Public Comment_Redacted — Yucaipa City Council, August 26, 2024

PUBLIC COMMENT 1

No warehouses in Yucaipa
Mon 8/26/2024 7:18 AM
TaPublic Comment
Please respect the voters.

Do not allow the excessive building along Oak Glen road! We urge you to vote NO against warehouses.

Sincerely
Lisa & Grant Reed
Sent from my iPhone

PUBLIC COMMENT 2

Warehouses in Yucaipa
wendy green
Mon 8/26/2024 5:28 AM
TaPublic Comment
Hello,
I have lived in Yucaipa for 63 years, born and raised here. I'm opposed to building warehouses in Yucaipa.

Yucaipa is a small town but quickly turning into another Moreno Valley. It's sickening what the current people in leadership are trying to do to this town. We don't have enough access right now to get to the freeway as it is. Our town can't handle the growth as it is. The roads are horrible, they need to be repaired and replaced.

We do not have enough law enforcement in our town to cover all of the crime. Shame on our current city council for trying to destroy our once beautiful town into another San Bernardino!! Please listen to the people who live in this town and stop the madness.

Respectfully,
Wendy Green

PUBLIC COMMENT 3

Public Comment for Agenda Item #10 for 8/26/24 Meeting
Ben Vail
Sun 8/25/2024 10:45 PM
TaPublic Comment
Hello,
I have a comment regarding Agenda item #10, the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan.

I am not opposed to housing and small businesses being built in Yucaipa, but I am absolutely and completely against any warehouse development. We do not need the traffic, the eye sore, nor the pollution these trucks would bring to our town. Please do the right thing: protect our air quality and our quality of life and do not vote to approve any warehouses.

We can find tax revenue another way, and learn to be better stewards of the revenue we already have.

Approving millions of square feet of warehouses would be an irreversible mess for our town. Do not do it.

Ben Vail

PUBLIC COMMENT 4

Public Comment on 8/26 to the Yucaipa City Council
Bev Monahan
Sun 8/25/2024 10:34 PM
To:Public Comment
Cc:Kim J Metzler, CMC, CPM
To the Staff and Honorable Councilpersons of Yucaipa:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to any construction projects that would adversely affect the rural nature of Live Oak Canyon. Continuing to expand into rural areas without vast infrastructure improvements in the Highland, Yucaipa, Beaumont, and Redlands areas simply makes no sense and continues to threaten public health and well-being.

First, I think of the overwhelming traffic congestion that currently exists on Interstate 10 both west in the mornings and east during the evening commutes. Aren't more warehouses and new communities going to worsen this reality?
Second, I think of the utter standstill of traffic at the Live Oak Canyon/1-10/Oak Glenn Road intersection during the fall and Christmas seasons due to the pumpkin patch/Christmas Tree farm visitors. What will that area be like with industrial traffic trying to drive to and from warehouses? Third, the trains running through the canyon are an important part of the East/West transportation corridors that have been around much longer than most of the residents in this area. The congestion caused by train traffic is already difficult for those needing to travel through the area. Why would the City of Yucapia compound this problem by adding more commuter and industrial traffic? I wonder if there has even been a traffic study done to assess the proposed plans.

All three of the above -mentioned issues significantly reduce the quality of life for the current residents of the area through lost time sitting in traffic, reduced air quality, and reduced open spaces.

As a Highland resident, I see projects like the new Costco on Greenspot as potentially positive but just like so many projects, the infrastructure which is already disintegrating, needs a complete upgrade to accommodate the traffic growth. Residents from the mountain communities, Yucapia, Redlands, and of course Highland will flock to the new Costco. But how? They will drive on a 2 lane farm road (Greenspot/Garnet) from the east and jam up an already congested freeway entrance/exit from the west. Has the City of Yucapia thought ahead to mitigate this kind of short-sightedness that seems to always exist when potential new projects "beat down your door"?
We don't need more warehouses in the area that only provide low -paying jobs! Many of our best and brightest leave this area for work that is meaningful, challenging, and provides financial security. If the city of Yucapia wants to promote new businesses within its boundaries, seek out companies that will promote academically minded careers for the next generation!
Yucaipa has done a spectacularjob revitalizing its historic downtown and preserving the Crafton Hills in collaboration with Redlands and the county. I would invite the city of Yucaipa to work with Redlands and develop an extension of Herngt 'Aki' Preserve in adjacent lands within Yucaipa. This will preserve the character of Live Oak Canyon, provide Yucaipa residents, living South of Crafton Hills, access to a network of

hiking, cycling, and equestrian trails that connect us all to our history, and protect a critical wildlife corridor used by endangered Southern California Mountain Lions and other threatened and endangered species.

Thank you.

Beverly Monahan

PUBLIC COMMENT 5

Public Comment meeting date 08/26/24
Adam May
Sun 8/25/2024 10:10 PM
To:Public Comment
As a resident of District 5 in Yucaipa, I am opposed to Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update (Case No. 24- 044/GPA/SPA) & Pacific Oaks Commerce Center (21-196/CUP/ARC/TPM). Development along the 10 freeway without consideration to upgrading infrastructure would degrade the quality of life for the existing and future residents. Increasing the population and semi -truck traffic without careful planning results in loss of time spent commuting on an already overburdened freeway that this plan does nothing to address and only worsens.

Yucaipa, and the surrounding area does not need more warehouses and poorly planned housing.

Sincerely,
Adam May

PUBLIC COMMENT 6

Opposing certain development for freeway plan
Bryce T
Sun 8/25/2024 9:53 PM
To:Public Comment
Dear Yucaipa City Council:

I strongly oppose the proposed warehouse development adjacent to Live Oak Canyon to be addressed in your 8/26/24 council meeting. We already suffer from the worst air quality in the country and this would worsen it further. I know Redlands regrets allowing a large number of warehouses which only provided a small number of lower -paying jobs once completed. They add significantly to the traffic and pollution and detract from the character of the city.

Yucaipa has done a spectacularjob revitalizing their historic downtown and preserving the Crafton Hills in collaboration with Redlands and the county. I would love to see the city of Yucaipa work with Redlands and develop an extension of the existing nature preserves in adjacent lands within Yucaipa. This will preserve the character of Live Oak Canyon, provide Yucaipa residents access to a network of hiking, cycling and equestrian trails that connect us all to our history and protect a critical wildlife corridor used by endangered Southern California Mountain Lions and other threatened and endangered species.

There is a history of denying some development in the area and then donors or groups are able to purchase the land for preservation of open space. Once it is developed there is no turning back. Please help preserve what little open space we have left! There are more responsible ways to develop without destroying some of the only undisturbed wildlife habitat we have left.

Thank you.

Bryce Taylor

PUBLIC COMMENT 7

August 25, 2024
Yucaipa Planning Department:

As a member of Yucaipa Preservation Society, I object to the SEIR on the grounds that it is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusionary in nature that meaningful public review and comments were precluded.

I have attached the following comments and request they be made a part of the record:

The city council agenda mischaracterizes the Planning Commission's vote to deny the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (FCSP). Under Agenda Item 10, Recommendation, the agenda states, "The Planning Commission has previously reviewed the FCSP and did not offer a recommendation for approval." This statement is a biased and misleading statement. Someone in the city went through a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid stating that the Planning Commissioned recommended not approving the FCSP Update.

The packet is 653 pages. This packet is issued to councilmen Thursday evening. With their own work schedules there is no way they could digest this document and be able to vote on it.

While I agree that a FCSP update is needed to protect hillsides and increase retail (vs industrial), this is not it.
• The original intent of the 2008 FCSP
was to create more jobs and sales
revenue to the City. The FCSP Update
will result in fewer jobs and less long-
term revenue because the retail land will
be cut by a factor of 3.
• One of the goals of the original FCSP
was to maintain a more rural
environment. Putting more homes on
half the acreage, and more big rig truck
traffic and mega warehouses does not
contribute to the preservation of the
rural environment
• There are other agri-commercial land
uses that would contribute greatly to the

rural lifestyle of Yucaipa and bring in
more sales revenue to the City. The
land designated for mega warehouses
would be the perfect place for the wine
country with boutique restaurants and
bed and breakfast inns and would
eliminate wine drinking traffic through
the residential, school, and recreational
park areas of Yucaipa. The area is
secluded rolling hill country with
beautiful vistas and easy on and off the
freeway.

City Revenue: The City is currently
facing budget deficits. The FCSP
Update will result in 1/3 of the retail
space proposed in the existing
plant. That equates to 1 /3 less sales tax
revenue. The FCSP Update will have
11 percent fewer jobs
Preserving Rural Environment as
Stated in Project Goals and the
General Plan: As stated above, the
FCSP Update which doubles the
housing density, and increases big rig

truck traffic is inconsistent with the goals
of preserving the rural environment.
• Fire Issues: The FCSP is located in a
high fire area. The plan does not
provide for two points of ingress and
egress without the Wildwood Canyon
interchange.
• Human health risks:

According to the Warehouse Tool, "The Inland
Empire is the warehouse capitol of the United
States. Over 45 million residents are exposed
to the nation's worst smog in the form of ozone.

Our county ranks #1 in exceedence of Air
Quality Standards."
Kathy Sellers
District 1, Yucaipa

PUBLIC COMMENT 8

Public Comment 8/26/24
Courtney May
Sun 8/25/2024 9:16 PM
To:Public Comment
To the the City Council Members,
As a Yucaipa resident, I oppose the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update (Case No. 24-044/GPA/SPA) & Pacific Oaks Commerce Center (21-196/CUP/ARC/TPM).

Yucaipa is a unique community. I love its ruralness and the open land as I believe most of the residents here do. I think we can agree that no one wants to spend more time sitting in traffic along the already congested portion of the 1-10 from Live Oak Canyon to County Line Rd. I understand that the community is growing and needs more revenue, but the infrastructure, including more freeway lanes, should be built up before such a project is approved. The lack of infrastructure not only affects Yucaipa residents but those commuting from Beaumont and Banning as well.

In addition, I don't think any more warehouses should be built in this city. The warehouses and the trucks they bring would add more pollutants to the already bad air quality in the area, which directly affects Yucaipa residents' health.

I want Yucaipa to continue to be a place of natural beauty, not urban sprawl like the rest of the Inland Empire.

Please vote no so that Yucaipa can continue to be a place my family and future generations can enjoy living in.

Thank you for your consideration.

Courtney May from District 5

PUBLIC COMMENT 9

Live Oak Canyon
Michael C. Heal
Sun 8/25/2024 9:15 PM
To:Public Comment
Cc:Kim J Metzler, CIVIC, CPM
Staff and Honorable Councilpersons of Yucaipa:

I am writing to you to express my steadfast opposition to any construction projects that would adversely affect the rural nature of Live Oak Canyon. In this case, a distribution centerjust does not make sense! There are many known cultural resource sites in the Canyon within both Redlands and Yucaipa boundaries. I presently volunteer at the Herngt 'Aki' Preserve in Redlands and would greatly appreciate if Yucaipa would work collaboratively with Redlands to preserve open space and the rural character of lands South of 1-10 in Live Oak Canyon and what is known as the Serengeti in the cycling community.

As a cyclist I can attest to the fact that Live Oak Canyon road cannot handle any additional traffic, and placing a massive warehouse at the mouth of the canyon would adversely affect traffic flows in the canyon in ways that are unsustainable. As a resident of Redlands I can tell you that deforesting our citrus groves to put up warehouses in the doughnut hole was probably the worst decision city and county officials have made in the history of Redlands. The traffic, congestion, pollution, road damage, minimal job creation etc. all go unmitigated and burden the Inland Empire with ever worsening pollution and congestion.

This will preserve the character of Live Oak Canyon, provide Yucaipa residents living South of Crafton Hills access to a network of hiking, cycling and equestrian trails that connect us all to our history and protect a critical wildlife corridor used by endangered Southern California Mountain Lions and other threatened and endangered species.

Thank you.

PUBLIC COMMENT 10

Freeway Corridor Specific Plan
Linda
Sun 8/25/2024 9:11 PM
To:Public Comment
Hello,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed freeway corridor plan in the city of Yucaipa. I believe that this plan is a bad idea for several reasons.

Firstly, the plan would likely lead to increased traffic congestion in the area. Yucaipa's infrastructure is not equipped to handle the additional traffic that would be generated by a massive warehouse and the semi - trucks that would service it.

Secondly, a warehouse would not bring in enough revenue to offset the negative environmental impact that it would have. The proposed land is adjacent to grazing land for animals. Not to mentions the waste generated contributes to greenhouse gas pollution.

Thirdly, the plan would open the door to the view of Yucaipa as a city that could be taken over by big corporations. This would undermine the small-town character of Yucaipa and make it less attractive to residents and businesses.

I urge you to reconsider the freeway corridor plan and to instead focus on developing sustainable economic development strategies that are in the best interests of Yucaipa's residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

A concerned citizen,
Linda Timmons
District 3

PUBLIC COMMENT 11

Yucaipa corroidir project
Barbara
Sun 8/25/2024 8:41 PM
To:Public Comment
Hello, my name is Barbara Kuerzinger, I live at
since 1979, and would really appreciate a no v
much out weighs the possible benefits. I was f
too far to impede in our little community, as w
all ready horrible just to Loma Linda everyday.

Thank you
Sent from my Phone
I have lived in Yucaipa
the negative impact very
us out of a hole, this goes
d everyday. Commutes are

PUBLIC COMMENT 12

freeway corridor plan
Frank Jubala
Sun 8/25/2024 8:02 PM
To:Public Comment
Vote NO!!!

PUBLIC COMMENT 13

Public Comment 8/26/24
Hopi Reames-Hayes
Sun 8/25/2024 6:39 PM
To:Public Comment
Yucaipa Council People,
I am concerned about the construction in Live Oak Canyon that has been proposed. Live Oak Canyon is one of the few remaining rural areas in this area. It is important that we keep a bit of the natural surroundings so that future generations know what the terrain was like before it was built up. I feel the canyons are particularly important to keep as rural and natural as possible.

The housing that is proposed would be encroaching on the rural nature of Live Oak Canyon. The traffic that new housing would bring is not appropriate for the canyon roads and would interfere with the wildlife, such as Mountain Lion that pass through the canyon.

A distribution center goes WAY too far!! I am VERY concerned with the number of distribution centers that have been built in the IE. The 10 Freeway is congested with trucks. The roads are being torn up by the truck traffic. And the pollution that they emit is not good for our health. When they were first proposed we were told they would be bringing jobs. Yes, that is true. But, the jobs are minimum wage. We do not need minimum wage jobs!! We need jobs that pay a living wage so that the workers can buy a home and have money to spend in the community. We do not need more distribution centers!! We do not need more distribution centers.

I frequently hike in Live Oak Canyon area and appreciate the work that the Redlands Conservancy has done to preserve open spaces in the canyons. It would be wonderful if Yucaipa joined in with preserving the canyons, too.

Thank you for your consideration.

Patricia Reames

PUBLIC COMMENT 14

City council meeting involving freeway
Austin Whims
Sun 8/25/2024 4:11 PM
To:Public Comment
Hello my name is austin whims I am a resident of this city and am in strong opposition of the freeway plan and do not want to see it built
Austin whims

PUBLIC COMMENT 15

Pacific Industrial 1-10 Live Oak Canyon Project
Sun 8/25/2024 2:53 PM
To:Public Comment
Dear Yucaipa City Council
I live in Yucaipa at : and currently commute daily to Redlands using Live Oak Canyon Rd to access 1-10. In addition, my wife and I also frequently use Live Oak Canyon road via Timoteo Canyon road to access 1-60.

I am strongly opposed to this development. It is inconceivable that this project would be in the best interests of the citizens of Yucaipa given the estimated truck traffic that will be generated by this project. The development sight itself has over 1000 proposed truck parking spots and another nearly 1000 car parking stalls. The traffic patterns currently at this intersection of 1-10, let alone on Live Oak Canyon during the Pumpkin Patch holiday seasons, are already stressed.

We moved to Yucaipa from Carlsbad CA partly because we appreciated the rural setting, hometown feel, and views
This project would rob Yucaipa of these valuable resources.

The Planning Commission has already passed on it. I urge you to vote no on this proposed development as well.

Thank you
Dr Douglas Baker
President, Living My Potential
Professional life and leadership Coaching
A CA 501 c3 Non -Profit

PUBLIC COMMENT 16

Development in Live Oak Canyon
Ron Simmons
Sun 8/25/2024 1:00 PM
TaPublic Comment ;[email protected]
Yucaipa City Council:

Please, please do not subdivide Live Oak Canyon for homes and commercial warehouses. This is one of the last areas of the city that is still rural and home to precious wildlife and native trees and plants. I say "precious" in the full extent of that term: worth tremendously more left as created, than as any development devised by man.

I moved to Yucaipa in 1959, graduating from Yucaipa High in 1963. 1 then lived in Oak Glen and worked on the Ford apple ranches there. What a privilege this time was, tying me to the land, clean air, mountains, wildlife --and the combination of open space, agriculture and modest housing and business areas.

Recently, I have considered moving back to the area. But I am watching with dismay the plans for the "bench" on Oak Glen Road, north of Bryant, and the huge electronic billboards installed along the freeway -- which distract 1-10 drivers, destroy the night sky for the residences there, and pretentiously sell the city as a commodity.

And now come plans to develop Live Oak Canyon, once sacred to the Cahuilla native tribe. Please honor the Yucaipa High mascot: the Thunderbirds. Please keep this relatively rural area as is, developing it only as a nature preserve -
Mountains.

Thank you,
Ron Simmons

PUBLIC COMMENT 17

Oppose Warehouses --protect Rural Live Oak Canyon feel
Amanda Frye
Sun 8/25/2024 11:17 AM
TaPublic Comment
Dear Honorable Council Members and Staff:

Rural Live Oak Canyon is such an asset to Yucaipa today and for the future. Do you know how many people make such wonderful comments about this stretch of rural feeling Yucaipa as they stop for something on their way to and fro on their way to the Mountains, Apple Picking, work or a long boring freeway journey? The crowds at the Live Oak Canyon Pumpkin Patch and Oak Glen Apple Orchard shows how people come from far away for a taste of the rural Yucaipa where they stop for food, fuel, stay, eat or drink or a quick shopping at a local sporting good store for passes and equipment. Yucaipa has so many positive things going for it including this rural Live Oak Canyon. I do much shopping in Yucaipa but will definitely avoid this commerce if warehouses fill the spaces of Live Oak Canyon.

Yucaipa --your children, their future and health of your citizens depend on you to vote against the warehouses as you vote to preserve healthy air for the children and all that live near around Yucaipa.

If you travel through areas that have chased trends of warehouses, freight houses and storage buildings you see how these buildings and areas soon become blighted and shuttered as ideas quickly change. I was reminded of this on a recent trip to Central New York as I visited some sites along the long abandoned Eerie Canal. The one thing that remains the same is the need for agriculture and food. The farms along the Eerie Canal that provided food for commerce remained vibrant, but the old freight warehouses were empty and surrounded by blight.

Agriculture is a business and commerce and a multi -billion dollar commerce in California. Yucaipa you have a huge asset in your rural Live Oak Canyon. Don't be like Redlands and destroy the agriculture asset and replace the land with hot empty warehouses that have destroyed the community and polluted the air. Be smart and oppose the warehouses and massive plans to destroy the rural Live Oak Canyon. Take a smart path for the future and for the children you should vote to protect the rural Live Oak Canyon, protect the watershed, and wildlife corridor and protect this valuable asset and nature's gift of rural Live Oak Canyon.

PUBLIC COMMENT 18

Hearing on proposed developments for the Live Oak Canyon corridor Ausust 25, 2024 Debra Vandergoot
Sun 8/25/2024 10:36 AM
To:Public Comment
Cc:Kim J Metzler, CIVIC, CPM
Staff and Honorable Councilpersons of Yucaipa:

We are writing to you to express our opposition and concerns regarding any construction projects that would adversely impact the natural habitat of Live Oak Canyon, as well as the residents who live in the Live Oak Canyon area.

As local residents, we can attest first hand to the fact that Live Oak Canyon and the area surrounding the proposed building of warehouses and residential homes can not handle the additional traffic. The io Fwy from Redlands through Calimesa is jammed during most hours of the day, 7 days a week, as it is. Commuters trying to avoid sitting in traffic have taken to the outer highway frontage roads, creating a solid line of cars and making it difficult for residents to exit our neighborhoods. More traffic will only make it worse than it already is.

Warehouses and additional residential houses will ruin the natural rural nature of this area. Most of the taxpaying residents of this area live here because of the rural look and feel of the area. If we wanted to live in a big, congested city, we would have bought our homes in one. This area is habitat to wildlife, including some endangered species, and citizens enjoy the ability to hike and cycle in the area. When the area is congested with more buildings and traffic that will all be gone.

The roads through Live Oak Canyon are already in need of repair. Truck traffic and more vehicles using the roads daily will make it worse. If they cannot be maintained and repaired now, how can we expect them to be later?
With all the environmental concerns we hear about daily, why would the city choose to bring in more trucks and vehicles? Hikers and cyclists will be pushed out due to safety reasons. We are being forced to separate our garbage, encouraged to buy electric everything and yet the city is considering a plan to add more traffic and pollution to our area. It seems a bit hypocritical.

Building and improving the downtown area is well and fine, but destroying the rural areas surrounding the city is not. We realize there is big money involved in this type of project, but it is time for the city to put its tax paying residents first.

We ask that you oppose this plan.

Thank you,
Ronald and Debra Vandergoot

PUBLIC COMMENT 19

City Council Public Comment
Laurie Aldern
Sun 8/25/2024 8:01 Hive
To:Public Comment
Dear Yucaipa City Council Members,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed construction of multiple Amazon -type warehouses in Live Oak Canyon, as outlined in the 1-10 Corridor Specific Plan. As concerned neighbors, we urge you to reconsider this decision, which poses significant threats to both our community and the environment.

Live Oak Canyon is a cherished part of our communities, known for its natural beauty, tranquility, and ecological significance. The introduction of large-scale warehousing in this area would disrupt the delicate balance of our local ecosystem, leading to increased traffic, noise pollution, and air quality degradation. This not only affects the wildlife that calls Live Oak Canyon home but also endangers the health and well-being of the residents who live nearby.

The Inland Empire already has the worst air quality in the country_ As leaders and decision makers, you hold the privilege and responsibility of making informed, careful choices about reducing that dishonorable statistic and creating a better region for all who live and visit here.

Moreover, the construction of these warehouses is in direct conflict with the principles of the Vital Conditions Framework, which emphasizes the importance of a thriving natural world as a foundation for healthy communities. The negative impact on air quality, noise levels, and traffic congestion will undermine the very conditions that make Yucaipa and surrounding communities a desirable place to live. (If you're not familiar with the Vital Conditions Framework, we ask that you take the time to explore this important concept. It can forever change the future that our children will either endure or enjoy.)
We urge the City Council to prioritize the long-term health and sustainability of our communities over short-term economic gains. Instead of approving these warehouses, we recommend exploring alternative development plans that align with a commitment to environmental stewardship and the well-being of our residents.

Please take this opportunity to protect the unique character of Live Oak Canyon and ensure that future generations can enjoy the natural beauty and healthy environment that we are fortunate to have today.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
Joe and Laurie Aldern

PUBLIC COMMENT 20

No warehouse development along 1-10
Mon 8/26/2024 8:17 AM
To:Public Comment
To whom it may concern,
Good morning. It is recently come to my attention that the city of Yucaipa is considering allowing the development of several large warehouses along the 1-10 corridor where the Live Oak Canyon freeway on/off ramps currently sit.

As a resident of our beautiful little town of Yucaipa for the last 15 years, I have seen a lot of changes happen.

Some have been for the betterment of our town and some have been a little less than ideal. The 10 freeway has become a parking lot most days of the week on both sides of the freeway weather going eastbound or westbound, and I can't help but think that the development of warehouses with freight trucks coming and going will only increase the congestion and frustration.

Additionally, the lovely but slightly crowded pumpkin patch, which is open from September through December brings an additional amount of congestion and traffic to that specific location and offramp during half of the year, and this proposed development will only add to the risk of accident incidents, congestion, and frustrations amongst the locals, as we are already taxing that area with daily congestion.

In my opinion, it does not seem like a good idea to expand both in commercial opportunity for development, and an increase in traffic needs without first addressing the lack of freeway access for all of those additional vehicles and needs. It is irresponsible to build businesses that have needs that currently cannot be accommodated adequately.

We are already seeing this play out right next door. If you drive a couple miles down the road, you can already see how the impacts of such developments are affecting the town of Cherry Valley. It is often very difficult to get on and off the freeway at the Cherry Valley exit because there has been so much development over the last few years. The influx in traffic coming into that town with very little change to the current freeway and street accommodations, has made commuting less than ideal and put additional strain on surrounding residential neighborhoods to bypass the freeway traffic for locals.

Therefore, let us be wise and learn from our neighbors and plan ahead and accommodate for such development first before moving forward with the development of more businesses that we can't accommodate.

Personally -I love driving through the rolling hills and farmland of yucaipa along the 1-10. It immediately brings peace to my soul and reminds me that I coming home and that Yucaipa is a different kind of town - where people slow down and enjoy the simples pleasure of a life well lived after engaging in the hustle and bustle of the world around us. Let's not lose the one thing that sets us apart and makes us so attractive and unique!
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
Erin Allen

PUBLIC COMMENT 21

Public comment 8-26-24
Steve and Kindra
Mon 8/26/2024 8:24 AM
TaPublic Comment
Hi. I have lived at for over 20 years and have lived in Yucaipa since I was 6 (just taking a brief stint away while I went to college and had my own apartment in Redlands for a couple years).

My husband and I and our 2 children love Yucaipa and wouldn't live anywhere else in Southern California.

We are so saddened by the news to add warehouses and more homes to this area. This is making our small town no longer small and less rural which is why we love it so much.

We definitely oppose the proposed warehouse plan. Including adding more homes which would add more people which would greatly effect our schools especially our already impacted high school.

PUBLIC COMMENT 22

Ref Agenda #10
Jackie Precie
Mon 8/26/2024 8:04 AM
TaPublic Comment
Hello city council,
I have been a resident of Yucaipa for over 21 years. I came to this wonderful city for its small town feel along with safety, quiet, neighborly and family value environment. I have felt the city council has always done a great job running this city. However, I am strongly against this massive warehouse project they are trying to pass. Our once small town is going to be overrun with traffic beyond recognition. This will not be a good decision on councils part and one I will be highly disappointed in if passed. This honestly would be the last straw for me to fill the need move out of this area. It's going to end up like the monstrosity of Beaumont. Please council, think about this huge decision and the impact it will cause. I know the city needs money but there are other ways.

Sincerely,
Jackie Klenske-Chapman Heights Community
Sent from my iPhone

PUBLIC COMMENT 23

re, Warehouse off live Oak Canyon
Don Isom
Mon 8/26/2024 8:16 AM
TaPublic Comment
Good morning my name is Don I live in the city of Yucaipa I oppose the warehouses on Live Oak Canyon due to the truck traffic in the proposed area. It is hard enough getting off the freeway right now and traffic is backed up most days at Live Oak Canyon eastbound 1 10. We all know that the offramp's will not be widen for many years to come however, 1400 trucks a day getting off that exit is greatly going to impact the area and I oppose of the warehouse being built at this time. At this time there is thousands of undeveloped land in the Beaumont Cabazon area where these warehouses could be built and not impact our area.

Thank you,
Don Isom
Senior Public Works Inspector
Cell-
C-34, D2, T2, APWA- CPII, QSP, CESSWI

PUBLIC COMMENT 24

Yucaipa City Staff and Members of the Yucaipa City Council I am writing with regard to the Pacific Oak Commerce Center and the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update:

1. Preservation of Natural Open Space and Rural Areas.

Redlands, Yucaipa and Calimesa have thrived on the basis of our wonderful natural environment. For hundreds of years, people have been in love with the outstanding beauty of the mountains and canyons resulting in strong progressive communities.

With destruction of these assets we will no longer thrive as previously.

The warehouses in Calimesa and Beaumont have caused terrible damage to the attraction of living in this area. Without successful people living in this area, businesses will suffer. and property values will decline 2 Affect on the City of Redlands.

Redlands is more affected than uptown Yucaipa. Consideration should be given to the neighboring community which is more geographically relevant in regard to these decisions. As with the City of Yucaipa Freeway signs, Redlands residents are more impacted. We have . because of them, lost the dark sky necessary for celestial observation at our observatory on the Redlands side of the freeway. 3 Community appreciation of the Live Oak Canyon Christmas Tree Farm.

Thousands of people, mostly parents and children flock to events at the farm with great excitement. It is obviously very important and successful as one of our local agrotourism destinations It is also a very good place for school children to visit to Learn about farming in this area. With climate change, we may need to produce all our food supplies locally in the future.

4. Wildlife Corridors
We have video footage of a mountain lion on Alta Vista Drive in Redlands, last winter. We are not sure of the exact corridor being followed but presumably it is from the San Bernardino Mountains to areas of Riverside County. It maybe where the Wabash Bridge crosses the 10 Freeway or it may be through the flood channel by Live Oak Canyon Road. Mountain lion and other wildlife corridors have recently been blocked by the massive housing and commercial construciton in Beaumont and Calimesa leaving this area of Yuciapa/Redlands as their only option.

Thankyou for your wise decisions in previous years. We are counting on you to continue to preserve the nature of our environment that is so supportive of human life now and is potentially sustainable for the future.

Joanne Lessard

PUBLIC COMMENT 25

Re: Oppose any warehouses or distribution center projects in Live Oak Canyon - 1-10 Corridor specific plan is out of date.

JB
Sat c. i 3 rive
ToXim J Metzler, CIVIC, CPM
Cc:Marven Norman
> Staff and Honorable Councilpersons of Yucaipa:
> I am writing you to express my steadfast opposition of any > construction projects that would adversely affect the rural nature of > Live Oak Canyon. In this case, a distribution centerjust does not > make sense! There are many known cultural resource sites in the > Canyon within both Redlands and Yucaipa boundaries. I presently > volunteer as co -manager of the Herngt 'Aki' Preserve in Redlands and > would greatly appreciate if Yucaipa would work collaboratively with > Redlands to preserve open space and the rural character of lands South > of I-10 in Live Oak Canyon and what is known as the Serengeti in the > cycling community. As a cyclist I can attest to the fact that Live > Oak Canyon road cannot handle any additional traffic, and placing a > massive warehouse at the mouth of the canyon would adversely affect > traffic flows in the canyon in ways that are unsustainable. As a > resident of Redlands I can tell you that de-foresting our citrus > groves to put up warehouses in the doughnut hole was probably the > worst decision city and county officials have made in the history of > Redlands. The traffic, congestion, pollution, road damage, minimal > job creation etc. all go unmitigated and burden the Inland Empire with > ever worsening pollution and congestion. Yucaipa has done a > spectacular job revitalizing their historic downtown and preserving > the Crafton Hills in collaboration with Redlands and the county. I > invite the city of Yucaipa to work with Redlands and develop an > extension of Herngt 'Aki' Preserve in adjacent lands within Yucaipa. > This will preserve the character of Live Oak Canyon and provide > Yucaipa residents living South of Crafton Hills access to a network of > hiking, cycling and equestrian trails that connect us all to our history. > Thank you.
> Jonathan Baty
> member: Friends of Live Oak Canyon
P.S. updated Yucaipa public comment email to use correct email address for public comments, email on the notice is incorrect.

PUBLIC COMMENT 26

Public comment
David Matuszak
Sun 8/25/2024 5:37 A.-
ToXim J Metzler, CIVIC, CPM
Cc:Public Comment
City Council Re: Warehouses
To the Yucaipa City Council:

Here we go again! Decades ago, following your city incorporation, early city councils were bought off by housing tract developers with campaign contributions and the rural atmosphere of Yucaipa began to disappear. Gone are the cattle, oranges, and chickens; replaced with tract homes and traffic jams. Now the influence is coming from the logistics industry builders.

Now you are approving warehouses! None of your constituents want to live in the logistics capitol of the world ... STOPM! ENOUGHM!
WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT WAREHOUSES IN LIVE OAK CANYON !!!!!! Elections are coming! I am urging your constituents to vote according to your decisions regarding the approval of warehouses. They'll vote for council members who will respect what's left of our rural atmosphere before it's too late and we end up looking like San Bernardino...

Do the right thing!
Respectively,
David Matuszak, retired teacher at Yucaipa High School for 38 years and president Friends of Live Oak Canyon
I a https://www.facebook.com/groups/203152950549301
} ,Friends of
Live Oak
Carryon
CtKW&Wo * pM.5MvNV1he nWWelanwrrorwrmwO &the canyorr

PUBLIC COMMENT 27

21-196
Virginia Gautier
Sat 8/24/2024 9:23 AM
To:Public Comment
I am completely AGAINST 21-196 building warehouses or track homes on our beautiful hills!! You greedy developers have destroyed so much of our beautiful state. Orange County was called that because of the orange trees, where are they? Cucamonga -Alta Loma had acres and acres of Grapevines, where are they? The Inland Empire was known for their citrus fruit groves where are they? Even Yucaipa use to have many Egg Ranches where are they? Now you want to take the beautiful grazing land from Yucaipa? NO -NO -NO -NO!!!!!! Go put them in the desert, like Barstow, Hesperia, Victorville, Indio, Cochella, or Cabazon, where you can't destroy beautiful grazing land.

And Yucaipa City how can you even think that the people of Yucaipa want this? I was born and raised in Mentone. And as an adult I lived in then Chino, now Chino Hills and I have watched these greedy developers destroy beautiful Southern California.

You are just creating more traffic problems on the 10 freeway.

I say NO -NO -NO -NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want you to read my statement to everyone.

Virginia Gautier

PUBLIC COMMENT 28

Preserving the Oak Corridor
Jan Chamberlin
Mon 8/26/2024 9:24 AM
TaPublic Comment
To You,
I continue to be appalled and disgusted at the greed, stupidity, corruption, and lack of vision, that you would even consider approving building in an area where balance is so greatly needed.

Do not approve this. It aggravting beyond belief that this keeps coming to the table.

Shame on you!!! You should resign to preserve any thread of integrity you might possibly have left.

Jan Chamberlin

PUBLIC COMMENT 29

Public Comment - Oppose 1-10 Specific Plan as proposed.

Ileene Anderson
Mon 8/26/2024 9:26 AM
To:[email protected] ; Kim J Metzler, CIVIC, CPM 1 1 attachments (332 KB)
CBD 1-10 Specific Plan Opposition 8-26-2024.pdf;
Dear Yucaipa City Council,
Please find the attached brief comments on 1-10 Specific Plan as proposed. We are specifically concerned and opposed to the warehouses and logistics development in Live Oak Canyon and urge you to deny the 1-10 Specific Plan as currently proposed and require the Specific Plan to re-evaluate the impacts in this proposal.

Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions/concerns.

Sincerely
Ileene
Ileene Anderson
Senior Scientist/California Desert Director
Center for Biological Diversity

CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Because life is good.

Protecting and restoring natural ecogstems and imperiled species through science, education, policy, and environmental lazy
via email
August 26, 2024
City of Yucaipa
keverts(a,yucaipa.2ov
publiccomment(&cityofyucaipa.gov
RE: Oppose Warehouses along Live Oak Canyon as part of I-10 Specific Plan as written.

Dear City Council,
The Center for Biological Diversity just because aware of the proposed I-10 Specific Plan that proposes to add warehouses along Live Oak Canyon. We ask the City Council to carefully consider the impacts from adding more logistics warehouses to an area that the Center and allies have worked for decades to protect for wildlife connectivity and habitat. Not only will it impact and degrade the remaining open space that currently links Live Oak Canyon to downstream important habitat (San Timoteo Creek and ultimately the Santa Ana River), allowing for additional warehouses will bring increased air pollution from vehicles, and more traffic on already congested I-10 and local roads, degrading local quality of life.

Therefore we urge you to put the proposed I-10 Specific Plan today and send the City planners back to the drawing board to craft a specific plan that meets the needs of local residents, wildlife, and quality of life within the City of Yucaipa.

Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions/concerns at the contact information below.

Sincerely,
Ileene Anderson
Senior Scientist
Center for Biological Diversity
Arizona . California. Colorado . Florida . N. Carolina . Nevada . New Mexico . New York. Oregon . Washington, D.C.. La Paz, Mexico Ileene Anderson, Senior Scientist/California Deserts Director Center for Biological Diversity
Email: [email protected] Tel: 323-490-022? www. BiologicalDiversitv.org

PUBLIC COMMENT 30

Warehouse --
Craig Ross
Sat 8/24/2024 9:15 AM
ToXim J Metzler, CIVIC, CPM
Cc:[email protected]
As a long time resident of Live Oak Canyon I am against any development of Live Oak Canyon as a commercial warehouse area. It should be developed using the natural beauty it has.

I could go into reasons not to bring this type of develop to this area such as traffic, flood control by reduction of ground available for rain absorption, and the loss of a naturally beautiful landscape. Instead I will refer you to look at other cities in the area that have brought in warehousing.

In short, please don't allow warehouses desecrate Live Oak Canyon.

I remain,

PUBLIC COMMENT 31

Live Oak Canyon Development Public Written Comment
Kristie Renee' Sepulveda-Burchit
Mon 8/26/2024 10:17 AM
TaPublic Comment
Cc:Kim J Metzler, CIVIC, CPM
Staff and Honorable Councilpersons of Yucaipa:

Thank you.

Kristie Sepulveda-Burchit
Parents Jerry and Vicki Sepulveda Redlands residents

PUBLIC COMMENT 32

Freeway Corridor Specific Plan
kathybehrens
Mon 8/26/2024 10:30 AM
To:Public Comment
Cc:Kim J Metzler, CIVIC, CPM ;Kim J Metzler, CIVIC, CPM ;Sherli Leonard uear -,)iarr ana rionoraoie t-ounciipersons or Yucaipa:

The communities that lie here in the as -yet not -fully -developed region of Redlands and Yucaipa have something that few communities in Southern California can claim: open space.

As we build in, we degrade the natural resource that distinguishes our part of the world from the rest of Southern California. The quality of life afforded by open space and the attendant activities it supports creates a higher demand and value for our existing real estate stock.

As the current president and long-time board member of Redlands Conservancy, I have worked for many years to advocate on behalf of open space conservation and will continue to do so. It is not only because I love the open space, but because it's economically a very good idea. We have many realtors among our members and contributors. They realize that the increased value for our current housing stock because of the open space that surrounds Redlands is a great reason to not pave every square inch of the canyons to squash in more homes.

Our wildlife also require transportation and our open space in the canyons provides them with healthy habitat. We urge you to consider their plight if there must be development in the canyons.

Lastly, our roads are already tremendously impacted by the current population traversing the freeway corridor. Adding warehouse traffic to Live Oak Canyon Road will create a nightmare traffic situation. The popular Pumpkin Patch ties up the freeway for miles every fall and holiday season. Are you going to add 18 wheelers to that?
In short, the property that abuts the freeway at the intersection with the canyon is not a suitable location for large-scale development. I urge you to think of the longer term and the legacy that you provide future generations by leaving this small slice of California as it was - as it is - for the benefit of the residents of the area and those who come to see what a forward thinking community can do to preserve its heritage.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

Kathy Behrens

PUBLIC COMMENT 33

Live Oak Canyon
Katie McKee
Mon 8/26/2024 10:31 AM
To:Public Comment
Cc:Kim J Metzler, CIVIC, CPM
Staff and Honorable Councilpersons of Yucaipa:

It is with a heavy heart that I write this plea to reconsider destroying what remains of our natural beauty and wildlife habitat in Live Oak Canyon.

I have lived near and traveled through LOC my entire life and have seen the devastating effects of massively increased traffic through an area never intended to be used as a highway. Accidents, pollution, bumper to bumper traffic, and wildlife decimation are all negative impacts to what was once a peaceful, safe, and beautiful sanctuary. As the Inland Empire continues to build warehouses, we are losing what little bit of nature we cherished and relied on to maintain balance. Historic orange groves have been plowed under, homes demolished, and people/animals displaced in the name of progress. But progress for who? I think we can honestly say it doesn't benefit the average Jane or Joe, despite all of the arguments stating it does (I grew up in Moreno Valley- those warehouses haven't done one thing to improve life there).

I am now blessed to live in Redlands, the so-called "Jewel of the IE," next door to the breathtaking snow- capped mountains of 'small-town' Yucaipa. Do we honestly think installing MORE warehouses will contribute to the charm that draws tourists and future homeowners? Cherry Valley is already starting to lose its rural appeal- let's be different and NOT look like LA and other metropolitan places. Let's retain what sets us apart and honor the traditions that drew people here to begin with. California greed is driving away natives who appreciate the open skies and natural attractions. I have lived here over 40 years and find that I barely want to venture anywhere anymore due to traffic alone. What was once a 15 minute drive from my home through LOC to Moreno Valley is now sometimes double or even triple that time. And with the trains getting longer and slower, it's a nightmare anymore.

I fear that money and greed will win out in these cases. But a part of me still hopes that there are people in power who can see past that and believe in honoring history, traditions, and the natural world around us. For once it's gone, we can never get it back.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,
Katie McKee

PUBLIC COMMENT 34

Cherise Jesse
Yucaipa City Council
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA
August 26, 2024
RE: City Council Meeting 8/26/24; Public Comment: Opposition to Warehouse Development on Live Oak Canyon Road
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Yucaipa City Council, As a concerned 30 year resident of Live Oak Canyon, I'm deeply opposed to the proposed distribution center off Live Oak Canyon Road, as well as the associated Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (FCSP) update.

Rejecting the proposed distribution center off Live Oak Canyon Road is supported by several compelling reasons, focusing on the impact on the community, environment, and overall quality of life in Yucaipa. Here are the key reasons to consider:

1. Traffic and Safety Concerns
Increased Traffic Congestion: The distribution center would significantly increase the number of trucks and vehicles on Live Oak Canyon Road, a route not designed for heavy industrial traffic.

This would lead to additional severe congestion during the Live Oak Pumpkin Patch season already affecting local commuters and emergency response times.

Road Safety Risks: The influx of large trucks would heighten the risk of accidents on a road frequently used by residents, including families with children. Live Oak Canyon Road is narrow and winding in parts, making it unsuitable for heavy truck traffic.

Infrastructure Strain: The existing road infrastructure may not withstand the wear and tear caused by increased truck traffic, leading to faster deterioration and costly repairs.

2. Environmental Impact
Air and Noise Pollution: The constant movement of trucks in and out of the distribution center would increase air pollution, affecting the health of nearby residents. Noise pollution from truck traffic and operations at the center would also disturb the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhoods.

Destruction of Natural Habitats: The development would disrupt local ecosystems, harming wildlife that depends on the natural habitats in the area. This would lead to a loss of biodiversity and negatively impact the environment.

Water Runoff and Pollution: The construction and operation of the distribution center could lead to increased surface runoff, potentially polluting local water sources and contributing to erosion and flooding issues in the area.

3. Degradation of Community Character
Impact on Rural Atmosphere: Yucaipa is valued for its rural charm, scenic landscapes, and quiet neighborhoods. A distribution center is incompatible with this character, bringing industrial activity into an area that thrives on its natural beauty and tranquility.

Lower Property Values: The presence of a large industrial facility could decrease property values in the surrounding residential areas, as potential homebuyers may be deterred by the proximity to a noisy, congested, and polluting distribution center.

Quality of Life Reduction: The introduction of a distribution center would lead to a decline in the quality of life for residents, with increased pollution, traffic, and noise making the area less desirable as a place to live and raise a family.

4. Inadequate Economic Justification
Questionable Job Creation: While proponents may argue that the distribution center will create jobs, the number and quality of these jobs are often overstated. Many positions may be low - wage, temporary, or filled by non -local workers, offering little long-term benefit to the local economy.

Disproportionate Costs: The economic benefits of the distribution center do not outweigh the social, environmental, and infrastructural costs. The long-term impact on residents' health, property values, and quality of life would likely surpass any short-term economic gains.

5. Community Opposition
Lack of Public Support: There is significant opposition from local residents who are concerned about the adverse effects of the distribution center. Ignoring these concerns could lead to long- term dissatisfaction and erode trust between the community and local government.

Legal and Political Challenges: Moving forward with the project despite widespread opposition could result in legal challenges, petitions, and other forms of resistance that may delay or complicate the development process.

Given the significant and far-reaching impacts of the proposed distribution center on Live Oak Canyon Road, the Yucaipa City Council should reject the project. Protecting the community's health, environment, and quality of life should be the top priority, and this project does not align with those goals.

Sincerely,
Cherise Jesse

PUBLIC COMMENT 35

FW: Public Comment 8/26/24
Ana Sauseda, MMC
Mon 8/26/2024 12:09 PM
To:Tara Davis
Ana Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
City of Yucaipa
City Hall • 34272 Yucaipa Blvd • Yucaipa, CA 92399
Office: 909-797-2489 Ext. 230
www.yucaipa.gov
From: Angel Wang
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:33 AM
To: Ana Sauseda, MMC
Subject: Public Comment 8/26/24
Hi Ana Saucedo,
I oppose the warehouse and Pacific One Commerce Center projects to be located off Live Oak Canyon Road and Outer Hwy. 10 in the City of Yucaipa.

Thanks,
Danni Wei

PUBLIC COMMENT 36

It",
Jlronmenta...o
s
n
h A
a m
o =
;,Mlk:

AEr AM.

Green Jobs 8 Clean Communities
P.O. Box 79222
Corona, CA 92877
August 23, 2024
Benjamin Matlock
City Planner
City of Yucaipa
Re: Freeway Corridor Specif is Plan (SCH NO.2006041096) Dear Mr. Matlock:

On behalf of the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance ("GSEJA"), 1 am writing to you regarding the Freeway Corridor Specif is Plan (SCH NO.2006041096) ("Project").

GSEJA is withdrawing its comment letter and opposition to the Project. The Project's developer has addressed GSEJA's concerns about environmental mitigation.

Joe B urgeoi
Executive Di vector

PUBLIC COMMENT 37

FW: Approval of the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update and The Pacific Oaks Commerce Center
Ana Sauseda, MMC
Mon 8/26/2024 12:10 PM
To:Tara Davis
Ana Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
City of Yucaipa
City Hall • 34272 Yucaipa Blvd • Yucaipa, CA 92399
Office: 909-797-2489 Ext. 230
www.yLi aipa.gov
From: GARY GANTER
Sent: Monday, August /_o, LVL'} 7.17 HIVI
To: Ana Sauseda, MMC
Subject: Approval of the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update and The Pacific Oaks Commerce Center Gary Ganter
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for both the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update and the Pacific Oaks Commerce Center. This city initiated zoning update and warehouse project represent crucial steps forward in the growth, development, and benefit of Yucaipa; all while aligning with the city's strategic goals and offering significant benefits to our community.

Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update
The Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update is a well -conceived plan developed by the city staff and professional consultants that reflects modern planning standards which aligns with the goals outlined in the city's General Plan and reduces some significant negative impacts allowed by the current Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. Notably, the Update also reduces the total area traffic impacts to about 50% less than what is currently allowed.

This Update is designed to enhance our city's economic development and health while ensuring that growth is managed in a sustainable and organized manner. By integrating contemporary planning principles, this Update will help guide Yucaipa towards a more prosperous and well -structured future.

Pacific Oaks Commerce Center
The Pacific Oaks Commerce Center is an important part of this Update, offering a range of benefits that will positively impact the area and our community:

1. Economic Benefits: The Pacific Oaks Commerce Center will provide a substantial indirect economic boost to Yucaipa of about $150 million. The project is expected to generate up to 1,600 new jobs, contributing to local employment and providing valuable opportunities for residents work close to home.

2. Infrastructure Improvement: The development will provide significant improvements to the area infrastructure, including upgraded roads and utility services.

These upgrades will not only benefit the commerce center but also improve the overall functionality and connectivity of the area and encourage more business growth.

3. Optimal Location: The commerce center is situated in the best possible area of the city to be of the highest benefit and cause the least possible negative impact to the community — It is located at the far south of Yucaipa, south of the freeway, and far away from the main center of the community and existing residential neighborhoods.

Even more, the site is well -hidden behind 100 acres of open space and hills, ensuring that the visual and environmental impact on areas and community are minimized andmaintain the rual and natural setting and hillsides.

4. Community Amenities: The development will include three miles of walking and equestrian trails, adding recreational value and enhancing the quality of life for the community. These amenities are in line with our city's commitment to providing diverse and accessible public spaces, open space and trails.

5. Traffic Management: The Pacific Oaks Commerce Center has notably less traffic compared to what is allowed under the currently approved Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. This along with the proposed roadway improvements will help reduce congestion and maintain a smooth flow of traffic in our community.

In summary, both the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update and the Pacific Oaks Commerce Center are beneficial and important to Yucaipa's future. The Update ensures that our growth is well -planned and aligned with our city's goals, while the Commerce Center promises significant economic, infrastructure, and community benefits.

I urge the City Council to support the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update and Pacific Oaks Commerce Center by vote in favor of their approval.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Gary Ganter
Sent from my Phone

PUBLIC COMMENT 38

Oppose proposal 24-044/GPA/SPA on tonight's agenda
Jeanette Henry
Mon 8/26/2024 11:33 AM
Cc:Bobby Duncan ;Matt Garner ;Jon Thorp ;Public Comment ;Justin Beaver ;Chris Venable
Greetings,
As a resident of Dunlap acres area Yucaipa and business owner on Outer Highway 10 South in Yucaipa I am writing to express my opposition to the above -referenced Plan being voted on tonight at the City Council meeting.

I enjoy the rural atmosphere of Yucaipa. Allowing for large commercial projects such as this being proposed and more homes to be developed will effectively destroy the appeal of Yucaipa as a place to live, recreate and work. Additionally, the current freeway congestion daily already burdens Outer Highway 10, Live Oak Canyon Rd, County Line Road, and many residential streets in Dunlap Acres. The freeway entrance/exits in Calimesa are not built to withstand the current impact, let alone future with many more trucks and vehicles on the road- leading to more congestion on the streets of Yucaipa.

As a business owner, my customers and I already deal with extra congestion from the freeway rush hour and in the fall, the pumpkin patch. Adding homes and commercial ventures to the already existing traffic is a bad idea. I already often choose to travel to downtown redlands via the freeway rather than spend the time trying to slowly navigate through the traffic lights and circles of upper yucaipa to do business. I do not want another reason for myself, residents or other people to not do business in Yucaipa.

I am tired of seeing big box stores and chains inhabit our community. Lower Yucaipa boulevard has lost the charm that Upper Yucaipa Blvd has due to the second Starbucks and fast food establishments. In my own neighborhood In Dunlap acres our beautiful view of the cows grazing on the hill east of Oak Glen Rd is soon to be ruined by the a gas station, car wash and hotel. Ths development will end our star gazing via light pollution and ruin our view and the charm of our neighborhood (on another note NO ONE WAS NOTIFIED on our street Texas Drive of that project).

Further, small businesses make up half of the business in California and I would like to see more of that in our town. I personally would like to expand my business to a larger and potentially second location in Yucaipa but only want to do so if I want to continue to live and work here in Yucaipa. The current development directly behind my home and the proposed project in the freeway corridor have given me serious second thoughts.

Please accept my opposition in lieu of a personal appearance at tonights' council meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT 39

Please vote NO on warehouse plans for Live Oak Canyon Road Dawn Wright
Mon 8/26/2024 11
TaPublic Comment
To the Yucaipa City Council:

I am your close neighbor in East Redlands right near the Redlands/Yucaipa boundary near the Yucaipa Blvd. exit off of 1-10. 1 do a good bit of my shopping and overall living in Yucaipa and would like to express my strong HOPE that you please REJECT the plans for a new warehouse on Live Oak Canyon Road.

Our air quality these days is already at "very unhealthy" levels according to the Air Quality Index and our county was found to have the worst air quality in the nation, due in large part to the increased traffic congestion and diesel truck emissions association with these warehouses. As an environmental scientist and mapper, the fact that our city councils are even considering more warehouses in our area instead of mitigation efforts is extremely discouraging and belies good stewardship of the land entrusted to us. Please vote no on this proposal!
Many thanks for your consideration,
Dr. Dawn J. Wright
Dawn Wright (she/her/ella), Ph.D., NAS, NAE & GISP I Esri Chief Scientist Esri 1 380 New York St I Redlands, CA 92373 1 USA
Mobile/Text 909 362 6817 1 [email protected] I esriurl.com/scicomm esriurl.com/dawn I @deepseadawn
THE SCIENCE OF WHERE @
Esri is here to help: Disaster Response Program I GIS for Racial Equity I Coronavirus Response Resources

PUBLIC COMMENT 40

August 26, 2024 — Agenda # 10 (Freeway Corridor Specific Plan) Mr. Mayor and City Council,
I understand that our city is facing a budget deficit, but I urge you to reconsider the current plan to address this challenge by constructing warehouses and over 2,000 homes along the freeway corridor. This approach, while perhaps financially tempting, will dismantle the picturesque rural character that defines our community. We must explore alternative solutions that preserve the essence of our city rather than compromising it for short-term gains.

As a move estimator for North American Van Lines, I travel extensively throughout the region and have witnessed firsthand the expansion of massive warehouses across the Inland Empire.

The proliferation of these developments has devastated many communities, not only by damaging the environment but also by erasing natural vistas and compromising what were once healthy, vibrant areas. While such projects may indeed bring in substantial revenue through property and sales taxes, we must ask ourselves: at what cost? The impact of these warehouses extends far beyond the immediate surroundings. The increased traffic, particularly from heavy trucks, degrades air quality, damages roads, and leads to significant congestion. According to a recent transportation industry report, over 37,000 heavy and tractor -trailer truck drivers based in the Inland Empire service more than 4,000 warehouses across the inland counties. A drive along the 215 through Riverside and Perris reveals the staggering scale of this expansion, with millions of square feet of warehouses —many still empty —lining the freeway and obstructing what were once beautiful open spaces. The resulting increase in both traffic volume and travel time is undeniable.

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) clearly states that the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings will be significantly degraded by this proposed development. The report warns, "Although the majority of the City's urban areas are built out and developed with a number of buildings, structures, and hardscape improvements, future development in accordance with the General Plan update has the potential to impact the overall visual character of Yucaipa, particularly its vacant and underutilized areas, with infill and redevelopment. Thus, impacts to the existing visual character are potentially significant." This degradation of our scenic vistas is not the only concern. The EIR's findings should not be taken lightly.

Yucaipa's General Plan vision proudly declares, "Yucaipa is the Jewel of the Inland Empire.

Framed by the San Bernardino Mountains, Yucaipa's natural environment, with its cleaner air and unique topography, distinguishes its exceptional quality of life. Yucaipa is thoughtfully planned. Quality public facilities, schools, community services, and other amenities draw residents and visitors of all ages to live, work, play, and retire in Yucaipa." The current development plan threatens every aspect of this vision.

The Statement of Objectives in the General Plan asserts that the plan is guided by community values and priorities, developed with input from the City Council and the community. These objectives include preserving scenic vistas, maintaining a small-town rural character with strong

neighborhoods, ensuring the health, safety, and well-being of our residents, and fostering a spirit of community service, pride, and mutual respect. All of this will be lost, turning Yucaipa into yet another traffic -congested, warehouse -ridden area, indistinguishable from the many other overdeveloped communities throughout the Inland Empire.

Do we really want the face of Yucaipa and the first impression when travelling east on the 10 to be to be warehouses and a vast sea of homes?
Yucaipa is currently the bastion in a sea of development. I beg you to protect it as much as possible. Hopefully the City Council and Yucaipa citizens can find solutions that balance financial needs with our community's long-term well-being and identity.

Petice Huntington

PUBLIC COMMENT 41

Proposed Live Oak Canyon Warehouses
Wendy Flores
Mon 8/26/2024 12:01 PM
TaPublic Comment
I am a 40 year resident of Yucaipa. I was here before the city was incorporated. Since we've had our own city council which has provided a voice for the residents of Yucaipa it has benefited by attention to controlled responsible growth.

But recently I've seen new developments pop up where the infrastructure is not yet ready for the additional traffic it will bring.

In short this is one more irresponsibly planned development that will result in a massive number of trucks moving to and from the proposed warehouses. As a resident who uses the Live Oak exit on a regular bases to access Wildwood Canyon Road I am opposed to the building of these warehouses in Live Oak Canyon.

Respectfully,
Wendy Flores

PUBLIC COMMENT 42

To: Mayor and Honorable Councilpersons and Staff of Yucaipa From: Sherli Leonard, executive director for Redlands Conservancy Re: Proposed update to the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Date: August 26, 2024
Vast acres of undeveloped open space still exist between the inland area's densely developed areas and the deserts to the east, along the 1-10 and 60 corridors. The land is largely flat, and very inviting to distribution center developers who are in a position to borrow money and offer indecent (hence, irresistible) prices to long-time land owners. Resulting developments bring on heavy big rig traffic and commensurate diesel -exhaust pollution, unsightly monolithic concrete structures, and the loss of any there -there —the region becomes just another ugly place.

Professional business journals predict that the warehouse "movement" in this region will significantly taper off in the near future, and those warehouses that are currently in the queue for approvals, or are in the construction process, or are ready for a user, will have a diminished chance of becoming occupied. As an example, a two -million square foot warehouse development on Cherry Valley Blvd was finished and ready for the 1,000 truck deliveries and pick-ups each day in January 2023 — 20 months ago, yet remains unoccupied with no apparent opening date. Perhaps that situation results from the buildings not being fully permitted and approved for occupancy, or from a failure to find a user — I'm not in a position to say.

I urge you to consider the irreplaceable value of the unique landscapes that Yucaipa enjoys, and to protect them — no other community in the southern California area can claim these benefits. They make this town and region special; warehouses do nothing positive for the area, not even jobs. That Cherry Valley Blvd development? Where are the hundreds of jobs that were promised? By the time that place is opened, if it is opened, it will be fully -automated.

I understand that the proposed FCSP actually reduces the amount of square footage of regional commercial uses, but the prospect of any more empty warehouses, logistics centers, and/or distribution centers is disheartening and repulsive.

Thank you for your attention.

Sherli Leonard

PUBLIC COMMENT 43

26 August 2024
Public comment for Yucaipa City Council Meeting
Agenda Item #10: Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update (Case No. 24-044/GPA/SPA) & Pacific Oaks Commerce Center (21-196/CUP/ARC/TPM)
Dear Yucaipa City Council members,
I am a biologist, photographer, and long-time resident of the Inland Empire, writing to express deep concern about the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan and its proposed update, as well as about the Pacific Oaks Commerce Center.

The projects proposed in these plans would make the Yucaipa area less safe and less appealing for residents of Yucaipa and surrounding communities; the developments promise, but are unlikely to deliver, an economic boon to Yucaipa; and they would destroy open space that is crucial for residents' quality of life and for survival of endangered and threatened wildlife.

In fact, these developments would create a cultural and biological dead zone of the kind that already afflicts much of the Inland Empire.

Please consider the following points:

1. The FCSP plan makes the area less safe for local residents and visitors.

On a local level, the project area already has intense traffic that slows commutes and makes the roads dangerous for residents of Yucaipa and Redlands.

A massive new development of warehouses and dwelling units here will create a traffic nightmare on already overloaded roads, many of which are already in serious need of repair and preventive maintenance. Consider Live Oak Canyon Road: It is threatened by disastrous undercutting, because Yucaipa Creek regularly floods with climate -change driven downpours.

Increased local traffic —along with emissions from idling, additional accidents, and attendant heartbreak and frustration —is only one set of health and safety problems that would be exacerbated by this development.

The huge warehouses in this development would be serviced by large diesel trucks, which would pour additional diesel fumes, particulate matter and other pollutants into the Inland Empire's air, already some of the nation's worst. Polluted air increases the incidence of asthma and cancer, at a tremendous cost to communities ill-equipped to handle it.

Trucks traveling to and from warehouses lighted around the clock would also increase noise and light pollution; add to the heat-island effect; and contribute to a generally industrialized and degraded quality of life in the area, now a peaceful, rural community.

As of 2021, the Inland Empire already had more than a billion square feet of warehouses, according to a Los Angeles Times Op -Ed by Robert Redford Conservancy director Dr. Susan A. Phillips (attached). Adding new warehouses in Yucaipa would be a huge and unnecessary burden to place on Yucaipa residents, especially since they would not directly benefit from the development.

2. The FCSP plan may not provide the economic benefits it promises —and warehouses have enduring costs. Please see the recent Los Angeles Times article "The Inland Empire's Once -unstoppable Warehouse Industry Falls Into a Slump" (attached). The warehouse -building boom, which looked like it was going to last forever, is now experiencing a crash.

The article states that: industrial building vacancies are up and rents are down; warehousing and storage jobs in the Inland Empire shrank last year for the first time in two decades; and nationwide, logistics business are cutting back because of declines in freight volume. In recent months, warehouses and distribution centers have shut down in the Inland Empire cities of Rialto, Fontana, Jurupa Valley, Perris and Chino, among others.

Warehouse -related jobs are often temporary, seasonal, and near minimum -wage. So they do not bring robust job growth or financial stability to workers or the regions that host them.

And once built, massive warehouses create ongoing costs, including safety issues, water - runoff issues, and eyesores for the communities that host them. These costs are incurred, even when the buildings stand empty, as many are now because of the Inland Empire's current oversupply.

3. The FCSP plan focuses on preserving rural views from the freeway, not on protecting residents' quality of life.

A main concern about these plans is that they clearly undermine a key City of Yucaipa objective: "Maintain the impression of Yucaipa as a quality rural community." [See page 87 of the City Council agenda packet for 8/26/24.]
The plan is geared toward preserving viewsheds for passersby on the freeway, rather than toward protecting open space and quality rural living for the people of Yucaipa and surrounding communities.

We might still see the mountains from the freeway, but what about experiencing the area's hills, riparian areas, open views, and trails, as has already been so brilliantly achieved in the Crafton Hills?

4. Live Oak Canyon in Yucaipa is a high -quality rural area.

The area being proposed for 1,200+-acres of development is the gateway to Live Oak Canyon, a stunningly beautiful, pastoral, wildlife- and history -rich zone that is one of the most culturally and ecologically intact regions in the Inland Empire. This place also has some of the darkest night skies and most beautiful views in the entire Inland Empire.

Unlike regions further west, which are nearly monolithic stands of cookie -cutter homes and unending warehouses, Live Oak Canyon is a unique treasure and worth preserving in its current rural state. The Live Oak Canyon area is also a biologically diverse wildlife corridor where endangered Southern California mountain lions and many other species travel and live.

5. The FCSP plan would destroy the Live Oak Canyon area, with regard to residents' quality of life and endangered wildlife and other species' survival. Amidst a huge development, the current plan sets aside just a small percentage of the project area for open space and riparian areas. This small area is not large or diverse enough to leave open space for people or a biologically and ecologically functional landscape for wild animals and plants.

Such a development will choke off an already narrowed wildlife corridor, reducing the survival of the Southern California mountain lion and other endangered and threatened wild species. Please see the attached letter from the Center for Biological Diversity, responding to another proposed development in the Live Oak Canyon area.

People come from all over the state to hike, cycle and explore in Live Oak Canyon —and to shop, eat and stay in Yucaipa and nearby communities. Adding a massive development to the eastern end of Live Oak Canyon would destroy its appeal for these kinds of visitors — and erase their economic contributions to the local economy.

Given the list of safety, quality of life and ecological issues with the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan, its update, and the Pacific Oaks Commerce Center, please vote against allowing these developments to proceed.

This beautiful rural part of the Yucaipa community deserves a better plan —one that takes into account safety and quality of life for local residents; the current economic slump in warehouse income; and the unique views and ecology of this beautiful area. Thank you for considering my comments.

Carol Blaney, MS, MS
Claremont, CA

8/26/24, 6:57 AM The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times Cos .Angeles Mmes

BUSINESS
The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump
Mauricio Perez, 33, a UPS truck driver who has been at the company for 15 years, has seen the effects of the logistics industry's rise and fall on the Inland Empire. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times) By Don Lee and Samantha Masunaga
Feb. 21, 2024 3 AM PT
For years the growth of warehousing in the Inland Empire was relentless. At the confluence of port -bound freeways and rail spurs along the eastern edge of Los Angeles' sprawl, box -like fulfillment centers popped up in business parks by the millions of https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 1 /12

8/26/24, 6:57 AM The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times square feet. They were an economic engine, a bringer of jobs, a shortener of commutes, and a workhorse during the pandemic.

But now that's come to a halt — bringing uncertainty for thousands of workers and an industry that has been an economic bellwether for the region.

After the COVID-19 pandemic slammed the nation in spring 2020, the Inland Empire recovered all of the jobs it lost by the summer of 2021- more than a year ahead of Orange County and almost two years earlier than Los Angeles County. Despite pandemic restrictions, the area's machinery of storing and transporting goods kicked into high gear, outpacing better -paying and more glamorous sectors in the state, such as entertainment and tech.

But the tables have turned in the last year. Warehousing and storage jobs in the Inland Empire shrank for the first time in more than two decades. Once -booming truck transportation has been down since early in the summer, and the area's wholesale trade employment is dropping fast, according to year -over -year data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industrial building vacancies are up and rents are down.

Logistics businesses nationally are cutting back amid declines in freight volume. United Parcel Service said it would shed 12,000 jobs worldwide over the next several months after more than a $9-billion drop in revenue last year. A company spokesman said it didn't have a breakdown of where those layoffs would hit, but UPS employs tens of thousands of workers in California.
"Everything is different," said Victor Ramirez, a Pomona resident who's worked in warehousing for about 20 years. Speaking in Spanish, he remembered when times were better — much better.

The 59-year-old recalled not only getting full 4o-hour workweeks in the past but bonuses during the pandemic. These days, things have slowed so much at his current https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 2/12

8/26/24, 6:57 AM The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times place of employment, a warehouse that builds pallets, that he has taken on additional work as an Uber driver and canvasser for nonprofits.
"One job isn't nearly enough," Ramirez said.

With related business services and real estate also down, the Inland Empire's overall job growth last year averaged just 1.2%, about half the rate for Southern California and the state as a whole. "We could be the weak link," said John Husing, the region's longtime economist based in Redlands.

BUSINESS

FOR SUBSCRIBERS
They earn nearly $200,000. Can they afford to have kids in SoCal? Feb. 15, 2024
The pandemic -induced surge of consumer purchases, transportation gridlock and prolonged labor negotiations at the ports all played a role in disrupting the flow of goods and exacerbating an oversupply of warehouses. But even before COVID, the industry was feeling increasing strains from environmental regulations, disputes over independent trucking and rising operating costs that have pushed more businesses to leave the state.

The Inland Empire's troubles come as the U.S. economy faces an expected slowdown and the tech sector continues to shed jobs. California's tourism industry, another big economic engine, hasn't fully recovered, and high interest rates have taken a bite out of the housing market. All of that has left the state trailing the nation in job growth. The latest unemployment rate statewide, as well as for the Inland Empire, was 5.1% in December, well above the U.S. figure of 3.7%.
"Right now I am not an optimist on this economy," Husing said. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 3/12

8/26/24, 6:57 AM The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times The long shadow of logistics
Thanks to lower housing costs than in Los Angeles and Orange counties, the Inland Empire's population has been growing for decades. Over the years, many residents found work in a logistics industry that has surged along with the region. Since 2000, the Inland Empire's population has increased by 45% to 4.7 million last year. And jobs during that period have jumped even faster, up 68% to 1.7 million. That's about as many as in all of Orange County.

A lot of that came on the back of the logistics industry, which got a big boost from soaring trade with China. Today, about 40% of all containers entering the U.S. from Asia are handled by the ports of L.A. and Long Beach. More than 37,00o heavy and tractor - trailer truck drivers based in the Inland Empire haul that cargo to rails and some 4,000 warehouses that are scattered across Riverside and San Bernardino counties' 27,000 square miles, double the land area of the next largest metropolitan area, Phoenix - Scottsdale in Arizona.

The growing number of jobs brought the promise of greater economic security- and quality of life as more residents were able to get jobs closer to home. But the growth of the logistics industry has exacerbated environmental concerns in communities with some of the least -healthful air in the United States. And analysts say too many households in the area are struggling to make ends meet as earnings have not kept up with rising costs.

Sheheryar Kaoosji, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Warehouse Worker Resource Center in Ontario, said many logistics jobs are still too close to minimum wage, are temporary or seasonal and are often quick to disappear when the economy softens.
"The average worker is always in a position of uncertainty," he said. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 4/12

8/26/24, 6:57 AM The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times For all occupations, Inland Empire workers made $27.96 an hour on average in 2022, the latest according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is compared with $33.43 for L.A. and Orange counties combined, and $45.37 for the San Francisco Bay Area.

Wages in the Inland Empire lag behind California and other areas Average annual pay
California
Inland Empire
..... $84,49.6
1 ..................................... 1
$53,106
2001 2022
L.A. County
2001
2022
Ventura County Orange County
San Diego County San Francisco Bay Area
Wage figures include privately owned establishments. The San Francisco Bay Area is represented by the San Jose -San Francisco -Oakland Combined Statistical Area, which includes the nine Bay Area counties as well as Santa Cruz and San Benito counties.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Sean Greene LOS ANGELES TIMES

ADVERTISEMENT
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 5/12

8/26/24, 6:57 AM The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times —. X
More than 270,000 people in the Inland Empire work in transportation and material moving occupations. Their median hourly pay in 2022: $21.13. Stockers and order fillers made even less — $19.o1 an hour, on average.

California's statewide minimum wage for larger employers was $15 an hour in 2022. It went up to $16 this year, and for fast-food workers it'll go to $2o an hour in April. "It's a good starter job, but as far as long-term, a lot of people think they're going to do it for life," said Byron Williams, 48, of Moreno Valley, referring to logistics jobs at Amazon.

Williams once worked at Amazon, though on the finance side of logistics. The e- commerce behemoth operates more than a dozen distribution facilities in the Inland Empire. Williams said he left because of the pay. "It's not a for -life position." The new boom and bust
Going through boom and bust cycles has been part and parcel of life in the Inland Empire. The area tumbled during the early 199os downturn that was marked by defense cuts and overbuilding. And it was one of the hardest hit by the subprime mortgage crisis that brought the Great Recession in 2007-09.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 6/12

8/26/24, 6:57 AM The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times The pandemic, at first, seemed to be an exception. The Inland Empire's economy quickly rebounded thanks to surging orders for all kinds of stuff from people stuck in their homes. Rounds of government stimulus checks added fuel to consumer spending.

ADVERTISEMENT
But in the last year the industry suddenly fell back, in part as consumer spending shifted more to services, such as travel and entertainment , and less on things such as cars and groceries. High inflation also was a factor, as was the unusual situation at the ports.

Inland Empire logistics job growth stalled in 2023
The logistics industry has boosted the Inland Empire's economy for decades, growing alongside the region's population. Now the industry is hitting a downturn.

Employees, in thousands
Wnrchmicino R, c+nraac
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 7/12

8/26/24, 6:57 AM The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times 150 M V v�V 130,500 jobs
♦ 2% from previous year
100 _...........................

Wholesale trade
66,000
50 ... ---- .... ♦ 4.1%
I
Truck transportation
34,2000
♦ 0.1%
0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Sean Greene LOS ANGELES TIMES
Early in the pandemic, dozens of ships were lined up at sea waiting to berth in L.A. and Long Beach ports. When the logjam eased, merchandise flooded into the region, prompting wholesalers and distributors to double down on warehouses and workers. "We couldn't hire fast enough," said Jeff Baldassari, who until August was president of U.S. Rubber Recycling in Colton, which got a burst of pandemic orders of rubber mats for in -home gyms and other uses. "Now the party ended, and it's the hangover the next day," he said.

Drawn -out labor talks with longshoremen that lasted more than a year prompted some companies to divert cargo to the East and Gulf Coast ports.

In the last few months, warehouses and distribution centers have shut down in Rialto, Fontana, Jurupa Valley, Perris and Chino, among other cities, according to WARN Act filings with the state. During the summer, the bankrupt trucking firm Yellow Corp. shuttered several terminals in the Inland Empire that eliminated about 1,000 jobs. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 8/12

8/26/24, 6:57 AM The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times The downturn in logistics has spread to other industries too, including finance and real estate. San Francisco -based Prologis, the world's biggest warehouse developer and a major player in the Inland Empire, reported a 7% drop in rents in the fourth quarter for Southern California. The company said its construction pipeline in the region was half of what it was at year-end 2022.

During a recent conference call with analysts, Prologis' chief executive, Hamid Moghadam, said it's always been difficult for retailers and wholesalers to correctly forecast demand and manage inventories. "They're schizophrenic. They always have too much or too little. You can never get it right."

ADVERTISEMENT
�x ❑ r��titi 1 ,* 1
w 4
4 Y

BUSINESS
REI to close its Santa Monica store, the retailer's second move out of a bustling city center this month
Feb. 16, 2024
Still, he and other developers said they are bullish on the future. The logistics business in Southern California is getting back on its feet after the pandemic, they said. And key drivers of growth remain intact — e-commerce, global trade, demand for larger, more https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 9/12

8/26/24, 6:57 AM The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times efficient distribution centers, said Iddo Benzeevi, chief executive of Highland Fairview, a developer working on a massive logistics center in Moreno Valley.

But that will also bring more consolidation, he said. Older, smaller facilities will get phased out, and payrolls aren't likely to grow as fast as before. In the long term, logistics jobs may require higher skills and pay better as facilities become more automated and employ technologies such as driverless trucks — but they could employ fewer workers.

Mauricio Perez, 33, a UPS truck driver who has been at the company for 15 years. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times) (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times)
For truck driver Mauricio Perez, a 15-year veteran at UPS who lives in Rancho Cucamonga, it's the near term that worries him.

Work usually slows after the busy Christmas season, but he said this year looks different. During the holidays, Perez saw 53400t trailers stacked to the brim with items https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 10/12

8/26/24, 6:57 AM
The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times and packages to be delivered. Nowadays, 28-foot trailers have barely two or three pallets inside.

What's more, he said that the work -bidding process at UPS suggests that a lot more truckers in the Inland Empire are likely to be on a more flexible schedule that can vary week to week or shunted to the package hub, where they'd work fewer hours. That means drivers who don't get assigned work may end up taking a "layoff week," in which they won't get paid unless they cash out vacation time or accrue pension benefits.

ADVERTISEMENT
"It's not looking like the economy is going to get any better in the next few months," Perez said. "We just gotta brace ourselves for the worst." More to Read
Southern California's jobs picture is improving; glimmer of hope seen in Hollywood employment
July 19, 2024
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 11 /12

8/26/24, 6:57 AM The Inland Empire's once -unstoppable warehousing industry falls into a slump - Los Angeles Times Gene Seroka: Sultan of the supply chain
June 23, 2024
`Who's going to live here?' What happens when an e-commerce - warehouse takes out your neighborhood
June 5, 2024
Don Lee
� �i
Don Lee writes economic stories out of Washington, D.C. Since joining the Los Angeles Times in 1992, he has served as the Shanghai bureau chief and in various editing and reporting roles in California. Lee previously worked at the Kansas City Star. He is a native of Seoul, Korea, and graduated from the University of Chicago.

Samantha Masunaga
Samantha Masunaga is a business reporter for the Los Angeles Times. She's worked at the paper since 2014.

Copyright © 2024, Los Angeles Times I Terms of Service I Privacy Policy I CA Notice of Collection I Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-02-21 /inland -empires -logistics -warehouse -trucking -economy -layoff -downturn 12/12

8/26/24, 6:51 AM Op -Ed: We mapped the warehouse takeover of the Inland Empire - Los Angeles Times Cos .Angeles Mmes

OPINION
Op -Ed: We mapped the warehouse takeover of the Inland Empire.

The results are overwhelming
A mass of warehouses in Redlands in 2021. Collectively, warehouses in the Inland Empire cover more than a billion square feet. (Roger Kisby / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
By Susan A. Phillips
May 1, 2022 3:10 AM PT
Over the last 20 years, I've watched open land and farmland in the Inland Empire become a gridlocked sea of warehouses. These giant boxes have worsened traffic, air quality, cancer rates and chronic health problems in the region and have cemented poverty here. The industry once touted as a blue-collar miracle is instead filled with https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-01/inland-empire-warehouse-growth-map-environment 1/7

8/26/24, 6:51 AM Op -Ed: We mapped the warehouse takeover of the Inland Empire - Los Angeles Times temp jobs rife with health and safety issues, wage theft, little job security and a future in which robotic workers are predicted to reign supreme.

The Inland Empire is at a breaking point. More than a dozen groups throughout its vast 27,000-square-mile region are attempting to pass moratoriums on warehouse construction. But conservative politics and development money continue to win out.

City councils in what are known as "diesel death zones" routinely sacrifice the health of residents for economic benefit in areas that often have Black and Latino populations.

Last year the Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability at Pitzer College, which I oversee, began creating an animated map of warehouse growth in the Inland Empire that reaches back to 1975. Recently published, the map makes warehouses in the Inland Empire look like the spread of a disease. What began at a couple of World War II military logistics sites in San Bernardino and Mira Loma, a town in Riverside County, has grown into a behemoth with millions of square feet of warehouse space.

Strategic land acquisitions near airports and rail yards created an Inland Empire logistics hub that is visible from space. By the 198os, agriculture was considered a relic industry and the Inland Empire region had been deemed to be "dirt cheap_, The abundance of land combined with a large immigrant population of low educational attainment made for a narrative that warehousing was a natural fit. Besides, the nation's largest port complex is an acceptable drive away. With the emergence of online shopping in the 199os, warehouse construction began to skyrocket.

Forty percent of the nation's goods now travel through the Inland Empire, mainly in diesel trucks but also via trains and planes. Their combined emissions caused the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario area to have the worst air quality- in the United States as of 2019. This means we have more days of high ozone and particulate matter exposure than most places in the country.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-01/inland-empire-warehouse-growth-map-environment 2/7

8/26/24, 6:51 AM Op -Ed: We mapped the warehouse takeover of the Inland Empire - Los Angeles Times

CALIFORNIA
Southern California warehouse boom a huge source of pollution. Regulators are fighting back
May 5, 2021
The continuing warehouse construction despite these harms inspired students and staff at the Redford Conservancy to create a map that local groups, planners and residents could use to advocate for change in their own communities. After contacting San Bernardino County and Riverside County to obtain parcel data, we worked with a geographic information systems specialist to develop a mapping method — and then realized the data were flawed. In some cases, we couldn't show square -footage or indicate construction dates.

Even so, the collective footprint is astonishingly massive: As of 2021, the warehouses of the Inland Empire accounted for more than a billion square feet. There are more than 3,000 warehouses in San Bernardino County and nearly a thousand more in Riverside County. They cover almost 37 contiguous square miles. This growth shows no signs of slowing.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-01/inland-empire-warehouse-growth-map-environment 3/7

8/26/24, 6:51 AM Op -Ed: We mapped the warehouse takeover of the Inland Empire - Los Angeles Times N �® Estimated Warehouse Distribution
in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties
-� San
Bernardino
Rancho '
Upland Cucamonga Fontana Rialto Highland
Montclair
J '$—
Linda
Colton Loma
.'`Ontario -
Gra .d Terraced Redlands Yucaipa
Chino ' . Jurupa Valley
Chino Hills
Eastvale
Corona
Riverside
Moreno Valley
Legend
Interstate Highways Distribution in 2021
0 an Jacinto
Cities
0 Counties Area Occupied by Warehouses: 1,041,229,079 ft2 Warehouses �r
0 War
5 10 15 Miles Lal Total Number of Warehouses: 4,299
II l I Ili lI `Blsirpre I I X,
There are more than 3,000 warehouses in San Bernardino County and nearly a thousand more in Riverside County. (Graham Brady / Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College)
Today, each new warehouse — each new dot on the map — represents a new group of people struggling to have their voices heard. Senior citizens in Banning. Community members in Fontana, Colton or San Bernardino. Concerned neighbors in nearby Bloomington. Residents in Moreno Valley. Farmers and families in Ontario.

In the semirural area of Bloomington, for example, a 3-million-square-foot Bloomington Business Park Specific Plan has been proposed adjacent to three schools.

It would require razing 20o homes.

Ontario, with about 625 warehouses, is already one of the areas in the state most burdened by pollution. The recently approved South Ontario Logistics Center Specific https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-01/inland-empire-warehouse-growth-map-environment 4/7

8/26/24, 6:51 AM Op -Ed: We mapped the warehouse takeover of the Inland Empire - Los Angeles Times Plan is just one of several proposed warehouses that will pave over some of the last prime farmland in the area. The land could be used for regenerative agriculture as well as innovative housing models or net -zero energy communities.

The revenue warehouses generate almost guarantees their construction despite significant environmental and health impacts and the counter -efforts of community members and environmental groups.

As it stands, a major disconnect exists between how individual warehouses are approved and how their regional impact is evaluated. This makes planning for a climate - challenged future difficult, if not impossible.

The Inland Empire is economically overdependent on the movement of goods. Such dependency on a single economic sector leaves the region vulnerable to catastrophic events at home and abroad. Because warehouses and ports are connected to locations around the globe, a terrorist attack or a tsunami can occur far away yet have devastating consequences locally. The countless smaller supply chain disruptions that have occurred since the pandemic will likely be amplified by sea -level rise and extreme weather patterns in the coming years.

It would be misguided to continue to invest in logistics infrastructure in the Inland Empire, regardless of the potential financial gains.

Warehouses bring millions of dollars to cities, allowing them to build infrastructure as well as providing the fiscal capacity for additional projects. Environmental impact reports for these projects universally describe significant and unavoidable environmental detriments, whether that means greenhouse gas emissions, increases in the urban heat island effect, habitat destruction, loss of farmland, increased traffic or worsening air quality.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-01/inland-empire-warehouse-growth-map-environment 5/7

8/26/24, 6:51 AM Op -Ed: We mapped the warehouse takeover of the Inland Empire - Los Angeles Times It's a slow form of violence, like a Love Canal in the air. The Inland Empire has always captured smog. Residents and community groups have argued for an indirect source rule that makes warehouses responsible for the pollution generated by trucks that visit their docks.

Aside from that, the battle is seemingly waged in a hundred places at once, with little room for coalition -building despite widespread regional opposition to warehouse growth.

CALIFORNIA
As `diesel death zones' spread, pollution regulators place new rules on warehouse industry
May 7, 2021
The airshed is our last commons. To protect it, existing warehouse infrastructure should be made environmentally efficient through solar and electrification. New construction of warehouses should be minimized if not eliminated. Community participation in the planning process should become a priority.

Creating a regional commitment to the principles of national and state legislation to conserve 30% of open and working lands, and coastal waters, by 2030 could make the Inland Empire a keystone region for nature -based solutions to climate change.

Our mapping project documents the warehouse takeover of the Inland Empire and, indirectly, the pressing need for the greater community to come together and find a more sustainable way forward.

Susan A. Phillips is professor of environmental analysis and director of the Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability at Pitzer College.

More to Read
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-01/inland-empire-warehouse-growth-map-environment 6/7

8/26/24, 6:51 AM Op -Ed: We mapped the warehouse takeover of the Inland Empire - Los Angeles Times Opinion: My business won't flee California like SpaceX or Chevron. But we do want some changes
Aug. 16, 2024
Editorial: How to end SoCal's smog streak? Slash pollution from railways and ports
Aug. 2, 2024
Opinion: Southern Californians shaped the nation's biggest political problems. We can solve them too
July 26, 2024
Copyright © 2024, Los Angeles Times I Terms of Service I Privacy Policy I CA Notice of Collection I Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-01/inland-empire-warehouse-growth-map-environment 7/7

11[1�M CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Because life is good.

January 24, 2023
Sent via email
City of Redlands Planning Commission
c/o Jeanne Donaldson & Catherine Lin
35 Cajon Street, Suite 2
Redlands, CA 92373
jonaldson a(-cityofredlands. org
clin(a)cityofredlands. org
Re: Supplemental EIR for Mistretta Canyon Partners Tentative Tract Map No. 18845 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1036 (Planning Commission Meeting Item No.

4.A)
Dear Chair Frasher and Members of the Planning Commission:

We are writing to urge you to deny approval of an extension of time for Tentative Tract Map No. 18845 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1036 proposed by Mistretta Canyon Partners, LLC (the "Project"). The Project was many conceived years ago before the threats facing Southern California mountain lions were fully understood or documented. New information which did not exist when the EIR was approved in 2005 has become available demonstrating that the mountain lions in the Project area are facing an extinction vortex, and that the Project will further degrade connectivity and drive these vulnerable populations closer to extinction. The Staff Report's claim that "there have not been any changes to environmental conditions in the surrounding area" is simply incorrect (see Staff Report at p. 7). As documented below, this claim also is inconsistent with the array of studies demonstrating the plight of mountain lions in the Project area and the critical need to avoid further degrading habitat and wildlife connectivity.

A supplemental EIR will allow study of how the Project will impact these vulnerable mountain lions, which are now provisionally listed under the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA"). A supplemental EIR will also allow for consideration and adoption of mitigation measures and alternatives such as avoiding development in sensitive areas and restoring and enhancing crossings in the Project area.

A. Background on the Center for Biological Diversity
The Center for Biological Diversity ("Center") is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center and its members have worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Southern California.

Arizona. California. Colorado. Florida . N. Carolina. Nevada . New Mexico. New York. Oregon . Washington, D.C.-La Paz, Mexico Biological Divers ity.org

B. New Information Regarding the Plight of Southern California Mountain Lions Has Emerged Since the EIR Was Certified in 2005.

1. CEQA and CESA Requires Analysis and Mitigation for Impacts to Mountain Lions.

Relevant authorities require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR in these circumstances. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") states that a subsequent or supplemental EIR may be required when either (1) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report or (2) new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166.)
New information that mountain lions in the Project Area are facing an extinction vortex fits within both of these categories. Mountain lions in the Project area are part of the San Gabriel/San Bernardino mountains population, which were granted "candidacy status" in April 2020 under the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA"), such that they are afforded the same protections as other CESA-listed species. CEQA requires a "mandatory finding of significance" when a project has the potential to impact a CESA-listed species. (CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(1); Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.AppAth 777, 792 fn. 12.) And such a finding triggers a duty to consider and adopt all feasible alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) Moreover, under CESA, the City may not approve projects that could jeopardize the continued existence of these populations or result in destruction of essential habitat (Fish & Game Code § 2053(a)) and agencies must require that appropriate mitigation measures be implemented for projects that could destroy mountain lion habitat or impair connectivity (Fish & Game Code § 2054).

2. Recent Scientific Studies Reveal That Mountain Lions in the Project Area are Threatened and the Project will Further Harm This Population.

By way of background, continued habitat loss and fragmentation has led to 10 genetically isolated populations within California (Gustafson et al., 2018, 2021). There are six identified mountain lion populations in the Southern California and Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit ("ESU"), and several are facing an extinction vortex due to high levels of inbreeding, low genetic diversity, high human -caused mortality rates from car strikes on roads, depredation kills, rodenticide poisoning, poaching, disease, and increased human -caused wildfires (Benson, Mahoney, et al., 2016; Benson et al., 2019; Ernest et al., 2003, 2014; Gustafson et al., 2018; Riley et al., 2014; Vickers et al., 2015).

The effective population sizes of the six populations within the ESU range from 4 to 56.6 (Benson et al., 2019; Gustafson et al., 2018). An effective population size (Ne) of 50 is assumed to be sufficient to prevent inbreeding depression over five generations, while an effective population size of 500 is considered sufficient to retain evolutionary potential in perpetuity (Frankham et al., 2014; Traill et al., 2010). Five of the six populations are well below that minimum threshold of 50 and none have an effective population size anywhere near 500, which indicates that these populations are at serious risk of becoming extirpated. Low genetic diversity and high human -caused mortalities are driving local mountain lions in the Santa Monica mountains towards an extinction vortex (Gustafson et al., 2018). Scientists predict that the January 24, 2023

Page 2 ends

Santa Monica and Santa Ana populations, with estimated effective population sizes of 6 and 4, respectively, are likely to become extinct within 50 years if gene flow with other mountain lion populations is not improved (Benson, Mahoney, et al., 2016; Benson et al., 2019; Gustafson et al., 2018). This is detailed in the Center's petition to the California Fish and Game Commission to protect Southern California and Central Coast mountain lions under the California Endangered Species Act (Yap et al., 2019).

The Project area is located between the San Gabriel/San Bernardino (SGSB) population and the Eastern Peninsular Range (EPR) population, and the Santa Ana Mountains (SAM) population is nearby to the southwest. Scientists have documented physical and reproductive signs of inbreeding depression in local mountain lions (from the EPR and Santa Ana mountains, as well as the nearby Central Coast South [i.e. Santa Monica Mountains]) due to being boxed in by roads and development (Huffineyer et al., 2021). Researchers have found that, of the California mountain lion subpopulations, the SGSB population has the smallest effective population size and the smallest area of available habitat (Dellinger et al., 2020; Gustafson et al., 2021). Scientists suggest that the SGSB population "may be approaching levels of genetic drift and inbreeding similar to the well -monitored and genetically depauperate Santa Ana and Central Coast South populations (Ernest et al., 2014; Gustafson et al., 2017; Riley et al., 2014)" (Gustafson et al., 2021), which are predicted to have a 99% chance of becoming locally extinct within 50 years if inbreeding depression continues. (Benson et al., 2019). This emphasizes the importance of protecting the remaining SGSB population, specifically through maintaining and enhancing connectivity among and between the subpopulations.

Numerous studies highlight the impacts of human activities on mountain lions. For example, Shilling et al. (2019) reported 299 observed roadkill mountain lions throughout the state from 2015 to 2018, but these deaths are likely underreported. Former CDFW biologist Justin Dellinger estimates there could be 200 puma deaths on roads every year (Price, 2020).

And a recent UC Davis special report identified a 58% reduction in mountain lion road mortalities after a 71 % decrease in road use due to COVID-19 pandemic "stay-at-home" orders (Nguyen et al., 2020). This report highlights how roads and traffic are deadly barriers to puma movement and gene flow.

In addition to causing direct mortality in pumas, human activities also alter these large carnivores' behavior in ways that likely further impede important movement and gene flow. For example, Smith et al. (2017) found that mountain lions are so fearful of humans and noise generated by humans that they will abandon the carcass of a deer and forgo the feeding opportunity just to avoid humans.' The study concluded that even "non -consumptive forms of human disturbance may alter the ecological role of large carnivores by affecting the link between these top predators and their prey" (Smith et al., 2017). In addition, mountain lions have been found to respond fearfully upon hearing human vocalizations, avoiding the area and moving more cautiously when hearing humans (Smith et al., 2017; Suraci et al., 2019).

Other studies have demonstrated that mountain lion behavior is impacted when exposed to other evidence of human presence, such as lighting or vehicles/traffic (Smith et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017a; Wilmers et al., 2013). In addition, preliminary results from a study by researchers at UC Davis and University of Southern California, as well as those by other ' See also Sean Greene, "How a fear of humans affects the lives of California's mountain lions," Los Angeles Times (June 27, 2017), available at https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn- pumas-human-noise-20170627-story.html
January 24, 2023

Page 3 ends

researchers, suggest that the light, noise, and other aspects of highways can have negative impacts on wildlife numbers and diversity near the highways (Shilling, 2020; Vickers, 2020). The researchers found a significant difference between species richness and species type (mammals, including mountain lions), with lower richness and fewer species at crossing structures compared to background areas 1 km away from the roads (Shilling, 2020). They also found that as traffic noises surpassed 60 dBC, the number of visits by small to large mammals decreased and most of the species in their study avoid traffic noise (Shilling, 2020). It is clear that different species have variable sensitivities to noise and light associated with development and transportation infrastructure; this can lead to changes in species distributions near roads and development, which can have ecosystem -level impacts (e.g., Suraci et al. 2019). Thus, roads, traffic, and development have negative impacts on puma survival and behavior, which can reduce the genetic health of populations and ultimately diminish their chances of long-term survival.

Yovovich et al. (2020) further documented the impacts of human activities on mountain lions in the Santa Cruz Mountains, specifically on communication and reproductive behaviors important for their survival. Males use scrapes to delineate territories as well as attract potential mates (Allen et al., 2015, 2016), and the males in the study preferred to use relatively flat areas away from human influence as scrape habitat (Yovovich et al., 2020). Similarly, when nursing females (with kittens less than 8 weeks old) shrank their home ranges to an average of 9 km2 while their young were most vulnerable, they also selected undeveloped lands away from human disturbance, opting for habitat with protective cover and sufficient water and prey availability (Yovovich et al., 2020). The loss of adequate undisturbed communication and nursery habitat could disrupt important communication and reproductive behaviors that facilitate social structure and overall survival. The authors predicted that future development within the Santa Cruz Mountains could reduce nursery and communication habitat by 20% and 50%, respectively, while further fragmenting the landscape. Such patterns likely extend to other regions within the proposed Southern California/Central Coast ESU.

Other studies document nuanced sensitivities of California mountain lions to human presence, activities, and infrastructure while also providing glimpses of how humans and mountain lions can safely coexist. Pumas in the Santa Cruz Mountains were found to less likely occur in areas with higher development densities (i.e., areas with greater road and/or building densities) (Nickel et al., 2020). This aligns with other studies that have demonstrated that mountain lion avoidance behavior increases with greater development densities (Smith et al., 2015, 2019; Wang et al., 2017a; Wilmers et al., 2013). In addition, Nickel et al. (2020) found that in open space areas where recreational activities are allowed (e.g., hiking, biking), mountain lions generally avoided human presence and became more nocturnal as human presence increased. Similar shifts in puma behavior in response to human activities have been documented in other studies (Lucas, 2020; Smith et al., 2017; Suraci et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2015, 2017a). There is often a cost of these behavioral shifts, such as increased energy expenditure that could potentially reduce fitness. Studies have found that pumas expend more energy by increasing their kill rates in high housing density areas (Smith et al., 2015) and having higher nighttime activity in developed areas (Wang et al., 2017b). This is further supported by a study that found mountain lions increased movement efficiency during the Covid-19 shutdown, which suggests that they incur energetic costs by increasing movement and space -use when avoiding human activity (Benson et al., 2021).

In a study conducted from 2002 to 2019 in the Santa Monica Mountains, (Benson, Sikich, et al., 2020) found high human -caused mortality rates in puma adults and high January 24, 2023

Page 4 ends

intraspecific mortalities among subadults. Most known causes of death among adults and subadults (14/20) were directly human -caused: vehicle strikes, rodenticide poisoning, poaching, and wildfire. The remaining six known causes of deaths were intraspecific killing (Benson, Sikich, et al., 2020). And while intraspecific killings have been documented to naturally occur in mountain lion populations, it was likely exacerbated in the Santa Monica Mountains with the presence of significant movement barriers that prevent subadults from being able to adequately disperse, which likely led to increased conflicts with territorial males (Benson, Sikich, et al., 2020; Riley et al., 2014). The Santa Monica Mountains puma population is relatively small, extremely isolated, and geographically limited. Demographic and environmental stochasticity and high mortality rates increase the risk of local extinction, particularly when combined with small population size, low density, female -biased sex ratios, and skewed male reproductive success (Benson et al., 2019; Benson, Sikich, et al., 2016; Ernest et al., 2014; Gustafson et al., 2018; Riley et al., 2014; Vickers et al., 2015). Increased human -caused mortalities of adult males could lead to occasional male extinctions, which have been documented in the Santa Ana Mountains puma population (Beier & Barrett, 1993). Lack of breeding males would disrupt reproduction and could severely limit the short- and long-term viability of a population (Beier, 1993; Benson, Mahoney, et al., 2016; Benson et al., 2019; Benson, Sikich, et al., 2020). This highlights the need to reduce human -caused mortalities, in part, by improving connectivity.

There are numerous scientific studies that provide insights on the profound impacts human activities and infrastructure have on mountain lion survival, and they emphasize the need to adequately assess and mitigate impacts to these CESA candidate species in the Project area. These studies add to the accumulating evidence that mountain lions require a habitat mosaic that provides sufficient room to roam away from human -disturbed areas and connected to expansive, intact, heterogeneous habitats (Beier et al., 1995; Dickson et al., 2005; Dickson & Beier, 2002; Kertson et al., 2011; Zeller et al., 2017). Continued construction of roads and development in mountain lion habitat with little regard for their movement and behavioral needs has direct and indirect lethal and sublethal impacts that threaten the persistence of Southern California and Central Coast puma populations.

Mountain lions are a key indicator species of wildlife connectivity and healthy ecosystems. As the last remaining wide-ranging large carnivore in the region, the ability to move through large swaths of interconnected habitat is vital for genetic connectivity and their long- term survival. Local extinction of mountain lions in the region could have severe ecological consequences. Many scavengers, including many raptors, foxes, and numerous insects, would lose a reliable food source (Barry et al., 2019; Elbroch et al., 2017; Ruth & Elbroch, 2014). Fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, rare native plants, and butterflies could potentially diminish if this apex predator were lost (Ripple et al., 2014; Ripple & Beschta, 2006, 2008). Loss of this ecosystem engineer and important predator -prey dynamics could have cascading effects on other plant and animal species, potentially leading to a decrease in biodiversity and diminished overall ecosystem function (Ripple et al. 2014; Elbroch et al. 2017; Barry et al. 2019; Benson et al. 2020b).

C. The 2005 EIR for the Project Do Not Address the Project's Impacts to Mountain Lions.

Virtually all of the studies cited above regarding the extinction vortex faced by mountain lions in Southern California were conducted and released after the EIR was certified for the Project in 2005. As such, the 2005 EIR does not —and cannot —adequately analyze or mitigate impacts of the Project on mountain lions, a CESA provisionally -listed species. This fact alone January 24, 2023

Page 5 ends

necessitates recirculation of a new EIR before the City undergoes any approvals or extensions of approvals on the Project. Here, a supplemental EIR for the Project can and should contain analysis of how the Project can improve wildlife movement by removing obstacles to wildlife movement (e.g., by restoring or enhancing culverts, implementing overcrossings and/or underpasses, and conserving, restoring, and adaptively managing in perpetuity land adjacent to such areas). The supplemental EIR must also consider alternatives to the Project that do not cause impacts on mountain lions, and adopt all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

D. Conclusion
Ensuring regional wildlife connectivity and protecting local mountain lions will require cooperation from conservation groups and state and local officials. As noted in our recent report entitled California Connections: How Wildlife Connectivity Can Fight Extinction and Protect Public Safety, a lack of adequate crossing infrastructure harms both people and wildlife (Yap et al., 2021). But preserving existing connectivity and building wildlife crossings to enhance connectivity at existing barriers will help protect California's rich biodiversity while making ecosystems and human communities more resilient to climate change.

We respectfully urge the City to conduct a thorough assessment of the Project's impacts on mountain lions and wildlife connectivity and incorporate sufficient mitigation measures.

Sincerely,
J.P. Rose
Senior Attorney & Policy Director, Urban Wildlands
Center for Biological Diversity
0rose(a biologicaldiversity.orq
Tiffany Yap, D.Env/PhD
Wildlife Corridor Advocate
Center for Biological Diversity
tyap(a)-biologicaldiversity.org
January 24, 2023

Page 6 ends

References
Allen, M. L., Wittmer, H. U., Houghtaling, P., Smith, J., Elbroch, L. M., & Wilmers, C. C. (2015).

The role of scent marking in mate selection by female pumas (Puma concolor). PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0139087.

Allen, M. L., Yovovich, V., & Wilmers, C. C. (2016). Evaluating the responses of a territorial solitary carnivore to potential mates and competitors. Scientific Reports, 6.

Barry, J. M., Elbroch, L. M., Aiello-lammens, M. E., Sarno, R. J., Seelye, L., Kusler, A., & Quigley, H. B. (2019). Pumas as ecosystem engineers: ungulate carcasses support beetle assemblages in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Oecologia, 189, 577-586.

Beier, P. (1993). Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars.

Connervation Biology, 7(1), 94-108.

Beier, P., & Barrett, R. H. (1993). The cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range, California - Final Report Orange County Cooperative mountain lion study.

Beier, P., Choate, D., & Barrett, R. H. (1995). Movement patterns of mountain lions during different behaviors. Journal of Mammalogy, 76(4), 1056-1070.

Benson, J. F., Abernathy, H. N., Sikich, J. A., & Riley, S. P. D. (2021). Mountain lions reduce movement, increase efficiency during the Covid-19 shutdown. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 2(3), 1-14.

Benson, J. F., Mahoney, P. J., Sikich, J. A., Serieys, L. E. K., Pollinger, J. P., Ernest, H. B., & Riley, S. P. D. (2016). Interactions between demography, genetics, and landscape connectivity increase extinction probability for a small population of large carnivores in a major metropolitan area. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1837), 20160957.

Benson, J. F., Mahoney, P. J., Vickers, T. W., Sikich, J. A., Beier, P., Riley, S. P. D., Ernest, H.

B., & Boyce, W. M. (2019). Extinction vortex dynamics of top predators isolated by urbanization. Ecological Applications, 29(3), e01868.

Benson, J. F., Mahoney, P. J., Vickers, T. W., Sikich, J. A., Beier, P., Riley, S. P. D., Ernest, H.

B., & Boyce, W. M. (2020). Conserving ecological roles of top predators in isolated mountains. Ecological Applications, 30(1), e02029.

Benson, J. F., Sikich, J. A., & Riley, S. P. D. (2016). Individual and population level resource selection patterns of mountain lions preying on mule deer along an urban-wildland gradient. PLoS ONE, 11(7), 1-16.

Benson, J. F., Sikich, J. A., & Riley, S. P. D. (2020). Survival and competing mortality risks of mountain lions in a major metropolitan area. Biological Conservation, 241, 108294.

Dellinger, J. A., Gustafson, K. D., Gammons, D. J., Ernest, H. B., & Torres, S. G. (2020).

Minimum habitat thresholds required for conserving mountain lion genetic diversity.

Ecology and Evolution, 10, 10687-10696.

Dickson, B. G., & Beier, P. (2002). Home -range and habitat selection by adult cougars in Southern California. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 66(4), 1235-1245.

Dickson, B. G., Jennes, J. S., & Beier, P. (2005). Influence of Vegetation, Topography, and Roads on Cougar Movement in Southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69(1), 264-276.

Elbroch, L. M., O'Malley, C., Peziol, M., & Quigley, H. B. (2017). Vertebrate diversity benefiting from carrion provided by pumas and other subordinate, apex felids. Biological Conservation, 215, 123-131.

Ernest, H. B., Boyce, W. M., Bleich, V. C., May, B., Stiver, S. J., & Torres, S. G. (2003). Genetic structure of mountain lion (Puma concolor) populations in California. Conservation Genetics, 4, 353-366.

Ernest, H. B., Vickers, T. W., Morrison, S. A., Buchalski, M. R., & Boyce, W. M. (2014).

January 24, 2023

Page 7 ends

Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a Southern California puma (Puma concolor) population. PLoS ONE, 9(10).

Frankham, R., Bradshaw, C. J. A., & Brook, B. W. (2014). Genetics in conservation management: Revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses. Biological Conservation, 170, 56-63.

Gustafson, K. D., Gagne, R. B., Buchalski, M. R., Vickers, T. W., Riley, S. P. D., Sikich, J. A., Rudd, J. L., Dellinger, J. A., LaCava, M. E. F., & Ernest, H. B. (2021). Multi -population puma connectivity could restore genomic diversity to at -risk coastal populations in California. Evolutionary Applications.

Gustafson, K. D., Gagne, R. B., Vickers, T. W., Riley, S. P. D., Wilmers, C. C., Bleich, V. C., Pierce, B. M., Kenyon, M., Drazenovich, T. L., Sikich, J. A., Boyce, W. M., & Ernest, H. B. (2018). Genetic source -sink dynamics among naturally structured and anthropogenically fragmented puma populations. Conservation Genetics, 20(2), 215-227.

Gustafson, K. D., Vickers, T. W., Boyce, W. M., & Ernest, H. B. (2017). A single migrant enhances the genetic diversity of an inbred puma population. Royal Society Open Science, 4(5).

Huffmeyer, A. A., Sikich, J. A., Vickers, T. W., Riley, S. P. D., & Wayne, R. K. (2021). First reproductive signs of inbreeding depression in Southern California male mountain lions (Puma concolor). Theriogenology, 177, 157-164.

Kertson, B. N., Spencer, R. D., Marzluff, J. M., Hepinstall-Cymerman, J., & Grue, C. E. (2011).

Cougar space use and movements in the wildland - urban landscape of western Washington. Ecological Applications, 21(8), 2866-2881.

Lucas, E. (2020). Recreation -related disturbance to wildlife in California -better planning for and management of recreation are vital to conserve wildlife in protected areas where recreation occurs. California Fish and Wildlife, Recreation Special Issue, 29-51.

Nguyen, T., Saleh, M., Kyaw, M.-K., Trujillo, G., Bejarano, M., Tapia, K., Waetjen, D., & Shilling, F. M. (2020). Special Report 4: Impact of COVID-19 Mitigation on Wildlife -Vehicle Conflict.

Nickel, B. A., Suraci, J. P., Allen, M. L., & Wilmers, C. C. (2020). Human presence and human footprint have non-equivalent effects on wildlife spatiotemporal habitat use. Biological Conservation, 241, 108383. https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108383 Price, A. (2020, May 29). How the West is Learning to Live with Mountain Lions. Bitterroot Magazine.

Riley, S. P. D., Serieys, L. E. K., Pollinger, J. P., Sikich, J. A., Dalbeck, L., Wayne, R. K., & Ernest, H. B. (2014). Individual behaviors dominate the dynamics of an urban mountain lion population isolated by roads. Current Biology, 24(17), 1989-1994.

Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2006). Linking a cougar decline , trophic cascade , and catastrophic regime shift in Zion National Park. Biological Conservation, 133, 397-408.

Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2008). Trophic cascades involving cougar, mule deer, and black oaks in Yosemite National Park. Biological Conservation, 141, 1249-1256.

Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M. P., Schmitz, O. J., Smith, D. W., Wallach, A. D., & Wirsing, A. J. (2014). Status and ecological effects of the world 's largest carnivores. Science, 343(6167), 1241484.

Ruth, T. K., & Elbroch, L. M. (2014). The carcass chronicles: carnivory, nutrient flow, and biodiversity. Wild Felid Monitor, 14-19.

Shilling, F. M. (2020). Wildlife Behavior in Response to Traffic Disturbance Wildlife Behavior in Response to Traffic Disturbance.

Shilling, F. M., Waetjen, D., Harrold, K., & Farman, P. (2019). 2019 Impact of Wildlife -Vehicle Conflict on California Drivers and Animals.

Smith, J. A., Duane, T. P., & Wilmers, C. C. (2019). Moving through the matrix: Promoting January 24, 2023

Page 8 ends

permeability for large carnivores in a human -dominated landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 183, 50-58.

Smith, J. A., Suraci, J. P., Clinchy, M., Crawford, A., Roberts, D., Zanette, L. Y., & Wilmers, C.

C. (2017). Fear of the human `super predator' reduces feeding time in large carnivores.

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284(1857), 20170433.

Smith, J. A., Wang, Y., & Wilmers, C. C. (2015). Top carnivores increase their kill rates on prey as a response to human -induced fear. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1802).

Suraci, J. P., Clinchy, M., Zanette, L. Y., & Wilmers, C. C. (2019). Fear of humans as apex predators has landscape -scale impacts from mountain lions to mice. Ecology Letters, 22(10), 1578-1586.

Traill, L. W., Brook, B. W., Frankham, R. R., & Bradshaw, C. J. A. (2010). Pragmatic population viability targets in a rapidly changing world. Biological Conservation, 143, 28-34.

Vickers, T. W. (2020). Project Title: Santa Ana Mountains to Eastern Peninsular Range Conservation Connectivity Infrastructure Planning Project for Interstate 15 and Closely Associated Roadways.

Vickers, T. W., Sanchez, J. N., Johnson, C. K., Morrison, S. A., Botta, R., Smith, T., Cohen, B.

S., Huber, P. R., Ernest, H. B., & Boyce, W. M. (2015). Survival and mortality of pumas (Puma concolor) in a fragmented, urbanizing landscape. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1-18.

Wang, Y., Allen, M. L., & Wilmers, C. C. (2015). Mesopredator spatial and temporal responses to large predators and human development in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California.

Biological Conservation, 190, 23-33. https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.007 Wang, Y., Smith, J. A., & Wilmers, C. C. (2017a). Residential development alters behavior, movement, and energetics in a top carnivore. PlosOne, 1-17.

Wang, Y., Smith, J. A., & Wilmers, C. C. (2017b). Residential development alters behavior, movement, and energetics in a top carnivore. PlosOne, 12(10), e0184687.

Wilmers, C. C., Wang, Y., Nickel, B., Houghtaling, P., Shakeri, Y., Allen, M. L., Kermish-Wells, J., Yovovich, V., & Williams, T. (2013). Scale dependent behavioral responses to human development by a large predator, the puma. PLoS ONE, 8(4).

Yap, T. A., Rose, J. P., Anderson, I., & Prabhala, A. (2021). California Connections: How Wildlife Connectivity Can Fight Extinction and Protect Public Safety.

Yap, T. A., Rose, J. P., & Cummings, B. (2019). A Petition to List the Southern California/Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of Mountain Lions as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

Yovovich, V., Allen, M. L., Macaulay, L. T., & Wilmers, C. C. (2020). Using spatial characteristics of apex carnivore communication and reproductive behaviors to predict responses to future human development. Biodiversity and Conservation, 29(8), 2589- 2603.

Zeller, K. A., Vickers, T. W., Ernest, H. B., & Boyce, W. M. (2017). Multi -level, multi -scale resource selection functions and resistance surfaces for conservation planning: Pumas as a case study. PLoS ONE, 12(6), 1-20.

January 24, 2023

Page 9 ends

PUBLIC COMMENT 44

No to the proposed Warehouse off Live Oak Canyon Road
Deepak Gopalakrishnan
Mon 8/26/2024 1:31 PM
To:Public Comment
H i,
Being a resident of Beaumont, I reject this proposal of opening a new warehouse off Live Oak Canyon Road.

The roads are already saturated with traffic in the rush hours and adding new warehouses that will increase the number of trucks on 110 is unimaginable.

Until and unless the roads are expanded to solve the current congestion, new load on the existing road infrastructure is going to cripple the traffic for the office goers like me and in turn affect our health and safety as we will be forced to start earlier than now.

Kindly consider our requests.

Regards,
Deepak

PUBLIC COMMENT 45

Opposition to to the 2 million sq. ft. warehouse in Live Oak Canyon Kathleen
Mon 8/26/2024 1:38 PM
To:Public Comment
Dear Yucaipa City Council,
I oppose the proposed use of land at Live Oak Canyon for warehouse use. I implore the council to take a stand for future generations and to even seek seeing the mouth and entrance of the canyon put into a land conservancy or state park for open land conservation. The fact is that with the encroachment of development onto the remaining open space our area still has, thoughtful open land preservation needs to happen.

It is noted nationally that warehouse development needs have steeply declined and that vacancies in our area are rapidly growing. This would involve putting this beautiful open space at the mouth of a historic and scenic canyon at risk to see it developed in a manner that may or may not add to the economy decades down the road. Open land is one of the greatest assets our area has as people move here seeking open vistas and open space to hike and breathe. The traffic and concrete from the warehouses has hurt our air quality and driven temperatures up. I am a lifelong local area resident who cannot even recognize our local communities anymore, however, the loss of the natural beauty of Live Oak Canyon would be travesty of travesties if this development is allowed to take place. I am not a Yucaipa resident, but live in Redlands. We have seen the harm that these warehouses have done to our local natural beauty and I implore you to not make the same mistakes.

I urge the council to reject the proposal and stand up for its citizens and the land for which we are only temporary stewards before it is passed along to the next generations who will wonder why we didn't stand up for them.

Thank you,
Kathleen Beall

PUBLIC COMMENT 46

Public comment - 08/26/2024 re: freeway corridor plan
Brooke's Yahoo
Mon 8/26/2024 1:32 ....

TaPublic Comment
Good evening, members of the City Council,
My name is Brooke Allert, and I have been a proud resident of this small town for 34 years; I have chosen to stay in this town to raise my family and three young children. I am here to voice my concerns and opposition to the proposed freeway corridor plan in our community. As someone who deeply cares about the future of our town, I believe this development poses several significant risks that outweigh its potential benefits.

Firstly, our town is already struggling with insufficient infrastructure. We all know our streets are not designed to handle the increased traffic that would come with new warehouses and duplexes. The additional trucks and vehicles would lead to congestion, increased wear and tear on our roads, and a heightened risk of accidents. We need to prioritize upgrading our existing infrastructure before considering any new developments.

Secondly, our schools are already overcrowded. Adding more duplexes means more families and more children, which would strain our education system even further. Our current schools are not equipped to handle this increase in student population, which could result in larger class sizes and diminished educational outcomes.

Instead of building new housing, we should be focusing on improving and expanding our educational facilities to meet the current demand.

Moreover, the introduction of warehouses could significantly alter the character of our small town. Warehouses often bring noise, pollution, and increased truck traffic, which would negatively impact our residents' quality of life. Our town's charm and appeal lie in its quiet, residential nature. Allowing such developments would detract from what makes our town special and could lead to a decline in property values and the well-being of our residents.

Additionally, the environmental impact of constructing new warehouses and duplexes cannot be ignored. These developments would require significant land use changes, potentially damaging local ecosystems, increasing stormwater runoff, and affecting our town's natural beauty. We need to consider sustainable growth that respects our environment and maintains our community's character.

Finally, we must think about the long-term vision for our town. What kind of community do we want to be? Do we want to preserve the small-town feel that attracts residents and visitors, or do we want to transform into a hub of industrial and high -density residential developments? I believe that with careful planning and thoughtful consideration of our community's needs, we can find a balance that supports growth while preserving the unique qualities that make our town a great place to live.

In conclusion, I urge the City Council to reconsider these developments and explore alternatives that align with our community's needs and values.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

PUBLIC COMMENT 47

PUBLIC COMMENT 48

(No subject)
gideon crandell
Mon 8/26/2024 1:48 PM
To:Public Comment
I oppose the proposed warehouse plan

PUBLIC COMMENT 49

New developments proposed for the Live Oak Canyon corridor Erica Serrao
Mon 8/26/2024 1:59 PM
TaPublic Comment
Cc:Kim J Metzler, CIVIC, CPM
Staff and Honorable Councilpersons of Yucaipa:
am writing to you to express my opposition to any construction that would adversely affect the rural nature of Live Oak
Canyon.

There are many known cultural resource sites in the Canyon within both Redlands and Yucaipa boundaries. I presently work with Redlands Conservancy and would greatly appreciate if Yucaipa would work collaboratively with Redlands to preserve open space
and the rural character of lands South of 1-10 in Live Oak Canyon and what is known as the Serengeti in the cycling community.

As someone who was born and raised in Redlands and has been living in Live Oak Canyon for 15 years, the proposed construction would detrimental to Live Oak Canyons open spaces, wildlife and residents. The road is already extremely dangerous and busy as it is used as short cut for commuters. Because of this, the speed limit is not being honored and there are monthly car accidents due to the overuse of this windy road.

Yucaipa has done a spectacular job revitalizing their historic downtown and preserving the Crafton Hills in collaboration with Redlands and the county. I invite the city of Yucaipa to work with Redlands and develop an extension of Herngt 'Aki' Preserve in adjacent lands within Yucaipa. This will preserve the character of Live Oak Canyon, provide Yucaipa residents living South of Crafton Hills access to a network of hiking, cycling and equestrian trails that connect us all to our history and protect a critical wildlife corridor used by endangered Southern California Mountain Lions and other threatened and endangered species.

Erica Serrao
Administrative Assistant
Redlands Conservancy

REDLANDS

CONSERVANCY

PUBLIC COMMENT 50

oppose the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update
mb
Mon 8/26/2024 2:21 PM
To:Public Comment
I am pleading with you to oppose the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Update. I live on I was raised in this area of Yucaipa, have raised my children here and have grandchildren growing up in this area as well.

Sincerely,
Mary Brown

PUBLIC COMMENT 51

Large warehousing
Lisa Long
Mon 8/26/2024 2:22 PM
TaPublic Comment
Please, no more large warehousing in the area. The freeways are terrible and congested and don't we already have enough?
Sent from my iPhone

PUBLIC COMMENT 52

Public Comment Council Meeting 9-26-2024
Lucinda Brinks
Mon 8/26/2024 2:25 rrvi
TaPublic Comment
August 26, 2024
Yucaipa City Council members,
I write to you today pleading with you to deny the changes to the General Plan and Freeway Corridor Specific Plan and vote no on the updated Freeway Corridor Specific Plan including the Pacific Oaks Commerce Center.

My first concern is the poor/unhealthy air pollution it will cause. This is not a "might" cause, it is a WILL cause.

Our air quality is already poor, adding 1,100 daily diesel truck trips is estimated to increase diesel particulate matter by nearly 30% and generate 2,808 tons of greenhouse gases per year. These identified polluting gases cannot be mitigated. The noise pollution cannot be mitigated as well. Please don't sacrifice the health of Yucaipa citizens for this warehouse project.

My second concern is the traffic it will generate. City Council recently approved a year round use permit to the Pumpkin Patch. The horrible traffic at Interstate 10 and Live Oak Canyon Road will no longer be limited to the fall and early winter. Can you imagine trying to cross the street with youngsters while big rigs zoom past? It is a tragedy in the making. Will you feel guilty? Will the city be sued yet again? This area is beautiful agricultural land. A two million square foot warehouse does not belong in our rural city. It certainly doesn't "create a place that reflects the unique character Yucaipa and ultimately supports the community's need into the future." Why not move the "wine country" here? The rolling hills could be covered in grape vines and the wineries, tasting rooms, restaurants and B&B's could be easily accessible from the freeways without driving through residential streets.

The Planning Commission voted NO on the approval of this plan. The city's stance that they made "no recommendation" is misleading. The majority of Commissioners voted against recommending the project.

I hope you were able to read and digest the 600+ pages in the agenda packet. Ask the hard questions.

Councilman Venable, do not disappoint your constituents who live in the area. I hope you all realize the proper vote is NO. Please, do not approve this monstrous and unhealthy project.

Lucinda Brinks
District 1.

PUBLIC COMMENT 53

warehouse houses on wildwood canyon
Bonnie Parker
Mon 8/26/2024 2:45 PM
TaPublic Comment
I cannot attend meeting this evening regarding buildings being proposed off wildwood canyon Road. NO! NO!

PUBLIC COMMENT 54

Proposed Warehouses in Live Oak Canyon
Steven T. Spillei
Mon 8/26/2024 2:46 PM
TaPublic Comment
Dear Mayor and Members of the Yucaipa City Council,
The proposed warehouse project by Pacific Industrial is a slap in the face of local communities who treasure Live Oak Canyon and what it has to offer in its present, semi rural agricultural and natural state. We have seen too often where one warehouse begets more and more of the same. One only has to drive down the 1-10 and see what has happened in Redlands and other communities in the Inland Empire. Traffic, air pollution, noise, and the elimination of treasured spaces for concrete monoliths with no redeeming value. I urged you to reject Pacific Industrial's proposal.

Sincerely,
Steven T. Spiller
Redlands, CA

PUBLIC COMMENT 55

URGENT - Proposed Warehouse off Live Oak Canyon Road
Joanne Morse
Mon 8/26/2024 2:4. ....

TaPublic Comment
Yucaipa City Council Members:

I am opposed to the proposed warehouse off of Live Oak Canyon Road that comes before you tonight.

As someone who has grown up in this area and lives along San Timoteo Canyon, I have witnessed the impact on the open space, traffic, wildlife, quality of life, and beauty of the area that comes along with each added warehouse built.

The Live Oak and San Timoteo Canyons are historic to our area and should be protected and preserved. There are efforts underway by conservancy groups to protect these special places for generations to come to enjoy them. San Timoteo Canyon has already become very congested and impacted by commuter and big rig traffic. This proposed warehouse would only compound what is already a large issue.

I ask the council to seriously consider the long-term impact of your decision. Do your part to protect us from out -of -control warehouse building and destruction of our history and quality of living that are the very things that have brought and kept people in this beautiful area for generations.

You have the responsibility to protect us. I sincerely hope you vote NO.

Thank you for your consideration.

Joanne E. Morse

PUBLIC COMMENT 56

Honorable Mayor Beaver
City Council Members
City of Yucaipa
Re: FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN &FSP UPDATE
Public Comment for August 26,2024 Meeting

FOR THE RECORD
Dear Mayor and Council:

I vehemently oppose this Plan it its entirety and ask that you work with the Yucaipa Conservancy and Redlands Conservancy's to preserve all of the grasslands and grazing lands on both sides of the 1-1 freeway. These canyon lands and precious hillsides are rare across the State of California and are your community's link to early California history. This is all we have left of Yucaipa's cultural landscape that tells generations who was here, why they came here, and the contributions they made. This is not now or ever will be a sustainable place for logistics and housing.

No one wants to live alongside the most traveled and congested freeway in the United States. Sound walls do not mute the constant thundering roar, the sirens, or continuous accidents from Ford Street to County Line Rd. The air pollution will not be controlled, no matter how you think this impact, alone, can be mitigated. The land vibration is felt across my property hourly. The sky glow from the parking lot lights, though aimed downward, will still create a gray canopy over this area to completely wipe out the view of the night sky. All of this upheaval of the natural environment will destroy the perfectly balanced ecosystem and destroy the many wildlife habitats and corridors you don't see. I lived in the canyon and on West County Line Rd. We rode our horses down to the Pumpkin Patch land and beyond through the Palmer ranch.

The future cannot promise you econonical gains and financial stability! The people here and now are your future and no out of county developers who care not an Oak tree or leaf about your community's quality of life, health, or happiness --or why the love the rural life here.

Please say NO to this desperate measur. No problem is so big that not a reasonable and more beneficial solution cannot be found.

Sincerely,
Pamela Smyth

Redlands with Yucaipa shared boundary lines

PUBLIC COMMENT 57

Freeway Corridor specific plan update
Scott Quinnell
Mon 8/26/2024 3:00 PM
To:Public Comment
H i,
I object to the building of wherehouses on Live Oak Canyon. The increase in truck traffic at the freeway ramps mixing with residential traffic will be unbearable to those of us who live here and use the Interchange. The impact on natural resources, wildlife, increased light glare, and scenic views will be adverse and forever changed. No mitigation will alleviate the permanent impact to Yucaipa.

Thank you,
Scott Quinnell
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

PUBLIC COMMENT 58

FW: 24-044/GPA/SPA and Pacific Oaks Commerce Center Case No.21-196 Ana Sauseda, MMC
Mon 8/26/2024 3:05 PM
To:Tara Davis
Ana Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
City of Yucaipa
City Hall • 34272 Yucaipa Blvd • Yucaipa, CA 92399
Office: 909-797-2489 Ext. 230
www.yucaipa.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: SUSAN BLAS
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 4:02 PM
To: Ana Sauseda, MMC
Subject: 24-044/GPA/SPA and Pacific Oaks Commerce Center Case No.21-196 I oppose the warehouse and Pacific One Commerce Center projects to be located off Live Oak Canyon Road and outer Hwy 10 in the City of Yucaipa.

Susan Blas

PUBLIC COMMENT 58

EN1¢f MEN
August 26, 2024
City of Yucaipa — Planning Division
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
RE: Proposed revisions to the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan.

Dear City Council,
West Coast Entitlement, on behalf of Robinson Ranch, is formally requesting that the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (FCSP) update be postponed until the September 23, 2024, City Council meeting, Robinson Ranch is the majority landowner within the FCSP area, encompassing more than 560 total acres. In its current configuration, Robinson Ranch does not support the FCSP; however, if certain changes were made to the FCSP, then Robinson Ranch would be in support of the FCSP update, On July 1611, West Coast Entitlement and City Staff held a meeting to discuss the disagreement the Robinson's had toward the plan and some potential solutions to resolve that disagreement with the main limiting factor being the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the FCSP. On August 131h, another meeting was held where West Coast Entitlement presented a list of proposed changes to City Staff to which the City was mostly agreeable and offered some alternatives. On August 2211, West Coast Entitlement submitted the Robinson's Errata Sheet along with accompanying exhibits. Prior to the aforementioned meetings, the Robinson's had not been contacted or consulted by the City for the proposed changes, regardless of their status as majority landowner. It was not until West Coast Entitlement reached out to the Robinson's to offer their services that the Robinson's became aware of the upcoming changes. There simply has not been enough time to work through the valid issues and concerns raised by the Robinson's and an additional 30 days is necessary to assure every stakeholder within the FCSP Area has been adequately and appropriately represented in this matter.

Specifically, the Robinson's are requesting:

1. The City revise the FCSP to identify a suitable water tank location on city -owned property (APN: 0318-181- 21), adjacent to the Hoover Egg Ranch.

2. The City shall vacate unused portions of Right -Of -Way (ROW) near the intersection of Oak Glen Road & Calimesa Blvd. Additionally, ROW owned by the City in front of APN: 0301-221-09 shall be vacated back to the Robinson's; however, if ROW is owned by CalTrans, then the City will offer a letter of support to vacate this area.

3. The FCSP shall include language that provides a mechanism for a City and developer to enter into a cost - sharing agreement for any environmental review costs and waiver of application review tees to develop Open Space & Conservation areas.

4. The FCSP Land Use Plan shows the development potential of the area with Hillside Overlay District requirements applied; however, when a development is submitted, this area will change depending on the developer. The City shall update the FCSP Land Use Plan to remove the pre-emptive application of the hillside requirements.

5. The City shall re -distribute Commercial area from the water -company -owned property (APN: 0318-111-02) to the Robinson's property directly west (APN: 0318-071-07).

6. The City shall re -distribute approximately 6-7 acres of Business Park Zoning from elsewhere within the FCSP to BPS. Potential locations that could involve redistribution are BP1, BP2, & BP3. 543 W. County Line Road
Calimesa, CA 92320
909,335,1665

'Vli�t C `ast
EN�''I�iMENT
The City Manager as of this morning, August 26, 2024, has verbally agreed to items 1-3; however, West Coast Entitlement nor the Robinson's have received any documentation from City staff other than an updated errata sheet received at 2:13pm this afternoon. The City should make the changes and have them reviewed and agreed to by the Robinson's prior to any decision being made by the City Council. Further, items 4-6 are important to assure the Robinson's are not affected by inverse condemnation as the changes being made to the FCSP significantly hinders the development potential of the Robinson -owned properties. The Freeway Corridor is one of the last great opportunities in the City of Yucaipa as this is a statement piece for those traveling through town, and it is imperative that this plan be reviewed meticulously and not rushed through the system. It is my understanding that an additional 30-days will not impact the warehouse project — other than delay — so this request for additional time to work through these issues will not prevent the pending project.

Sincerely,
Craig HeaOs V
Managing Member
West Coast Entitlement
(909) 335-1665
Cc: Chris Mann, City Manager Councilman Jon Thorp
Steven Graham, City Attorney Councilman Chris Venable
Councilman Matt Garner Mayor Justin Beaver
Councilman Bobby Duncan Benjamin Matlock, City Planner
543 W. County Line Road
Calimesa, CA 92320
909.335,1665

PUBLIC COMMENT 59

FW: Proposed warehouse off Live Oak Canyon Road
Public Comment
Mon 8/26/2024 3:54 PM
To:Tara Davis
This one was on time but in the junk folder.

City of Yucaipa
• , CA
Office:
www.yucaipigov
From: Juli Spiller
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:41 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Proposed warehouse off Live Oak Canyon Road
I am disturbed to hear of yet another proposed warehouse in this area. This would create multiple problems for the surrounding areas, especially since this is being proposed for an area so inappropriate.

We have had worsening air quality, extreme additions of truck and other vehicle traffic with a multitude of new warehouses. This is impacting our communities in a negative manner.

I understand there will be parking for 1100 trucks and 986 cars. This obviously will involve that number if vehicles not only "parking" but traveling these roads. This seems an extreme number of additional vehicles added to already heavily traveled roads.

Our communities are becoming a nightmare of huge cement complexes lining our roads and Hillside much less causing extreme traffic and wear on our roads. Our air quality had significantly improved since I moved here in 1969. Now it seems it is published and common knowledge that we have the worst air quality.in the country?
These warehouses must stop being approved. We need to keep our open areas and stop polluting our communities.

Please DO NOT approve yet another warehouse! Vote for the people, not the $.

Juli Spiller

Yucaipa City CouncilAugust 26, 2024

Yucaipa City Council
August 26, 2024