PUBLIC COMMENT 1
1 Tara Davis
From:@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 3:54 PM
To:Bobby Duncan; Justin Beaver; Chris Venable; Matt Garner; Jon Thorp; Public Comment Subject:Wine Country Specific Plan
Quality and Quantity are very subjective words with different meanings for different individuals. Four of our current council members do not live in the north bench and the one that represents us has only lived here a short time. So let me explain what Quality means for us.
Quality of life is important to everyone and those living on the North Bench have a certain set of values. Families move here to give their children a better way of life away from the noise and congestion of subdivisions. The north bench conveys a less stressful, happier way of living.
Quality of a quieter, slower pace of life where we enjoy the sounds of nature and take in nature's landscape. We see the overhead circling of redtail hawks, hear the calls of owls, and the chirping of song birds.
Quality of unpolluted air and dark nights free of light pollution. We spend many summer nights watching the sunset and seeing the stars appear. Overdevelopment will negatively affect air quality and commercial lighting will obscure the night sky.
Quality to walk our lesser traveled country roads and feel safe. There are many people that walk, jog, and bicycle our streets for healthy living and good exercise. Equestrians also enjoy our congestion free streets with access to open spaces.
Quality to choose a lifestyle of open space - horses, cows, sheep, goats, and chickens. People in the north bench have the ability to teach children the responsibilities of an agricultural way to live. Along with this is the necessity of acreage and zoning to achieve this lifestyle.
Why would anyone want to take this away from its citizens? The magnitude of this proposed high density Wine Country plan will:
Add significant congestion in Yucaipa from the North Bench to Highway 38 and down to the interstate
10. We can expect two or more vehicles minimum with each new household. Do we expect gridlock on our few major roads? Does Yucaipa have disposable funds to widen and alter roadways? And let's top off this issue with the considerable number of vehicles that visit the winery venues. How much of a traffic load should we expect?
If you consider an average of four people per household, this development will swell to over 4,000 people. If ADUs are included, the count can be four times as many people. The wineries will attract more police response, whether it's drunkenness or crime. Yucaipa's infrastructure cannot accommodate this influx. Additional schools will be needed. Both police and fire will need additional personnel and equipment. This development will create a snowball effect to stretch public services.
You council members are elected to represent us. Listen to our issues. Rise above your personal preferences and consider what is best for all of us who are here now. Vote no on this plan!
2 Bill Jochimsen
PUBLIC COMMENT 2
1 Tara Davis
From:Mark & Kristin Matthis
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 2:29 PM
To:Justin Beaver; Chris Venable; Bobby Duncan; Matt Garner; Jon Thorp; Public Comment Cc:[email protected]; [email protected] Subject:Yucaipa Valley Wine Country Specific Plan Comment Hello
I wanted to give my thoughts regarding this plan. We are long time Yucaipa residents who raised our family here. We purchased a business in Sonoma County CA and moved up there for 2 years. We had no idea that living and owing a business in a wine area would be so challenging. There are so many things that this plan does not have in place in advance to protect the community and the natural environment of the North Bench area.
Vineyards have to be protected from freeze especially in the early spring when the vines are blooming, if the blooms freeze then no grapes will grow. To protect from the freeze large wind machines and water are used. In Sonoma county when these machines are being used there is a roar through the city it is like being on a runway in front of a airplane.
There are videos of it on YouTube & TikTok.
Short term rentals are a large issue that needs to be addressed. I know short term rentals are not allowed in Yucaipa but there are some and have been for a long time. Although they are being addressed it takes a long time to address the issue. Living in an area with wineries will bring drunk/buzzed drivers to which we have firsthand knowledge living withing an area like this. Living in Sonoma County and driving on the roads is very scary our family and employees were at risk every day. Social media and news were filled everyday with DUI accidents and death. 4 out of every 5 applicants at our business had at least 1 DUI in the last 5 years so these people are not from out of town but people from the community. If you look at a small city like Petaluma or Sebastopol in comparison to Yucaipa the DUI statistics are so much higher. Wine is decreasing in popularity therefore vines are being taken out and commercial building put up.
Fire danger in Sept 2020 the Glass fire came roaring down the mountain from St. Helena on a Sunday night at 9pm our home was in the line of fire and we were evacuated. The area was much like the North Bench area with 2 ways out and one was blocked by fire already. We waited for over an hour just to get out of our neighborhood and onto the road and then another hour sitting in traffic to get out of harm's way. This would have normally taken 15 mins. Sitting there knowing the fire is coming and honestly getting out of the car and running might have been the only way out. Ultimately 15 homes in our neighborhood were lost that night and we were not allowed back in for over a week left staying in a hotel over 2 hours away in Sacramento. This could happen on the North Bench and adding 1000's of people to the area on any given day is unsafe.
We ultimately sold our business to come back home to Yucaipa and were able to purchase a home on the North Bench where we had always dreamed of living just to find out 1 year later that we are facing the same issues we moved away from. The homes are inevitable but the business and traffic from people coming and going from those business is not what we moved up here for. We moved here for the open space, large lots, low crime, no traffic and no noise. We purchased our home for far more than it was worth and have spent a huge amount of money making it our own just for it to be devalued by this project.
We are NOT in favor of commercial business of any kind on the North Bench or a change in the general plan reducing lot sizes to less than 1 acre.
The only way in or out to any of the open land is threw an existing residential street which is not safe for the volume.
In addition, speed bumps don't work the ones on Fir Ave are jumps and possibly more dangerous because now you have speed and bumps. The cost of buying a home in the plan area is going to be out of the market for the area.
If you can afford to pay over $700k for a home and $1000 a month for taxes in addition than you won't pick Yucaipa to buy or you will be buying an investment property that you will do short term rentals in.
A wine maker from Redlands admits he does not make much if any profit therefore the chance of up to 26 wineries lasting and not going bankrupt is not possible.
Our area of land is very small wineries need hundreds of acres each not as little as 2.5 acres.
Where are the visitors going to park because these lots are going to be way too small to have parking on them as well? Homeowners and flood insurance is being canceled daily for the North Bench residents.
Sound is an issue not only by the machinery but the people visiting the businesses.
2 Thank you in advance for your consideration in not changing our North Bench way of life and threating our biggest investments future.
Kristin Matthis
PUBLIC COMMENT 3
1 Tara Davis
From:@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 12:56 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Wine Country Plan
There will come a time when you look back on your life and realize that one of the biggest mistakes you made was to approve the wine country development. By then you will see that you destroyed the land, changed the character of an entire city, and ruined the quality of life of citizens that were settled in the area before you became a "city father".
The pocket of Yucaipa known as the North Bench is a mecca for folks that cherish open spaces, backyard agriculture, and a quieter lifestyle. An occasional moo or a rooster crow is music to their ears, rather than barking dogs, busy street sounds and traffic noise.
We chose to live on Ivy Avenue for its ruralness. It's a quiet street where livestock and poultry outnumber the humans; where people have enough space to mind their own business. Ivy is a favored street for walkers and bicyclists due to its incline. Now in your own words, you will label Ivy Avenue a "thoroughfare". Wine tasters are going to race down Ivy, oblivious of their speed. Many of the new thousands of residents will choose Ivy as their main artery to Highway 38. Besides the upcoming signal light at Bryant, what else are you going to do to mitigate traffic isssues on this street? Perhaps you will consider your favorite waste of money - roundabouts.
It is sad that four of you councilmen are deciding the future of our quality of life and I cannot even vote for or against you. It certainly makes it easy for you to remain untouched to decide the fate of district 5. It is even sadder that the representative for the north bench follows the smell of money rather than the wishes of his constituents.
In a perfect world this acreage would remain untouched and wild. In a perfect world, the city could add this land to the open spaces of El Dorado Park and create a spectacular recreational area. Budget not withstanding, you have the resources to loan thousand of dollars to a property owner. Find the resources to purchase this land for posterity sake. Please, please, please reconsider this plan as it currently stands. If you must build, adhere to the general plan and continue to zone with one acre minimum residential lots. Keep the character of the city and provide homes for folks that appreciate the value of a rural lifestyle.
Joyce Maggard
PUBLIC COMMENT 4
1 Tara Davis
From:@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:57 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Public Comment 3/27/24
My Name is Ginny Fitzsimmons and I am Opposed to the Wine Country Specific Plan. I live in Yucaipa north bench area and I have lived here for 30 yrs. I have been told by the water company over the last 20 years to to conserve water... if we have to conserve water, where are you going to get the water needed for 1091 properƟes plus all the commercial buildings your puƫng in. How about all the other infrastructure. more police, fire, ems and emergency personnel needed in a Forrest fire. Let alone geƫng that many people out safely. We only have 1 urgent care and very few medical office buildings. Our small infrastructure cannot handle this amount of new development. Lastly the only reason we moved here is to live in the country, well this is definitely going to change it to the city. We are opposed!
PUBLIC COMMENT 5
1 Tara Davis
From:Bob Walker
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 6:52 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Wine country plan
I am very much against this plan, I have lived in Yucaipa since 1967 and this is a great city that has kept its rural traditions, people on the north bench purchased these properties because of the acreage rules that are in place and should stay in place
Bob Walker | Realtor,
RE/MAX Advantage - Yucaipa Office
Cell:
Email:
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Be aware! Online banking fraud is on the rise. If you receive an email containing WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS call your
escrow officer immediately to verify the information prior to sending funds.
PUBLIC COMMENT 6
1 Tara Davis
From:Matthew Underwood
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 6:59 PM
To:Chris Venable; Justin Beaver; Bobby Duncan; Jon Thorp; Public Comment Subject:oppose WCSP
3/26/2024
Dear City Council,
We oppose the WCSP.
We believe strongly in property rights, but we don’t believe in special rights and this plan gives away special rights and exceptions at the expense of residents that bought homes under established zoning rule pretenses and expectations for growth and neighborhood characteristics. The special rights carved out in the WCSP by a small number of wine enthusiasts, land owners, realtors, and developers include:
1. Clustered housing for greater profit, AND…
2. Allotment of about 300 more homes than what would be naturally built out under our current award winning state certified general plan, AND…
3. A commercial drinking district of up to 26 establishments within a residential area This isn’t a vineyard and open space plan, but a drinking district and cluster housing plan. If vineyards were the goal that could be done now without the WCSP, or could have been done anytime in the past.
What do existing residents along Ivy, Carter, Fir, Juniper, Fremont, Oak Glen Road and the rest of the city get from the WCSP?: more traffic, less safety, more noise, and drunk driving.
What do existing residents NOT get?: upgraded infrastructure, parks, and no open public space except for a single trail on unbuildable land.
It is poor city planning to put a commercial alcohol drinking district within established and new residential area. In our opinion traffic and safety concerns have not been mitigated. At some point there will be a tragedy resulting from this plan and a question the deciders should ask themselves is “was it really worth it”? Real dramatics aside, some basic research tells that the wine industry faces economic headwinds. One fire, one fruit-fly, one economic downturn, puts the city at risk because this plan calls for the establishment of a fund managed by the city step in to support the vines in the event of business failure until a new suitor emerges. This exemplifies what everyone hates about government at all levels: Special interest gets special treatment via the vehicle of government, but yet government becomes the backstop and manager when things fail. If Yucaipa wine were a stock we would not buy and neither should the city. From a business perspective the WCSP is late to the party. Below are just few links that discuss red flags for the industry. https://www.agalert.com/california-ag-news/archives/february-6-2024/growers-scrap-vineyards-as-market- dims/?fbclid=IwAR0HW04sL0zssep80TgiVlcaaSoePsERXq-RB5Z7qk0MPf1q1cjbXX34ceo https://www.farmprogress.com/grapes/raze-50-000-acres-of-grapes-industry-rep-urges https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/california-wine-industry-new-challenges/ https://www.foodandwine.com/news/fewer-california-vineyards-sustainability-report
2 In summary, many Yucaipa citizens ask that City Council:
Honor the premises and trust between local government and it’s citizens.
Don’t play favorites with special interest and then assume responsibility and management when it might fail.
Don’t make the ill advised and fatal mistake of putting drinking businesses in a residential area with inadequate infrastructure, fire and traffic mitigation measures.
Sincerely,
Matt and Lynda Underwood
Yucaipa
Matthew B. Underwood MD
Vice Chairman / QI Director
Emergency Department
Riverside Community Hospital
Phone:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, is for the sole use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain confidential and privileged information, including HIPAA Protected PHI or Peer Review protected material per California Evidence Code 1157. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this message and its attachments in its entirety.
PUBLIC COMMENT 7
1 Tara Davis
From:Irmgart Mitchell
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 10:06 AM
To:Justin Beaver; Jon Thorp; Chris Venable; Matt Garner; Bobby Duncan; [email protected]; Benjamin Matlock; Public Comment
Subject:Re: California Farm Bureau report on Vineyards
In addition to the prior sent article from the California Farm Bureau there are a few things that we wanted to point out.
Some have stated that a decline in the market warranting the removal of the many acres of vineyards is more specific to the large growers in Lodi and doesn't apply to smaller ones such as would be in Yucaipa which will draw tourism to the tasting rooms etc. That is a very erroneous supposition. If the wine industry has been on a serious decline as reported by the Bureau it would affect ALL who are in the wine business at any facet and level and throughout California, as the Bureau report states, that it is a statewide and industry-wide effect.
There has been the argument raised in light of the report that areas like Lodi don't have the population hub to support an industry project such as is projected for Yucaipa, to look at how Oak Glen has thrived because of the tourism support by the population areas it easily draws from and so presuming the Yucaipa winery projects would have the same results and business benefits from the same population centers. However, this is an erroneous and unrealistic supposition. Oak Glen is in vast nature. The feel and ambiance fits the products marketed there. Oak Glen doesn't have acres and acres of cluster housing, and tract homes at that. The Yucaipa vineyard businesses will be among clustered tract homes.
People who want to frequent tasting rooms don't want to si t looking out over tract homes. That would not be the ambiance that would draw people. None of the depictions that have been put out in support of or to show the projects have been realistic, and have been deceptive. They have drawn on the emotions of ones' imagination of sitting among sprawling vineyards with no houses in sight. That is not realistic.
Other issues of traffic, safety and others have been addressed repeatedly by others which are all very important to consider, but most important should be the business projections from the Farm Bureau. For Yucaipa to think the report doesn't apply to us, that we know better and should just move forward with the plans is very poor business judgement and decision making. I hope we won't be looking back in a few years saying, "If only we would have listened and observed the declining market trend." Please vote accordingly, uphold the General Plan and allow individual property owners on their one acre to put in their own vineyards if they so choose.
Thank you!
Irmgart and Greg Mitchell
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
----- Forwarded Message -----
2 From: "Irmgart Mitchell"
To: "Public Comment"
Sent: Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 9:20 AM
Subject: Fw: California Farm Bureau report on Vineyards Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Irmgart Mitchell"
To: "[email protected]" , "Jon Thorp" ,
"[email protected]" , "Bobby Duncan" ,
"[email protected]" , "[email protected]" ,
"Benjamin Matlock"
Sent: Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 9:00 AM
Subject: California Farm Bureau report on Vineyards
Hello, City Representatives,
For many years until just recently we were in the agriculture business so we continue to receive the California Farm Bureau's Ag Alert news and publications to keep us informed of the industry. I think it is important to share this so that all can consider all aspects and help to make informed decisions for the future.
Ag Alert
Ag Alert
Irmgart Mitchell
PUBLIC COMMENT 8
1 Tara Davis
From:Kristen Clements
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 11:15 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:PUBLIC COMMENT-Say YES to the YUCAIPA VALLEY WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN Wine country will help Yucaipa grow but in the manner most beneficial to this city.
PUBLIC COMMENT 9
1 Tara Davis
From:Chuck Clements
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 8:37 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:PUBLIC COMMENT-Say YES to the YUCAIPA VALLEY WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN Chuck Clements
Yucaipa ca
92399
PUBLIC COMMENT 10
1 Tara Davis
From:Thomas Sherwin
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 12:09 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Against Wine Project
Sent from my iPhone
I strongly appose due to traffic concerns.
PUBLIC COMMENT 11
1 Tara Davis
From:Steven Rimerman
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 1:19 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:I oppose
As a Yucaipa ciƟzen I oppose the vote on the Wine Country Specific Plan. This is a useless way to spend our tax dollars.
Sent from my iPhone
PUBLIC COMMENT 12
1 Tara Davis
From:Lucinda Brinks
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 1:46 PM
To:Public Comment
Cc:Justin Beaver; Chris Venable; Jon Thorp; Bobby Duncan; [email protected] Subject:Pubic Comment March 27, 2024
WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN (WCSP)
Tonight’s vote is a declaration on the future of Yucaipa. A “Yes” vote will change the future of the North Bench. A “No” vote will indicate the desire to leave the North Bench as a rural area as designed in the General plan.
I urge you to vote NO.
Changing the area into high density houses with wineries and tasting rooms is a non- compatible situation.
One of my major concerns is traffic. Based on the EIR for Serrano Estates and using the same ratios, the WCSP will add additional daily trips of over 11,500 trips per day. I can’t even imagine that many cars going up and down Oak Glen Road. Those not exiting the area on Oak Glen Road will be directed to one of 3 residential streets (Ivy, Carter, and Fir). If 1/3 of the daily trips use the residential streets, that means there will be at a minimum, 1,000 addition trips per day per street. That would be an increase of 500%. This is just unacceptable. When you add the buzzed and drunk drivers into the mix, this will be a disaster in waiting. Will the city take responsibility for any injuries and deaths that are incurred as a result of a yes vote? After all, you know these facts ahead of your vote. You cannot claim ignorance.
I do not feel that enough information has been provided if this plan is a failure. Who will own the vineyards? Who is financially responsible if the vineyards fail due to disease, pest infestation, fire, lack of water, vandalism or poor management? Will it be the city’s or the homeowners’ financial responsibility?
The General Plans has designated the area as one dwelling per one acre. This change will allow up to 4.6 dwellings per acre with some homes only 7 feet apart. None of those homes will enjoy a rural lifestyle. They will not be able to enjoy raising livestock, chickens or planting a garden. Houses will all look alike violating the current custom homes overlay.
I would like to point out that Councilman Matt Garner campaigned on (just one and one- half years ago) “Preserve Our Way of Life,” “He will fight for Yucaipa residents, not special
2 interests,” “…improve our Quality of Life,” “Stop high density projects & protect our rural way of life,” “…will fight for you and focus on improving Yucaipa’s quality of life,” and “Ensure development projects don’t infringe on our small town way of life.” If Councilman Garner votes “Yes,” his campaign was packed with lies.
Approving this plan will result in a windfall profit for developers and a total loss for Yucaipa.
Please Vote NO.
Lucinda & Dwayne Brinks
District 1
PUBLIC COMMENT 13
1 Tara Davis
From:jayyab Salahaldin
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 1:46 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Wcsp wine country specific plan
Hello , I oppose the new winery project that’s going to happen in Yucaipa.
Sent from my iPhone
PUBLIC COMMENT 14
1 Tara Davis
From:Kevin Miskin
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 1:47 PM
To:Public Comment; Bobby Duncan; Justin Beaver; Jon Thorp; Matt Garner; Chris Venable Subject:Please vote no on the WCSP
The WCSP is a direct contradiction of the General Plan particularly the housing elements related to the North Bench and the City ordinance's definition of rural living by adding commercial wineries and wine tasting. These wineries and wine tasting venues will bring more smog, particularly cancer causing diesel emissions above and beyond what was anticipated in General Plan.
Vineyards and wineries are currently being torn out to the tune of 50,000 acres in California. This is a bad investment by the City.
Please vote no.
Kevin Miskin
PUBLIC COMMENT 15
1 Tara Davis
From:Tamara Shankel
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 1:50 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:concern
Dear Representative,
As a citizen of Yucaipa i am concerned with the change in zoning being proposed with the new wine country plan. I do not think this is a wise decision - I am concerned about adequate roads, infrastructure, schools and overall with changing the quality of life for our current citizens in that area.
Sincerely,
Tamara Shankel
Yucaipa, CA
PUBLIC COMMENT 16
1 Tara Davis
From:Kelly Sams
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 1:50 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Wine Specific Plan
To Whom it May Concern:
As a Yucaipa resident, let it be known that I oppose the wine specific plan due to lack of infrastructure and burden on we the taxpayers to accommodate the increase in infrastructure needed to accommodate this plan. Please adhere to the general plan already approved for the city.
Sincerely,
Kelly Sams
Sent from my iPhone
PUBLIC COMMENT 17
1 Tara Davis
From:Robin Miskin
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2024 1:51 PM
To:Jon Thorp; Justin Beaver; Bobby Duncan; Chris Venable; Matt Garner; Public Comment Subject:Vote no on the WCSP
Please vote no on the Yucaipa Wine Country specific plan. Mixing wineries and wine tasting with residential areas, schools, parks, etc. is a public safety issue.
Vote No.
Robin Miskin
PUBLIC COMMENT 18
1 Tara Davis
From:Philip Schneider @aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 9:27 AM
To:Public Comment
Cc:Philip Schneider; Ralph Ramirez
Subject:Public Comment, Wednesday, March 27, 2024, City Council / WCSP
WINE COUNTRY SPECIFIC PLAN BREAKS THE LAW
In my opinion, Wine Country Specific Plan (WCSP) violates two state laws: California Government Code §65454 and §65300.5. Because WCSP breaks the law, it should not be approved by the Yucaipa City Council.
§65454 VIOLATIONS
The City of Yucaipa states “… a Specific Plan must adhere to, and be consistent with, the City’s land use policies that are established in the General Plan.” This statement is absolutely correct, but only part of the story. More exactly, a specific plan must be consistent with the entire General Plan, not just its policies. To wit:
Gov’t Code §65454 requires specific plans to be “… consistent with the general plan.” Also, General Plan Guidelines issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) state “Specific plans must be consistent with all facets of the general plan …” Let me repeat that: consistent with all facets. WCSP is not consistent with the following three facets of Yucaipa’s General Plan:
(Facet 1) RL-1 Land Use Designation description on page 2-7 of the General Plan, which specifies rural living on minimum one-acre lots. WCSP is designated RL-1, but proposes hundreds of quarter- acre lots packed together in single-family tracts. These lots are extremely inconsistent with the RL-1 description, a violation of Gov’t Code §65454.
(Facet 2) RL-1 Development Standards on page 3-13 of the General Plan Housing Element, which specify a minimum lot size of one acre. The WCSP proposes a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (approximately one-quarter acre). This tiny fraction of the Development Standard is an extreme inconsistency and a violation of Gov’t Code §65454.
(Facet 3) Policy HN-2.4 on page 3-10 of the General Plan (not the stripped-down version in the Housing Element) reads: “Require all new residential development in the North Bench and Wildwood Canyon to be consistent with … adopted density and development standards …” This policy requires WCSP to be consistent with its RL-1 Development Standards, including a minimum lot size of one acre. WCSP’s proposed minimum lot size is one-quarter acre, making WCSP extremely inconsistent with Policy HN-2.4, a violation of Gov’t Code §65454.
APPENDIX A IS MISLEADING
Appendix A of the WCSP is titled “General Plan Consistency.” It reviews most of the General Plan policies (and nothing else) and concludes: “This review revealed the Specific Plan and the General
2 Plan to be complementary and consistent.” While this statement may be true for the policies reviewed, it does not apply to all of the other General Plan facets because they were not included, considered or reviewed in Appendix A.
Facet 1, Facet 2, and Facet 3 are not consistent with WCSP (see above) and are not included in Appendix A. These facets are just as important as General Plan policies and their legal status is equal to the legal status of policies (per OPR). Appendix A has failed to consider Facet 1, Facet 2, and Facet 3, making it misleading.
§65300.5 VIOLATIONS
WCSP depends heavily on a misconstrued facet of the General Plan: Planned Development and/or Specific Plans (Facet PDSP). It’s on page 6-16 of the General Plan Housing Element.
The intention of Facet PDSP is to promote flexibility in site design by not requiring strict application of current Development Standards when tailoring those standards for a specific plan. Because non- strict application of Development Standards is still required, changes to Development Standards, logically, must be minimal. Also, for Development Standards to remain representative of the Land Use Designation, changes to them must be minimal.
Furthermore, by making only minimal changes, Development Standards will not be tailored so much that they become inconsistent with other facets of the General Plan. If extreme changes are made to Development Standards, the resulting Tailored Standards will be inconsistent with other facets, violating Gov’t Code §65300.5. Gov’t Code §65300.5 forbids internal inconsistencies within a General Plan.
Proponents of WCSP have misinterpreted Facet PDSP to permit huge changes in Development Standards. They have made alterations so extreme that the resulting Tailored Standards resemble Development Standards for an entirely different land use: RS-10M, Single Residential, which has a minimum lot size standard of 10,000 square feet.
The proponents claim that because they adhere to WCSP’s RL-1 density standard (maximum of one dwelling unit per gr. acre), they are entitled (apparently by Facet PDSP) to “… consolidate the residential capacity …” into a much smaller area, even though that requires illegally crushing the RL-1 minimum lot size standard to 23 percent of its original size.
The proponents’ seeming interpretation of Facet PDSP ostensibly allows them to pick and choose which Development Standards they will obey and which ones they won’t, thereby rationalizing extreme changes to standards. However, I don’t find any mention or authorization for such manipulations in any Government Code or the OPR’s General Plan Guidelines. In my opinion, the proponents’ illogical implementation of Facet PDSP is really a devious scheme to reduce minimum lot size without amending the General Plan.
And so, the proponents have reduced minimum lot size by an extreme 77 percent, into the realm of single-family residential. If the City Council approves this charade, they will be accepting and authorizing the proponents’ mangled interpretation of Facet PDSP. This revised, Council-approved implementation of Facet PDSP will not be consistent with Facet 1, Facet 2, and Facet 3, creating internal inconsistencies within the General Plan, a violation of Gov’t Code §65300.5 and the OPR’s General Plan Guidelines.
3 OVERLAY DISTRICT REALITY
WCSP will be an Overlay District on Figure CDL-3 in the General Plan. There is a notion that Development Standards in overlays can be changed at will. This is incorrect. Like Facet PDSP, overlays have no special powers to make extreme changes to Development Standards or to essentially change Land Use Designations. In fact, the OPR says of overlay districts (zones):
“Subsequent development must comply with the requirements of both the overlay zone and the base district.” The base district in this instance is the General Plan’s RL-1 Land Use Designation. WCSP has a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in its Overlay District, but as long as WCSP is RL-1, the controlling minimum lot size is one acre.
MY CONCLUSION
In my opinion, it is obvious that WCSP violates California Government Code §65454 and §65300.5. Because of that, the City Council should not approve WCSP until such time that the entire WCSP is consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan no longer has internal inconsistencies in violation of §65300.5.
To make WCSP’s residential components consistent, their portions of the General Plan need to be amended to RS-10M, Single Residential (minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet). WCSP’s residential components will then be consistent with the General Plan and not in violation of California Government Code §65454.
Philip Schneider
Yucaipa, California