Agenda packet — Yucaipa City Council, March 27, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
City Council
March 27, 2024
Yucaipa Performing Arts Center
12062 California St., Yucaipa, California
Public Comment will be called at the time and place noted on the agenda below for the general public to address the City Council. Please complete a speaker’s form and return it to the Administrative Assistant prior to the beginning of the meeting. Public Comment will be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Procedure adopted pursuant to Resolution No. 2023-07. There is a three-minute time limit for speaking and time may not be ceded to another speaker.

Public Comment Via Mail or Email
Items must be received no later than three (3) business hours prior to the meeting at which the commenter seeks to provide comment. Public comment may be submitted via U.S. Mail to the City Clerk at 34272 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399 or via email to [email protected]. All mail and email correspondence will be archived, distributed to City Council, and retained as part of the public record; however, submissions will not be read out loud during the meeting. The subject line should specify “Public Comment” and include the date of the meeting.

Written public comment submitted will be made available to the public pursuant to the City of Yucaipa policy regarding the distribution of written public comments at City Council and Commission meetings, which may be accessed on the City’s website at https://yucaipa.gov/agendas-minutes/ . Individuals should be aware that comments provided, including personal information, may be disclosable pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

OPEN SESSION – 5:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
Justin Beaver, Mayor
Chris Venable, Mayor Pro Tem
Bobby Duncan, Councilmember
Matt Garner, Councilmember
Jon Thorp, Councilmember
Chris Mann, City Manager
Steven Graham, City Attorney
Ana V. Sauseda, City Clerk

103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

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

A. Open Public Hearing
B. Staff Presentation
C. City Council Questions
D. Public Comments
E. Additional Council Questions
F. Public Hearing Closed
G. Council Discussion
H. Council Motion and Vote

SPEAKERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO BE BRIEF AND SHALL REMAIN WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED TIMEFRAME OF THREE (3) MINUTES. ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED, NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE TAKEN.

1. SUBJECT: Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan (Case No. 24-015/GPA/SP):

The WCSP is a proposed phased development that would subdivide the land into lots (i.e., homes/estates) and nonresidential areas for vineyards, wineries, trails, and open space. The project site consists of approximately 1,094 acres of primarily undeveloped land. Under the proposed WCSP, land uses would be split approximately 50/50, with residential uses on 547.4 acres and nonresidential uses on 546.2 acres. The proposed nonresidential land use designations include Agriculture, Riparian Area, and Water District (Utility) at approximately 465.5, 73.6, and 7.1 acres, respectively. The Water District designation would apply to land owned by the Yucaipa Valley Water District and used for existing utility infrastructure. The residential use acreage would be divided into two groups; the “Villas” which would consist of 629 lots with a maximum buildout density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) where the minimum (net) lot size is 10,000 square feet, and the “Estates” which consist of 462 half-acre lots with a maximum buildout density of 2 du/ac.

The Riparian Area would create a buffer between the proposed residential uses surrounding Wilson Creek and the creek habitat. The Agricultural areas would allow for the establishment of vineyards and wineries, with three different types of wineries allowed:

Micro, Artisan, and Boutique.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a public hearing, and pursuant to Sections 82.0101 and 83.020305 of the Yucaipa Development Code, consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan (WCSP) and certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR).

Depending on the City Council's review of the WCSP and the Planning Commission’s recommendation, several potential motions can be made and are as follows:

203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Recommendation in support of the WCSP:

If the City Council is in support of the WCSP and the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the following motion provided:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2024-06, approving the Wine Country Specific Plan; certifying that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); accepting the mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR; adopting Findings of Fact; and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

2. Approve first reading, by title only, as read by staff, of Ordinance No. 441, adopting the Wine Country Specific Plan and modifying the General Plan Land Use Map Figure CDL-3, Land Use Modification Overlay District to add the Wine Country Specific Plan within the 1,094 acre project area; and

3. Adopt the Findings as contained in the Agenda Report; and

4. Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and direct Staff to file a Notice of Determination.

Recommendation against the WCSP:

If the City Council is not in support of the WCSP, and does not agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the following motion is provided:

1. Direct Staff to prepare a Resolution to deny the approval of the Wine Country Specific Plan; and

2. Direct Staff to prepare Findings for denial, based on the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project with respect to Section 83.020310 of the Yucaipa Development Code; and

3. Determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

Alternatives:

The City Council can make any additional recommendations to modify the WCSP that are deemed necessary to meet the Findings specified by Section 83.020310 of the Yucaipa Development Code, or that would better meet the Goals, Policies, and/or Objectives of the General Plan. In addition, the City Council can consider the additional changes proposed by the Planning Commission and can either remove those changes or make further modifications as necessary.

ADJOURNMENT

303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Notice Regarding Americans with Disability Act
The City of Yucaipa complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s Department at (909) 797-2489, during normal business hours, at least 48-hours prior to the meeting.

Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

CEQA STATEMENT:

Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from CEQA guidelines sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resource Code Section 21065.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.5, any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the City of Yucaipa to all or a majority of the City Council, less than 72 hours prior to that meeting, are available for public inspection at Yucaipa City Hall, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399, during normal business hours.

NOTICE REGARDING CHALLENGES TO DECISIONS
Pursuant to all applicable laws and regulations, if you would like to challenge the decision of the City Council on an item appearing on this Agenda, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this Agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
State of California }
County of San Bernardino } ss.

City of Yucaipa }
I, Ana V. Sauseda, City Clerk of the City of Yucaipa, California, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda was posted on 03/26/2024, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54956, at the following locations:

Yucaipa City Hall, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California City of Yucaipa website www.yucaipa.org
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
City Clerk
403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

1903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

2803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

provided following the Planning Commission’s recommendation; the City Council can modify the Findings based on the majority consensus, as well as make any revisions to the plan that are deemed necessary to better meet the necessary Findings.

Attachments:

1.Draft Specific Plan Findings

2.Draft Resolution No. 2024-06

3.Draft Ordinance No. 441

4.Public Comments Received

5.Economic Impact Analysis

6.Draft Wine Country Specific Plan

7.Draft Errata Sheet for the Wine Country Specific Plan

8.Draft February 28, 2024, Planning Commission Minutes

9. Draft Environmental Impact Report (under separate cover)

10.Final Environmental Impact Report (under separate cover)

11. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (under separate cover) The Specific Plan, Draft EIR, Final EIR, and Project-related environmental documents are available for the public at City Hall or via the following link: https://yucaipa.gov/environmental- review/ & https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/8940ac733b0b431e98ee343e0c26b21e Approved by: ______________________
2903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 1
3003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

3103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

3203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

ATTACHMENT 2
3303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-06

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA

ADOPTING THE WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), CERTIFYING THE FINAL

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CASE
NO. 24-0 15/SP, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN
PROJECT, AND AMENDING GENERAL PLAN FIGURE CDL-3, LAND

USE MODIFICATION OVERLAY DISTRICT, TO INCLUDE THE WINE
COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yucaipa (“City Council”) has before it a request for approval of the Wine Country Specific Plan 24-0 15 (the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a comprehensive process for the development the Project to implement the long-range vision for the City within an area of the City’s North Bench; and

WHEREAS, the City has encouraged public participation in the development of the Project, which included conducting Study Sessions, workshops, stakeholder meetings, Wine Country Planning Committee meetings, Town Hall meetings, surveys, and hearings; and

WHEREAS, the proposed “Project” consists of a Specific Plan that provides a long-term guide for the phased development of the Project site that would subdivide the land into lots (i.e., homes/estates) and nonresidential areas for vineyards, wineries, trails, and open space. The project site consists of approximately 1,094 acres of primarily undeveloped land. Under the proposed WCSP, land uses would be split approximately 50/50, with residential uses on 547.4 acres and nonresidential uses on 546.2 acres. The proposed nonresidential land use designations include Agriculture, Riparian Area, and Water District at approximately 465.5, 73.6, and 7.1 acres, respectively. The Water District designation would apply to land owned by the Yucaipa Valley Water District and used for existing infrastructure. The residential use acreage would be divided into two groups; the “Villas” which would consist of 629 lots with a maximum buildout density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) where the minimum (net) lot size is 10,000 square feet, and the “Estates” which consist of 462 half -acre lots with a maximum buildout density of 2 du/ac. The Riparian Area would create a buffer between the proposed residential uses surrounding Wilson Creek and the creek habitat. The Agricultural areas would allow for the establishment of vineyards and wineries, with three different types of wineries allowed: Micro, Artisan, and Boutique; and

WHEREAS, the Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.), and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines; and

3403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

-2-

WHEREAS, o n July 13, 2022, a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) was distributed to the State Office of Planning and Research, responsible agencies, and published in the Yucaipa News Mirror. The NOP was circulated from July 14, 2022, to August 15, 2022, to receive input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”); and

WHEREAS, a scoping meeting was held on July 27, 2022, to present the Project and the SEIR process and to provide an opportunity for agency representatives and the public to assist the lead agency in determining the scope and content of the environmental analysis for the SEIR; and

WHEREAS, o n December 5, 2023, a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the “DSEIR”) was completed for the Project and a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) was issued.

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto, the City analyzed the Project’s potential impacts on the environment; and

WHEREAS, the City circulated the DSEIR and the Appendices for the Project to the public and other interested parties for a 45-day comment period, in accordance with Guidelines Section 15105, from December 8, 2023, through January 22, 2024; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to all comments received on the DSEIR and those responses to comments are incorporated into the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the “Final SEIR”). The Responses to Comments were distributed to all public agencies that submitted comments on the DSEIR at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final SEIR by the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR is comprised of the DSEIR dated December 2023 and all appendices thereto; the Comments and Response to Comments on the DSEIR; the clarifications, revisions, and corrections to the DSEIR; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

WHEREAS, on February 16, 2024, a notice of a Planning Commission public hearing on the Specific Plan and its environmental review was published in the Yucaipa News Mirror and mailed to all property owners within and 1,300 feet around the plan area; and

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Yucaipa Municipal Code, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 28, 2024, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the General Plan Update, as set forth in the Planning Commission Agenda Report of that date; and

WHEREAS, following consideration of the entire record before it at the public hearing and upon due consideration of the proposed General Plan Update, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt environmental findings pursuant to the California 3503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

-3-
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission and the testimony provided during the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve of the Specific Plan according to the Findings required pursuant to Section 83.020310 of the Yucaipa Development Code; and

WHEREAS, on March 15, 2024, a notice of a City Council public hearing on the Specific Plan and its environmental review was published in the Yucaipa News Mirror and mailed to all property owners within and 1,300 feet around the plan area; and

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Yucaipa Municipal Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 27, 2024, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and

WHEREAS, the findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final SEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings and in the record of the proceedings. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the Development Services Department, City of Yucaipa, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399. The custodian of records is Benjamin Matlock with the City of Yucaipa Community Development Department. Each of those documents is incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving the Project, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the Final EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
(b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

These required findings are set forth in the attached Exhibit A. 3603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

-4-
WHEREAS, environmental impacts found to be less than significant and not requiring mitigation are discussed in Exhibit A, Sections V and VI. Environmental impacts, or specific aspects of those impacts, found to potentially significant, but less than significant after mitigation, are discussed in Exhibit A, Section VII. Environmental impacts found be potentially significant and unavoidable are discussed in Exhibit A, Section VII. Alternatives to the General Plan Update that might reduce significant environmental impacts are discussed in Exhibit A, Section VI; and

WHEREAS, CEQA Section 21081.6 requires adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project with environmental impacts made less than significant or reduced in significance through mitigation. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated into this Resolution by reference; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the FSEIR, all of the information and evidence in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented during public meetings and hearings. In exercise of its independent judgment, the City Council finds that the FSEIR is adequate and was prepared in full compliance with CEQA. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City produced any substantial new information that would require additional recirculation or additional environmental review of the Project under CEQA.

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

Section 1 . The City Council has reviewed and considered the information for the Wine Country Specific Plan.

Section 2 . The City Council finds that the above recitals are true.

Section 3. The City Council approves and adopts the Wine Country Specific Plan, and that it meets Findings required pursuant to Section 83.020310 of the Yucaipa Development Code.

Section 4. The City Council certifies the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, adopts findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and makes the findings and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are hereby incorporated into the Project and will be made conditions of the Project.

Section 5. The City Council approves the modification to General Plan Figure CDL-3, Land Use Modification Overlay District, to include the Wine Country Specific Plan

3703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

-5-
Section 6. The City Clerk o f th e City o f Yucaipa shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be noted in the Minutes of this City Council meeting and a “Notice of Determination” be filed within five (5) days of this action by the City Clerk.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED the 27th day of March, 2024. _________________________
Justin Beaver, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Steven Graham Pacifico
City Attorney
3803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

EXHIBIT A
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings

3903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 1 -

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

REGARDING THE

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO . 2022070240

I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (“EIR”) prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.

The possible findings are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives.

The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. 4003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 2 -
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.

Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 [“an alternative ‘may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record’”].) An alternative may also be rejected because it “would not ‘entirely f ulfill’ [a] project objective.” Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315.) “[F]easibility” under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
4103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 3 -
When adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

Having received, independently reviewed, and considered the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Draft SEIR”) and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Final SEIR”) for the Wine Country Specific Plan Project, SCH No. 2022070240 (collectively, the “SEIR”), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings of Facts (“Findings”) are hereby adopted by the City of Yucaipa (“City”) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency.

These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for adoption and implementation of the WCSP (“Proposed Project”). This action includes the certification of the following:
 Wine Country Specific Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2022070240
A. DOCUMENT FORMAT
These Findings have been organized into the following sections:
1) Section 1 provides an introduction.
2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project’s objectives. 4203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 4 -
3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project.
4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be—as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period—either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that were deemed significant for consideration given the nature and location of the Proposed Project.
5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the DEIR that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of project design features and/or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to project design features and/or mitigation measures, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the DEIR that will or may result from the project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level.
6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Proposed Project.

B. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Proposed Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
 The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Proposed Project
 The Draft SEIR for the Proposed Project
 The Final SEIR for the Proposed Project
 All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft SEIR
 All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft SEIR  All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the Proposed Project
 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 5 -
 The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments
 All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR
 The Resolutions adopted by the City of Yucaipa in connection with the Proposed Project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto  Matters of common knowledge to the City of Yucaipa, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations
 Any documents expressly cited in these Findings
 Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e)
The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Yucaipa Development Services Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Yucaipa. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e).

C. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the project are at the City of Yucaipa Development Services Department, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California, 92399. The City’s Development Services Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the City of Yucaipa Development Services office. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e).

4403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 6 -
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
An SEIR was completed to address the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the WCSP. T he City of Yucaipa, as lead agency, determined that a Supplement to the General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should be prepared for the proposed project. The SEIR prepared for the WCSP is also a Supplement to the previously certified Wilson Creek Estates EIR. The Wilson Creek Estates property is a subarea within the WCSP.

The SEIR focuses on proposed modifications to the 2016 General Plan and changes in circumstances since the preparation of the 2016 General Plan EIR that could result in new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of significant impacts as disclosed in the 2016 General Plan EIR. Similarly, the SEIR addresses changes to the approved Wilson Creek Estates project and impacts as disclosed in the 2016 EIR certified for that project.

Mitigation Measures in the SEIR integrate and refine the mitigation me asures in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Wilson Creek Estates EIR as applicable to mitigate the impacts of the WCSP.

The 2016 General Plan EIR serves as the “baseline” to assess potential impacts associated with the WCSP. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are defined as the incremental impacts between buildout for the planning area pursuant to the approved General Plan and buildout for the planning area pursuant to the WCSP. Impacts are assessed for the net land use changes under the proposed project.

The 2016 General Plan designates the plan area as Rural Living (RL) with the Custom Home Overlay, which allows low-density rural residential development that is enhanced by special design standards. Single-family residential is the primary use, coexisting with open space and agriculture/agrarian uses. The maximum development gross density is one unit per acre, which would permit up to 1,091 single-family dwellings on the project site under the existing General Plan. This buildout is the “baseline” used for the SEIR.

The proposed WCSP includes details, regulations, and conditions necessary for Specific Plans pursuant to California Government Code Section 65451, including:
 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.
 Standards for existing and proposed transportation, sewage, water, and drainage.  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. 4503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 7 -
A. PROJECT LOCATION
The 1,094-acre Wine Country Specific Plan area (plan area) is in the northeastern portion of the City of Yucaipa, specifically the North Bench area of the city. The plan area is bounded by Martell Avenue and Norton Avenue on the east, Oak Glen Road on the south, and Fremont Street on the west. The San Bernardino mountains and Carter Street form the irregular northern boundary of the plan area. The major north-south thoroughfares include Fremont Street, Jefferson Street, and Martell Avenue; major east-west thoroughfares include Ivy Avenue, Carter Street, and Oak Glen Road.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The WCSP would subdivide the approximately 1,094-acre, primarily vacant site into home/estate lots and nonresidential areas for vineyards, trails, and open space.

Approximately one-half of the site is proposed for residential uses (547.4 acres), and one- half is proposed for nonresidential uses (546.2 acres). The proposed nonresidential land use designations include Agriculture, Riparian Area, and Public Service at 465.5, 73.6, and 7.1 acres, respectively. The Public Service designation comprises land owned by the Yucaipa Valley Water District. The proposed Riparian Area would create a buffer between the proposed residential uses surrounding Wilson Creek and the natural creek habitat.

The WCSP includes the formerly approved Wilson Creek Estates Tentative Tract Map (WCE TTM) project area. The WCE property has remained vacant since approval of the TTM and certification of the WCE EIR. The owner of WCE has updated their TTM and coordinated with the City to ensure that the project is consistent with the WCSP. This area would be developed in accordance with all of the Specific Plan provisions, including the land use and circulation plans, infrastructure plans, and development standards.

An approximate 20-year development schedule is anticipated for the 1,091 homes to proceed in five phases: (1) 313 dwelling units, (2) 37 dwelling units, (3) 316 dwelling units, (4) 197 dwelling units, and (5) 228 dwelling units. The WCSP would strive for a 50/50 split of vineyards and riparian areas (nonresidential) to residential land per phase.

Residential Uses
The WCSP would allow a maximum of 1,091 residential units, which is the same total units permitted in the General Plan for the plan area. The Villas would cover 629 lots with a maximum buildout density of 4.3 du/ac where the minimum (net) lot size is 10,000 square feet. The maximum building footprint permitted is 50 percent of the lot area. The Estates would be on 462 half -acre lots with a buildout density of 2 du/ac.

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 8 -
production/commercial uses that support the vineyards. The WCSP anticipates a total of 26 wineries varying in sizes and on-site accessory buildings. Three different categories of wineries are envisioned: 12 micro-wineries, 10 artisan wineries, and 4 boutique wineries.  Micro-wineries are small wineries, greater than 2.5 acres, that could include tasting rooms, limited food service, and art/merchandise sales in addition to the wine-making facility and vineyards.
 Artisan wineries are 5 acres or greater; in addition to the micro-winery uses, they can also include bed and breakfast inns, picnic and dining areas, commercial kitchens, marketing events, and small event venues that can accommodate up to 75 guests.  Boutique wineries are greater than 10 acres and includes all the uses associated with micro - and artisan wineries, but can also include distilleries, small bungalow resorts, and special event venues that can accommodate up to 150 guests.

C. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS
Project development requires the following discretionary actions and approvals from the City:
 Adoption of the Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan  Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2022070240  Adoption of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations  Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program  Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Code and Map to ensure consistency with the General Plan
D. STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1. The following objectives have been established for the proposed project and will aid decision makers in their review of the proposed project and associated environmental impacts.

2. Support viticulture and the wine-making industry in a way that protects the rural atmosphere of Yucaipa.

3. Honor the rights of existing property owners.

4. Follow a planned approach to the development of the wine industry to encourage appropriate wine-related economic growth and agritourism.

5. Encourage sustainable viticulture and winemaking practices. 4703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 9 -

6. Support appropriate small-scale winery-related accessory uses, including tasting rooms and bed-and -breakfast inns, where infrastructure permits.

7. Support wine-related businesses and activities in the Uptown District to expand the tourism industry.

8. Consider permanent and temporary wine- and winery-related activities with a regional draw, including wine festivals, wine tasting events, harvest festivals, weddings, and corporate events, in appropriate locations.

9. Support a unified rebranding effort that brings together the Chamber of Commerce and other interested organizations to promote the Yucaipa Valley American Viticulture Area.

10. Designate a “Wine Country” area in Yucaipa to encourage the establishment of viticulture and the wine-making industry.

11. Support a balance of viticulture and housing to jump-start the wine-making industry and meet State of California housing requirements.

The objectives of the WCSP are consistent with the overall vision of the AVA designation and the 2016 Yucaipa General Plan. The 2016 General Plan goal for the plan area is to create a community that has a “small-town rural character with strong neighborhood identities” and “offers an attractive, peaceful, and safe community for all of its residents” through thoughtful consideration of the residential and agrarian development proposed.

4803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 10 -
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Proposed Project.  The City of Yucaipa determined that an SEIR would be required for the Proposed Project and issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) on July 14, 2022. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning Research and posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk-Recorder’s office and on the City’s website on July 14, 2022. The thirty (30)-day public review period extended from July 14, 2022, to August 15, 2022.
 A scoping meeting was held during the NOP review period to solicit additional suggestions on the scope of the Draft SEIR. The scoping meeting was held on Wednesday July 27, 2022 at 5:00 PM at Yucaipa City Hall. The notice of the public scoping meeting was included in the NOP. There were no attendees at the scoping meeting.
 The scope of the Draft S EIR was determined based on the City’s comments received in response to the NOP. Section 2.3 of the DEIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the Draft S EIR.
 The City of Yucaipa prepared a Draft SEIR, which was made available for a forty five (45)-day public review period beginning Friday, December 8, 2023 and ending Monday, January 27, 2024.
- The complete Draft SEIR consists of the analysis of the WCSP Project and all referenced appendices. The Notice of Availability (“NOA”) for the Draft SEIR was sent to all interested persons, agencies, and organizations. The Notice of Completion (“NOC”) was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk-Recorder’s office on December 8, 2023. Copies of the DEIR were made available for public review at the City of Yucaipa Planning Division and Yucaipa Branch Library. The Draft SEIR was also made available for download via the City’s website: https://yucaipa.gov/environmental-review/ • Three Town Hall Meetings were held to inform the public of the release of the Draft SEIR, solicit comments on the proposed project, and answer questions about the proposed project. The meetings were held at the Yucaipa Performing Arts Center on 12062 California Street, Yucaipa, C alifornia A 92399. The first meeting has held on December 12, 2023, the second meeting was held on January 11, 2024, and the third meeting was held on February 20, 2024.
• Preparation of the Final SEIR includes comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to those comments, clarifications/revisions to the Draft S EIR, and revised figures.

The Final SEIR was posted on the City’s website. A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on February 28 , 2024 in the City’s Council Chambers, at 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California 92399. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforementioned meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA 4903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 11 -
and the City’s Municipal Code. The Draft SEIR, Final SEIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing.
- Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing was posted as a 1/8 page display in the Yucaipa News Mirror on February 16, 2024. - Additionally, notices were mailed to nearby property owners (1,300 foot radius) and interested parties consistent with the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act. The item was on the agenda for the noticed Planning Commission Public Hearing, which was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website.
• Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines requires lead agencies to provide written Responses to Comments to public agencies commenting on the Draft SEIR at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final SEIR. There were no public agency comments received on the WCSP Draft SEIR.

5003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 12 -
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE

POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT DURING THE

SCOPING PROCESS
Based on the public scoping process (including review of NOP responses), in addition to analysis prepared for the Draft SEIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that none of the environmental topics were determined to have no impact or were found to be less than significant. As a result, all environmental topics were analyzed in Chapter 5 of the SEIR.

B. IMPACTS DETERMINED AS “NO IMPACT” AND “LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS” IN THE SEIR
This section identifies impacts of the proposed project determined to be less than significant without implementation of project-specific mitigation measures. This determination assumes compliance with existing regulations, as detailed in each respective topical section of Chapter 5 in the Draft S EIR. a) Aesthetics. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or state scenic highway and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. When compared to the use of the plan area under GPEIR, the proposed project would allow for more unobstructed views of scenic resources from public roadways and vantage points within the plan area. The WCSP development standards and design guidelines provide specific objective standards to guide the development of the plan area with appropriately scaled development that works with the surrounding environment. These standards would also ensure that spill light and glare is minimized from development under the WCSP.
b) Agricultural and Forestry Resources. The plan area contains 2.61 acres of Prime Farmland and 10.07 acres of Unique Farmland which would continue to be used for agriculture under the proposed project. The portion of Prime Farmland containing an olive orchard would remain onsite under the proposed project and other designated farmland would be used for a larger scale of agricultural use (primarily vineyards) when compared to the uses designated under 2016 General Plan. Additionally, the plan area contains no land in a Williamson Act contract or zoned as forestland or timberland.
c) Air Quality. The proposed project would be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 402, Nuisance which requires abatement of any nuisance generating a verified odor complaint. Additionally, the winery uses under the proposed project would be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board General Waste Discharge Requirements for Winery Process Water (Order). The Order would control and minimize potential nuisance 5103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 13 -
odors from the wineries’ process water through biodegradable organic matter load limits, effluent limits, and best practical treatment or control measures. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary, intermittent, and confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment in use. d) Cultural Resources. Though no human remains have been identified in the WCSP area through the cultural resources assessment for the project, there is a possibility that ground-disturbing activities could encounter previously undocumented human remains. Impacts from the WCSP would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
e) Energy. The proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Energy use associated with construction would be temporary. Construction contractors would be required to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Chapter 9, Article

4.8, Section 2449. Additionally, development under the WCSP would be subject to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Compliance with these standards would contribute to reducing building energy demands through energy efficiency and use of renewable energy. Statewide fuel reduction strategies and regulatory compliances would also contribute to increasing fuel efficiency for vehicles under the proposed project.
f) Geology and Soils. The plan area contains a mapped surface fault under the Alquist Priolo Zoning Act. Development under the proposed project would therefore be required to comply with California Building Code Section 1803, Geotechnical Investigations, for proposed developments on active faults pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Act and Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.5 which requires a surface fault investigation proving that all structures proposed for human occupancy do not cross any active fault traces for properties identified within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the California Building Code and the provisions of the City’s Geologic Hazard Overlay District to reduce impacts related to seismic hazards.

Erosion impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project would also be reduced through compliance with Yucaipa Development Code Division 10, Chapter 2, Article 810.0220. No septic systems are proposed under the WCSP. g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Operation of the proposed vineyards and wineries under the proposed project would introduce some hazardous materials, particularly pesticides, within the WCSP area. However, existing regulations with respect to hazardous materials transportation, management, and disposal minimize potential hazardous material impacts. The plan area does contain a 5203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 14 -
hazardous materials site nor is it within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan.

Additionally, the proposed project would not impair emergency response or evacuation access with review from the City’s Building and Safety Department, along with the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District and Sheriff’s Department, to ensure that adequate site access is maintained and that roadway improvements and project driveways would not interfere with circulation on adjacent streets. While the plan area contains land in a designated fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), the fire protection plan prepared for the proposed project would also ensure that wildfire impacts are reduced.
h) Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project would be required to prepare and implement a stormwater pollution protection plan (SWPPP) and comply with the City’s Phase I MS4 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements including a stormwater quality management plan (SWQMP) specifying operation and maintenance requirements for all structural or treatment control BMPs required to reduce pollutants in post-development runoff to the maximum extent practicable. The implementation of low-impact development strategies in addition to best management practices would also promote groundwater recharge. T he Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) requires that applicants for a new development project to fund the purchase of seven acre-feet of imported supplemental water per equivalent dwelling unit prior to issuance of grading or building permits, further ensuring that the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge.
i) Land Use and Planning. The proposed project would not physically divide an existing community. The WCSP is anticipated to be developed over an approximate 20-year period and although it is anticipated that the older homes and chicken farms that currently exist in the plan area will likely be redeveloped upon development of new residences, vineyards and wineries, these uses could also remain. There are no proposed roadways that would not disrupt or divide any existing community. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with applicable land use plans adopted to reduce environmental impacts including the Yucaipa General Plan and the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), as detailed in Impact 5.11-2 of the Draft SEIR.
j) Mineral Resources. The plan area is not within a designated mineral resource area where the significance of mineral deposits can be determined from available data (MRZ -3) or where the presence of mineral deposits is inferred (MRZ -2). k) Noise. Construction associated with the proposed project could occur within 50 feet of sensitive receptors resulting in construction noise levels exceeding the Federal Transit Administration’s 80 dBA Leq threshold in proximity to sensitive 5303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 15 -
receptors. However, these noise levels would not be greater than those anticipated in the GPEIR. Vibration impacts from construction of the proposed project were similarly found to not exceed the levels anticipated in the GPEIR. The plan area is not within the vicinity of an airport and would therefore not expose residents or workers to excessive noise levels associated with airports. l) Population and Housing. The proposed project would allow the same number of housing units permitted under the 2016 General Plan resulting in no direct impact to population growth. 274 new employees are anticipated under the WCSP vineyard and winery uses which represents a minimal increase in the number of jobs expected under implementation of the 2016 General Plan. This increase in jobs would also help to improve the City’s jobs-housing balance. A few residential homes in the plan area would be replaced with new homes under the proposed project but these would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. m) Public Services. The proposed project would not result in additional residents at the plan area when compared to the 2016 General Plan but would increase the density of housing development at the plan area. As a result of the increase in density, fire protection services would be improved because firefighters would have easier access to the area being burned. The proposed vineyards would also provide fire breaks for the plan area. The additional demand for fire services associated with the wineries would be satisfied through development impact fees, Proposition 172 sales tax, property taxes, paramedic fees, fire building plan and building checks, records and site requests, building permitting, and new business fire clearance fees. These are in addition to the fees collected for residential development as proposed by the GPEIR. Additionally, while the proposed project would increase demand for police services, requiring two additional deputies, these impacts no more than what was anticipated in the GPEIR. These impacts would be addressed by funding from the General Fund (e.g., property taxes) and the payment of the required development impact fees. The proposed project would result in no increase in residential population than what was analyzed in the GPEIR, therefore no impacts to school and library service would occur. n) Recreation. As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in additional residential population in the City. The WCSP would include 73.6 acres of open space along Wilson Creek that would provide recreational activities and passive open space. The multipurpose trails and 73.6 acres of open space in the plan area would also reduce off -site recreational needs and potential impacts to the nearby El Dorado Ranch Park. In addition, the proposed project may be conditioned to pay park development fees if deemed necessary by the City. o) Transportation. The proposed project would not conflict with programs, plan, or policies that address the circulation system. The WCSP would provide bike lanes on Oak Glen Road and Carter Street in accordance with the City’s bikeway plan 5403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 16 -
and proposed residential areas would be designed to ensure the development of pedestrian-scale neighborhoods and the creation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that make the development easily accessible to all residents by foot or bicycle. The WCSP would also provide 12-foot-wide multipurpose trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. The WCSP does not propose to change the number and type of residential dwelling units analyzed as part of GPEIR.

Additionally, the trip generating characteristics of the WCSP’s winery and vineyards uses would not impact VMT because it is expected to continue to capture trips that are currently being generated by the existing residents or reroute trips from more distant locations, such as Temecula in Riverside County.

Furthermore, the proposed project would not create roadway hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses and street designs would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Engineering Department prior to recordation of the final map. Development under the proposed project would also be required to comply with adopted fire codes, buildings codes, and provisions of the City municipal code to ensure that the development does not result in inadequate emergency access.
p) Utilities and Service Systems. The WCSP would increase sewer flows by 0.03 million gallons/day compared to the 2016 General Plan land uses for the project area. As projects consistent with WCSP land uses are submitted, detailed sewer analyses will identify on - and off -site improvements. Additionally, the Wochholz Regional Water Recycling Facility also contains enough capacity to serve the increased wastewater of the proposed project. Impacts to the water infrastructure system would be assessed by YVWD at the time of plan submittal. Development pursuant to the WCSP would results in an additional demand of 10.3 acre-feet- year (afy) for potable water demand and 517.88 afy for recycled water demand when compared to the 2016 General Plan buildout for the plan area. However, the water surplus reported in YVWD’s Urban Water Management Plan would accommodate the additional demand created by the proposed project. While the proposed project would increase the impervious arras in the plan area, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and City require that all new development complete drainage and hydrology analyses to ensure that on- and off -site drainage facilities can accommodate increased stormwater flows. Proje ct-related construction and operation phases would also comply with federal, State, and local laws and regulations that govern solid waste disposal and electricity and natural gas demands would be met by sufficient supply from Southern California Edison an d Southern California Gas Company.
q) Wildfire. The Fire Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project evaluated fire behavior variables to objectively predict flame lengths, intensities, and spread rates. While the WCSP would not alter prevailing winds or slopes any more than was analyzed in the GPEIR, wildfire risk would be reduced compared to the uses under the 2016 General Plan due to the proposed vineyards, which would act as 5503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 17 -
a fire break, and the higher density uses, which would allow for easier firefighting, especially if there are limited firefighting resources. Moreover, development of the WCSP would be required to comply with the building and design standards in the CBC and CFC, which include provisions for fire-resistant building materials, the clearance of debris, and fire safety requirements during demolition and construction activities. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement all code-required fire safety features, as listed in the Fire Protection Plan, Table 9, Code Required Fire Safety Features (Appendix M of the Draft SEIR).

These measures would reduce impacts associated with exacerbating wildfire risks and risks due to post-fire slope instability or drainage changes.

5603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 18 -
V. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS
The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the Draft SEIR, and the effects of the project were considered. Because of environmental analysis of the project and the identification of relevant General Plan policies; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures, some potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found—in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1)—that “Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.” This is referred to herein as “Finding 1.” Where the City has determined—pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)—that “Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency,” the City’s finding is referred to herein as “Finding 2.” Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that “Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” This is referred to herein as “Finding 3.”
A. IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The following summary describes impacts of the Proposed Project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the SEIR, these impacts would be considered less than significant.

1. Biological Resources
Impact 5.4-1: As with the 2016 General Plan, development pursuant to the WCSP could impact sensitive species. [Threshold B-1]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, and in particular, starting on page 5.4-37 of the Draft SEIR. 5703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 19 -
Special -Status Plants
Nine special-status plant species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the WCSP study area based on known species distribution, species-specific habitat preferences, and habitat conditions in the study area: Yucaipa onion, Jaeger’s milk-vetch, Parry’s spineflower, white-bracted spineflower, California satintail, Hall’s monardella, salt spring checkerbloom, southern jewelflower, and San Bernardino aster.

Focused surveys for special-status plants conducted in 2022 as a part of the modified project were negative for special-status plants in the WCE–Wine Country Subdivision area and Phases 1, 2, and 3 (outside of the WCE area). Therefore, indirect and direct impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant. Since the Conceptual Phasing Plan for the proposed project anticipates an approximate 20-year buildout, focused surveys for Phases 4 and 5 would require updating prior to construction whether or not they were conducted for this EIR. Potential short-term or temporary indirect impacts to special-status plant species resulting from construction activities, including inadvertent spillover impacts, would be potentially significant. Any potential impact to a federal- or state-listed plant species would be significant. Project implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce potential indirect and direct impacts to less than significant.

Potential long-term indirect impacts that could result from development near special-status plant species or their suitable habitat include chemical releases such as oils and grease from vehicles that could degrade habitat; increased human presence that could lead to unauthorized access to potential habitat for special-status plants; increased invasive plant species that may degrade habitat; and trampling of vegetation and soil compaction by humans, which could affect soil moisture, water penetration, surface flows, and erosion.

Project implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce potential indirect and direct impacts to less than significant.

Special -Status Wildlife
For 19 special-status wildlife species, nonlisted species with a moderate or high potential to occur or listed species with a low potential to occur in the study area based on known species distribution, species-specific habitat preferences, and habitat conditions were western spadefoot, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, bald eagle, loggerhead shrike, coastal California gnatcatcher, Dulzura pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, San Diego desert woodrat, southern grasshopper mouse, Los Angeles pocket mouse, American badger, Southern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, coastal tiger whiptail, red diamondback rattlesnake, Blainville’s horned lizard, coast patch-nosed snake, and Crotch bumble bee.

Western Spadefoot
Western spadefoot was not detected during the 2022 surveys. Wilson Creek and its associated floodplain provides potential habitat for western spadefoot, if present. Project 5803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 20 -
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 and Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce direct impacts to western spadefoot. Project implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would also reduce long-term indirect impacts to less than significant.

White-Tailed Kite
White-tailed kites and bald eagles were observed flying through the study area or overhead during 2022 biological surveys. Development of the proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to nesting white-tailed kites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5 and BIO-6 would reduce impacts direct and indirect impacts to less than significant.

Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Protocol surveys conducted for coastal California gnatcatcher conducted in 2022 as a part of the modified project did not include Phases 4 and 5. Phases 4 and 5 contain 26.2 acres of potential habitat (California buckwheat scrub) for coastal California gnatcatcher. Project implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-10 would reduce direct impacts to less than significant. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 and Mitigation Measure BIO-11 would reduce short-term indirect impacts to less than significant.

Burrowing Owl
Protocol surveys for burrowing owl conducted in 2022 as a part of the modified project were negative within the WCE–Wine Country Subdivision area but positive for burrowing owl pellets to the north within the Phase 3 area. Future development of Phases 4 and 5 has the potential to result in impacts to burrowing owl through unintentional clearing, trampling, or grading outside of the construction zone. Project implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5, Mitigation Measure BIO-7, and Mitigation Measure BIO-12 would reduce direct impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would also reduce direct impacts to burrowing owls to less than significant and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce long-term indirect impact les the significant.

Loggerhead Shrike
Loggerhead shrikes were not detected within the WCE–Wine Country Subdivision area or within Phases 4 and 5 during the 2022 surveys. However, these portions of the study area contains suitable nesting habitat for the species; development of the WCE–Wine Country Subdivision area could result in the loss of 10.9 acres of potential habitat for loggerhead shrike and future development of Phases 4 and 5 could result in the loss of up to 111.9 acres of suitable habitat. Project implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would reduce direct impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would also reduce short-term indirect impacts to less than significant.
5903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 21 -
Dulzua Pocket Mouse, Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse, San Diego Desert Woodrat, Southern Grasshopper Mouse, Los Angeles Pocket Mouse No special-status fossorial small mammals were incidentally detected within the WCE– Wine Country Subdivision area and the Phase 4 and 5 areas during 2022 surveys.

However, these portions of the study area contain suitable habitat for these species; development of the WCE–Wine Country Subdivision area would result in the loss of 178.8 acres of potential habitat for fossorial small mammals and development of Phases 4 and 5 could result in the loss of up to 245.2 acres of potential habitat. Project implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 and Mitigation Measures BIO-8 would reduce direct impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-5 would also help reduce short-term and long-term indirect impacts to fossorial small mammals to less than significant.

American Badger
American badger was not incidentally detected within the WCE–Wine Country Subdivision area or the Phase 4 and 5 areas during the 2022 surveys. However, these portions of the study area contain suitable habitat, including burrows; development of the WCE–Wine Country Subdivision area could result in the loss of up to 177.7 acres of potential habitat for American badgers and future development of Phases 4 and 5 could result in the loss of up to 235.9 acres of suitable habitat. Project implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO- 5 and Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would reduce direct impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 would also reduce short-term and long-term indirect impacts to American badger.

Southern California Legless Lizard, California Glossy Snake, Coastal Tiger Whiptail, Red Diamondback Rattlesnake, Blainville’s Horned Lizard, Coast Patch-Nosed Snake Coastal tiger whiptail was observed immediately west of the WCE–Wine Country Subdivision area during the 2022 surveys. It was observed immediately south of Phases 4 and 5 within other phases of the study area during the Phases 4 and 5 areas surveys.

These portions of the study area contains suitable habitat; development of the WCE–Wine Country Subdivision area could result in the loss of up to 178.8 acres of potential habitat for special-status lizards and snakes and future development of Phases 4 and 5 could result in loss of up to 245.2 acres of potential habitat. Project implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 and Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would reduce direct impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO -3 would also reduce short-term and long- term indirect impacts to special-status lizards and snakes.

Crotch Bumble Bee
Crotch bumble bee has a high potential to occur within the study area. Direct impacts to individuals of this uncommon species could occur with project implementation. Wilson Creek Estates could result in the loss of up to 178.8 acres of potential habitat supporting potential floral resources for this species, which could be used for nesting by Crotch 6003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 22 -
bumble bee if present onsite. Future development of Phases 4 and 5 could result in the loss of up to 245.2 acre of potential habitat. Project implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 and Mitigation Measure BIO-10 would reduce direct impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 would also reduce short-term and long-term and indirect impacts to crotch bumble bees.

Conclusion
As with the GPEIR, which found impacts to be less than significant with the incorporated of mitigation, impacts under the WCSP would also result in less than significant impacts with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through Mitigation Measure BIO-12.

Mitigation Measures:

The following mitigation measures reduce this impact to less than significant:

BIO-1: Focused Special-Status Plant Survey and Avoidance. Within Phases 4 and 5, a focused special-status plant survey shall be conducted prior to ground- disturbing activities. The survey shall be conducted for Yucaipa onion, Jaeger's milk-vetch, Parry’s spineflower, white-bracted spineflower, California satintail, Hall’s monardella, salt spring checkerbloom, southern jewelflower, and San Bernardino aster, or as otherwise required by an updated habitat assessment conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall occur at the appropriate time of year to capture the characteristics necessary to identify the taxon. Surveys shall be conducted consistent with California Native Plant Society protocols and by a qualified botanist knowledgeable of the local flora.

T he results of the survey shall be summarized in a report and would be valid for a maximum of 2 years. If no special-status plants are found during the survey, no further mitigation would be required.

If special-status plants are observed, the full extent of the occurrence of a special-status plant species within the survey area shall be recorded using GPS. The location of each special-status plant occurrence shall be mapped and number of individuals for each occurrence documented. The outer extent of each occurrence shall be flagged for avoidance (to the extent feasible).

For direct impacts to special-status plant species, one or a combination of the following strategies shall be implemented:
 Avoidance and Minimization. Impacts to special-status plant populations shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible and minimized where avoidance is not feasible. Where project impacts to special-status plant species cannot be avoided, mitigation is required and is discussed further below.
 Salvage. If impacts to special-status plants cannot be avoided and it is feasible to effectively salvage the plants, a qualified ecologist shall develop 6103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 23 -
a restoration and mitigation plan based on the life history of the species impacted, as necessary, to mitigate project impacts. The plan shall include, at minimum, (a) collection/salvage measures for plants and/or seed banks to retain intact soil conditions and maximize success likelihood; (b) details regarding storage of plants and/or seed banks; (c) location of the proposed recipient site and detailed site preparation and plant introduction techniques details for top soil storage, as applicable; (d) time of year that the salvage and replanting or seeding shall occur and the methodology of the replanting; (e) a description of the irrigation, if used; (f) success criteria; and (g) a detailed monitoring program, commensurate with the plan’s goals.

BIO-2: Construction-Related Indirect Impacts to Special-Status Plants, Wildlife, and Aquatic Resources. Prior to issuance of a construction permit within 500 feet of proposed open space or suitable habitat for special-status species (i.e., all undeveloped land within the project site) with potential to occur in the project site, construction plans and conditions of approval shall include the following to address indirect impacts to special-status species:
 Biological Monitoring. A qualified project biologist approved by the City of Yucaipa shall monitor ground-disturbing and vegetation clearing activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat, species of concern, and other sensitive biological resources outside the project footprint. Once ground-disturbing and vegetation clearing activities are complete, the project biologist shall conduct weekly checks in order to inspect construction fencing and ensure that all applicable requirements from the mitigation measures are being upheld.
 Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to grading, a preconstruction meeting shall be required that includes a training session for project personnel by a qualified biologist. The training shall include (1) a description of the species of concern and its habitats; (2) the general provisions of the applicable regulations pertaining to biological resources, including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act; (3) the need to adhere to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and other applicable regulations; (4) the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and other applicable regulations; (5) the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project; and (6) the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. Additionally, the training shall include the measures and mitigation requirements for the applicable resources. Copies of the mitigation measures and any required permits 6203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 24 -
from the resource agencies will be made available to construction personnel.
 Delineation of Property Boundaries. Before beginning activities that would cause impacts, the contractor shall, in consultation with the biological monitor, clearly delineate the boundaries with fencing, stakes, or flags, consistent with the grading plan, within which the impacts will take place.

All impacts outside the fenced, staked, or flagged areas shall be avoided, and all fencing, stakes, and flags shall be maintained until the completion of impacts in that area. In addition, any avoided environmental resources will be clearly delineated. Prior to implementing construction activities, the biological monitor shall verify that the flagging clearly delineates the construction limits and any sensitive environmental resources to be avoided.
 Standard Dust Control Measures. Standard dust control measures as per the South Coast Air Quality Management District shall be implemented to reduce impacts on nearby plants and wildlife. Measures include controlling speed to 15 mph or less on unpaved roads, replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible, frequently watering active work sites, installation of shaker plates, and suspending excavation and grading operations during periods of high winds.
 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for construction, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City of Yucaipa that specifies best management practices to prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater, with the intent of keeping sedimentation or any other pollutants from moving off site and into receiving waters. The requirements of the SWPPP shall be incorporated into design specifications and construction contracts. Best management practices categories employed on site would include erosion control, sediment control, and non-stormwater (good housekeeping). Best management practices recommended for the construction phase shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Limiting grading to the minimum area necessary for construction, operation, and decommissioning of the project.
• Limiting vegetation disturbance/removal to the maximum extent practicable.
• Implementing fiber rolls and sandbags around drainage areas and the site perimeter.
• Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly.
6303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 25 -
• Installation of a stabilized construction entrance/exit and stabilization of disturbed areas.
• Proper protections for fueling and maintenance of equipment and vehicles.
• Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and implementing sediment controls.
• Soil stabilization in disturbed areas by revegetation.

The following water quality measures will be included in the SWPPP:
• Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses.

Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks.
• Projects shall be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern, as feasible. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats shall be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian species.
• When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing or other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments off site. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream.
• Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
 Minimize Spills of Hazardous Materials. All vehicles and equipment shall be maintained in proper condition to minimize the potential for fugitive emissions of motor oil, antifreeze, hydraulic fluid, grease, or other hazardous materials. Hazardous spills shall be immediately cleaned up and the contaminated soil shall be immediately cleaned up and the contaminated soil shall be properly handled or disposed of at a licensed facility. Servicing of construction equipment shall take place only at a designated staging area.
6403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 26 -
 Wildlife Hazards. The following measures will be implemented to ensure that wildlife do not become trapped, entangled, injured, or poisoned by construction activities:
• Structures in which wildlife may become trapped (e.g., open pipes, pits, trenches, etc.) shall be tightly covered at the end of each work day. If covering the structure is not possible, an escape ramp shall be provided to allow any wildlife that falls in to safely escape. • Debris piles, construction materials, equipment, and other items that may be used as wildlife refuge shall be inspected for wildlife at the start of each work day and prior to disturbance. If wildlife is discovered, it shall either be moved out of harm’s way by a qualified biologist, or allowed to move off of the project site on its own.
• Nets and mesh shall be made of loose weave material that is not fused at the intersections of the weave, as nets with welded weaves present an entanglement risk.
• Toxic materials and garbage shall be removed from the work site and safely stored or disposed of at the end of each work day.  Invasive Weeds. In order to reduce the spread of invasive plant species, landscape plants shall not be on the most recent version of the Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Inventory:
( http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php) .
 Night Work. All construction activities will be conducted during the daytime and lights will not be kept on overnight in the construction area, as practicable. If night-lighting is required during construction activities, all exterior lighting along undeveloped land shall be fully shielded and directed downward in a manner that will prevent light spillage or glare into the adjacent open space.

BIO-3: Long-Term Indirect Impacts to Special-Status Plants, Wildlife, and Aquatic Resources. Prior to issuance of a construction permit within 500 feet of suitable habitat for special-status species with potential to occur in the project site, construction plans and conditions of approval shall include the following to address indirect impacts to special-status species:
 Runoff. Future development within 500 feet of suitable habitat for special- status species shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into proposed open space or 6503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 27 -
suitable 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/) 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:
6603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 28 -
 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.

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.

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:
6703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 29 -
 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 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 have fledged and the nest is no longer considered active.

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. 6803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 30 -
 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 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. 6903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 31 -
 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 activities 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 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 7003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 32 -
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 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 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 7103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 33 -
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 captured 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 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 7203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 34 -
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 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 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 7303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 35 -
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 mit igation 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 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 7403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 36 -
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 burrowing owl cannot be avoided, a burrowing owl protection plan will be prepared and implemented, as summarized in MM BIO -7.

Finding:

Finding 1 – The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure(s) above. The City of Yucaipa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure(s) is feasible, and the measure(s) is therefore adopted.

Impact 5.4-2: As with the 2016 General Plan, development pursuant to the WCSP could result in the loss of sensitive vegetation communities. [Threshold B-2]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, and in particular, starting on page 5.4-49 of the Draft SEIR.

Direct Impacts
A total of 21 vegetation communities or land cover types were mapped within the plan area. Of these, five communities are considered special-status vegetation communities by CDFW and are sensitive under CEQA—Palmer’s goldenbush scrub, white sage scrub, California sycamore woodlands, basket bush–river hawthorn–desert olive patches, and scale broom scrub. A total of 2.3 acres of sensitive vegetation communities would be impacted, including 0.2 acre within the WCE–Wine Country Subdivision area; up to 1.2 acres within Phases 1, 2, and 3; and up to 1 acre within Phases 4 and 5. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-13 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Indirect Impacts
Special-status vegetation communities may be indirectly impacted during future construction of the modified project. Potential short-term indirect impacts to special-status vegetation as a result of construction activities include inadvertent spillover impacts, 7503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 37 -
generation of fugitive dust, changes in hydrology, and adverse effects of invasive plant species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Potential long-term indirect impacts that could result from development near special-status vegetation communities include chemical releases, increased plant species that may degrade habitat, and trampling of vegetation and soil compaction by humans.

Imple mentation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Conclusion
As with the GPEIR, project-specific impacts under the modified project would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, Mitigation Measure BIO -3, and Mitigation Measure BIO-13.

Mitigation Measures:

The following mitigation measures reduce this impact to less than significant:

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 (construction-related indirect impacts to biological resources), BIO-3 (long-term indirect impacts to biological resources) and the following additional new mitigation measure:

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 7603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 38 -
agency evaluation of current resource functions and values and through each agency’s respective permitting process.

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 mitigation 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.

Finding:

Impact 5.4-3: As with the 2016 General Plan, development pursuant to the WCSP could impact state- or federally protected wetlands. [Threshold B-3] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, and in particular, starting on page 5.4-50 of the SEIR.

Direct Impacts
The plan area contains 4.12 acres of nonwetland waters of the United States, 0.23-acre of nonwetland waters of the State, 5.83 acres of jurisdictional streambeds, and 2.11 acres of jurisdictional riparian habitat, as shown in Tables 5.4-6 through 5.4-8 of the Draft SEIR.

Mitigation Measure BIO-13 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Indirect Impacts
Jurisdictional waters of the United States may be indirectly impacted during construction.

Potential short-term indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters resulting from construction activities include the generation of fugitive dust; changes to hydrology; the release of chemicals, and unintentional clearing, trampling, or grading outside of the proposed construction zone. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Potential long-term indirect impacts that could result from development near waters of the United States communities include pollutants that could degrade water quality and habitat; 7703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 39 -
increased invasive plant species that may degrade habitat and trampling of vegetation and soil compaction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 (construction-related indirect impacts to biological resources), BIO-3 (long -term indirect impacts to biological resources), and BIO- 13 (aquatic resource avoidance, permitting, and protection).

Finding:

Impact 5.4-4: As with the 2016 General Plan, development pursuant to the WCSP could affect wildlife corridors and linkages. [Threshold B-4] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, and in particular, starting on page 5.4-53 of the SEIR.

Direct Impacts
The study area does not contain nursery sites and is not in an area identified as a wildlife corridor or linkage. However, the Final EIR for the 2016 General Plan identified Wilson Creek as a potential wildlife linkage. Development of the WCE–Wine Country Subdivision area and future development of the WCSP may interfere with the movement of native wildlife that uses Wilson Creek as a local linkage. Wilson Creek bisects the study area and is not expected to be directly impacted by WCE–Wine Country Subdivision or future development for the study area. However, development is expected to encroach into its associated uplands, which may constrain wildlife use of the study area.

The WCE–Wine Country Subdivision contains a planned roadway improvement to Jefferson Street that would intersect Wilson Creek at the western end of the study area.

Development of this roadway has potential to impact local wildlife movement along Wilson Creek. Implementation Mitigation Measure BIO-14 would minimize potential impacts to this corridor through the creation of an undercrossing that will facilitate wildlife movement beneath the roadway. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would ensure that the proposed project prioritizes 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. Mitigation Measure BIO-15 would implement design standards for future 7803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 40 -
development with the intent of facilitating wildlife movement through the project site. These mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3.

Mitigation Measures:

The following mitigation measures reduce this impact to less than significant:

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 (construction-related indirect impacts to biological resources), BIO-3 (long-term indirect impacts to biological resources), BIO-5 (open space conservation), and the following additional new mitigation measures:

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.

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 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.
 Encourage preservation of native habitat on the undeveloped remainder of developed parcels.
 Minimize road/driveway development to help prevent loss of habitat due to roadkill and habitat loss.
 Use native, drought-resistant plant species in landscape design.  Participate in local/regional recreational trail design effort. 7903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 41 -
Finding:

Finding 1 – The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the p roposed p roject that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure(s) above. The City of Yucaipa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure(s) is feasible, and the measure(s) is therefore adopted.

Impact 5.4-5: As with the 2016 General Plan, development pursuant to the WCSP would be required to comply with local biological resources policies and ordinances, and would not impact a habitat conservation plan. [Thresholds B-5 and B-6]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, and in particular, starting on page 5.4-54 of the SEIR.

The City of Yucaipa’s Municipal Code, Division 9, Plant Protection and Management, includes ordinances related to the removal of trees, including oak trees, as well as the removal of plants within 200 feet of a streambank. The study area contains trees, including oak trees, and streambanks within its boundary. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-16 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

The study area does not overlap any habitat conservation plans. Therefore, no impact to habitat conservation plans would occur.

Mitigation Measure:

The following mitigation measure reduces this impact to less than significant:

BIO-16: Tree Removal Permit. Prior to the issuance of grading permits it will be the responsibility of the Project proponent to obtain the necessary permits for removal of trees, including oak trees, as well as the removal of plants within 200 feet of a streambank. The project proponent will provide the appropriate plot plan or other documentation required by the City of Yucaipa.

Finding:

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 42 -

2. Cultural Resources
Impact 5.5-1: Development of the project could impact an identified historical resource. [Threshold C-1]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, and in particular, starting on page 5.5-14 of the SEIR.

The WCSP area includes the previously recorded historical resource (P36-16910 [CA- SBR-026762]) consisting of the main Casa Blanca residence. The Casa Blanca residence was evaluated and recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under criteria A through C and on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) under criteria 1 through 3. This site has been designated “Not a Part” of the proposed project. There would be no potential for direct physical impact to this resource from the subdivision proposed within the WCSP; it would be left intact with no change from existing conditions. Changes to the immediate setting of the house would be considered significant. A buffer would be provided by the proposed agricultural use (i.e., vineyards) between the Casa Blanca resource and the development (e.g., wineries and residences). The buffer and setbacks would prevent indirect impacts to the immediate setting of the Casa Blanca house. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial impact on this historical resource. However, the property owner has expressed interest in refurbishing the residence and integrating the ranch into a winery use. Any future improvements, once known, would be subject to environmental review and applicable standards set forth by the Secretary of the Interior.

The WCSP area includes residential buildings older than 45 years that would be redeveloped. Implementation of the WCSP would also require removal of the chicken farms in Planning Areas (PAs) 17A and 17B and historic-age features associated with the Cherrycroft Ranch in PAs 12 and 13. These resources have not been evaluated and could qualify as historical resources. If such resources are impacted, there could be substantial adverse change of a historical resource, resulting in a significant impact. As with the 2016 General Plan and approved WCE project, which found impacts to the Casa Blanca resource and unknown historical resources to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, impacts under the modified project would also result in less than significant impacts with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL 1 through CUL-3.

Mitigation Measures:

The following mitigation measures reduce this impact to less than significant:

CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and prior to the removal of residential buildings older than 45 years, the chicken farms, and Cherrycroft Ranch features, a historic resources technical study shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian meeting Secretary of the Interior Standards. The study 8103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 43 -
shall evaluate the significance and data potential of the resources in accordance with these standards. Resources present on the proposed project site shall be evaluated for eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), including buildings and structures. If the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1; Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), a program detailing how such long-term avoidance or preservation is ensured shall be developed and approved prior to conditional approval.

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 for 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.

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. 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.

Finding:

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 44 -
Impact 5.5-4: Development of the project could impact archaeological resources. [Threshold C-2]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, starting on page 5.5-15 of the SEIR.

There are no known archaeological resources within the WCSP area based on archival research. As with the 2016 General Plan, implementation of the WCSP could allow development, including grading, within an area designated as culturally sensitive and sensitive for prehistoric resources. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires soil excavation beyond the area of previous disturbance could potentially cause the disturbance of unknown cultural resources. If unknown artifacts are encountered during project construction, there could be a substantial adverse change of an archaeological resource, resulting in a significant impact, as determined in the GPEIR. Impacts from the WCSP would also be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4.

Mitigation Measure:

The following mitigation measure reduces this impact to less than significant:

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 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 resources 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 8303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 45 -
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.
 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 constr uction 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 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. 8403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 46 -
 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, 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].

Finding:

Impact 5.5-4: Development of the project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. [Threshold C-4]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, starting on page 5.5-16 of the Draft SEIR.
8503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 47 -
While there are no known paleontological resources within the WCSP area, the WCSP is in an area that exhibits moderate to low paleontological resource sensitivity. Holocene- age young alluvium on the surface of the plan area is considered to have a low potential for producing significant paleontological resources. However, these deposits may overlie sensitive, older (i.e., Pleistocene-age) deposits at variable depths, which have moderate potential for paleontological resources. If significant vertebrate fossils are encountered during project implementation, disturbance of such resources would result in a potentially significant impact to paleontological resources. Therefore, although surface grading and very shallow excavation in the younger Holocene-age allu vium is unlikely to impact sensitive paleontological resources, excavations deeper than five feet could extend into the older Holocene- to Pleistocene-age alluvium and impact vertebrate fossil resources, and impacts would be significant as determined in the GPEIR and WCE EIR. Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-7 would be required to reduce significant impacts to a level that is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

The following mitigation measures reduce this impact to less than significant:

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. 8603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 48 -
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 of fossil resources on-site.

If fossils are found, the report shall summarize the results of the inspection program, identity of the fossils encountered, recovery and curation efforts, and the methods used in these efforts as well as describe the fossils collected and their significance. A copy of the report shall be provided to the City’s Planning Department and to an appropriate repository such as the San Bernardino County Museum.

CUL-7 If a paleontological resource is found, the project contractor shall cease ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find. The qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the significance of the resources and recommend appropriate treatment measures. At each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be measured, and appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for analysis. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be catalogued and donated to a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the 8703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 49 -
materials, such as the San Bernardino County Museum. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository.

Finding:

3. Energy
Impact 5.6-2: The WCSP would not conflict with or obstruct implementation the renewable energy or energy efficiency measures of the City of Yucaipa CAP. [Threshold E-2]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.6, Energy, starting on page 5.6-12 of the SEIR.

Applicable plans relevant to the WCSP include the California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program and City of Yucaipa CAP.

The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as Southern California Edison (SCE), whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the state objective of transitioning to renewable energy. The land uses accommodated by the WCSP would comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which have requirements for installation of PV systems and battery storage for residential and non- residential land use types. Therefore, implementation of the WCSP would not conflict or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS Program.

All future discretionary projects accommodated by the WCSP would also be required to evaluate consistency with the City of Yucaipa Climate Action Plan (CAP) and its measures in reducing GHG emissions under the City of Yucaipa Development Review, similar to projects accommodated by the 2016 General Plan. The CAP includes the residential and nonresidential Screening Tables, which provide a list of features with an assigned point value that development projects may incorporate and achieve consistency with the CAP by garnering at least 100 points. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure GHG-2, individual developments pursuant to the WCSP would be required to attain at least 100 points under the CAP Screening Table, which would ensure consistency with the CAP and likely implementation of some of the energy-related features of the Screening Table(s). This would ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s CAP, reducing impacts 8803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 50 -
to less than significant. The WCSP would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts in this regard compared to the 2016 General Plan.

Mitigation Measure:

Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-2 (see Impact 5.8-2) would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Finding:

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.8-2: The proposed residential uses outside of the WCE–Wine Country subdivision in addition to the viticultural uses accommodated under the proposed project would be inconsistent with the City of Yucaipa Climate Action Plan. [Threshold GHG-2]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, starting on page 5.8-23 of the SEIR.

Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan, SCAG’s RTP/SCS known as Connect SoCal, and City’s CAP.

CARB Scoping Plan
Similar to projects accommodated under the 2016 General Plan, development projects accommodated under the proposed project, which includes both residential and viticultural land uses, are required to adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and implemented by state, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and AB 1279. Future development projects would be required to comply with these state GHG emiss ions reduction measures because they are statewide strategies. For example, new buildings associated with land uses accommodated by implementing the proposed project would be required to meet the CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time when applying for building permits. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with implementation of the Scoping Plan.
8903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 51 -
SCAG Connect SoCal
As shown in Table 5.11-2, SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals Consistency Analysis, under the Impact 5.11-2 discussion of the Draft SEIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of Connect SoCal. Additionally, as discussed in Impact 5.17-2, in Section 5.17, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR, winery uses accommodated under the proposed project would divert and capture some local and regional traffic (i.e., Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, and San Diego County) from traveling to the current nearest defined wine region of Temecula in Riverside County, and would contribute to reducing trip lengths by introducing closer options. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with implementation of Connect SoCal.

City of Yucaipa CAP
Similar to future discretionary projects accommodated by the 2016 General Plan, all future discretionary projects accommodated by the WCSP would also be required to evaluate consistency with the CAP and its measures in reducing GHG emissions under the City of Yucaipa Development Review. Per WCE EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-1, all residential projects in the WCE–Wine Country subdivision would be required to attain at least 100 points under the CAP Screening Table, which would ensure consistency with the CAP.

However, the remaining residential land uses outside of the WCE–Wine Country subdivision in addition to the viticultural uses accommodated by the proposed project would not be covered under WCE EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-1 (see impact 5.8-1 below). Thus, future residential uses outside of the WCE–Wine Country subdivision and viticultural uses may not be designed to standards consistent with the CAP and result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a new significant impact compared to the 2016 General Plan.

Mitigation Measures:

The following mitigation measures reduce this impact to less than significant:

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.

GHG-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, each development proposal located within the WCE–Wine Country subdivision shall demonstrate that the development of 9003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 52 -
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 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.

Finding:

5. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 5.10-3:As with the 2016 General Plan, the WCSP would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, result in flooding on- or off-site, or create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. [Threshold HYD-3(i), (ii) and (iii)]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and in particular, starting on page 5.10-21 of the SEIR.

Jurisdictional features such as Wilson Creek and tributary streams run through the WCSP planning area. A buffer would be established to maintain natural open space around Wilson Creek. Where appropriate, detention basins would be integrated to manage flood flows and overflow areas while protecting development farther from the creek. The property owner or project contractor would also obtain the applicable CWA Section 401 and 404 permits from USACE and CDFW as required. Additionally, mitigation measure MM HYD-1, and 2 would also be implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Table 5.10-4 in the Draft SEIR shows the impervious condition analysis. The table shows that the proposed condition would not significantly differ from the original assumptions in the City’s master plan of drainage. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the City require that all new development complete drainage and hydrology analyses to identify any increase in developed condition peak flows, measures needed to manage any 9103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 53 -
incremental increase in storm flows, and to measure impacts to adjacent properties. All local storm drain facilities would be sized to convey the 10- and/or 100-year storm event per the final drainage and hydrology analyses to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

All new development would also be required to prepare a SWQMP and construction activities that disturb more than one acre would be required to prepare a SWPPP to minimize the risk of erosion or sedimentation during construction. It is anticipated that proposed projects would implement detention basins with infiltration of the design capture volume for the operational phase.

All projects that have off -site runoff would be responsible for implementing proper debris basins to manage off -site flows, and all new storm drain systems would be designed in conformance with the City’s Standard Design Guidelines for Public Works Construction and Grading. All projects would also be required to comply with relevant policies from the Yucaipa Municipal Code—Chapter 2, Erosion and Sediment Control; Chapter 4, Section 810.0480, Stormwater Management; Chapter 13.04, Storm Drain System; and Division 5, Chapter 2, Article 2, Hillside (H) Overlay District. Furthermore, the General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element and the Transportation Element policies ensure that construction of future projects would reduce water quality impacts. Therefore, the WCSP would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts in this regard compared to the 2016 General Plan.

Mitigation Measure:

The following mitigation measure reduces this impact to less than significant:

HYD-1 Building plans submitted to and approved by the Engineering Department shall be designed so that infrastructure associated with the development is situated outside jurisdictional areas of streams and drainages (e.g., channels and banks). A drainage easement will be recorded as approved by the City Engineer, aligned consistent with the centerline of the wash. A conservation easement exceeding the limits of the 100-year flood shall be recorded. No buildings or structures will be permitted within the easement, which shall be maintained as close to its natural state as possible.

HYD-2 Prior to building permit issuance, the property owner or the project applicant for future development projects shall ensure that fill materials placed adjacent to streambeds are compacted according to the City’s development standards.

It must be demonstrated that fill will not settle and is protected from erosion, scour, or differential settlement.

Finding:

Finding 1 – The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the 9203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 54 -
significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure(s) above. The City of Yucaipa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure(s) is feasible, and the measure(s) is therefore adopted.

Impact 5.10-4:As with site development pursuant to the 2016 General Plan, the WCSP would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows, and would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. [Threshold HYD-3 (iv) and HYD-4] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and in particular, starting on page 5.10-23 of the SEIR.

Areas in the WCSP bordering Wilson Creek are in a FEMA-designated 100-year flood hazard zone, as shown on Figure 5.10-3, FEMA Zones, in the Draft SEIR. Areas bordering Wilson Creek are Floodplain Review Area 1 (100-year flood area), and the area west of the project site and south of Wilson Creek is Floodplain Review Area 2 (500-year flood area).

Wilson Creek would be protected through a large buffer where no construction could occur, and where appropriate, detention basins would be integrated to manage flood flows and overflow areas while protecting development farther from the creek. Although development within the 100-year flood hazard zone is not anticipated, any such development would require submittal of a letter of map revision application to FEMA for review and approval. All new development would be required to meet federal floodplain regulations, including that the lowest floor of the structure is raised above the 100-year base flood elevation. In addition, the General Plan includes several policies that would reduce impacts from flooding, and mitigation measure HYD-1 would be required. Flood insurance would also be required.

The project area is not within the inundation zone of any dams, and no surface water bodies pose a flood hazard to the project area due to a seiche. The project area is also not at risk of flooding from tsunami. Therefore, impacts would be less than signif icant.

Mitigation Measure:

Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Finding:

Finding 1 – The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the 9303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 55 -
significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure(s) above. The City of Yucaipa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure(s) is feasible, and the measure(s) is therefore adopted.

6. Noise
Impact 5.13-2 Implementation of the WCSP would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels compared to the 2016 General Plan. [Threshold N-1]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.13, Noise, and in particular, starting on page 5.13-13 of the Draft SEIR.

Mobile Noise Sources
The WCSP proposes new vineyard and winery uses that would generate additional vehicle trips. The proposed project would generate up to 51 weekday daily trips, 64 weekend daily trips, and up to 145 weekend trips during large special events. The GPEIR identified existing average daily traffic (ADT) to range between 1,097 and 24,547 daily trips throughout the city. The GPEIR did not provide ADT volumes for the roadway segments in the immediate vicinity of the WCSP site. This analysis, therefore, conservatively applies the maximum 145 weekend special event daily trips generated by the proposed project (without applying trip distribution among different roadways segments) to the GPEIR’s lowest existing ADT volume of 1,097. When calculating the noise increase associated with 145 daily weekend special event trips, the estimated traffic noise increase would be up to

0.5 dBA CNEL. The GPEIR identified noise increases of up to 5.3 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts in this regard when compared to the 2016 General Plan for the plan area.

Stationary Sources
Stationary project-related noise would be from the mechanical equipment and maintenance associated with the proposed residential uses (proposed 1,091 units), operations associated with the proposed commercial/retail uses, and operations of the proposed vineyards and wineries. Stationary noise sources could include refrigeration equipment such as condensers and fans and seasonal operation of grape crush pads.

Crush pads are used seasonally when grapes are harvested. A forklift is used to drop loads of grapes onto the crusher to crush wine into juice to be fermented. Overall, crushing activities generate average noise levels of 64 dBA at 50 feet. Stationary noise sources associated with the proposed project, except for special events as discussed below, would not be substantially louder than analyzed for the GPEIR, which included noise sources associated with commercial and retail uses.
9403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 56 -
Special Events
Special events hosted at the wineries would also be a source of operational, project- related noise. The WCSP development standards require a minimum setback of 50 feet and 100 feet from residential land uses for artisan and boutique wineries, respectively.

When attenuating for the closest setback, which would be the artisan winery at 50 feet, the exterior noise levels that outdoor recreation areas associated with adjacent residences could experience a level that approaches up to 71 dBA Leq, under the scenario described in Impact 5.13-2 in the Draft SEIR. This scenario would exceed the City’s most stringent exterior noise standard for residential land uses of 55 dBA Leq at any time, if the averaged participants are in a single vineyard and directly adjacent to the residences next to the winery.

According to the proposed land use plan, artisan and boutique wineries would be placed in such a way that they would not be developed alongside existing residences and would only be developed next to the proposed residences. This would place larger events further from existing residences, which may not have the necessary mitigation measures (e.g. sound wall/fence or properly rated STC windows) to reduce noise from these events.

There is currently no sufficient information regarding the proposed residences within the project boundary. However, the proposed residences are allowed to have up to a 6-foot- high fence along the sides and to the rear of the property. A 6-foot wall/fence typically provides a minimum of 5 dBA reduction to the exterior (backyard) of the residence.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-4 would help reduce the projected noise levels and ensure that these future proposed residences comply with the City’s exterior and interior noise standards for residential uses.

Apart from noise from participants, sound systems would also contribute noise. Typically, speaker volume falls between 80 to 90 dBA measured in watts per 1 meter (or 3 feet). The more watts a speaker has, the louder it becomes at a reference distance of 3 feet. Because the details of the amplification system are unknown at this time, the actual impacts cannot be evaluated. However, as a worst-case scenario, it is assumed that there would be two speakers along the boundary of the winery with the special event. The minimum distance to off -site residences would be 50 feet. With two speakers, the combined noise level would be 90 dBA at 3 feet, even though the two speakers would be located separately and would not directly next to each other. At 50 feet, the speaker noise level would be reduced to 66 dBA. If a speech continues for more than 30 minutes, the noise level would be 66 dBA Leq. This noise level would exceed the City’s 55 dBA Leq exterior noise standard from stationary sources. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure N-4 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Potential noise levels at the proposed future on-site residences would also benefit from the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-4 to comply with the City’s exterior and interior noise standards. 9503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 57 -
Mitigation Measure:

The following mitigation measures would reduce noise impacts to less than significant 1:

N-1 Applicants for new development projects within 500 feet of sensitive receptors shall implement the following best management practices to reduce construction noise levels.
 Install temporary sound barriers for construction activities that occur adjacent to occupied noise-sensitive structures.
 Equip construction equipment with mufflers.
 Restrict haul routes and construction-related traffic.

N-2 Individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as blasting, pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers, within 200 feet of sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. A vibration study shall be conducted for individual projects where vibration- intensive impacts may occur. The study shall be prepared by an acoustical or vibration engineer holding a degree in engineering, physics, or an allied discipline and who is able to demonstrate a minimum of two years of experience in preparing technical assessments in acoustics and/or groundborne vibrations. The study shall be submitted to and approved by the City during subsequent project-level environmental review.

Vibration impacts to nearby receptors shall not exceed the vibration annoyance levels (in RMS inches/second) as follows:
 Workshop = 0.126
 Office = 0.063
 Residential Daytime (7 am to 10 pm) = 0.032
 Residential Nighttime (10 pm to 7 am) = 0.016
If construction-related vibration is determined to be perceptible at vibration- sensitive uses, additional 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

1 Note that Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 are mitigation measures from the GPEIR and WCE EIR that have been incorporated into the proposed project to ensure that construction noise, traffic noise, and vibration impacts are less than significant. These noise/vibration impacts were determined to be less than significant within the Draft SEIR since the proposed project would not result in any new or more substantial impacts with respect to these topics when compared to the GPEIR. 9603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 58 -
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).

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 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 9703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 59 -
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.

Finding:

7. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 5.18-1:The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is:
i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). [Threshold TCR-1.i] ii) determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c). [Threshold TCR-1.ii]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.8, Tribal Cultural Resources, starting on page 5.18-6 of the SEIR.

The SLF search conducted by the NAHC did not indicate the presence of known tribal cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the project site.

As with the 2016 General Plan, implementation of the WCSP could allow development, including grading, within an area designated as culturally sensitive and sensitive for prehistoric resources. Grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires soil excavation beyond the area of previous disturbance could potentially cause the disturbance of unknown subsurface tribal cultural resources. If unknown artifacts are encountered during project construction, there could be a substantial adverse change in an archaeological and/or tribal cultural resource, resulting in a significant impact, as determined in the GPEIR. The WCSP development would be more concentrated in certain areas compared to the 2016 General Plan, reducing the overall development footprint on undeveloped land. The WCSP would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts in this regard compared to the 2016 General 9803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 60 -
Plan. Impacts from the WCSP would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4.

Mitigation Measure:

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Finding:

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the p roposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure(s) above. The City of Yucaipa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure(s) is feasible, and the measure(s) is therefore adopted.

Finding 1 – The City hereby makes Finding 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL- 4, which provide procedures on tribal monitoring during project-related ground disturbance, identification, avoidance, evaluation, and preservation of archaeological resources, would reduce the potential for impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

8. Wildfire
Impact 5.20-1:The higher density residential uses of the WCSP would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, compared to the lower density uses envisioned under the General Plan. [Threshold W-1]
The majority of the WCSP area is in a very high FHSZ, with the exception of a portion of the western boundary. All development onsite would be required to comply with the 2022 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan , 2022 CBC, and 2022 California F ire Code, or the most current version that may be applicable at the time of permit issuance. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement all code-required fire safety features, as listed in the Fire Protection Plan, Table 9, Code Required Fire Safety Features (Draft SEIR Appendix M), which include: required wildland-urban interface fire safety features, ignition- resistant construction, interior sprinklers, fuel modification zones, fire apparatus access, gates, premise identification, fire hydrants, firefighting improvements, water availability, and pre-construction and construction procedures.

The General Plan designates the plan area as Rural Living (RL) with the Custom Home Overlay, which allows low-density rural residential development that is enhanced by special design standards. The WCSP proposes the same number of residential uses, but consolidated into denser neighborhoods, as well as vineyards and wineries in comparison to the 2016 General Plan. Though the higher density residential could interfere with evacuation routes, the vineyards would act as a fire break, and the higher density 9903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 61 -
residential uses pose a lower ignition risk because there is one interface with wildlands, whereas lower density development creates more structure exposure to wildlands and poses more difficulty for limited fire resources. As such, the WCSP would reduce ignition risk, and therefore reduce the need for evacuation compared to the lower density uses envisioned under the 2016 General Plan. Additionally, the WCSP proposes additions to the circulation network throughout the plan area, which would provide residents of the plan area additional evacuation routes. As such, the higher density residential uses, vineyards, and additions to the circulation network of the WCSP area would ensure that evacuation and emergency plans are not impaired.

The Yucaipa F ire Department (YFD) indicated that there is a significant need for additional staffing and resources to better respond to the volume and types of calls for service in the City (such as medical aid, which make up a majority of the calls for service). YFD indicates that, to address the needs of the WCSP, a Type 6 Medic Patrol or Medic Squad is needed at Station 3, which would help to offload the calls of service for Station No. 1 and allow those resources to serve the plan area. For the projected citywide growth, an additional Type 1 engine would also be needed to meet fire department response needs within the southern portion of the City.

The proposed project would generate revenues for YFD through Development Impact Fees in addition to sales tax revenue through the development of wineries. These funding resources, however, may not be sufficient to offset the current need and project-relate d impact to fire protection services. A supplemental funding source, potentially through a Fire Service Agreement between the property owners/developer or formation of a Community Facilities District, is recommended. In addition, the Type 6 Medic Patrol or Medic Squad should be programmed to ensure Station 1 availability as development occurs.

Additionally, water service for the project site would be provided by Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). All water storage and hydrant locations, mains, and water pressures would be designed to fully comply with the Yucaipa Fire Code Fire Flow Requirements.

The proposed project would be consistent Yucaipa Fire Code and California Fire Code Section 903 and Appendices B and C for fire flow and fire hydrant requirements within a very high FHSZ. Additionally, the proposed water system would be reviewed by YFD and is subject to their acceptance. Additional efforts between YVWD and YFD would also occur to increase the overall reserve water capacity to address any significant wildfire activity in the areas beyond the WCSP area.

Compliance with the existing standards in the LHMP, 2016 General Plan policies, municipal code, State regulations, and implementation of a Fire Service Agreement or alternate supplemental funding source for the YFD would ensure emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans are not impaired. Nevertheless, the WCSP would implement Mitigation Measures W-1 through W-4, which exceed code requirements, to further reduce wildfire risks and therefore further reduce impairment of emergency or 10003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 62 -
evacuation plans. Compliance with local and state regulations and plans as well as the implementation of Mitigation Measures W-1 through W-4 would further ensure impacts are less than significant.

Therefore, the WCSP would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to emergency plans compared to development in the WCSP area pursuant to the General Plan.

Mitigation Measures:

The following mitigation measures would reduce noise impacts to less than significant:

W-1 FMZ with an Added Noncombustible Zone. The project shall provide and maintain 100 feet of fuel modification zones in the Wine Country Specific Plan area, including a 5-foot-wide noncombustible Zone A, 45-foot -wide irrigated Zone B, and a 50-foot-wide thinning Zone C.

W-2 Advanced Protection Measures Where 100-Foot Fuel Modification Zone Is Not Possible. In areas where a 100-foot fuel modification is not possible from the structures, advanced protection features shall be put in place, including tempered dual-pane windows, minimum one-hour fire-rated exterior walls and doors, gypsum sheathing behind exterior covering or framing for all exterior walls facing open space areas, ember-resistant vents, and a six-foot- high heat-deflecting wall.

W-3 Fuel Modification Zone Inspections. The Wine Country Specific Plan’s Homeowner’s Association (HOA) shall hire a fuel modification zone inspector and landscape architect approved by the Yucaipa Fire Department to provide certification twice a year that the HOA-maintained properties, including all fuel modification zones and trail systems, meet the requirements of the Fire Protection Plan prepared for the project. The fuel modification zone inspections shall occur in June and late September.

W-4 Homeowner’s Association Wildfire Education and Outreach. The Wine Country Specific Plan’s Homeowner’s Association shall assume an outreach and educational role to coordinate with the Yucaipa Fire Department, oversee landscape committee enforcement of fire-safe landscaping, ensure the fire safety measures in the Fire Protection Plan prepared for the project have been implemented, and educate residents on and prepare facility-wide “Ready, Set, Go!” plans.

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 10103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 63 -
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.

Finding:

Finding 1 – The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure(s). above. The City of Yucaipa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure(s) is feasible, and the measure(s) is therefore adopted.

B. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT

BE MITIGATED TO BELOW THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impact s of the Proposed Project where either mitigation measures were found to be infeasible, or the mitigation measures are under the control of another lead agency. The following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable:

1. Air Quality
Impact 5.3-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate short-term emissions in exceedance of South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria. [Thresholds AQ-2 and AQ-3]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.3, Air Quality, starting on page 5.3-22 of the Draft S EIR.

Construction activities for land uses accommodated under the proposed project would temporarily increase PM10 (particulate matter), PM 2.5, VOC (volatile organic compounds), NOX (nitrogen oxides), SO X (sulfur oxides), and CO (carbon monoxide) regional emissions in the Southern California Air Basin (SoCAB). The primary source of NOX, CO, and SOX emissions is the operation of construction equipment. The primary sources of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions are activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building demolition and construction. Primary sources of VOC emissions are the application of architectural coating and off -gas emissions associated with asphalt paving.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur over a 20-year development schedule, causing short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. Because the planned number of residential units under the proposed project for the WCE–Wine 10203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 64 -
Country and greater WCSP area would be within the number of residential units under the 2016 General Plan, the magnitude of impact on regional air quality related to construction- related emissions associated with the development of residential uses would be similar.

Additionally, it is anticipated that the construction processes required to develop the residential uses under the proposed project would be similar to the residential uses considered under the 2016 General Plan. However, the development of the proposed viticultural land uses accommodated under the proposed project in the both the WCE– Wine Country and greater WCSP area, which would be additional land uses and development intensity not considered under the land use assumptions for the GPEIR, would increase the magnitude of impacts on regional air quality from construction-related emissions. Development of viticultural uses may also require different construction processes from development of residential uses that may be more construction intensive.

While some individual projects accommodated under the WCSP may not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds, some individual projects could still continue to exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds. Furthermore, under the WCSP, because there is no defined timeline on when each of the 26 wineries would be built, there would be potential for concurrent construction of multiple wineries, which could cause an overlap resulting in combined daily emissions exceeding the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the incremental increase in construction-related emissions associated with the wineries would potentially result in significant construction- related air quality impacts. In addition, the combined emissions from construction activities related to development of the new viticultural land uses introduced by the WCSP could also result in an increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the land uses allowed under the 2016 General Plan (exclusively residential).

Mitigation Measures:

The following feasible mitigation measure is required to be implemented:

AQ -1 The City of Yucaipa shall require that applicants for new viticultural development projects incorporate the following measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities:
 Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) Final or stricter emission limits for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower. If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available, the applicant shall provide documentation or demonstrate its unavailability to the City of Yucaipa Building & Safety Division prior to the issuance of any construction permits.  During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Yucaipa. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, 10303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 65 -
models, Equipment Identification Numbers, Engine Family Numbers, and number of construction equipment on-site.
 Ensure construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
 Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
 Water all active construction areas at least three times daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
 Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).  Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
 Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed, all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
 Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
 Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.  Enclose, cover, water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).

These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division.

Finding:

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 66 -
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment and residential opportunities, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the SEIR, as discussed in Section D of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Impact 5.3-2: In comparison to development of land uses pursuant to the 2016 General Plan for the WCSP project area, implementation of the WCSP would generate additional long-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria. [Thresholds AQ-2 and AQ-3] Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and in particular, starting on page 5.3-24 of the Draft SEIR.

Buildout of the WCSP would result in direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation, energy (natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., natural gas fireplaces, aerosols, landscaping equipment). The 1,091 single-family homes, which include the 184 homes in the WCE Wine Country Subdivision, are accommodated under the existing 2016 General Plan and would not exceed the number of single-family homes evaluated in the GPEIR. Thus, operation-related impacts to regional air quality associated with the 1,091 single-family homes accommodated under the proposed project would be similar to the impacts previously identified in the GPEIR and WCE EIR. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 of the WCE EIR, which removes the South Coast AQMD Rule 445 exemption for residential properties at 3,000 or more feet above mean sea level, would also be applicable to the WCSP and would reduce fireplace emissions for WCSP residential development.

The viticultural uses accommodated under the proposed project that are within the WCE Wine Country Subdivision and greater WCSP areas would be new and additional land use types compared to the 2016 General Plan. Proposed viticultural uses include up to 12 micro -wineries, 10 artisan wineries, and 4 boutique wineries. As shown in Table 3-2, Allowed Winery Uses, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, the types of accessory uses permitted for the wineries can include wine making, tasting facilities, wholesale/retail sales, event venues, restaurants, bed and breakfast, and small bungalow resorts. Depending on the accessory uses of a winery, operation of wineries could generate criteria air pollutant emissions from sources such as passenger vehicles associated with employees and guests, vendor and delivery trucks, off -road equipment (e.g., forklift), use of natural gas for cooking and heating.

Criteria air pollutant emissions generated from operation of the viticultural uses would be new and additional emissions compared to the 2016 General Plan land uses for the project area. The stand-alone emissions generated from operation of a micro or artisan winery 10503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 67 -
type would not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. However, operation of a boutique winery would exceed the VOC regional significance threshold, which would be primarily due to the VOC emission generated from wine fermentation.

Be cause VOC is a precursor to the formation of O3, exceedance of the South Coast AQMD regional threshold for VOC would cumulatively contribute to the O3 nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. Therefore, implementation of the WCSP would result in an increase in magnitude of impacts to regional air quality compared to the 2016 General Plan.

Mitigation Measures:

The following feasible mitigation measures are required to be implemented:

AQ -2 The City of Yucaipa Planning Division shall require that applicants for new viticultural development projects incorporate the following measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities:
 For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.  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.
10603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 68 -
 Use exterior and interior paints that meet the South Coast Air Quality Management District super-compliant volatile organic compound standard of less than 10 grams per liter.
 No wood-burning or gas-powered fireplaces shall be installed.

AQ -3 The proposed project shall comply with the requirements of South Coast AQMD Rule 445 with regard to the installation of permanent indoor wood- burning devices (such as fireplaces and stoves). The exemption for residential properties above 3,000 feet msl or more shall not apply to the proposed project.

Finding:

Finding 3 – The City hereby makes Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure(s) above. The City of Yucaipa hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure(s) is feasible, and the measure(s) is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment and residential opportunities, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the SEIR, as discussed in Section D of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Impact 5.3-3: The WCSP could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of criteria air pollutants from construction activities. [Threshold AQ-3]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and in particular, starting on page 5.3-26 of the EIR.

The WCSP could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during construction activities. The construction processes and intensity anticipated to build 1,091 single family residential units under the WCSP would be similar to the single family residential units accommodated under 2016 General Plan for the project site.

Development of the viticultural uses under the WCSP would be new and additional land uses compared to the 2016 General Plan that could result in exposing nearby sensitive receptors to increased localized criteria air pollutant emissions. Implementation of GPEIR Mitigation Measure 3-1 (renumbered as AQ-1 for the Draft SEIR) would ensure that on- site construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions are reduced to the extent feasible. 10703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 69 -
However, individual projects accommodated under the proposed project may still exceed the South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could result in new and substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the 2016 General Plan.

Mitigation Measure:

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Finding:

Impact 5.3-4: The WCSP could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of toxic air contaminants from construction activities. [Threshold AQ-3]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and in particular, starting on page 5.3-27 of the EIR.

Future construction of individual development projects accommodated under the WCSP would temporarily elevate concentrations of Toxi Air Contaminants (TACs) and Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM ) in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during construction activities.

As stated in Impact 5.3-3, the construction processes and intensity anticipated to build the 184 residential units in the WCE Wine Country Subdivision and the overall 1,091 residential units that would be accommodated under the WCSP would be similar to residential units considered under the 2016 General Plan, both are single-family residential uses. Thus, although construction-related TACs emissions associated with the 1,091 residential units could exceed South Coast AQMD’s project level significance thresholds for off-site community risk and hazards, construction-related health risk impacts 10803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 70 -
associated with construction of the residential units would be similar or slightly less between the proposed project and the 2016 General Plan.

The WCSP viticultural uses would be additional uses compared to land uses assumed for the project area under the 2016 General Plan. Similar to Impact 5.3-3, implementation of GPEIR Mitigation Measure 3-1 would also ensure that on-site construction-related TAC emissions are reduced to the extent feasible. However, individual projects accommodated under the proposed project may still exceed the South Coast AQMD health risk thresholds for construction. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could result in both new and substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the 2016 General Plan.

Mitigation Measure:

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Finding:

Impact 5.3-5: Operation of land uses accommodated under the WCSP could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants. [Threshold AQ- 3]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and in particular, starting on page 5.3-28 of the EIR.

CO Hotspot
Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 10903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 71 -
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact. The GP EIR determined that the 2016 General Plan would not generate the volume of peak hour trips necessary to exceed the volumes needed to generate a CO hotspot. The number of peak hour trips generated by the residential land uses accommodated under the WCSP would be similar to the 2016 General Plan because the type of and number of residential units would be the same. The viticultural uses acc ommodated under the proposed project could generate up to 866 average daily trips per day. However, the number of trips that would occur in either the morning or evening peak hours would be fewer than the 866 average daily trips. Overall, the viticultural uses that would be accommodated under the WCSP would not generate the number of peak hour trips necessary to potentially generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that of the 2016 General Plan.

Localized Significance Thresholds
The proposed project would not accommodate more residential units than evaluated for the 2016 General Plan, and the magnitude of emissions would be similar. However, the proposed viticultural uses could result in operation of on-site off -road/agricultural equipment used in daily operations and/or heavy-duty delivery trucks, which are types of on-site emissions sources not associated with residential land uses. With inclusion of viticultural land uses in the WCSP including the WCE Wine Country Subdivision, the proposed project could potentially result in a substantial increase in magnitude of localized impacts compared to that of the 2016 General Plan.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Land uses that have the potential to be substantial stationary sources that would require a permit from South Coast AQMD for emissions of TACs include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing facilities, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline- dispensing facilities. The proposed project would not accommodate these types of land uses that would include substantial stationary sources. Additionally, if future land uses accommodated under the proposed project would include installation of small stationary equipment such as an emergency generator or boiler, these types of equipment would be subject to and their emissions controlled by South Coast AQMD’s permitting process.

Per CARB land use siting guidance, a distribution center that generates 100 or more trucks per day or 40 or more transportation refrigeration units per day could expose sensitive within 1,000 feet to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed viticultural uses, which would be a new land use type accommodated under the proposed project could result in generating heavy-duty delivery trucks and operation of on-site off- road/agricultural equipment used in daily operations. With inclusion of viticultural land uses in the WCSP, the proposed project could potentially result in a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that of the 2016 General Plan. Therefore, the proposed 11003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 72 -
project could potentially result in a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that of the 2016 General Plan.

Mitigation Measure:

The following feasible mitigation measures are required to be implemented:

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2.

AQ -4 New viticultural land uses that: 1) have the potential to generate 40 or more diesel trucks with diesel transport refrigeration units per day and/or more than 100 40 diesel trucks per day, and 2) are located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g. residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Yucaipa prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the applicable air quality management district. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (I0E-06) or the cumulative risk threshold, in the event such threshold is adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, particulate matter concentrations would exceed

2.5 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling onsite or electrifying truck docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles, or requiring use of electric-powered and/or zero-emission off-road equipment.

T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document, and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project, and/or incorporated as a standard condition of approval.

Finding:

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 73 -
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment and residential opportunities, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the SEIR, as discussed in Section D of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

Impact 5.3-6: The WCSP would not be consistent with the applicable air quality management plan. [Threshold AQ-1]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and in particular, starting on page 5.3-30 of the EIR.

The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS), nonattainment for PM10 under the California AAQS, and nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS. The proposed project does not propose the development of a specific project, but rather it identifies the various land use types that would be accommodated within the WCSP. Viticultural land uses would be introduced by the WCSP, which would be a new and additional land use type permitted compared to the 2016 General Plan. As discussed under Impact 5.3-2, the combined viticultural land uses accommodated under the proposed project could result in a substantial increase in emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds for operation. Thus, the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB and could contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations and delay attainment of the AAQS or interim emission reductions in the AQMP. Additionally, the proposed project would also present a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the 2016 General Plan.

Mitigation Measure:

Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3.

Finding:

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 74 -
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment and residential opportunities, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the SEIR, as discussed in Section D of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.8-1: Development and operation of the proposed viticultural land uses accommodated by the WCSP would generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions and would have a significant impact on the environment. [Threshold GHG-1]
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and in particular, starting on page 5.8-21 of the SEIR.

Development of the land uses accommodated by the WCSP would contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG from onsite area sources, vehicle trips, and indirectly through offsite energy production required for onsite activities, water use, and waste disposal. The proposed project would accommodate the same type and number of residential uses (184 units in the WCE–Wine County Subdivision and 1,091 units overall in the WCSP) as the 2016 General Plan. Thus, GHG emissions and impacts from d evelopment and operation of the proposed residential uses would be similar to the 2016 General Plan.

However, the viticultural uses in the WCE–Wine Country and WCSP that accommodated under the proposed project would be new and additional land use types compared to the 2016 General Plan. The proposed project would accommodate up to 12 micro wineries, 10 artisan wineries, and 4 boutique wineries. Depending on the accessory uses of a winery, operation of wineries could generate GHG emissions from sources such as passenger vehicles associated with employees and guests, vendor and delivery trucks, off -road equipment (e.g., forklift), energy usage (i.e., natural gas and electricity), water demand, and solid waste and wastewater generation.

Emissions from operation of the viticultural uses accommodated under the proposed project in WCSP would be new and additional emissions compared to the 2016 General Plan. Although individual future viticulture land use projects may not potentially exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold, the combined viticultural land uses accommodated under the proposed project would exceed this threshold and would increase the magnitude of GHG emissions impacts compared to the 2016 General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a new and in an increase in magnitude of GHG emissions impacts compared to the 2016 General Plan.
11303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 75 -
Mitigation Measures
The following feasible mitigation measures are required to be implemented:

GHG-1 The City of Yucaipa Planning Division shall require that applicants for new viticultural development projects incorporate the following measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during operational activities:
 For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.  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) in residential units 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 and/or Assembly Bill 1279, and satisfies the requirements of a 11403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 76 -
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.

Finding:

11503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 77 -
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[a]).

A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE

SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the SEIR.

1. Alternative Development Areas
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][A]). Key factors in evaluating the feasibility of potential off -site locations for EIR project alternatives include:
 If it is in the same jurisdiction.
 Whether development as proposed would require a General Plan Amendment.  Whether the project applicant could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1])
The proposed WCSP is uniquely tied to the project site. The project area has a desirable microclimate, and its geological landform—mountains surrounding an open valley bisected by Wilson Creek—provides a favorable setting for a viticulture establishment. In November 2018, a federal American Vineyard Area (AVA) petition was filed by the Yucaipa Valley Wine Alliance to designate the Yucaipa Valley as a federally recognized wine region. There is not another project site within the City of Yucaipa that is characterized by the physical features and land opportunities that resulted in the viticulture visions and proposed development for the WCSP. Moreover, in general, any development of the size and type proposed by the project would have substantially the same significant impacts on air quality and greenhouse gases as the proposed project. The balance of environmental impacts for the proposed WCSP were determined to be less than significant, or less than significant upon mitigation.
11603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 78 -

2. Alternative Land Uses
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, a Supplemental EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. The General Plan EIR described the reasons for rejecting some alternatives for detailed analysis, including the potential for higher residential density (with a larger unit capacity) in the North Bench area that includes the WCSP property. No commercial or industrial uses were considered as GPEIR project alternatives. The GPEIR concluded that an increase in housing density for the North Bench community would be inconsistent with the desired rural living goals for the area. The wineries in the proposed WCSP would introduce some commercial/retail use as well guest facilities (bed and breakfasts) to the area.

Evaluation of alternate land uses was not deemed necessary because they would not be consistent with the character of the project area or the project objectives and would be unlikely to reduce the significant environmental impacts associated with the WCSP as proposed.

B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
The following alternatives were determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives with the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Proposed Project but avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Table 7-3, Summary of Proposed Project and Alternative Impacts, of the Draft SEIR, identifies how each of the alternatives selected for further analysis compare to the Proposed Project.

Table 7-4, Ability of Each Alternative to Meet the Project Objectives, of the Draft SEIR, provides a summary of the ability of the alternatives to achieve the project objectives.

1. No Project/No Development Alternative
This alternative assumes that the project site would remain in its existing condition. The project site is sparsely populated and consists of a mix of residential and commercial agriculture. There are 18 homes on the project site, and 3 chicken farms in the western part of the project site.

This alternative would result in similar impacts to 2 impact categories, reduced impacts to 10 environmental impacts, and increased impacts to 8 categories. Impacts would be similar for mineral resources, and recreation. This alternative would reduce impacts f or air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and services systems. Impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, transportation, and wildfire would increase. Impacts to both construction and operational air quality impacts would be reduced from significant and unavoidable to less than significant.

The No Project alternative would meet none of the proposed project’s objectives. 11703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 79 -
Finding:

This alternative is rejected because it would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project and would therefore result in none of the benefits of the proposed project including supporting the viticulture and the wine-making industry in Yucaipa and supporting a balance of viticulture and housing to jump-start the wine-making industry and meet State of California housing requirements. As a result, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment and residential opportunities, make infeasible this project alternative for the reasons identified in the SEIR.

2. Existing General Plan Alternative
This alternative assumes that the site would be developed consistent with the 2016 General Plan designation of Rural Residential and a minimum lot size of one acre (1 du/ac). Development would comply with the 2015 GP EIR mitigation measures. Under this alternative, 1,091 single family residences would be developed.

This alternative would result in similar impacts to 4 impact categories, reduced impacts to 10 categories, and increased impacts to 6 categories. Impacts would be similar for hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, and population and housing. This alternative would reduce impacts for air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and services systems. This alternative would increase impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, recreation, transportation, and wildfire. As with the proposed project, impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Existing General Plan Alternative would not meet any of the proposed project’s objectives except for Objective 2, honoring the rights of existing property owners.

Finding:

This alternative is rejected because it would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project except for honoring the rights of existing property owners. Therefore, this alternative would not result in any of the benefits of the proposed project including supporting wine-related businesses and activities in the Uptown District to expand the tourism industry in the City. As a result, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment and residential opportunities, make infeasible this project alternative for the reasons identified in the SEIR.

3. Increased Residential/No Vineyards or Wineries Alternative This alternative assumes that development would be limited to new residential uses. An additional 156 single family homes would be developed compared to the proposed project, for a total of 1,247. Areas designated as agricultural in the proposed project land use plan (465.5 acres) would be designated for residential estates. The Villa area (in the proposed 11803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 80 -
project) would be developed at approximately 2 du/ac, and the remaining residential areas would (Estate and Agricultural area in the proposed project) would be developed with low density estates (on average, just under one-acre/lot). The riparian area as d efined for the proposed project would be preserved. This alternative would not include any vineyards or wineries.

This alternative would result in similar impacts to 5 impact categories, reduced impacts to 8 environmental impacts, and increased impacts to 7 categories. Impacts would be similar for biological resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, public services, and recreation. Impacts would be reduced for air quality, cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. It would increase impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, transportation, and wildfire. Impacts to construction and operational air quality and greenhouse gas emission would be reduced from significant and unavoidable to less than significant.

The Increased Residential/No Vineyards or Wineries Alternative would not meet any of the proposed project’s objectives except for Objective 2, honoring the rights of existing property owners.

Finding:

This alternative is rejected because it would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project except for honoring the rights of existing property owners. Therefore, this alternative would not result in any of the benefits of the proposed project that would result from the viticulture and winery uses of the project site. As a result, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of higher-paying employment opportunities, make infeasible this project alternative for the reasons identified in the SEIR.

4. Reduced Number of Wineries Alternative
Under this alternative, the number of wineries would be reduced as needed to eliminate the significant air quality and GHG impacts of the proposed project. This alternative would reduce the number of wineries to three micro wineries and one artisanal winery. The residential uses would not change and the total agriculture (vineyards) acreage would remain the same as the proposed project. Similarly, the riparian and water district uses would be the same as the proposed project.

This alternative would result in similar impacts to 6 impact categories, reduced impacts to 13 environmental impacts, and increased impacts to 1 category. It would have similar impacts to agricultural resources, biological resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, recreation, and transportation. It would reduce impacts to air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous 11903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 81 -
materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Impacts would increase for aesthetics. Impacts to construction and operational air quality and greenhouse gas emission would be reduced from significant and unavoidable to less than significant.

The Reduced Number of Wineries alternative would be a similar project to the WCSP, but with a substantial reduction in the number of wineries. This alternative would achieve Objectives 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10. It would support viticulture and the wine-making industry in a way that protects the rural atmosphere of Yucaipa; honor the rights of existing property owners; and encourage sustainable viticulture and winemaking practices. It would also support wine-related businesses and activities in the Uptown District to expand the tourism industry and support a balance of viticulture and housing, but to a lesser extent than the proposed project. This alternative would not achieve Objectives 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9. With a reduction from 24 to 4 wineries (3 micro wineries and an artisanal winery), this alternative would not develop a wine industry in Yucaipa; create a designated “Wine Country” area; or promote the Yucaipa Valley AVA. The WCSP 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 AVA that strengthens and expands the wine industry in the Yucaipa Valley region. Four wineries would not be able to achieve this objective. Additionally, this alternative would not include any boutique wineries that include bed-and -breakfasts, and therefore Objective 5 would not be met. The boutique wineries and artisanal wineries would cater for wine- and winery-related activities with a regional draw, including wine festivals, wine tasting events, harvest festivals, weddings, and corporate events. With the removal of all boutique wineries and the inclusion of just one artisanal, Objective 7 would not be met. Additionally, this alternative would not provide the anticipated job growth or provide projected economic and infrastructure benefits to the City.

Finding:

As described above, this alternative is rejected because it would not meet many of the project objectives. This alternative would not develop a wine industry in Yucaipa, create a designated “Wine Country” area, or promote the Yucaipa Valley AVA. Four wineries would not be able to achieve a thriving AVA that strengthens and expands the wine industry in the Yucaipa Valley region nor would it include any boutique wineries that provide a regional draw for the project. This Alternative would not result in the anticipated job growth or provide projected economic and infrastructure benefits under the proposed project. As a result, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities, make infeasible this project alternative for the reasons identified in the SEIR.

C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative,” and in cases where the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed 12003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 82 -
project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. One alternative has been identified as “environmentally superior” to the proposed project:
 Reduced Number of Wineries Alternative
The Reduced Number of Wineries Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative because it would either lessen or result in similar impacts to the proposed project. This alternative would reduce impacts associated with air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. The remaining impacts are generally the same as the proposed project. This alternative achieves the benefits of 5 out of 10 of the project objectives.

12103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 83 -
VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of Yucaipa is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the EIR for the proposed project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states:
a. CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
b. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project.
12203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 84 -
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project and has adopted all feasible miti gation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed project, none of which both meets the project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed project, for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings.

The City of Yucaipa, as the Lead Agency for this project, and having reviewed the EIR for the proposed project, and reviewed all written materials within the City’s public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the project.

B. PROJECT BENEFITS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS
The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the project, and each of which, standing alone, is sufficient to support approval of the project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. The specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project are as follows:

1. The proposed project would support the Yucaipa Valley Wine Alliance’s AVA petition to designate the Yucaipa Valley as a federally recognized wine region by providing a framework for future viticulture development.

2. The proposed project would promote financial feasibility and promote economic development through the tax revenue and jobs generated by the winery and viticultural components, and through the residential component which would create additional housing options for existing and new residents to support local businesses.

3. The proposed project’s development of a wine industry would expand the City’s tourism industry and encourage the development of winery-related accessory uses, further promoting economic activity in the City.

4. The proposed project would create a regional draw for the City with the potential to host wine festivals, wine tasting events, harvest festivals, weddings, and corporate events, thereby singling Yucaipa as a premiere destination for wine lovers in the region and state.
12303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 85 -

5. The proposed project would maintain and help restore the historical integrity of Casa Blanca Ranch thereby supporting the preservation of an important link to the history of the region and its pioneers.

6. As a Specific Plan, the proposed project is consistent with and supports the 2016 General Plan’s goal for the plan area which is to create a community that has a “small - town rural character with strong neighborhood identities” and “offers an attractive, peaceful, and safe community for all of its residents” through thoughtful consideration of the residential and agrarian development proposed.

7. The proposed project supports the principles of “livable communities” which encourages local governments to adopt programs and policies that lead to more livable and resource-efficient land use patterns. Residential development in the planning area is intended to have a rural character that is consistent with the area’s scenic natural setting and enhances the Valley’s historic wine country character.

8. The proposed project would increase the number of housing units and jobs in the City.

Currently, Yucaipa is housing-rich (0.52 jobs/housing unit). The proposed project would add approximately 274 new jobs to the City, thereby improving the City’s jobs- housing balance.

9. The proposed project’s residential and non-residential components are expected reroute travel from other destinations, therefore resulting in lower VMT. The mixed use component of the proposed project would allow for synergy amongst the commercial and residential components would shorten the distance that residents would travel to commercial destinations. Additionally, introducing wineries and vineyards in Yucaipa would in effect reduce the trip lengths because winery-related trips would likely stay local instead of venturing out to other wine areas that are further away. The proposed project would also include the development of Oak Glen Road and Jefferson Street with bike lanes.

10. The proposed project would result in less wildfire risk when compared to the existing designation for the plan area under the 2016 General Plan. The proposed project would increase residential density at the plan area which reduces the number wildland interfaces with the residential uses, therefore lowering the ignition risk of the proposed project. The proposed vineyards would also act as a fire break and the proposed additions to the circulation network of the plan area would create additional evacuation routes.

11. The proposed project would create a riparian habitat buffer along Wilson Creek consisting of 73.6 acres of open space dedication, thereby separating the residential uses from the creek and preserving the existing habitat within the riparian area. Scenic views within the plan area would also be preserved as open space. 12403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

Wine Country Specific Plan Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 86 -

12. The proposed project would introduce new recreational opportunities into the plan area including 12-foot-wide multipurpose trails along Oak Glen Road, Jefferson Street, Carter Street, and along Wilson Creek within the riparian area. These trails would also provide connections to existing park facilities, including El Dorado Ranch Park, Yucaipa Regional Park, Yucaipa Community Park, and Wildwood Canyon State Park.

C. CONCLUSION
The City Council of Yucaipa has balanced the project’s benefits against the significant unavoidable impacts. The City Council finds that the Proposed Project’s benefits, outweigh the Proposed Project’s significant unavoidable impacts, and these impact s, therefore, are considered acceptable in the light of the Proposed Project’s benefits. The City Council finds that each of the benefits described above is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of the Proposed Project notwithstanding the Proposed Project’s significant unavoidable impacts.
12503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

EXHIBIT B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

12603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

February 2024| Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program State Clearinghouse No. 2022070240

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
City of Yucaipa
Prepared for:

City of Yucaipa
Benjamin Matlock, Deputy Director of Community Development/City Planner City of Yucaipa Development Services
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, California 92399
[email protected]

Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: JoAnn Hadfield, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
12703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

12803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA Table of Contents
February 2024 Page i
Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1

1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ..........................1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION...........................................................................................................................2

1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................2

2. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .........................................5

List of Tables
Table Page
Table 2 -1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ...................................................................... 7

12903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF YUCAIPA Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

13003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

February 2024 Page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Wine Country Specific Plan (WCSP) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2022070240. The MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of Yucaipa Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6 states:
(a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
(2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.

The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City of Yucaipa is the lead agency for the WCSP and is therefore responsible for implementing the MMRP. The MMRP has been drafted to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 as a fully enforceable monitoring program.

The MMRP consists of the mitigation program and the measures to implement and monitor the mitigation program. The MMRP defines the following for the mitigation measure outlined in Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring Requirements:
 Definition of Mitigation. The mitigation measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation. 13103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

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

1. Introduction

Page 2 ends

 Responsible Party or Designated Representative. Unless otherwise indicated, the project applicant is the responsible party for implementing the mitigation, and the City of Yucaipa or a designated representative is responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required.
 Time Frame. In each case, a time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation measure or review of evidence that mitigation has taken place. The performance points selected are designed to ensure that impact-related components of project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or ensured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from local, state, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity.

The numbering system in Table 1 corresponds with the numbering system used in the Draft SEIR. The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the mitigation measure has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Yucaipa . The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City of Yucaipa Development Services Department.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The 1,094-acre WCSP area (plan area) is in the northeastern portion of the City of Yucaipa, specifically the North Bench area of the city. The plan area is bounded by Martell Avenue and Norton Avenue on the east, Oak Glen Road on the south, and Fremont Street on the west. The San Bernardino mountains and Carter Street form the irregular northern boundary of the plan area. The major north-south thoroughfares include Fremont Street, Jefferson Street, and Martell Avenue; major east-west thoroughfares include Ivy Avenue, Carter Street, and Oak Glen Road.

1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
The WCSP would subdivide the approximately 1,094 -acre, primarily vacant site into home/estate lots and nonresidential areas for vineyards, trails, and open space. A pproximately one-half of the site is proposed for residential uses (547.4 acres), and one-half is proposed for nonresidential uses (546.2 acres). The proposed nonresidential land use designations include Agriculture, Riparian Area, and Public Service at 46 5.5, 73.6, and

7.1 acres, respectively. The Public Service designation comprises land owned by the Yucaipa Valley Water District. The proposed Riparian Area would create a buffer between the proposed residential uses surrounding Wilson Creek and the natural creek habitat.

The WCSP includes the formerly approved Wilson Creek Estates (WCE) phased tentative tract map (TTM 19974) project area. The WCE property has remained vacant since approval of the TTM and certification of the WCE EIR. The WCE property occupies the southern portion of the WCSP. Its western, eastern, and southern boundaries coincide with the WCSP boundaries. The northern boundary of this property would 13203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

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

1. Introduction
February 2024 Page 3
generally align with an extension of Fir Avenue (which terminates at Jefferson Street). The owner of WCE has updated their TTM and coordinated with the City to ensure that the project is consistent with the WCSP. This area would be developed in accordance with all of the Specific Plan provisions, including the land use and circulation plans, infrastructure plans, and development standards.

A n approximately 20-year project buildout is anticipated for the WCSP. The development of 1,091 homes is proposed to proceed in five phases: (1) 313 dwelling units, (2) 37 dwelling units, (3) 316 dwelling units, (4) 197 dwelling units, and (5) 228 dwelling units. The WCSP would strive for a 50/50 split of vineyards and riparian areas (nonresidential) to residential land per phase.

Residential Uses
The WCSP would allow a maximum of 1,091 residential units, which is the same total units permitted in the General Plan for the plan area. The Villas would cover 629 lots with a maximum buildout density of 4.3 du/ac where the minimum (net) lot size is 10,00 0 square feet. The maximum building footprint permitted is 50 percent of the lot area. The Estates would be on 462 half -acre lots with a buildout density of 2 du/ac.

Vineyards and Wineries
The approximately 465.5 acres of land designated for Agriculture would be used for vineyards and wineries. It is anticipated that 346 acres would be for vineyards that have no on-site wine production and 120 acres would be for wineries that include ancilla ry production/commercial uses that support the vineyards. The WCSP anticipates a total of 26 wineries varying in sizes and on-site accessory buildings. Three different categories of wineries are envisioned: 12 micro-wineries, 10 artisan wineries, and 4 boutique wineries.  Micro-wineries are small wineries, greater than 2.5 acres, that could include tasting rooms, limited food service, and art/merchandise sales in addition to the wine-making facility and vineyards.  Artisan wineries are 5 acres or greater; in addition to the micro-winery uses, they can also include bed and breakfast inns, picnic and dining areas, commercial kitchens, marketing events, and small event venues that can accommodate up to 75 guests.
 Boutique wineries are greater than 10 acres and includes all the uses associated with micro- and artisan wineries, but can also include distilleries, small bungalow resorts, and special event venues that can accommodate up to 150 guests.

13303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

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

1. Introduction

Page 4 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

13403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

February 2024 Page 5

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
Project-specific mitigation measures have been categorized in matrix format, as shown in Table 1 . The matrix identifies the environmental factor, specific mitigation measures, schedule, and responsible monitor. The mitigation matrix will serve as the basis for scheduling the implementation of, and compliance with, all mitigation measures.
13503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

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

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Page 6 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
13603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

13703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

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

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Page 8 ends

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
(i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
• Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed, all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
• Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
• Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
• Enclose, cover, water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).

These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction
management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division.

Future Project Applicants
and/or Building
Operators
Construction Contractor
Prior to Building
Occupation
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

13803/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 9
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.
• Use exterior and interior paints that meet the South Coast Air Quality Management District super-compliant volatile organic compound standard of less than 10 grams per liter. • No wood-burning or gas -powered fireplaces shall be
installed.
13903/27/2024 City Council Agenda

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

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Page 10 ends

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
AQ-3 The proposed project shall comply with the requirements of South Coast AQMD Rule 445 with regard to the installation of permanent indoor wood-burning devices (such as fireplaces and stoves). The exemption for residential properties above 3,000 feet msl or more shall not apply to the proposed project.

Future Project
Applicants, Construction
Contractors
Prior to Building Permit
Issuance
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

AQ-4 New viticultural land uses that: 1) have the potential to generate 40 or more diesel trucks with diesel transport refrigeration units per day, and/or more than 100 diesel trucks per day, and 2) are located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g. residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Yucaipa prior to future discretionary project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the applicable air quality management district. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (I0E-06) or the cumulative risk threshold, in the event such threshold is adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, particulate matter concentrations would exceed 2.5 µg/m 3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential cancer and
noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T -BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling onsite or electrifying truck docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles, or requiring use of electric - powered and/or zero-emission off -road equipment. T -BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document, and/or incorporated Future Project
Applicants, Construction
Contractors
Prior to Discretionary
Project Approval
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

14003/27/2024 City Council Agenda

14103/27/2024 City Council Agenda

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

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Page 12 ends

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
Where project impacts to special-status plant species cannot be avoided, mitigation is required and is discussed further below.
• Salvage. If impacts to special-status plants cannot be avoided and it is feasible to effectively salvage the plants, a qualified ecologist shall develop a restoration and mitigation plan based on the life history of the species impacted, as necessary, to mitigate project impacts. The plan shall
include, at minimum, (a) collection/salvage measures for plants and/or seed banks to retain intact soil conditions and maximize success likelihood; (b) details regarding storage of plants and/or seed banks; (c) locat ion of the proposed recipient site and detailed site preparation and plant
introduction techniques details for top soil storage, as applicable; (d) time of year that the salvage and replanting or seeding shall occur and the methodology of the replanting; (e) a description of the irrigation, if used; (f) success criteria; and (g) a detailed monitoring program, commensurate with the plan’s goals.

BIO-2 Construction-Related Indirect Impacts to Special-Status Plants, Wildlife, and Aquatic Resources. Prior to issuance of a construction permit within 500 feet of proposed open space or suitable habitat for special-status species (i.e., all undeveloped land within the project site) with potential to occur in the project site, construction plans and conditions of approval shall include the following to address indirect impacts to special-status species:
• Biological Monitoring. A qualified project biologist approved by the City of Yucaipa shall monitor ground- disturbing and vegetation clearing activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat, species of concern, and other sensitive biological resources outside the project footprint. Once ground-disturbing and vegetation Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
Prior to Issuance of a
Construction Permit
within 500 feet of
Proposed Open Space
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

14203/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 13
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
clearing activities are complete, the project biologist shall conduct weekly checks in order to inspect construction
fencing and ensure that all applicable requirements from the mitigation measures are being upheld.
• Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to
grading, a preconstruction meeting shall be required that includes a training session for project personnel by a
qualified biologist. The training shall include (1) a description of the species of concern and its habitats; (2) the general provisions of the applicable regulations pertaining to
biological resources, including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act; (3) the need to adhere to the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and other applicable regulations; (4) the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and other applicable
regulations; (5) the general measures that are being
implemented to conserve the species of concern as they
relate to the project; and (6) the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. Additionally, the training shall include the measures and mitigation requirements for the applicable resources. Copies of the mitigation measures and any
required permits from the resource agencies will be made available to construction personnel.
• Delineation of Property Boundaries. Before beginning
activities that would cause impacts, the contractor shall, in consultation with the biological monitor, clearly delineate the boundaries with fencing, stakes, or flags, consistent with the grading plan, within which the impacts will take place. All impacts outside the fenced, staked, or flagged areas shall be avoided, and all fencing, stakes, and flags shall be maintained until the completion of impacts in that area. In addition, any avoided environmental resources will be clearly 14303/27/2024 City Council Agenda

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

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Page 14 ends

Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
delineated. Prior to implementing construction activities, the biological monitor shall verify that the flagging clearly delineates the construction limits and any sensitive
environmental resources to be avoided.
• Standard Dust Control Measures. Standard dust control measures as per the South Coast Air Quality Management
District shall be implemented to reduce impacts on nearby plants and wildlife. Measures include controlling speed to 15 mph or less on unpaved roads, replacing ground cover in dis turbed areas as quickly as possible, frequently watering active work sites, installation of shaker plates, and
suspending excavation and grading operations during
periods of high winds.
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for construction, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City of Yucaipa that specifies best management
practices to prevent all construction pollutants from
contacting stormwater, with the intent of keeping
sedimentation or any other pollutants from moving off site and into receiving waters. The requirements of the SWPPP shall be incorporated into design specifications and
construction cont racts. Best management practices
categories employed on site would include erosion control, sediment control, and non-stormwater (good housekeeping).

Best management practices recommended for the
construction phase shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
- Limiting grading to the minimum area necessary for
construction, operation, and decommissioning of the
project.
- Limiting vegetation disturbance/removal to the
maximum extent practicable.
14403/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 15
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
- Implementing fiber rolls and sandbags around drainage areas and the site perimeter.
- Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly.
- Installation of a stabilized construction entrance/exit and stabilization of disturbed areas.
- Proper protections for fueling and maintenance of
equipment and vehicles.
- Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and
implementing sediment controls.
- Soil stabilization in disturbed areas by revegetation. • The following water quality measures will be included in the SWPPP:
- Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris
material shall not be stockpiled within the stream
channel or on its banks.
- Projects shall be designed to avoid the placement of
equipment and personnel within the stream channel or
on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland
habitats used by target species of concern, as feasible.

Projects that cannot be conducted without placing
equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats shall be
timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian species. - When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions
shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods
requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing or other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the
downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments off site. Settling ponds where
sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner
14503/27/2024 City Council Agenda

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

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Page 16 ends

Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as
feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream.
- Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
• Minimize Spills of Hazardous Materials. All vehicles and equipment shall be maintained in proper condition to
minimize the potential for fugitive emissions of motor oil, antifreeze, hydraulic fluid, grease, or other hazardous materials. Hazardous spills shall be immediately cleaned up and the contaminated soil shall be immediately cleaned up and the contaminated soil shall be properly handled or
disposed of at a licensed facility. Servicing of construction equipment shall take place only at a designated staging area.
• Wildlife Hazards. The following measures will be
implemented to ensure that wildlife do not become trapped, entangled, injured, or poisoned by construction activities:
- Structures in which wildlife may become trapped (e.g., open pipes, pits, trenches, etc.) shall be tightly covered at the end of each work day. If covering the structure is not possible, an escape ramp shall be provided to allow any wildlife that falls in to safely escape.
- Debris piles, construction materials, equipment, and
other items that may be used as wildlife refuge shall be inspected for wildlife at the start of each work day and prior to disturbance. If wildlife is discovered, it shall either be moved out of harm’s w ay by a qualified
biologist, or allowed to move off of the project site on its own.
14603/27/2024 City Council Agenda

WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
March 2016 Page 17
Table 2-1 M itigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Responsibility for Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Monitor
(Signature Required) (Date of Compliance)
- Nets and mesh shall be made of loose weave material
that is not fused at the intersections of the weave, as nets with welded weaves present an entanglement risk.
- Toxic materials and garbage shall be removed from the work site and safely stored or disposed of at the end of each work day.
• Invasive Weeds. In order to reduce the spread of invasive plant species, landscape plants shall not be on the most recent version of the Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Inventory ( http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php) . • Night Work. All construction activities will be conducted during the daytime and lights will not be kept on overnight in the construction area, as practicable. If night-lighting is required during construction activities, all exterior lighting along undeveloped land shall be fully shielded and directed downward in a manner that will prevent light spillage or glare into the adjacent open space.

BIO-3 Long-Term Indirect Impacts to Special-Status Plants, Wildlife, and Aquatic Resources. Prior to issuance of a construction permit within 500 feet of suitable habitat for special-status species with potential to occur in the project site, construction plans and conditions of approval shall include the following to address indirect impacts to special- status species:
• Runoff. Future development within 500 feet of suitable habitat for special-status species shall incorporate
measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into proposed open space or suitable
Future Project Applicant’s
Qualified Biologist
Prior to Issuance of a
Construction Permit
within 500 feet of
Proposed Open Space
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division

14703/27/2024 City Council Agenda

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

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

Page 18 ends

Yucaipa City CouncilMarch 27, 2024

Yucaipa City Council
March 27, 2024