FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Table 6 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements — Pacific Oaks Commerce Center Monitor
Responsibility for
Responsibility for
(Signature Required)
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Date of Compliance)
verify installation of the electric -powered Energy Star or equivalent appliances.
See Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-4, under Air Quality.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HWQ-1
Grading shall be phased so that prompt revegetation or construction will control erosion. Where possible, only those areas which will be built on, resurfaced, or landscaped shall be disturbed.
Construction Contractor
During Construction
Activities
City of Yucaipa Planning
Division
HWQ-2
Spill containment systems shall consist of a system of dikes, walls, Project Applicant and
Prior to Issuance of
City of Yucaipa Planning
barriers, berms and/or other devices designed to contain the Construction Contractor
Occupancy Permits
Division
spillage of the liquid contents of the containers stored in them and to minimize the buildup of stormwater from precipitation, and run-on from roof drainage and outside areas. If the spill containment system does not have a roof which covers the entire contained area, the spill containment system shall have the capacity to contain precipitation from at least a twenty-four (24), twenty-five (25) year rainfall event plus ten percent of the total volume of the material stored there or the volume of the largest container, whichever is greater. Spill containment systems shall also be constructed of impermeable and non -reactive materials to the liquids and/or wastes being contained.
HWQ-3
Spilled and/or leaked materials and/or wastes and any accumulated Project ApplicantfTenants
During Operation
City of Yucaipa Planning
precipitation shall be removed from the spill containment system in Division and Building
as timely a manner as is necessary to prevent the overflow of the Owner/Operator
spill containment system. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the City Engineer, all chemicals or wastes discharged within the spill containment system shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local rules, regulations, and laws, and shall not be discharged into the public sanitary sewer system, stormwater drainage system or onto the ground.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
See Mitigation Measures CR-2 and CR-3, under Cultural Resources.
May 2024 Page 77
FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF YUCAIPA
2. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Tbis page intentionally left blank.
3. Report Preparation
3.1 LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Yucaipa
Benjamin Matlock, Deputy Director of Community Development PlaceWorks
Nicole Vermilion, Principal
Jasmine Osman, Associate II
May 2024 Page 79
FREEWAY CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CITY OF YUCAIPA
3. Report Preparation
This page intenfionalyleft blank.
ATTACHMENT 4
ORDINANCE NO.448
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 343, AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF YUCAIPA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A public hearing has been held before the City Council of the City of Yucaipa (the "City"), duly noticed and conducted pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Laws of the State of California and applicable provisions of Division 3 of the Development Code as adopted by Ordinance No. 124; and the Official Land Use Plan of the City, as adopted by Ordinance No. 343, is hereby amended as provided in Section 2 herein below.
Section 2. The proposed land use designation contained on the "Official Land Use Districts Map" on file with the City, and bearing the file number Case No. 24-044/GPA/SPA, changes the Land Use District designation of the area encompassed by the boundaries of the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan, as reflected in Figure CDL-3, Land Use Modifications to the City's Planned Development (PD) district, omitting the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan unique districts from the map, and also changing the not -a -part, Yucaipa Valley Water District parcel to Institutional (In).
The Not -A -Part areas from the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan update shall also be omitted from Figure CDL-3.
Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the following summary of this ordinance to be published by two (2) insertions in the Yucaipa News Mirror, a newspaper of general circulation that is printed, published, and circulated in the City of Yucaipa, and hereby designated for that purpose by said Council of the City of Yucaipa: "Ordinance No. 448 changes the Land Use Designation reflected for the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan within the City's General Plan Figure CDL-2 to Planned Development (PD) and Institutional (IN) as part of Case No 24-044/GPA/SPA, and omits the not -a -part elements from Figure CDL-3." PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 2024.
Justin Beaver, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 5
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
SUMMARY MEMORANDUM
October 13, 2023
To: Ashley Olson, EPD Solutions, Inc.
From: Kuda Wekwete, Jerry Wen, and Graeme Fraser, DTA
Subject: Economic Impact Study for the Proposed Pacific Oaks Commerce Center Project
The objective of this Economic Impact Study (the "Study") is to analyze the economic impacts of the proposed Pacific Oaks Commerce Center (the "Project") in the City of Yucaipa (the "City") in the County of San Bernardino (the "County").
Overall, the Project is anticipated to add 1,599 permanent new jobs within the City. The Project would also provide 1,686 temporary jobs associated with its construction.
Notably, the Project would deliver a substantial boost to the City's economy, with the production of goods and services increasing by $198.4 million annually. This growth in jobs and economic output would have a positive impact on the City as it would significantly expand its economic base, thereby providing a strong foundation for the City's continued economic growth and fiscal health.
A Description of the Project
The Project sits on 113 acres located on the east side of Live Oak Canyon Road and south of Interstate 10 in Yucaipa and comprises planning areas BP and BP 3 of the proposed Pacific Oaks Commerce Center Tract Map (the "POCC Tract Map"), as depicted in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Aerial Map for the POCC Tract Map
I i �
Newport Beach I San Jose I San Francisco I Riverside I Dallas I Houston I Raleigh I Tampa
As illustrated in Figure 2 below, the Project will result in the development of up to 2,054,000 total square feet consisting of two (2) Class A, industrial buildings. Building 1 is 1,052,500 total square feet of warehouse inclusive of 20,000 square feet of office space.
Building 2 is 1,001,500 square feet of warehouse inclusive of 20,000 square feet of office space.
Figure 2: Proposed Project Site Plan
The buildings will be used as high cube distribution and warehousing facilities and are designed to attract top -tier tenants looking to serve the Southern California marketplace.
Green building concepts and sustainable design principles will be employed to provide buildings that operate efficiently and reduce demand on resources.
The overall land area of the POCC Tract Map exceeds 313 acres, with 200 acres to remain undeveloped and predominantly zoned as open space with limited zoning of 60 acres for residential use. The buildings are set back behind a ridgeline separating the 1-10 and the project to protect the City's view corridor. The building elevations are designed to blend with the surrounding environment and rely on wood, metal and natural materials to evoke a modern farmhouse aesthetic.
The project will be phased over a three-year period and includes infrastructure improvements to southern Yucaipa that include constructing a new project roadway connecting Live Oak Canyon Road to the eastern edge of the property, the southern extension of Wildwood Canyon Road, along with drainage improvements and extending utility services to the south side of the 1-10 Freeway to provide infrastructure to support the Pacific Oaks Commerce Center aswell as future growth within the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan.
B Overview of Economic Impact Analysis
This Study identifies the general economic impacts of the Project on the City. Economic impact studies operate under the basic assumption that any increase in spending resulting from a development project has direct, indirect, and induced effects as illustrated in Figure 3 below. First, there is a direct effect caused by the additional output of goods or services EPD Solutions, Inc. October 13, 2023
Economic Impact Si`udy for the Proposed Pacific Oaks Commerce Center 2 on -site. Second, there is a ripple of indirect effects on all the industries whose outputs are used by firms located within the Project and various firms' supply chains. Third, there are induced effects that arise when employment increases in the region and stimulates greater household spending.
Figure 3: Direct, Indirect, and Induced Impacts
In evaluating these economic impacts, the Study incorporates two stages of the development process: construction and operations. First, there isa one-timeimpact from the construction of the various types of land uses within the Project. Then, after the construction and tenant improvement phases are complete, the Study determines the magnitude of the permanent annua/recurring impacton the economy through the ongoing operations of the development that has occurred on the Project site.
DTA used the web application of the Impact Analysis for Planning ("IMPLAN") economic modeling system. IMPLAN is a nationally recognized input-output model that can be used to estimate the short -run impacts of changes in the economy through the use of a multiplier analysis. The IMPLAN terms used herein have the following meanings:
■ "Employment" follows the same definition as U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis' regional economic accounts and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Census of Employment and Wages data, which represents the full-time/part-time annual average. Thus, one (1) job lasting 12 months is equivalent to two (2) jobs lasting 6 months each or three (3) jobs lasting 4 months each. In terms of a typical IMPLAN analysis, a job that lasts 6 months would be considered 1/2 (0.50)of ajob,while one that lasts3 monthswould be considered 1/4 (0.25) of a job. Notably, IMPLAN's analysis normally includes both FTE jobs and part- time jobs, which overstates the number of FTEjobsgenerated by a development project.
EPD Solutions, Inc. October 13, 2023
Economic Impact Si`udy for the Proposed Pacific Oaks Commerce Center 3 In order to compensate for that factor, DTA applies a discounting factor provided by IMPLAN that varies by industry and can be used to reduce the number of direct jobs generated by IMPLAN in our Study so that it represents the equivalent of the number of FTE d i rect jobs.
■ "Total Economic Output" represents the total value of all goods and/or services produced throughout a designated economy during a specified period of time, including Labor Income, Other Value Added, and the cost of Intermediate Inputs. Each of these components are defined below.
"Labor Income" includes employee compensation (wages and benefits) and payments received by self-employed individuals and unincorporated business owners. The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages ("CEW") published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is the primary source of employment and income data for IMPLAN.
"Other Value Added" encompasses other property income, such as the consumption of capital investment, profits, royalties, dividends, interest impacts, and taxes on production and imports. The primary sources of Other Value Added are taxes on production and imports net of subsidy and Gross Operating Surplus ("GOS") data at the 3-digit NAICS level released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
"Intermediate Inputs" include the purchases of non -durable goods and services that are used for the production of other goods and services within a project, rather than for final consumption. Intermediate Inputs equal the Total Economic Output minus the sum of Labor Income and Other Value Added.
C Recurring Economic Impacts of the Project
As shown in Table 1 below, the annual economic impacts of the Project on the City will be quite substantial. First, the Project is anticipated to create 1,299 permanent jobs on -site. In addition, the Project is expected to generate 300 permanent recurring indirect and induced jobs off -site within the City, for a total of 1,599 jobs. As the City's total current workforce consists of 10,793 employees, FTEemployees holding these additional jobs will constitute up to a 14.82%increase in the size of the City's current workforce. The total Labor Income associated with these new jobs will equal $78.9 million generated directly on -site, plus $16 million off -site Citywide, for a total increase in Labor Income of $94.8 million annually within the City. Finally, adding in $16.5 million in Other Value -Added revenues and $87 million in Intermediate Expenditures yields a total economic Output of $198.4 million per year from the Project, which represents a considerable boost to the City's economy.
Table 1: Recurring Impact Conclusions (City)
Employment
1,299
300
1,599
Overall Output
$152,427,809
$45,943,238
$198,371,048
Labor Income
$78,896,527
$15,950,723
$94,847,249
Other Value Added
$7,125,103
$9,400,996
$16,526,100
Intermediate Expenditures
$66,406,179
$20,591,519
$86,997,699
Note: All numbers are subject to rounding.
EPD Solutions, Inc. October 13, 2023
Economic Impact Si`udy for the Proposed Pacific Oaks Commerce Center 4 D One -Time Economic Impacts of the Project
Similarly, as reflected in Table 2 below, the one-time economic impacts from the construction of the Project on the City will be quite substantial. First, the Project is anticipated to employ 1,410 construction jobs on -site'. In addition, the Project is expected to generate 276 indirect and induced jobs off -site, for a total of 1,686 temporary jobs within the City. The total Labor Income associated with these new jobs will equal $111 million directly on -site, plus $15.8 million off -site but within the City, for a total increase in Labor Income of $126.7 million Citywide on a one-time basis. Finally, adding in $20.8 million in Other Value -Added revenues and $123 million in Intermediate Expenditures yields a total one-time economic Output of $270.5 million for the Project, which will inject a substantial amount of growth into the City's construction industry. Notably, the one-time construction output represents the aggregate outputs generated during the three-year Project construction period.
Table 2: One-Time/Construction Impact Conclusions (City) One-Time/Construction Im•.
Employment
Overall Output
Labor Income
Other Value Added
Intermediate Expenditures
Note: All numbers are subject to rounding.
1,410 276
$222,532,829 $47,985,523
$110,980,026 $15,760,603
$8,497,328 $12,254,470
$103,055,475 $19,970,450
1,686
$270,518,352
$126,740,630
$20,751,798
$123,025,924
'Under IMPLAN's definition, each "one-time job" represents one year of full-time employment for one employee.
EPD Solutions, Inc. October 13, 2023
Economic Impact Study for the Proposed Pacific Oaks Commerce Center 5 The annual and one-time economic impacts of the Project on the City are summarized graphically in Figures and 5 below.
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0 $300
$250
$200
c
$150
$100
$50
$0
Figure 4: Jobs Generated by the Project (City)
276
Permanent One-time (Construction)
■ Direct Indirect/Induced
Figure 5: Total Economic Output (City)
E Jobs -Housing Balance
$48.0
Recurring One-time (Construction)
■ Direct Indirect/Induced
The jobs -housing balance is an indicator of the relative equilibrium between employment and housing opportunities in a given area. A positive balance between jobs and housing has a beneficial impact on a municipality by decreasing costs associated with commuting and traffic congestion. It also reduces commute times, improves local, social, cultural and family involvement, provides a more attractive work/life balance to residents, and generates savings EPD Solutions, Inc. October 13, 2023
Economic Impact Si`udy for the Proposed Pacific Oaks Commerce Center 6 to local public agencies in terms of the need to construct and maintain new road improvements and other facilities.
As reflected below in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 6, the City's current ratio of jobs within the City as compared with the number of housing units Citywide is 0.531, as compared with a Statewide average of 1.260. The addition of 1,599 new jobsthrough the construction of the Project would increase this ratio to 0.610.
Table 3: Pre -Project and Post -Project Jobs -Housing Balance CitywideDescription Average
Pre-Project Post -Project
Statewide
Average
Number of Jobs
10,793
12,392
18,537,400
Number of Housing Units
20,310
20,310
14,707,698
Existing2
20,310
20,310
14,707,698
New
N/A
0 N/A
Jobs -Housing Balance
E00.531
0.610
1.260
Figure 6: Pre -Project and Post -Project Jobs -Housing Balance:
1.500
1.000
t6l
0.500 53
0.000
Pre -Project Post -Project Statewide
Citywide Citywide
For the conclusions of the Study, please see Attachments 1 and 2. If you have any further questions regarding this Executive Summary, please feel free to contact usat (800) 969-4DTA.
Enclosures:
1. Attachment 1 —Annual Recurring Economic Impacts
2. Attachment 2 —One-Time Economic Impacts
2 Labor Market Information Division, State of California Employment Development Department.
EPD Solutions, Inc. October 13, 2023
Economic Impact Si`udy for the Proposed Pacific Oaks Commerce Center 7 ATTACHMENT 1
EPD Solutions, Inc.
Pacific Oaks Commerce Center
Economic Impact Study
AN N UAL RECU RRI N G
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
dta
WWW. PIN A NC E D7A.0 OM
Attachment 1-A
Pacific Oaks Commerce Center
City of Yucaipa
Recurring Economic Impact (2023$)
W. ..
. • .1
Building 1
County
927.15
$58,320
$54,071,714
$12,646,131
$52,511,610
$119,229,454
Direct
634.00
$60,732
$38,504,152
$3,470,482
$32,416,196
$74,390,830
Indirect
170.08
$53,624
$9,120,323
$3,629,781
$12,649,794
$25,399,899
Induced
123.07
$52,387
$6,447,238
$5,545,867
$7,445,620
$19,438,725
City
780.58
$59,300
$46,287,933
$8,058,307
$42,463,903
$96,810,142
Direct
634.00
$60,732
$38,504,152
$3,470,482
$32,416,196
$74,390,830
Indirect'
85.04 $53,624
$4,560,162
$1,814,890
$6,324,897
$12,699,949
Induced'
61.54 $52,387
$3,223,619
$2,772,934
$3,722,810
$9,719,363
Building 2
County
972.52
$58,329
$56,726,258
$13,280,965
$55,077,608
$125,084,832
Direct
665.00
$60,740
$40,392,374
$3,654,621
$33,989,984
$78,036,979
Indirect
178.42
$53,642
$9,570,888
$3,808,851
$13,277,360
$26,657,099
Induced
129.10
$52,386
$6,762,996
$5,817,494
$7,810,264
$20,390,754
City
818.76
$59,308
$48,559,316
$8,467,793
$44,533,796
$101,560,906
Direct
665.00
$60,740
$40,392,374
$3,654,621
$33,989,984
$78,036,979
Indirect'
89.21 $53,642
$4,785,444
$1,904,425
$6,638,680
$13,328,549
Induced'
64.55 $52,386
$3,381,498
$2,908,747
$3,905,132
$10,195,377
Grand Total - County
1,899.67
$58,325
$110,797,972
$25,927,096
$107,589,218
$244,314,286
Grand Total - City
1,599.34
$59,304
$94,847,249
$16,526,100
$86,997,699
$198,371,048
' Assumes 50% of County's indirect/induced impacts will be created within the City.
ATTACHMENT 2
EPD Solutions, Inc.
Pacific Oaks Commerce Center
Economic Impact Study
ONE-TIME ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
dta
WWW. F] IJ ANC E DrA_C OM
Attachment 1-B
Pacific Oaks Commerce Center
City of Yucaipa
One-time Economic Impact (2023$)
I&Impact Employment Per Labor Income 'I=•ther
Employee Aggregate7j..
Value Intermediate Total Out
. itures pid
Vertical Construction
County
1,348.17 $72,197 $97,333,388
$20,909,667
$87,686,283 $205,929,338
Direct
999.00
$77,508
$77,430,986
$5,297,850
$62,318,340
$145,047,176
Indirect
107.26
$67,830
$7,275,247
$4,769,065
$10,771,038
$22,815,350
Induced
241.91
$52,197
$12,627,156
$10,842,751
$14,596,905
$38,066,812
City
1,173.59
$74,457
$87,382,187
$13,103,758
$75,002,312
$175,488,257
Direct
999.00
$77,508
$77,430,986
$5,297,850
$62,318,340
$145,047,176
Indirect'
53.63 $67,830
$3,637,624
$2,384,533
$5,385,519
$11,407,675
Induced'
120.96
$52,197
$6,313,578
$5,421,376
$7,298,453
$19,033,406
Horizontal Construction
County
612.87
$73,699
$45,167,845
$12,096,601
$55,310,091
$112,574,537
Direct
411.00
$81,628
$33,549,041
$3,199,478
$40,737,134
$77,485,653
Indirect
90.54 $64,123
$5,805,648
$3,904,651
$7,853,594
$17,563,894
Induced
111.33
$52,214
$5,813,156
$4,992,472
$6,719,363
$17,524,990
City
511.94
$76,882
$39,358,443
$7,648,039
$48,023,613
$95,030,095
Direct
411.00
$81,628
$33,549,041
$3,199,478
$40,737,134
$77,485,653
Indirect'
45.27 $64,123
$2,902,824
$1,952,326
$3,926,797
$8,781,947
Induced'
55.67 $52,214
$2,906,578
$2,496,236
$3,359,681
$8,762,495
Grand Total - County
1,961.04
$72,666
$142,501,233
$33,006,268
$142,996,374
$318,503,875
Grand Total - City
1,685.52
$75,194
$126,740,630
$20,751,798
$123,025,924
$270,518,352
'Assumes 50% of County's indirect/induced impacts will be created within the City.
ATTACHMENT 6
Draft January 2024
YUCAIPA
FREEWAY CORRIDOR
SPECIFIC PLAN
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Prepared for: Prepared by:
CITY OF YUCAIPA PLACEWORKS
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Development Services Department
Santa Ana, CA
Benjamin Matlock, Deputy Director / City Planner 714.966.9220 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa CA 92399
909.797.2489 x261 Contact:
[email protected] Karen Gulley, Managing Principal
[email protected]
CITY COUNCIL Suzanne Schwab
[email protected]
Justin Beaver, Mayor
Chris Venable, Mayor Pro Tem In Association with:
Bobby Duncan TRANSLUTIONS
Jon Thorp 16732 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 200
Matt Garner Tustin, CA 92780
949.656.3131
Contact:
Sandipan Bhattacharjee, Principal
[email protected]
i
City of Yucaipa
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Project Overview ...................................... 1-3
1.2 Project Vision ......................................... 1-4
1.3 Regional and Local Setting .............................. 1-4
1.4 Ownership / Districts ................................... 1-4
1.5 Planning Objectives ................................... 1-10
1.6 Relationship to General Plan ........................... 1-10
1.7 Environmental Quality Act Compliance ................. 1-11
1.8 Authority and Scope .................................. 1-11 Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
2.1 Introduction..........................................2-2
2.2 Existing Uses ......................................... 2-4
2.3 Surrounding Land Uses................................2-6
2.4 Topography and Natural Features ....................... 2-6
2.5 Earthquake Faults.....................................2-8
2.6 Landslides and Liquefaction ........................... 2-10
2.7 Hydrology and Drainage .............................. 2-10
2.8 Biological Resources..................................2-12
2.9 Cultural Resources...................................2-12
2.10 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Wastes ................ 2-15
2.11 Traffic and Circulation ............................... 2-15
2.12 Market Study.......................................2-20 Chapter 3: Project Description
3.1 Introduction..........................................3-3
3.2 Development Goals and Objectives ...................... 3-3
3.3 Public Benefits........................................3-4
3.4 Land Use Plan and Site Plan Concept .................... 3-5
3.5 Circulation Plan.......................................3-9
3.6 Grading Concepts....................................3-15
3.7 Drainage System ..................................... 3-17
3.8 Water and Sewer System ............................... 3-19
3.9 Fire Protection.......................................3-22
3.10 Parks..............................................3-23 Chapter 4: Development Standards
4.1 Introduction..........................................4-2
4.2 General Provisions .................................... 4-2
4.3 Permitted Land Uses ................................... 4-2
4.4 Development Standards ................................ 4-5
4.5 Landscape Standards..................................4-7
4.6 Sign Regulations......................................4-7
4.7 Open Space Standards.................................4-8
4.8 Grading Requirements ................................. 4-9
Chapter 5: Design Guidelines
5.1 Introduction..........................................5-2
5.2 Nonresidential........................................5-2
5.3 Residential...........................................5-5 Chapter 6: Implementation
6.1 Introduction..........................................6-2
6.2 Phasing..............................................6-2 Freeway Specific Plan • January 2024
r
6.3 Financing Mechanisms...................................6-5
6.4 Maintenance Responsibilities..............................6-6
6.5 Methods and Procedures for Implementation ................ 6-7
6.6 Enforcement of The Specific Plan ........................... 6-7
6.7 Interpretations...........................................6-9
6.8 Density/Intensity Transfers ............................... 6-10
6.9 Statement of Severability................................. 6-10
6.10 CEQA Compliance ..................................... 6-11 Appendix A: Definitions
i
City of Yucaipa
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map................................1-5 Figure 1-2. Local Vicinity Map ................................... 1-6 Figure 1-3. Site Ownership Map...................................1-7 Figure 1-4. APN Parcel Map ..................................... 1-8 Figure 1-5. Specific Plan Districts ................................ 1-9 Figure 2-1. Aerial Map .......................................... 2-5 Figure 2-2. Topographic Map .................................... 2-7 Figure 2-3. Slope Intensity Map .................................. 2-9 Figure 2-4.Floodplain Map......................................2-11 Figure 2-5. Market Area ........................................ 2-22 Figure 2-6. Estimated Household Growth ........................ 2-23 Figure 2-7. Local and Regional Retail Trade Area Boundaries ....... 2-27 Figure 3-1. Land Use Plan ....................................... 3-8 Figure 3-2. Conceptual Circulation Plan ......................... 3-10 Figure 3-3. Street Sections: Collector Streets ...................... 3-12 Figure 3-4. Street Sections: Local Streets and Trails ................ 3-13 Figure 3-5. Grading Plan........................................3-14 Figure 3-6. Pedestrian Circulation / Trails Plan ................... 3-16 Figure 6-1. Conceptual Phasing Plan .............................. 6-4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Property Ownership ...................................... 2-6 Table 2-2 Tribal Consultation 1.................................... 2-12 Table 2-3 Tribal Consultation 2.................................... 2-13 Table 2-4 Tribal Consultation 3.....................................2-14 Table 2-5 Acreage by Planned Land Use Designation .................. 2-22 Table 2-6 Household Growth Forecast .............................. 2-23 Table 2-7 Recommended Housing Capacity .......................... 2-25 Table 2-8 General Shopping Center Types ........................... 2-25 Table 2-9 Retail Market Potential .................................. 2-29 Table 2-10 Retail Market Potential ................................. 2-30 Table 2-11 Potential Market Demand for Non-residential Uses ......... 2-32 Table 3-1 Overall Land Use Distribution Summary .................... 3-7 Table 3-2 City of Yucaipa Street Standards ........................... 3-11 Table 3-3 Fire Station Locations .................................... 3-23 Table 4-1 Permitted Uses ........................................... 4-2 Table 4-2 Permitted Uses ........................................... 4-3 Table 4-3 Residential Development Standards ......................... 4-5 Table 4-4 Nonresidential Development Standards ..................... 4-6 Table 6-1 Phase Plan Allocation ..................................... 6-3 Table 6-2 Maintenance Plan: Responsible Parties ...................... 6-7 Table 6-3 Review Authority ........................................ 6-10 r
Freeway Specific Plan • January 2024
R�
4p
.
t ti
# r y e Af—
- rl e- gmwS P,
ohm
INTRODUCTION
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Situated along both sides of Interstate 10, the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (FCSP) area has the potential to serve several vital functions for the City of Yucaipa and the greater region. When completed, the 1,242-acre plan will provide a wide range of housing types to meet Yucaipa's future residential needs as well as locations for new business opportunities that will bring local jobs and economic growth for the community.
The Freeway Corridor Specific Plan was first adopted in November 2008 but remained dormant through the years of the Great Recession and the subsequent economic recovery. This 2022 Specific Plan Amendment was prepared in response to a number of changing conditions. A comprehensive update of the City's General Plan was completed in 2016, and the FCSP document needs to be consistent with the City's current goals and policies as well as implement the General Plan vision for the community. In 2012, the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy was adopted (amended in 2020), which is also a factor contributing to the necessity of the FCSP update. The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 again brought changes in land use expectations and goals —the demand for brick -and -mortar shopping centers further declined, and the overall demand for logistics/distribution centers increased to meet consumer needs.
Another recent development in Yucaipa is the establishment of a burgeoning wine industry. This began with the submittal of an application to the US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau to request the establishment of the Yucaipa Valley American Viticulture Area (AVA). Along with the development of the Yucaipa Valley Wine Country, opportunities are available in the plan area to support this emerging industry, and part of the vision for the FCSP includes the encouragement of agriculture in open space areas that would have the appropriate growing conditions for vineyards. Additionally, the Pumpkin Patch is a popular community attraction in the project area, and the FCSP maintains this use to support the agricultural operations.
The overarching vision for the FCSP is the creation of a place that reflects the unique character of Yucaipa and ultimately supports the community's needs into the future. Additionally, the FCSP is meant to allow a degree of flexibility that can provide a standard of quality without stifling opportunities or imposing inflexible regulations that would preclude creative development responses. An emphasis on sustainability is also a key part of the plan, with an encouragement of multimodal forms of transportation, ride sharing, and connections to future public transportation routes through appropriate land use densities.
The FCSP offers a mixture of residential, commercial, and business park development. In addition to these land uses, it provides community amenities such as trails and permanent open space areas that will preserve major ridgelines and drainage corridors. A variety of residential uses are provided to help meet the growing demand for housing in the city. The commercial and business park uses provide employment as well as retail and entertainment opportunities for those living in the community. The commercial uses take advantage of the freeway visibility and access to serve both local and regional needs. The residential areas are linked to the commercial and business park areas through an extensive system of multimodal trails. r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
1.2 PROJECT VISION
This document is intended to provide the overall direction for development to achieve the General Plan's vision for the project area.
The Specific Plan includes these key components:
• Allowable land uses within the 1,242-acre area.
• Development regulations, design standards and design
guidelines to ensure quality development.
• A multimodal trail and circulation system that provides access for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles.
• A plan for protecting and managing important natural
resources, including the hillsides and native oak trees. • Required infrastructure facilities, including financing and phasing, to support implementation of the plan.
• Implementation and administrative processes needed to approve specific development projects in the FCSP area.
The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment incorporates revisions to the 2008 plan to meet the changing needs of the market and additional changes that resulted from the adoption of the 2016 General Plan. In addition, the revisions provide more effective infrastructure connections to support future development and add flexibility to remain competitive with changing market conditions.
1.3 REGIONAL & LOCAL SETTING
The 1,242-acre Freeway Corridor Specific Plan area is in the City of Yucaipa in San Bernardino County. The FCSP area is bisected by Interstate 10 (I-10) and abuts the Riverside County boundary to the south. Regional access to the project is provided by I-10 from the east and west. Local access is provided by Live Oak Canyon Road, County Line Road, Oak Glen Road, Wildwood Canyon Road, and Calimesa Boulevard (see Figure 1-1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 1-2, Local Vicinity Map).
The FCSP is currently accessible from two freeway interchanges. The I-10/Live Oak Canyon/Oak Glen Road interchange is at the western edge of the project area, and the 1-10 / County Line Road interchange is at the southeastern edge of the project area. A third interchange is planned from Wildwood Canyon Road and will provide additional connectivity for the later phases of the project.
1.4 OWNERSHIP / DISTRICTS
Ownership of the site includes several entities; however, the Palmer and Robinson families have owned the majority of the project area since the 1950s. (Refer to Figure 1-3, Site Ownership Map, and Figure 1-4, APN Parcel Map, for a listing of the parcels.) Additionally, the project has been divided into districts to better understand the intensity of development in particular areas of the site. These districts are depicted in Figure 1-5, Specific Plan Districts.
i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 1: Introduction
Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map
14 LS
�r
Ritter Ranch I
Apple Valley
1sa Victorville 0
18 895
Acton
Santa Clafita Magic Mountain °
Hesperia 19
° Wilderness Area
Pleasant View
Ridge
Wilderness Area ❑2 i Wightwood
Angeles
National ForestSan
San Gabriel I ® 1]3
Q a Fernando Wilderness Area Bernardino
Big Bear City
❑ ! Crestline o aka Arrowhead COUnty1B Big Bear Lake
La Canada 1 ° o
Fllntridge
Burbank ` Los Angeles i
/ County % 3J0 ae
universal City O endale Pasadena Arcadia Glendora
0 0 r 63 Rancho San Bernardino
Cucamonga Fontana Rialto °
j o -
la State � Baldwin Park 0 0
Los Angeles °
uk Beverly Hills oEl Monte O West Covina -"
Ontario
Pom6na o o edlanc
-
O ° 1 Grand Terrace
Santa: Monica �- - -_ / OChino
O `
so A j o ire Loma Riverside
Inglewood L,
0 Downey
Norwalk \ Hills Slat --J °Moreno Valley
11\ ° Park
Card OFullerton \� ''d Cof na
\ 9 °
Torrance " O Anaheim
orange ,s\ Perris
Rancho Palos Long Beach ,.
O SantalAna 241
o erdes III o j
9 Sun city
Orange County
Huntington Irvine N
Beach Costa Mesa '/' o eke Elsinore
Rancho Santa `>
® Newport BMargarita
`\ Lake Forest O
oeach�� ' Wldomar
\ ]4
`\ 01,11N
Laguna N0iguel Murrieta
Los
Anigieles \ I. San Diego
County\ \ ©-Gouffty-, oV
]9
l
24]
Bighorn
Mountain
Wilderness
Y.
C
oYuc
San Gorgonio
..r Wlderness 1611
r-
-------------—--—--—--
--
T E Deaen Hot
Reservation 62 Springs
]9 111
263 Mount San O elm Springs`
Jacinto State
Park Cathedral
Soboba O
Riversideeser—tion
C04MW Idyllvnld Agua Caliente
_l ]4
Santa Rosa
Reservation
Cahuilla
Reservation
N
Miles
14 0 2.5 5 10 15 20
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
Figure 1-2. Local Vicinity Map
ciipal I
ort
qty of Highland ,
' Port Ave I
I m
;____ rr a
I t. I a
ockton Ave u % Nice Ave
a / a
/ 9
Warner B Crafton 'o n
E Citrul Ave Citrus Ave
I �
dighland Ave I »
I `^
I �
I ,
� I I
Rd
------rafton Hills o heights Rd
College eQFo
�— I C� ..
I i
— � —— — —— =innessee St Yucaipa Blvd Yucaipa Blvd
Fsunser Dr N
Redlands Oc
Country Club Palo Alto Dr Pita Vista
E 5u�set Dr s City of
Redlands
Herngt'Aki'
Preserve
LEGEND
aa�
rl
I I
I I
I I
Ivy Ave ;
--I 1
I I
I I
1 I Carter St I ---------------I
II ,t El Dorado
o Ranch Park —�
—
Yucaipa .t�Ys I
Regional Park-------------
Oaka
-- -- — Glen Rd-
m Oak pen CrsdK,'
1 Oak Glen
q pee
I
Date Ave 1
Yucaipa Valley I
Golf Club I
Cedar Ave City of ;
w n
Yucaipa a c.
Yucaipa I-- i------,
3 I
» a n — Wildwood I OL
Avenue1. Can State _
T Avenue E » o Park I --_—_,
» I
\ ,., r��=Colorado SL
1 I I
r� Wildwood Canyon Rd 1 I
r� Or
,ate„� Avenue °
SITE AvenueH
` e O Wil yo I �0
` m
in a oDt dwoodCa
oO �y I
of
`1oeR Buttert\�Ot
CooNty W Avenue L I
I l —
____I Myrtlewood Or Selr0000 pt I
I Garden Air Golf City of II
Course
Calimesa 1------
I I edit Ave 1
D Co
I �e a^d3Bd____—___J
11mumu- Site Boundary
�1a
Dunlap Acres e"
» o
» V�
Kentucky St Oa
Cherry Valley
N
Miles
0 0.250.5 1 1.5 2
i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 1: Introduction
Figure 1-3. Site Ownership Map
LEGEND
OWNERSHIP MAP
0 Robinson Ownership
0 Palmer Ownership
0 Other Owneship
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan • January 2024 - DRAFT
Figure 1-4. APN Parcel Map
LEGEND
BASE MAP FEATURES
Site Boundary
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 1: Introduction
Figure 1-5. Specific Plan Districts
LEGEND
BASE MAP FEATURES
Specific Plan Area
City Boundary
County Boundary
Property Lines
DISTRICT
Specific Plan District 1
0 Specific Plan District 2
Specific Plan District 3
Specific Plan District 4
N
US Feet
/4 0 500 1,000 2,000
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
1.5 PLANNING OBJECTIVES
During the preparation of the 2008 Specific Plan, a set of planning goals and objectives were established. The overall intent of these goals has been carried into the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, but with minor modifications to better fit market demands. The objectives are:
• Create an integrated addition to the City of Yucaipa containing housing, employment opportunities, retail/commercial areas, recreation areas, and other facilities essential to the daily lives of the residents.
• Ensure that the plan complies with the intent of the City Development Code related to hillside development to preserve key ridgeline features that frame Yucaipa, with allowances to ensure the feasibility of constructing uses that benefit the region. • Expand the range of housing opportunities in the region to meet the needs of a variety of household types, sizes, and income levels.
• Provide an abundance and variety of open space and
multimodal trails for bicycles, and pedestrians throughout the community.
• Design a safe and efficient circulation system that adequately supports the anticipated level of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic in and around the project.
• Develop a financing and phasing plan that provides for the efficient and timely provision of infrastructure and services as development occurs.
• Comprehensively plan the FCSP area with consideration of other contiguous areas to ensure compatible and complementary development, circulation patterns, infrastructure, and services.
1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL
PLAN
The General Plan for the City of Yucaipa identifies major goals that are intended to preserve the community's "rural atmosphere" and are relevant to the Specific Plan area. The City uses various growth management measures to achieve these goals and to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the projected growth in population.
These measures include but are not limited to:
• Limit density in most new developments to reflect a relatively low level of land use intensity.
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 1: Introduction
• Identify and preserve natural resources.
• Utilize development impact fees to defray infrastructure costs. • Regulate hillside and ridgeline development, preserve natural and undisturbed open space, protect oak trees, and conserve riparian habitat areas to maintain a rural atmosphere and benefit the citizens of Yucaipa.
These efforts are intended to facilitate the retention of "the scenic qualities that enhance the community's unique identity."
1.7 CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA)
A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was prepared for the 2008 Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. A Subsequent EIR has been prepared for the 2022 Amendment.
1.8 AUTHORITY AND SCOPE
This specific plan is enacted pursuant to Section 65450 et seq. of the California Government Code. A specific plan is a regulatory tool that local governments use to guide development in a local area consistent with the general plan. While the general glan is the primary guide for growth and development in a community, a specific plan is able to focus on the unique characteristics of a special area by customizing the planning process and land use regulations to that area. In accordance with state law, a specific plan shall include text and diagrams that specify:
• The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. • The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, and other essential facilities proposed in the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.
• Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable.
• A program of implementation measures, including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary for implementation.
In the Specific Plan area, no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, or structurally altered, nor shall any building, structure, or land be used, except as authorized by the Specific Plan and by relevant provisions of the Yucaipa Municipal Code (YMC). The Specific Plan is intended to replace City zoning regulations except where noted. Where the Specific Plan is silent, the YMC shall apply. r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
R�
4p
.
t ti
# r y e Af—
2AL.____;ems•` + '
BASELINE
CONDITIONS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a summary of the baseline conditions of the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan project site. The conditions have remained largely unchanged since 2008 when the Specific Plan was first adopted; however, all maps have been updated as necessary to reflect current conditions. Throughout this chapter, these conditions are referred to as the "baseline conditions." The purpose of defining baseline conditions is to provide a deeper understanding of the issues, constraints, and opportunities guiding the creation of the plan. The issues addressed in this chapter are:
• Historical Context
• Existing Uses
• Surrounding Land Uses
• Topography and Natural
Features
• Earthquake Faults
• Landslides
• Hydrology and Drainage
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
Additional information on these topics can be found in the SEIR.
2.1.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Agriculture in the Yucaipa Valley began during the 1810s and 1820s with grazing for a satellite rancho property of San Gabriel Mission's Rancho San Bernardino. In the 1830s, the Mexican government secularized California's missions, and the title for Rancho Yucaipa and other Rancho San Bernardino lands came into the possession of Antonio Maria Lugo and his sons in 1842. That same year, Lugo's son- in-law, Diego Sepulveda, built an adobe dwelling on Rancho Yucaipa, i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
which stands today northwest of the plan area. He grazed sheep and cattle on the property with the help of Cahuilla Tribe members from nearby areas.
Mormon settlers founded the town of San Bernardino in the late 1840s and ostensibly purchased Rancho San Bernardino in 1851, but returned to Utah in 1857, leaving ownership of the title for the land in the federal courts until 1865, when it was officially granted to the Lugos. In the meantime, however, non -Mormon settler John Brown Sr. had occupied the Yucaipa portion of Rancho San Bernardino, and his friend, trapper James Waters, took over the rancho in 1857 and was the de facto owner when the court case was settled in 1865.
On January 28,1869, Waters sold the Yucaipa Valley portion of the San Bernardino Rancho to John W. Dunlap and William Standefer, two cattlemen from Texas who brought 4,000 head of cattle with them.
Within a few years, the remaining Serrano Indians had been evicted, Standefer had sold his share to Dunlap, and Dunlap had died, leaving the care of the ranch to his wife and his son Franklin Pierce Dunlap, who took up residence in the Yucaipa adobe. During the 1870s, more than 500 acres of the Dunlap Ranch were cultivated in grain and 100 acres in alfalfa, with the rest in hay and pastureland. Franklin Pierce Dunlap built a brick mansion for his family surrounded by grain fields northeast of the original ranch headquarters and established a dairy operation in Live Oak Canyon. This became the "Dairy Ranch" subdivision of the Dunlap Ranch, which roughly corresponds to the project area.
The Southern Pacific Railroad was built in the late 1870s and passed within a few miles of the Dunlap Ranch, allowing the ranch to profitably ship grain to Arizona. In the 1880s, fruit culture became dominant in the San Bernardino / Riverside region and helped spur the great land boom of that decade, though the Dunlap Ranch holdings were not offered for subdivision at that time. A drought from 1896 to 1904 caused the Dunlap Ranch to lose heavily in cattle, and a water company established by the Dunlap family in 1899 suffered from competition with more established holdings in Oak Glen to the northeast.
The bulk of the FCSP area remained largely unsubdivided through the early decades of the twentieth century as a succession of farmers leasing land from the Redlands and Yucaipa Land Company continued to produce dairy, grain (particularly barley), and hay.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
r
2.1.2 PROJECT AREA
The area within the project boundaries is largely vacant because the 2008 Specific Plan did not result in any new development, as shown in Figure 2-1, Aerial Map. The majority of the land is owned by the Robinson family, who has used it in the past as rangeland for cattle and donkeys. Other areas, including those owned by the Palmer family, are also undeveloped pasture land. Closer to the I-10 but excluded from the project is a mixture of commercial and residential buildings.
Very little development has taken place over the years. As one travels from west to east along Calimesa Boulevard, to the north is a large field with longhorn cattle. A large paved area is slowly crumbling back into earth. An unused water well can also be seen. The stream bed has been degraded by erosion. The only development in the project area is an outdoor pottery store and trailer sales area. A seasonal pumpkin patch and Christmas tree farm generate a sizable amount of business, and are popular local tourist attractions.
As one exits the Live Oak Canyon Road/Oak Glen Road off -ramp and travels south along Live Oak Canyon Road, to the west is no development. East of Live Oak Canyon Road are agricultural uses such as the pumpkin patch and Christmas tree farm. Continuing south along Live Oak Canyon Road, just before you leave the boundaries of Yucaipa, are former poultry buildings that have been converted into a storage facility and small scale sales of craft goods.
At the southern boundary is an operating wastewater treatment plant. This land use is isolated from the other areas in the FCSP area and can only be accessed via a secondary road from County Line Road. This facility was included as part of the 2008 FCSP, but is now not a part (N.A.P.) of the plan area and only included for context.
Much of the plan interior has not been developed except for limited facilities used for ranching and farming. On the eastern boundary, with access to the County Line Road interchange, is a small cluster of homes on large lots. Within the plan area near County Line Roads is the development of a warehouse project.
2.2 EXISTING USES
The FCSP covers 1,242 acres along the southern border of Yucaipa.
The project's southern border is adjacent to the Riverside County boundary. The planning area is bisected by I-10. Access from the freeway is available from two freeway interchanges: Live Oak Canyon Road/Oak Glen Road and County Line Road. Caltrans maintains the Wildwood rest area on the south side of the freeway within the right- of-way. Calimesa Boulevard is the major arterial that traverses the planning area just north of 1-10.
Land uses on the site consist primarily of agricultural land, a limited number of residences, a wastewater treatment plant, and miscellaneous commercial uses such as an outdoor pottery store and storage. Ten property owners held title in the plan area in 2021. The largest landowners are the Robinson family and the Palmer family.
Both owners purchased their land in the mid-1950s. The Robinson's holdings cover about 45 percent of the land in the planning area, and the Palmer's holdings cover approximately 26 percent. Since the adoption of the original FCSP, the Palmers have sold the Pumpkin Patch, and the current owners continue the agricultural activities on - site and lease land from the Palmers for additional pumpkin plantings.
See Table 2-1 for the Property Ownership Land distribution.
The wastewater treatment plant is owned and operated by the Yucaipa Valley Water District and is adjacent to the FCSP land area.
Z
City of Yucaipa
1r9� s '-��1�•! �+r t+�, `�� !d'.a, .v'+4== z' t ..ate -:I { t t'�t� y} �- t�'�Yi� usnYl �-Fi"B11ernard� "�'ro a-f-:� s!` �.�}`,, �{ _ iAl`. tt'' �+„b�.•. t'!➢M�" '� �1�, ■ 1," �'�. no Fk1, �`% .:s �" y fi � - ■' ♦� j �3�.�. '. T'f ; C'¢ ,> ;- P�,► P" ^' Kent ucky S[ Kentucky St !i,.` �: sq -
`J
do's,
aJ � �` w r O '.:I � fi••}}+.. �f - 'v-G`mc � n—ny-�'Co o� `. Ya. �,- � � Go�.i `rif ' �rrr7+� a t� •�ti sd r� i4 " oa
J;• V` �9h dA°� ° w ,� '�' o _ I..�in,v'°•a..�u`�!. 'i'k `fit-Ne 14 .�� - � t = �� wsa°6 . ��\ ,. i ` `--•..., -. +--•fir.-•%�.�� - - �� � ;-�r3ti % R
N ba
wY
.'�.a --_ San-
IVY
c,, oFa,..`, , ." � � � n "' m — , `.:. r F., : o+'a� u �� �, `ice •o �--a,,,�, -+a�� ,
i .
oaw :G �dcalP,,,•.� k Barnardin
f
IV
r . •,�" � � •,.�,� 4: � �1�, � `fit. ; j g l � : ri'� t i BernardinoCounty
Riversid2Courlty .. � � u�i��
2-5
0 Table 2-1. Property Ownership
PROPERTIES
BOUNTIFUL ACRES LLC
ACRES
2.37 CHAGOLLA, ROBERT E & ZELIA
REVOCABLE
13.17 GLOBE DESIGN BUILD LLC
1.52 KRUPPA FAMILY LIVING TRUST 12/29/16
9.22 LIVE OAK CANYON INVESTMENTS LLC
113.82
PALMER GENERAL CORP
326.12
RAMOS, JAMES
4.72 ROBINSON PROPERTIES
546.55
SOUTH MOUNTAIN WATER CO
34.53 YUCAIPA VALLEY CO WATER DISTRICT
157.31 (N.A.P.)
TOTAL
1,209.3
Source: San Bernardino County Assessors Office, 2021.
2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES
As part of the planning process, compatibility with surrounding uses outside the project area has been taken into consideration. Bordering the Specific Plan area on the west is the City of Redlands. Much of this area is developed with low -density housing in a rural setting.
North of the planning area, in Yucaipa, are low -density residential neighborhoods. Recent development in this area includes the Wildwood Canyon II residential project, completed in 2005/2006.
East of the project area are retail, residential, and light industrial uses that serve Yucaipa and the surrounding region.
The City of Calimesa is in Riverside County on the southern border. Various large-scale residential projects are currently under construction or approved, which when combined with the FCSP will create an interconnected series of new communities in the greater Yucaipa Valley area. One of these is the Mesa Verde Specific Plan, which includes 1,460 acres of development with direct access to the County Line Road/I-10 interchange. Upon completion, Mesa Verde will include a mix of residential uses, commercial uses, parks, and schools. Similar to the City of Yucaipa, the City of Calimesa is currently preparing an update to the Mesa Verde Specific Plan.
Another large-scale project in the area is Summerwind Ranch at Oak Valley, just south of Mesa Verde Estates and in Calimesa. This 2,950- acre project combines residential with commercial, a business park, and recreational uses. The project is currently under construction and at completion will include up to 3,683 residences (single- and multifamily) on 677 acres; 260 acres set aside for commercial and business park uses; 89 acres for parks and community recreation; and 1,493 acres set aside for open space, school sites, and a water reclamation facility.
2.4 TOPOGRAPHY AND NATURAL
FEATURES
The land area in the FFCSP ranges in elevation from 1,875 feet to 2,405 feet above sea level. Topographically, the Specific Plan area is generally divided by Wildwood Creek, which runs immediately south of the freeway through most of the project area. Wildwood Creek generally contains water only after rainstorms or from other runoff. I-10 generally runs along the eastward extension of Wildwood Creek and obscures the former configuration of the channel. Other channels include Wilson Creek and Yucaipa Creek. All three channels are identified on USGS quadrangle maps as blue -line channels.
As shown in Figure 2-2, Topographic Map, the area north of Wildwood Creek consists of gently rolling to moderately steep hills with a general southerly slope. This area is underlain by gently sloping sandstone i
City of Yucaipa
S
2-7
and conglomerate (San Timoteo beds, Pliocene to Pleistocene age).
The area is cut by several deep ravines; in some ravines the upper San Timoteo beds have been eroded away, and older bedrock is exposed in small areas. Geologic maps show two areas of faulting: along the northeast edge of the study area and along the Chicken Hill fault at the northwest edge of the project area. Faulting has resulted in the formation of down -dropped sections of terrain that are traversed by drainage courses.
South of Wildwood Creek, the terrain is defined by tributaries of Wildwood Creek; the tributaries drain westerly toward Live Oak Canyon and the main Wildwood Creek. The area is underlain by San Timoteo beds that dip gently to the north-northeast. The San Timoteo beds are overlain by remnants of Pleistocene axial -valley deposits.
Younger alluvium is mapped in many of the stream channels. The Banning fault traverses the southern part of the study area, but does not appear to control the drainage pattern to a significant degree. This suggests that the Banning fault has not been active in recent time.
Another prominent feature is Wilson Creek. Wilson Creek runs roughly north -south and parallel to Live Oak Canyon Road and is one of the principal drainage channels for the entire Yucaipa Valley.
2.5 EARTHQUAKE FAULTS
The Specific Plan area is in a seismically active region. The San Andreas fault zone, a major strike -slip rupture capable of producing earthquakes of magnitudes greater than 7.5, lies four miles to the northeast. A portion of the Banning fault traverses the FCSP area, roughly from the south to Live Oak Canyon. The position of the Banning fault is inferred throughout its length since it is obscured on the site by relatively young alluvial sediments. The eastern and central sections of the Banning fault, which lie outside of the Specific Plan area, are active (earthquake along the fault in July 2005), with a maximum probable earthquake magnitude of 7.2. The western part of the Banning fault, including the section in the plan area, is not considered active. (The Banning fault was studied extensively as part of the SEIR for the Yucaipa Valley Water District wastewater treatment plant.)
The Chicken Hill fault study zone runs along the east side of Live Oak Canyon. The Chicken Hill fault is shown (though not named) on the Fault Map of California as having been active in the late Quaternary or Holocene (700,000 or 10,000 years before present, respectively). The trace of the Chicken Hill fault is shown north of I-10 and inferred south of I-10. An extensive study of the area was completed in the "Fault Investigation Study: Robinson Ranch" EIR that was certified in May 2000. The study was conducted by AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. and dated December 31, 1998.
Z
City of Yucaipa
I
lmlr-)w
Km
Seismically active areas in California are governed by the Alquist- Priolo Act. Pursuant to the act, series of Special Studies Zones maps have been prepared by the California Geological Survey showing the traces of faults that pose significant seismic hazards. Development within the defined areas of the Special Studies Zones requires site - specific investigations of fault traces, movements, and hazards. In the project area, the only fault mapped as a Special Studies Zone is the segment of the Chicken Hill fault north of I-10. However, the inferred traces of the Chicken Hill fault south of I-10 and the Banning fault should also be considered potentially subject to direct seismic hazard (ground rupture), and any development in the area must take these faults into account.
2.6 LANDSLIDES AND
LIQUEFACTION
Landslides may occur in certain soil or rock types on steep or moderately steep slopes where water seepage or other factors result in failure of the cohesion of the material. Landslide deposits typically have an irregular, hummocky appearance, often with a visible break on the slope above the deposit. Landslide -prone deposits could fail due to ground shaking during an earthquake, although landslides can also occur without seismic activity. A small and very local landslide exists on the hill southeast of the rest stop along I-10, probably due to erosion of the bank of a local stream. No landslides are indicated on the geologic map.
Liquefaction typically occurs in water -saturated, fine-grained sediments in areas of very low slope. Ground shaking during an earthquake can cause such sediments to fail (liquefy), damaging existing structures. Such sediments and conditions are unlikely to exist on -site since it is in an area of relatively steep topography.
Landslide and liquefaction hazards are mapped by the California Geological Survey on a series of Seismic Hazards Zones maps based on the corresponding 7.5-minute topographic maps. No Seismic Hazard Zones map has been compiled or is proposed for the Yucaipa quadrangle.
2.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
The construction of I-10 profoundly changed the local drainage pattern. Before the freeway, runoff from the higher areas north of Wildwood Creek (beyond the northern part of the plan area) drained to Wildwood Creek, which ran westward to Live Oak Canyon and then southwest. The area south of Wildwood Creek also had a generally westward drainage pattern, with a south branch of Wildwood Creek being the most important feature.
Construction of I-10 prevented normal runoff from the north into Wildwood Creek and thence west to Live Oak Canyon. Culverts and drains under the freeway cannot always accommodate runoff during rainy periods, resulting in diversion of drainage patterns, local erosion, or local flooding north of the freeway. Drainage issues in the FCSP have been extensively studied to identify approaches to addressing areawide drainage concerns and incorporated into the Land Use Plan. Refer to Figure 2-5, Floodplain Map, for the locations currently within the 100-year FEMA floodplain.
i
City of Yucaipa
S
2-11
2.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
One key asset of the project is the natural beauty of the rolling terrain.
The complex topography, oak trees, streams, and riparian corridors define an area unlike any other in the city.
An extensive analysis of biological resources is in the EIR. The EIR displays vegetation mapping and habitat types. Potential sensitive biological resources that may be present include bird species such as the southwestern willow flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, western burrowing owl, and the least Bell's vireo. Rodent species that may exist include the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, Stephens' kangaroo rat, and the San Diego pocket mouse. Plant species may include the Santa Ana River woollystar, Parry's spineflower, narrow - leaved cottonwood, Plummer's mariposa lily, and the slender -horned spineflower.
The stream courses on the property include wetlands habitat, which will require protection or mitigation according to the US Army Corps of Engineers requirements. Also, subsequent development plans in each Specific Plan district will require an oak tree mitigation plan pursuant to the Yucaipa Municipal Code.
2.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that archaeological and historic resources be investigated and considered as part of development applications. These procedures allow for important aspects of our past to be respected and preserved to educate future generations. To document cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the project, a Phase I Cultural Resources inventory was completed in 2005/2006.
Recognizing the role that native peoples had in shaping the landscape as well as what they can contribute to current planning efforts, state law requires local governments to consult with California Native American tribes for the purpose of protecting and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places and resources. Table 2-2, Tribal Consultation 1, identifies the tribes that were consulted as part of the original effort.
Table 2-2. Tribal Consultation 1
TRIBE NAME
CONTACT PERSON
CITY
Morongo Band of Mission
Britt W. Wilson, Project
Banning
Indians
Manager/Cultural
Resources Coordinator
Pechanga Band of Mission
Mark Macarro,
Temecula
Indians
Chairperson
Ramona Band of Mission
Manuel Hamilton,
Anza
Indians
Chairperson
San Manuel Band of
Deron Marquez,
Patton
Mission Indians
Chairperson
Serrano Band of Indians
Goldie Walker
Highland
Soboba Band of Mission
Robert J. Salgado, Sr.,
San Jacinto
Indians
Chairperson
Several sources were consulted as part of the cultural resources investigation. Included were cultural resources records and literature at the local Archaeological Information Center at the San Bernardino County Museum in Redlands. For information about the local and site -specific history of the project, numerous archival resources in San Bernardino, Redlands, and Yucaipa were consulted. Information regarding the prehistory and ethnohistory of the general study area was compiled from data collected by Southern California researchers over the past 15 years. Five prehistoric sites were previously identified and are described in Table 2-3, Tribal Consultation.
Z
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
In addition to the sites identified in the literature research, 2005/2006 field surveys revealed nine new archaeological sites and three potentially historical standing structures. Of the nine archaeological sites, five contain historical archaeological deposits and features, and four consist solely of prehistoric archaeological remains (see Table 2-3, Tribal Consultation 2).
Table 2-3. Tribal Consultation 2
SITE ID
SITE DESCRIPTION
SBR-429
Recorded in 1935, this mineralized burial was discovered during the construction of a catch basin, and in 1965,
described as containing several burials, pottery, fire - altered rock, and ground and flaked stone artifacts.
SBR-908
Originally recorded in 1939 and updated in 1947 to
contain pottery, fire altered.
SBR-912
The site was recorded in 1947 as a processing station with burial and shell beads, in 1976 as destroyed by grading activity, and in 1999 with no artifacts.
SBR-913
The site was first recorded in 1947. A 1965 record
describes presence of cremations and burials with
associated artifacts. A comment from 1976 states that the site had been destroyed by road construction. A revisit in 1999 showed no artifacts.
SBR-915
An analysis from 1976 describes the site as very
important with very early artifacts, some of which were discovered at a depth of 20 feet. Portions of the site were destroyed during the construction of I-10.
Each of these sites will require in-depth investigation and appropriate mitigation before any development is allowed under this Specific Plan. Three archaeological sites in the project area have Native American human remains that were discovered as isolated burials and cremations. Any development or grading activity with the potential to disturb or destroy buried Native American human remains requires compliance with the state laws that protect them (i.e., Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public Resources Code Section 5097.98). Sites containing Native American human remains will be identified and treated in a sensitive manner.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
Table 2-4. Tribal Consultation 3
SITE ID
SITE •
AE-YUC-1H
This site consists of a 30-foot by 16-foot historical structure that may have functioned as a pump house.
AE-YUC-2H
This site consists of a flood control dam constructed to control flood waters coming down the creek from torrential rains in the San Bernardino Mountains.
AE-YUC-3
This site consists of a prehistoric residential location containing a sparse to moderate -density complex lithic scatter, fire -altered rock, and burned faunal remains.
AE-YUC-4H
This site consists of elements of a cattle ranch; cultural constituents observed include discarded hog wire and barbed wire fencing, sheet metal, and lumber.
AE-YUC-5
This site appears to be a small, prehistoric temporary camp site containing a sparse lithic scatter of flaked stone artifacts, burned bone, fire -altered rock, and sediments.
AE-YUC-6
This site consists of a small, sparse, discrete scatter of ten prehistoric ceramic fragments that all appear to be derived from the same vessel.
AE-YUC-7
This site consists of a sparse lithic scatter of one basalt secondary flake, five metavolcanic secondary flakes, and one metavolcanic spent core.
AE-YUC-8H
This site consists of the elements of a reservoir, including a spillways, drain tunnel, and dams. This reservoir appears to be the result of agricultural/ranch water development in the area. The spillway could have been an ingress that was abandoned due to loss of water and creek bed erosion.
AE-YUC-9H
This site is a partially destroyed pump house with mechanical accoutrements of a pump and flat head, six -cylinder motor. The pump was configured to supply water to the cooling system of the motor and represents ranch/agricultural water development on a modest scale.
CA-SBR-915
This site was recorded in 1976 as being a prehistoric site containing ground stone artifacts. Portions of the site may have also been destroyed during the construction of Interstate 10. Inspection during current surveys failed to identify any prehistoric cultural materials due to poor ground surface visibility at the time of the survey.
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
2.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/
HAZARDOUS WASTES
Hazardous materials are an issue in any planning process because the presence of contaminated soils or location of businesses that pose risks can influence how land uses are arranged.
This section describes and evaluates the potential risks to human health, the built environment, and the natural environment associated with the transportation, use, generation, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials.
The evaluation of potential hazardous materials and hazardous waste concerns in the study area was based on a regulatory database search, supplemented by field observations made during a site inspection in February 2006. The complete results of the search are provided in the Specific Plan EIR. The key concerns regarding prior use of the site are residual pesticides from agricultural uses, the former/current presence of fuel tanks, and any spills from truck accidents that may have occurred on I-10.
The only listed site in the immediate area is the Yucaipa Lift Station at 32280 Live Oak Canyon Road. The Yucaipa Lift Station is a sewage treatment facility operated by the Yucaipa Valley Water District.
This site appears on the County Permit database as an inactive hazardous materials handler (due to having an underground storage tank and above -ground storage tank, both listed as inactive); on the UST database with no other information provided; on the Haznet database as a generator of hazardous waste (aqueous solutions with organic residues); and on the Hazardous Materials Incident database for a 1997 incident when a breakdown at the station resulted in the release of an unstated quantity of raw sewage into Wildwood Creek.
Based on the regulatory database listings and the length of time since the sewage release incident, the presence of this one listed site in the study area does not appear to be of significant environmental concern.
2.11 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The project benefits from I-10 freeway access and a direct link to the heart of Yucaipa via Oak Glen Road. Streets that directly and indirectly serve the properties include Live Oak Canyon Road / Oak Glen Road, Outer Highway 10S, County Line Road, Calimesa Boulevard, Wildwood Canyon Road, Colorado Street, 9th Street, and 16th Street.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
LIVE OAK CANYON ROAD/OAK GLEN ROAD
Live Oak Canyon Road / Oak Glen Road is a two- to four -lane arterial roadway running northeast -southwest adjacent to and north of the project. The roadway is divided by a double yellow center line. Live Oak Canyon Road begins in the County of Riverside and at I-10 it becomes Oak Glen Road, which extends northeast, loops around the city, and ends back in the County of Riverside. The speed limit is posted at 50 miles per hour (mph) south of Avenue E and 40 mph north of Avenue E. Parking is generally not permitted along most of the roadway. Live Oak Canyon / Oak Glen Road has boulevard stops at Outer Highway 10S, the I-10 westbound ramp, and Colorado Street. The roadway is controlled by a four-way stop sign at the I-10 eastbound ramp and traffic signals at Calimesa Boulevard, Avenue E, and Yucaipa Boulevard.
OUTER HIGHWAY 10S
Outer Highway 10S is a two-lane arterial roadway adjacent to and north of the project. The roadway is divided by a double yellow center line. Outer Highway 10S begins at Live Oak Canyon Road and continues west, ending at Gold Hill Lane. The speed limit is posted at 40 mph. Parking is generally not permitted along most of the roadway. Outer Highway 10S provides stops for Alta Vista Drive and 16th Street. The roadway is controlled by a three-way stop sign at Yucaipa Boulevard and a boulevard stop at Live Oak Canyon Road.
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
COUNTY LINE ROAD
County Line Road is a two-lane arterial roadway adjacent to and south of the project site. The roadway is divided by a double yellow center line. County Line Road begins just east of Canyon Crest Road and extends east, ending approximately one-half mile west of Crow Street. The speed limit is posted at 35 mph east of I-10 and 25 mph west of the freeway. Parking is generally not permitted along most of the roadway. County Line Road does not have boulevard stops at the I-10 ramps and is controlled by a traffic signal at Calimesa Boulevard and 5th Street. The roadway is controlled by all -way stop signs at 3rd Street, 2nd Street, California Street, and Bryant Street.
CALIMESA BOULEVARD
Calimesa Boulevard is a two- to four -lane arterial roadway that crosses the northern portion of the project site, parallel to and just north of I-10. The roadway provides two travel lanes and is divided by a double yellow center line north of County Line Road. South of County Line Road, Calimesa Boulevard widens to four lanes, two in each direction, divided by a two-way left -turn lane. Calimesa Boulevard begins in the County of Riverside and extends northwest, where it turns into 14th Street at Oak Glen Road. The speed limit is mostly posted at 50 mph north of County Line Road and 35 mph south of County Line Road. Parking is not permitted along most of the roadway. Calimesa Boulevard provides a boulevard stop at Wildwood Canyon Road. The roadway is controlled by traffic signals at Oak Glen Road and County Line Road.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
WILDWOOD CANYON ROAD
Wildwood Canyon Road is a two-lane arterial roadway north of the project site. The roadway is marked by a double yellow center line, and the speed limit is posted at 40 mph along most of the roadway.
The roadway extends east from Calimesa Boulevard and ends at Oak Glen Road. Wildwood Canyon Road has a boulevard stop at Colorado Street and Calimesa Boulevard, with an all -way stop sign at 5th Street.
COLORADO STREET
Colorado Street is a two-lane collector roadway north of the project site. The roadway is divided by a double yellow center line. Colorado Street begins at Oak Glen Road and continues east to Wildwood Canyon Road. The speed limit is posted at 35 mph. Parking is permitted along most of the roadway. The roadway is controlled by all- way stops at 8th, 9th, and loth Streets and a boulevard stop at Wildwood Canyon Road.
9th STREET
9th Street is a two-lane collector residential roadway north of the project site. The roadway is unmarked and extends south from Washington Drive and ends approximately 200 feet south of Colorado Street in the project area. The speed limit is not posted, so a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph would apply. The roadway is controlled with an all -way stop sign at its intersection with Colorado Street. i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
16th STREET
16th Street is a two-lane collector street that borders the west end of the Specific Plan area, beginning at Florida Street. The roadway is divided by a double yellow center line and broken yellow center line along various sections of the roadway. 16th Street begins at Outer Highway 10S and continues north where it ends at Sand Canyon Road. The speed limit is posted at 35 mph and 40 mph along various sections.
Parking is generally permitted along most of the roadway. Sixteenth Street provides a boulevard stop at Avenue E and is controlled by boulevard stops at Outer Highway 10S and Yucaipa Boulevard.
INTERSTATE 10 - SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY
I-10 bisects the project site. It has six travel lanes and provides regional east -west circulation between San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties and to destinations farther east. Three interchanges provide full access in the project vicinity:
• Yucaipa Boulevard
• Live Oak Canyon Road/Oak Glen Road
• County Line Road
A Rideshare Facility has been constructed at Yucaipa Boulevard, and a new interchange is planned at Wildwood Canyon Road.
R
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
2.12 MARKET STUDY
This section summarizes the analysis of the market potential for residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the FCSP plan area.
The regional and national economies are mostly recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic, although there are some very well publicized issues, mostly related to supply chains and new outbreaks, that have yet to fully resolve, and new issues, including inflation growth, have arisen. Complicating these matters are ma-jor changes resulting from the pandemic. Most notably among these are the decline in the labor force participation rate which has created a labor shortage, the expansion of technological solutions that have made remote work and working from home more productive, and the accelerated shift to online retail and use of delivery services. The long-term impacts resulting from the changes, which are still occurring, is not yet known.
However, it is widely anticipated that the shift of some jobs to more remote work and working from home will alter downtowns, the office market, as well as the residential market in communities that are desirable places to live. It is also widely expected that retail vacancies will remain persistently high, reducing demand for new retail development and accelerating the reuse and redevelopment of excess commercial building space. Finally, the current rise in inflation and the resulting increase in interest rates is expected to reduce demand for housing in the short-term, but in a region like Southern California with structural housing shortages, the impact on the housing market is expected to subside as the supply does not meet the demand.
Needless to say, it is a very challenging time to project the course of market demand for real estate development. The analyses presented herein take these issues into account as best as is possible. In addition, the analysis provides results as a range of outcomes to reflect the uncertainty, and the projections extend out only 15 years. The analysis identifies the potential market demand as follows:
Residential Development
The analysis recommends that the updated plan accommodate a mix of approximately 1,490 single-family detached homes and 990 multifamily homes (inclusive of townhouse, condos, and apartments).
The analysis notes that shifting demographics may result in smaller households with more renters and fewer children. This suggests that new housing should include more multifamily housing than in the past, as reflected in the recommended housing mix, and smaller housing units.
Retail Development
The analysis finds that there is a substantial amount of retail spending that Yucaipa residents do in other communities, a result that replicates many previous market analyses for the city. The FCSP plan area may help reduce some of this retail spending leakage. However, it is unlikely that the market will support a regional -scale shopping center, and without this, a substantial amount of residents' consumer spending will continue to flow to other communities. The analysis recommends that the updated plan accommodate 148,000 to 245,000 square feet of retail building space. It also motes that in the unlikely event a major comparison goods retail located in the plan area, then the total amount of retail building space the market might support would rise, potentially as high as 587,000 square feet.
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
Other Commercial Development
Other commercial development includes services, such as banks and hair salons, as well as hotels and medical offices. The analysis projects that the market would support about 156,000 square feet of commercial building space, although this could rise as high as 313,000. About a quarter of this total would be medical office.
Office Buildings
The pandemic has dramatically altered the market potential for office development. The analysis recommends that the plan area accommodate only 14,700 to 61,500 square feet of stand-alone office buildings (excluding medical office). This could change depending on how the labor market and office work environments evolve over time, however a steady decrease has occurred over the past two decades.
Industrial Development
The analysis finds that the market could support about 239,000 square feet of industrial buildings, not including warehousing, and that, citywide, this demand could increase up to 717,000 square feet. The analysis notes that the industrial market for sites for new warehouses is very strong. In addition, with a greater influence of online shopping, point of sale facilities have replaced the economic driver previously seen by retail development.
2.12.1 INTRODUCTION
IA. Purpose
The City of Yucaipa (city) began developing the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (FCSP) in 2005 and adopted it in 2008. No real progress implementing the FCSP has occurred since then, in no small part due to the devastating 2008-09 recession, the slow economic recovery, and then the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020. The city intends to adopt an update to the FCSP in late 2023, with the updated plan reflecting a variety of conditions that have changed since the original FCSP was prepared.
This report summarizes the analysis of economic and market conditions that was conducted as part of the process to update the FCSP. The purpose of the economic and market analysis is to inform land use planning, especially the amount of land area and types of uses that projected market demand will likely support.
1B. The Plan Area
The FCSP encompasses about 1,242 acres. The land is owned by 12 different property owners, but the two largest own 78 percent of the plan area. The land is mostly used for agriculture or is open space.
There are a limited number of residences, a wastewater treatment plant, and miscellaneous commercial uses such as an outdoor pottery store and storage.
The land area within the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan ranges from 1875 feet above sea level to 2,405 feet above sea level. Topographically, the Yucaipa Freeway Corridor Specific Plan area is generally divided by Wildwood Creek, which runs immediately south of the freeway through most of the project area. Wilson Creek runs roughly north - south and parallel to Live Oak Canyon Road and is one of the principle drainage channels for the entire Yucaipa Valley. Topography, drainage, and flood plains are significant constraints to development in the plan area.
The original specific plan designated the 1,241-acre plan area for the land uses shown in Table 2-5. As originally envisioned, the plan area's 425 acres of residential area would accommodate 2,447 residential Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
dwelling units. With the maximum allowa-ble floor -to -area (FAR) ratio, the plan would allow a theoretical maximum development of
3.7 million square feet of regional commercial building space and 840,000 square feet of business park building space, although this does not take into account the topography, drainage, and flood plain constraints.
Table 2-5. Acreage by Planned Land Use Designation; FCSP Plan Area; 2008
LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS
RC Regional Commercial
ACRES
172.0
BP Business Park
25.7 R-1 Residential 4 du/ac
15.7 R-2 Residential 2 du/ac
104.0
R-4 Residential 4 du/ac
215.10
R-8 Residential 8 du/ac
49.9 R-24 Residential 24 du/ac
40.0 PF Public Facilities
44.8 OS Open Space
549.0
Rights -of -way
25.3 Total
1,241.5
2.12.2 2. RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Changes in the number of households over time drives the demand for new housing development. Thus, the analysis projects household growth as the indicator of demand for new housing over the next fifteen years.
2A. Residential Market Area
Developers building new housing in the plan area will draw customers from households looking for homes in a larger area than just Yucaipa.
For simplicity's sake, the market analysis defines the market area as generally the area along the I-10 freeway, from Redlands to Beaumont, including unincorporated areas like Cherry Valley and Mentone.
Specifically, the defined market area consists of the following zip codes: 92223, 92320, 92359, 92373, 92374, 92399, as shown in Figure 2-5.
Figure 2-5. Market Area
San Bernardino
National Forest
Hig d
O
Redlan
0 Yucaipa
0 -Riverside
0 �• Banning
so �;
Perris
H emet
® Residential Market Area �
Z
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
2B. Household Growth Trend
The analysis estimates that the number of households residing in the residential market area grew from 43,100 in 1991 to 67,300 in 2022, and increase of 24,200 households, or 1.4 percent per year. The analysis provides three projections for the number of households over the next 15 years, both a low and high projection, as well as a mid -level projection, which serves as the basis for the forecast for household growth in the plan area. Figure 2-6 shows the trend in household growth from 1991 to 2022 and the three projections for future household growth over the next 15 years.
The analysis projects that the number of households in the residential market area will likely increase by 9,150 from 2022 to 2037, or 0.9 percent per year. However, the projected increase in households could range from a low of 5,420 (0.5 percent per year) to a high of 12,900 (1.2 percent per year).
Figure 2-6. Estimated Household Growth, 1991 to 2022, and Three Projections for Household Growth, 2022 to 2037; Residential Market Area
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ti ti ti N ti
Actual • • • • • Low Projection • • • • • Mid Projection • • • • • High Projection 2C. Local Household Growth Potential
How many of these new households might choose to move to the plan area? There is no way to know for certain because it will depend on the timing of infrastructure improvements and the types and costs of the new housing that gets built in the plan area. It will also depend on the types and costs of new housing built in the other parts of the residential market area. Because the FCSP area constitutes a major portion of the land area in Yucaipa that will be available for new residential development, the analysis uses the city's share of market area household growth from 1991 to 2022 as a proxy for the potential demand for new housing in the plan area.
Table 2-6 provides the forecast for household growth, along with a high and low projection. The analysis forecasts that the plan area could grow by 2,560 new households over the next 15 years, or an average of about 160 households per year. If there is a delay in getting housing built and if other nearby cities make more land available for residential development, the number of new households in the plan area could be as low as 880. Conversely, if the plan area develops rapidly and the other cities fail to make land available for residential development, the number of new households that could theoretically move to the plan area might increase to up to 4,280.
Table 2-6. Household Growth Forecast; Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Area; 2022 to 2037
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
2D. Housing Type
The demand for new housing is essentially the same as the projected growth in households. The market questions concern of the type and size of housing needed to accommodate new households.
Tenure
Over the past five years, the percentage of households in the residential market area owning their own home increased from 67.2 percent to
70.4 percent. This is substantially higher than the home ownership rate for San Bernardino County and California, suggesting that there could be unmet demand for additional rental housing in the market area.
Average Household Size
The average household size in the residential market area increased slightly from 2.86 to 2.94 over the past five years. However, birth rates have been declining since 2007, with fewer and fewer children being born. In its most recent Regional Transportation Plan, the Southern California Association of Governments is forecasting decreasing household sizes from 2020 to 2045. This suggests that the market demand for new housing may transition to smaller average house sizes.
Housing Type
As of the beginning of 2022, the California Department of Finance estimates that single-family detached (SFD) housing accounted for
70.7 percent of the housing stock in the residential market area.
However, from 2011 to 2022, SFD housing accounted for 85.9 percent of the total new housing constructed in the market area. In contrast, SFD housing accounted for 67.8 percent of the total housing in 2022 but only 50.7 percent of the new housing constructed from 2011 to 2022.
In 2011, multifamily housing (including single -family -attached housing, condos, and apartments) was only 18.8 percent of the total housing stock in the market area and accounted for 12.5 percent of the in -crease in housing from 2011 to 2022. In Yucaipa, multifamily housing was 10.1 percent of the 2021 housing stock but 49.3 percent of the 11-year increase in housing.
With rising construction costs and increasing housing prices, it is likely that attached and multifamily hous-ing may increase in the share of new construction. The project market demand provided in the following section assumes that the existing split between SFD housing and attached and multifamily housing con-tinues. However, the specific plan should maintain some flexibility in the ultimate mix to allow developers to respond to changes in market demand over time.
2E. Housing Recommendation
It is likely that most new SFD construction in Yucaipa will occur in the plan area, where there is land available for larger developments.
New multifamily may split between the plan area and the rest of the city depending on what land is available and at what cost.
Based on the foregoing discussions, Table 2-7 provides the recommended amount of housing that projected market demand could support in the FCSP. The high projection in Table 2-7 reflects the projection for housing growth citywide, assuming that the FCSP is adopted and implemented. The low projection represents citywide housing demand should substantive investment in infrastructure fail to materialize.
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
2.12.3 RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
Retail market demand is primarily driven by local residents. Retail businesses in the FCSP plan area would also likely draw some customers from through traffic along the I-10 freeway. This section estimates market support for retail stores and restaurants and discusses implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on demand. The next section discusses market support for other types of businesses. 3A. Retail Types
Table 2-7. Recommended Housing Capacity; FCSP Plan Area Low Projection
1,150
280
Recommendation
1,240
1,200
High Projection
1,940
1,120
The retail market can be categorized into two broad groups:
convenience goods and services and comparison goods. Table 2-8 describes the conventional typology for retail centers, and the subsequent discussion in this section further describes types of retail. 3A(i) Convenience Goods and Services
Convenience goods and services are those that people need on a regular basis. For these regular purchases, most consumers have built knowledge of where to go to get what they want, and whether their discriminator is price, convenience, or quality. Groceries, medicines, and hair care are typical convenience goods and services. Because convenience goods and services usually have low-cost margins and high sales volumes, convenience retailers are located throughout Table 2-8. General Shopping Center Types
Source: Michael D. Beyard et.al., Shopping Center Development Handbook, 3rd. Ed., Wash-ington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1999.
an area, close to concentrations of house -holds. Convenience goods retailers typically operate in convenience -goods centers (less than 30,000 sq. ft.) and neighborhood -scale centers (less than 100,000 sq. ft.), and they typically draw customers from a lh- to llh-mile radius. 3A(ii) Comparison Goods
Comparison goods are retail items that consumers purchase more infrequently or rarely. For these purchases, consumers tend to compare goods across brands and across retailers. This habit of comparing induces retailers to locate near each other. It also promotes larger -scale retailers who can stock many different brands of similar products. Clothing, electronics, and furniture are quintessential comparison goods. Because comparison goods have Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
higher cost margins and lower sales volumes and because consumers purchase these goods infrequently, comparison goods retailers tend to locate close to major transportation corridors that give access to a greater number of consumers. These businesses typically locate in community -scale centers (100,000+ sq. ft.) and regional -scale centers (300,000+ sq. ft.), and they draw customers from a 3- to 5-mile radius up to an 8- to 12- mile radius, depending on the center's size and re- tailer mix.
3A(iii) Eating and Drinking Places
Eating and drinking places are a cross between convenience and comparison. Sometimes consumers are looking for convenience when buying food away from home. Fast food and limited -service restaurants typically satisfy this convenience demand. Other times, consumers are looking for higher quality and are willing to travel longer distances and pay more for the cuisine they desire. 3A(iv) Experience -Oriented Shopping
A fourth, hybrid type of retail is experience -oriented shopping.
In this type of shopping, the experience of the trip is of equal if not greater importance than the material needs for a good or service. The experience's value may accrue from socialization with friends, activities and entertainment, or the quality of the place.
Downtowns, new town centers, lifestyle centers, and even shopping malls all attempt to enhance the shopping experience and provide a mix of businesses and amenities to create an enjoyable shopping experience. Because most consumers infrequently invest their time in experiential shopping, most are willing to travel further and forego quick and easy access for the value of the experience. Experience - oriented shopping is a destination trip and draws from a community, regional, or even superregional size trade area, even if it does not offer the commensurate amount of retail square footage.
3B. Retail Market Basics
3B(i) Trade Area
A trade area is the geographic area from which a retail center will draw the majority of its customers. Sophisticated market -analysis models for individual retailers often define primary, secondary, and even tertiary trade areas. Several factors affect the size and boundaries of the trade area, including the type of shopping center, location of competitive retail facilities, physical barriers, and visibility and access to major roads and highways.
Because people typically patronize convenience goods and services in proximity to where they live, Yucaipa in general and the FCSP plan area specifically should be able to capture most of local residents' spend- ing for these goods and services. For comparison goods, however, retail development in Yucaipa and the plan area is constrained by competitive retail facilities in adjacent and nearby communities. For example, new housing in the FCSP plan area might be a 15-minute drive from the WalMart in Beaumont or Citrus Plaza in Redlands.
To account for this competition, the analysis defines a local trade area for convenience goods and services and a regional trade area for comparison goods. The boundaries, shown in Figure 2-6, are based the general trade area guidelines from Table 2-8 and reflect estimated drive times, physical constraints, and competitive facilities.
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
3B(i) Household Spending
The household is the basic economic unit in retail analysis. The Consumer Expenditure Survey, published annually by the US Bureau Figure 2-7. Local and Regional Retail Trade Area Boundaries; FCSP Plan Area
San Bernardino
National Forest
Highland -
Redlands
0 Yucaipa
a
60 Banni g
j
— Local Trade Area
— Regional rado Area
of Labor Statistics, details how households spend their annual income strati-fied by income, age, geography, household size, and other demographic characteristics. Esri's Business Analyst interprets that data for individual locations based on the demographics and lifestyle characteristics of the households residing in that area. Esri reports the data using standard retail business categories from the North American Industrial Classification System.
3B(i) Estimated Retail Sales
The Esri spending report also estimates the amount of retail sales at businesses operating in the trade area. The Esri estimates are based on the US Census Bureau's Economic Census and information ob- tained from proprietary data sources, such as Dunn and Bradstreet and InfoUSA.
3B(ii) Sales Efficiency
Sales efficiency is the average annual sales per square foot of retail businesses. Sales efficiency varies by store type, by individual business, and among different locations of an individual retail chain.
This report estimates retail sales efficiency by type of store based on information from Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers / The SCORE, published by the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers; annual 10K reports filed by retail corporations with the US Securities and Exchange Commission; and the US Census Bureau's Economic Census.
3B (iii) Calculating Retail Demand
Retail market potential is the difference between the amount of trade - area household spending and the amount of trade -area retail business sales. When trade area households spend more at a particular type of retail store than those types of stores in the trade area take in, residents are spending money outside of the trade area. This situation is often referred to as retail spending leakage, or just leakage. In the opposite situation, when a trade area's retail businesses have more retail sales than trade area households spend, the businesses are attracting customers from beyond the trade area. In this situation, the difference be-tween sales and spending is often referred to as the retail spending capture.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
-r
Retail leakage and capture matter because it is usually easier to get a trade area's residents to shop closer to home than it is to attract more customers from beyond the trade area. In economic development, most retail business attraction efforts are focused on the retail categories from which a trade area leaks spending.
Dividing a trade area's retail leakage by the average sales efficiency determines the market demand —the amount of retail building space that can be supported by existing trade area spending. Dividing a trade area's retail capture by the average sales efficiency provides an estimate of the amount of retail building space supported by consumer spending from visitors from outside of the trade area. 3C. Retail Market Potential
The analysis estimates the potential market demand for retail building space based on the estimated con-sumer spending by households residing in the trade area and on the estimated value of sales at retail stores in the trade area. The data represent gross floor area, measured in square feet. The data presented in the following sections represent the amount of retail building space that could be supported by existing leaked retail spending (i.e., spending that residents of the trade area do at businesses outside of the trade) and the building space that could be supported by new residents in the FCSP plan area. 3C(i) Convenience Goods
Table 2-9 shows the amount of retail building space (in square feet) that could be supported in the local retail trade area if local businesses captured the convenience goods spending that currently leaks to businesses outside of the trade area and the amount of building space that could be supported if local trade area businesses capture all the convenience goods spending (exclusive of online retail) of new households residing in the plan area. The analysis suggests that the defined local trade area could support an additional 171,200 square feet of retail building space if leaked spending were captured by businesses in the trade area. Separate from the leaked spending, the number of new households accommodated in the proposed specific plan could support 65,000 square feet of retail building space if all their convenience goods spending were captured within the local trade area. The following sections describe some considerations for specific store types.
3C (ii)Comparison Goods
Table 2-11 shows the amount of retail building space (in square feet) that could be supported in the regional and local retail trade areas if trade -area businesses captured the comparison goods spending that currently leaks to businesses outside of the trade area and the amount of building space that could be supported if local trade -area businesses capture all the comparison goods spending (exclusive of online retail) of new households residing in the plan area.
The comparisons goods trade area analysis is more complex than the convenience goods trade area analysis. For example, the analysis shows that the local trade area currently leaks enough spending to support over 100,000 square feet of retail building space for furniture and home furnishings stores. However, the regional trade area has a retail surplus of 75,000 square feet. This means that the regional trade area is drawing spending from residents outside of the trade area. So even though the local area could support a sizeable store in this category, it is unlikely that a business would invest in opening a furniture and home furnishings store in the local trade area when the regional trade area is saturated with these stores.
Accounting for the likelihood that development of comparison goods businesses in the local area will be limited in store categories with little to negative leaked spending at the regional level, the analysis suggests City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
Table 2-9. Retail Market Potential in Square Feet of Building Space by Type of Convenience Goods Store; Local Retail Trade Area; Current Leaked Spending 2021 and Plan Area at Full Buildout
SHOPPING CENTER TYPE
Food & Beverage Stores
BUILDING SIZE RANGE (SQ. FT.)
57,030
SHOPPING R.(RADIUS
IN MILES)
30,200
- Grocery Stores
24,000
23,040
- Specialty Food Stores
18,510
4,730
- Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores
14,520
2,430
Health & Personal Care Stores
61,100
15,150
Gasoline Stations
(1,710)
4,840
Miscellaneous Store Retailers
52,540
13,990
- Florists
2,130
400
- Office Supplies, Stationery & Gift Stores
10,490
2,610
- Used Merchandise Stores
(2,480)
1,060
- Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers
30,500
6,450
- Auto Parts, Accessories & Tire Stores
11,900
3,470
Food Services & Drinking Places
2,210
780
- Drinking Places - Alcoholic Beverages
550
120
- Restaurants/Other Eating Places
1,660
660
Total Market Potential
171,200
65,000
Source: P1aceWorks, 2021, using estimated spending and sales data from Esri Business Analyst and sales efficiency data from Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers / The SCORE, published by the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers; annual 10K reports filed by retail corporations with the US Securities and Exchange Commission; and the US Census Bureau's Economic Census.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
that the local trade area could support up to 353,000 square feet of retail building space for comparison goods retailers if the local trade area were to capture all of the leaked comparison goods spending of local trade -area residents. Separate from the leaked spending, the number of new households accommodated in the proposed specific plan could support up to 122,100 square feet of retail building space if all their comparison goods spending were captured within the local trade area.
Finally, it is worth noting that comparison goods retails tend to serve a regional trade area. Capturing all the comparison goods spending of current local residents and the new plan -area residents, the maximum total supportable building space would be 475,000 square feet. This would be a major community -scale center, if all the space were developed in one area. However, it would not be large enough to be a regional -scale shopping center. Thus, the local trade area will be unlikely to have enough stores to attract comparison goods spending from outside of the local trade area, and most of the local consumer spending on comparison goods is likely to continue to flow to the regional -scale shopping centers outside of Yucaipa.
3C(iii) Retail Development Recommendations
If current spending patterns, include the percentage of spending leaking out of the local trade area continue, the new households residing the plan area at buildout would support a total 148,000 square feet of retail building space in the plan area. This represents the minimum amount of retail building space that should be accommodated by the updated specific plan.
Table 2-10. Retail Market Potential in Square Feet of Building Space by Type of Comparison Goods Store; Regional and Local Retail Trade Areas; Current Leaked Spending 2021 and Plan Area at Full Buildout
REGIONAL
TRADE
LOCALTRADE
STORE TYPE
AREA,
AREA, LEAKED
NEW PLAN
AREA DEV.
LEAKED
SPENDING
SPENDING
Furniture & Home
(75,400)
109,100
13,620
Furnishings Stores
Electronics &
203,000
45,300
7,350
Appliance Stores
Building Materials,
37,200
109,300
15,980
Garden Equip. &
Supply Stores
Clothing & Clothing
132,600
166,200
20,600
Accessories Stores
Sporting Goods,
115,100
61,700
8,050
Hobby, Book & Music
Stores
General Merchandise
(7,310)
391,000
54,900
Stores
Food Services &
23,100
4,420
1,560
Drinking Places
Total Market
428,000
887,000
122,100
Potential
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
With good freeway visibility and good freeway access, the plan area is likely to capture some of the local trade area's leak spending and some consumer spending from pass -through traffic. With these assumptions a mid -range recommendation for retail development in the plan area would be 245,000 square feet.
If the new retail development in the plan area were to eliminate leaked retail spending in the local trade area, with the exception of the comparison goods store types that are saturated in the regional market, the recommended retail development for the plan area would be up to 587,000 square feet. This represents a high -end recommendation, but it is not likely unless a major comparison goods retail were to locate in the plan area.
2.12.4 OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Other nonresidential development includes building space for other commercial uses (local -serving, non -retail businesses), office space for professional services types of businesses (excluding medical office), and industrial space for goods -producing and base -service producing businesses. It also includes industrial are -as for warehousing and logistics uses, but the demand for these is calculated separately because the industrial market for warehousing and logistics, as discussed below, is truly a regional market across Southern California.
For the first three, the analysis calculates the number of jobs in the relevant sectors in Yucaipa, per household, for each year from 2017 through 2019 (which is the most recent year for which employment by economic sector data is available for cities). It then applies the average to the number of households expected at buildout of the updated specific plan to determine the estimated increase in employment. Us- ing standard building efficiency metrics (typical square of building space per employee) to determine the resulting total amount of building space for each use. This projected demand is the low range, because it assumes that non-residential development will mostly serve existing residents.
The analysis then follows a similar process but using the countywide number of jobs per household. Be -cause Yucaipa is located near the edge of the Southern California urbanized area, it generally has fewer jobs per household relative to the countywide total. Thus, using this process results in a higher projection. Inherent in this process is an assumption that the plan area will provide a location for citywide businesses to grow and will accommodate more economic development than just what is expected based on house -hold growth in the plan area.
Table 2-12 provides the low -end and high -end projection of the market potential for non -retail commercial businesses, professional offices, and industrial facilities in building square footage. The analysis projects that there is a potential market for 411,000 square feet of commercial, office, and industrial building space. If the area is planned to accommodate a larger share of citywide economic growth, the market demand might increase, potentially as high as
1.09 million square feet.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
Table 2-11. Potential Market Demand for Non-residential Uses, in Square Feet of Building Space; FCSP Plan Area
PROFESS-
IONAL (EX. WARE -
COMMERCIAL
OFFICE HOUSING)
Low -End Projection
Projected increase in
450
50 210
employment
Building square
350
300
900
footage per employee
Market potential
156,500
14,700
239,400
(building sq. ft.)
Total non-residential
410,600
61,700
8,050
building space
High -End Projection
Projected increase in
890
270
800
employment
Building square
350
300
900
footage per employee
Market potential
312,600
61,500
717,300
(building sq. ft.)
Total non-residential
1,091,400
building space
4A. Non -retail Commercial
The non -retail commercial category includes a wide variety of business types, including banks, real estate, arts, entertainment, recreation, hotels, and personal and other services. This category also includes health care, and about a quarter of the projected building space would be medical office. A very small portion might include auto repair and similar uses that are sometimes considered commercial and sometimes considered light industrial. The majority of the building space would be a mix of retail centers and office buildings. 4B. Professional Office
The professional office category includes computer software, finance, insurance, professional, scientific, technical services and management of companies. For the most part, this market demand would be filled by office buildings. Many of the jobs in this category are suited to remote work and work from home. While the expected COVID- pandemic impacts on the office market have not fully materialized, it is quite possible that future growth in office space will be less than projected.
4C. Industrial (ex. Warehousing)
The industrial category includes utilities, construction, manufacturing, and wholesale trade. It may be the case that some of these uses are deemed to not be appropriate in the FCSP area. In that case, industrial land would be needed elsewhere in the city to accommodate growth in these sectors.
4D. Warehousing and Logistics
A previously prepared P1aceWorks analysis of the demand for warehousing throughout Southern California projected that the region would run out of land planned and zoned for new warehousing City of Yucaipa
Chapter 2: Baseline Conditions
before the end of this decade. Many warehouse developers are hesitant to locate in the High Desert and to locate as far out as the Coachella Valley. The region has experienced historically low industrial vacancy rates for many years. The demand is so high, that some warehouse developers are now proposing multistory warehouses to redevelop old warehouses closer to the port. Still other developers are buying old, function -ally obsolete industrial buildings and even older housing to redevelop into warehouses. The demand for warehousing is putting pressure on manufacturing and other industrial businesses in the region and driving up rents to are negatively impacting such industrial businesses.
The FCSP plan area has substantial topographical constraints to the development of large modern warehouses. Nevertheless, the cost of grading a building site would be weight by the developers against the cost of acquiring old industrial buildings and old very -low -density neighborhoods. It is a reasonable statement to say that there is demand for as much warehousing as the city may want to plan for in the updated specific plan.
At the same time, if warehousing is an allowed use, the city should weight the potential impact to the planned residential components.
Neighborhoods adjacent to warehouses or along roads used by trucks may be viewed as less desirable, and enhanced buffers and separation should be planned.
4E. Viticultural Uses
The city and the community are in a process to gain federal recognition as an American Viticultural Area, and the city is pursuing a Wine Country Specific Plan. A market and economic analysis was conducted for that effort. That analysis recognized that some of the demand for vineyards, wineries, and related uses may be partially satisfied within the FCSP plan area.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
R�
4p
.
t ti
# r y e Af—
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 3: Project Description
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Over the past three decades, cities in San Bernardino County have experienced rapid population growth and development. However, development in the FCSP area has been constrained for a variety of reasons, such as steep slopes, natural drainage courses, and lack of infrastructure. The Land Use Plan for the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Amendment is an update to the mix of uses, with a priority given to the development of a realistic and sensitive grading plan, and includes collaboration with the property owners.
The Specific Plan Amendment is designed to accomplish the goals of the previously approved plan by providing the opportunity for development of a range of housing types, commercial retail and services in prime locations, and business park uses that bring new jobs to the community. The revised plan has been designed to respect important land forms, minimize grading, and maximize open space within the plan area. Approximately 553 acres, 44 percent of the project site, is to be dedicated to open space that includes ridgelines, hillsides, natural drainage courses, natural vegetation, and prominent views and that will be preserved as open space and as a green -belt in perpetuity. Streets, trails, utilities, and drainage improvements are designed to promote the rural character of the area. Landform grading techniques shall be used to the maximum extent possible to mimic existing conditions, with building pads that create a smooth and gentle transition between the land use sites.
3.2 DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
The following planning objectives are carried over from the 2008 Specific Plan and will be upheld with minor revisions to improve the overall feasibility of development and success toward the City's General Plan's vision and policies.
PLANNING OBJECTIVE 1
Maintain the impression of Yucaipa as a quality rural
community.
• Vision: Recognize and retain the rural character of Yucaipa through preservation of existing scenic views, hilltop ridgelines, and natural habitat. Carefully plan architecture and site design to reflect the scale and design of rural towns, guided by the Design Guidelines in Section 5.
• Complement existing neighborhoods and incorporate landscaped open spaces in public and private spaces, streets, parking areas, and other areas of new development.
• Retain sufficient open space to balance and buffer any new development.
• Ensure protection of significant hillsides, ridgelines, and scenic views that greatly contribute to the image of the community, especially as viewed from Interstate 10 and other key roadways, while allowing for development and other features that benefit the community.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
• Provide local multimodal trails and connect to surrounding multimodal trails that accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and horseback riding for the residents of the project as well as residents of the city.
• Ensure compatible land uses that do not negatively impact the existing noise levels, aesthetics, property values, light, and glare levels of the surrounding community.
PLANNING OBJECTIVE 2
Ensure that resultant development meets the needs of city residents and brings in tax revenue.
• Vision: Provide a range of housing styles, size, density, and price levels that reflect the growing demand for housing in San Bernardino County. Minimize sales tax leakage to surrounding cities by providing businesses and services that satisfy the needs of city residents. Encourage the development of businesses that benefit from the freeway frontage, proximity, and visibility.
Expand employment opportunities in Yucaipa by providing retail, entertainment, and business centers.
• Recover tax revenue leaking to other cities to fund public services offered to residents of Yucaipa.
• Enhance the employment and entertainment value of Yucaipa by providing space for businesses that meet local neighborhood and regional needs.
• Ensure an appropriate balance of residential, commercial, office, and institutional land uses.
PLANNING OBJECTIVE 3
Provide for appropriate land use intensity and density that leads to economically viable development opportunities for the affected property owners.
• Vision: Ensure economic viability of development to property owners of the project site by reducing barriers to development. • Plan for commercial centers to attract retail, office, and service businesses that will benefit from proximity to I-10 and the growing population of the local area.
• Ensure development standards provide flexibility to changes in the market.
• The Specific Plan utilizes pictures and renderings to capture the intent of the Specific Plan. However, actual implementation of the Specific Plan is not expected to result in exact replicas of these images.
3.3 PUBLIC BENEFITS
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
• The commercial and business park development allowed by the Specific Plan offers a timely opportunity to attract commercial and neighborhood -serving amenities currently deficient in the community.
• The commercial and business park development provides an opportunity to capture sales tax revenue that could be used to improve public services and facilities for Yucaipa.
• Commercial and business park development in the plan area will take advantage of the area's proximity to I-10.
i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 3: Project Description
• Job creation for local residents and business will be the result of development in the FCSP area.
CIRCULATION BENEFITS
• A new vehicular circulation system south of I-10 shall provide a physical connection between Live Oak Canyon Road and County Line Road. This vehicular connection shall be aligned circuitously to discourage high-speed, cut -through traffic yet accommodate convenient access for residents.
• The development of a multimodal trail system will expand the existing trail network and expand outdoor recreational areas in the city. Enhanced bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trail networks further augment connectivity within and between the Specific Plan neighborhoods.
• Well -designed streets that incorporate traffic -calming measures, such as narrow pavement widths, trails, and tree canopies extending over streets, will improve safety and the quality of the experience of moving through the neighborhoods in the project area.
COMMUNITY IDENTITY BENEFITS
• Development built according to the Design Guidelines in Section 5 will encourage designs that reflect the rural character and scale of Yucaipa.
• Development of commercial agricultural uses, including opportunities for vineyards and winery -related uses in appropriate locations, will support the growing wine industry in the community.
• Since the Specific Plan includes a diverse range of compatible land uses within proximity to each other, it will serve as a standard of excellence for new developments in Yucaipa.
• By locating new development such that it largely preserves Yucaipa's signature ridgelines, the development will minimize impacts to scenic views.
• A range of housing styles, density, and sizes will be available to residents, meeting local demand at a variety of income levels
INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITS
Planned site drainage improvements include the construction of necessary stormwater management and flood control facilities.
Without these improvements, the area would continue to be subjected to flooding and erosion problems. Stream bank preservation and revegetation of eroded slopes may be needed in certain areas.
3.4 LAND USE PLAN AND SITE
PLAN CONCEPT
Approximately 40 percent (498 acres) of the site is dedicated to open space uses that will retain key scenic views, preserve habitat, provide a rural appearance, encourage long-term agricultural uses, and provide for recreational opportunities for the community. Approximately 28 percent (344 acres) will be developed to accommodate nonresidential uses. These areas will contain retail and services, office uses, and public facilities that provide amenities and services for future residents and adjacent neighborhoods. Business centers and high -cube industrial will also be integrated into the plan and will provide nearby jobs for local residents. Both the commercial and business uses will add tax r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
revenues to the City's general fund, ensuring the long-term fiscal health of the City. The plan allows for flexibility in the types of housing provided to enable developers to capture residential demand and ensure that the City can meet its housing goals and statewide obligations in the years to come.
The Land Use Plan also provides internal roadway and circulation improvements. These improvements will allow efficient daily and emergency vehicular access as well as provide for multimodel (pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian) access to all areas in the project.
Roadway design will incorporate traffic -calming measures that improve comfort and safety. Other circulation projects outside the scope of the plan include the long-range plan for a new interchange at Wildwood Canyon Road and the expansion of capacity at the County Line Road interchange. Based on the mix and intensity of uses in the plan, there will be opportunities to expand the public transportation system to provide a connection to the Metrolink station recently developed in Redlands.
LAND USE TYPES
Figure 3-1 Land Use Plan and Table 3-1, includes the following designations:
Residential (R-2/R-4): 2-4 du/acre
Accommodates single-family residential uses that serve as a transition to existing low -density development adjoining the plan area. R-2 refers to 2 du/ac, and R-4 refers to 4 du/ac.
Residential (R-6): 4.1-6 du/acre
Accommodates detached single-family residential uses up to six dwelling units per acre.
Residential (R-8): 6.1-8 du/ acre
Accommodates a range of attached and detached single-family residential uses, including small -lot single-family and cluster housing.
Also allows for low -scale multifamily product types.
Residential (R-12): 8.1-12 du/ acre
Provides for a range of attached and detached single-family residential uses, including small -lot single-family and cluster housing. Also allows for multifamily product types up to 12 dwelling units per acre.
Residential (R-24): 12.1-24 du/ acre
Provides for higher density, small lot single-family detached housing, attached housing such as duplexes and walk-up townhomes, and multifamily residential including courtyard housing and stacked flats Regional Commercial (RC)
Intended to accommodate commercial retail and services, lodging, offices uses, recreation and entertainment uses, and similar compatible uses that support the local and regional economy.
Business Park (BP)
Provides for light industrial and office uses, including light manufacturing; wholesale/warehouse uses, including high cube warehousing; logistics/distribution centers; contract/construction services; transportation services; agriculture support services; incidental services; and similar uses.
i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 3: Project Description
Agricultural Tourism (AT)
Provides for agricultural -based commercial uses, including sales of produce, pumpkins, and agricultural -related goods, along with supporting businesses such as restaurants and overnight accommodations that cater to the agricultural tourism industry.
Open Space (OS)
Provides protection of hillsides, ridgelines, drainage courses, and sensitive habitat areas. Also allows for agriculture -related activities where appropriate, and to provide buffering and transitions between different land uses. Grading activities may be permitted within the Open Space designation provided that vegetated slopes that feature contour grading are implemented to maintain a naturalistic appearance.
Open Space - Conservation (OS-C)
Provides protection of hillsides, ridgelines, drainage courses, and sensitive habitat areas, and restricts grading and other development beyond the standard OS designation.
Some of the factors used in determining the mix of uses and location included buffering the proposed residential from I-10, ensuring compatibility of land uses with adjacent developing areas, and using open space to maintain the rural appearance of the community by shielding certain types of commercial uses. Other commercial uses were located to take advantage of the visibility from the freeway and to attract both local and regional customers. In addition, these uses have close proximity to major roads and the freeway, which reduces negative traffic impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
Table 3-1. Overall Land Use Distribution Summary
LAND USE
RC Regional
Commercial
NON-
RESIDENTIAL
ACRES
72.2 RESIDENTIAL
ACRES
UNITS
BP Business Park
223.1
Agricultural Tourism
48.8 R-2/R-4
54.2 164
R-6
35.2 221
R-8
22.7 180
R-12
67.2 804
R-24
46.5 1,113
OS Open Space
338.5
OS-C Open Space
Conservation
159.5
ROW
50.9 Total
1 1237.E
12,472
Note: One dwelling unit per parcel (a total of two dwelling units) could be established on two parcels that are isolated due to topography and/or proximity to the county line. These two parcels have a total of 8.0 acres of developable area and 9.8 acres of required open space. However, they are presently designated Opens Space in their entirety.
The Yucaipa Valley Water District site for the Waste Treatment Facility is no longer part of the Plan area.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
Figure 3-1. Land Use Plan
H;^a$'J4!'`'=4._.. ,a:'w+�l�ief ...p►� IBIFY R,�k!�„�"'9` {_:.'':' :_ _-_' �t`�'' ,.. Legend _ gf
R-2
R-4
a{aS� O R-6
e=r y
R-8
IN
t
R-24
y ��y
O AG
0 Commercial
0 BP
Y
PAB O Existing ROW
21 C O5 Open Space- Conservation
c,
PA] 4., Ac d 31 2AC 3a DU Open Space
3d DU
21 DU 5.6 AC D.4 AC PA 1 iSAC OS
10.7 AC 5 OS
-C
PA2DU
S AC
41 DU --- - - OS
_ PA 12
10.3 AC
PA9 AG.
_\
81 DU 48.8 AC
PAD
PAB OS-C
9.1 .s/
9.1 ACC -
4.1AC
BP4
/ 12.1 AC
05-C
V PA 1�
11 DU
BP2 OS
80.3 AC
222 DU 38 DU PA it
-1 t8.5 AC 3.2 AC 115DU PA 14
` 9.6 AC D.
62 DU
P2.6 AC
D 29DU _
, 9.e
BP3 PA 20
BP , Yucaipa Valley Water District PA 19 148 DU
37.4 AC Ownership PA 18 56 DU 62AC 29 AC
PA 23
N. A. P. 135 DU d.] AC
' \ 154.6 AC 11.3 AC 32 DU
\\\1 4.1 AC
PA 18
PA 2q 5] DU
36 DU 14.3 AC
4.5 AC
,� City of Yucaipa
Chapter 3: Project Description
3.5 CIRCULATION PLAN
The size and layout of the circulation routes will influence the rural atmosphere of the project area. In conformance with the planning objectives, the road network system will include meandering roads that curve along the existing topography. In addition, the final design and alignment of roads will take advantage of view corridors that frame views of hillsides and open space areas.
The internal circulation system of the Specific Plan consists of a hierarchy of roads and trails to accommodate vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and equestrian circulation, as shown in Figure 3-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan. The circulation system has been designed to enhance visual and physical connectivity between neighborhoods, open space, and other uses within the area. The Specific Plan implements the following circulation goals:
Provide new roadway and trail connections to adequately serve the vehicular and emergency access needs throughout the Freeway Corridor Project.
• Provide new roadway and trail connections to adequately serve the vehicular and emergency access needs throughout the project area and provide connections to future areas of development. • Locate circulation routes in a manner that requires minimal grading and preserves natural topography and scenic views and parallels the natural drainage system, wherever possible. • Promote pedestrian and bicycling activities through both off road trails and along roadways.
• Design routes and access locations to minimize traffic impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
• Provide adequate and safe nonmotorized connections across I-10. • Connect trails to the San Timoteo Canyon regional bicycle trail where possible.
• Provide multipurpose trails within natural and improved settings to improve the localized connectivity throughout the area.
The project provides new collector and local streets in the plan area.
The cross -sections for the FCSP circulation systems are shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-4. The General Plan also plans for a new freeway interchange at Wildwood Canyon Road, and prior projects have resulted in interchange improvements at Live Oak Canyon Road/ Oak Glen Road. The General Plan establishes level of service (LOS) standards that will be applied to this project.
Once complete, all public roads will be dedicated to the City and maintained by the Public Works Department of the City of Yucaipa.
Any local private streets within a project boundary will be maintained though funding from the Homeowners Association fees or by the owner of the given project.
TRAFFIC -CALMING MEASURES
Traffic -calming measures may be implemented to improve safety and the quality of the experience of moving through the neighborhoods within the project. The traffic -calming measures are designed to provide a safe and pedestrian -friendly environment. Traffic - calming design elements may include narrower streets, roundabouts, intersection curb bump -outs, medians, shorter blocks, and tree canopies extending over streets. All these encourage slower vehicular speeds, improve safety, and increase the ability to foster a strong sense of community. In tandem with the traffic -calming vehicular circulation system, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian trail networks further augment connectivity within and between the Specific Plan r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
Figure 3-2. Conceptual Circulation Plan
LEGEND
CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION PLAN FEATURES
Commercial Collector Street
Residential Collector Street
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 3: Project Description
neighborhoods. The roadway connection from Live Oak Canyon Road to County Line Road shall be circuitously routed to accommodate efficient access yet discourage high-speed cut -through traffic.
INTERSTATE 10 FREEWAY INTERCHANGE
The City, working with Caltrans, is currently in the project approval and environmental document (PA&ED) phase for the proposed interchange at Wildwood Canyon Road, which would be funded by a combination of Caltrans state funding, City of Yucaipa development fees, Measure I sales tax revenue, and other related funding sources.
Additional improvements are also expected at the County Line Road interchange, which would be completed in partnership with Caltrans, the City of Calimesa, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, which is likely to consist of interim improvements followed by future widening.
LIVE OAK CANYON ROAD
Defined as a scenic highway in the General Plan, Live Oak Canyon Road will serve as a gateway to Yucaipa as well as for the proposed commercial developments on either side of the road. Gateway monuments, street trees, and signs welcome drivers from I-10. The road will accommodate heavy commercial traffic toward the freeway as well as residential uses toward the southwest city boundary.
OAK GLEN ROAD
Oak Glen Road is also designated a scenic highway in the General Plan. Per the Citywide Design Guidelines, the parkway will include ground cover, shrubs, trees, and signage to display a rustic theme while serving as the gateway to the apple orchards in Oak Glen.
WILDWOOD CANYON ROAD
Wildwood Canyon Road is designated to match the streetscape of the road segment to the east of Fremont Street, which is lined with rows of native oak and sycamore trees.
Table 3-2. City of Yucaipa Street Standards
RIGHT-OF-
ROADWAYOF
R: •
DESIGNATIONWAY
R: WIDTH
WIDTH
Commercial
4 72'
44'
Collector Street
Residential Collector
2 66'
30'
Street
Local Street
2 60'
36' with parking
allowed on
either side of
street.
Cul-de-Sac Street
2 60'
36'
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
Figure 3-3. Street Sections: Collector Streets
-8')L6'11'7" 11'
TRAIL LAND- TRAVEL LANES
SCAPE
11' 11' / 6'7�L6'-
TRAVEL LANES BIO- LAND-
SWALE SCAPE
72'
COMMERCIAL COLLECTOR STREET
L
FENCE
(n.arvneskn smnaoml 02Z
8' 8'-�--6' 15'-
MEANDERING LANE
TRAIL
-15' 7' 8'6'-
LANE 1310- LAND-
SWALE SCAPE
66'
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 3: Project Description
Figure 3-4. Street Sections: Local Streets and Trails
LOCAL STREET
MULTI -USE TRAIL
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
Figure 3-5. Grading Plan
Or <G
__-- O O~
CP / a
O
/
PAS64'DU Os
IfAC
PA] 6.1 AC CS v PA i
13d DU C 4 31.2 AC 30 DU
10.]AC PAS
2V DU
8.9 AC - OS-C
22.5 AC OS
41 DU C2
\\� PA9 AG. 8 \
6. 91 DU 46.6 AC
PA 3 3.8 AC
109 OU PA 8 OS.0 s_
6 SA AC
98 OU
4.1 AC xxw zA
b 12.
w OS-C
PA 10
- 211 DU _ s
1 BP2 OS
60.3 AC
PA
PA 1] 38D
F. OS -. \ --222 DU 3.2A
:z... J 18.5 AC
BP3
+qy 'q rqb BPI r Yucaipa Valley Water Osk ct 1.3 AC
37.4AC Ownersh, PAS
% N. A. P.
154.6 AC
PA 24
- - 36�DU
4.6 AC
Qs s�-6,
ii�
:UREKAAVE
PLUM TR
NORTHVIEW
� ENO�S
N
Q
fw
V
OD`
f wI
Q
PA 12 Y
15 DU m
S�13 AC � 3.9 AC i
OS
1 AC
�m
VI
n
U PA 13 V
C 115 DU PA -
9.BAC103 DU
4.3 AC PA 15 r
62 DU \
PA 22 ,ed
2.6 AC
129 OU
08 \
PA 20
148 DU C
PA 19, 8.2 AC BP�B
23 58 DU • �..
OU PA 18 d.] AC '+u 29 AC
AC 33 DU
4.1 PA 16
5]I DU
14.3 AC
\� l
„AU City of Yucaipa
Chapter 3: Project Description
3.6 GRADING CONCEPTS
The Land Use Plan and associated development potential is the result of respecting the natural features of the site while providing suitable pads for buildings. A variety of grading techniques were applied to blend buildable areas with the natural terrain, minimize abrupt elevation and slope transitions, and soften the slopes between building pads. The grading concept emphasizes the need to respect the natural topography as much as possible, especially in key areas visible from off site, while accommodating development. Except for a water treatment facility and a few single-family dwellings, the vast majority of the existing site consists of agricultural fields and livestock grazing pastures. Transforming this land into residential, commercial, business park, and institutional uses will require grading that is sensitive to the natural assets and visual quality of the site. The FCSP is designed to vary the slope ratio from 2:1 to 5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Where proposed grades meet existing topography, the grades would be rounded to blend and provide a natural effect, see Figure 3-5 Conceptual Grading Plan.
The Grading Plan is based on the following main principles:
Preserve land designated as Open Space - Conservation in the Land Use Plan. This open space includes the major ridgelines in the plan area.
• Preserve as much open space as possible in the Land Use Plan.
This open space includes the major significant ridgelines as shown in Figure 3-5, Pedestrian Circulation / Trails Plan.
• Situate the finished elevation of building pads so that they complement the character of the existing adjacent natural topography, and can help screen larger structures from key view corridors to best maintain a more rural appearance.
• New roads should be designed to follow the existing topography to minimize grading to the extent possible while still meeting the City's design guidelines.
Contour grade all new roads to minimize grading to the extent possible.
Perform grading techniques consistent with the recommendations in the required geotechnical reports, City of Yucaipa Grading Manual, and required grading permits.
Tailored standards are provided to best implement the provisions of the City's Hillside Overlay District, while leveraging key resources for future protection while providing opportunities for development or recognition that specific areas have been previously impacted by farming and/or grazing operations.
The project area is characterized by numerous pockets of relatively flat land on plateaus and in valleys running east -west surrounded by undulating and often steep hillsides. The elevation change over the entire plan area is approximately 450 feet. The highest point of the graded plan area is 2,360 feet at the southeastern corner of the site.
The lowest point is 1,925 feet at Live Oak Canyon at the western edge of the site.
Approximately 46 percent of the site contains slopes from 0 to 15 percent (flat to gentle slope), and approximately 19 percent of the site has slopes over 40% (steep terrain). Even though the development code generally prohibits development on slopes of 41 percent or greater, the criteria are primarily meant to concentrate or intensify development on less environmentally sensitive terrain, but not to prohibit development or reduce permitted density.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
Figure 3-6. Pedestrian Circulation / Trails Plan
k;
O
\ 4 C
O
K-6
264 DU
/71 AC
PA] 41AC — 312 AC
13d DU C4 N \ 30 DU \
11 5.6 AC 3.4 AC 16 ACDU
AC PAS C3 �1j1 �'C ) LDW D
PA B'9 AC 3.3A OS-Cf
1 �S PA 141 Ac -" v w clr V O O O O 225Ac Os Q ' 3
PA 12
10.3 AC ].]AC �_ 000 `n� OO BPS 115 DU,
— tI AC -AC
1 9 AO.
109 DU PAS DU
/48.8 AC O O OOOOO os CO OO ©�"�� r� as
9.1 AC 96 S - _
� 98 AC p p00 000p
0p 0000
BP4
12.1 AC, ---
OS-C
PA 10
211 DU
52 000-0
3`AG3�AC 9 OJ 000
_
0000000000000p000J/_�` J� mil' PA 1] PA
—9
„ O 0
Os v 3Du PAi3
� 1 222 DU 3.2 AC ,15 Du PA 14
19.6 AC
O\\ (\\ • 9.6 AC 4.3 AC PAPA 22
15 DU
129 DU 00 Q O 2 6 AC
\i``
PA 20
Bpi
1 V ca pa Vall VWater Dlstr ct 6.2 AC v� 37.4 AC p.4, �= shy �BP6 s ,� PA 23 68 DU \_NAP r)� -- 135 DU 32 DU a.]AC • 29 AC
PA
PA 24 67-DU \
36 DU
d6AC l/ ^
LEGEND
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION / TRAILS PLAN
O O O Equestrian Trail
• • • Multi -Use Trail
- Prominent Ridge Line
AV
At/= City of Yucaipa
Chapter 3: Project Description
Ridgeline preservation takes views from a minimum of three selected vantage points showing precise depiction of the potential visual impacts, as shown in Figure 3-6, Pedestrian Circulation / Trails Plan.
Enforcement of ridgeline preservation is based on the significance of individual projects at the discretion of the Planning Commission.
As stated in Section 15.12 et seq., Grading and Excavation Code of the City of Yucaipa, prior to grading, the developer must obtain a grading permit for grading, paving, clearing, brushing, and grubbing natural or existing grade prior to permit issuance for adherence to the City of Yucaipa Grading Manual. This is to address any drainage and geologic impact to proposed developments and surrounding neighbors. All grading that requires a permit will be inspected by a city official.
City of Yucaipa Development Code Section 87.1165 and the City of Yucaipa Grading Manual require basic grading standards such as the following:
• Finished slopes shall not be greater than a 2:1 ratio (horizontal to vertical), except as approved by soil engineering and engineering geology report and per the requirements of the Grading Manual. • Structures shall be placed as far from slopes as practicable to prevent structural damage due to water runoff, erosion, or slope instability.
• Phase grading to allow revegetation of slopes and to prevent soil erosion.
• Limit grading to areas designated for building, resurface, and landscape.
• Provide subsurface drainage at cut -and -fill slopes to ensure stability and prevent groundwater seepage.
• Allow 2 percent slopes from structures to drainage facilities and 4 percent at earth swales.
• At driveways, abide by minimum grade requirements established in the Grading Manual.
3.7 DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Similar to the land use and grading sections, the natural topography influences the drainage concept. The objective is to use the existing east -west slope to allow the drainage system to rely on gravity instead of drainage pumps to convey stormwater throughout the site.
As a previously undeveloped site, the area generally lacks improved drainage facilities, and the proposed development shall be required to not increase stormwater generation significantly to the greatest extent practicable. The proposed drainage system will not only serve proposed developments but resolve existing drainage problems. Low Intensity Development (LID) principles should be used as part as project -level design, leveraging landscaping and bio-swales to create an attractive and functional system.
3.7.1 STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
The intent of providing drainage improvements is to accommodate projected storm drain needs and to address existing drainage issues without compromising the rural atmosphere of the project area.
Storm drainage improvements include improvements to existing channels or provision of new drainage channel, detention basins, and drainage easement along public or private roadways and where needed in open space areas within the plan area.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
3.7.2 YUCAIPA MASTER PLAN FOR
DRAINAGE
The City prepared a Master Plan of Drainage in 1993, and updated the plan in 2012, which identifies the conceptual solution for mitigating the flood risk areas associated with the major drainage channels known as Yucaipa Creek, Wilson Creek, Oak Glen Creek, Gateway Wash, Chicken Springs Wash, and Wildwood Creek as they affect the entire City of Yucaipa, including the plan area. These conceptual requirements depict the structural channel, retention/detention basin and right-of-way requirements without specifically depicting the alignment of the channel or the design of the basins. The final basin design and channel alignments will ultimately be determined through more detailed investigations and studies that occur as part of the engineering phases of those projects. The basin and channel configurations were in part determined by the eroded conditions of the channel segments and the erosive potential exhibited by the soils. Two design approaches were considered in the Master Plan, one of which assumed concrete lining of all channels sections. The second option assumed a channel system of riprap side slopes and bottom sections combined with velocity -reducing structures at 500-foot intervals. The second approach has been supported by the construction of the regional stormwater detention facilities along Wilson Creek and Wildwood Creek, upstream of the FCSP area.
WILSON CREEK
Wilson Creek is one of the two major tributaries conveying water in Yucaipa. Its lower reaches, from 14th Street to the eastern limits of the city, is anticipated to be modified to a trapezoidal earthen channel section with riprap channel banks ranging between 1.5:1 to
2.5:1 side slopes. The length of this improvement is approximately 5,800 feet. In an effort to minimize erosion, three drop structures are proposed to allow the channel to be constructed at a moderate slope of 1 percent. Grade control dams will be at 500-foot intervals for velocity and erosion control. Required rights -of -way for this reach of the channel will be approximately 120 feet. Two flood control and stormwater detention basin facilities have been developed for the Wilson Creek watershed upstream of the plan area. One had been previously constructed upstream near the east side of Bryant Street.
The second is under construction on the Oak Glen Wash tributary on the east side of Second Street as a means of controlling peak runoff rates downstream at the confluence of Live Oak Creek.
WILDWOOD CREEK
Wildwood Creek is the second major drainage channel crossing the project, including approximately 12,000 feet of Wildwood Creek. It is also anticipated to be constructed as riprap-lined channel section with
2.5:1 side slopes and will require grade -control structures at 500-foot intervals as a method of velocity control. A channel slope of 1 percent is anticipated, requiring construction of several drop structures along this reach. Right-of-way requirements ranging between 80 feet and 100 feet will be necessary. One flood control facility and stormwater detention basin has been constructed east of Holmes Street with a capacity of 71 acre-feet of storage. The second flood control facility and detention basin is planned between the 1-10 Freeway and Live Oak Canyon Road within the project area.
YUCAIPA CREEK
One small reach of Yucaipa Creek is within the project. Approximately 1,000 feet of channel are proposed as a riprap-lined section similar to Wildwood Creek. A right-of-way of 85 feet is anticipated to be necessary.
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 3: Project Description
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
A drainage studywas prepared to analyze the proposed project with the anticipated improvements recommended in the 2012 Master Plan of Drainage Update. Based on the comparison of the overall impervious characteristics proposed by the project versus those anticipated in the Master Plan of Drainage, the project can be constructed without adversely impacting the recommendations made in the Master Plan of Drainage 2012 Update. The recommended improvements to the major drainage channels can be summarized in Table 3-4.
Under existing conditions, the project area is flood prone, and the recommendations made in the Master Plan of Drainage 2012 Update will need to be constructed. Because the project is at the downstream end of the channel improvements proposed, it is not necessary to construct the improvements upstream and only the improvements within the project area will need to be constructed to support the project. However, the city has constructed three stormwater detention basins on Wilson Creek and Wildwood Creek, as discussed above.
These basins attenuate peak runoff rates which result in the channel section proposed in the Master Plan of Drainage 2012 Update.
3.8 WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM
3.8.3 WATER PROVIDERS
The City of Yucaipa's existing potable water system is managed by YVWD, the South Mesa Water Company (SMWC), and the Western Heights Water Company (WHWC).
Yucaipa Valley Water District
The majority of the FCSP plan area is serviced by YVWD, with much smaller areas served by WHWC in the northwest and SMWC in the southeast. YVWD's water system includes 234 miles of water lines, 17 groundwater wells, 27 reservoirs, booster pump stations, and lift stations. Water supplies are procured from three sources — approximately 1.5 percent from surface water resources, 62.7 percent extracted from local groundwater, and the remaining 35.8 percent imported from a) the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District for the San Bernardino County portion of the service area and b) the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency for the Riverside County portion of the service area. YVWD also produced enough recycled water to meet 16.5 percent of its total water demand in 2020, decreasing potable water use by 2,234.48 af. Distribution pipelines in the YVWD service area range from 2 to 48 inches in diameter. Most of the water lines are 8-inch pipes.
South Mesa Water Company
Similar to YVWD, the SMWC provides domestic and irrigation water services to portions of the City of Yucaipa within San Bernardino County as well as portions of the City of Calimesa within Riverside County. As of 2020, SMWC served approximately 3,000 potable water service connections to both residential and commercial customers.
SMWC's water supply consists entirely of local groundwater. SMWC's produces groundwater from two different groundwater basins —the Yucaipa Subbasin, and the adjudicated portion of the San Timoteo Subbasin, also known as the Beaumont Groundwater Basin. In 2020, the SMWC maintained eight active groundwater production wells.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
Western Heights Water Company
WHWC has 2,210 potable water connections throughout Yucaipa and Redlands, both in San Bernardino County. Its service area covers approximately four -square miles. WHWC procures water from five groundwater recharge wells that are stored in three reservoirs with a total capacity of 4.5 million gallons. In addition, the WHWC receives imported water through the YVWD.
3.8.4 WATER SUPPLY AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
The original FCSP identified that the YVWD would be the service provider for the entire plan area. Currently, the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) boundaries show YVWD water service through most of the plan area except for the southeast portion, which is located within the SMWC jurisdiction, and the western edge of the site, adjacent to Outer Highway 10 and the creek, which is located within the WHWC jurisdiction.
For planning purposes of this Specific Plan, it is assumed that the future development would maintain these water service boundaries.
However, developers may choose to initiate the annexation process through LAFCO to incorporate YCWD's potable and recycled water services.
The environmental analysis includes an assessment of the water supply and backbone utility plans to provide the necessary potable water service. Projects in the plan area would be responsible for implementing on -site potable and recycled water lines, water reservoirs, booster systems, and off -site potable and recycled water lines to their specific locations to bring water sources into the new service areas and ensure adequate pressure for fire flow protection.
All three water districts in the plan area have a formal process to ensure that the overall water system is managed efficiently and functions properly, including infrastructure, fire flow requirements, and water supply availability. New development projects must prepare detailed water hydraulic reports including detailed water demands that include peak and fire flows, grading plans, pad elevations, anticipated easements and public dedications, points of connection, and anticipated water line alignments.
3.8.5 SEWER
The sewer system in the City is maintained by the YVWD. YVWD's current service area encompasses 25,742 acres that include Calimesa and Yucaipa. YVWD's sphere of influence expands the acreage to 43,525 acres. YVWD's sewer system consists of five sewer pump stations and associated force mains, standard and trunk manholes, and an approximately 213-mile network of gravity sewer pipes ranging from 6 inches to 24 inches in diameter. Most of the YVWD's sewer network consists of pipes that are 8 to 12 inches in diameter.
The FCSP area includes primarily undeveloped land and limited sewer infrastructure. YVWD's Wochholz Regional Water Recycling Facility (WRF) is located within the overall plan area (shown as Not a Part) and has multiple trunklines leading to it. A major 24-inch trunkline originates from the north of the plan area and delivers flows from north to south through the middle of the plan area to the water recycling facility. This 24-inch line collects flows from several laterals including an 8-inch line in Colorado Street, an 8-inch line in 11th Street, and an 18-inch line in Calimesa Boulevard. In the southern portion of the plan area, an 8-inch sewer line connects to the WRF from County Line Road in Calimesa. On the western side of the plan City of Yucaipa
Chapter 3: Project Description
area, parallel to Live Oak Canyon Road, a 24-inch line runs near Oak Glen Creek and connects to a lift station near Live Oak Canyon Road that sends sewer flows via a force main to the treatment plant.
The WRF provides waste water treatment and has a capacity of 8.0 million gallons per day (mgd). The tertiary effluent produced at the WRF meets criteria for California Title 22 reuse requirements. YVWD produces 4,000 acre-feet (af) of Title 22 recycled water annually. The WRF began service in 1986 with an initial capacity of 3.0 mgd and was originally designed with trickling filters and small aeration basins.
The facility was upgraded and expanded in 1992 to 4.5 mgd, at which time denitrification filters were incorporated to reduce total nitrogen to less than 10 milligrams per liter. The facility was recently expanded to its current 8.0 mgd capacity. In 2020, YVWD treated 4,237 of or approximately 3.8 mgd. Therefore, the WRF has a remaining capacity of 4.2 mgd.
The FCSP would require the construction of new sewer infrastructure on -site and off -site since the plan area is currently undeveloped. On - site improvements are anticipated to be 8-inch sewer lines. YVWD has a formal process to ensure that the overall sewer system —including future sewer lines and the integrity of existing facilities —is managed efficiently. All new development projects must prepare detailed sewer reports, including detailed demands, grading plans, pad elevations, anticipated easements and public dedications, points of connection, anticipated sewer line alignments, and slopes.
3.8.6 WATER RECYCLING SYSYTEM
YVWD began exploring the use of recycled water in 1992 and has implemented a series of facilities and improvements to use recycled water for the irrigation of parks, schools, golf courses, and other landscaped areas. The YVWD's 2002 Water Master Plan stressed the importance of utilizing recycled water for non -potable uses, and encouraged its use to the maximum extent possible. The plan described the District -wide benefits of recycled water use, including the following: reduced dependency on high quality ground water, preservation of ground water for potable uses, reduced dependency on important water from Northern California, and reduced operating costs of the Yucaipa Valley Regional Water Filtration Facility. On August 20, 2008, YVWD's Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 11-2008, "A Strategic Plan for a Sustainable Future: The Integration and Preservations of Resources," and design standards that require all new homes to install two water meters —one drinking water meter and one recycled water meter. The drinking water meter would be used to provide drinking water to the home, pools, spas, and hose bibs connected to the house. The recycled water service would be connected to a separate recycled water pipeline that would provide recycled water for landscaping in the front and rear of the house.
The WRF, which is located within the planning area, will supply the FCSP area under the water service boundary of the YVWD with recycled water. In addition to the requirements established by YVWD, proposed projects in the Plan area will incorporate the following water conservation measures:
• Coordinate with local water agencies to evaluate impacts of proposed developments on water supply and demand;
• Utilize low -output water systems through recycled water, water conserving irrigation systems, and landscape design;
• Provide water facilities that adequately serve high quality water to future residents; and
• Ensure proper maintenance to avoid loss due to leakage. r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
3.9 FIRE PROTECTION
Contracted services from California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provide fire protection and paramedic services to the City of Yucaipa and adjacent unincorporated areas covering over 5,800 acres. Through the contract, CAL FIRE provides resources such as aircraft, bulldozers, hand crews, and related support personnel and equipment, and can facilitate additional equipment, engine companies, bulldozers, hand crews, and aircraft, which can be dispatched from county- or statewide resources in the event of an emergency incident. The Fire Department defines the entire City of Yucaipa as an Urban II area, an area with medium hazard occupancies such as single and multi -family units and small commercial and industrial businesses.
The City of Yucaipa has established Fire Safety Overlay Districts in areas of significant fire hazard (Yucaipa Municipal Code Sec.
85.020201-85.020230). Areas within the Overlay Districts are subject to special requirements regarding construction, building separations, design requirements, and erosion and sediment control. A majority of the project site is located within Fire Safety Review Area 2, which is described as follows: "Land within Area 2 is relatively flat and is either partially or completely developed, or, if it is not developed, is usually suitable for development. Present and future development within Area 2 is exposed to the impacts of wildland fires and other natural hazards primarily due to its proximity to Area L" Area 1 "includes wildland areas that are marginally developable, areas which are not likely to be developed, and the area of transition between wildlands and areas that are partially developed or are likely to be developed in the future." Generally, construction and other requirements are less stringent in Area 2 than in Area 1.
Three fire stations are located within the city limits: Yucaipa Station No. 551, which is located on Bryant Street and south of Oak Glen Road; Crafton Hills Station No. 552, located at 32664 Yucaipa Boulevard between 13th and 14th Streets; and Yucaipa Station 553, which is located at 34259 Wildwood Canyon Road. See Table 303 for details regarding existing fire stations.
Other fire stations that support fire services in Yucaipa include the volunteer Oak Glen Station No. 39, located at Oak Glen Road, and Mentone Station No.9 located on 1300 Crafton Avenue in Mentone.
In addition, the City is under a mutual aid agreement with local cities and counties and can receive services from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection/Riverside County Fire Department station in community Cherry Valley, the Calimesa Fire Department, as well as the Redlands Fire Department.
The Fire Department has identifed that additional equipment, including a medic squad and an Aerial truck will be necessary as the City reaches its buildout, especially with the development of the FCSP.
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 3: Project Description
Table 3-3. Fire Station Locations
STATION
LOCATION
EQUIPMENT
DAILY STAFFING
Fire
11416 Bryant
1 Medic Engine
3 person ALS municipally
Station
Street
2 CAL FIRE
staffed
No.l,
Yucaipa, CA
Engines
Type I (1-Captain,
Bryant
92399
2 Type III
1-Engineer, 1-
Street Fire
Wildland
Firefighter) One will be
Station
Engines
paramedic
1 Type 6 Engine
qualified.
1 Type 2
Each Type III Engine will be
Tactical Water
minimum staffed at 3 person,
Tender
1 Captain or Engineer and 2
Firefighters
Crafton
35664
1 Front Line
3 person ALS municipally
Hills Fire
Yucaipa
Type I Fire
staffed
Station
Blvd.
Engine
Type I (1-Captain,
No.2
Yucaipa, CA
1 Reserve Type
1-Engineer, 1-
92399
I Fire Engine
Firefighter) One will be
1 Type II Fire
paramedic
Engine
qualified.
Yucaipa
34259
1 Medic Engine
3 person ALS municipally
Fire
Wildwood
1 Brush Engine
staffed
Station
Canyon
1 Reserve
Type I (1-Captain,
No.3
Road
Engine
1-Engineer, 1-
Yucaipa, CA
1 Command
Firefighter) One will be
92399
vehicle
paramedic
1 Utility truck
qualified.
1 Battalion Chief
Oak
11877 Oak
1 Type I Fire
Varied depending on Reserve
Glen Fire
Glen Road
Engine
(Volunteer) Firefighters
Station
Yucaipa, CA
1 Type IV Fire
(Volnteer)
92399
Engine
1 Type II Water
Tender
3.10 PARKS
Per the City's General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, the City requires parkland dedication of 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents as an acceptable standard. Since the Specific Plan Amendment proposes an estimate of 2,447 dwelling units, or approximately 6,916 residents, 24.2 acres of improved parkland will be needed to meet this requirement.25 To accommodate parkland and recreational facility needs and distribution, the City collects a development impact fee per dwelling unit using the following formula: Number of dwelling units x occupancy factor x 0.0035 x land value
The occupancy factor for single family detached dwelling units in planned development units is 3.0 persons per dwelling unit. The factor for multiple family dwelling units are 3.5 persons per dwelling unit.26 Joint use space agreements under a potential contract with the School District could also open access to additional parkland space associated with school facilities for future residents.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
R�
~
44pp
41 t ti
IRL
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the planning and development of all properties in the plan area. These regulations are designed to be responsive to changing community needs, and to allow and encourage innovative community design. Where a conflict exists between the development standards set forth in this Specific Plan and the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code, these standards shall prevail. Any standard not specified in this section shall conform to the standard in the Municipal Code, as deemed necessary by the Director. These standards shall have the same force and effect of standards in the Municipal Code.
The Development Standards and Regulations include the following sections:
• General Provisions
• Permitted Land Uses
• Development Standards
• Landscape Standards
• Sign Regulations
• Common Open Space, Parks, Trails, and Hillside Preservation • Infrastructure
4.2 GENERAL PROVISIONS
4.2.1 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
All construction and development in the FCSP area shall comply with applicable provisions of the most recent adopted version of the California Building Code (including all related mechanical, electrical, and plumbing codes) and the City's subdivision regulations (Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Yucaipa Development Code). In case of a conflict between the specific provisions of any such regulations and the Specific Plan regulations, the provisions of California Building Code and the subdivision regulations shall prevail.
4.2.2 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
All land use designations are subject to California law regarding accessory uses, including the regulations regarding accessory dwelling units (ADU) and junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) standards.
4.2.3 OAK TREE PRESERVATION
City of Yucaipa values the aesthetic environment that nature provides.
Thus, the City protects oak trees by limiting indiscriminate removal or even encroachment into the area five feet from a tree dripline. The provisions protecting Yucaipa's oak trees, the Oak Tree Conservation Standards (Yucaipa Development Code, Division 9, Chapter 5 et al.), require a permit and specific on -site mitigation measures to remove oak trees.
4.3 PERMITTED LAND USES
Table 4-1. Permitted Uses
P=Permitted
CUP = Conditional Use Permit
(Blank)=Prohibited
AUP = Administrative Use
Permit required
Notes: P= Permitted Use by Right. C= Requires Conditional Use Permit. AUP=Requires Administrative Review. Refer to Chapter 6 for processing requirements. Amusement enterprises shall be subject to a Development Agreement.
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 4: Development Standards
Table 4-2. Permitted Uses
RESIDENTIAL
•awl•
Single Family Detached
1-
r
P
P
P
Single Family Attached and Townhome
P
P
P
Duplex/Stacked Flats
P
P
P
Cluster Housing
P
P
P
Low -Scale Multifamily
P
P
P
High -Scale Multifamily (more than 12 du/ac), may
include recreational facilities such as pools spas and
clubhouses
P
P
Accessory Dwelling Units
P
P
P
P
P
INSTITUTIONAL
Fire Station
AUP
AUP
AUP
AUP
AUP
AUP
AUP
Public Library
AUP
AUP
AUP
AUP
AUP
Civic Facilities
Public Utility Facilities
CUP
CUP
Public Transit Facilities (Bus stops allowed in all
districts)
COMMERCIAL
Amusement Enterprise, including raising crops,
buildings associated for agricultural crop processing,
petting zoo farms and animal display, mazes,
amusement rides that do not require state approval,
carnival -style games and arcade, and gift shops
CUP
AUP
Auditorium/Concert Venue
CUP
CUP
Kiosk/Vendor Carts
AUP
AUP
P
Indoor/Outdoor Recreation
P
P
P
Parks
P
P
P
P
P
P
Theater
P
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT M
Shooting Gallery/Range/Archery
P
Amusement Rides (that require state approval)
CUP
Equestrian Show / Riding Academy
P
Department Stores, Variety Stores, and Specialized
Stores for apparel, items for personal use, household
items, plants and flowers, and supplies and small
equipment for businesses, including antiques
AUP
Alcohol Beverage Sales, off -site consumption
AUP
AUP
Alcohol Beverage Sales, on -site consumption
AUP
AUP
AUP
Restaurant, Full Service/Fast Service
CUP
Limited Agricultural Supply Services
P
AUP
Agricultural Food Processing
P
P
Wedding Venue and Event Center
AUP
Food truck and Outdoor Kitchens
AUP
Sale of Speciality Food and Goods
P
P
Wineries and Beer Gardens
AUP
AUP
AUP
Hotel/Motel
P
P
P
PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, AND
SERVICES
Medical or Dental Office Or Clinic, Public Health
Center
AUP
AUP
Medical or Dental Laboratory. (Only permitted as an
incidental use in a medical/dental office or clinic.)
AUP
Pharmacy
AUP
Offices: business, professional, or medical
AUP
AUP
Warehouse with Logistics Centers
P
Wholesale/Warehouse and Storage
P
i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 4: Development Standards
4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All development shall comply with the standards for residential and nonresidential uses as set forth below:
Table 4-3. Residential Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT;
Structure Height (max.)
35 ft
35 ft
35 ft
35 ft
40 ft
45 ft
35 ft
Lot Size (min.)
10,000 sf
5,000 sf
4,000
3,500 sf
3,000 sf
10,000 sf
/A
Lot Width (min.)
60 ft
50 ft
40 ft
35 ft
35 ft
100 ft
/A
Lot Depth (min.)
100 ft
100 ft
80 ft
70 ft
70 ft
100 ft
/A
Lot Coverage (max.)
55%
55%
60%
60%
55%
Building Coverage (max.)
40%
40%
50%
60%
60%
60%
40%
Front Setback (min.):
Single Story*
25 ft
25 ft
20 ft
15 ft
15 ft
25 ft
30 ft
Multistory (upper floor)
30 ft
30 ft
30 ft
15 ft
15 ft
25 ft
30 ft
Side Setback (min.):
Single Story
5 ft/10 ft
5 ft/10 ft
5 ft
5 ft
5 ft
10 ft
15 ft
Multistory (upper floor)
5 ft/10 ft
10 11/15 ft
5 ft
5 ft
5 ft
20 ft
15 ft
Street Side Setbacks (min.):
Local Street
15 ft
15 ft
10 ft
10 ft
10 ft
15 ft
25 ft
Collector Street
25 ft
25 ft
15 ft
15 ft
15 ft
25 ft
30 ft
Rear Setback(min.)
20 ft
20 ft
15 ft
15 ft
5 ft
15 ft
30 ft
Density (max.)(du/ac)
2 4
6 8
12 24
1 Parking Requirements**
Spaces per Unit
2 Enclosed
1 Enclosed
1 Covered
2 Enclosed
Source: City of Yucaipa Development Code, Division 4, Chapter 3.
Notes: * In residential districts, a final subdivision map may establish front yard setbacks of not less than 22 feet, provided the average setback of all parcels is at least 25 feet. ** Tandem spaces are prohibited except in hillside areas per Section 87.0630 of the City of Yucaipa Development Code. All parking must adhere to standards established in Division 7, Chapter 6, Parking Regulations, of the Development Code. *** Applies to any lot less than 10,000 square feet in area. r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
Table 4-4. Nonresidential Development Standards
REGIONAL
AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS PARK PUBLIC
FEATURE COMMERCIAL
TOURISMDEVELOPMENT
BP
District Size (min.) 5 gross acres 5 gross acres 2.5 gross acres Not required Building Height (max.) 30 ft 45 ft 80 ft 75 ft
Lot Size (min.) 2.5 gross acres 1 gross acre 1 gross acre 1 gross acre Lot Coverage 50% 85% 80% 80%
Lot Dimensions (min.):
Width
100
100
100
N/A
Depth
100
100
100
N/A
Front Setback (min.)
20 ft
15 ft
15 ft
15 ft
Side Setbacks (min.)
10 ft
loft
10 ft
loft
Rear Setback (min.)
10 ft
10 ft
10 ft
10 ft
Street Side Setback (min.)
15 ft
15 ft
15 ft
15 ft
FAR (max.)
.15
0.35 0.5
0.15 Parking Requirements*
5 Spaces per Acre of Crop
1 for each 200 sf of GLA
1/250 sf of office
One parking space
up to 100,000 sf
per employee
1/1000 sf of warehouse/
1 for each 250 sf of GLA
manufacturing
for square footage above
100,000 sf
Parking requirements
include restaurant uses
Source: City of Yucaipa Development Code, Division 4, Chapter 3.
Notes: * Tandem spaces are prohibited except in hillside areas per Section 87.0630 of the City of Yucaipa Development Code. All parking must adhere to standards established in the Development Code, Division 7, Chapter 6, Parking Regulations. i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 4: Development Standards
4.5 LANDSCAPE STANDARDS
The goal of the landscape design standards is to create a consistent landscaped environment that complements the surrounding open space. These standards are also intended to provide screening, buffering, and shade where needed. Landscape plans will incorporate water conservation techniques and apply a drought -resistant plant palette.
The design and installation of plant materials and other landscaping in yard, street, and park areas will adhere to the standards established herein.
1. Strategically place large specimen trees (48-inch box) to assist new development in looking "established" as quickly as possible.
Parkways shall be planted with shade trees and shrubs to provide a pleasant pedestrian environment and contribute to streetscape continuity.
2. Trees and shrubs shall be located and spaced to allow for mature growth with a full coverage of landscape areas.
3. Landscaping shall be used to provide screening for unattractive and/or unsightly service areas, and serve as buffers between neighboring uses.
4. Landscaped areas shall have automatic irrigation systems with moisture sensors installed to ensure plants and trees survive.
5. Provide root barriers when trees are planted five feet or closer to any hardscape element (e.g., curbs, sidewalks, other paving) or structure. The distance shall be measured from the center of the tree trunk to the nearest hardscape or structure.
6. The introduction of vineyards to support the Yucaipa Valley American Viticultural Area is allowed on disturbed slopes or agricultural areas.
4.6 SIGN REGULATIONS
The sign regulations of the City of Yucaipa Development Code Division 7, Chapter 7, Sign Regulations, apply to all signs in the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan, except as specified in this section.
Interpretations and exceptions may be approved by the Director.
4.6.1 SIGN TYPES
A. Individual: An individual sign is associated with a nonresidential use, but not in a shopping center, business, or other unified commercial complex.
B. Complex: A complex sign is in a shopping center, business, or other complex with a minimum 150 feet of street frontage.
C. Complex Occupant: A complex occupant sign is for an individual occupant of a shopping center, business, or other complex.
4.6.2 SIGN CONFIGURATIONS
A. Wall: A sign with a single face that is mounted on an exterior wall of a structure, with the surface parallel to the plane of the wall and projecting a maximum of 18 inches from the structure.
B. Monument: A sign on a monument base that does not interfere with driver visibility. Monument signs shall be located a minimum of one foot from any right-of-way line and limited to the height allowed for a wall or a fence in the applicable land use district.
C. Projecting: A sign attached to a building and extending in a perpendicular plane from the wall of the structure. Projecting signs must be attached at a minimum height of eight feet from walkways and thoroughfares.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
4.6.3 PROHIBITED SIGNS
Per Section 87.0710 of the Yucaipa Development Code, signs with the following components are prohibited within the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan:
• Animated, moving, or rotating parts
• Attached or painted on vehicles on private property
• With sounds
• Signs that limit the effectiveness of traffic signs
• Parts that are considered obscene or immoral
• Balloons and inflatables
• Except for time and temperature components and electronic message signs, signs may only be lit by steady, stationary, shielded light directed only at the sign; by light inside the sign; and by direct neon lighting. The glare from such luminous source shall not exceed one-half (0.5) foot-candle.
• Glare or lighting that impairs vision of drivers
• Banners or flags other than for nonprofit, religious, or temporary purposes
4.6.4 MASTER SIGN PROGRAM
Before issuing any sign permits, the project developer shall submit a Master Sign Program for nonresidential uses for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The Master Sign Program shall replace the requirements outlined in the City of Yucaipa Municipal Code:
• The Master Sign Program shall ensure that commercial
center and business park signage is harmonious, integrates appropriately with the architecture of the center, and provides for adequate exposure of all tenants.
• The Master Sign Program will also describe the responsibilities of tenants with respect to sign review, approval, installation, and maintenance.
• The Master Sign Program shall include:
• Vehicular and pedestrian directional and information
signage.
• Permitted and prohibited sign types and general location requirements.
• Maximum sign size, sign area, letter size, and font; color palette.
• Sign construction material(s) and illumination/method or type of lighting.
• Any specific requirements for Project Level Signage must maintain consistency with the intent of the Master Sign Program.
• The Master Sign Program may also include other
architectural and environmental graphic enhancements
consistent with the architectural and design elements of the proposed project.
4.7 OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
Common open space requirements should abide by the Citywide Design Guidelines to encourage design that creates opportunities for optimal usable open spaces. Commercial and Business Park i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 4: Development Standards
development shall provide development area for common open space in the form of plazas, landscaped courtyards, and/or squares, as indicated in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines.
All single-family residential development with lot sizes less than 10,000 square feet shall provide one pocket park of at least 10,000 square feet for each 50 residential dwelling units. Per Citywide Design Guidelines, it is encouraged for units to be clustered and organized on the site to allow for the maximum amount of usable open space.
All common open space for multifamily unit types or high - density land uses shall be usable indoor or outdoor areas and may include active spaces (recreation rooms, fitness rooms, audiovisual entertainment, pool, etc.) or passive spaces (lounges, outdoor landscape and hardscape areas with seating, barbeque area, etc.).
Rooftop decks and terraces may be used to satisfy this requirement; however, these areas shall be accessible to all residents of the building.
Enclosed common open space (i.e., open space that is enclosed on four sides, such as a courtyard) must have a 1:2 ratio, that is, where the courtyard width is at least one-half of the height of the adjacent building facade. Open space that is open on one or more sides must have a width of at least one-third the height of the adjacent building facade.
4.8 GRADING REQUIREMENTS
Grading and excavation shall be conducted per the requirements in the Yucaipa Development Code, Section 15.12, Grading and Excavation Code, and the Yucaipa Grading Manual, with modifications approved by City Council. Areas that are viewable from public areas shall employ contour and undulating slope techniques to create a more natural appearance and transition.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
r
R�
~
44pp
41 t ti
DESIGN
GUIDELINES
" - -N *
0 5.1 INTRODUCTION
The Freeway Corridor Specific Plan Design Guidelines are intended to provide clear direction concerning the site planning, landscaping, building design, and site features that promote the aesthetics appropriate for this area. This chapter is intended to be consistent with the Yucaipa Citywide Design Guidelines developed for the 2016 General Plan update and adopted in 2019; any provisions not listed herein must abide by the Citywide Guidelines. The Citywide Guidelines reflect provisions that represent the current and future markets for development and adequately describe the goals for the overall plan area. The Citywide Guidelines provide clear, concise, and consistent design requirements that will guide the FCSP to complement its surroundings with range of high quality and appropriate design features for all the uses allowed. The Design Guidelines will assist with developing the Freeway Corridor into a community asset and maintaining the rural character of Yucaipa. Objective design standards listed in other City documents that provide specific design criteria for architectual styles (such as roof materials and slopes for different styles) shall also be applied.
5.2 NONRESIDENTIAL
5.2.1 SITE PLANNING
Site planning refers to the arrangement of buildings and parking areas, the size and location of pedestrian spaces, and how these features relate to one another. Site planning and design topics include lot layout, pedestrian access and amenities, parking, landscaping, utility and mechanical equipment, and outdoor lighting. i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 5: Design Guidelines
The various components of the lot shall be laid out to emphasize street orientation.
1. The natural contours of the land should be respected when developing on sloped properties. Terraced parking lots, stepped building pads, and larger setbacks should be used to preserve the general shape of natural landforms and to minimize grade differentials with adjacent streets and adjoining properties.
2. Development should incorporate existing natural features into the overall site design, including rock outcroppings, major landforms, ridgelines, significant trees and vegetation, streams, and drainage areas.
3. Site plans should balance the need to provide adequate vehicular access with the need to eliminate unnecessary driveway
entrances, and access points should be coordinated with other properties. Entrances to parking lots should be as far from street intersections as possible.
4. Buildings with prominent architectural features should be near corners and intersections.
Buildings should be sited toward the street, with parking behind where feasible. Buildings or portions of buildings may be set back from the street to create alcoves, plazas, entry nooks, and outdoor cafe areas that provide visual interest and a dynamic pedestrian area.
6. Service, utility, and loading areas should be carefully designed, located, and integrated into the site plan for convenient access by service vehicles and tenants while minimizing visibility.
7. Where commercial uses are adjacent to noncommercial uses, appropriate buffering techniques, such as increased minimum setbacks, screening, and landscaping, should be provided to mitigate any negative effects of the commercial operations. Any noise -generating uses should be located away from adjacent residential uses.
8. Landscape setbacks with shrubs and trees shall be provided in front of retaining walls that are visible from public points of access.
5.2.2 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND
PARKING
1. A system of pedestrian walks should be designed into projects.
Walks should provide for safe, convenient access to all buildings and for safe pedestrian circulation throughout, connecting the building entry to the street, parking areas, nearby neighborhoods, and transit stops. Key pedestrain walks shall be surrounded by a landscape area with trees to provide a safe and comfortable pathway.
2. The following accent features shall be incorporated into the project entry and individual property entry gates: public art, large specimen trees, landscaped medians, stone wall features, architectural monuments, and/or decorative signs.
Spaces between structures should be designed as "outdoor rooms" on the site. Outdoor spaces should have clear,
recognizable shapes that reflect careful planning —not simply "left over" areas between structures.
4. Site furnishings and light fixtures in public spaces associated with private development should complement the architectural style of the primary buildings.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
Buildings should be grouped or clustered to aid in the creation of pedestrian plazas, increased open space, and the overall appearance of campus -like development rather than urban sprawl.
6. Plazas and open spaces should be sheltered, as much as possible, from noise -generating nuisances, trash enclosures, parking areas, and other incompatible uses.
7. Plazas should include tables, benches or seat walls, trash receptacles, canopy trees, trellis structures, lighting, and enhanced paving.
Adequate parking should be provided for each intended use. The number of required spaces depends on the type of development and the volume of traffic expected from each use. See Yucaipa Development Code, Chapter 6, Parking Regulations.
9. Large parking areas should be avoided. It is preferable to create small, connected parking lots utilizing shared driveways
10. Adequate areas for maneuvering, stacking, truck staging, loading, and emergency vehicle access should be provided.
11. Parking facilities should be designed with adequate area to enable a vehicle to maneuver without entering the public right of way.
12. Parking areas should be designed so that cars and pedestrians are separated. Landscape islands and walkways should be used to connect parking areas with building entries and to separate pedestrians from automobiles whenever possible. Landscape elements shall be incorporated between building entrances and parking lots to increase the pedestrian environment.
5.2.3 OUTDOOR LIGHTING
1. Lighting should be used to provide illumination for the security and safety of on -site areas such as parking, loading, and pathways.
2. Outdoor light fixtures that provide nighttime safety and security should be selected to conserve energy, protect the night sky, and minimize glare and light trespass within and beyond the project site.
3. Cutoff lighting fixtures should be mounted parallel to the ground and located, aimed, and shielded to direct light only onto buildings or walkways and not toward adjacent roads or residences.
4. Light fixtures should be designed to complement the
architectural styles of the buildings.
5. Exterior lighting that has a color temperature of no more than 3000 Kelvin is encouraged to limit potential nighttime glare.
5.2.4 BUILDING DESIGN
Several concepts contribute to pleasing building design, including architectural character, continuity, massing, scale, and rhythm.
Building forms and facades influence cohesiveness, comfort, and aesthetic pride. At the same time, they can encourage shopping, increase a sense of security, and generate pedestrian activity.
Buildings shall be designed to match the overall scale and design of intended environment. Fenestration and articulation of the building will improve visual interest and abide by the Citywide Guidelines for nonresidential and residential building design.
Z
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 5: Design Guidelines
1. Building designers should incorporate 360-degree architecture in all buildings and remodels within the FCSP. This entails full articulation of all building facades, including variation in massing, roof forms, and wall planes as well as surface articulation.
2. Building mass and articulation should be oriented to the primary street and to outdoor dining areas, plazas, and pedestrian connections. Provide screening for unattractive and/or unsightly service areas and to serve as buffers between neighboring uses.
3. Smaller modules of varied and well -articulated wall and roof planes should be created to reduce the overall massing and scale of buildings while providing visual interest. Large, blank, flat surfaces should be avoided.
4. Soften blank walls through the use of doors and windows, varying colors and materials, awnings and canopies, trellises, wall undulation, and architectural details.
5. Exterior ramps, stairways, gutters, downspouts, and other functional elements of a structure should be architecturally integrated into the design of the building. Thin open -metal, prefabricated stairs are discouraged.
6. Where commercial buildings neighbor residential buildings or where infill buildings are being constructed, building mass, privacy, and nuisances should be addressed in the proposed design.
7. Roof forms should be designed to completely screen roof - mounted equipment from public view.
5.3 RESIDENTIAL
The City strongly encourages the development community to design multifamily and single-family residential products in an appropriate form that emphasizes the area's compact community, rural character, and small-town feel.
5.3.1 SITE PLANNING
1. Single -Family
a. Building placement and orientation should be carefully designed to enhance the building's visual impact on the streetscape, minimize the visibility of garage doors, retain natural site features, and fit within the neighborhood context. b. Side -loading, detached, or rear garages are encouraged over front -facing garages. However, if they are not feasible, front - facing garages should be set back a minimum of 2 feet from the main house to reduce the prominence of the garage along the streetscape.
c. Development should incorporate existing natural features into the overall site design, including rock outcroppings, major landforms, ridgelines, significant trees and vegetation, streams, and drainage areas.
d. Climatic factors, such as prevailing winds, solar orientation, shade trees, window and door orientation, and the
positioning of buildings on the site, should be coordinated to maximize energy conservation.
e. Development on hillside lots should accommodate a majority of the grade differential by stepping the building to reflect the slope of the natural topography.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
2. Multifamily
a. Interior paths and sidewalks shall provide direct access to building entrances and to public rights -of -way.
b. Pocket parks and tot lots shall be sited centrally within the project in compliance with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.
c. Pocket parks should be designed in an inviting manner that encourages pedestrian use through the incorporation of
trellises, seating, and shade trees.
d. Measures shall be used to soften the building mass with architectural features such as garden walls, arbors, and trellises. However, it is important to avoid "tacking on" architectural features to hide poor massing and architecture.
All architectural features should be fully integrated into the building design.
e. Porches are encouraged to denote entries and break up building mass. Functional porches should extend a minimum of 6 feet in each direction.
f. Orient buildings and decks to maximize views while
preserving the privacy of surrounding neighbors.
g. Units should be clustered and organized on the site to allow for the maximum amount of usable open space.
5.3.2 PARKING
1. Alleys shall be used for access to garages, parking spaces, and service and garbage collection.
2. Parking areas shall be screened from public views with shrubs and/or dense landscaping of a minimum of 30 inches high.
3. Parking areas shall be well landscaped with a variety of shrubs and canopy trees to provide shade, reduce glare, and provide a visual buffer for large expanses of parking.
4. Carports, detached garages, and accessory structures shall be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the project through the use of the same materials, roof slopes, and frame details used on the primary residential unit(s).
5. Landscaping in parking areas should be protected from encroaching vehicles by concrete curbing or raised planting areas.
5.3.3 OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Outdoor light fixtures, including street lights and lamps (light bulbs) that provide nighttime safety and security while conserving energy, protecting the night sky, and minimizing glare and light trespass within and beyond the project site shall be chosen.
2. Cut-off lighting fixtures shall be mounted parallel to the ground and located, aimed, and shielded to direct light only onto buildings or walkways and not toward adjacent roads or residences.
3. Light fixtures selected shall be architecturally compatible with the building design.
4. All building entrances and pedestrian pathways for residential development projects should be adequately lit to provide safety and security.
Z
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 5: Design Guidelines
5. Exterior lighting that has a color temperature of no more than 3000 Kelvin is encouraged to limit potential nighttime glare.
5.3.4 BUILDING DESIGN
Building designers should incorporate 360-degree architecture in all buildings and remodels within the FCSP, that is, the full articulation of all building facades, including variation in massing, roof forms, and wall planes as well as surface articulation. Architectural elements such as overhangs, trellises, projections, awnings, insets, material, and texture should be used to create shadow patterns that contribute to a building's character.
1. Where feasible, massing should accentuate the entry and minimize garage prominence. Garages shall not project beyond the plane of the primary structure, and doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12".
2. Variation in wall planes, such as projecting and recessing elements, should occur on all sides of the structures visible from a public street.
3. The second and/or third story of a residential should be designed to reduce the appearance of the overall scale of the building, using stepbacks, changes in rooflines and accent materials to create the necessary effect.
4. Varying roof forms and/or changes in roof plane should be used on all building elevations.
5. Multiple roof elements that are consistent with the desired and universally recognized architectural style shall be incorporated to reduce the overall massing and scale of the building.
6. Walls shall not exceed 25 feet in any direction without a minimum 6-inch change in wall plane.
7. Projections, recesses, and overhangs shall be employed to provide shadow and depth.
8. High quality materials should be used to create a look of permanence in the project.
9. Materials and colors should be varied to create visual interest in building facades and to reduce the monotonous appearance that can be a weakness of tract home developments.
10. Window, doors, and entries should be designed to capture the desired architectural style of the building.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024 - DRAFT
r
R�
~
44pp
41 t ti
IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This Implementation Program identifies the programs, regulations, and other procedures the City and others will pursue to implement the Yucaipa Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. Implementation involves:
• Phasing
• Public Financing Plan
• Maintenance Responsibilities
• Methods and Procedures for Implementation
• Enforcement of the Specific Plan
• Amendments to the Specific Plan
• Density Transfers
• Interpretations
• Severability
• CEQA Compliance
6.2 PHASING
6.2.1 CONCEPTUAL PHASING PLAN
Development pursuant to this Specific Plan is expected to occur in approximately seven phases. These phases may overlap. The Conceptual Phasing Plan anticipates that new development will begin on properties south of Interstate 10 (1-10), starting with the 160-acre Business Park uses. The next series of phases assumes development of residential and commercial uses.
i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 6: Implementation
Phasing is conceptual only; the actual phasing may vary given ownership patterns, market demand for specific commercial and residential products, and the timing of Caltrans's improvements to the Live Oak Canyon Road interchange and the new interchange at Wildwood Canyon Road. The necessary infrastructure and utilities needed to support each phase must be in place or committed financially —and bonded —prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for that phase. Table 6-1 identifies the planned level of development for each phase, and Figure 6-1 illustrates the Conceptual Phasing Plan.
Table 6-1. Phase Plan Allocation
PHASE
Existing
NUMBERREGIONAL
OF
UNITS
COMMERCIALPARK
ACRES
TOURISMDWELLING
48.8 Phase 1
--
--
160.6
Phase 2
1,123
15.1 --
Phase 3
171
--
-
Phase 4
45 22.5
25.1 Phase 5
1,133
--
-
Phase 6
--
34.6 Phase 7
--
--
37.4 Total
2,472
72.2 48.8
223.1
Nonresidential Acres Total
403.2
Note: See Table 3-1 for land use allocations related to Open Space and ROW.
6.2.2 TIMING AND MANDATORY
PHASING CONDITIONS
The Specific Plan area will be developed pursuant to market demand but is anticipated to occur over a 15- to 20-year time frame.
The following conditions shall apply to all components of the Specific Plan:
1. Required open space shall be dedicated with maintenance financing mechanisms secured to the satisfaction of the City at the time of issuance of building permits.
2. No occupancy permits shall be issued for any development in any phase until the City has approved and/or accepted required infrastructure improvements to serve that development or phase.
3. For developments in Phases 5 and 6, secondary freeway access shall be provided to connect to Interstate 10, as required by City public safety and emergency response personnel as part of any project proposal.
4. All roadways that are part of the General Plan Master Plan of Roadways shall be dedicated and constructed and/or bonded for in conjunction with any adjacent development or development that will use those roadways. All interior roadways will be constructed in conjunction with the development they directly serve. Local roads and multiuse trails will be constructed to their full proposed sections, complete with landscaping, in a single phase. Collector roads may be constructed partly in one phase and completed in another, so long as capacity required by the Traffic Impact Study is provided for each individual phase. r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024
Figure 6-1. Conceptual Phasing Plan
KI: NTUCKY ST
PA 6
264 AC° PHASE
11 o
6 P4.1 AC
134 D—�
6\AC
13 PA4 ggf PHASE OSG
112 DU C 6
16A AC ^ .- 22.5 AC O
L PA 12
ePs 1s Du
PA 9 AG.
3aA� 66A PHASE _ s
PA B �� OS-O
PHASE96°°
3 PHASE
PHASE
B;^ 'S PHASE
Po, 17 PA 21
os 36 Du „
222 DU
.^ 3.2 AC 6A 14P3D195A9.6 AC 1
PA 15
63 DU
PA 22
129 DU 2.6 AC
i 6.6
PHASE 11 PA 20
]1 AC 149 DU
Yucaipa Valley Water Dishict PA 19 6.2 AC
Ownership PA 23 PA 6 56 DU
7 135 DU 4.] AC
N4,1 A 32 DU PHASE
154.6 AC \13AC 4.1 AC
PA 16
4, Du
14.3 AC
i
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 6: Implementation
5. The City may allow for the deferral of construction of lanes, curbs and gutters, and landscaping, as may be appropriate in circumstances where subdivision phasing is proposed. For example, a secondary or collector street bounding a subdivision phase may not be initially constructed to its full width, although full dedication will be required. The curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape area, and possibly the number -one lane on the side away from the subdivision may be deferred until development occurs in that area, but all required street improvements for the project's frontage along the right-of-way shall be completed. As development proceeds, additional construction of the roadway network will be carried out as specified in the development's conditions of approval.
6. Improvements to Fire Department infrastructure shall be conditioned for all new developer. Larger scale structures, in terms of height or width, shall participate in a fair share funding agreement for an aerial quint fire truck and a fire community facilities district. Other equipment or a future fire station may be needed to ensure adequate response time capacity, and shall be funded through the development within the Specific Plan.
6.3 FINANCING
MECHANISMS
The financing and maintenance plan for the project will ensure the timely completion of public facilities, utilities, and other necessary capital improvements as well as the proper maintenance of these facilities. The responsibility for designing and installing infrastructure improvements lies primarily with the landowners and developers. In addition to direct landowner and developer financing, the City's General Plan has identified a number of potential public financing techniques that could be utilized to fund infrastructure improvements.
Potential funding mechanisms for the planned public improvements include:
• Revenue Bonds
• Community Facility District (e.g. Mello -Roos)
• Assessment Districts
• Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
• Lighting and Landscape District
• Developer Funding
• Privately Owned Facilities
Water and sewer facilities will be provided by the Yucaipa Valley Water District. The District may use reserve funds or issue bonds to pay for main -line infrastructure and any needed upgrades to regional facilities (e.g. pumps, treatment plants). The District will charge property owners/developers connection fees, which will be used to pay off bonds and/or repay the Districts reserve funds.
For all other capital facilities and public improvements, the funding mechanisms to be used and how assessments or taxes will be allocated to future property owners will be defined by the developer and the City at the time development proceeds.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024
r
Community Facility District
Community facility districts (such as Mello -Roos) are utilized to fund essential public facilities (e.g., roads, parkways, and other infrastructure). Creation of a community facility district requires a vote of property owners if fewer than 12 residents, or of residents when there are more than 12 residents.
Assessment Districts
Assessment district financing is utilized when the benefits of the infrastructure improvements can be directly linked to specific property owners. Each property is assessed its share of infrastructure costs based on the benefit received. The City establishes an assessment district as long as a majority of property owners do not oppose the formation.
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
An EIFD is a tax -increment district that is used to fund regional infrastructure. Through the formation process, the City, County and special districts (but excluding school districts) may allow a portion of incremental property taxes to be transferred to the financing district to fund the infrastructure improvements. The City is currently in formation process of an EIFD that would include the Specific Plan area. The drawback of using an EIFD is that the City will receive less property tax from new development.
Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District
A landscape and lighting maintenance district is a special district that funds ongoing operation and maintenance of roadway landscaping and lighting. This may be the preferred option for this Specific Plan, with separate districts established for residential and commercial properties.
Developer Funding
In many cases, certain on -site facilities are tied directly to individual projects. In these cases, the property owner/developer will pay the costs of the facility. On -site local streets, utility connections from the main trunk lines, and on -site drainage facilities are the primary types of on -site facilities built by developers.
In addition, developers may fund the construction of off -site infrastructure in order to gain access sooner than waiting for other agencies to construct the improvements. In these cases, the developer may be reimbursed by other developers using the infrastructure or by the public agency pursuant to a development agreement.
Private Utilities
Developers and/or property owners will be responsible for funding and upgrades of private utilities or extension of services based on private agreements with utility service providers (e.g. electricity, natural gas, telecommunications). Conditions of approval for individual development projects will specify the required timing.
6.4 MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITIES
To ensure that all infrastructure improvements, common areas, and public facilities are well maintained, this section sets forth the long- term maintenance responsibilities of the various private and public facilities to be provided in the Specific Plan area. Property owners will be responsible for the maintenance of all areas and facilities listed in Table 6-2 until those areas and facilities are accepted by the appropriate entity.
Z
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 6: Implementation
The transfer of ownership, liability agreements, and maintenance responsibility for the areas and facilities listed will be implemented in accordance with conditions of approval for any tentative map or other entitlement approved by the City. If it is determined by the City at the time of the granting of entitlements that an entity other than the one indicated in Table 6-2 should assume responsibility, the conditions of approval will so specify. The City has the sole discretion to make such a determination.
ianie b-z. iviaintenance rian: xesponsmie
rariies
P.RESPONSIBLE
SERVICE OR
• OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
On -site water, sewer, and storm
Yucaipa Valley Water District
drainage facilities
Private utilities, including but not
Private utility company
limited to electricity, natural gas,
and telecommunications
Specific plan public roadways (not
City of Yucaipa
including freeway improvements)
Parkways along rights -of -way
Developer and property owners
Common area improvements
Property management company/
homeowners association
Private open space
Property management company/
homeowners association
Public parks and open space
To be determined at time of
entitlement
6.5 METHODS AND
PROCEDURES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
The City of Yucaipa shall administer the provisions of the Yucaipa Freeway Corridor Specific Plan in accordance with the State of California Government Code, Subdivision Map Act, the Yucaipa General Plan, the Yucaipa Development Code, and other relevant provisions of the Yucaipa Municipal Code. Specific Plan development procedures, regulations, standards, and specifications shall supersede relevant provisions of the City's Development Code as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Any development regulation and building requirement not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the Development Code and relevant provisions of the Municipal Code.
6.6 ENFORCEMENT OF THE
SPECIFIC PLAN
Enforcement of the provisions of this Specific Plan shall occur as follows:
1. The Director of Community Development shall be responsible for interpreting and enforcing all the provisions of this Specific Plan.
2. Pursuant to the City's Development Code, any decision by the Director of Community Development may be appealed to the Planning Commission, and any decision by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024
6.6.1 VARIANCE REVIEW
A request for a variance because of special circumstances, such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, shall be processed in accordance with Section 83.030905 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code.
The code establishes procedures for both a Minor Variance process and a Major Variance process. Variances are intended to be exceptions to a particular standard based on extraordinary circumstances or conditions to a property that do not apply to other properties in the same district of vicinity. A Minor Variance may be approved by the Community Development Director, and a Major Variance shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission.
6.6.2 MINOR MODIFICATIONS
The City recognizes the importance of allowing for some degree of flexibility in the requirements of this Specific Plan as development occurs over the next 15 to 20 years. This flexibility could be needed for projects to better respond to market conditions or for changes in plans for infrastructure or services. Therefore, this Specific Plan includes both Minor Modification and Major Modification processes.
Unlike the Variance process, the Minor and Major Modification processes are not limited to a special circumstance or hardship for a particular property but could be applied to one or more Planning Areas.
The Community Development Director may approve requests for a Minor Modification. A request for Minor Modification may include the following:
• A modification to a Development Standard (regulation) by not more than 10 percent.
• A modification to the uses identified in the land use table, provided they are determined by the Director to be compatible with other allowed uses.
• A modification to the Conceptual Phasing Plan (Table 6-1). • Minor changes to the Specific Plan text and exhibits to clarify information, provided such changes do not increase the
allowable number of dwelling units or nonresidential square footage.
In approving a Minor Modification, the Director must make the following findings.
• The Minor Modification provides an aesthetic benefit, physical benefit, or environmental benefit to the originally approved Specific Plan.
• The Minor Modification is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Specific Plan and the General Plan.
• The Minor Modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or adversely affect property values of the existing or future development in the surrounding area. • The Minor Modification is necessary for safety reasons or to comply with other applicable codes, laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations.
6.6.3 MAJOR MODIFICATIONS
A Major Modification applies to an application to change (increases or decreases) the Development Standard(s) by more than 10 percent and up to 20 percent. The Planning Commission has approval authority City of Yucaipa
Chapter 6: Implementation
over a Major Modification. In approving a Major Modification, the Planning Commission must make at least one of the following findings.
• The Major Modification provides an aesthetic benefit, physical benefit, or environmental benefit to the originally .approved Specific Plan.
• The Major Modification is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Specific Plan and the General Plan.
• The Major Modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or adversely affect property values of the existing or future development in the surrounding area. • The Major Modification is necessary for safety reasons or to comply with other applicable codes, laws, ordinances, rules or regulations.
6.6.4 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Any deviation or relief from the requirements of the Specific Plan that cannot be accommodated by a Minor or Major Modification to the Specific Plan according to Sections 6.6.2 or 6.6.3 shall require a Specific Plan Amendment. All amendments shall be processed pursuant to provisions in Government Code Section 65453, and in the same manner as a Development Code text amendment.
The Director of Community Development shall make the final determination as to whether an amendment is required. Examples that would require a Specific Plan Amendment include:
• A change in Specific Plan boundary.
• An increase in maximum Specific Plan buildout per Section 6.2, excluding any density bonus units or accessory dwelling units permitted by State Law.
• A significant change in the circulation system identified in Section 3.5.
• A change in use not allowed in the Specific Plan that was determined not to be consistent with Section 4.3, Permitted Land Uses, of this Specific Plan.
6.7 INTERPRETATIONS
The Director of Community Development or their designee shall have the authority to interpret Specific Plan requirements if the meaning or appropriate application of provisions in the Specific Plan is ambiguous. In so doing, the Director or their designee shall consider:
• Continuity and consistency with previous interpretations of this Specific Plan.
• The interpretation responds satisfactorily to the Specific Plan vision, intent, and purpose.
• The resultant project is consistent with the Yucaipa General Plan.
The interpretations remain the final determination of the Director of Community Development, but may be appealed to the Planning Commission.
6.7.1 SUMMARY OF REVIEWING
Table 6-3 identifies the reviewing authority for each type of application that may be processed under this Specific Plan. Where the Specific Plan has been silent on a particular type of application, such as a Conditional Use Permit, the provisions of the Yucaipa Municipal Code shall apply.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024
Table 6-3. Review Authority
TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNINGCOMMUNITY
COMMISSION
COUNCIL
APPLICATION
DIRECTOR
APPROVAL(A)APPROVAL
APPROVAL
Administrative
■
Use Permit
Conditional Use
■
Permit
Residential &
■
Tentative Tract
Map 150 units/
lots or less
Residential &
■
Tentative Tract
Map >150
Development
■
Agreements
Minor Variance
■
Major Variance
■
Interpretations
■
Minor
■
Modification
Major
■
Modification
Specific Plan
■
Amendments
Sign Plan
■
6.8 DENSITY/INTENSITY
TRANSFERS
The purpose of transfer regulations is to encourage full buildout of the plan by enabling transfer of unused dwelling units or square footage between planning areas. Transfers are approved by the Director.
Dwelling units may only be transferred between residential planning areas. Nonresidential square footage may only be transferred between commercial and business park planning areas. Transfers may only occur if the following conditions are met:
• The maximum total number of units within the Freeway
Corridor Specific Plan does not exceed the cap of 1,472 dwelling units, excluding ADUs or Density Bonus units;
• The maximum amount of non-residential square footage does not exceed XXXXX square feet;
• The development standards for the district are met (with the exception of a Minor or Major Modification); and
• A traffic analysis determines that there will be no new traffic impacts beyond what was analyzed in the EIR.
6.9 STATEMENT OF
SEVERABILITY
If any regulation, condition, or program or portion thereof of the Specific Plan is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and the invalidity of such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
Z
City of Yucaipa
Chapter 6: Implementation
6.10 CEQA COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 21000-21177), the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan SEIR describes the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and full buildout of the plan area, based on the 2023 Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. To address the updates made as part of this 2023 Specific Plan Amendment, a Subsequent EIR has been prepared.
All development shall comply with the approved Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) for the EIR.
It is anticipated that proposed development that is approved consistent with the Specific Plan will be within the scope of the EIR and will not require further CEQA review. In the event that proposed development includes elements that were not within the scope of the EIR, additional documentation and/or findings shall be required in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . January 2024
R�
4p
.
t ti
# r y e Af—
.`#i
• •� S � 7 ' �� � •
} ! ' i � R
r �
J � _
• � �
• •. �1�
• �� � •. y �
�� . � r, _
z4 � � ��
' � { aCT-�.�'
Terms used throughout the Specific Plan shall take their commonly accepted meaning unless defined here differently. When there are conflicts between these definitions and the ones provided in the Development Code these shall take precedence. Where no definition is provided in this Specific Plan, the definition in the Development Code shall prevail.
DEFINITIONS (A)
Accessory Building. A building or structure detached from, on the same lot as, and customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal building.
Accessory Use. A use of portion of land or building that is customarily and clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and is located on the same lot with such principal use.
Accessory uses typically are very small in proportion to the principal use.
Acreage, Gross. The total land area within a defined boundary before the exclusion of public rights -of -way, public parks, and public school sites.
Acreage, Net. That portion of gross acreage exclusive of public streets and all public lands and rights -of -way. The area within the lot lines of a lot exclusive of any dedications for public rights -of -way, public parks, and public school sites.
Architectural Projection. An element that articulates the building elevations, such as architectural pop -outs, pot shelves, balconies, bay windows, eaves, enhanced window sills, shutter details, window trim, chimneys, and similar architectural features, but does not include patio covers, porches, trellises, or other accessory structures.
City of Yucaipa
A: Definitions
Attached single-family dwelling. See definition of "dwelling unit."
DEFINITIONS (B)
Bedroom. Any habitable room other than a bathroom, kitchen, dining room, living room or family room.
Building. Defined as set forth in the Uniform Building Code. A structure having a roof supported by columns or walls.
Building Face. The outside elevation of the living portion of the dwelling. Building Height: As provided in Section 812.0260 of the Development Code.
DEFINITIONS (C)
Centerline. A line in the center of the ultimate street right-of-way.
Child Care Facility. Any child day care facility with a capacity of more than 12 children, Child care facilities include infant centers, preschools, and extended day care facilities. Such a facility provides non -medical care, on a less than a 24-hour basis, to persons under 18 years of age in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual.
Community Care Facility. Any facility, place, or building which is maintained and operated to provide nonmedical residential care, day treatment, adult day care, or foster family agency services for children, adults, or children and adults, including, but not limited to, physically handicapped, mentally impaired, mentally incompetent persons, and abused or neglected people; and which includes residential facilities, adult day care facilities, day treatment facilities, foster family homes, small family homes, social rehabilitation facilities, community treatment facilities, shelters for battered women, substance abuse treatment facilities and social day care facilities.
Common Area Residential. The area within a residential
development that is not designed as a residential building site, which is owned in common by homeowners in the development, and which is available for common use or enjoyment by all property owners in the development and their invitees. Examples include: common parking facilities, private streets, recreation areas, landscaped areas, open space areas and natural areas.
Community Commercial Facility. A commercial use established primarily to serve the needs of the immediate population of the community in which it is located, including, but not limited to, day care centers, nursery schools, commercial or community recreation centers and related facilities.
Corner Lot. A lot situated at the intersection of two or more streets.
Cultural Resources. prehistoric or historic district, artifact, physical remains, site, building, or structures, including their landscape settings that exemplify the cultural, architectural, economic, social, Political, or historic heritage of the area.
DEFINITIONS (D)
Density. The number of permanent residential dwelling units per net acre of land.
Drainage. The natural or artificial removal of surface and subsurface water from a given area.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . December 2023 - DRAFT
Driveway. A private roadway or access way providing vehicular access to a parking space, parking lot, garage, dwelling, or other structure.
Dwelling, Single-family Attached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such dwelling unit (for example, townhouse or condominium).
Dwelling, Single-family Detached. A detached building containing no more than one dwelling unit which, regardless of form of ownership, is designed and/or used to house not more than one household, including all domestic employees of such family. A single- family dwelling contains only one kitchen.
DEFINITIONS (E)
Educational institution. Private or public elementary or secondary schools, colleges or universities accredited by the State Board of Education to give academic instruction.
DEFINITIONS (F)
Fence. A solid or open barrier other than a wall above ground intended to enclose or mark a boundary made of man-made materials similar to wood and/or metal.
DEFINITIONS (G)
Garage. A fully enclosed space with a sectional roll -up garage door.
General Plan. The General Plan of the City of Yucaipa, adopted pursuant to the State of California Government Code Section 65301 et seq. and adopted by the City Council.
Grade. Defined as set forth in the Uniform Building Code.
DEFINITIONS (H)
Hydrology. The science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water on and below the earth's surface.
DEFINITIONS (I) DEFINITIONS (J) DEFINITIONS (K)
DEFINITIONS (L)
Living Area. The sum of the area designated for human habitation, excluding areas used for garage purposes and other areas such as bay windows, television niches/pop outs, basements, porches, cellars, chimneys, exterior fireplaces, or attics devoted exclusively to uses accessory to the primary use of the dwelling.
Lot. Land which abuts at least one public street or any numbered or otherwise designated parcel of land which is shown on: (1) a recorded tract map, (2) a record of survey map recorded pursuant to an approved division of land, or (3) a parcel map.
Lot Frontage. The length of the defined front lot line measured at the street right -of- way line.
Lot Width. The average lineal distance between side lot lines measured at right angles to the line measuring the lot depth. Lot width should be measured at the rear line of the front yard setback.
City of Yucaipa
A: Definitions
DEFINITIONS (M)
Massing. A unified composition of two-dimensional shapes or three- dimensional volumes, especially one that has or gives the impression of weight, density, and bulk.
Maximum Density. The maximum number of dwelling units per net acre as permitted on the Regulating Plan.
Multiple family dwelling. See definition of "dwelling unit." Multi -Modal Trials. A trail or way designed for and used by equestrians, pedestrians and cyclists using non -motorized bicycles.
DEFINITIONS (N)
Non -Potable Water. Water that is not safe to drink and does not meet the safety standards prescribed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, published in 40 CFR Part 141, and 40 CFR 147.2400.
DEFINITIONS (0)
Office. A place of business for the rendering of service or general administration, but excluding retail sales.
Open Space. Any parcel or area of land or water set aside, dedicated, designated, or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment.
DEFINITIONS (P)
Pane. One of the divisions of a window or door consisting of a single unit of glass set in a frame.
Parking access way. A vehicular passageway that provides access and circulation from a street access point into and through a parking lot to parking aisles and between parking areas.
Parkway. A planting strip between the curb and the sidewalk that contains street trees and landscaping.
Porch. A covered pedestrian entrance to a building, open on all three sides, which is located on the first floor level.
Private Open Space. Any space on a lot not enclosed in a building that is designed for leisure use. "Private open space" may include yards, courtyards, balconies, decks, and patios, but shall not include driveways, aisles, parking areas, side yard less than five feet wide, or any portion of the required front yard setback.
DEFINITIONS (Q) DEFINITIONS (R)
Recycled water. Recycled water is wastewater that has been recovered for potable or nonpotable use, such as reclaimed water. The source of the wastewater may be industrial use, human or animal waste, or any other source of water unusable in its existing state.
Retail. The selling of goods, wares or merchandise directly to the ultimate consumer. Ridgeline: A line marking or following the crest of a range of hills or mountains.
Right-of-way. A corridor, either public or private, on which a right of passage has been recorded.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . December 2023 - DRAFT
DEFINITIONS (S)
Setback. The distance from a defined point or line governing the placement of buildings, structures, parking, or uses on a lot. A line established by this section to govern the placement of buildings with respect to streets, drives, buildings, sidewalks, or property lines.
Interior setbacks are measured from the side or rear property lines.
Street setbacks are measured from property lines.
Seismicity. The study of the location, frequency, and magnitude of earthquakes.
Scenic View. A scenic view is a field of sight that includes natural features and objects. A scenic view maybe from a stationary viewpoint or be seen as one travels along a roadway or path.
Specific Plan. The land use regulations of the Monrovia Nursery Specific Plan area, which consists of a Specific Plan, a statistical summary and a regulating plan.
Street. A public or private vehicular right-of-way, other than an alley or driveway, including both local streets and arterial highways.
DEFINITIONS (T) DEFINITIONS (U)
Uniform Building Code. A building code developed and published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and used primarily in the central and western U.S.
Use. The purpose for which land or building is occupied, arranged, designed or intended, or for which either land or building is or may be occupied or maintained.
DEFINITIONS (V)
Variance. Permission to depart from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to special circumstances applicable to the property, strict application of the requirements deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity which is under identical zoning.
DEFINITIONS (W)
Walls. A barrier intended to mark a boundary that presents a continuous surface except where pierced with gates, doorways or decorative masonry. A wall is usually constructed of concrete block, brick, concrete, stucco, or a combination thereof.
DEFINITIONS (Y) DEFINITIONS (Z)
Zero Lot Line. A situation where the area between two units is owned by one of the two property owners. Zero lot line residential developments are allowed per aggregate setbacks (i.e., a total aggregate side setback of 10 feet instead of two five foot side setbacks, one on each side.
Zero Lot Line Dwelling. A development configuration in which side yards are incorporated into the usable and functional private open spaces of adjoining dwelling units, while maintaining specified minimum building separations. Such lots may include the use of reciprocal use easements. Flexibility in site design shall be balanced against the need to provide Usable Open Space on the lot.
City of Yucaipa
A: Definitions
This page intentionally left blank.
r
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan . December 2023 - DRAFT
R�
~
44pp
41 t ti
ATTACHMENT 7
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan
Draft Errata
This document includes potential modifications to the public hearing draft of the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan (dated January 2024), which reflects the input that was received through various community workshops and the public review process of the document.
However, suggestions that would otherwise impact the feasibility of the plan and its implementation have not been included. Text to be added is shown as bold and underlined text, and items to be removed are shown with strikeetit text.
The City Council may consider these changes for the final iteration of the Specific Plan and should incorporate any that may be deemed necessary or important as part of their action.
Additional revisions can also be proposed, and will be incorporated into the "official" Specific Plan.
..
or
1 6-10
Figu
Update the placeholder reference of Housing Units to
City
2,447
2 6-10
Update the placeholder reference of commercial area
City
to 5,093,265 square feet of nonresidential uses
3 4-6
4-4
Adjust the Agricultural Tourism District's Building
Public
Height, FAR, and Coverage requirements to match RC
4 4-3
4-2
Create separate restaurant categories between those
Public/City
for full service and those that are drive through; allow full -service restaurants within the Agricultural Tourism District
5 4-3
4-2
Kiosk/Vendor Carts - Update provisions within Open
Public/City
Space to an AUP
6 4-3
4-2
Amusement Enterprises - Update provisions within
Public/City
Open Space to a P to match AT
7 4-3
4-2
Update to allow Civic facilities within all residential City
districts with AUP
8 4-3
4-2
Update to allow Transit facilities within the Regional
City
Commercial Districts with a CUP
9 4-3
4-2
P for amusement enterprises in AT, and remove separate
Public
category for amusement rides subject to state review
10 Agricultural Tourism District - Change name to Agro- Public/City
Commercial Tourism District
11 Add additional detail and narrative to the description for Public/City
Agro-Commercial Tourism District, where there is an
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan - Draft Errata (August 2024)
.• le
' •-
•
•-
Source
Figure
emphasis of providing a rustic feel as part of the
commercial activities
uses, including sales of produce, pumpkins, and
agricultural -related goods, with activities that help
draw visitors with experiences, entertainment
activities, and educational programming that
provide a consistent draw for the site. This
designation also supports a variety of businesses such
as restaurants, other commercial uses, and overnight
accommodations that can cater to, or enhance, the
agricultural tourism industry.
12 Updated Land Use Map — minor modifications to RC, OS City
&. OS-C boundaries that do not change development
capacity or environmental impacts — (also reflected in
the updated CEQA Findings of Fact)
13 4-3
4-2
Add "integrated mixed -use commercial and high scale
City/Public
multiplefamilywhen adjacent to RC -designed areas" to
table, and add AUP for the R-24 category
14 6-3
Revise 6.2.2 — 3 as Phases 4 and 5
City
15 6-10
6-3
Add: "R-24 Projects" under Director Approval (to clarify City
consistency with Housing Element requirements)
16 3-7
OS: Also allows for agriculture -related activities
Public
where appropriate, and to provide buffering and
transitions between different land uses. Grading
activities may be permitted within the Open Space
designation provided that vegetated slopes that
feature contour grading are implemented to
maintain a naturalistic appearance. Public access
for the plan area, including trails, or access
roadways with adjacent landscaping, may also
occur subject to approval by the City Engineer.
17 4-2
4-1
Remove Development Agreement requirement for
Public
amusement enterprises.
18 4-6
4-4
Parking standards: Add note — AT uses can provide
Public
parking surfaces that are Class 2 aggregate base or
other non -paved compacted base, consistent with the
rustic character of the area.
19 6-9
Add note: Approval timelines for projects shall follow
City
the City's Development Code, except that phased
Project may identify two (2) additional three (3) year
extension periods.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan - Draft Errata (August 2024)
Table
or
Change
Source
20 4-3
Figure
4-2
Kiosk/Vendor Carts — P for AT
Public
21 4-4
4-2
Food truck and Outdoor Kitchen — P for AT
Public
22 4-4
4-2
Limited Agricultural Supply Services — P for AT
Public
23 4-4
4-2
Alcohol Beverage Sales (both onsite and offsite) — P for Public
AT
24 4-4
4-2
Event/Wedding Venues — P for AT
Public
25 4-4
4-2
Wineries and Beer Gardens — P for AT
Public
26 4-4
4-2
Auditorium/Concert Venue — P for AT
Public
27 6-9
6.6.5 WAIVER OF APPLICATION FEES AND
Public
COVERAGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COSTS
FOR AMENDMENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC
I M PACT
The City Manager is authorized and directed to waive the application fees for any amendment to the Freeway
Corridor Specific Plan that is determined to provide a
significant economic impact to the City of Yucaipa if
such application is on file and deemed complete on or
before December 31, 2027. Such amendments shall be
processed in accordance with Government Code
Section 65453, and in the same manner as a
Development Code text amendment.
Significant economic impact shall be defined as any
amendment that demonstrably contributes to the
economic welfare of the City through one or more of the following:
• Establishment or expansion of commercial
activities that are projected to result in an
increase in sales tax revenue for the City of at
least $200,000 per year.
• Development or enhancement of lodging
facilities or other tourism -related enterprises
that are expected to increase the City's transient
occupancy tax (TOT) revenue by at least
$200,000 per year.
• Any other tangible economic benefit to the City,
such as increased property tax revenue,
attraction of new businesses, or stimulation of
local economic activities that are forecast to
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan - Draft Errata (August 2024)
Table
Item # ' or Change Source
Figure
increase revenue to the City by at least $400,000
peryear.
The City Manager is further authorized to coverthe costs of any necessary environmental review associated with
such an amendment, up to the limit of the City
Manager's purchasing authority as defined by the City's procurement policies. Any environmental review costs
exceeding this authority may be referred to the City
Council for consideration and approval.
28 6-10 6-3 Architectural Review for Projects - PC City 29 General note: Minor modifications to correct any City grammatical errors and to ensure consistent with items
listed in the errata.
Freeway Corridor Specific Plan - Draft Errata (August 2024)
ATTACHMENT 8
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.
Yucaipa has done a spectacularjob 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.
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:
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.
Yucaipa has done a spectacularjob 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.
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