectural style. Tonal accents may be used to highlight the character of the building and provide variation and depth to the building mass. Accent features may include additional color to provide contrast and to accentuate an architectural feature.

6. Material breaks, transitions, and terminations should produce complementary and clear definitions of
separation.

7. Material transitions shall occur preferably at inside corners of changing wall planes or where architectural elements intersect, such as a chimney, pilaster, or projection, or terminate at least 24 inches along the wall plane.

8. Variety in exterior materials and colors/hues shall be used to emphasize building forms.

9. All flashing, sheet metal vents, and pipe stacks shall be painted to match the adjacent roof or wall material.

10. Gutters and downspouts shall be decorative and designed to integrate with the building façade and should not appear as “tacked on” afterthoughts.

11. House and building numbers are to be interior lit boxes that meet City of Yucaipa Fire Department Standards.

Decorative yet legible fonts should be used for the
numbers to provide a more attractive detail for the
numbers.
35403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

35503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

35603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

35703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

35803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

35903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

36003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

36103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

36203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

36303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

36403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

36503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

36603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

36703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

36803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

36903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

37003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

37103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

37203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

37303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

37403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

37503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

37603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

37703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

37803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

37903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

38003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

38103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

38203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan 6-3

6.1 ADMINISTRATION
This chapter provides procedures, phasing, and programs that will regulate approval and implementation of projects within the WCSP area.

6.1.1 GENERAL ADMINISTATION
This section establishes regulations for processing applications, plan modifications, interpretation, and approval authority. The City of Yucaipa shall administer the provisions of the Wine Country Specific Plan in accordance with the State of California Government Code, Subdivision Map Act, the Yucaipa General Plan, the Yucaipa Development Code, and other relevant provisions of the Yucaipa Municipal Code. Specific Plan development procedures,
regulations, standards, and specifications shall supersede relevant provisions of the City’s Development Code as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Any development regulation and building requirement not addressed in the WCSP shall be subject to regulation under the Yucaipa Municipal Code (YMC).

6.1.2 REVIEW AUTHORITY AND

ENFORCEMENT
Several decision-making bodies have approval authority granted by the YMC. Table 6-1 provides an overview of the approval and appeal body for each type of review and/ or application.

Enforcement of the provisions of this Specific Plan shall occur as follows:

1. The Director of Community Development/City Planner shall be responsible for interpreting and enforcing all the provisions of this Specific Plan.

2. Pursuant to the City’s Development Code, any decision by the Director of Community Development/City Planner may be
appealed to the Planning Commission, and any decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council.

38303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

38403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan 6-5

6.1.4 INTERPRETATIONS
The City Planner or their designee shall have the authority to interpret Specific Plan requirements if the meaning or appropriate application of provisions in the Specific Plan is ambiguous. In so doing, the City Planner or their designee shall consider:
• Continuity and consistency with previous interpretations of this Specific Plan.
• The interpretation responds satisfactorily to the Specific Plan vision, intent, and purpose.
• The resultant project is consistent with the Yucaipa General Plan.
• The interpretations remain the final determination of the City Planner but may be appealed to the Planning Commission.

6.1.5 VARIANCE REVIEW
A request for a variance because of special circumstances, such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, shall be processed in accordance with Section 83.030905 of the YMC. The code establishes procedures for both a Minor Variance process and a Major Variance process. Variances are intended to be exceptions to a particular standard based on extraordinary circumstances or conditions to a property that do not apply to other properties in the same district of vicinity. A Minor Variance may be approved by the City Planner, and a Major Variance shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission.

6.1.6 MODIFICATIONS
This Specific Plan allows for flexibility as development occurs over the build out of the WCSP area. This flexibility could be needed for projects to better respond to market conditions or for changes in plans for infrastructure or services. Therefore, this Specific Plan includes both Minor Modification and Major Modification processes. Unlike the Variance process, the Minor and Major Modification processes are not limited to a special circumstance or hardship for a particular property but could be applied to one or more of the Land Use Designations to better address market conditions or other important factors that would relate to the implementation of the Specific Plan.

Minor Modifications
The City Planner may approve requests for a Minor Modification. A request for Minor Modification may include the following:
• A modification to a Development Standard (regulation) by not more than 10 percent.
• A transfer of density within or between residential planning areas not to exceed the total number of units allowed within the Specific Plan and no more than 10 percent above the planning area total number of units. Any such transfer will 38503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

6-6 Public Hearing Draft 2023
need to maintain all buffers and transitions to adjoining uses as provided by the Development Standard and land use plan.

See Section 6.1.7.
• A modification to the uses identified in the land use table, provided they are determined by the City Planner to be
compatible with other allowed uses. This includes related activities for agritourism that support and enhance the overall wine country development.
• A modification to the Conceptual Phasing Plan (Table 6-2). • Minor changes to the Specific Plan text and exhibits to clarify information, provided such changes do not increase the
allowable number of dwelling units or nonresidential square footage.

In approving a Minor Modification, the City Planner must make the following findings.
• The Minor Modification provides an aesthetic benefit, physical benefit, or environmental benefit to the originally approved Specific Plan.
• The Minor Modification is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Specific Plan and the General Plan.
• The Minor Modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or adversely affect property values of the existing or future development in the surrounding area. • The Minor Modification is necessary for safety reasons or to comply with other applicable codes, laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations.

Major Modifications
A Major Modification applies when an application proposes a change (increases or decreases) to the Development Standard(s) by more than 10 percent and up to 20 percent. The Planning Commission has approval authority over a Major Modification. In approving a Major Modification, the Planning Commission must make at least one of the following findings.
• The Major Modification provides an aesthetic benefit, physical benefit, or environmental benefit to the originally approved Specific Plan.
• The Major Modification is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Specific Plan and the General Plan.
• The Major Modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or adversely affect property values of the existing or future development in the surrounding area. • The Major Modification is necessary for safety reasons or to comply with other applicable codes, laws, ordinances, rules or regulations.

38603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan 6-7

6.1.7 TRANSFERS AND CONVERSIONS
As noted in Section 6.1.6, Modifications, transfers between planning areas are permitted as long as they meet the requirements of this section. The term “Transfer” means that land uses within each planning area can be transferred to another planning area as part of a request for a Minor Modification. Refer to Chapter 3, Table 3-1, Land Use Statistical Summary for the maximum number of units allowed for each land use category. Conversion between Residential and Winery uses will be addressed on a case-by-case basis and shall be determined by the City Planner. The City Planner may refer the approval to the Planning Commission for action. Additional studies may be required to support the conversion of uses and consistency with the environmental record.

6.1.8 TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATIONS
The Planning Division shall approve Tentative Map applications consistent with YMC Section 83.040220. Table 6-1, Review, Approval, and Appeal Authority, also provides the approval authority with specific provisions for maps that are processed within the WCSP area through an administrative review process.

6.1.9 NON -CONFORMING USES
Non-conforming uses are subject to YMC, Division 4 Land Uses, Chapter 8 Non-Conforming Uses. Legal lots that were created prior to the Specific Plan may also be developed for winery uses.

6.1.10 SEVERABILITY
If any regulation, condition, or program or portion thereof of the Specific Plan is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and the invalidity of such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.

6.1.11 CEQA COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 21000–21177), the WCSP (Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) describes the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and target buildout of the plan area. All development shall comply with the approved Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) for the EIR.

It is anticipated that proposed development that is approved consistent with the Specific Plan will be within the scope of the EIR 38703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

38803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

38903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

6-10 Public Hearing Draft 2023
Collector roads may be constructed partly in one phase and completed in another, so long as capacity required by
General Plan and Specific Plan are provided.

5. The City may allow for the deferral of construction of lanes, curbs and gutters, and landscaping, as may be appropriate in circumstances where subdivision phasing is proposed. For example, a secondary or collector street bounding a
subdivision phase may not be initially constructed to its full width, although full dedication will be required. The curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape area, and possibly the number- one lane on the side away from the subdivision may be
deferred until development occurs in that area, but all required street improvements for the project’s frontage along the right-of-way shall be completed. As development proceeds, additional construction of the roadway network will be carried out as specified in the development’s
conditions of approval.

6. Prior to the issuance of the residential building permit associated with 50% of the subdivision, the vineyard areas within that subdivision boundary shall be either: 1) planted, 2 2) include a mechanism in place to facilitate the planting of the vineyard such as a landscape bond, or 3) the sale or long-term lease of the property to a vineyard operator.

7. 6.2.3 FUNDING AND FINANCING
The financing and maintenance plan has been established to ensure the timely completion of public facilities, utilities, other necessary capital improvements and maintenance of these facilities to support development within the WCSP. The responsibility for designing and installing infrastructure improvements to improve this specific plan lies primarily with property owners and developers. As part of this responsibility, the development of the residential land uses shall provide for the necessary infrastructure to support the future vineyard/winery development. In addition to property owner and developer financing, the City’s General Plan has identified a number of potential public financing techniques that could be utilized to fund infrastructure improvements.

Potential funding mechanisms for the planned public
improvements include:
• Revenue Bonds
• Community Facility District (e.g. Mello-Roos)
• Assessment Districts
• Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
• Lighting and Landscape District
• Agency Owned Facilities
• Developer Funding
• Privately Owned Facilities
39003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan 6-11
Revenue Bonds
Municipal bonds can be used to finance projects in the WCSP area such as the construction of roads, water and wastewater systems, sewers, parks and trails, as well as power generation and transmission systems. This type of bond is typically payable out of the jurisdictions’ general fund, consisting mostly of property and sales tax revenue. These bonds require two-thirds voter approval.

Community Facility District
Community facility districts (such as Mello-Roos) are utilized to fund essential public facilities (e.g., roads, parkways, and other infrastructure). Creation of a community facility district requires a vote of property owners if fewer than 12 residents, or of residents when there are more than 12 residents. The CFD imposes
additional property taxes on land within the district.

Assessment Districts
Assessment district financing is utilized when the benefits of the infrastructure improvements can be directly linked to specific property owners. Each property is assessed its share of infrastructure costs based on the benefit received. The City establishes an assessment district as long as a majority of property owners do not oppose the formation.

Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
An enhanced infrastructure financing district is a tax-increment district that is used to fund regional infrastructure. Through the formation process, the City and special districts such as the Yucaipa Valley Water District (but excluding school districts) may allow their allocation of incremental property taxes to be transferred to the financing district to fund the infrastructure improvements. The drawback of using an enhanced infrastructure financing district is that the City will receive less property tax from new development.

Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District
A landscape and lighting maintenance district is a special district that funds ongoing operation and maintenance of roadway landscaping and lighting.

Agency-Owned Facilities: Water District
Water and sewer facilities will be provided by the Yucaipa Valley Water District. The District may use reserve funds or issue bonds to pay for main-line infrastructure and any needed upgrades to regional facilities (e.g. pumps, treatment plants). The District will charge property owners/developers connection fees, which will be used to pay off bonds and/or repay the Districts reserve funds. 39103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

39203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan 6-13

6.2.6 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65450-65457) permits adoption and administration of specific plans as an implementation tool for the General Plan.

Specific plans much demonstrate consistency in regulations, guidelines, and programs with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan. The WCSP has been prepared in conformance with Yucaipa’s 2016 General Plan, a consistency analysis is provided in Appendix A. Throughout the WCSP development, the City Council and community stakeholders provided direction and guidance to best implement the specific plan, and considerable attention has been provided towards the emerald necklace and open space goals of the community, along with providing a rural atmosphere in the north bench, creating opportunities towards economic development growth, and encouraging the ability to provide above-moderate housing – all core tenets of the General Plan.

39303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

6-14 Public Hearing Draft 2023
This page intentionally left blank.

39403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

39503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

A.1 GENERAL PLAN

CONSISTENCY
California law requires a Specific Plan to be consistent with the General Plan of the adopting locality. To ensure consistency with the General Plan, a review was done of the existing City of Yucaipa General Plan for any relevant goals and policies. This review revealed the Specific Plan and the General Plan to be
complementary and consistent.

This section analyzes the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan that are most relevant to the Wine Country Specific Plan area.

Goals and policies in the General Plan that are not applicable to the Specific Plan were not included.

Further, the Yucaipa General Plan states “When implementing Yucaipa’s General Plan, it is important to note that it addresses multiple objectives through its goals and policies. Adherence to an individual goal or policy is not intended to preclude achievement of other goals and policies. Implementing goals and policies often requires balancing priorities at a particular time or for particular circumstances and decisions. The City Council has final discretion over how to balance adherence to goals and policies when multiple ones affect a single decision.” Through the WCSP development, the community engagement prioritized elements that would further the overall General Plan goals and vision.

39603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

39703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

39803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

39903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

40003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

40103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

40203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

40303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

40403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

40503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

40603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

40703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

PlaceWorks | 3 MacArthur Place, Santa Ana CA 92707 | 714.966.9220 | placeworks.com

M EMORANDUM

Date: September 17, 2021
To: Raymond Casey, City Manager
Benjamin Matlock, Planning Manager
From: Sheila L. Cedervall, Project Manager
Steve Gunnells, Chief Economist
Subject: Economic Impact Study, Phase 2 Viticulture and Associated Development Standards

1. Introduction
1(A) Background
The City of Yucaipa is preparing a specific plan that would allow wine grape cultivation, wine production and sales, and related tourism activities in the North Bench area. The City is also considering amending the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan to allow viticultural uses and considering zoning amendments applicable to other areas of the city. These actions are being considered in conjunction with the submission by the Yucaipa Valley Wine Alliance of an application to the US Department of Treasure, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau to designate parts of Yucaipa and part of the surrounding unincorporated area of the county as an American Viticultural Area (AVA).

This economic study has been prepared as part of the work on specific plan for the North Bench area.
1(B) Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the economic impact study is to provide a base-level understanding of how the development of a viticultural industry in the North Bench area might generate benefits to the local economy. There are other considerations beyond economic impacts that are relevant to public decision-making for the specific plan. Nevertheless, this report is limited to potential economic considerations.

The analysis and findings summarized in this report are intended only to inform the development of the specific plan and to inform public discussions and decisions related to the plan. The analysis and findings summarized in this report are neither intended nor adequate to inform investment decisions. 40803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

To: Raymond Casey and Ben Matlock
Subject: Economic Impact Study, Phase 2 Viticulture and Associated Development Standards September 17, 2021 ⦁ Page 2

Anyone considering investing in the geographic area covered by this report or in the subject matter covered by this report should conduct their own due diligence, conduct their own financial analyses, and should not rely on the information presented in this report. 1(C) Limitations
Economic impact or benefits analysis is a fairly standard economic tool. However, there are two characteristics of this project that limit the applicability of a conventional economic benefits assessment. First, the project at hand is a potential specific plan that would allow certain viticultural and related activities in certain areas of the city. However, the specific plan itself does not create viticultural operations. Those will result from the private decisions of property owners, vintners, and investors, and these decisions are purely speculative at this point. PlaceWorks has created a reasonable estimate of how viticultural uses might develop in the North Bench area of the city over time, as described below. However, this estimate of future development is also speculative at this point and the actual development could be more or less.

Second, there is only marginal existing viticultural activity. Conventional economic benefit analysis accounts for not only the direct impacts from the project (in this case new vineyards and wineries) but also the indirect impacts of spending at vendors and suppliers and the spending by employees.

With limited viticultural activity, there is most likely limited to no existing suppliers and vendors, but as the viticultural industry grows and develops in the Yucaipa Valley it is reasonable to assume that supporting businesses will also grow and develop. However, conducting a conventional economic benefit analysis based on existing businesses would underestimate the benefits accruing through vendors and suppliers. This report is based on economic benefits assessments conducted for other wine regions in California, where such regions have more fully developed supply chains.

2. Project Description
The proposed Yucaipa Valley AVA would encompass approximately 30,000 acres. Not all this area would support viticultural operations because a large part of the AVA includes the developed parts of the cities of Yucaipa and Calimesa. Within Yucaipa, the City is considering a specific plan that would enable viticultural uses in the North Bench area and an amendment to the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan area. And yet, even in this limited portion of the city, not all of these areas would support viticultural operations. Other land uses may still be allowed, and topography and other constraints may limit wine grape cultivation. Assuming that the entire area under consideration developed for wine grape cultivation and wineries would result in vastly overestimating the economic benefits the City may realize resulting from the actions under consideration.

PlaceWorks developed a realistic and conservative estimate of the extent of viticultural operations based on our review of case studies and assessment of other AVAs. For the sole purpose of this economic impact study, it is assumed that viticultural operations in the portion of the Yucaipa Valley AVA with the city would include:
+ 200 acres of vineyards with no onsite wine production + 180 acres of vineyards across 15 wineries with onsite wine production/tastings/sales/events 40903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

To: Raymond Casey and Ben Matlock
Subject: Economic Impact Study, Phase 2 Viticulture and Associated Development Standards September 17, 2021 ⦁ Page 3

Depending on how the final plans are structured, there could be other small artisan wineries located elsewhere or additional wineries with onsite production. However, this is an unknown at this point in time, and this report analyzes just the potential vineyards and wineries described above.

There is no clear time horizon for how long it will take to reach this level of viticultural development.

For comparison, wine grape production in Temecula Valley began 50 years ago, and the region now has 2,460 acres of wine grape cultivation and 45 wineries. In the proposed Yucaipa Valley AVA, wine grape production began about a decade ago, and there are currently two wineries. The amount of viticultural activity listed above, which reflects only the portion of the Yucaipa AVA in the city, may be 15 to 20 years in the making.

Assuming that viticultural development described above were to all occur in the North Bench, the specific plan buildout could look something like this:
+ Specific Plan Area, Total Size 1,016 ac.
+ Residential (1,016 lots) 508 ac.
+ Vineyards, no wineries 200 ac.
+ Vineyards with Wineries 180 ac.
+ Open space 128 ac.

3. Background Studies
To estimate the economic impacts for the City of Yucaipa, PlaceWorks reviewed economic benefit studies for numerous AVAs in California. Not all of these had the level of detail that is needed to extrapolate potential benefits for Yucaipa. The potential economic benefits described in the remainder of this memo are based on the following studies:
+ Napa Valley Visitor Industry, 2018 Economic Impact Report + The Economic Impacts of the San Luis Obispo County and Paso Robles AVA Wine Industry, 2015
+ 2021 San Diego County Economic Impact of Wineries
+ The Economic Impact of Santa Barbara’s County’s Wine and Grapes, 2013 + 2018 Wine Country Impact Report (Temecula Valley AVA) + 2015 Economic Impact Report on Wine (California, statewide) PlaceWorks adjusted the economic impacts into current 2021 dollars for each of the studies. Thus, the potential economic impacts for Yucaipa, which may fully materialize in the next 15 to 20 years, represent the value in current 2021 dollars.

4. Estimated Employment
4(A) Direct Employment
Direct employment is the estimated number of full- and part-time jobs at vineyards and wineries for the defined project. The estimates are based on reported results in other AVAs in California. As per 41003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

To: Raymond Casey and Ben Matlock
Subject: Economic Impact Study, Phase 2 Viticulture and Associated Development Standards September 17, 2021 ⦁ Page 4

convention, the jobs represent employment at locations in the City of Yucaipa, but the workers may live in or outside of the city.

Table 1 provides the direct employment estimates for vineyards with no tastings or sales and for vineyards with tastings, sales, and events. In addition to the estimated employment, Table 1 also provides a range for potential employment. The analysis estimates that vineyards will generate 20 jobs in Yucaipa, a little more than an eighth of the total number of direct jobs. Vineyards with wineries that have tastings, sales, and events would generate another 130 jobs, for a total 150 new jobs.

Table 1: Direct Employment, Estimate and Range; Viticultural Operations in Yucaipa Estimate Low End High End
Vineyards, no tastings/sales 20 10 20
Vineyards with tasting/sales/events 140 50 220
Total Direct Employment 150 70 240
Source: PlaceWorks, 2021.
4(B) Indirect and Induced Employment
Indirect employment represents new jobs that would be supported at vendors that supply goods and services to the vineyards and wineries in the defined project. The estimate assumes that, over time, the growth and development of the viticultural industry supports the growth and development of an infrastructure of local businesses providing goods and services to vineyard and winery operations. It is conceivable that many of these businesses would operate out of Yucaipa, but it is also possible that some businesses would choose locations in Calimesa or unincorporated areas in the AVA. To the degree that this infrastructure of local businesses does not develop, the estimated indirect jobs would be generated in other areas, such as in proximity to the existing Temecula Valley AVA.

Induced employment represents new jobs that would be supported by the spending of workers at the new direct and indirect jobs generated by the defined project. It is likely that most of the workers filling new direct and indirect jobs would not live in Yucaipa (29 percent of existing jobs in Yucaipa employ residents of the city). Thus, the induced employment would cover a much larger area than just the city, all depending on where the workers for direct and indirect jobs live.

Table 2 provides the estimated number of indirect and induced jobs that would be generated by the defined project. The analysis estimates that the defined project would generate 40 jobs at businesses that supply goods and services for viticultural operations. The analysis also estimates that the spending by employees in direct and indirect jobs would support another 30 jobs.

Table 2: Indirect and Induced Employment, Estimate and Range; Viticultural Operations in Yucaipa Estimate Low High
Indirect Employment 40 20 50
Induced Employment 30 20 50
41103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

To: Raymond Casey and Ben Matlock
Subject: Economic Impact Study, Phase 2 Viticulture and Associated Development Standards September 17, 2021 ⦁ Page 5

Total 70 40 100
Source: PlaceWorks, 2021.

5. Wages and Salaries
Wages and salaries are the total amount paid to all employees before taxes and other deductions on an annual basis. For this economic impact study, the wages and salaries reflect only direct employment at vineyards and wineries.

Table 3 provides the total estimated wages and salaries for direct jobs in Yucaipa. The analysis estimates that vineyards without tastings and sales would generate total annual wages of $722,000 and that vineyards with tastings, sales, and events would generate total annual wages of $6.3 million. Altogether, viticultural operations could generate $7 million in wages and salaries.

Table 3: Total Annual Wages and Salaries ($), Estimate and Range; Viticultural Operations in Yucaipa
Estimate Low High
Vineyards, no tastings/sales 722,000 726,000 869,000
Vineyards with tasting/sales/events 6,270,000 4,520,000 9,330,000 Total Wages and Salaries 7,000,000 5,250,000 10,200,000 Source: PlaceWorks, 2021.

6. Vineyard and Winery Sales
6(A) Value of Grape Production
The quantity of grapes harvested each year (tons per acre) will vary over time, and the price of the grapes ($ per ton) will vary with market conditions. Thus, the range in values for the value of grape production is more important than the estimate.

It is important to note that the value for grape production is realized by vineyards that sell their grapes to wine producers. For vineyards that utilize their grapes at their own wineries (regardless of where the wine production facilities are located) will realize the value of the grapes through the sale of wine rather than the sales value of the grapes. This analysis assumes that the 200 acres of vineyards without wineries sell their grapes, and it is this acreage from which the estimated value of grape production is derived.

Table 4 provides the estimates for the gross value of grape production at vineyards without wineries in Yucaipa. The analysis estimates that the annual sales value would be $1.2 million but could range from $739,000 to $1.6 million. The actual profit would be less, reflecting the costs of production.

Table 4: Value of Grape Production, Estimate and Range; Vineyards without Wineries in Yucaipa Estimate Low High
1,173,000 739,000 1,581,000
41203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

To: Raymond Casey and Ben Matlock
Subject: Economic Impact Study, Phase 2 Viticulture and Associated Development Standards September 17, 2021 ⦁ Page 6

Source: PlaceWorks, 2021.
6(B) Winery Revenue
Winery revenue comes primarily from the sale of wine. The sales may be retail sales at the winery, direct to consumer sales, or sales to wholesale distributors. However, wineries may also realize revenue from onsite wine tastings, food sales, and events. The estimated winery revenue presented below is based on the reported sales across wineries in other California AVAs. The implicit assumption in this approach is that the wineries that develop over time in Yucaipa will have a similar variety of sales, tasting rooms, food service, and events.

Table 5 provides the estimated revenue at wineries in Yucaipa. The analysis estimates that winery revenue would be about $18.2 million. The estimated revenue and the low-end of the range exclude data from Napa Valley. Including the Napa Valley data more than doubles the potential revenue (the high-end of the range).

Comparing the data in Table 5 to the data in Table 4, it is clear that the majority of economic benefit is generated by wineries with onsite production, tastings, sales, and events rather than the value of wine grape production alone.

Table 5: Winery Revenue, Estimate and Range; Wineries in Yucaipa Estimate Low High
18,160,000 16,570,000 39,400,000
Source: PlaceWorks, 2021.

7. Tourism
Increased tourism is an expected benefit from the development of vineyards and wineries. The Yucaipa Valley AVA would become a tourism destination—a reason for residents throughout Southern California to come to Yucaipa. The preceding sections estimated the economic impacts that would primarily accrue to the viticultural industry. This section looks at the spillover effects for lodging and restaurants. It is important to note that the tourism benefits are generated by wineries with onsite production, tasting, sales, and events rather than by vineyards without wineries.

Based on the experience in other AVAs, the analysis estimates that wineries in Yucaipa would attract about 178,000 visitors per year, with a range from 120,000 to 236,000 visitors. It is important to note that these are individual visitors. Because most visitors will travel with other visitors, the actual number of vehicle trips would be lower.

Based solely on the experience in the Temecula Valley AVA (which is the only available report outside of the major regions tying tourism activity to the viticultural industry), the analysis estimates that wineries in Yucaipa would generate 124,000 visitors for local restaurants. Conservatively, this could result in about $3.7 million in spending at local restaurants.

The other key component of destination tourism is overnight visitors. The average length of stay for all visitors to Temecula Valley is estimated at 1.7 days, including those visitors who are there just for the day. For those staying overnight, the average length of stay was 2.3 nights. The analysis estimates 41303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

To: Raymond Casey and Ben Matlock
Subject: Economic Impact Study, Phase 2 Viticulture and Associated Development Standards September 17, 2021 ⦁ Page 7

that wineries in Yucaipa could generate 11,200 overnight visitors over a year. Conservatively, this could result in about $4.6 million in spending at local lodging facilities.

8. Viticultural Value for Housing
Under consideration for the specific plan is allowing smaller lots to free land for viticulture, riparian open space along Wilson Creek, and trails, with no increase in density above the number of lots called for by the existing zoning and approved tract maps. With smaller lot sizes, housing development would tap into strong regional market demand. More importantly, such housing in an area with open space, vineyards, and wineries—key aspects of the specific plan under consideration—would support the price positioning of homes at the high end of the market. On average, the analysis expects the open space and viticultural uses to add $70,000 to $100,000 in value to the average new home relative to existing housing sales.

This value added to new housing will also have economic benefits for Yucaipa. This housing would generate higher property tax revenue with about the same cost for public services as housing elsewhere in the city. Generally, higher household income would be required for conventional financing for those purchasing the new homes, and this higher income would translate to increased retail sales at local businesses in Yucaipa. In addition, there is the economic benefit of five to ten years’ worth of construction jobs and development activity for housing and infrastructure related to new housing.

The open space that would be preserved by the specific plan would have economic value to the City and the community. There is the direct impact of higher property values discussed above. However, studies have identified other values of public open space, including savings to the public who gain recreational opportunities without directly paying for it, public health benefits for residents who have added opportunities for physical activity, and the development of social capital among residents who frequently use the open space.

41403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

41503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

YUCAIPA VALLEY

WINE COUNTRY

MARKET STUDY
Martin & Associates
December 6, 2021
41603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1 YUCAIPA VALLEY WINE COUNTRY

MARKET STUDY
Martin & Associates
December 6, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 2

2. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND APPROVED MAPS 6
Approved Tentative Tract Maps

4. RECOMMENDED LAND USE STRATEGY 8
Optimal Lot Mix
Site Plan – Wine Country Planning Areas
Conceptual Phasing Plan

5. MARKET ENTRY & SALES PROJECTIONS 11 Market Entry Strategy
Sales Projections and Sequence of Market Entry: Years 1-5 Sales Projections and Sequence of Market Entry: Years 6-12

APPENDIX
A. DEMOGRAPHICS & POPULATION PROJECTIONS 14 B. INTERGENERATIONAL COMMUNITIES 23 C. YUCAIPA AREA RESALE MARKET 27 D. YUCAIPA AREA NEW HOME SALES MARKET 48 41703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2 I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Yucaipa s undertaken a two-phase effort to encourage the establishment of a viticulture and wine making industry, in anticipation of the establishment of the Yucaipa Valley American Viticulture Area (AVA). This designation will allow for the establishment of a Yucaipa Valley label for wines produced from 85% locally grown grapes. The first segment was completed in September 2020 and consisted primarily of a research effort.

The second phase is currently in-progress and involves the establishment of a Wine Country Specific Plan to guide the future growth of a 1,094-acre area north of Oak Glen Road. This area is to be the location of a master planned Wine Country community (referred to as Wine Country within this report), which will feature vineyards, wineries and associated accessory uses along designated “Wine Corridor” streets.

As a part of the Specific Plan effort, the Yucaipa City Council requested a residential market study to determine the market demand, optimal lot size, and feasibility for a Wine-oriented Master Planned Community. The following market findings by Martin and Associates meet that request through the completion of extensive research of the regional economy. The Appendix includes existing and projected demographics from California Department of Finance, pricing of both resale and new residential construction and current real estate market trends.

The recommendations made within this report were configured independently as the opinion of Martin and Associates based on the data cited within the study. The data presented is to be evaluated and discussed by City Staff, the Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Planning Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. Finally, the recommendations are to be used as a tool to assist with the development of the Land Use Plan to be depicted within the Wine Country Specific Plan, and as a reference for future decision making regarding residential development within the Wine Country .

41803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

3 II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Yucaipa Wine Country Specific Plan Area (Wine Country) is currently planned for 1,091 one-acre lots, which is the not-to-exceed lot count limit for 1,094 acres, with three (3) acres planned as existing public streets within Planning Areas.

2. The desirable location and attractive character of the Wine Country and immediate surroundings supports the price positioning of homes at the high end of the market, related to the establishment of a viticulture / wine making industry in Yucaipa.

3. The existing RL-1, rural living one acre zoning does not fit the demand of today’s home buyers according to recent sales and current market trends.

4. The beauty of the Wine Country is to be enhanced by adopting neighborhood crafting and residential design principles related to sensitive habitat areas, vineyards, a trail system, and the creation of attractive streetscapes.

5. New high-end housing opportunities will likely result in tapping the potential pent-up demand from local owners of older homes, as well as those employed within the greater market area who are in search of upscale housing opportunities.

6. The Wine Country will be capable of attracting higher income households from the medical employment based in Loma Linda and other major employment centers to the west once higher end homes that suit their preferences and incomes are introduced.

7. The Primary buyer segments to attract are Baby Boomer / Active Adults (57 – 75 years old in 2021), Generation X (41 – 56 years old in 2021) and the leading edge of Generation Y (25 – 40 years old in 2021).

8. New home offerings are not likely to exist when the Wine Country community enters the market. The absence of competition will result in increased prices, values, and sales rates.

9. A dated housing stock exists in most neighborhoods in Yucaipa.

Existing homeowners in Chapman Ranch, for example, are a ready pool of buyers that will be interested in moving up once new homes are introduced.
41903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

4 10. The recommended location of proposed land uses is based on the desire to create an aesthetically pleasing community (avoid the subdivision appearance) with buffers enabled by the integration of homes and vineyards. An example is the design and implementation of a scenic view corridor along Oak Glen Road.

11. Transitioning between existing land uses (one half to one acre lots) and new development (10,000 square foot to half acre lots) respects the desire of current residents for compatible lot sizes to be offered within adjacent neighborhoods.

12. Site planning is recommended to be based on providing an interface of residential areas to viticulture, as represented in the City Council approved direction.

13. The proposed optimal distribution of 1,094 Acres is a 50 / 50 split between land for lots and non-residential areas for vineyards, trails, etc. as shown in the PlaceWorks plan.

Lot Size Residential
Acres Non-Residential
Acres Total AC Total Units
10,000 SF –
Half Acre 547 546 1,094 1,091

14. The recommended distribution for 1,091 lots is as follows:

Lot Size Density Lots %
10,000-14,000 SF 2.0 – 3.0 629 57%
Half Acre 2.0 462 43%
Total: 2.0 DU/Ac 1,091 DU 100%

15. The above distribution of 1,091 lots sized 10,000 square feet to half acre on 1,094 acres will enable the proposed community to offer homes in the $700,000 to $1,000,000 price range offering a variety of homes appealing to a range of household types, age groups, and income levels.
42003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

5 16. The average (weighted) prices of homes on four (4) lot types / sizes recommended for 1,091 homes in the Wine Country is $897,823 for 3,313 square feet at $271 / square foot.

17. A twelve-year development schedule for 1,087 homes in five (5) phases within the Wine Country has been provided, based on projected home sales (refer to Tables 2 and 3). Development is recommended to commence in areas closest to Oak Glen Road in year one, followed by sequential areas as shown in Figure 2, Conceptual Phasing Plan.

18. Modifications from the existing Custom Home Overlay District are highly recommended. The Wine Country will not be successful if the standards result in a strictly custom lot home requirement.

19. Development Standards that contribute to creating a highly desirable Wine Country District with attractive individual neighborhoods will enhance values within the community, as well as within the surrounding neighborhoods. Varied street scenes with diversified architecture will help to accomplish this goal. Use of varied lot widths, creative garage placements, and varied front, rear, and side setbacks can accomplish this.

20. Private gating of neighborhoods will increase home values.

21. Implementation of the community design should include a Healthy Communities program to increase value and homeowner health, wellness, and wellbeing.

22. Current property owners could be incentivized to dedicate agricultural land for viticulture by supporting a mix of Moderately Higher Density lot sizes (compared to one-acre lots) that will result in increased land values.

23. The allowance of zoning for homes on 10,000 to 14,000 SF lots will incentivize builders to purchase land and potentially invest private funding to kick start the new wine industry by investment in front- end infrastructure improvements (improvement of Wine Corridor streets and providing public water and sewer connections). 42103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

6 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS & APPROVED MAPS

EXISTING APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS
1,094 acres and 1,091 lots are assumed for five (5) phases. Eleven (11) Tentative Maps as follows (all are planned for one-acre lots):

Parcel # Tract Acres & Lots
1 14297 52
2 15967 24
3 16785 38
4 17028 23
5 17229 314
6 17325 49
7 17642 38
8 17965 61
9 18284 20
10 18593 77
11 19974 231
Total: 927
Total Acres: 1094
42203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

7 Figure 1: Existing Approved Tentative Tract Maps

42303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

8 IV. RECOMMENDED LAND USE STRATEGY

RECOMMENDED LOT MIX FOR 1,094 ACRES
The proposed Wine Country area currently is zoned for 1,091 one-acre lots on 1,094 acres in five (5) Phases (see exhibit entitled “Site Map of Wine Country Planning Areas” on page 9).

Incorporating 10,000 SF (65’ x 155’), 12,000 SF (70’ x 170’), 14,000 (70’ x 200’) lots in Areas 3, and 13, and half-acre lots in other areas will result in 629 lots at 10,000 – 14,000 square feet (57%), and 462 half acre lots (43%) as shown below:

Optimal Lot Mix

Phase Area Lot SF # Lots Price Size $ / SF %
I 3 10,000 113 $770,000 2,600 $270 10.3
3 12,000 100 $800,000 2,800 $286 9.2
3 14,000 100 $900,000 3,000 $300 9.2
Subtotal 313 $800,000 2,800 $286 28.7
II 6, 8 Half Acre 37 $1,000,000 4,000 $250 3.7
III 13
13 13
10,000
12,000
14,000
116
100
100
$770,000
$800,000
$900,000
2,600
2,800
3,000
$270
$286
$300

10.6 9.2

9.2 Subtotal 316 $800,000 2,800 $286 29.0
IV 16, 18 Half Acre 197 $1,000,000 4,000 $250 18.4
V 21, 23 Half Acre 228 $1,000,000+ 4,000 $250 20.9
TOTAL 1091 $897,823 3,313 $271 100%
42403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

9 Figure 2: Site Map Of Wine Country Planning Areas

42503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

10 Figure 3: Conceptual Phasing Plan

42603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

42703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

12 Sales Projections for the Wine Country

Proposed Sequence of Market Entry – Years 1-5
The average estimated Base Prices, Plan Sizes, and Value Ratios of Homes designed to attract four primary markets are as follows:

Sales Projection and Sequence Of Entry, Years 1-5

PHASE PA LOT SIZE TARGET
MARKET
YEAR
1 2 3 4 5 Total
I 3
65’ x 155’ Move Down 38 38 37 113
70’ x 170’ Move Up 36 36 28 100
80’ x 175’ Luxury Move
Up 36 36 28 100
Phase 1 Sub Total years 1-5 Phase 1:313 II 6,8 100’ x 200’ Luxury Up
and Down 21 16 Phase 2: 37
III 13
65’ x 155’ Move Down 37 37 74
70’ x 170’ Move Up 36 36 72
80’ x 175’ Luxury Move
Up 36 36 72
Phase 3 Sub Total years 1-5 218 IV 16, 18 100’ x 200’ Luxury Up
and Down 27 27 27 81
Grand Total Years 1 - 5 110 131 136 136 136 649
42803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

13 Sales Projections & Sequence of Entry, Years 6-12

PHASE PA LOT SIZE TARGET
MARKET
YEAR
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Grand
Total
Per Phase
III 13
65’ x 155’ Move
Down 32 10 42 116
70’ x 170’ Move
Up 28 28 100
80’ x 175’ Luxury
Move

28 28 100
Phase 3 Sub Total years 6-12
98 Phase 3: 316
IV 16, 18 100’ x 200’
Luxury
Up and
Down
27 27 27 27 8 116

Phase 4: 197
V 21, 23 100’ x 200’
Semi-
Custom /
Custom
42 42 42 42 42 16 228 Phase 5: 228
Total Years 6 - 12 115 79 69 69 50 42 16 442 Overall
Total 1,091

42903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

43003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

15 43103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

43203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

43303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

43403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

43503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

43603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

43703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

43803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

23 APPENDIX B: INTERGENERATIONAL COMMUNITIES
The Wine Country provides an opportunity to create a community with a diversified mix of housing types, and a new level of amenities that support improved resident interactions, health outcomes, and active living. This type of planning is especially needed as members of three generations make choices about the types of communities and housing, they would live in and how they will live together.

The ages of Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millenials in 2020 and 2030 are as follows:

Generation Baby
Boomers
Generation
X
Millennials
(Gen Y)
Birth Start 1946 1965 1980
Birth End 1964 1980 1996

2020
Youngest Age 56 40 24
Oldest Age 74 55 40
CA Pop. 8,476,003 7,275,041 8,506,835
% CA Pop. 21.3% 18.3% 21.4%

2030
Youngest Age 66 50 34
Oldest Age 84 65 50
CA Pop. 9,000,487 7,820,008 8,604,957
% CA Pop. 21.5% 18.7% 20.6%
The Wine Country is an ideal setting for an Intergenerational Community (populated by multiple generations) and Multi-Generations Living under one roof (many combinations of parents, grandparents, adult children with and without offspring, other relatives, etc.). To a large extent, demographic changes, cultural changes due to immigration, and changing attitudes about Intergenerational Communities and Multi- Generational Living has resulted in over 50 million Americans living in some type of multi-generational household.

Builders in many market areas are incorporating intergenerational living, and design for multi- generational living in their current and future communities. (See Lennar Next Gen Concept Floor Plans) However, for the most part, this type of community planning and product positioning does not exist in Yucaipa and in the greater Yucaipa market area, which includes Calimesa, Beaumont, and Banning. The introduction of this type of planning and positioning could result in the Wine Country being an extremely desirable built environment, that is sought-after in the market area.
43903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

24 Lennar Next Gen Concept
44003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

25 44103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

44203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

44303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

28 Resales by Year, January 2019 – May 2021
From 2019 to 2020, the average resale price of a home in Yucaipa increased approximately +7% (+$31,139).

From 2020 to May 2021 the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased approximately +14% (+$65,419).

In the 2.5 years from January 2019 to May 2021, the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased an average total of +23% +(+$96,559).

Year

# Resales
Average Average
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value Ratio
2019 272 54 11,376 SF $433,567 2195.83 $205.60
2020 293 38 12,484 SF $464,707 2202.73 $220.56
2021 (to May) 133 23 13,754 SF $530,126 2357.41 $237.33 Total / Avg 698 41 12,294 SF $465,037

2229.5 $217.93
44403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

29 Resale by Lot Size
Of the 698 Homes resold from January 2019 to May 2021, 64% were on Lots under 10,000 SF, 19% (132) were on Lots from 10,000 to 20,000, 12% (83) were on Lots from 20,000 to 40,000 SF, and 5% (34) were on Lots over 40,000 SF.

Lot Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 10,000 449 64% 37 6,376 SF $409,349 1,988' $215.42 10,000-20,000 132 19% 44 13,120 SF $492,005 2,461' $211.12 20,000-40,000 83 12% 59 25,513 SF $634,228 2,990' $221.45 Over 40,000 34 5% 43 54,965 SF $682,733 2,667' $268.79
698 100% 41 12,294 SF $465,037 2,230' $217.93

Resales by Plan Size
Of the 698 Homes resold analyzed, 47.1% (329) had plan sizes under 2000 SF, 34.7% (242) had plan sizes from 2000 to 3000 SF, 15.3% (107) had plan sizes from 3000 to 4000 SF, 2.3% (16) had plan sizes from 4000 to 5000 SF, 0.4% (3) had plan sizes from 5000 to 6000 SF, and 0.1% (1) had a plan size over 6000 SF.

Plan Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 2000 329 47.1% 33 8,929 SF $369,905 1,567' $239.78 2000-3000 242 34.7% 44 13,591 SF $497,457 2,411' $207.38 3000-4000 107 15.3% 55 17,057 SF $622,476 3,413' $182.58 4000-5000 16 2.3% 80 26,570 SF $791,494 4,345' $182.56
5000-6000 3 0.4% 54 27,087 SF $848,000 5,485' $155.38
Over 6000 1 0.1% 99 23,040 SF $700,000 6,038' $115.93
Total/Avg 698 100% 41 12,294 SF $465,037 2,230' $217.93 44503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

44603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

31 North of Yucaipa Boulevard & West of Bryant Street Resales Resale Data from January 2019 to May 2021 was obtained for Homes located North of Yucaipa Boulevard and West of Bryant Street.

Resales by Year
From 2019 to 2020, the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased approximately +10% (+$32,144).

From 2020 to May 2021 the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased approximately +12% (+$41,553).

In the 2.5 years from January 2019 to May 2021, the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased an average total of +23% +(+$73,697).

Year

#
Resales
Average Average
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
2019 56 40 8,782 SF $320,325 1,427' $228.31
2020 42 30 9,208 SF $352,469 1,411' $256.37
2021 (to May) 23 19 8,353 SF $394,022 1,483' $271.91
Total/Avg 121 33 8,848 SF $345,491 1,432' $246.34
44703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

32 Resales by Lot Size
Of the 121 Homes resold in this area of Yucaipa from January 2019 to May 2021, 73% (88) were on lots under 10,000 SF, 25% (30) were on lots from 10,000 to 20,000 SF, and 2% (3) were on lots from 20,000 to 40,000 SF.

Lot Size Range
(SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 10,000 88 73% 34 6,979 SF $338,842 1,389' $248.19 10,000-20,000 30 25% 31 12,857 SF $363,377 1,547' $241.31 20,000-40,000 3 2% 8 23,587 SF $361,667 1,534' $242.18
Total 121 100% 33 8,848 SF $345,491 1,432' $246.34

Resales by Plan Size
Of the 121 homes resold in this area of Yucaipa from 2019 to May 2021, 96% (116) had plan sizes under 2000 SF and 4% (5) had plan sizes from 2000 to 3000 SF.

Plan Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 2,000 116 96% 32 8,747 SF $340,262 1,391' $248.22 2,000-3,000 5 4% 39 11,203 SF $466,800 2,398' $202.72
Total 121 100% 33 8,848 SF $345,491 1,432' $246.34
44803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

33 East of Bryant Street Resales
Resale data from January 2019 to May 2021 was obtained for homes located East of Bryant Street.

Resales by Year
From January 2019 to January 2020, the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased approximately +4% (+$14,349).

From January 2020 to May 2021 the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased approximately +26% (+$108,772).

In the 2.5 years from January 2019 to May 2021, the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased an average total of +31% (+$123,120).

Year

#
Resales
Average Average
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
2019 44 54 13,570 SF $400,102 1,830' $222.95
2020 45 47 15,461 SF $414,451 1,763' $239.58
2021 (to May) 22 25 19,675 SF $523,223 2,161' $258.30
Total/Avg 111 45 15,547 SF $430,322 1,868' $236.70
44903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

34 Resales by Lot Size
Of the 111 homes resold in this area of Yucaipa from January 2019 to May 2021, 49% (54) were on lots under 10,000 SF, 29% (32) were on lots from 10,000 to 20,000 SF, 14% (16) were
on lots from 20,000 to 40,000 SF, and 8% (9) were on lots over 40,000 SF.

Lot Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 10,000 54 49% 51 7,321 SF $344,589 1,528' $232.02 10,000-20,000 32 29% 56 13,868 SF $457,075 2,093' $225.20 20,000-40,000 16 14% 15 23,828 SF $563,063 2,374' $243.51 Over 40,000 9 8% 27 56,145 SF $613,611 2,213' $293.56
Total 111 100% 45 15,547 SF $430,322 1,868' $236.70

Resales by Plan Size
Of the 111 homes resold in this area of Yucaipa from January 2019 to May 2021, 63% (70) had plan sizes under 2000 SF, 31% (34) had plan sizes from 2000 to 3000 SF, 5% (5) had plan sizes from 3000 to 4000 SF, and 2% (2) had plan sizes from 4000 to 5000.

Plan Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 2,000 70 63% 42 11,485 SF $352,469 1,463' $244.17 2,000-3,000 34 31% 53 22,363 SF $538,497 2,343' $230.85 3,000-4,000 5 5% 36 16,186 SF $638,800 3,336' $192.65
4,000-5,000 2 2% 49 40,229 SF $795,000 4,307' $184.60
Total 111 100% 45 15,547 SF $430,322 1,868' $236.70
45003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

35 Oak Glen Resales
Resale Data from January 2019 to May 2021 was obtained for homes in Oak Glen.

Resales by Year
From January 2020 to May 2021 the average resale price of a home in Oak Glen increased approximately +22% (+$92,500).

Year

#
Resales
Average Average
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
2019 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2020 2 155 31,667 SF $427,500 2,171' $199.59
2021 (to May) 2 123 37,079 SF $520,000 2,048' $248.97
Total/Avg 4 139 34,373 SF $473,750 2,110' $224.28
45103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

36 Resales by Lot Size
Of the 4 homes resold in Oak Glen from 2019 to May 2021, 50% (2) were on lots from 20,000 to 40,000, 25% (1) was sold on a 10,560 SF Lot, and 25% (1) was sold on a 63,598 SF lot.

Lot Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
10,000-20,000 1 25% 212 10,560 SF $375,000 1,796' $208.80 20,000-40,000 2 50% 155 31,667 SF $427,500 2,171' $199.59 Over 40,000 1 25% 34 63,598 SF $665,000 2,300' $289.13
Total 4 100% 139 34,373 SF $473,750 2,110' $224.28

Resales by Plan Size
Of the 4 homes resold in Oak Glen from 2019 to May 2021, 50% (2) had plan sizes under 2000 SF and 50% (2) had plan sizes from 2000 to 3000 SF.

Plan Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 2,000 2 50% 141 24,447 SF $397,500 1,848' $214.93 2,000-3,000 2 50% 137 44,299 SF $550,000 2,371' $233.63 Total 4 100% 139 34,373 SF $473,750 2,110' $224.28
45203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

37 Chapman Heights Resales
Resale Data from January 2019 to May 2021 was obtained for Homes in Chapman Heights.

Resale by Year
From January 2019 to January 2020, the average resale price of a home in Chapman Heights increased approximately +3% (+$13,741).

From January 2020 to May 2021, the average resale price of a home in Chapman Heights increased approximately +13% (+$62,675).

In the 2.5 years from January 2019 to May 2021, resale prices increase from 2019 to 2021 of +17% (+76,417).

Year*

#
Resales
Average Average
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
2019 116 54 7,591 SF $453,324 2,500' $185.85
2020 137 33 7,189 SF $467,066 2,437' $198.20
2021 (to May) 60 15 7,243 SF $529,741 2,578' $212.51
Total / Avg 313 37 7,348 SF $473,987 2,488' $196.37
45303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

38 Resales by Lot Size
Of the 313 homes resold in Chapman Heights from 2019 to May 2021, 80.2% (251) were on lots under 10,000 SF, 19.5% (61) were on lots from 10,000 to 20,000 SF, and 0.3% (1) was on a 20,163 SF lot.

Lot Size
Range
(SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 10,000 251 80.2% 37 6,030 SF $451,304 2,338' $198.67 10,000-20,000 61 19.5% 39 12,563 SF $564,650 3,085' $187.13 20,000-40,000 1 0.3% 9 20,163 SF $637,000 3,481' $182.99 Total / Avg 313 100% 37 7,348 SF $473,987 2,488' $196.37

Resales by Plan Size
Of the 313 homes resold in Chapman Heights from 2019 to May 2021, 48% (150) had plan sizes from 2000 to 3000 SF, 28% (87) had plan sizes under 2000 SF, 23% (71) had plan sizes from 3000 to 4000 SF, and 2% (5) had plans from 4000 to 5000 SF.

Plan Size
Range
(SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 2000 87 28% 27 4,976 SF $400,502 1,794' $225.87
2000-3000 150 48% 39 7,103 SF $461,478 2,404' $192.95
3000-4000 71 23% 46 10,321 SF $573,108 3,384' $169.56
4000-5000 5 2% 62 13,799 SF $720,400 4,330' $166.37
Total / Avg 313 100% 37 7,348 SF $473,987 2,488' $196.37 45403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

39 North of Oak Glen Road Resales

Resale Data from January 2019 to May 2021 was obtained for homes located North of Oak Glen Road.

45503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

40 Resales by Year
From 2019 to 2020, the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased approximately +6% (+$28,335).

From 2020 to May 2021 the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased approximately +19% (+$98,807).

In the 2.5 years from January 2019 to May 2021, the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased an average total of +26% +(+$127,142).

Year

#
Resales
Average Average
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
2019 40 62 18,076 SF $492,658 2,329' $215.69
2020 49 39 20,270 SF $520,992 2,281' $232.57
2021 (to May) 20 6 27,756 SF $619,799 2,477' $256.49
Total/Avg 109 41 20,839 SF $528,724 2,334' $230.76

Resales by Lot Size
Of the 109 homes resold in this area of Yucaipa from 2019 to May 2021, 51% (56) were on lots under 10,000 SF, 26% (28) were on lots from 20,000 to 40,000 SF, 19% (21) were on lots over 40,000 SF, and 4% (4) were on lots from 10,000 to 20,000 SF.

Lot Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 10,000 56 51% 27 6,069 SF $394,541 1,801' $223.04 10,000-20,000 4 4% 19 12,564 SF $511,250 2,170' $237.02 20,000-40,000 28 26% 72 25,785 SF $667,543 3,100' $219.92 Over 40,000 21 19% 44 55,205 SF $704,781 2,768' $264.63 Total/Avg 109 100% 41 20,839 SF $528,724 2,334' $230.76 45603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

41 Resales by Plan Size
Of the 109 homes resold in this area of Yucaipa from 2019 to May 2021, 49% (53) had plan sizes under 2000 SF, 28% (31) had plan sizes from 2000 to 3000 SF, 18% (20) had plan sizes from 3000 to 4000 SF, and 5% (5) had plans from 4000 to 5000 SF.

Plan Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 2,000 53 49% 28 11,737 SF $406,808 1,713' $238.92 2,000-3,000 31 28% 44 23,979 SF $544,516 2,374' $229.81 3,000-4,000 20 18% 60 35,902 SF $745,406 3,438' $217.86 4,000-5,000 5 5% 93 37,594 SF $856,400 4,253' $201.80
Total/Avg 109 100% 41 20,839 SF $528,724 2,334' $230.76 45703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

42 Wildwood Resales
Resale data from January 2019 to May 2021 was obtained for homes in Wildwood.

Resales by Year
From 2019 to 2020, the average resale price of a home in Wildwood decreased approximately +-5% (-$28,083).

From 2020 to May 2021 the average resale price of a home in Wildwood increased approximately +4% (+$20,833).

In the 2.5 years from January 2019 to May 2021, the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa decreased an average total of -1% +(-$7,250).

Year

#
Resales
Average Average
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
2019 2 76 30,925 SF $594,750 2,799' $212.02
2020 3 110 29,191 SF $566,667 2,350' $243.61
2021 (to May) 1 86 34,400 SF $587,500 2,700' $217.59
Total/Avg 6 94 30,637 SF $579,500 2,558' $228.74
45803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

43 Resales by Lot Size
All six homes resold in Wildwood from 2019 to May 2021 were on lots ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 SF.

Lot Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
20,000-40,000 6 100% 94 30,637 SF $579,500 2,558' $228.74 Total/Avg 6 100% 94 30,637 SF $579,500 2,558' $228.74

Resales by Plan Size
All 6 homes resold in Wildwood from 2019 to May 2021 had plan sizes ranging from 2000 to 3000 SF.

Plan Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
2,000-3,000 6 100% 94 30,637 SF $579,500 2,558' $228.74 Total/Avg 6 100% 94 30,637 SF $579,500 2,558' $228.74
45903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

44 Hidden Meadows Resales
Resale data from January 2019 to May 2021 was obtained for homes in Hidden Meadows.

Resales by Year
From 2019 to 2020, the average resale price of a home in Hidden Meadows increased approximately +4% (+$25,627).

From 2020 to May 2021 the average resale price of a home in Hidden Meadows increased approximately +6% (+$41,354).

In the 2.5 years from January 2019 to May 2021, the average resale price of a home in this area of Yucaipa increased an average total of +10% +(+66,981).

Year

#
Resales
Average Average
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
2019 12 79 23,045 SF $670,933 3,646' $193.31
2020 15 46 29,023 SF $696,560 3,334' $219.78
2021 (to May) 7 130 25,740 SF $737,914 3,561' $218.53
Total/Avg 34 75 26,237 SF $696,029 3,491' $210.18
46003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

45 Resales by Lot Size
Of the 34 homes resold in this area of Yucaipa from 2019 to May 2021, 79% (27) were on Lots from 20,000 to 40,000 SF, 12% (4) were on lots from 10,000 to 20,000 SF, and 9% (3) were on lots over 40,000 SF.

Lot Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
10,000-20,000 4 12% 126 18,795 SF $638,325 3,188' $212.64 20,000-40,000 27 79% 66 25,048 SF $699,507 3,541' $209.07 Over 40,000 3 9% 85 46,865 SF $741,667 3,445' $216.87
Total/Avg 34 100% 75 26,237 SF $696,029 3,491' $210.18

Resales by Plan Size
Of the 34 homes resold in Hidden Meadows from 2019 to May 2021, 41% (53) had plan sizes from 2000 to 3000 SF, 32% (11) had plan sizes from 3000 to 4000 SF, 12% (4) had plans from 4000 to 5000 SF, 9% (3) had plan sizes from 5000 to 6000 SF, 3% (1) had a plan size under 2000 SF, and 3% (1) had a plan size over 6000 SF.

Plan Size
Range (SF)
Average Average
#
Resales
%
Sales
Days on
Market Lot Size Price Size Value
Ratio
Under 2000 1 3% 3 15,200 SF $356,000 1,371' $259.66
2000-3000 14 41% 43 27,966 SF $647,350 2,666' $244.09
3000-4000 11 32% 117 26,668 SF $710,200 3,593' $197.84
4000-5000 4 12% 101 21,925 SF $797,475 4,498' $177.70
5000-6000 3 9% 54 27,087 SF $848,000 5,485' $155.38
Over 6000 1 3% 99 23,040 SF $700,000 6,038' $115.93
Total/Avg 34 100% 75 26,237 SF $696,029 3,491' $210.18
46103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

46 Comparable Half Acre Lot Products in the Resale Market In the local resale market, three sales on Oleander Avenue, east of Fremont Street, averaged $645,000 for 2080 SF at $310/foot on one-acre lots and two sales located east of Bryant Street averaged $705,500 for 3231 SF at $218/foot on 20,000 SF Lots.

It is assumed that a new 3200 SF home on a half-acre lot would be priced approximately $100,000 more than a same size resale home (~$800,000).

Project Type Price Size VR Lot Size

Oleander Avenue Resales (East of Fremont St)
35510 Oleander
(Built: 1985)
1 Story
3 Bed $600,000 1,913' $313.64 54,885 SF
35607 Oleander
(Built: 1984)
1 Story
4 Bed $645,000 2,010' $320.90 55,599 SF
35529 Oleander
(Built: 1986)
2 Story
4 Bed $690,000 2,316' $297.93 55,756 SF
$645,000 2,080' $310.15 55,413 SF

Shade Tree & Dry Creek Road Resales (East of Bryant St) 35438 Shade Tree
(Built: 1999)
2 Story
4 Bed $701,000 3,050' $229.84 20,010 SF
35315 Dry Creek
(Built: 1999)
1 Story
4 Bed $710,000 3,412' $208.09 20,025 SF
$705,500 3,231' $218.35 20,018 SF

46203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

47 Comparable One Acre Lot Luxury Estate Products in the Market For comparison, two resales from 2021 of homes built in 2004 and 2015 averaged $930,000 for 3988 SF at $233/foot as follows:

Project Type Price Size VR Lot Size

35816 Country Ridge
(Built: 2004)
1 Story
5 Bed $900,000 3,776’ $238.35 39,640 SF
10044 Coral
(Built: 2015)
1 Story
4 Bed $960,000 4,200’ $228.57 40,529 SF
$930,000 3,988’ $233.46 40,084 SF
It is assumed at a 4000 SF Home in the Wine Country will sell for approximately $70,000 more ($1,000,000 vs. $930,000) than a similar size home in the local Resale Market

46303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

46403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

49 Plan 2
From the $500’s
2 Story
3 to 4 Beds | 3 Baths
2,394 SF

Plan 4
From the $500’s
1 Story
3 to 4 Beds | 3 Baths
2,523 SF
Plan 3
From the $500’s
1 Story
3 to 4 Beds | 2.5 to 3 Baths
2,172 SF

Plan 5
From the $500’s
2 Story
3 to 5 Beds | 3 Baths
2,697 SF

Plan 6
From the $500’s
1 Story
3 to 4 Beds | 3 Baths
2,523 SF
46503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

46603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

51 Plan 3 (2172 SF)

46703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

52 Plan 4 (2523 SF)

46803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

46903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

47003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

55 Pepper Tree Heights
Pacific Horizon Homes is building 22 Homes at Pepper Tree Heights in Yucaipa. The Project opened for sales in February 2021 and 17 Homes have been sold so far, despite the Models not being completed.

All three Plans are single story and on minimum half-acre/20,000 SF Lots with Plan Widths estimated at 60 to 65 feet. The Plans also feature Mother-in-Law Suites.

Plan Levels Bed Bath Price Size VR
1 1 4 3 $662,500 2,458' $269.53
2 1 4-5 3 $678,500 2,779' $244.15
3 1 4 3 $696,500 2,949' $236.18
$679,167 2,729' $248.90
47103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

47203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

57 Plan 2 (2779 SF)

47303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

47403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

59 47503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 7
47603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

47703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

47803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

47903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

48003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

48103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

48203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

48303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 8
48403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

48503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

48603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

48703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

48803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 9
48903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Draft Environmental Impact Report (under separate cover)

EIR Link: https://yucaipa.gov/wp-
content/uploads/dev_svcs/EIR/YVWCSP/WCSPDraftSEIR.pdf?_t=1701989572

Appendices accessible here: https://yucaipa.gov/environmental-review/

49003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 10
49103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Final Environmental Impact Report (under separate cover)

FSEIR Link: https://yucaipa.gov/wp-content/uploads/dev_svcs/EIR/YVWCSP/WCSP_FinalEIR- Master_ToCity.pdf?_t=1708633664

49203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 11
49303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (under separate cover)

MMRP Link: https://yucaipa.gov/wp-
content/uploads/dev_svcs/EIR/YVWCSP/WCSP_SEIR_MMRP_2-21-24.pdf?_t=1708633666

49403/27/2024 City Council Agenda