Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No ...

Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2022040574

City of Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing

Element Implementation Programs City of Yorba Linda, California

Lead Agency City of Yorba Linda

4845 Casa Loma Avenue Yorba Linda, CA 92886

CEQA Consultant T&B Planning, Inc.

3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92602

Lead Agency Discretionary Permits General Plan Amendment Zoning Code Amendment

July 22, 2022

(Revised July 29, 2022)

Yorba Linda HE Implementation Programs Final Program Environmental Impact Report

Lead Agency: City of Yorba Linda SCH No. 20222040574 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Section 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Public Review Process .........................................................................................................1-2

1.2 List of PEIR Commenters ....................................................................................................1-3

Section 2.0 Responses to Comments Received During the Public Review Period.........................2-1

2.1 Master Responses ................................................................................................................2-3

2.1.1 Program Versus Project EIR ........................................................................................2-3

2.1.2 Traffic Concerns ..........................................................................................................2-4

2.1.3 Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety .................................................................................2-5

2.1.4 Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access .............................................................................2-6

2.1.5 Water Supply................................................................................................................2-7

2.1.6 Housing Opportunity Site Selection ............................................................................2-8

2.1.7 Senate Bill 197 .............................................................................................................2-9

Section 3.0 Clarifications and Revisions ........................................................................................3-1

ATTACHMENTS A. Form Letter A B. Form Letter B C. Form Letter C D. Form Letter D E. Form Letter E F. Commenters’ Attachments G. Noise Impact Analysis H. OCFA Correspondence I. Traffic Impact Analysis J. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program


Lead Agency: City of Yorba Linda SCH No. 20222040574 Page 1-1

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

In accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Yorba Linda, as the Lead Agency, has evaluated the comments received on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR) for the Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs (Project) (SCH No. 2022040574) and has prepared written responses to these comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the independent judgment of the lead agency.

According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of:

(a) The draft EIR or a revision of the draft;

(b) Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary;

(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR;

(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and

(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

The City Council will consider certification of the PEIR, adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the approval process for the Project.

This Final PEIR document is organized as follows:

Section 1 provides a brief introduction to this document, a summary of the public review process, and a list of commenters.

Section 2 provides responses to the public comments received on the Draft PEIR during the public review period. Master responses are provided for comments that were made by many commenters on the same issue. Responses are provided in the form of individual responses to comment letters received. Comment letters are followed immediately by the responses to each letter.

Section 3 contains revisions and clarifications to the Draft PEIR as a result of the comments received from agencies and interested persons as well as errata identified in the PEIR. This information does not constitute significant new information and recirculation of the PEIR for further review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is not required.

Attachments contain individual comment letters of each Form Letters, attachments that were included in some of the individual letters (as noted), and revised technical appendices to the Draft PEIR.



1.1 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS

In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Yorba Linda (City) provided opportunities for public participation in the environmental review process. On April 29, 2022 the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft PEIR was distributed to responsible agencies, local government agencies, and interested parties for a 30-day public review period (from April 29, 2022 to May 30, 2022) in order to solicit comments and inform agencies and the public of the Project. The NOP was also distributed to the State of California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH) for distribution to State agencies. The NOP was posted on the City’s website, OC Register, and at the Orange County Clerk’s office on April 29, 2022. The Project was described; potential environmental effects associated with Project implementation were identified; and agencies and the public were invited to review and comment on the NOP. A copy of the NOP and comments received are included in Technical Appendix A of the Draft PEIR. The City received comment letters from 7 agencies and organizations and 14 individuals in response to the NOP. Table 2-2 of the Draft PEIR provides a brief summary of the NOP comments received that address environmental and related issues.

A PEIR Scoping Meeting was held on May 23, 2022 at the Community Center located at 4501 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda. The PEIR Scoping Meeting was attended by approximately 49 residents. Written comments received at the Scoping Meeting are provided in Technical Appendix A of the Draft PEIR.

CEQA requires that a Draft EIR have a review period lasting at least 45 days for projects that have been submitted to the SCH for review (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105[a]). The Draft PEIR was distributed to various public agencies, organizations, and individuals on June 1, 2022; the Draft PEIR was available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The review period ended on July 15, 2022. The City used several methods to elicit comments on the Draft PEIR. On June 1, 2022, a Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft PEIR was distributed to the SCH for distribution to State agencies and was posted on the City’s website. Additionally, on June 1, 2022, the NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk’s office and mailed to responsible agencies, local government agencies, interested parties that received the NOP, individuals who had previously requested the NOA or PEIR, and to individuals within a 2,000-foot radius to any of the 27 housing opportunity sites. The NOA was electronically mailed to individuals who provided NOP comments and to stakeholders and individuals who had previously participated in the Housing Element preparation process. The NOA was also published in OC Register on June 1, 2022; the NOA and Draft PEIR were made available for review, on the City’s web site at: https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/Environmental-Documents.

The City of Yorba Linda Traffic Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2022 to provide the City of Yorba Linda Planning Commission with its comments and recommendations on the Project primarily focused on the traffic impacts described within the Draft PEIR.

On June 29, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended that the City Council adopt the various zoning code amendments, zone changes, and General Plan amendments necessary to effectuate the residential density levels for twenty-three (23) of the twenty-seven (27) Housing Element opportunity sites contained in the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element, with the recommended removal of Sites S4-201, S4-060, S4-053 and S7-005 from the Residential Sites

https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/Environmental-Documents



Inventory; however, the Final PEIR still evaluated the impacts related to all 27 Housing Element opportunity sites.

On July 27, 2022 the Planning Commission is expected to hold a public hearing to consider a Resolution to recommend that the City Council certify the Final PEIR for the City of Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs (including General Plan Amendments 2022-01 and 2022-02, Zoning Code Amendments 2022-01 and 2022-02 to implement Programs 8 – 11 from the Housing Element) as adequate and complete and adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

The City of Yorba Linda City Council, as the final approval body, will hold two public hearings at which they will consider approving the proposed Project, associated actions, and certification of the Final PEIR for the Project.

1.2 LIST OF PEIR COMMENTERS

In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the following table includes a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted comments on the Draft PEIR and indicates the environmental topics raised by each commenter regarding the Draft PEIR. The City received a total of 6 comments from agencies and organizations and 350 comments from individuals and interested parties on the Draft PEIR during the public review period.

Responses to each comment are in Section 2.0. The agency and organization comment letters have been assigned a letter (i.e., A, B, C) and the individual comment letters have been assigned a number (i.e., 1, 2, 3). Each comment within the transmittal is divided into sequential numbered comments (i.e., A-1, A-2, A-3; or 1-1, 1-2, 1-3).

Comment Letter Number Agency, Organization, or Name Date Agencies and Organizations

A California Department of Parks and Recreation (California State Parks) 6/20/2022

B City of Anaheim 6/20/2022 C Hills for Everyone 7/1/2022 D Orange County Transit District 7/12/2022 E Yorba Linda Water District 7/14/2022 F California Department of Transportation 7/15/2022

Individuals 1 Natalie Loughran 5/31/2022 2 Paulina Rodriguez 6/1/2022 3 Christopher Telarico 6/2/2022 4 Dorothy Okutsu 6/2/2022 5 Anonymous 6/2/2022 6 Kirt Fetterling 6/2/2022



Comment Letter Number Agency, Organization, or Name Date

7 Susie Villaran 6/2/2022 8 Andrew Jilk 6/3/2022 9 Barry Ross 6/3/2022

10 Chris Preszler 6/3/2022 11 Craig Bloomquist 6/3/2022 12 Gary Cavicchio 6/3/2022 13 John and Susan Mendez 6/3/2022 14 Tom Cheng 6/3/2022 15 Connie Bryant 6/4/2022 16 Kirt Fetterling 6/4/2022 17 Steven Davey 6/4/2022 18 Chris Loan 6/5/2022 19 Daniel Chao 6/5/2022 20 Jenny Cheng 6/5/2022 21 Richard and Linda Sandoval 6/5/2022 22 Robert Hansohn 6/5/2022 23 Maya Cavicchio 6/6/2022 24 Randy & Gina Dryden 6/6/2022 25 Stephanie Nichols 6/6/2022 26 Daniel Garibay 6/7/2022 27 Frank W. Hoffman 6/7/2022 28 Grace Chen 6/7/2022 29 Rachelle Voll 6/7/2022 30 Rebecca Schroeter 6/7/2022 31 Russell Heine 6/7/2022 32 Very concerned Yorba Linda Residents 6/7/2022 33 Xiaohong Chen 6/7/2022 34 Martha Rodriguez 6/10/2022 35 Elliott Levin 6/11/2022 36 Elena Levin 6/12/2022 37 Natalie Levin 6/12/2022 38 Bill and Francine Felegemaker 6/13/2022 39 Bill Barcikowski 6/13/2022 40 Connie and Brad Bryant 6/13/2022 41 Devin DeVore 6/13/2022 42 Dr. Marek A. Suchenek 6/13/2022 43 Nerissa Hall 6/13/2022




44 Joel Luce 6/13/2022 45 Rebecca Maravilla 6/13/2022 46 Robert Gaudette 6/13/2022 47 Stephanie Nichols 6/13/2022 48 Susan Whittier 6/13/2022 49 Newbury residents 6/14/2022 50 Bob Hogbin 6/14/2022 51 Steve Schinhofen 6/14/2022 52 Jingbin Ji 6/15/2022 53 Jingchao Jia 6/15/2022 54 Joe Malek 6/14/2022 55 Kathy McGrath 6/15/2022 56 Linda Rizzo 6/15/2022 57 Linda Rizzo 6/15/2022 58 Rebecca Maravilla 6/15/2022 59 Vince Rinner 6/15/2022 60 Diana Yan 6/16/2022 61 Elliott, Elena & Natalie Levin 6/16/2022 62 Sharlene Dunn 6/16/2022 63 Randy and Susan Siegmund 6/16/2022 64 Rory Gilham 6/16/2022 65 Cheri Durthaler 6/17/2022 66 Rick and Karen Bertram 6/17/2022 67 Ricard and Amelia Fellner 6/17/2022 68 Richard Canfield 6/17/2022 69 Vince Rinner 6/17/2022 70 Craig Allen 6/18/2022 71 Erwen Zhuo 6/18/2022 72 Rabbi Robin Rubinstein 6/18/2022 73 Rui Zhang 6/18/2022 74 Tegdeep Kondal 6/18/2022 75 Beverly Williams 6/20/2022 76 Carmen Walter 6/20/2022 77 Paulina Rodriguez 6/20/2022 78 Frank W. Hoffman 6/21/2022 79 Larry Wetta 6/21/2022 80 Ty Dillman 6/21/2022




81 B. Kent 6/22/2022 82 Lorena Garcia 6/22/2022 83 Richard and Amelia Fellner 6/22/2022 84 Ron H. Love 6/22/2022 85 Russ Heine 6/7/2022 86 Stephanie Nichols 6/22/2022 87 Cali M. Santamaria 6/23/2022 88 Nichols Flyer 6/23/2022 89 Frank W. Hoffman 6/23/2022 90 Juanita Dunham 6/23/2022 91 Renee Hammond 6/23/2022 92 Roger Vankirk 6/23/2022 93 Dan Cline 6/24/2022 94 Greg Schlentz 6/24/2022 95 Victoria Tejeda 6/24/2022 96 Marcel North 6/25/2022 97 Shaun Bell 6/25/2022 98 Rick and Shelley Clewett 6/26/2022 99 Loren J. Castro 6/27/2022 100 Paulina Rodriguez 6/29/2022 101 Steve and Denita Gilman 6/28/2022 102 Janice Morger 6/28/2022 103 Barbara Blackamore 6/29/2022 104 Barbara Shaffer 6/29/2022 105 Cheryl Brown 6/29/2022 106 Diana Yan 6/29/2022 107 Frank Hoffman 6/29/2022 108 Irene Bourdon 6/29/2022 109 Juanita Dunham 6/29/2022 110 Margaret Thurston 6/29/2022 111 Peggy Barlet 6/29/2022 112 Ron and Peggy Barlet 6/29/2022 113 Sage McCaety 6/29/2022 114 Steve Harms 6/29/2022 115 Tom and Sharon Gruschus 6/29/2022 116 Yudong Sun 6/29/2022 117 Daniel Chao 6/30/2022




118 Darius Gleason 6/30/2022 119 Denise Fraklyn 6/30/2022 120 Jean, Jim, Gregory, Calvin, and Valerie Taber 6/30/2022 121 Jennifer Shepard 6/30/2022 122 John Woo 6/30/2022 123 Kimberly Race 6/30/2022 124 Michael Greene 6/30/2022 125 Myriamvd 7/1/2022 126 Mike Difronzo 7/2/2022 127 Barbara Tallabas 7/5/2022 128 Dayna Kruger and Brent Robson 7/5/2022 129 Michael McNees 7/5/2022 130 Victor Seto 7/5/2022 131 Penelope Sherry 7/5/2022 132 Mary Glaser 7/8/2022 133 Corinne Griffiths 7/10/2022 134 Donna Gore 7/10/2022 135 Ellen and Ron Grau 7/10/2022 136 Hal Straabe 7/10/2022 137 Nickolas Straabe 7/10/2022 138 Roxanne Leiblic 7/10/2022 139 David Pryor 7/11/2022 140 Ellen Grau 7/10/2022 141 Stan Wright 6/21/2022 142 John Simon 6/23/2022 143 Lindsay Grable 6/23/2022 144 Virginia Kroenlein 6/23/2022 145 Donna Gates 6/28/2022 146 Joshua and Tracy Baptista 7/6/2022 147 Amy Rudometkin DeMartino 7/7/2022 148 Brian DeMartino 7/7/2022 149 Sharon Rudometkin 7/7/2022 150 Nelson and Jennifer Mirhan 7/8/2022 151 Marissa Bellanti 7/10/2022 152 Brad Bryant 7/11/2022 153 Janice Morger 7/11/2022 154 Kyle Taylor 7/11/2022




155 Marta Ayala 7/11/2022 156 Sandra Dileo 7/11/2022 157 Andre Miller 7/12/2022 158 Cathleen Stubbs 7/12/2022 159 Mark and Tina Ward 7/12/2022 160 Robert Stubbs 7/12/2022 161 Steve and Agnita Gilman 7/12/2022 162 Tom and Pat Conlon 7/12/2022 163 Daniel Clem 7/13/2022 164 Harry Ellis 7/13/2022 165 Law Offices of Geoffrey Willis 7/13/2022 166 Sharlene Dunn 7/13/2022 167 czechdesigns 7/14/2022 168 Elaine Armogida 7/14/2022 169 Janice Taylor 7/14/2022 170 Lisa Joca 7/14/2022 171 Margaret Thurston 7/14/2022 172 Paulina Rodriguez 7/14/2022 173 Ryan Gigliotti 7/14/2022 174 Barb Reining 7/15/2022 175 Bob Kanne 7/15/2022 176 Chelsea Hoy 7/15/2022 177 Cheri Child 7/15/2022 178 Cheryl Brown 7/15/2022 179 Diane D. Kanne 7/15/2022 180 Ed Diaz 7/15/2022 181 Ed Gunderson 7/15/2022 182 Elena Straabe 7/15/2022 183 Ester Harrier 7/15/2022 184 Gary Poage 7/15/2022 185 Jim and Lisa Francese 7/15/2022 186 Juanita Dunham 7/15/2022 187 Karen Farley 7/15/2022 188 Kristine Dane 7/15/2022 189 Lesley White 7/15/2022 190 Levin and Darlene Messick 7/15/2022 191 Lorie Felling 7/15/2022




192 Lorraine Downing 7/15/2022 193 Margaret Thurston 7/15/2022 194 Mary Tobin 7/15/2022 195 Maxine Russell 7/15/2022 196 Michael A. Mahony 7/15/2022 197 Michele Adlwir 7/15/2022 198 Peggy Barlet 7/15/2022 199 Roger and Debbie Vankirk 7/15/2022 200 Russ Heine 7/15/2022 201 Tina Harns 7/15/2022 202 Vicki Bolinger 7/15/2022 203 Virginia Gibson 7/15/2022

Form Letter A FLA Gregory Schlentz 6/2/2022

Law Offices of Kathryn Greer 6/2/2022 Allie Lloyd 6/5/2022 Bryan Lloyd 6/5/2022 Susie Villaran 6/5/2022 Vicky Prisco 6/5/2022 Jason Klems 6/7/2022 Zsuzsana Williams 6/7/2022 Henry G. Prisco Jr. 6/8/2022 Brenda Vitelli 6/9/2022 Binbin Wang 6/10/2022 Margarita Cooper 6/11/2022 Yong Li 6/13/2022 Xin Wang 6/14/2022 Gayle Langlois 6/17/2022 Paul Langlois 6/17/2022 Kevy McNeill 6/20/2022 Lindsay Membreno 6/20/2022 Ryan Brueckner 6/20/2022 West Wendy 6/21/2022 Gregory Schlentz 6/22/2022 Kristin Francis 6/22/2022 Linda Hayase 6/27/2022 Stephanie Forshee 6/28/2022




Jackie Cruz 7/10/2022 Form Letter B

FLB Ming Zhang 6/15/2022 Michelle 6/16/2022 Xuemin Chen 6/16/2022

Form Letter C FLC Shelly Steffel 6/20/2022

심영훈 (Yeong Hoon Shim) 6/20/2022 Aaron Pourhassanian 6/21/2022 Alex Ton 6/21/2022 Cheryl Haag 6/21/2022 Cyrus Pourhass 6/21/2022 Dennis Bruce 6/21/2022 Grishma Verma 6/21/2022 Jake Pituch 6/21/2022 Lan Vu 6/21/2022 Mike Papin 6/21/2022 Nabil Shmara 6/21/2022 Patrick Edwards 6/21/2022 Peggy Barlet 6/21/2022 Sanjay Shah 6/21/2022 Shikhil Seth 6/21/2022 Sydney Cook 6/21/2022 Tiffany Zaken 6/21/2022 Victoria Andreanne 6/21/2022 Edward Cook 6/22/2022 Elizath Zavala-Acevez 6/22/2022 Kathleen Ehret 6/22/2022 Kimberly Moore 6/22/2022 Kristin Kierulff 6/22/2022 Laura Thener 6/22/2022 Laure Lampi 6/22/2022 Rocio Vallero 6/23/2022 Celo Enifernandez 6/24/2022 Dave Nicholson 6/24/2022 Dirty Jeff 6/24/2022 Erik Miller 6/24/2022




Greg Lasiewski 6/24/2033 Jacqueline Mahan 6/24/2022 Julia Forbes-Modarres 6/24/2022 Mark Holman 6/24/2022 Priya Sprenger 6/24/2022 Randy W. Morgan 6/24/2022 Robin Sadler 6/24/2022 Rui Sun 6/24/2022 Tryna Edwards 6/24/2022 Zahra Azadbadi 6/24/2022 Bill Langdon 6/25/2022 Cheryl Haag 6/25/2022 Family Urquiza 6/25/2022 Kavita Catana 6/25/2022 Patti Langdon 6/25/2022 Anees Ahmedi 6/27/2022 Azra Ahmedi 6/27/2022 Brandon Lowe 6/27/2022 Charles Lowe 6/27/2022 Dan Clem 6/27/2022 Jacquie Lowe 6/27/2022 Janet Miller 6/27/2022 Karina Cooke 6/27/2022 Kris Studer 6/27/2022 Maureen Dawson 6/27/2022 Rachelle Markovich 6/27/2022 Rody Azar 6/27/2022 Sa Cool 6/27/2022 Russ Heine 6/28/2022 Catalina Laterneau 6/28/2022 Cong Vo 6/29/2022 Nilou Shahabi 6/29/2022 Ramiro Uribe 6/29/2022 Reggie Sadler 6/29/2022 Rick and Lynne Watkins 6/29/2022 Robin Sadler 6/29/2022 Vijay Gulani 6/29/2022




Bill Wickersheim 6/30/2022 Karina Cooke 7/6/2022

Aaron Pourhassanian 7/8/2022 Tiffany Zaken 7/13/2022

Form Letter D FLD Cheryl Haag 7/8/2022

Cyrus Pourhass 7/8/2022 Daniel Clem 7/8/2022 Dirty Jeff 7/8/2022 Nabil Shmara 7/8/2022 Tryna Edwards 7/8/2022 Kristin Jierulff 7/9/2022 Anees Ahmedi 7/9/2022 Lan Vu 7/9/2022 Maureen Dawson 7/9/2022 Patrick Edwards 7/9/2022 Patti Langdon 7/9/2022 Sanjay Shah 7/9/2022

Karina Cooke 7/10/2022 Charles Lowe 7/11/2022 Dr. Marek A. Suchenek 7/11/2022

Kimberely Moore 7/11/2022 Form Letter E

FLE Eric Hsiao 7/4/2022 Fanny Tsao 7/4/2022 Joseph Wilson 7/9/2022

Douglas Herb 7/10/2022 Debbie Goshen 7/12/2022 Jerry and Pauline Burton 7/12/2022 Joseph Linda Moran 7/12/2022

Nancy and Mark Bergman 7/12/2022 Rose Chemente 7/12/2022 Brooke White 7/13/2022 Michelle Diaz 7/13/2022 Robert White 7/13/2022 William Goshen 7/13/2022 James and Christina Day 7/14/2022



Comment Letter Number Agency, Organization, or Name Date Lindsay Blair 7/14/2022 Marshall and Kristy Ron 7/15/2022 Michael Moffett 7/15/2022 Pat Heine 7/15/2022 Aaron Zapata 7/15/2022 Bernardette B Julian 7/15/2022 Dawn Zapata 7/15/2022 Richard Paramenter 7/15/2022 Robert Newsome 7/15/2022



SECTION 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD

All of the comment letters received by the City during the public review period have been included and responded to in this Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR). Comments that address environmental concerns have been thoroughly addressed. Comments that do not require a response are indicated below and include those that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft PEIR (i.e., are outside the scope of CEQA); (2) do not raise environmental issues; (3) do not address the Project; or (4) request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines the parameters for public agencies and interested parties to submit comments and the Lead Agency’s responsibility for responding to specific comments. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a), comments should be related to:

[T]he sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible…CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or suggested by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises that, “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(d) notes that, “[e]ach responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility;” but, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e), “[t]his section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section [CEQA Guidelines Section 15204].”

Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:

a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.



b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response, either in a printed copy or in an electronic format, to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report.

c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.

d) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either:

1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or

2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments.

This section includes responses to substantive Draft PEIR comments received by the City. With respect to comment letters received, aside from certain courtesy statements, introductions, and closings, individual comments within the body of each letter have been identified and numbered. A copy of each comment letter and the City’s responses to each applicable comment are included in this section. Copies of each form comment letter are provided in Attachments A through E of this Final PEIR. Brackets delineating the individual comments and a numeric identifier have been added to the right margin of the letter. Responses to each comment identified are included on the page(s) following each comment letter. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, responses to comments are being sent to public agencies that provided comments at least 10 days prior to the City Council’s consideration of certification of the PEIR.

Revisions to the Draft PEIR have been prepared to make minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft PEIR as a result of City review, and comments received during the public review period (refer to Section 3.0, Draft PEIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this document). Therefore, this Response to Comments section, and the Draft PEIR Clarifications and Revisions section, are included as part of this Final PEIR along with the Draft PEIR for consideration by the City Council prior to a vote to certify the PEIR.

As further discussed in Section 3.0 of this document, the Draft PEIR revisions and information presented in the responses to comments do not result in any of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; therefore, the PEIR does not need to be recirculated prior to its certification.



2.1 MASTER RESPONSES

This section presents detailed responses to comments that were made by many commenters on the same issue. The master responses provide a means of giving a broader context to the response than may be possible in individual responses. In some cases, one or more master responses may respond to an individual comment. 2.1.1 PROGRAM VERSUS PROJECT EIR

Several comments were made on the Draft PEIR requesting a Project-level EIR and site-specific analysis on specific housing opportunity sites. As stated in CEQA Guidelines §15168(a), a Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that are characterized as one large project and are related either:

(1) Geographically,

(2) A logical parts in the chain of contemplate actions,

(3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulation, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or

(4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or authority and have

generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

As stated in CEQA Guidelines §15168(b), advantages of a Program EIR including the following:

(1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action,

(2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis,

(3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy consideration,

(4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and

(5) Allow reduction in paperwork.

The determination of whether an EIR is a program-level versus project-level document is determined by the Project description and not the environmental conditions of the Project site. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 3-6 to 3-7), the Project requires Amendments to the General Plan and Land Use Map (also referred to as the Land Use Diagram), Amendments to the Zoning Code and Zoning Map, and amendments to the West Bastanchury Planned Development and Yorba Linda Hills Planned Development to implement the Project. The Project is intended to cover all implementation programs outlined in the Housing Element Section V (C), Housing Programs 1–23. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would be subject to



discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow or at the discretion of the individual property owners. The Project includes the approval and adoption of the Amendments to the General Plan and Land Use Map (also referred to as the Land Use Diagram), Amendments to the Zoning Code and Zoning Map, and amendments to the West Bastanchury Planned Development and Yorba Linda Hills Planned Development under the Housing Element which is considered the issuance of rules, regulation, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; therefore, a program-level approach is considered appropriate. Additionally, the level of environmental review is commensurate with the Project description. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15146 state that the degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. For example,

(a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of construction can be reduced with greater accuracy.

(b) An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15146, the Program EIR does not evaluate site-specific development and the program-level analysis corresponds with the degree of specificity that is currently available for the Project. No site-specific development at any of the 27 housing opportunities sites are currently proposed and there are no current housing applications on file for these sites. Furthermore, design and/or construction of specific residential developments is not proposed at this time. Future development or redevelopment at any of the 27 housing opportunity sites would require the land owner or its representative to file an application with the City and submit development plans, technical reports, and construction details. However, at this time, specific design details such as construction timelines, site plan, grading plan, landscaping plan, utility plan, site access, renderings, etc. are currently not available. Prior to approval of any site-specific development under the Housing Element, the City must conduct further environmental review under CEQA. The level of CEQA documentation required for future development or redevelopment would be determined following submittal of a development application with the City. Timing of future development and construction will be determined by the housing market, with specific development proposals requiring a comprehensive environmental analysis of impacts to traffic, pedestrian circulation, fire hazards, wildlife, etc. When specific residential developments are proposed, each development project will require public review and approval to ensure that Yorba Linda’s established expectations of quality are met. Until site-specific details are provided, project-level analysis would be speculative and therefore is not required under CEQA. 2.1.2 TRAFFIC CONCERNS

Several commenters raised concerns regarding the Project’s traffic increases in areas that are currently congested during peak hours or areas where roadways are not fully improved. The Traffic Impact



Analysis (TIA; Technical Appendix H of the Draft PEIR) prepared for the Project is a programmatic document that analyzes traffic impacts citywide, and it is not meant to analyze each housing opportunity site at a project level. The TIA study area was selected consistent with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines by determining where two General Plan roadways of Secondary classification or higher intersect one another and are in close proximity to housing opportunity sites and generated 50 or more peak hour trips. These analysis locations were then reviewed and refined with City staff during the scoping process prior to commencing with the operations analysis. Local and collector streets were not included as these more localized intersections would be addressed as part of any future environmental review of each housing opportunity site as development plans come forward (if applicable).

Future site-specific housing development would conduct a focused TIA based on City’s Guidelines that will include the discussion of the level of service (LOS) on the surrounding intersections. The focused TIA will be required to analyze the existing traffic conditions, existing with proposed development, and opening year with and without development. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be identified and implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific TIA.

As discussed in Section 4.9, Transportation, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.9-1), pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743, changes to CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric as a replacement for automobile delay-based as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. Automobile delay, as measured by “LOS and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. Lead agencies in California are required to use VMT to evaluate project-related transportation impacts. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, effective January 1, 2019, “describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts” and provides that, except for roadway capacity projects, “a project’s effect on automobile delay (or LOS)” shall not constitute a significant environmental impact” (CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(a)). Senate Bill 743 changed the methodology of analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA. Transportation analysis under CEQA is now based on VMT rather than impacts to level of service LOS.

Therefore, the issue of congestion is no longer a CEQA issue and is not addressed in the Draft PEIR. However, it should be noted that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA; Technical Appendix H of the Draft PEIR) was prepared and analyzed the Project’s traffic impacts with respect to congestion. The TIA identified the need for a traffic signal at the Southbound Kellogg to Eastbound Imperial On-ramp to improve the existing LOS deficiency during peak hours. Adding a traffic signal to this intersection would improve from LOS F to C and A during peak AM and PM hours, respectively. This intersection is located within the City of Anaheim and the City of Yorba Linda will coordinate with the City of Anaheim to coordinate implementation of the recommended improvements.

2.1.3 PEDESTRIAN AND EQUESTRIAN SAFETY

Several commenters raised concerns regarding pedestrian safety due to the increase in traffic, lack of sidewalks, cross-walks, and street lights, and equestrian and bicycle safety due to increased traffic near the Linda Vista Elementary School, the Philip S. Paxton Equestrian Center, and the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed in Section 4.9, Transportation, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.9-12



to 4.9-13), an evaluation of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features will be required as future development occurs and improvements have been designed. All future roadway system improvements associated with future development and redevelopment activities would be designed in accordance with the established roadway design standards incorporated into the City’s Circulation Element. These improvements will be subject to review and future consideration by the City of Yorba Linda, Public Works Department. Future land use development projects would also be analyzed in detail through the City’s plan check process to ensure adequate site access, sight-distance, and pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle safety.

Furthermore, site specific details such as driveway access, unit count, number of parking spaces are not available at this time. Future housing development would be required to conduct a focused TIA based on City Guidelines that will include the discussion of access and safety impacts on the surrounding area due to the implementation of each development project. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused TIA. It should be noted that the City will soon be developing an Active Transportation Plan (ATP), which will provide an evaluation of pedestrian, equestrian and school safety.

2.1.4 FIRE EVACUATION/EMERGENCY ACCESS

Many comments expressed concerns for the increase in housing units in areas prone to wildfire and potential impacts to emergency access and fire evacuation. As discussed in Section 4.9, Transportation, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.9-13), buildout of the proposed Project would result in some changes to the City’s circulation network but would not impact emergency access. Future development would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinances for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. For example, site plans would be submitted to OCFA to ensure compliance with Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) standard conditions, including access to and around structures. Compliance with OCFA and CFC requirements would ensure adequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. During an emergency, several departments, including OCFA and Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD), have established procedures to notify residents of the correct evacuation route and direct traffic to ensure a safe evacuation. AlertOC is a mass notification system designed to keep Orange County residents and businesses informed of important information during emergency events. Examples of use would include disaster notifications, evacuation notices, public health emergencies, public safety emergencies, and/or any emergency information as defined by the City. Additionally, evacuation plans are updated and maintained to respond to different emergencies and to coordinate among all agencies involved in response. Moreover, as discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall assess the time required for emergency evacuation under Existing and Existing with Project Conditions, assuming a worst case, wind-driven fire. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall also identify how much the project would increase evacuation times by; how long it would take residents to evacuate; and how emergency response times would be affected by a mass evacuation under multiple scenarios. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall be subject to the review and approval from the City of Yorba Linda, OCFA, Orange County Sheriff’s Department and shall demonstrate how the development



would not impair or physical interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. With the implementation of mitigation measure 4.11-1, impacts to an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation route would be less than significant. In response to the comments received on the concerns related to wildfire and fire evacuation, mitigation measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 have been revised as shown below and in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR (Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined). MM 4.11-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites within or adjacent to a Very High FHSZ

and within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Zone, the project applicant shall prepare a Fire Evacuation Analysis. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall assess the time required for emergency evacuation under Existing and Existing with Project Conditions, assuming a worst case, wind-driven fire. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall also identify how much the project would increase evacuation times by; how long it would take residents to evacuate; and how emergency response times would be affected by a mass evacuation under multiple scenarios. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall be subject to the review and approval from the City of Yorba Linda and OCFA. The analysis shall demonstrate how the Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

MM 4.11-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites within or adjacent to a Very High FHSZ

and within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Zone, the project applicant shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan (FPP). Prior to preparation of an FPP, the Project proponent shall coordinate with OCFA to ensure that modeling of the FPP and design of the project is appropriate to meet the requirements and standards of the OCFA. The FPP shall be subject to the review and approval from the City of Yorba Linda and OCFA. The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures.

2.1.5 WATER SUPPLY

Many comments expressed concerns related to the drought and the availability of water with the additional 2,415 units. Water supply is discussed in Section 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR. In response to the comments received from the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD), text related to water had been modified accordingly and revisions to the Draft PEIR are shown in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR. As shown, Pages 5-31 and 5-32 have been modified to the following: The Yorba Linda Water District meets its water demands with a combination of imported water and local groundwater, and works together with two primary agencies, MWDOC and OCWD to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The Yorba Linda Water District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency.



As presented in Section 7.3, Water Service Reliability Assessment, of the YLWD 2020 UWMP, YLWD has forecasted water demand and supply for a normal year, single dry year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. As shown therein, even with a conservative demand increase of 6% each year for five consecutive years, YLWD is capable of meeting all customers’ demands from 2025 through 2045, with significant reserves held by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) and water use efficiency measures. Based on YLWD’s 2020 UWMP, it is anticipated that there will be adequate water supply available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. The YLWD’s 2020 UWMP includes a water system analysis, identifies improvements to correct existing deficiencies and serve projected future growth and presents the estimated cost and phasing of the recommended improvements. However, even with highly reliable supplies, events such as statewide water use restrictions or a catastrophic natural disaster (such as an earthquake) that disrupts imported water supplies may require YLWD to temporarily reduce water demands. YLWD’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), included as Appendix H of the 2020 UWMP, defines the actions that EMWD could take to conserve water during a shortage. Further, as required by Executive Order N-7-22, and as outlined in the WSCP, YLWD will be required to prepare an Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment (Annual Assessment), and submit it to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) each year, beginning July 1, 2022. The Annual Assessment is intended to meet requirements of Water Code Section 10632.1 and present an assessment of the likelihood of a water shortage occurring during the next 12 months. Therefore, there is adequate water supply to serve the Project-generated water demands. 2.1.6 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITE SELECTION

In order to determine housing site locations and densities to meet State Housing Law, the City conducted a strategic and transparent effort to identify and narrow down the sites that were ultimately selected for the Housing Element. The first step was to simply use existing State laws and existing land already zoned for development to meet our requirements (i.e., ADUs permitted on every residential parcel per State law, congregational lands for housing as permitted by AB 1851, etc.); however, the State ended up only giving the City credit for 400 ADUs. The City was also able to get credit for 355 units on congregational lands per AB 1851. Most of these units qualified as meeting the lower income RHNA units. The City also attempted to get the State to participate as a partner in resolving its housing crisis by allowing for development of the State-owned Coal Canyon property, which could have accommodated approximately 900 housing units. However, the State refused to allow this property to be included in the Housing Element. With only 755 out of 2,415 units accounted for, the City released a survey to the public with an interactive map seeking public recommendations for potential housing sites. Concurrently, the City conducted its own analysis to analyze all properties greater than 1 acre in size that could potentially accommodate additional housing. We then used HCD’s guidelines and criteria for determining eligible sites to remove sites that would not meet State law requirements. This resulted in a list of properties that were eligible potential candidate sites.



City staff reached out to the property owners to determine which property owners would be interested or supportive of having their properties considered for rezone purposes. As the candidate sites list was refined with guidance from the Planning Commission and City Council through various public workshops, City staff recommended various levels of density to each site based on the context of its surrounding geographic conditions. Ultimately, this was further narrowed down to the final list that was approved by HCD. Several of the sites proposed for rezoning include Planned Development areas, including the Yorba Linda Hills Planned Development and the West Bastanchury Planned Development. With respect to selecting alternative housing sites, the City received its approval from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on April 8, 2022, which requires that the City proceed with the General Plan Amendments and Zoning Code Amendments as described within the Housing Element. Any revisions to this plan would require reconsideration by HCD and could potentially jeopardize the City’s Housing Element certification. Furthermore, there is not sufficient time to make any major changes to the Housing Element and still meet the State-mandated deadlines to have a certified Housing Element. During the public hearing process, the City reached out to HCD to inquire about the possibility of making minor amendments to the plan while still maintaining its certified Housing Element status. HCD informed the City that it could make minor modifications to the Housing Sites Inventory under the following criteria: 1) The City must maintain 10% buffer above its RHNA requirement of 2,415 housing units; and, 2) The City may not remove any sites allocated towards meetings it’s low and very low income RHNA obligations. 2.1.7 SENATE BILL 197

The City has received multiple inquiries from residents about the recent passage of Senate Bill (SB) 197. In September 2021, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 1398, which established a penalty for jurisdictions that did not have a State-certified Housing Element by February 11, 2022. The penalty was that these jurisdictions would only until October 15, 2022, to implement the rezoning outlined in their Housing Element before the jurisdiction would be subject to a wide array of penalties and fines from the State. In order to avoid these penalties, the City diligently attempted to obtain a State-certified Housing Element by the February deadline, but the State did not approved the City’s Housing Element until April 8, 2022. As a result, the City, along with 190 other jurisdictions in Southern California, would be required to implement its rezoning by October 15, 2022. SB 197 was approved by the Governor on June 30, 2022. This bill extended the due date for the State-certified Housing Element to October 15, 2022. It also granted jurisdictions with a State-certified Housing Element by this deadline to have until February 2025 to complete the rezoning outlined in their Housing Element. Jurisdictions that do not meet this new October 2022 deadline are not granted further extensions for rezoning and would be subject to penalties and fines. Fortunately, the City of Yorba Linda has a State-certified Housing Element and should not be subject to any penalties or fines until February 2025; however, the City is still obligated under State law to implement the rezoning established within the Housing Element. When the State approved the City’s Housing Element, it required that the City include Program 8 in the City’s Housing Element, which establishes a timeline for the City to implement its rezoning due to the Yorba Linda Right-to-Vote Amendment (commonly referred to as Measure B). This timeline, which was established prior to the adoption of SB 197, commits the City to conducting a Measure B



vote by November 2022, and again by November 2024 if the 2022 vote is unsuccessful. The City Attorney’s Office is currently researching whether SB 197 would extend the State’s rezoning timeline from the City’s Housing Element. Options will be presented to the City Council at their August 2 meeting.

Yorba Linda HE Implementation ProgramsFinal Program Environmental Impact Report

Lead Agency: City of Yorba Linda SCH No. 2022040574

Comment Letter A

State of California • Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Armando Quintero, Director Inland Empire District ▪ 17801 Lake Perris Drive ▪ Perris, CA 92571 (951) 453-4250 ▪ FAX (951) 657-2736 ▪ Email [email protected] June 20, 2022 Submitted via email to: [email protected] Nate Farnsworth City of Yorba Linda 4845 Casa Loma Ave. Yorba Linda, CA 92885 RE: Notice of Preparation for the Housing Element Update Program EIR Dear Mr. Farnsworth: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Housing Element Update (HEU) Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). Our comments are as follows. The mission of California State Parks is to provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the State’s extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high quality outdoor recreation. Chino Hills State Park (CHSP) is a vital part of that responsibility due to its location in a highly urbanized region of California at the juncture of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In addition, it is also the connection between the Puente-Chino Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains, known as the Puente-Chino Hills biological corridor. Millions of people in southern California benefit by having this valued natural open space and biodiversity reserve close at hand for recreation and enjoyment. We have concerns regarding potential significant impacts to CHSP due to Opportunity Site S5-008, along Fairmont Blvd. They are as follows: Biological Impacts: This Opportunity Site is in designated Critical Habitat for the federally threatened California Gnatcatcher where nearby occurrences have been documented as recent as 2020. The PEIR must include analysis of impacts of this and all other listed and sensitive species. In addition, since the Opportunity Site will increase the amount of development edge along the CHSP boundary, edge effects will also increase. These edge effects include problems such as additional wildfire starts, direct predation and interference by domestic pets (which are not allowed on trails at CHSP), and creation of more illegal access points. All these effects increase management costs and cause additional challenges to the park’s habitats and wildlife. These impacts and offsets need to be evaluated in the PEIR. Hydrology/Water Quality: There is a water feature shown as a “blue line stream” on United States Geological Survey maps, which is important to local wildlife species. Impacts must be analyzed within the PEIR in the Hydrology/Water Quality section, which has not been included in the PEIR.

A-1

A-2

A-3



N. FarnsworthJune 20, 2022Page 2 of 2

Hazards/Hazardous Materials:

There have been at least 3 major wildfires on this Opportunity Site between 1914 and 2018 according to the study compiled by the local non-profit organization Hills For Everyone. Much of their research came from CalFire, State Parks, Chino Valley Fire District and the City of Brea data. Many wildfires are caused by human activities along urban edges such as illegal fireworks, sparks from vegetation mowing equipment and arson. Frequent human-caused wildfires jeopardize not only homes and people, they can eliminate whole populations of wildlife species and cause type conversion of native habitat to non-native invasive weeds. The PEIR needs to include complete analysis of the additional wildfire threat by development to the park and neighboring community, including evacuation issues and how to mitigate them in the Circulation or Public Safety section.The geologic hazards associated with this Opportunity Site are also a concern to State Parks due to the known fault zone that crosses it. Potential landform changes that grading for development can cause, such as changes in rainwater runoff and subsequent landslides, which could also affect the adjacent CHSP. A complete analysis of these hazards and damage and mitigation needs to be included in the DEIR.

Lastly, it is requested future notices regarding this project to be sent directly to the Inland Empire District office at 17801 Lake Perris Drive, Perris, CA 92571.

Sincerely,

Kelly ElliottInland Empire District SuperintendentCalifornia State Parks

A-4

A-5

A-6



Responses to Comment A

California Department of Parks and Recreation (California State Parks), Kelly Elliott, Inland Empire District Superintendent, dated June 20, 2022

A-1 This comment consists of introductory remarks about the mission of California State Parks to provide for the health, inspiration and education of the residents in California by helping to preserve the State’s biological diversity, protecting natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high quality outdoor education. Chino Hills State Park (CHSP) is a vital part of this responsibility due to its location in a highly urbanized region of California and is known as the Puente-Chino Hills biological corridor.

The commenter expresses concerns related to impacts to CHSP from the proposed zoning at housing opportunity site S5-008 (Fairmont). Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses. Thus, no further response is required.

A-2 The commenter states that the site is in designated critical habitat for federally threatened California Gnatcatcher and housing opportunity site would increase the amount of amount of development edge along the CHSP.

As in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-10, and 4.2-15), housing opportunity S5-008 is located within a natural habitat area. The Draft PEIR recognizes that future development at this site has the potential to significantly impact special status species and habitat. Impacts were determined to be potentially significant and mitigation measures would be required prior to any future development. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources be mitigated through biological surveys and impact assessments by a qualified biologist. The required biological surveys must address direct (i.e. habitat removal) and indirect (i.e., edge effects, water quality) impacts resulting from future development, including but not limited to impacts to sensitive species and natural communities, and wildlife corridors. With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources would be reduced to less than significant.

Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft PEIR (refer to

Page 4.5-10), S5-008 has a current land use designation of Residential-Medium in the southern portion (9 acres) and Open Space-General (OS) in the northern portion (14 acres). Housing opportunity site S5-008 is surrounded by residential development to the north, east, south, and west with an approximate 350-foot boundary at the northwest edge (of the site’s open space designation) that shares a boundary with CHSP. Based on the restrictions of the General Plan for Open Space (OS), no residential development would occur in the Open Space portion of S5-008 adjacent to the CHSP, which would create an approximate 450-foot buffer from the nearest CHSP edge to the R-M land use. It should also be noted that changes to the General Plan would be subject to Measure B. The Measure B vote on the Housing Element Implementation Programs would not change the OS designation on site S5-008. Further, the Project would continue to uphold current development standards for determination of density



and regulation of quality within hillside areas similar to the density of surrounding developed properties.

A-3 The commenter states that here is a blue line stream shown in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps and is concerned about impacts to wildlife species. As discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-11, and 4.2-15 to 4.2-16), there is Riverine habitat on housing opportunity S5-008. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would require applicants of future development projects on S5-008 to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall be a reconnaissance level field survey of the sites for the presence and quality of biological resources potentially affected by project development housing opportunity site. As stated in Response to Comment A-2, the biological surveys must address direct (i.e. habitat removal) and indirect (i.e., edge effects, water quality) impacts resulting from future development. Additionally, a jurisdictional delineation to map the boundaries of potential wetlands, riparian habitat, and waters of the United States. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-5 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands be mitigated through obtaining appropriate permitting (i.e., Section 404, 1602, California Water Certificate or Waste Discharge Order, Stream Alteration Agreement, as required). With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to blue line streams would be reduced to less than significant.

A-4 The commenter noted the past wildfire that has occurred on the site and states that the Draft PEIR needs to address additional wildfire threat by development to CHSP and neighboring community in addition to evacuation issues. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-8 and 4.11-15), the increase in dwelling units for sites located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) could potentially impact wildfire risk and pollutant exposure and impacts would be potentially significant. Housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a Very High FHSZ. For sites within or adjacent to a Very High FHSZ, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 would require a Fire Protection Plan to ensure that the design future development meets the requirements of OCFA, including but not limited to fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures.

Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall assess the time required for emergency evacuation under Existing and Existing with Project Conditions, assuming a worst case, wind-driven fire. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall also identify how much the project would increase evacuation times by; how long it would take residents to evacuate; and how emergency response times would be affected by a mass evacuation under multiple scenarios. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall be subject to the review and approval from the City of Yorba Linda and OCFA and shall demonstrate how the development would not impair or physical interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-1, impact to an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation route would be less than significant.

A-5 The commenter express concern on the geologic hazards associated with this housing opportunity site such as the known fault zone, landform changes, changes in runoff, and



landslides. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) and all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-23 to 5-24), existing requirements for future development include review by the City Engineer to ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided that meet City design and requirements. Additionally, implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan would reduce runoff from the site and identify Best Management Practices for runoff controls and treatments. Implementation of the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern, nor result in a substantial increase in surface runoff which would impede or redirect flood flows.

Moreover, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-14 to 5-15), the commenter is correct in stating that housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a landslide zone. However, regardless of the landslide susceptibility, future development pursuant to the Project would be required to have a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted. The geotechnical investigation for each project on a site within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced landslides would be required to evaluate the potential for such landslides onsite and provide engineering controls to minimize hazards in accordance with the CBC. Each project must also comply with seismic safety regulations and requirements regarding slope stability in the CBC and City of Yorba Linda Building Code. Additionally, development along hillside would be required to comply with the standards in Chapter 18.30, Hillside Development, of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts to related landslides would be less than significant.

A-6 The commenter requests future notification on the Project be directly sent to the Inland Empire District Office. The City acknowledges this request and a copy of the Final EIR will be provided to the California State Parks prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR for certification. At least 10 days before certifying a Final EIR, the lead agency must provide any public agency that commented on the EIR with a written proposed response to the agency's comments. This requirement may be met by providing the agency with a copy of the Final EIR. Pub Res C §21092.5. No further response is required.



Comment Letter B

From: Amanda Lauffer <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 9:23 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: Heather R. Allen <[email protected]>Subject: DPEIR Comments- Housing Element

Hello Nate,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the documents for the DPEIR relating to the 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs for Yorba Linda. Anaheim Citystaff reviewed the documents and offers the following comments from the Public WorksDepartment:

The Traffic Analysis identified deficiencies and proposed improvements atIntersection #16 (Weir Canyon Road/Yorba Linda Boulevard & Savi RanchParkway). This intersection is shared jurisdiction between the Cities of YorbaLinda and Anaheim.

The proposed improvements for this intersection include a 3rd WBL left-turn lane and WBR overlap. The locations for both of these improvementsare entirely within the City of Yorba Linda and should be documented asbeing 100% in the City of Yorba Linda’s jurisdiction.Table 1-4 indicates that these improvements (listed above) are not in YorbaLinda’s Traffic Impact Fee program. How will these improvements be fullyfunded?

Furthermore, how do these improvements align with theimprovements identified in the Yorba Linda Widening project?

Intersection #7 (Kellogg Dr. & Imperial Highway EB) is identified as being underthe City of Anaheim’s jurisdiction. While this intersection is located withinAnaheim’s city limits, it is not under Anaheim’s jurisdiction or control. It is in theCalifornia Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) ROW, which is managed andcontrolled by the State. Please document as such in the Report.

Further, this improvement is not contemplated in the City ofAnaheim’s General Plan or Traffic Impact Fee program. Ifsignalization is necessary, what would be the mechanism for ensuringthat this improvement gets implemented on this state facility.

Intersections 17 (Weir Canyon Road & SR-91 WB ramps) & 18 (Weir Canyon Road& SR-91 EB ramps) are in Caltrans ROW, but are within Anaheim’s city limits. Please document as such in the Report.Section 1.7, Page 8, states that cost and scope of improvements will bedeveloped in conjunction with the City of Yorba Linda’s Traffic Impact Feeprogram update. Will this update now include Intersection #7 (Kellogg Dr. &Imperial Highway EB)?

Should you have any additional questions regarding the comments from Public Works, youmay contact Joseph Alcock, Principal Transportation Planner, at 714-765-4657 or [email protected].

Thank you,

Amanda LaufferAssociate Planner | City of AnaheimPlanning and Building Department ¦ Planning Services

200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162Anaheim, CA [email protected]

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8



Responses to Comment B

City of Anaheim, Amanda Lauffer, Associate Planner, dated June 20, 2022

B-1 This comment consists of introductory remarks. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses. Thus, no further response is required.

B-2 The commenter states that the Traffic Analysis identified deficiencies and improvements at Intersection #16 (Weir Canyon Road/Yorba Linda Boulevard & Savi Ranch Parkway) and this intersection is a shared jurisdiction between the cities of Yorba Linda and Anaheim. There was a Cooperative Agreement (Co-Op Agreement) approved between the cities of Yorba Linda and Anaheim in early 2022 regarding the improvements at Yorba Linda Boulevard from Savi Ranch Parkway to La Palma Avenue.

Table 1-4 of the TIA has been updated to include a footnote indicating the improvements shown at the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard at Savi Ranch Parkway are located wholly within the City of Yorba Linda (see Attachment I of this Final PEIR).

B-3 The commenter inquires how the improvements on Intersection #16 would be funded since they are not listed under the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program. The improvements would be funded through grants, City matches, 2022 Coop Agreement, and fair share. The City of Yorba Linda is currently in process with an update to the City’s TIF program. Improvements such as those shown on Table 1-4 of the TIA are being considered as part of this update.

B-4 The commenter asks how these improvements align with the improvements identified in the Yorba Linda Widening Project. The improvements identified on Savi Ranch Parkway at Weir Canyon Road are a separate project from the Yorba Linda Widening project pursuant to the Co-Op Agreement between the cities of Yorba Linda and Anaheim.

B-5 The commenter states that Intersection #7 (Kellogg Drive & Imperial Highway Eastbound), while in the City of Anaheim, is under the jurisdiction of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) instead of the City of Anaheim and this change should be reflected in the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). All applicable Tables (Table 1-2 and Table 1-4) in the TIA have been updated to correctly identify the intersection of Kellogg Drive and Imperial Highway Eastbound Ramps as being in Caltrans’ jurisdiction (see Attachment I of this Final PEIR).

B-6 The commenter asks what the mechanism is to ensure the implementation of the improvement on Intersection #7 (i.e. signalization) given that it is not in the city of Anaheim’s General Plan or Traffic Impact Fee program. The City of Yorba Linda will continue to work with the city of Anaheim and Caltrans on the implementation of future improvements at the intersection of Kellogg Drive and Imperial Highway Eastbound Ramps. Potential funding mechanisms may include incorporation into the City’s TIF as part of the update and/or payment of fair share.

B-7 The commenter states that Intersections 17 (Weir Canyon Road & SR-91 WB ramps) & 18 (Weir Canyon Road & SR-91 EB ramps) are in Caltrans ROW, but are within the City of Anaheim’s limits and this should be reflected in the TIA. All applicable Tables (Table 1-2 and



Table 1-4) have been updated to correctly identify the SR-91 Freeway Ramps on Weir Canyon Road as being in Caltrans’ jurisdiction (see Attachment I of this Final PEIR).

B-8 The commenter inquires whether Intersection #7 would be included under the City’s TIF Program. The City is currently in process with an update to their TIF. Improvements such as those needed at the intersection of Kellogg Drive at Imperial Highway Eastbound Ramps will be contemplated as part of the TIF Update.



Comment Letter C

• •

• •P.O. Box 9835 • Brea, CA 92822-1835 • www.HillsForEveryone.org

Southern California comes together at the Puente-Chino Hills

H i l l s F o r E v e r y o n e

Los AngelesCounty

San BernardinoCounty

RiversideCountyOrange

County

July 1, 2022 Submitted via email to: [email protected] Nate Farnsworth City of Yorba Linda 4845 Casa Loma Ave. Yorba Linda, CA 92885 RE: Comments on Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Element Update Dear Mr. Farnsworth: Hills For Everyone (HFE) is a regional non-profit organization that founded Chino Hills State Park (CHSP). Our work has and will continue to be focused on the preservation of natural lands in the Puente-Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor which spans from the 605 and 60 Freeways in Whittier across four Southern California Counties to the 91 and 71 Freeways in Corona. To date over 19,000 acres of protected lands exist within the Wildlife Corridor. Yorba Linda borders CHSP, which affords existing residents recreational opportunities, beautiful views, and an increase in property values due to the proximity to this natural setting. We write with comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) for the Housing Element Update (HEU). Our comments are specific to Opportunity Site S5-008 (along Fairmont Blvd.) (“Opportunity Site”). To be clear this HEU DPEIR does not cover the future development of Opportunity Site S5-008. This DPEIR only covers the implementation of the policies in the HEU. HFE has already submitted substantial evidence into the record per our May 25, 2022 letter that Opportunity Site S5-008 exceeds the thresholds of significance for several topics in the checklist, related to Biological Resources, Hydrology, and Wildfire. Consequently, should a housing project be proposed on this Opportunity Site, a complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will still be required. We are incredibly disappointed regarding the approach the City has taken during the environmental review process for its HEU. The deadline to submit comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was May 30, 2022—Memorial Day. HFE’s comments were submitted on May 25, 2022, leaving only two business days before the DPEIR was released to the public on June 1,

1

C-1

C-2

C-3



2022. There is no credible way that the City could have meaningfully incorporating substantive responses to our comments and concerns or other members of the public in two business days. If you are asking us and the public to take this commenting opportunity seriously then so should the City. Further, it is also clear from the work product that this was done with extreme haste as the number of typos we’ve found in the DPEIR indicate a failure to even proofread the document. Measure B Analysis We concur with the DPEIR’s conclusion that a Measure B vote is required as the land use and zoning designation changes are a major amendment. Ensuring the voters have a say based on the requirements of this ordinance is essential to participatory democracy. Biological Impacts Threshold A The California Fish and Game Commission is presently reviewing the data to officially list the Southern California subspecies of the mountain lion under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The DPEIR fails to include potential impacts to the mountain lion, which has protected status as a candidate species under CESA. The City’s DPEIR confirms that mountain lions are in the City’s boundaries (page 4.2-2) but fails to address this species in its Biological Resources section. All Biological Resources Mitigation Measures (4.2-1 through 4.2-5) must include protections and appropriate mitigation measures for the cougar, if and when this Opportunity Site has a proposed development going through the entitlement and EIR process. Threshold B We contend that because the entire landscape of this Opportunity Site is sloped toward the center of the property, it thereby creates a drainage. The DPEIR fails to acknowledge the riparian area within Site S5-008 in Threshold B, but includes Riverine habitat in Threshold C. Drainages have riparian areas and riverine habitats in them. Threshold B must be updated for consistency with Threshold C and existing known site conditions. Threshold F The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA’s) Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) includes the entirety of Orange County in its Plan Area. In fact, just 500 feet away from the Opportunity Site, is a restoration area protected through OCTA’s NCCP/HCP. (See Attachments 1 & 2) The DPEIR fails to recognize this NCCP/HCP in Threshold F. This oversight should be corrected and potential impacts properly evaluated. Edge Effects No analysis was completed nor mitigation measures offered related to the adverse impacts from development-induced edge effects as mentioned in our May 25, 2022 letter. Opportunity Site S5-008 remains an issue with considerable impacts to natural lands since it shares 1,500 feet—its entire western edge—with CHSP. The most appropriate location to address this is

2

C-4

C-3(CONT.)

C-9

C-5

C-6

C-7

C-8



within Threshold A. We request the City incorporate language as follows, changes shown in underline:

“Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly, indirectly (such as edge effects) or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?”

The Opportunity Site could indirectly impact California gnatcatchers, rufous-crowned sparrows, and other birds through habitat reduction and fragmentation, edge effects, introduction of non-native plants, wildfire ignitions, and domestic animal interference. Impacts associated with these types of wildland-urban interface issues should be evaluated and mitigated, but the DPEIR ignored them completely. We propose a new Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4.2-6:

“Mitigation for indirect impacts to sensitive habitats, plants and wildlife species will be (1) permanent fencing between the development and Chino Hills State Park boundary to reduce the potential for unauthorized human and domestic animal access and (2) funding that will allow stewardship for the Department of Parks and Recreation to monitor and mitigate Project-related indirect impacts in the preserved lands.”

Wildfire At a time when Yorba Linda has the first-hand experience of a devastating wildfire, one would expect that this topic would be taken more seriously. There is no thoughtful consideration going into the evaluation of putting homes in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, at a site which has burned three times in the past 80 years as documented in HFE’s NOP letter. There is also no attention given to the issues raised regarding the unfettered access to CHSP and increased wildfire ignitions there because of residents. Prudent mitigation measures (e.g. collaborating with State Parks) to ensure the safety of the park, people, and property are in order. Threshold C We believe Threshold C is in need of mitigation based on the substantial evidence submitted by HFE in its NOP comments—specifically that fuel breaks within this Opportunity Site may be needed. Any such requirement must take place on the subject property itself and not expand onto neighboring properties, including but not limited to CHSP. Fuel modification zones encourage non-native, weedy, and highly flammable vegetation to outcompete native plants. Therefore, any proposal for housing at this Opportunity Site must fully absorb—on-site—its own fuel modification zones. The State Park was in existence before any housing on this site. Consequently, we suggest the following mitigation measure be incorporated into the document for Threshold C:

3

C-10

C-9(CONT.)

C-12

C-11



“Fuel modification zones for new developments should be fully contained on Opportunity Sites. Prior to entitling and implementing new developments adjacent to CHSP, the local fire authority should review and approve proposed fuel modification treatments in conjunction with the California Department of Parks and Recreation to ensure that no fuel modification will be required in Chino Hills State Park.”

General Plan Consistency The designation Residential (Multi-Family (R-M) is wholly uncharacteristic of this geography and is an unrealistic/dishonest target in this community. Such designations will require multi-story buildings to accommodate the housing proposed (196 units) at this Opportunity Site. We reiterate our disappointment in the City’s disingenuous public comment period and lack of transparency on this important document. The public deserves better. Sincerely,

Claire Schlotterbeck Executive Director Attachments: 1 – OCTA NCCP/HCP Plan Area 2 – OCTA Restoration Site

4

C-13

C-12(CONT.)



SANBERNARDINO

COUNTY

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

LOSANGELESCOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

Pacific

Ocean

Hayashi

MacPherson

SaddleCreekSouth

Ferber Ranch

O'NeillOaks

Hafen

AlisoCanyon

0 6

Miles

Plan and Permit Area Figure 1-2

LegendPlan AreaPermit AreaNatural HabitatsAgricultureDeveloped

Vegetation Source: TAIC/ICF 2013

Date: 8/9/2016File: K:\San Diego\projects\OCTA\NCCP_00536_10\octa_nccp\plots\Figures\NCCP\Figure 1-2 Plan Area Special.mxd

¯

Attachment 1



CHINOHILLS

CHINO

DIAMOND BAR

Chino HillsState ParkProposal

North Coal Cyn. Parcel

West Loma

LowerSilveradoCanyon

IrvineRanch

BigBend

AlisoCreek

UCIEcologicalReserve

FairviewPark

Harriett WiederRegional Park

IrvineRanch

City ParcelRestoration

IRVINE

ANAHEIM

ORANGE

SANTA ANA

BREA

FULLERTON

TUSTIN

NEWPORT BEACH

YORBA LINDA

COSTA MESA

LAKEFOREST

MISSIONVIEJO

LAGUNANIGUEL

GARDEN GROVE

SAN CLEMENTE

LA HABRA

PLACENTIA

SAN JUANCAPISTRANO

ALISOVIEJO

DANAPOINT

FOUNTAINVALLEY

LAGUNABEACH

LAGUNAHILLS

RANCHOSANTA

MARGARITA

LAGUNAWOODS

VILLAPARK

A»

?l

%&l(

A¥

A¾

?ê

?q

A£

?k

A»

!"̂$

%&l(

A¾

AÊ

!"̂$

!"̂$Aß

BEAC

H

LA PALMA

BALL

MAGN

O LIA

EUCL

ID

COAST

KNOT

T

EDINGER

MARG

UER I

TE

YALE

BAKE

ORTEGA

NEWPORT

BRYAN

SANTIAGO CANYON

BARRANCA

TALBERT

JERONIMO

BREA

TAFT

GOLD

ENW

EST

GARDEN GROVE

COMMONWEALTH

LAGU

NA C

ANYO

N

IRVINE

GARFIELD

MUIRLANDS

ROSE

NIGU

EL

WESTMINSTER

MALVERN

BATA

VIA

ANAHEIM

19TH

PORTOLA

CABO

T

SPRI

NGD A

LE

GILB

ERT

1ST

BASTANCHURY

BALBOA

MAIN

HARV

ARD

ATLANTA

CHAPMAN

FAIR

PLAC

ENT I

A

WALNUT

LAKE

VIEW

KATELLA

LAKE

WHITTIER

TRABUCO

HAST

ER

ALTON

LEM

ON

IMPERIAL

ROCKFIELD

LA P

ATA

LA PAZ

FAIRMONT

4TH

BAKERPALM RED HILL

STONEHILL

LOS A

LISOS

17TH

CAMPUS

LA VETA

FLOW

ER

YORBA LINDA

HARB

OR

LEW

IS

HAMILTON

ELLIS

CENTRAL

WARNER

TUST

IN

THE

CITY

SUNFLOWER

VON KAR

MAN

JAMB

OREE

BRISTOL

ESPERANZA

RAYM

OND

SOUTH COAST

CERRITOS

BIRCH

UNIVERSITY

BISON

FORD

PUEN

TE

MCFADDEN

CAMINO DEL AVION

ARTESIA

AVERY

GLAS

SELL

EL TORO

STAN

TON

BROO

KHUR

ST

ADAMS

MESA

VERD

E

DOVE

R

PASE

O DE

COL

INAS

PROS

PECT

LA NOVIA

ALISO CREEK

ORANGE

KRAEMER

LA MIRADA

PLACENTIA

EUCL I D

17TH

4TH

COAST

FORD

IMPERIAL

MAIN

WALNUT

CHAPMAN

LA PAZ

CERRITOS

COAST

CHAPMAN

ALTON

HARB

OR

MAIN

IMPE

RIAL

CHAPMAN

RED HILL

TALBERT

17TH

Funded Restoration Projects Map

Source: OCTA

February 5, 2013 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps and reproduced with permission. W:\projects\SP\EnviMitigationProgram\Maps\FundedProperties_2013-0205.mxd

I0 2 41

Miles

Round 1 Restoration Projects

Round 2 Restoration Projects

L O S A N G E L E SO R A N G E

S A N B E R N A R D I N O

O R A N G E

R I V E RS I D E

O R ANG E

Attachment 2



• •

• •P.O. Box 9835 • Brea, CA 92822-1835 • www.HillsForEveryone.org

Southern California comes together at the Puente-Chino Hills

H i l l s F o r E v e r y o n e

Los AngelesCounty

San BernardinoCounty

RiversideCountyOrange

County

July 14, 2022

Submitted via email to: [email protected]

Mayor Carlos Rodriguez and Councilmembers City of Yorba Linda 4845 Casa Loma Ave. Yorba Linda, CA 92885

RE: Housing Element Update Draft Program EIR and Opportunity Site S5-008 Comments

Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

Hills For Everyone (HFE) provides this supplemental letter to our previous Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) on the City of Yorba Linda’s Housing Element Update. We continue to object to the City’s handling of Opportunity Site S5-008 (along Fairmont Blvd.). After analyzing the Housing Element and witnessing the City’s lack of attention to this site in the DPEIR, we are left with one conclusion: the City of Yorba Linda has known from the outset that this site is not capable of handling the 196 allocated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) units. However, the City chose not to admit that to the State—perhaps for fear of having to find other sites to support its unprecedented allocation. In an attempt to keep up this charade, the City continues to misrepresent the characteristics of the site and to understate the environmental impacts that development of this property would have. THE CITY MISREPRESENTED THE CAPACITY OF SITE S5-008 IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT The Yorba Linda General Plan Land Use Map shows that Opportunity Site S5-008 is a multi-use parcel. Its 23 acres has two designations: 14 acres designated Open Space (green) and nine acres designated Residential Medium (orange). A portion of the map is shown below in Figure 1. Site S5-008 is outlined in blue.

1

C-14



Figure 1 - Site S5-008 outlined in blue, with the split Open Space (top) and Residential Medium (bottom) designations.

Despite this clear distinction in the General Plan, the 2021-29 Housing Element (See Attachment 1) describes Site S5-008 as follows:

“The upper portion of the property is constrained by topography, though the unit potential from the non-developable portions of the site could be transferred to the flatter, more developable areas of the site.”

The City should have called out the established land use restrictions for this parcel when submitting its Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), but it did not. It simply listed the site as 23.01 acres in size. A 14-acre Open Space designation is not merely a “topographical constraint.” By misrepresenting the land use potential of the property in the Housing Element, the City was able to receive 196 units of RHNA credit. We believe this is an error. At a maximum, this site should have had a yield of 90 units (nine acres at 10 units per acre [R-M zoning]), and a realistic capacity of 77 (85% of 90 units). Furthermore, the realistic capacity reduction should be much larger than 15%. The current owner of the property conducted a detailed land use survey in 2019. That survey (See Attachment 2), was included in an online property listing.1 (See Attachment 3) It calculates the true net buildable area of Site S5-008 as 2.55 acres. Building 196 units on this site is quite simply infeasible from information already publicly available.

1 https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/4225-Fairmont-Blvd-Yorba-Linda-CA/17571174/

2

C-14(CONT.)



THE CITY IS AWARE THAT 196 UNITS CANNOT BE BUILT At the Yorba Linda Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, June 29, 2022, members of the public commented on the fact that the capacity of Site S5-008 was being overestimated. In response Nate Farnsworth, Principal Planner, stated:

“There are development standards that are in place in the RM zoning standards that limit building height to two stories. And the topography is going to provide constraints out there, so I don’t know how you would build 230 units on nine acres on that particular site.”2 [underlining added for emphasis]

Multiple times over the course of this meeting, City staff and Commissioners acknowledged the realistic potential of that site was nowhere near the RHNA allocation of 196 units. THE CITY DOES NOT WANT HCD TO NOTICE THIS MISREPRESENTATION A few minutes later in the same Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Singh asked a follow-up question about the Site S5-008 allocation.3 Chair Darnell and Todd Litfin, City Attorney, cut in:

Singh: Just a follow up question. I feel a sense - there’s some sense of nervousness among the public that if we are talking - you know just in numbers, throwing numbers out - nine acres is buildable and max 10 [units per] acre, 90 units, why did HCD give us the credit for 196? So maybe there is something missing which the public doesn’t know. So just to clarify - hopefully HCD is not listening to this meeting...

Litfin: By the way: they are! Darnell: They absolutely are. The Governor has a task force assigned to listen to

all of these meetings. Yes, they are. Litfin: The State allocated millions of dollars to supervise all the cities. Darnell: They’re listening. Yeah. Singh: Okay.

After this admonishment, Commissioner Singh did not continue his line of questioning. There was no explanation given at the meeting as to why City Attorney Litfin and Chair Darnell interrupted so forcefully. The draft meeting minutes published Wednesday, July 13, 2022 (See

2 Yorba Linda Planning Commission Meeting (June 29, 2022) Audio recording time index 4:21:54, https://pub-yorbalinda.escribemeetings.com/Players/ISIStandAlonePlayer.aspx?Id=f658cc3a-fdda-492f-9c38-55804737d3e0 3 Yorba Linda Planning Commission Meeting (June 29, 2022) Audio recording time index 4:26:44, https://pub-yorbalinda.escribemeetings.com/Players/ISIStandAlonePlayer.aspx?Id=f658cc3a-fdda-492f-9c38-55804737d3e0

3

C-14(CONT.)



Attachment 4) omit this exchange. It appears the City does not want HCD to be aware of the correct capacity of Site S5-008. KEEPING ATTENTION OFF THE SITE IS LEADING TO MISTAKES HFE has established that the City knowingly overestimated the capacity of Site S5-008, and that it doesn’t want HCD to notice the error. Assuming this is true, what have been the consequences of the City trying to keep the spotlight off of this site? The evidence points to the fact that insufficient attention is being paid to the environmental and zoning review process for Site S5-008. First, we must point again to the omissions in the DPEIR. We addressed these previously in both our response to the Notice of Preparation dated May 25, 2022 (See Attachment 5) and again in our public comments on the DPEIR dated July 1, 2022 (See Attachment 6). Without belaboring the point, Biological Impacts, Wildfire, and Hydrology–at a minimum–are all inadequately analyzed for this site. HFE has already provided substantial evidence that any one of these topics would trigger a full Environmental Impact Report under the California Environmental Quality Act. Site S5-008 is unique amongst the other sites in the Housing Element, not just because of its size, but also because of its Open Space designation, its shared border with Chino Hills State Park, its repeated on-site wildfires, and its unusual, steep, and unstable topography. Despite this, the DPEIR treats it as if it was just another run-of-the-mill infill site. Its uniqueness demands more analysis. Second, consider General Plan Amendment 2022-02, introduced at the Planning Commission meeting on June 29, 2022. Exhibit A of that amendment (See Attachment 7) describes modifications required in the General Plan Land Use Map to support the 2021-29 Housing Element. It included the following text for Item #14, the change for Site S5-008:

“Replace Land Use Diagram with updated version showing that the land use designation for this site has changed from “Residential – Medium” to “Residential - High,””

This cookie-cutter text, copied and pasted for multiple items in the amendment, ignores the existing Open Space designation of the parcel entirely. The omission of the Open Space designation was only noticed when it was pointed out during public comment and subsequently recommended by the Commission for revision in the amendment. This is a significant lapse in attention to detail by the City.

4

C-14(CONT.)



Third, the City has not kept the Yorba Linda Hills Planned Development (YLHPD) Map internally consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map. Zoning Code Amendment 2022-01, as presented at the June 29, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, revises the YLHPD Map “Area E” from a zoning designation of “Church” with zero permitted residential lots to a zoning designation of “Residential Multi-Family” with 230 permitted residential lots. (See Attachment 8) The Open Space restriction found in the Land Use Map is inconsistent with the Area E zone becoming an entirely residential zone. Open Space zoning within this Planned Development should be called out on the revised YLHPD Map for Site S5-008, and it is not. CONCLUSION What will the end result of this charade be? At best, the City will not meet its RHNA requirements by 2029 because of the unrealistic housing allocation at this site. At worst, it would mean the introduction of an unsafe housing project in both a CAL FIRE designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and in designated critical habitat for endangered species (See HFE May and July 2022 letters, Attachments 5 & 6). This negligence in environmental review is unacceptable. Months ago, the City should have asked itself: is it worth continuing this ruse in an attempt to avoid the necessary work of finding alternate, more suitable opportunity sites for 196 units? Is it worth the safety risk of performing inadequate environmental review in order to keep this site out of the spotlight? HFE believes the answer to these questions is no. To this end, HFE asks that the City:

1. Correct the land use designation in General Plan Amendment 2022-02 to affirm the split between residential and open space for Site S5-008.

2. Apply the housing allocation to only the portion of the property eligible for home sites (nine acres).

3. Reduce the opportunity site allocation for Site S5-008 to a realistic capacity of 77 units on the nine acres.

4. Ensure the YLHPD change (in Zoning Code Amendment 2022-01) is internally consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map (see Attachment 9), by:

a. Creating an Area D designation over the upper portion of Site S5-008. b. Reducing the Area E allocation to 90 residential units. c. Providing a “Map Revised” date on the document to demonstrate a change from

the originally approved YLHPD document (on 02/13/91). 5. Confirm that a full site-specific EIR will be conducted prior to any development on Site

S5-008 based on the potentially significant impacts already submitted to the City.

5

C-15

C-14(CONT.)



We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional feedback as we know the City Council will vote on this item in early August.

Sincerely,

Claire Schlotterbeck Executive Director

cc: Yorba Linda Principal Planner Nate Farnsworth ([email protected]) Yorba Linda City Clerk Marcia Brown ([email protected]) California Department of Housing and Community Development

([email protected]) Attorney General Rob Bonta ([email protected]) Deputy Attorney General Nicole Rinke ([email protected]) Christine Medak, US Fish and Wildlife Service ([email protected]) Jonathan Snyder, US Fish and Wildlife Service ([email protected]) David Mayer, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife ([email protected])

Attachments: 1 - Yorba Linda Housing Element Update, Appendix C, page 102 2 - Site S5-008 Useable Land Study, Tract 11969, Parcel 93 3 - LoopNet Site S5-008 (4225 Fairmont Blvd.) Property Listing 4 - Draft June 29, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, excerpt From page 22 5 - HFE Comments on Notice of Preparation dated May 25, 2022 6 - HFE Comments on DPEIR dated July 1, 2022 7 - General Plan Amendment 2022-02, Exhibit A 8 - Yorba Linda Hills Planned Residential Development (Original & Current) 9 - Yorba Linda Hills Planned Residential Development (Proposed)

6

C-16



Responses to Comment C

Hill for Everyone, Claire Schlotterbeck, Executive Director, dated July 1 and 14, 2022

C-1 This comment consists of introductory remarks about Hill for Everyone as an organization that founded Chino Hills State Park and its focus on the Puente-Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses. Thus, no further response is required.

C-2 The commenter expresses that the comments within this letter are specific to housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter further states that the Draft PEIR does not cover future development of the site and previous comments submitted noting significance in Biological Resources, Hydrology, and Wildlife and EIR should be prepared when future development occurs. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR, of this Final PEIR. The commenter is correct that future development would be subjected to additional CEQA review.

C-3 The commenter is disappointed in the environmental processing schedule, the timing of the NOP public review period and the Draft PEIR release date, and states that the City could not have meaningfully incorporated substantive responses to comments in two business days. While the City recognizes the expeditious public review periods, the Draft PEIR did consider public comment received during the 30-day public review period, including comments received at the May 23, 2022 scoping meeting. Based on public comments received during the 30-day review period, the Draft PEIR analysis was expanded to incorporate additional analysis with respect to biological resources and wildlife, particularly related to housing opportunity site S5-008. It should be noted that the release of the NOP was contingent upon receiving approval of the Housing Element by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which occurred on April 8, 2022, in order to ensure an accurate, stable, and finite project description that could be relied upon to conduct the traffic and various other technical reports.

C-4 The commenter states that the Draft PEIR has numerous typos throughout. No specific typos were indicated. This comment is noted for the record..

C-5 The commenter expresses concurrence with the requirement of the Measure B vote for the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

C-6 The commenter states that the California Fish and Game Commission is currently reviewing the data to officially list the Southern California subspecies of mountain lion under the California Endangered Species Act and requests that Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-5 to include protections and mitigation measures to cougars. If or when the mountain lion becomes listed as an endangered species, it would be protected through implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-5 mitigate for special status species.

C-7 The commenter states that threshold b of Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR did not mention the riparian habitat within S5-008, which should be revised to provide consistency with threshold c, which identifies riverine habitat. Accordingly, Pages 4.2-10 and



4.2-11 of the Draft PEIR have been revised as shown below and in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR (Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined).

Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors. There are no housing opportunity sites mappedlocated within riparian habitats or in sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, and by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with the exception of housing opportunity sites S3-203, S5-008, and S4-053, which has a forested/shrub riparian habitat, a riverine habitat, and a freshwater forested/shrub wetland and riverine habitat, respectively. (USFWS, 2020b) Under existing conditions, this site is developed and contains residential uses and a berry farm. Therefore, future development at this site has a potential to have substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and impacts would be potentially significant.

C-8 The commenter states that the NCCP/HCP includes the entirety of Orange County and there is a restoration area 500 feet from housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter states that the Draft PEIR fails to recognize this under Threshold f of Section 4.2, Biological Resources. Page 4.2-12 of the Draft PEIR has been revised for clarification, as follows:

The City Yorba Linda is a participating jurisdiction to the Orange County Central‐Coastal NCCP/HCP and Orange County Transportation Authority M2 NCCP/HCP. (CDFW, 2019) However, the housing opportunity sites are not located within the boundaries of the Orange County Central‐Coastal NCCP/HCP or the Permit Areas of the Orange County Transportation Authority M2 NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of approved local, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and no impact would occur.

The Funded Restoration Projects Map attachment provided from the commenter was produced in February 5, 2013. According to the OCTA’s M2 Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan – 2020 Annual Report, the Chino Hills State Park restoration portion was changed from a 21-acre restoration project to a 11-acre intensive cactus scrub restoration project to provide better ecological benefits. Installation for the restoration project was deemed complete in February 2020 and a five-year maintenance and monitoring program was commenced. The commenter is correct in stating that the boundary of the restoration area is to the north of S5-008. However, as discussed in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.5-10), S5-008 has a current land use designation of Residential-Medium in the southern portion (9 acres) and Open Space-General (OS) in the northern portion (14 acres). Based on the restrictions of the General Plan for Open Space (OS), no residential development would occur in the Open Space portion of S5-008. Please refer also to response to Comment A-2.

It should also be noted that changes to the General Plan would be subject to Measure B. The Measure B vote on the Housing Element Implementation Programs would not change the OS designation on site S5-008. Further, the Project would continue to uphold current development



standards for determination of density and regulation of quality within hillside areas similar to the density of surrounding developed properties.

C-9 The commenter states that no analysis was completed edge effects related to development and states that housing opportunity site S5-008 shares it’s entire western edge with the CHSP. The commenter is incorrect. Housing opportunity site S5-008 is surrounded by residential development to the north, east, south, and west with an approximate 350-foot boundary at the northwest edge (of the site’s open space designation) that shares a boundary with CHSP. Please note that the City is not changing the existing open space designation on the site and no residential development would be allowed in this area as a result of the Project. However, the City recognizes that direct and indirect (e.g. edge effects) biological resources impacts could occur resulting from future development at the site. Mitigation Measures have been proposed which would require an evaluation of edge effect and reduce impacts to less than significant.

The commenter suggests a change to threshold a on Page 4.2-9 of the Draft PEIR. Thresholds within the Draft PEIR are established by Section IV of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations) are administrative regulations governing implementation of CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines reflect the requirements set forth in the Public Resources Code, as well as court decisions interpreting the statute and practical planning considerations. Therefore, no revisions to the threshold are necessary. However, see response to Comment C-10.

C-10 The commenter expresses concern for impacts to California gnatcatchers, rufous-crowned sparrows, and other birds through habitat reduction and fragmentation, edge effect, introduction of non-native plants, wildfire ignitions, and domestic animal interference. See response to Comment C-8 for development only occurring within the southern portion of the site. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-5 would require a biological resource survey which will analyze the direct and indirect impacts to biological resources. Indirect impacts are those that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project but occur at a different time or place. Indirect impacts can occur at the urban/wildland interface of projects and can affect biological resources located downstream from projects and other offsite areas. Examples of indirect impacts include the effects of increases in ambient levels of noise or light; predation by domestic pets; competition with exotic plants and animals; introduction of toxics including pesticides; and other human disturbances such as hiking, off-road vehicle use, unauthorized dumping, etc. Indirect impacts are often attributed to the subsequent day-to-day activities associated with project build-out such as increased noise, the use of artificial light sources, and invasive ornamental plantings that may encroach into native areas. Indirect effects may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in a slow replacement of native plants by non-native invasives, changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife, and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites.

Pursuant to the commenter’s request, Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 has been revised as shown below and in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR (Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined).



4.2-1 The City of Yorba Linda shall require applicants of future development projects on housing opportunity sites S5-008, S7-005, S3-203, and S4-053 to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall be a reconnaissance level field survey of the sites for the presence and quality of biological resources potentially affected by project development, including both direct and indirect impacts. These resources include, but are not limited to, special status species or their habitat, sensitive habitats such as wetlands or riparian areas, and jurisdictional waters. If sensitive or protected biological resources are absent from the sites and adjacent lands potentially affected by the future development, the biologist shall submit a written report substantiating such to the City of Yorba Linda before issuance of a grading permit by the City, and the project may proceed without any further biological investigation.

If sensitive or protected biological resources are present on the project site or may be

potentially affected by the project, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-2 shall be required. If indirect impacts to sensitive, habitats, plant, and wildlife species are identified, measures shall be identified to minimize impact, such as fencing to reduce human and domestic pet intrusion.

C-11 The commenter alleges that no thoughtful evaluation of wildfire has been considered and

suggests that mitigation measures should be included (e.g., coordination with the State Parks) to ensure the safety of park, people and property should be added. The Draft PEIR has identified the potential for significant wildlife impacts that could result from future development. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for further details.

C-12 The commenter expresses concern on fuel modification expanding to the Chino Hills State Parks and states the mitigation measures are needed. See response to comment C-8; development would only be allowed to occur within the southern portion of the site. Any fuel modification zones, as required by Mitigation Measure 4.11-2, would be required to be planted on the land owner’s property and would not be allowed to extend beyond the property boundaries. The purpose of fuel modification zones are to prevent the spread of fire, not to create highly flammable vegetation.

C-13 The commenter expresses concern with the proposed R-M zoning and the need for multi-story buildings for the site to accommodate the proposed housing site. See response to comment C-8 for development only occurring within the southern portion of the site. Additionally,



according to the City’s Municipal Code Table 18.10-02, under the R-M zoning designation, the maximum height allowed would be 35 feet, or 2 stories, whichever is less.

C-14 This comment consists of introductory remarks about the organization, Hills for Everyone, and alleges that the City misrepresented the capacity of housing opportunity site S5-008 to HCD. The commenter continues to describe the past survey about the net buildable area of the site and the realistic capacity reduction should be larger than 15% and cites minutes from the Planning Commission meeting on June 29, 2022. Comments related to the RHNA allocation do not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

The commenter alleges that the City understates the environmental impacts, specifically biological resources, wildfire, and hydrology impacts. Responses to these comments are provided in response to Comments C-6 through C-12 above.

C-15 The commenter requests confirmation that a full EIR will be conducted prior to development of the site. Prior to approval of any site-specific development under the Housing Element, the City must conduct further environmental review under CEQA. The level of CEQA documentation required for future development or redevelopment would be determined following submittal of a development application with the City.

C-16 This comment provides conclusionary remarks; thus, no further response is required.



Comment Letter D

AFFILIATED AGENCIES

Orange County Transit District

Local Transportation

Authority

Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies

Consolidated Transportation

Service Agency

Congestion Management Agency

Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282)

July 12, 2022

Mr. Nate Farnsworth, Planning Manager City of Yorba Linda Community Development 4845 Casa Loma Avenue Yorba Linda, CA 92886

Subject: 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element

Implementation Programs Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR)

Dear Mr. Farnsworth:

Thank you for providing the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) with the DPEIR for the 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs. The following comments are provided for your consideration:

• Please note the following underbuilt roadways and their planned buildout designation per the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) are listed within the study area:

o Major Arterial – Planned six-lane facilities ▪ Rose Drive ▪ Fairmont Boulevard ▪ Yorba Linda Boulevard

o Primary Arterial – Planned four-lane divided facilities ▪ Bastanchury Road ▪ Lakeview Avenue

o Secondary Arterial – Planned four-lane undivided facilities ▪ Valley View Avenue ▪ Kellogg Drive ▪ Buena Vista Avenue ▪ Golden Avenue

The proposed housing implementation programs should consider the planned buildout of these roadways, as it relates to potential future right-of-way needs. If there is a desire to amend the MPAH, please contact OCTA staff.

• Two bus routes, Routes 30 and 38, travel through the edge of the City of

Yorba Linda for about a quarter mile with no stops within the city. On page 4.9-3 under Subsection “Transit Services,” the document only includes Route 38. Please revise to include Route 30.

D-1

D-2

D-3

D-4



Mr. Nate Farnsworth July 12, 2022 Page 2

Orange County Transportation Authority

550 South Main Street / P.O Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282)

Throughout the development of this project, we encourage communication with OCTA on any matters discussed herein. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (714)-560-5907 or at [email protected]. Sincerely,

Dan Phu Manager, Environmental Programs

D-5



Responses to Comment D

Orange County Transporation Authority, Dan Phu, Manager, dated July 12, 2022

D-1 This comment consists of introductory remarks. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses. Thus, no further response is required.

D-2 The commenter provides a list of underbuilt roadways and their planned buildout designation per the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (last updated June 2022) has been compared to existing traffic conditions and the designed General Plan roadway classifications per the City of Yorba Linda for each of the facilities listed below.

Major Arterials (planned 6-lane facilities):

• Rose Drive – the Traffic Study evaluates Rose Drive at Imperial Highway as part of the study area. This portion of Rose Drive is designated as a Primary Arterial per the MPAH. The Major Arterial classification begins south of Yorba Linda Boulevard, which is not included in the study area. Based on a review of existing conditions, Rose Drive is currently constructed to its ultimate as a 4-lane Primary Arterial at the intersection of Imperial Highway until Wabash Avenue (where it is currently only 2-lanes to Valencia Avenue). Rose Drive within the City is currently built to its ultimate MPAH and General Plan designation (with the exception of a small portion north of Wabash Avenue to the City of Placentia border. No change is necessary to the Traffic Study.

• Fairmont Boulevard – the Traffic Study evaluates Fairmont Boulevard at Bastanchury Road and Yorba Linda Boulevard as part of the study area. This portion of Fairmont Boulevard is designated as a Primary Arterial per the MPAH. The Major Arterial classification is only applicable to the portion north of Esperanza Road to Village Center, which is not part of the study area. Based on a review of existing conditions, Fairmont Boulevard is currently construct to its ultimate as a 4-lane Primary Arterial at the intersections of Bastanchury Road and Yorba Linda Boulevard. Fairmont Boulevard within the City is currently built to its ultimate MPAH and General Plan designation. No change is necessary to the Traffic Study.

• Yorba Linda Boulevard – the Traffic Study evaluates Yorba Linda Boulevard at Imperial Highway, Lakeview Avenue, Ohio Street, and Fairmont Boulevard as part of the study area. Weir Canyon Road study intersections include Savi Ranch Parkway and the two SR-91 Ramps. Yorba Linda Boulevard is designated as a Major Arterial per the MPAH west of Fairmont Boulevard and is designated as a Primary Arterial east of Fairmont Boulevard to the SR-91 Freeway where it transitions back to a Major Arterial south of the SR-91 Freeway. Based on a review of existing conditions, Yorba Linda Boulevard is built to its ultimate as a Major Arterial within the study area to Fairmont Boulevard, then built to its ultimate as a Primary Arterial from Fairmont Boulevard to La Palma Avenue where it exceeds the MPAH designation as a 6-lane facility to the



SR-91 Freeway. Yorba Linda Boulevard is either built to its ultimate or exceeds the ultimate cross-sections as identified on the MPAH and City’s General Plan. No change is necessary to the Traffic Study.

Primary Arterial (planned 4-lane divided facilities):

• Bastanchury Road – the Traffic Study evaluates Bastanchury Road at Imperial Highway, Plumosa Drive, Lakeview Avenue, and Fairmont Boulevard as part of the study area. Bastanchury Road is designated as a Primary Arterial per the MPAH between Valencia Avenue and Village Center. Based on a review of existing conditions, Bastanchury Road is currently built to its ultimate as a Primary Arterial within the study area with the exception of the segment between Denver Avenue and Eureka Avenue that is in the process of being widened/restriped to accommodate the ultimate. This improvement would be completed by the City Capital Improvement Project. . As such, Bastanchury Road is in the process of being built or exists at its ultimate cross-section as identified by the MPAH and the City’s General Plan. No change necessary to the Traffic Study.

• Lakeview Avenue – the Traffic Study evaluates Lakeview Avenue at Bastanchury Road, Lemon Drive, Lakeview Avenue, and Buena Vista Road as part of the study area. Lakeview Avenue is designated as a Secondary north of Yorba Linda Boulevard and as a Primary Arterial south of Yorba Linda Avenue to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Based on a review of existing conditions, Lakeview Avenue is currently built to its ultimate as a Secondary north of Yorba Linda Boulevard with the exception of the portion between Bastanchury Road and Lemon Drive which at a minimum accommodates one lane in each direction of travel. Similarly, Lakeview Avenue is currently built to its ultimate as a Primary Arterial south of Yorba Linda Boulevard with the exception of the portion between Flora Drive to Buena Vista Avenue and Peppergrove Street to Orangethorpe Avenue which at a minimum accommodates one lane in each direction of travel. There is no level of service (LOS) deficiency identified at the study intersections with the exception of the intersection at Lakeview Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue. However, for the purposes of the traffic study, lanes that are not fully funded have not been included as part of the intersection operations analysis. As such, only the minimum improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS have been identified. For the intersection of Lakeview Avenue at Buena Vista Avenue this includes the installation of a traffic signal only.

Secondary Arterial (planned 4-lane undivided facilities):

• Valley View Avenue – the Traffic Study does not evaluate Valley View Avenue. However, Valley View Avenue is designated as a Secondary per the MPAH. Based on a review of existing conditions, Valley View Avenue is currently built to its ultimate as a Secondary with the exception of the segment between Marda Avenue and Bastanchury Road that only accommodates one northbound through lane and two southbound through lanes. It appears the pavement width can accommodate a second northbound through lane along this segment, but it has not yet been restriped. No change necessary to the Traffic Study. No changes are necessary to the Traffic Study.



• Kellogg Drive – the Traffic Study evaluates Kellogg Drive at the two ramps with Imperial Highway as part of the study area. Kellogg Drive is designated as a Secondary per the MPAH between Imperial Highway and Yorba Linda Boulevard, which is the portion that lies within the City of Yorba Linda. Based on a review of existing conditions, most of Kellogg Drive is currently only built to accommodate one lane in each direction of travel. As noted previously, lanes that are not fully funded have not been included as part of the intersection operations analysis. As such, only the minimum improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS have been identified. For the intersection of Kellogg Drive at Imperial Highway EB Ramps, this includes the installation of a traffic signal only. No changes are necessary to the Traffic Study.

• Buena Vista Avenue – the Traffic Study evaluates Buena Vista Avenue at the intersection with Lakeview Avenue as part of the study area. Buena Vista Avenue is designated as a Secondary per the MPAH west of Lakeview Avenue. Based on a review of existing conditions, Buena Vista Avenue only accommodates one lane of travel in each direction between Richfield Road and Lakeview Avenue. However, is appears the pavement is wide enough to accommodate a second travel lane in each direction along this same segment. No changes necessary to the Traffic Study.

• Golden Avenue – the Traffic Study does not evaluate Golden Avenue. However, Golden Avenue is designated as a Divided Collector per the MPAH. Based on a review of existing conditions, Golden Avenue is currently built to its ultimate as a Divided Collector between Kraemer Boulevard and Rose Drive. No change necessary to the Traffic Study.

D-3 The commenter states that the Project should consider the planned buildout of these roadways as it relates to potential future right of way needs. Where applicable, the Housing Element considers the ultimate designation as identified by both the MPAH and the City’s General Plan designation for the study area roadways. However, as noted above, some of the designations identified by the comment are for portions of the roadways that are not included as part of the TIA study area or lie outside of the City of Yorba Linda boundary. The City will contact OCTA staff if there is a desire to amend the MPAH.

D-4 The commenter requests that the Draft PEIR include Route 30 under Section 4.9-3, Transit Services. Only a small portion of OCTA Route 30 runs along the City of Yorba Linda and City of Anaheim border along Esperanza Road between Echo Hill Lane and Fairmont Boulevard. However, pursuant to the commenters request, the text on Page 4.9-3 in the Draft PEIR has been revised accordingly as shown below and in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR (Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined). The TIA has also been updated accordingly (see Attachment I of this Final PEIR).

As shown in Figure 4.9-2, Existing Transit Routes, the City of Yorba Linda is currently served by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within Orange County. Based on a review of the existing transit routes within the vicinity of the proposed Project, Route 26 currently runs along Yorba Linda Boulevard, from Rose Drive to Lakeview Avenue; while Route 38 runs along Yorba Linda Boulevard from north side to south side of SR-91 and Route 30 runs along Orangethorpe Avenue. Transit



service is reviewed and updated by OCTA periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. (Urban Crossroads, 2022f)

D-5 This comment provides conclusionary remarks and acknowledges Dan Phu as the contact person for Orange County Transportation Authority. Thus, no further response is required.



Comment Letter e

E-1



Page | 1 of 8 YLWD Comments on City of YL Draft Program EIR

Yorba Linda Water District’s Comments Dated July 14, 2022 City of Yorba Linda Draft Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2022040574 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs – Dated June 2022

Page Subparagraph YLWD Comments 4.5-9 Table 4.5-1: Policy LU 5.1 Consistency

Policy LU 5.1: Coordinate future infrastructure improvements through the City’s Capital Improvement Program to ensure facilities meet the needs of existing and future land uses. Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, all sites are adjacent to existing public roadways and are serviceable by police and fire departments, as well as private companies that provide phone, cable, gas, and electric service. Existing water delivery and wastewater collection infrastructure is available to all properties located in the residential sites inventory and the City has adequate water and wastewater capacity to accommodate the additional 2,415 units. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.

Delete the following language: “Existing water delivery and wastewater collection infrastructure is available to all properties located in the residential sites inventory and the City has adequate water and wastewater capacity to accommodate the additional 2,415 units.” Replace with: “The Yorba Linda Water District will evaluate each new development to determine the water and wastewater collection infrastructure required to serve the new development. Improvements to the water and wastewater collection infrastructure would be the responsibility of the development.”

4.5-25 Table 4.5-1: Policy PSU‐5.1: Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to ensure that development is appropriate in scale to current and planned infrastructure capabilities. Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, existing water delivery and wastewater collection infrastructure is available to all properties located in the housing opportunity sites inventory and the City has adequate water and wastewater capacity to accommodate the additional 2,410 units. Additionally, there would be adequate capacity in the landfill to serve buildout of the Project. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy PSU 5.1.

Delete the following language: “As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, existing water delivery and wastewater collection infrastructure is available to all properties located in the housing opportunity sites inventory and the City has adequate water and wastewater capacity to accommodate the additional 2,410 units.” Replace with: “As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, YLWD will evaluate each new development to determine the water and wastewater collection infrastructure needed to serve the new development.”

4.5-25 Table 4.5-1: Policy PSU‐5.2: Work with the Yorba Linda Water District to ensure adequate wastewater facilities for all new developments.

Delete the following language: “Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, individual developments would be reviewed by the City and Orange County Sanitization District (OCSD) in

E-2




Page Subparagraph YLWD Comments Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, individual developments would be reviewed by the City and Orange County Sanitization District (OCSD) in order to determine if sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy PSU 5.2.

order to determine if sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development.” Replace with: “Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, individual developments would be reviewed by the Yorba Linda Water District and Orange County Sanitization District (OCSD) in order to determine if sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development.”

4.5-25 Table 4.5-1: Policy PSU‐6.4: Work with the Yorba Linda Water District to ensure adequate water supply for all new developments. Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, the Yorba Linda Water District has forecasted water availability for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy PSU 6.4.

Delete paragraph. Replace with: “The Yorba Linda Water District meets its water demands with a combination of imported water and local groundwater, and works together with two primary agencies, MWDOC and OCWD to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The Yorba Linda Water District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency.”

4.11-7 4.11.5 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures: PS-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, a service letter from the water agency serving the project area shall be submitted and approved by the OCFA water liaison describing the water supply system, pump system, and fire flow and lists the design features to ensure fire flow during a major wildfire incident.

Delete the following language: “ Prior to issuance of building permits, a service letter from the water agency serving the project area shall be submitted and approved by the OCFA water liaison describing the water supply system, pump system, and fire flow and lists the design features to ensure fire flow during a major wildfire incident.” Replace with: “Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City will request a Will Serve Letter from the Yorba Linda Water District for the development, which includes contingencies for providing water service. One contingency requires the applicant to confirm with the OCFA whether

E-2(CONT.)




Page Subparagraph YLWD Comments the YLWD’s existing facilities are of adequate size, capacity and pressure to satisfy the fire flow requirements and to confirm what improvements are necessary to meet those requirements.”

5-4 5.3. A: Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? The City of Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs would not extend infrastructure into currently unserved parts of the City because the City is almost entirely built out with urban land uses. Some minor extensions or improvements of utility facilities from surrounding roadways, including water and sewer lines, may be required for future development. However, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, implementation of the Project can generally be accommodated by the existing storm drain, water, and sewer infrastructure.

Delete the following language: “ Some minor extensions or improvements of utility facilities from surrounding roadways, including water and sewer lines, may be required for future development. However, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, implementation of the Project can generally be accommodated by the existing storm drain, water, and sewer infrastructure.” Replace with: “Some improvements of utility facilities from surrounding roadways, including water and sewer lines, may be required for future development. However, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, implementation of the Project can generally be accommodated by the existing storm drain. The Yorba Linda Water District will evaluate each development to determine the adequacy of existing water and sewer infrastructure.”

5-16 5.4.4.D. Landslides Threshold e: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The City of Yorba Linda General Plan EIR concluded that new development that could occur under the General Plan Update would occur in areas that are either connected or would be connected to the City of Yorba Linda sewer system. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Delete paragraph. Replace with: “The City of Yorba Linda General Plan EIR concluded that new development that could occur under the General Plan Update would occur in areas that are either connected or would be connected to the Yorba Linda Water District sewer system.”

5-23 5.4.6.B. Post-Development Water Quality Impacts

Delete the following language: “The Project does not propose the use of any wells or other

E-2(CONT.)




Page Subparagraph YLWD Comments Threshold B: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Potable water service is provided to the City by the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD). The YLWD main source of water supply is groundwater from the Orange County Basin. Imported treated and untreated water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) make up the rest of the District’s water supply. The Project does not propose the use of any wells or other groundwater extraction activities. Therefore, the Project would not directly draw water from the groundwater table. Accordingly, implementation of the Project has no potential to substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and the Project’s impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. Further discussion of water supply is provided in Section 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, below.

groundwater extraction activities. Therefore, the Project would not directly draw water from the groundwater table. Accordingly, implementation of the Project has no potential to substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and the Project’s impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.” Replace with: “The Yorba Linda Water District is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine the water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project. YLWD does not anticipate that the Project will substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies.”

5-30 5.4.9 Utilities and Service System Threshold a: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? The City of Yorba Linda General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would not cause significant environmental effects and impacts would be less than significant. (City of Yorba Linda, 2016b) Yorba Linda is a younger community with the necessary infrastructure in place to support future development in the

Delete paragraphs in their entirety. Replace with: “The City of Yorba Linda General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. The Yorba Linda Water District is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project.”

E-2(CONT.)




Page Subparagraph YLWD Comments established areas. The utility infrastructure is relatively new with the majority of public service capacity not yet in need of repair or replacement. One exception is in portions of the Yorba Linda Water District’s (YLWD) westerly service area where approximately 24,000 feet of waterline was constructed in the 1920s through 1950s. According to YLWD, the majority of these waterlines will be replaced over the 2022 to 2024 period. All sites are adjacent to existing public roadways and are serviceable by existing water and wastewater infrastructure, as well as private companies that provide phone, cable, natural gas, and electric service. Existing water delivery and wastewater collection infrastructure is available to all housing opportunity sites and the City has adequate water and wastewater capacity to accommodate 2,410 new residential units. However, as a requirement of future development, the existing sewer lines on Linda Verde would need to be extended to accommodate housing opportunity sites S4-060 and S4-201. In summary, no housing opportunity sites are constrained by infrastructure availability.

5-30 5.4.9 Utilities and Service System Wastewater generated by the Project would flow by gravity to OCSD’s Reclamation Plant No. 1, which is located in the City of Fountain Valley.

Delete the following language: “Wastewater generated by the Project would flow by gravity to OCSD’s Reclamation Plant No. 1, which is located in the City of Fountain Valley.” City to confirm the following with OCSD: “Wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed to OCSD’s Reclamation Plants No. 1 and/or 2, which are located in the City of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach, respectively. The reclamation plants are designed…”

5-30, 5-31

5.4.9 Utilities and Service System Development projects are assessed fees for new sewer provision facilities by the YLWD. Individual developments would be reviewed by the City and Orange County Sanitization District (OCSD) in order to determine if

Delete paragraphs in their entirety. Replace with: “The Yorba Linda Water District provides wastewater services within the City of Yorba Linda and reviews and approves all connections to its

E-2(CONT.)




Page Subparagraph YLWD Comments sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development. The City and OCSD would ensure that new development does not exceed the capacity of wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities, and that new development pays its fair share to increase capacity of those facilities. The Yorba Linda General Plan includes policies and implementation actions to support projects, programs, policies and regulations to ensuring that development is appropriate in scale to current and planned infrastructure capabilities (Policy PSU‐5.1). The CIP would be used to evaluate and prioritize infrastructure maintenance, replacement, and improvement projects (Action PSU‐5.3). Further, future development projects would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and YLWD regulations, in order to connect to the City’s sewer system, including payment of a sewer maintenance fee in order to construct new sewer infrastructure and/or incremental expansions to the existing sewerage system to accommodate individual development, which would mitigate the impact of the development on the sewerage system. Based on the preceding, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.

wastewater system. New development projects are evaluated to determine the adequacy of the wastewater system that serves the development. If infrastructure improvements are required, then these improvements will become the responsibility of the development. The Yorba Linda Water District’s wastewater discharges into the Orange County Sanitization District (OCSD)’s trunk sewers and is conveyed to OCSD’s Reclamation Plants for treatment. OCSD is responsible for determining if there is adequate capacity in their conveyance and treatment system.” “Based on the preceding, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant. Any water and/or wastewater infrastructure improvements would become the responsibility of the development.”

5-31, 5-32

5.4.9 Utilities and Service System

Threshold b: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and

reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

Delete paragraphs in their entirety. Note that the Urban Water Management Plan was updated in 2020.

Replace with:

“The Yorba Linda Water District meets its water demands with a combination of imported water and

E-2(CONT.)




Page Subparagraph YLWD Comments The City of Yorba Linda General Plan EIR concluded that residential population growth and associated increase in water demand are included within the YLWD UWMP growth projections while non‐residential water demand may exceed that planned for in the final draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). However, YLWD has indicated it can meet demands in multiple dry years from 2020 through 2040 and the General Plan Update includes goals and policies that would ensure adequate water supply is available for proposed development projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant (City of Yorba Linda, 2016b).

As presented in Section 7.3, Water Service Reliability Assessment, of the YLWD UWMP, the district has forecasted water availability for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. As shown therein, even with a conservative demand increase of 6% each year for five consecutive years, the District is capable of meeting all customers’ demands from 2025 through 2045, with significant reserves held by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) and water use efficiency measures. However, the District can purchase more MET water through MWDOC, should the need arise.

UWMPs are important source documents for cities and counties as they update their general plans. Similarly, general plans are source documents for water suppliers updating the UWMPs. The accuracy and usefulness of these planning documents are interdependent. If a project was included as part of the projected water demand of the current UWMP, the water demand for the proposed development does not need to be separately analyzed as long as water demand for the project has remained

local groundwater, and works together with two primary agencies, MWDOC and OCWD to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The Yorba Linda Water District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency.

As presented in Section 7.3, Water Service Reliability Assessment, of the YLWD 2020 UWMP, YLWD has forecasted water demand and supply for a normal year, single dry year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. As shown therein, even with a conservative demand increase of 6% each year for five consecutive years, YLWD is capable of meeting all customers’ demands from 2025 through 2045, with significant reserves held by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) and water use efficiency measures.

Based on YLWD’s 2020 UWMP, it is anticipated that there will be adequate water supply available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.”

E-2(CONT.)




Page Subparagraph YLWD Comments substantially the same. The City’s UWMP was prepared in 2020, and its service population was based on growth forecasts. Therefore, YLWD would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. As growth is evaluated and accounted for in its General Plan, SCAG forecasts are updated and these numbers will be reflected in the City’s 2024 UWMP.

5.4.9 Utilities and Service System

Threshold c: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

As indicated under Threshold a), above, the wastewater generated by buildout of the Project would not exceed the capacity of the YLWD or OCSD. Impacts would be less than significant.

Delete paragraph. Note that the question is about treatment, which is provided by OCSD.

City to confirm the following with OCSD:

“The OCSD has sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to existing commitments.”

E-2(CONT.)



Responses to Comment E

Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD), Rosanne P. Weston, PE, PMP, Engineering Manager, dated July 14, 2022

E-1 This comment consists of introductory remarks. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses. The City appreciates YLWD’s detailed review of the Draft PEIR.

E-2 The commenter provides a table for revisions to be included in the Draft PEIR. Pursuant to YLWD’s request, various sections and pages of the Draft PEIR have been revised accordingly as shown in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR. Thus, no further response is required.



Comment Letter F

STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM., Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDISTRICT 12 1750 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 100SANTA ANA, CA 92705 PHONE (657) 328-6000 FAX (657) 328-6522 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district12

Making Conservation a California Way of Life.

July 15, 2022 Mr. Nate Farnsworth Senior Planner City of Yorba Linda 4845 Casa Loma Avenue Yorba Linda, CA 92886

File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2022040574

12-ORA-2022-01991

Dear Mr. Farnsworth,

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs Project. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.

ousing needs for all income groups. On March 4, 2021, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Council adopted the final Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA), resulting in providing 2,415 housing units for the City of Yorba Linda. The project encompasses the entire City of Yorba Linda and regional access to the project area is provided by State Route (SR) 90, SR 142, and SR 91. Caltrans is a responsible agency for this project and upon review, we have the following comments: Transportation Planning

1. Caltrans recognizes our responsibility to assist communities of color and under-served communities by removing barriers to provide a more equitable transportation system for all. The Department firmly embraces racial equity, inclusion, and diversity. These values are foundational to achieving our vision of a cleaner, safer, and more accessible and more connected transportation system. Please consider including a discussion on equity.

2. The project is to revise the General Plan land use and increase housing units at 27 sites. Due to its residential purposes, it may increase traffic congestion and number of SOV trips in the surrounding area. As part of the development plan, please consider including a discussion on improving multimodal transportation (i.e., freight, walking, biking, and transit)

F-1

F-2



City of Yorba LindaJuly 15, 2022 Page 2

options to address safety issues as part of the project development. The discussion should incorporate opportunities to support sustainable and multimodal transportation options. The improved multimodal connections to the project site can encourage residents/users to utilize alternative transportation options, thus reducing GHG emissions, congestion, and VMT.

3. Caltrans supports the inclusion of Complete Streets and trail network facilitating programs such as requiring the installation of bicycle racks within projects as conditions of development to promote alternative modes of transportation.

4. Please consider the rise of micro-mobility (such as e-bikes and e-scooters) which may require larger storage areas and charging infrastructure. Please also consider how these new modes can share the existing trail network and/or streets to connect new housing to jobs, community-serving destinations, and/or transit.

5. In the Traffic Analysis report, please consider including a scale bar in the maps and figures for better visualization.

6. Caltrans supports ty sites for

affordable housing. The state mandates that cities must plan for housing needs of future residents of all incomes. This analysis would assist in accommodating the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation per the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD).

Traffic Operations

7. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) needs to address the impact of the additional residential units in the City of Yorba Linda on the adjacent freeway systems specifically on SR 91. The additional residential units will increase traffic demand on the adjacent freeway system.

Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to contact Joseph Jamoralin at (657) 328-6276 or [email protected] Sincerely, SCOTT SHELLEY Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12

F-2(CONT.)

F-3

F-4

F-5

F-6

F-7

F-8



Responses to Comment E

California Department of Transportation, Scott Shelley, Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning, dated July 15, 2022

F-1 The commenter recommends that the Draft PEIR include a discussion on equity. It should be noted that the City of Yorba Linda is not within a disadvantaged community. CEQA does not require an analysis of equity. However, the Project will diversify housing near alternative modes of transportation by placing potential housing opportunity sites (S4-075, S3-103, S3-074, S3-205A, and S2-013) near bus routes. Also, this can help improve job access, provide greater mobility options for people who are unable to drive, and allow people to meet many of their daily needs at a lower cost than owning a car.

F-2 The commenter recommends a discussion on improving multimodal transportation (i.e., freight, walking, biking, and transit) options to address safety issues as part of the development plan. Please note that no site-specific development or construction is being proposed at this time. However, the City is in the process of developing an Active Transportation Plan (ATP), which will provide an evaluation of pedestrian, equestrian, and school safety and will encourage the use of multimodal facilities. As discussed in Section 4.9, Transportation, of the Draft PEIR, the Project would result in less than significant VMT impacts. Further, the City is currently served by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within Orange County. Transit service is reviewed and updated by OCTA periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs.

F-3 The commenter states that it supports the inclusion of Complete Streets and trail network facilitating programs such as requiring the installation of bicycle racks within projects as conditions of development to promote alternative modes of transportation. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.

F-4 The commenter requests the City to consider the rise of micro-mobility (such as e-bikes and e-scooters) which may require larger storage areas and charging infrastructure and how these new modes can share the existing trail network and/or streets to connect new housing to jobs, community-serving destinations, and/or transit. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.

F-5 The commenter requests a scale bar in the maps and figures for better visualization, in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Comment noted. This change was not made, because the exhibits are currently not to scale in order to make them legible.

F-6 The commenter supports the City’s evaluation of the potential opportunity sites for affordable housing. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.

F-7 The commenter states that the TIA needs to address the impact of the additional residential units in the City of Yorba Linda on the adjacent freeway systems specifically on SR-91. Please



refer to the TIA as updated in Attachment I of this Final PEIR. Please note that the Project study area did include an analysis of State facilities, including the following:

• Intersection #1 – Rose Drive & Imperial Highway • Intersection #2 – Prospect Avenue & Imperial Highway • Intersection #3 – Imperial Highway & Bastanchury Road • Intersection #4 – Imperial Highway & Lemon Drive • Intersection #5 – Imperial Highway & Yorba Linda Boulevard • Intersection #7 – Imperial Highway EB Ramps & Kellogg Drive • Intersection #8 – Imperial Highway NB Ramps & Kellogg Drive • Intersection #17 – Yorba Linda Boulevard & SR-91 WB Ramps • Intersection #18 – Yorba Linda Boulevard & SR-91 EB Ramps

F-8 This comment provides conclusionary remarks and acknowledges Joseph Jamoralin as the

contact person for California Department of Transportation. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 1

From: Natalie White <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 9:59 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Ohio and Buena Vista new development

Hi Nate,>> I am writing you as an extremely concerned parent and neighbor of the potential development off Ohio St. and Buena Vista.> My children (ages 7, 5, 2) attend Linda Vista Elementary.> Upon moving to Yorba Linda about a year ago we heard nothing but amazing things of this school and howquaint, safe and amazing the staff are.> It really is all of those things, it is so nicely tucked into the cul-de-sac it makes us parents feel that much safer formany reasons. The pick up and drop off line, twice a day is moving directly in front of that property. The trafficwould be a constant issue 9 months out of the year. Not to mention the crosswalk also parallels the property. Twicea day us a parents and almost every single child uses that crosswalk. With constant traffic it would be a veryconcerning safety issue.> It’s not just the safety of the children in this neighborhood, many residents walk / run with their animals dogs andhorses.>> I know the city is mandated to build these developments, we are begging to find another plot where these units can be built.>> Sending our children off to school is worrisome enough these days, I can’t put them in this situation where anadditional 100+ people are now mere feet from the entrance. With all the added traffic, pollution and noise willgreatly impact their schooling and the surrounding neighbors.> We will be forced to move our children to a different school if this gets developed.> It breaks my heart for all these families being affected by this potential development.> Please, please consider another area that is better suited for such a large amount of units / people. Especiallywhere a school will not be compromised.>> Kind regards,> Natalie Loughran

1-1

1-2



Responses to Comment 1

Natalie Loughran, dated May 31, 2022

1-1 The commenter raises concerns related to pedestrian safety on housing opportunity sites S4-060 and S4-201 located on South Ohio Street. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

1-2 The commenter expresses opposition to future development off Ohio Street and Buena Vista (housing opportunity sites S4-060 and S4-201). The commenter raises general concerns related to traffic, pollution, and noise and the impacts to nearby schools and surrounding neighbors from allowing additional development.

The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion and safety. Also please note that air quality, noise, and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1, 4.6, and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 2

From: Paulina Rodriguez <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 4:10 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Notice of Availability of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Hearings Concerning Various Zoning and General Plan Modifications Related to the 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs

Thanks. I saw the tweet. No notice in my mailbox today though.

Why is there no comments from OCFA, OC Sherrifs and Chino Hills State Park? I thought your consultant said all agencies would be contacted.

Regards,Paulina

On Jun 1, 2022, at 4:03 PM, Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]> wrote:

We wanted to inform you that the City has released a Notice of Availability of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and Notice of Public Hearings Concerning Various Zoning and General Plan Modifications Related to the 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs (see attached). A copy of the draft PEIR is available on the City’s websiteat https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/Environmental-Documents. We invite you to review the draft PEIR and provide your comments by sending them to me or you can email them [email protected]. Furthermore, you are invited to attend a public hearing conducted by the City’s Planning Commission on June 29, 2022 and July 27, 2022. For the latest updates on the Housing Element, we would invite you to subscribe to the City’s social media channels as well as checking back regularly on the City’s Housing Element website at https://www.ylhousingelementupdate.com/.

Sincerely,

NATE FARNSWORTHPlanning Manager4845 Casa Loma Avenue | Yorba Linda, CA 92886P: 714-961-7131 W: yorbalindaca.gov

2-1




Paulina Rodriguez, dated June 1, 2022

2-1 The commenter inquiries why the Draft PEIR did not include comments from Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD), and Chino Hills State Park. Responses from OCSD were included in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR and in Technical Appendix F.

Chino Hills State Park (CHSP) under the California Department of Parks and Recreation, did not provide a comment letter on the Notice of Preparation. However, CHSP provided a comment letter on the Draft PEIR; its comment letter and response are included in this Final PEIR above under Comment Letter A.

OCFA were contacted during the preparation of the Draft PEIR. Responses from OCFA have been provided in Attachment H to this Final PEIR.



Comment Letter 3

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 3:43 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: DEIR CommentsImportance: High

I object to the possibility of additional multi-unit housing located at the Messiah Lutheran site (S2-013), Eureka Drive site (S3-082), Richfield sites (S3-207), (S3-12), (S3-074), (S3-205A), and (S3103). Additional multi-unit dwellings at these locations will negatively impact already stressed traffic areas, not to mention air pollution and elimination of natural wildlife. Please do not allow these proposed buildings to happen in our lovely community.

Sincerely,Christopher Telarico

3-1




Christopher Telarico, dated June 2, 2022

3-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to allowing additional housing at several housing opportunity sites (S2-013, S3-082, S3-207, S3-012, S3-074, S3-205A, and S3-103) due to the negative impact related to traffic congestion, air pollution and elimination of natural wildlife. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 4

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 12:34:51 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Public Notice re: DPEIR received June 2, 2022

What is the difference between: RU - Residential UrbanRE - Residential EstateRS - Residential Surburban

What does CLO stand for?

What does du/ac mean?

Proposed zoning actions: does this mean ALL religious land will be changed to some type of residential zoning with the owners required to build residences on them?

What is being proposed for sites S5-008 and S3-203? Are those housing developments? If so, if these are apartments, condominiums and townhouses what is the minimum number of parking spaces assigned to each unit? I am not including garages as most people do not park their cars in them and use them for storage.

Lastly, why is there no proposed new fire station? Yorba Linda only has 2 stations.

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Dorothy Okutsu3795 Black Pine Circle 92886

4-1

4-2

4-3




Dorothy Okutsu, dated June 2, 2022

4-1 The commenter inquires about the differences among RU-Residential Urban, RE- Residential Estate, and RS-Residential Suburban, the meaning for CLO and du/ac, and whether all religious land will be changed to some form of residential zoning with the owners required to build residences on them. The main differences among RU-Residential Urban, RE- Residential Estate, and RS-Residential Suburban are that RU zone is intended as an area for urban residential development on minimum lot sizes of 7,500 square feet and maximum densities of 4 units per acre while RE zone is intended as an area for residential estates with minimum lot sizes of 15,000 square feet and maximum densities of 1.8 units per acre and RS zone is intended as an area for suburban residential development on minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet and maximum densities of 3 units per acre.

As stated in Acronyms and Abbreviations of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page xi), CLO stands for Congregational Land Overlay. Du/ac stands for dwelling units per acre.

The following footnotes have been added to Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning, for clarification purposes and in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR. (Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined).

RE-Residential Estate; RU-Residential Urban; CG-Commercial General; PD-Planned Development; RS-Residential Suburban; RA-Residential Agriculture; C-G-(I)-Commercial General; RML- Residential Medium Low; RH- Residential High; AP-Area Plan; IM-Industrial Manufacturing; RMH-Residential Medium High; C-Commercial; RM-Residential Medium; OS-Open Space.

As for the inquiry about the change of religious uses to residential, only those religious uses identified in the housing element will be rezoned (see Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning, and Figure 3-3, Housing Opportunity Sites); the Project does not require property owners to develop housing onsite due to the zone change.

4-2 The commenter asks what type of housing is being proposed for housing opportunity sites S5-008 and S3-203 and the minimum of parking spaces required in these sites.

No site-specific development is being proposed at this time. The Project would rezone housing opportunity sites S5-008 and S3-203 to Yorba Linda Hills Planned Development with R-M standards of a maximum density of 10 units per acre. Under the R-M standards, the minimum number of parking spaces for a single family is 2 covered spaces per dwelling unit + 1 covered or uncovered guest space. For multi-family residences, the parking standards require 2 covered + 1 covered or uncovered for studio to 2 bedrooms units and 2 covered + 1.5 covered or uncovered 3 or more bedrooms units. Examples of R-M development within the City include Anderson Grove on Lakeview Avenue and the Covington on Yorba Linda Road.

4-3 The commenter asks why there are no proposed new fire stations within the City. As discussed in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.7-13 to 4.7-14), considering the existing firefighting resources available in the City, implementation of the Project is not



expected to result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impact. However, also refer to Attachment H of this PEIR for OCFA’s responses to the Project.



Comment Letter 5

5-1



Anonymous

5-2

5-1(CONT.)

5-3




Anonymous, dated June 2, 2022

5-1 The commenter expresses main concern with safety, describes the existing traffic conditions within the City, increased congestion due to cut-thru traffic avoiding the SR-57, -91 and -55 Freeways, and pedestrian safety. The commenter also expresses concern with emergency vehicles not being able to travel efficiently and safely throughout the City. The commenter describes how existing conditions have changed overtime and does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

5-2 The commenter states that more housing will create additional traffic and accidents. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

5-3 The commenter suggests a bypass route plan to lessen existing traffic concerns in the City. This comment does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

.



Comment Letter 6

From: Kirt Fetterling <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 4:28 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: City's Housing Element Implementation (Safety Concerns)

Mr. Nate Farnsworth,

I’m very concerned with the current proposal to meet the state mandate of affordable housing /high density housing here in the East Yorba Linda Hills area. Here are my concerns based upon my 35 years as a resident living just below and presently just above the Bryant Ranch School.

Two fold rational listed below.

1. Health concerns when people are tightly grouped in areas.2. Land of Gracious living goes out the door!

OneCovid-19 has proven to us (through poorly managed government mandates) to be a health concern and continued problem and directly related to people packed in high density. We are told to keep a safe space between us and others. Where a mask when going out so as not to spread infection or receive it from others. Worse we are now hearing that wearing of the masks seems to have caused some child related deaths due to a strand of Hepatitis quite possibly. Higher density city’s were ravaged by Covid-19 and now variants. Hospitals were overloaded. Does the Government want us to stay at a safe distance as a rule, or just when it fits their need to control. Now we are told to pack ourselves in tight places and not maintain distance from others. Which is it????

I also had the misfortune of being told to evacuate from my house by the Sherriff’s Dept during the last wildfire that ravaged Yorba Linda hills. The fire had passed my house but I was told to get onto the street and leave the area. I was stuck on La Palma and could not move, and the fire was now on both sides of me. The road had to be cut in half so Emergency Vehicles could have priority. We have more housing now, and no additional roads for us to exit here in East Yorba Linda hills. Gypsum Bridge is not an option because it leads to the Freeway or a one lane road (Santa Ana Cyn) in Anaheim Hills. Both are always packed with commuters. La Palma Ave, as I have stated, is not wide enough to allow exit of existing homes based on how it was managed by emergency service personnel. I would not expect it to change unless more lanes are built.

Also, we just purchased our new home up the hill and our realtor asked us who we used to insure our home against fire. Seems many carriers are no longer offering to insure homes here. There is only one that we know of that is still currently writing. Clear signal if you can’t afford it don’t buy up here. Why would we want to suggest "affordable” when it is not. It’s not affordable to live in the fire areas of Yorba Linda. Pleasant Valley near San Francisco ring a bell? You want an out for this side of Yorba Linda.. Cite what happened in Pleasant Valley and the death and destruction to lives and fortune there!

6-1

6-2

6-3



TwoSafety concerns of more people in possible contact with our school children who are seen currently walking home. Yes lines of cars picking up children, but many children are also walking home. High income directly living with lower income is a potential problem with safety. It’s a temptation of by proximity. Certainly you can review Sherriff reports of people who appear to be canvasing the area. Some people in the area, are out of place and it is not a safe situation for our children or the home owners who are complaining of break in’s in daylight as well as night. I’m not saying affordable housing is the cause, but it is certainly more people being confined to the same circumstance and therefore more likelihood of things getting worse for all affected.

We came to Yorba Linda because we wanted space. We love our neighbors, but desire distance. The beauty of Yorba Linda is the gracious space around us, and therefore the style of living we currently enjoy and are willing to continue paying for via property taxes.

One other option for additional housing is all this beautiful land that runs along the Windy Ridge Toll Road. If we develop there, I am willing to move and let someone purchase my house.. No need to cram us all in! We desire beautiful homes and spacious yards. Land value and property should be valued and we are willing to pay for the privilege of living in such a beautiful area as it exists today. If things change, so will the property values for the worse! Yorba Linda’s motto is “The Land of Gracious Living”, or is that now something of the past.. More spacious living nearby is much more desirable than packing us all into tight spaces.Please be ready at the meeting for concerns of public safety. Explain how much money we will need to spend to improve roads for “Fire Safety” with our current population, and with the higher density that is being proposed. This is a FIRE AREA! Why would you force affordable (High Density Housing) in a proven high hazard fire area which is also in a windy area making fire management even more complex and dangerous? I think the local news will have a field day when we all meet for the next meeting!

Kirt Fetterling (Home Owner)

6-4

6-5

6-6




Kirt Fetterling, dated June 2, 2022

6-1 The commenter expresses concern with COVID-19 mandates and the spread of infection. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

6-2 The commenter recounts a past fire excavation that occurred during the last wildfire in the City and describes that La Palma Avenue was not wide enough for both emergency vehicles to travel and residents to excavate concurrently. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required.

6-3 The commenter expresses that many carriers no longer provide fire insurance to homes in the area and raises concern on the affordability of housing in the area. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

6-4 The commenter expresses concern that affordable housing will bring additional cars and people near schools, which could create a safety issue (e.g. crime) to school children. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

6-5 The commenter suggests that the City should place potential housing in the area that runs along the Windy Ridge Toll Road and is in opposition to increased density in the City. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

6-6 The commenter raises questions about the cost of improving roadways and the concern on high density housing in a high hazard fire area. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 7

From: Susie Villaran <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 10:24 AMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject:

I am writing about Measure B / Grandview and Kellogg ( the strawberry field ) and the site on Ohio,reference the "PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT"

This re-zoning effort is a huge concern to me and my neighborhood. The added traffic, congestion,household/over crowding, noise, increase in costs of utilities, are just some of the concerns. Building highdensity housing near a school is also very concerning due to the potential crime increase and activity.Please do not allow this to be built in our neighborhood.

Susie Villaran

7-1




Susie Villaran, dated June 2, 2022

7-1 The commenter expresses concern with housing opportunity sites S4-060, S4-201, and S4-053 in regards traffic, overcrowding, noise, increase cost of utilities, increase in crime due to additionally housing near school. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, concerns on traffic congestion. Also please note that noise, police protection services, transportation, and utilities and service systems impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.6, 4.7, 4.9, and 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 8

From: Andrew Jilk <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 3:55 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Draft PEIR Opposing S3-207

Hi Nate Farnsworth,

I am writing about the rezoning of S3-207. I am completely against this. 340 units isunbelievable. All of the surrounding properties have a maximum of 3 units an acre. Iunderstand the need for more housing but it should meet the surrounding zoning requirements.The property is almost 10 acres and I would support 30 new homes being built on it. Let meknow if there is anything I can do to help keep this high density project from happening.

Andrew Jilk

8-1




Andre Jilk, dated June 3, 2022

8-1 The commenter expresses opposition with housing opportunity site S3-207 due to the number of units that would be allowed under the rezoning. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 9

From: Barry Ross <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 5:29 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Draft EIR for Zoning and General Plan Modifications

Dear Mr Farnsworth,

I want to commend the City of Yorba Linda for the creation of 3 overlay zones that have the potential to produce more affordable housing. I also want to commend the City for providing an equitable distribution of sites around the city.I have the following recommendations:

1. Walkable communities are important for health and are desirable by people of all ages.While there are some sites near the Town Center, it would be desirable to either increase the density on these sites or identify additional sites for mixed use development.2. Consider increasing the number of units allowed per acre from 35 units to 50-60 units in order to ensure that low income and very low income units are financially viable.3. Survey owners of these sites to confirm which sites are likely to be developed during this planning period.

Thank you for your consideration.

Barry Ross5111 Eureka Ave.Yorba Linda, CA 92886714-336-1571

9-1




Barry Ross, dated June 3, 2022

9-1 The commenter commends the City for the creation of three overlay zones to produce more affordable housing and equitable distribution of housing opportunity sites throughout the City.

The commenter then provides recommendations increase the allowable density for housing site near the Town Center and to ensure low income and very low-income units are financially viable, and survey of site owners to verify which sites were be developed during this planning period. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 10

From: Chris Preszler <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 10:33 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: NOTICE OF PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DPEIR) AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING VARIOUS ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS RELATED TO THE 2021-2029 YORBA LINDA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ...

Nate,

Do you have any documentation that explains the shorthand, initials, or acronyms listed within table-1? To an average citizen that hasn’t encountered this information it is pretty difficult to figure out the current and proposed zoning and current and proposed general plan. Kind of seems like the city has tried to make things confusing so it’s residents won’t question things.

Thank You,

Chris Preszler

10-1




Chriz Prezler, dated June 3, 2022

10-1 The commenter inquiries about the acronyms used in Table 1 in the Notice of Availability (NOA). Table 1 of the NOA is the same as Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning, of the PEIR. For clarification, the following footnotes has been added to Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning, and in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR. (Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined).

RE- Residential Estate; RU-Residential Urban; CG-Commercial General; PD-Planned Development; RS-Residential Suburban; RA- Residential Agriculture; C-G-(I)-Commercial General; RML- Residential Medium Low; RH- Residential High; AP-Area Plan; IM-Industrial Manufacturing; RMH-Residential Medium High; C-Commercial; RM- Residential Medium; OS-Open Space.



Comment Letter 11

From: Craig Bloomquist <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:38 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Question about DPEIR

In the DPEIR, I could not find any information on traffic impact from the increased housingunits. This might include information on increased traffic flows on existing roads andadequacy of signalization and design of impacted intersections , etc. However, on Page 4.0-4of the DPEIR the following is shown: "Noise. Cumulative traffic noise is assessed relative toapplicable City’s noise-level standards, and considers development of the Project inconjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site. The study areais aligned with the traffic study area (see Table 4.0-2)." I could not find any table 4.0-2 in thereport. So my question is was any traffic impact analysis done?

I'm concerned with this for Sites IDs S4-204A and S4-204B on Yorba Linda Blvd near OhioSt.

Regards,Craig Bloomquist

11-1




Craig Bloomquist, dated June 3, 2022

11-1 The commenter expresses concern on traffic for housing opportunity sites S4-204A and S-204B and could not find information on the traffic impact from the increased housing units and Table 4.0-2 in the Draft PEIR. The commenter is correct in stating that there is no Table 4.0-2 in the PEIR. Therefore, the text on Page 4.0-4 in the Draft PEIR has been revised accordingly as shown below and in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR (Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined).

• Noise. Cumulative traffic noise is assessed relative to applicable City’s noise-level standards, and considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site. The study area is aligned with the traffic study area (see Table 1-2 of the TIA, Technical Appendix G of the Draft PEIR) (see Table 4.0-2).

With respect to traffic impacts on existing roadways and the adequacy of signalization of intersections, the results and recommendations are presented in the Draft PEIR’s Traffic Impact Analysis, which was included as Technical Appendix G of the Draft PEIR and also updated and included herein as Attachment I of this Final PEIR. Please note that traffic impacts based on automobile delay are no longer evaluated s a traffic impact in EIRs under California law; please refer to Section 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, of this Final PEIR. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 12

From: Gary Cavicchio <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 2:53 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: S3-207 Zoning Comments

Good Afternoon Mr. Farnsworth,

I appreciate you opening the rezoning to comments and concerns. Whether the community's opinion matters and whether an overall negative sentiment could sway the city to forgo moving forward, it's out of our hands.

Being said, I live roughly 1/2 mile from the proposed "Low income housing" development. Residing near the corner of Richfield and Buena Vista for about 7 years, my family and I enjoy a safe, clean, and warm neighborhood. For this luxury, we and the others in our track pay a huge premium. The cost of living both through home purchasing and in taxes is prohibitively high; and that is what keeps certain elements of society at bay. Although this may not sound inclusive, it's demonstrably true.

Consider parts of Orange County that are "affordable": Anaheim, Santa Ana, Buena Park, etc., there are obvious reasons we live here and not there: crime, trash, graffiti, excessive homeless encampments, drugs, and human feces on sidewalks.

All this to be said, there is a direct correlation between the cost of living, the clientele living in that area, and the quality of life for the residents. If "affordable housing" is allowed to spring up, the essence, prestige, desirability, safety, and overall quality of life for those who work very hard to maintain a reasonable lifestyle will be negatively impacted.

My final position is and always has been: living in a certain area is not a right. It is a privilege born out of smart decisions, hard work, sacrifice, and most importantly, a grasp on the realities of a free and fair market. If we could afford to live in Martha's Vineyard, or the Hamptons, we would. No one is beating the drum of fair and equitable housing there and nor should they.th

I implore you to reconsider contaminating Yorba Linda with affordable housing and the seedy company which it will undoubtedly attract.

Respectfully,Gary C

12-1




Gary Cavicchio, dated June 3, 2022

12-1 The commenter discusses the cost of living in the area, quality of life and how it will be impacted due to adding affordable housing to the area. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 13

From: Susan Mendez <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 3:57 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: DPEIR


My husband and I have lived in west Yorba Linda since 1973 in our first and only home.Yorba Linda was to be a low density community. We have watched this city grow at a rapidrate, seen so much housing development which has brought in more people, cars, and noise.

We oppose implementing programs that will change the zoning and General Plandesignation on the 27 properties listed. We live in close proximity to Yorba LindaPreschool, 4791 and 4811 Eureka Ave., the Islamic Center of Yorba Linda which has alreadyhad a negative impact in our neighborhood with traffic, noise, their cars parking in ourresidential streets which aren't even on Eureka Ave), and the Shinnyo-En USA. There isn'troom to bring in more buildings that will accommodate more people and the vehicles thatcome with.

Sincerely,

John and Susan MendezYorba Linda residents

13-1




John and Susan Mendez, dated June 3, 2022

13-1 The commenters express general opposition to the Project due to the existing traffic and noise issues in their neighborhood. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. Also please note that transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 14

From: Tom Cheng <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 6:21 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Yorba Linda Housing Plan Implementation (DEIR)

As a resident of Yorba Linda I am opposed to the re-zoning and potential housingdevelopment on the following sites:

Site ID S3-207 5300-5392 Richfield RdSite ID S3-012 Richfield Community Church

Tom Cheng5825 Casson Dr.Yorba Linda, CA. 92886

14-1




Tom Cheng, dated June 3, 2022

14-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the Project, specifically housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 15

From: Connie Bryant <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2022 5:00 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Fwd: Dense Housing

Hello Mr. Farnsworth:I am writing about the proposals for all the dense housing pushed onto Yorba Linda (and other cities)from the State. We believe in housing growth but this is ridiculous.

Besides contacting our governor, senators, representatives is there anything else we can do to stopthe tremendous amount of dense housing proposed. This as you know will cause more traffic,possible crime, congestion everywhere. We will lose our small town feel if all these dense housingproposals are completed.

Thank youConnie Bryant

15-1




Connie Bryant, dated June 4, 2022

15-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and asks what actions that can be taken to stop high density housing in the City and other cities within California. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 16

From: Kirt Fetterling <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2022 6:47 PMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: [Ylheu] Website Public Comments - new submission

Kirt Fetterling just submitted your form: Website Public Commentson Ylheu

Message Details:First Name: KirtLast Name: FetterlingEmail: [email protected]: I want to thank you for giving me additional links that showthe work you have done in attempt to get more realistic numbers for theYorba Linda housing needs and projection. One huge thing that seemsto be glossed over is we are estimated to have currently 10 millionillegal aliens here in California. Governor Newsome is not helping withenforcement but is promoting and encouraging them to come toCalifornia. Are they counting people who should be deported asresidents. Seems to me we should re-calculate the estimates to what isLEGAL. The average is three persons per household, less 10 millionnon citizens, or 333,000 house reduction. They cannot have it bothways. Illegal labor should be removed. Work visas at least get peopleout of the shadows so there is no shame in working. Illegal labor is acrime and should be reported. It drives down wages and feeds into thisneed for low income housing. The fact as they are presented are falseand we need another day in court to stall and then kill this mandate.Please let me know if what I have suggest here has been addressed.Things are about to get a whole lot worse if Title 42 is removed. We aretalking housing for Citizen’s right?

16-1




Kirt Fetterling, dated June 4, 2022

16-1 The commenter expressed general opposition to the Project and expresses opinions on illegal labor driving the need for affordable housing within the State. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 17

From: Gena <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2022 2:50 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Comments on the DEIR

June 4, 2022Mr. Nate Farnsworth, Planning Manager

Regarding the sites S4-053,S4-060, S4-201 and the proposed increase in these sites.

There are 37 existing houses that are located adjacent to Buena Vista Ave. from the Imperial Overpass to Buena Vista Ave. and Grandview Ave to Kellogg. The proposed increase represents over 100% on less property.

Due to the Church of Latter Day Saints, Linda Vista Elementary, and the equestrian center, there is already a very heavy traffic load. Add to that a high volume of drive through traffic on these streets, the air quality is unhealthy as it is. The noise level from several hundred cars a day is also intrusive and disturbing. This will add to greenhouse gases that are already at unacceptable levels.

It doesn’t make sense to increase public services of water and electricity at a time when both are in short supply. So the question I have is, are any of these projects going to be required to have solar or to somehow off set the additional water use?

My last big concern is, does the City or State care about the negative effect all of this development will have on my property values and quality of life due to the negative results of these actions?

Therefore, I strongly feel these sites should be removed from the list!

Sincerely,Steven Davey18682 Buena Vista Ave.Yorba Linda, CA

17-1




Steven Davey, dated June 4, 2022

17-1 The commenter expresses concern related to housing opportunity sites S4-053, S4-060, and S4-201 and impacts traffic, air quality, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, and the supply of water and electricity. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion, and Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply, for a discussion related to the availability of water for the Project. Also please note that air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.6, 4.9 and 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 18

From: chris ioan <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 6:21 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: S7-001

As a Resident just east of S7-001, I don't agree with rezoning the area.

Already under the current zoning there is a lot of traffic that is caused daily by people from RiversideCounty using La Palma as a detour to avoid the 91 freeway. Already the community at theintersection of Gypsum Canyon and La Palma (along with those east of the intersection) have hadtheir only exit blocked by commuters outside of the Orange County area. Despite additional policepresence it does not deter Riverside commuters in blocking the only exit for the community alongwith breaking traffic laws in place.

Addition of homes or apartments would degrade the air quality of residents especially sinceRiverside County has more relaxed air quality standards for automobiles than Orange County.

The additional traffic would also cause a health and safety issue incase of wildfires which have beenshown to be all year long in California.

The City would like to use the area to generate more revenue could add a supermarket (like that ofthe Albertsons in the past) along with small business.

Many in the area would go for convenience and savings on gasoline.It would also discourage theneed to go to Anaheim Hills due to the close proximity of the location.

Thank you for your time. Chris

18-1

18-2

18-3




Chris Loan, dated June 5, 2022

18-1 The commenter describes the existing traffic conditions due to cut-thru traffic using La Palma Avenue as a detour to avoid the SR-91 Freeway and the blockage experienced at the intersection of Gypsum Canyon and La Palma Avenue. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

18-2 The commenter raises concern related to the impacts of air quality and traffic during wildfires due to the additional housing. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion on fire evacuation. Also please note that air quality impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.1 of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

18-3 The commenter suggests the addition of a supermarket to the area instead of additional residential uses. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 19

From: Daniel Chao <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 6:04 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Clarification of residential zoning process

Could you help me understand how the city made these determinations? For example, ExtendedStay America has the potential for 143 residential units. Meaning it has room to add that manyunits? Or Extended Stay America would be replaced with 143 residential units? What is the formulaused to decide this? What factors are taken into account? Where is the plan for managing increasedtraffic? Please let me know, and thank you very much for your time.

19-1




Daniel Cho, dated June 5, 2022

19-1 The commenter asks how the City made the determination for the proposed density. Specifically, the example provided by the commenter, housing opportunity site S6-020 has a total net potential of 143 dwelling units. In response to the commenter’s inquiry on whether this means the site has room to add 143 units or the site will be replaced with 143 units, the rezoning from PD/Office-Commercial to RM-20 with AHO for the site would allow for the potential development of up to 143 dwelling units. Future housing development would be subject to discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow or at the discretion of the individual property owners.

As for how the proposed density is determined, please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection, of this Final PEIR.

The commenter also about the detailed plan for managing increased traffic. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion related to traffic congestion.



Comment Letter 20

From: J.B. Cheng <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 4:33 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Yorba Linda Housing Plan Implementation (DEIR)

Hello,I received a notification letter of planned high density housing units. I’m unable to attend hearing. Inlieu, I’m writing to cast my vote that I’m opposed to certain areas:(1) Site ID S3-207 5300-5392 Richfield Rd(2) Site ID S3-012 Richfield Community Church

Thank you,Jenny Cheng Yorba Linda Resident

20-1




Jenny Cheng, dated June 5, 2022

20-1 The commenter expresses opposition to housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 21

From: Linda Sandoval <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 5:35 PMTo: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez<[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Beth Haney<[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Susan Lamp<[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Mark Pulone<[email protected]>; Dave Christian <[email protected]>; Marcia Brown<[email protected]>; David Brantley <[email protected]>; Karalee Darnell<[email protected]>; Robert Pease <[email protected]>; Don Bernstein<[email protected]>; Michael Masterson <[email protected]>; ShivinderjitSingh <[email protected]>Subject: High Density Housing

Dear Yorba Linda Officials,

It is absurd to consider the properties on Ohio Street across from the LDS ward and Linda Vista school as an appropriate place to build this type of housing. Children are coming and going to school, people are riding their horses to and from the equestrian center, and many residents exercise/walk daily in this area. Housing such as what is being considered would ruin the neighborhood, not to mention the DANGER it would bring with the excess traffic that would be added.

Yorba Linda is a lovely, peaceful bird sanctuary city with a reputation for safe neighborhoods. This proposal threatens to damage this area, in particular, and many of the others identified.

We are much more creative than this, and I'm sure alternatives can be developed.The Grandview sites are a bit more reasonable of an idea because traffic would have access to a busy Kellogg and the 90 intersection.

Thank you for taking the time to reimagine alternatives.

Sincerely,Richard & Linda Sandoval5802 S. Ohio Street

21-1

21-2

21-3




Richard and Linda Sandoval, dated June 5, 2022

21-1 The commenter raises concern regarding placing housing (housing opportunity sites S4-060 and S4-201) near the Linda Vista Elementary School due to pedestrian and equestrian safety. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. No further response is required.

21-2 The commenter describes the City’s reputation and how this proposal will damage the area. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

21-3 The commenter suggests that the city should consider alternative locations and provides an opinion on the housing opportunity site S4-053. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 22

From: ROBERT HANSOHN <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 8:32 AM To: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]> Subject:Draft program DPEIR

NateA couple of comments re the dpeir.

1. It appears that this report was mandated by the state for all cities in California. What is the likelihood of this buildout actually occurring?

2. On map 2-SW Quadrant S3-103 is not reflected on the various table sheets provided with the document. At least on the material that was provided to me.

3. I am pretty sure most Yorba Lindans would object to these buildout recommendations.Density is a major concern today. Is there any flexibility in the recommended buildouts?

Thanks

Bob HansohnYorba Linda

22-1

22-2

22-3




Robert Hansohn, dated June 6, 2022

22-1 The commenter asks about the likelihood of buildout for the Project. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 3-6 to 3-7), future housing development facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow or at the discretion of the individual property owners. While the City of Yorba Linda is required to plan for the additional residential capacity and the EIR is required to analyze the worst-case conditions (i.e., buildout), the City is not required to construct the dwelling units.

22-2 The commenter is correct in noting that S3-103 is not reflected on the table provided with the Notice of Availability. Site ID S3-024 has been modified to S3-103 in Table 1 of the NOA. Table 1 is the same as Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning, of the PEIR. Therefore, Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning, has been modified accordingly as shown in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR.

22-3 The commenter asks about the flexibility of recommended buildouts. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 23

From: Maya Kusnadi <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 2:10 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: S3-207 Zoning Petition

Good Afternoon Mr. Farnsworth,

I appreciate you opening the rezoning to comments and concerns. Whether the community's opinion matters and whether an overall negative sentiment could sway the city to forgo moving forward, it's out of our hands.

Being said, I live roughly 1/2 mile from the proposed "Low income housing" development. Residing near the corner of Richfield and Buena Vista for about 7 years, my family and I enjoy a safe, clean, and warm neighborhood. For this luxury, we and the others in our track pay a huge premium. The cost of living both through home purchasing and in taxes is prohibitively high; and that is what keeps certain elements of society at bay. Although this may not sound inclusive, it's demonstrably true. Consider parts of Orange County that are "affordable": Anaheim, Santa Ana, Buena Park, etc., there are obvious reasons we live here and not there: crime, trash, graffiti, excessive homeless encampments, drugs, and human feces on sidewalks.All this to be said, there is a direct correlation between the cost of living, the clientele living in that area, and the quality of life for the residents. If "affordable housing" is allowed to spring up, the essence, prestige, desirability, safety, and overall quality of life for those who work very hard to maintain a reasonable lifestyle will be negatively impacted.

My final position is and always has been: living in a certain area is not a right. It is a privilege born out of smart decisions, hard work, sacrifice, and most importantly, a grasp on the realities of a free and fair market. If we could afford to live in Martha's Vineyard, or the Hamptons, we would. No one is beating the drum of fair and equitable housing there and nor should they.

I implore you to reconsider contaminating Yorba Linda with affordable housing and the seedy company which it will undoubtedly attract.

Sincerely,Maya Cavicchio

23-1




Maya Cavicchio, dated June 6, 2022

23-1 The commenter discusses the cost of living in the area, quality of life and how it will be impacted due to adding affordable housing to the area. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 24

24-1




Randy and Gina Dryden, dated June 6, 2022

24-1 The commenters raise concerns related to housing opportunity sites S4-060, S4-201, and S4-053 with respect to traffic and safety along with the accompanying noise and air pollution. Refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on traffic congestion and safety. Also please note that air quality and noise impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1 and 4.6 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 25

From: D NICHOLS <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 1:46 PMTo: David Brantley <[email protected]>; Robert Pease <[email protected]>;Michael Masterson <[email protected]>; Don Bernstein<[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>; Karalee Darnell<[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Mark Pulone<[email protected]>; Dave Christian <[email protected]>; Carlos Rodriguez<[email protected]>Subject: Re-Zone of 348-262-01

Good Afternoon,

Concerns Regarding Grandview and Kellogg site APN; 348-262-01

This serves as a notice to your staff of the concerns with the re-zone of this property.Here are my concerns I want to be made known on the record for the HousingElement and scope meetings regarding this property:

1. Street alignments, grades and widths

2. Drainage and sanitary facilities and utilizes including alignments and gradesthereof3. Have issues with the conformity to or implementation of the general plan to thisarea

4. I fear there is not appropriate infrastructure and utilities either already serve the siteor can be readily expanded to serve the site and there are no unmitigabletopographical peculiarities associated with the physical character of the property5 I have concerns that this project will not constitute a class 15 (Minor land divisioncategorical exemption and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the Californiaenvironmental quality act pursuant to title 14

6. The design must not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large foraccess through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

7. The discharge of waste from the proposed sub-division the existed sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the applicants or developer California regional quality control board.8. I want Street improvements plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer shall be submitted for approval.9. I would like All exterior street improvements to be addressed and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city engineer.

10. Grading of the property shall be in accordance with the grading ordinance and shall be to the satisfaction of the city engineer.11. I fear Any grading required outside of the project boundaries will require either slope easements or right of entry letters from the adjacent property and want the developer pay the costs

25-1

25-2

25-3

25-4

25-5

25-6

25-7

25-8



12. I want Erosion control plans to be done and submitted and made ready for residents.

13. A soil report prepared by a qualified engineer to satisfaction to the residents across the street.

14. I would like to see a Drainage plan and easements

15. I want to see Storm drainage report

16. Water supply should be addressed

17. Sewer should be addressed

18. All new street lights shall be addressed

19. Prior to the issuance of any permits the residents be made aware in writing

20. A fire hydrant plan to be submitted to the OCFA

21. A police entrance, exit plan from the OCSD.

22. OCFA water availability for fire protection form shall be submitted and signed by the applicable water district and for approval.

23. all proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground in accordance with current utility engineering practice.

24. All proposed gas mains and services shall be installed prior to paving.

25. Any approved technical drawings and or specification that will be changed, altered or in any other way affected as a result of the planning commission approval shall be reviewed by resident’s across the street.25. prewiring of all dwelling units with commercial CATV grading of coaxial cable and who will pay for this.

26. Permanent irrigation to be addressed

27. public/private trails to be addressed

28. The flood control channel should be addressed

29. A pedestrian bridge to go over the flood control channel to allow pedestrians to gain access

30. Sidewalk or 10-foot landscape area that could be a sidewalk.

31. To make sure they have authorization for two-thirds of the way north of this property is an easement to the YL county water district. They need to be contacted to see if that easement is in use

25-9

25-10

25-11

25-12

25-13

25-14

25-15

25-16

25-17

25-18

25-19

25-20

25-21

25-22

25-23

25-24

25-25

25-26

25-27

25-28

25-29



32. I would like a geological report done by a qualified engineer.

33. air quality to be addressed due to increased traffic

34. Hazards and hazardous materials be addressed

35. wildlife be addressed; rabbits, owls, eagles, birds in the area.

36. population and housing in the area.

37. imperial on ramp and off ramp to be addressed at all times of the day, all months of the year, not just in the summer.

38. Students walking to school and from school, Linda Vista Elementary and Esperanza high school.

Please refer to YL Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 1999. The City of YorbaLinda Planning Commission had these concerns then and I have these concerns 23years later.

Thank you

Stephanie Nichols

5912 Grandview Ave

Yorba Linda CA 92886

25-30

25-31

25-32

25-33

25-34

25-35

25-36

25-37




Stephanie Nichols, dated June 6, 2022

25-1 The commenter expresses concerns related to housing opportunity site S4-053 (SWC Grandview Avenue/Kellogg Dr, APN 348-262-01) with respect to street alignments, grades, widths, drainage and sanitary facilities, and conformity with the City’s General Plan. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on roadway improvements. As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-24), future development would require the study of localized conditions and construction of additional storm drains based on site-specific conditions and proposed development plans.

As stated in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.5-7 to 4.5-28), the Project would not conflict with any of the applicable General Plan goals and policies and would result in a less than significant impact with respect to a conflict with the City of Yorba Linda General Plan.

25-2 The commenter expresses concerns related to the availability of infrastructure and utilities of housing opportunity site S4-053. Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District (refer to Section 3 of this Final PEIR), impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and there is adequate capacity to accommodate the increase in housing units. No further response is required.

25-3 The commenter expresses concern related to housing opportunity site S4-053 qualifying for a Class 15 CEQA categorical exemption. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15315, Class 15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. Future residential development would not qualify for categorical exemption under Class 15 since the exemption only applies to the division of property and not development of the site for residential uses.

25-4 The commenter expresses the design of the future development must not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Evaluation of title reports and recorded easements would be evaluated at the time that development is proposed. Site-specific details are not available at this time. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-5 The commenter expresses concerns related to waste discharge and violation of existing requirements regarding housing opportunity site S4-053. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-31) and in response to the



revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District (refer to Section 3 of this Final PEIR), the Yorba Linda Water District provides wastewater services within the City of Yorba Linda and reviews and approves all connections to its wastewater system. New development projects are evaluated to determine the adequacy of the wastewater system that serves the development. If infrastructure improvements are required, then these improvements will become the responsibility of the development. The Yorba Linda Water District’s wastewater discharges into the Orange County Sanitization District (OCSD)’s trunk sewers and is conveyed to OCSD’s Reclamation Plants for treatment. OCSD is responsible for determining if there is adequate capacity in their conveyance and treatment system.

25-6 The commenter requests street improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer and approval by the City engineer for roadway improvements on Grandview Avenue and Kellogg Drive for housing opportunity site S4-053. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1,Program Versus Project for a discussion on the analysis of the Draft PEIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15146, the Program EIR does not evaluate site-specific development and the program-level analysis correspond with the degree of specificity that is currently available for the Project. Future land use development projects would also be analyzed in detail through the City’s plan check process and an evaluation of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features will be required as future development occurs. Future improvements will be subject to review and future consideration by the City of Yorba Linda, Public Works Department.

25-7 The commenter states that grading shall be in accordance with the grading ordinance and be satisfaction to the City engineer. The commenter is correct and grading plans will be submitted as part of the City’s plan check process and approval of plans by the City would be required prior to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-8 The commenter expresses concern with grading being required outside of the project boundaries, requiring slope easements or right of entry and wants the developer to pay the costs. Site-specific details are not available at this time. Site plans and grading plans will be submitted to the City and approval of plans by the City would be required prior to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-9 The commenter requests that an erosion control plan be completed, submitted, and available for public review. Site-specific details are not available at this time, however, an erosion control plan will be required to be submitted and approved by the City prior to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-10 The commenter requests a soil report prepared by a qualified engineering to the satisfaction of the nearby residents. Future development built in accordance with the proposed zoning would be required to comply with applicable Building and Safety regulations and the California Building Code. Prior to approval of any development, a geotechnical investigation is required that includes site-specific assessment of onsite soils, potential geologic hazards, and soils



onsite. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-11 The commenter requests drainage plans and easements. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project for a discussion on the analysis of the Draft PEIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15146, the Program EIR does not evaluate site-specific development and the program-level analysis corresponds with the degree of specificity that is currently available for the Project. Site-specific studies would be prepared when future development is proposed. No further response is required.

25-12 The commenter requests a storm drainage report. Site-specific details are not available at this time. Site plan such as drainage study will be submitted to the City and approval of plans by the City would be required prior to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-13 The commenter states that water supply should be addressed f. Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District (refer to Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR), impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and according to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project.

25-14 The commenter states that sewer should be addressed. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-31), individual developments would be reviewed by Orange County Sanitization District (OCSD) in order to verify sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve future site-specific development. No further response is required.

25-15 The commenter states all new street lights shall be addressed. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project for a discussion on the analysis of the Draft PEIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15146, the Program EIR does not evaluate site-specific development and the program-level analysis correspond with the degree of specificity that is currently available for the Project. Site-specific studies would be prepared when future development is proposed. No further response is required.

25-16 The commenter requests residents to be made aware in writing prior to issuance of any permits. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



25-17 The commenter requests submittal of a fire hydrant plan to OCFA for housing opportunity site S4-053. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion on compliance with OCFA. Future development would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinances for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. No further response is required.

25-18 The commenter requests a police entrance, exit plan from OCSD. As discussed in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.7-4), implementation of the Project would not have a significant impact on OCSD services. Future development will be required to pay development impacts fees that will provide its fair share of future police needs. Site-specific studies would be prepared when future development is proposed. No further response is required.

25-19 The commenter requests a water availability for fire protection form regarding housing opportunity site S4-053. Site-specific plans such as will-serve letters and fire flow capacity will be submitted and approved by the City prior to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-20 The commenter requests the installation of underground utilities for housing opportunity site S4-053. Site specific details such as utilities plans are not available at this time. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-21 The commenter requests installation of gas mains and services prior to grading. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-22 The commenter requests that any approved technical drawings and/or specifications that will be changed, altered or in any other way affected as a result of the planning commission approval be reviewed by residents across the street from housing opportunity site S4-053. The City will follow its public notification policies per the Municipal Code, City Council policy, and State law.

This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-23 The commenter requests prewiring of all dwelling units with commercial CATV grading of coaxial cable and the responsibility of payment of such. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-24 The commenter requests permanent irrigation be addressed. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues



concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-25 The commenter expresses public and private trails be addressed. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-26 The commenter expresses that the flood control channel be addressed. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-25), the southeastern portion of S4-053 is designated as areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event generally determined using approximate methodologies (Zone A), which is identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The City of Yorba Linda has adopted local standards for construction in floodplain areas. Construction within SFHAs is governed by the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, Flood Damage Protection. Section 15.12.110 sets forth construction requirements for development that would minimize flood hazard risks. With compliance with Federal and local regulatory requirements, impact would be less than significant.

25-27 The commenter requests a pedestrian bridge to be constructed above the flood control channel. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-28 The commenter requests a sidewalk or 10-foot landscape area that could be a sidewalk. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-29 The commenter requests that the YLWD to be contacted to determine whether they have an easement north of the housing opportunity site. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

25-30 The commenter requests a geotechnical report completed by a qualified engineer. As stated in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-13), the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Thus, no further response is required.

25-31 The commenter requests air quality to be addressed due to the increase of traffic. Air Quality impacts are discussed under Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft PEIR. Additionally, Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 would require future development projects to conduct project-specific analysis, evaluating potential project construction and operational-related air



quality impacts (regional and localized) that will be submitted to the City for review and approval. Thus, no further response is required.

25-32 The commenter requests hazards and hazards materials be addressed. Hazards and hazards materials impacts are discussed under Subsection 5.4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-17 to 5-21). As concluded in the Draft PEIR, the use and transport of hazardous materials to and from the potential sites and the likelihood of accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction and operation would be less than significant.

25-33 The commenter requests wildlife such as rabbits, owls, eagles, and birds be addressed. As

discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-11, and 4.2-15 to 4.2-16), there is a Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland and Riverine habitat on housing opportunity S4-053. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would require applicants of future development projects on S4-053 to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall be a reconnaissance level field survey of the sites for the presence and quality of biological resources potentially affected by project development housing opportunity site. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-5 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands be mitigated through obtaining. appropriate permit authorization(s). With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands would be reduced to less than significant.

25-34 The commenter expresses concern related to population and housing in the area. As discussed

in Subsection 5.4.8, Population and Housing, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-29) Project buildout would result in a total of 74,845 residents. However, this would not result in substantial unplanned growth in the area since 1) SCAG assigned RNHA obligations and would update its RTP/SCS to reflect planned growth consistent with the Housing Element, 2) the planned housing is in response to an existing unmet need, 3) the housing opportunity sites are infill development with adequate nearby infrastructure. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth.

25-35 The commenter expresses that on- and off-ramps of Imperial Highway be addressed at all times

of the day, all months of the year, not just in the summer. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Future traffic impact analysis will be required adhere to the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, which specifies times of day (e.g., peak hour) and time frames (e.g., opening year) that must be addressed. No further response is required.

25-36 The commenter expresses concern with students walking to and from Linda Vista Elementary

School and Esperanza High School. Refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. No further response is required.

25-37 The commenter references to the City’s Planning Commission Meeting in 1999 and the

concerns listed in the meeting. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 26

From: Daniel Garibay <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 3:18 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; David Brantley<[email protected]>; Marcia Brown <[email protected]>Subject: Concerns to be included in Housing Element PEIR

Good Afternoon,

Concerns Regarding SWC Grandview Ave/Kellogg Dr. Site APN; 348-262-01

This serves as a notice to your staff and the consulting firm of the concerns with there-zone of this property and that we want addressed and completed before it passes.Here are my concerns I want to be made known on the record for the HousingElement and scope meetings regarding this property:

1. I want city to have report that states water for fire fighting purposes and all-weather fire access road shall be in place by builder

2. I want evidence by the city and report that there is adequate fire flow. I want the OCFA water availability for fire protection form signed by the applicable water district and submitted for approval.

3. Want fire retardant roof coverings with a minimum rating of Class A or better.

4. Utilities installed underground in accordance with current utility engineering practice

5. All gas mains service shall be installed prior to paving by City or developer

6. Utility easements shall be provided to the specification of appropriate utility companies and the city engineer.

7. Developer or city to ensure that a minimum of 2-inch PVS conduit or smaller if approved by the appropriate utility companies and city engineer, is installed in the open common trench

8. Developer or city shall provide the CATV operator access and cooperation purpose of laying cable and connecting the CATV system for the purpose of complying with the service requirements

9. Prior to approval a recordation of a final tract/parcel map the surveyor and engineer preparing ht map shall submit to the county surveyor a digital graphics file of said map in a manner described in section 7-9-330 and 76-9-337 of the OC Subdivision codes an OC subdivision manual

26-1

26-2

26-3

26-4

26-5

26-6

26-7

26-8

26-9

26-10



10. Developer or city must regulate all structures shall be designed in accordance with seismic requirements for seismic one of the latest adopted editions of the UBC.

11. All standards and restrictions contained within the YL guidelines and specifications for landscape development must and shall apply

12. The developer or city proposed and required fencing or walls including equestrian, perimeter and retaining, permanent irrigation system, landscape planting and irrigationshall occur on all slopes, which are defined as in excess of 7 feet in height and 5:1 or steeper

13. Residential driveways shall be a minimum of width of 16 feet. No driveway shall bemore than 32 feet in width. Private or public road standards shall be applied to threeor more residences serviced from a single access point to the satisfaction of the cityand residents surrounding the area.

14. Existing septic tanks, drywells and or cesspools shall be located, removed \and filled to the satisfaction of the building official by developer or city.

15. All air conditioners shall be property shielded from view and a sound buffered form adjacent properties and streets to the satisfaction of the community development director

16. No equipment shall be on the sloped, externally visible portion of the roof of structure.

17. All ground mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened and sound buffered and shown on the landscape architecture

18. The developer shall provide to the city an acoustical analysis report to demonstrate that the building has been designed to limit interior noise levels to the required 45 CNEL interior standard and satisfaction before building the multi-unit complex.

19. Developer or city to provide a drainage easement across the entire parcel to the ratification of residents.

20. Want approval by residents nearby of all walls proposed along Grandview ave extension frontage of the parcel.

21. The developer or city must secure the flood control channel with fencing acceptable to OCFCSD and residents in the area.

Thank you.

26-11

26-12

26-13

26-14

26-15

26-16

26-17

26-18

26-19

26-20

26-21

26-22




Daniel Garibay, dated June 7, 2022

26-1 The comment expresses introductory remarks and concerns related to housing opportunity site S4-053 (SWC Grandview Avenue/Kellogg Dr, APN 348-262-01). Responses are provided in responses to Comments 26-2 through 26-22 below. All of the comments and requests below are for reports and plans that would be prepared once an actual development proposal is being considered and site-specific details are known. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR.

26-2 The commenter requests a report that states water for fire-fighting purposes and all-weather fire access road shall be in place by builder. Future development would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinances for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. For example, site plans would be submitted to OCFA to ensure compliance with Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) standard conditions, including access to and around structures. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-3 The commenter requests evidence that there is adequate fire flow and submittal of a water availability for fire protection. Future development would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinances for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. For example, site plans would be submitted to OCFA to ensure compliance with Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) standard conditions, including access to and around structures. Site-specific plans such as water availability for fire protection will be submitted to the City and approval of plans by the City and any responsibly agencies would be required prior to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-4 The commenter requests fire retardant roof coverings with a minimum rating of Class A or better. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-5 The commenter requests installation of underground utilities for housing opportunity site S4-053. Site specific details such as utilities plan are not available at this time. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-6 The commenter requests the installation of gas mains and services prior to grading. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-7 The commenter requests utility easements shall be provided to the specification of appropriate utility companies and City engineer. Site specific details such as utilities plan are not available at this time. Plans will be subjected to approval by the City during the plan check process prior



to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-8 The commenter requests a minimum of 2-inch PVD conduit or smaller if approved is installed in the open common trench. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-9 The commenter requests that the City or developer should provide connection to a CATV. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-10 The commenter requests that the final tract/parcel map shall be submitted to the County surveyor and comply with the provisions within the Orange County subdivision manual. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-11 The commenter requests that all structures shall be designed in accordance seismic requirements for the Uniform Building Code. As stated in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-13), future development would be designed and built-in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with specified probability of occurring at the site or in the area. Thus, no further response is required.

26-12 The commenter requests that all standard and restriction within the City’s guidelines for landscape development shall apply. Future development would be required to go through the City’s plan check process which will ensure developments are built in accordance to the City’s Municipal Code prior to approval. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-13 The commenter requests that the developer or City proposed or require fencing or walls including equestrian, perimeter, retaining, permanent irrigation system, landscape planting and irrigation shall occur on all slopes. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-14 The commenter provided guidelines for residential driveways and roads that shall be apply to the site. Future development would be required to go through the City’s plan check process which will ensure developments are built in accordance to the City’s Municipal Code and guidelines prior to approval. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



26-15 The commenter requests that existing septic tanks, drywell or cesspools shall be located and removed. Future development would be required to go through the City’s plan check process which will ensure developments are built in accordance to the City’s Municipal Code and guidelines prior to approval. If removal of septic tanks, drywell, or cesspools would be required at the site, removal of such would be conducted in accordance to all applicable state and local regulations. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-16 The commenter requests that air conditioners be shield from view and sound buffered from adjacent properties. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-17 The commenter requests that no equipment shall be located on sloped and visible portion of the roof of the structure. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-18 The commenter requests that all ground mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened and sound buffered. As discussed in Section 4.6, Noise, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.6-22), Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-5 would require applicants for individual projects that are within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor, to prepare and submit to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department a study to evaluate potential operational-related stationary source noise impacts. Thus, no further response is required.

26-19 The commenter requests an acoustical analysis to demonstrate the building has been designed to limit internal noise levels. As discussed in Section 4.6, Noise, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.6-22), Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-5 would require applicants for individual projects that are within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor, shall prepare and submit to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department a study to evaluate potential operational-related stationary source noise impacts. Thus, no further response is required.

26-20 The commenter requests to provide a drainage easement across the entire parcel. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

26-21 The commenter requests that all walls proposed along Grandview Avenue be approved by nearby residents. Detailed wall and fencing plans are not available at this time. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



26-22 The commenter requests that the developer or City secure the flood control channel with fencing. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-25), the southeastern portion of S4-053 is designated as areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event generally determined using approximate methodologies (Zone A), which is identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The City of Yorba Linda has adopted local standards for construction in floodplain areas. Construction within SFHAs is governed by the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, Flood Damage Protection. Section 15.12.110 sets forth construction requirements for development that would minimize flood hazard risks. With compliance with Federal and local regulatory requirements, impact would be less than significant.



Comment Letter 27

From: Frank Hofmann <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 4:10 PMTo: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez<[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Beth Haney<[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Susan Lamp<[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Mark Pulone<[email protected]>; Dave Christian <[email protected]>; Marcia Brown<[email protected]>; David Brantley <[email protected]>; Karalee Darnell<[email protected]>; Robert Pease <[email protected]>; Don Bernstein<[email protected]>; Michael Masterson <[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>Subject: Oppose proposed rezoning of residential properties

To: City Council and City Officials,

My name is Frank W. Hofmann. I live at 5882 Short Street.

I am a longtime Yorba Linda homeowner and I oppose the proposed rezoning of several properties in the city to increase the housing density. I am especially concerned about the properties listedbelow, which are currently in the RE, Residential Estate zone.

This has been a quiet, enjoyable area the 38 years that I have lived here. Children ride their horsesalong the two-lane, curving streets, many of which are cul-de-sacs. The streets are not suitable forthe increased traffic that would be generated by the proposed increase in dwelling unit density.

The Ohio Street properties are across from the elementary school, which already increases trafficduring school pickup and drop-off times and during events. Ohio Street dead-ends at the school,which is across the street from the properties proposed for more units.

We are concerned with several of the properties scheduled for rezoning, but especially thesewhich are nearby:

1) 5531 South Ohio2) 5541 South Ohio3) Southwest corner Grandview at Kellogg

27-1



I only recently learned about these plans for our neighborhood. I was not aware of the city's so-calledscope meeting on May 23, where changes to our neighborhood were being discussed. I think thatholding a public hearing on June 7 may result in fewer community members attending the hearing tovoice their concerns because they are distracted by Election Day.

I ask that the above sites be removed from the potential of being re-zoned on the “HousingOpportunity Sites List,” which could add 38 households to an already dangerously congestedneighborhood.

Good planning practices avoid "spot" zoning, such as proposed here. Yorba Linda has for manydecades been known for its safe neighborhoods of charming, equestrian-friendly family homes. Theproposed rezoning changes the very character of the city.

Sincerely,

Frank W. Hofmann

5882 Short St.

27-2

27-3




Frank Hoffman, dated June 7, 2022

27-1 The commenter expresses opposition for housing opportunity sites S4-060, S4-201, and S4-503 due to the suitability of the surrounding roadways for increased in traffic and density. Refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on traffic congestion and safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

27-2 The commenter expressed that they were not notified by the City about the Project or the Draft PEIR Scoping Meeting held on May 23, 2022. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15201, the Notice of Preparation of a Draft PEIR and Scoping Meeting for the Project was posted on the City’s website, OC Register, and at the Orange County Clerk’s office on April 29, 2022. The NOP was also distributed to surrounding jurisdictions, responsible agencies, organizations, and interested parties.

27-3 The commenter is requesting the removal of the above-mentioned housing opportunity sites. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 28

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 3:24 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject:

Dear Manager,we people of Newbury .we don't agree you will building so many houses around in our neighborhood .It's very unsafe for us residents. The following addresses are not agreed:S3-012S3-074S3-205AS3-103S3-207

Thank you and best regards.

NEWBURY residents

28-1




Grace Chen, dated June 7, 2022

28-1 The commenter expresses general opposition for housing opportunity sites S3-012, S3-074, S3-205A, S3-103, and S3-207. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 29

From: Rachelle Voll <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 12:45 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Zoning and General Plan Modification Comment

Mr. Farnsworth,

I have been a homeowner in Yorba Linda for over 24 years. I reside on the west sideand have a residential rental property also on the west side of the city. I would like togo on record opposing the proposed General Plan modifications. I purchased thesetwo homes in the "Land of Gracious Living" and have seen obtrusive growth with thedevelopment of large complexes in my formerly quiet neighborhood. My neighbor onRegulus had a three-story complex built on the other side of her backyard fence. Nowinstead of enjoying the peace and quiet of her pool, she has neighbors looking downinto her yard at her children swimming in the pool.

I superimposed the proposed zone-changing maps onto the current General Planmap. The already dense west side of Yorba Linda is getting the vast majority ofrezoning. Increasing density in an already dense area will create disastrous parkingissues. Fullerton and Anaheim have planned their communities with such disregardfor their residents and have created a huge disparity that is unequal and inequitable inliving standards. By increasing the density primarily on the west side, you will becreating parking issues for the residents and putting a burden on the older resources,such as the schools.

I implore you to reconsider the sites of rezoning to spread the unwanted growthacross our city and not disproportionately on the west side of the city. Don't turn ourgracious living into an overcrowded, under-resourced, divided city and take away thequiet enjoyment of our neighborhoods.

Regards,Rachelle VollCell: (714) 350-8011

29-1




Rachel Voll, dated June 7, 2022

29-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 30

From: Rebecca Schroeter <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 9:19 AMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>;[email protected]: YL HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT

To whom it may concern,

We live in a beautiful residential and relatively new community adjacent to Eurekaand Lemon where you plan to build low income affordable housing totalingapproximately 120 units within a small area. Both streets are busy with ongoingtraffic from the main YL post office, Nixon Library, and neighboring commercialbusinesses (car wash, barber shop, UPS store, etc.) next to residential areas already.The current zoning is ridiculous as is, mixing residential and commercial locationstogether. How was the current structure approved by City anyway?

With adding more apartment-like housing, not only does the City add moretraffic/crowd/noise and pollution to our residential community, this project will alsoincrease the likelihood of pedestrians, crossing Eureka from the El Cajon trail, gettingrunover by speeding drivers who pay no attention to the speed limit posted already.

Moreover, adding low-income housing will impact the market value of our homes aswell; mixing low income housing, commercial, and residential homes with currentmarket value of 1-1.3 mil. How does this even make sense?

Will this affordable housing program be subject to vote in November?

Rebecca SchroeterPresidential Walk CommunityHOA Board President

30-1

30-2

30-3

30-4




Rebecca Schroeter, dated June 7, 2022

30-1 The commenter expresses concern with adding low-income housing in the area due to existing traffic congestion on Eureka Avenue and Lemon Drive and inquired how the proposed zoning in the area is approved by the City. The sites were chosen with thorough analysis of site-specific constraints, including but limited to, zoning, access to utilities, location, development potential, density and whether or not the site was in a previous Housing Element. Refer to Master Responses 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection and 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns.

30-2 The commenter expresses concerns related to increased traffic, crowds, noise, pollution, and pedestrian safety in the area. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety for a discussion on traffic congestion and safety. Also please note that air quality, noise, transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1, 4.6, and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

30-3 The commenter discusses the impact mixing low-income housing, commercial, and residential home will have on current market value. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

30-4 The commenter inquires whether the affordable housing plan will be subjected to vote in November 2021. The Project would be subject to the Yorba Linda Right-To-Vote Amendment (a.k.a. Measure B), which is a citizen sponsored, voter-approved initiative, incorporated within the City’s Municipal Code. Measure B applies to the 27 housing opportunity sites proposed for rezoning and a corresponding ballot measure is planned for November 8, 2022 as part of the general election. This process will be similar to Measures H and I (consisting of 14 sites including two Savi Ranch properties) that was successfully passed by Yorba Linda voters on June 5, 2012.



Comment Letter 31

From: Russell Heine <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 12:59 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: YL EIR Housing Element

Dear Sirs,

In regards to the YL EIR for YL’s plan to address the state Housing Element mandate.

Before my comments specific to the plan, I would like to commend your team on the very difficult task that you were given. I can appreciate that it would be very difficult to “please” everyone on this topic. I do think that you came up with a number of creative and credible potential solutions to the very difficult mandate. Thank you for your dedication and hard work.

That said, below are my concerns /issues with the proposal.There has been mention that a Measure B vote to allow all these changes will need to occur.I would Not Support nor vote in favor of a Measure B rezone until the items below are addressed.

I understand that the options are somewhat limited but believe there are a few avenues to be explored.Most of my comments were raised via earlier workshops as well.1. Equitable distribution.In looking at the locations and numbers of projected housing there appear to be “protected” areas and those areas that appear targeted to receive the added housing.Cases in point . Vista del Verde , north of Bastanchury, Hidden Hills, East Lake These are all very nice communities and I have no argument with them. However , I believe the “wealth should be shared”.

31-1

31-2

31-3



Some of these areas are termed “planned communities” and thus can’t be rezoned. My locale was a “planned community “ as well by virtue of the zoning when I purchased my property 45+ years ago. My “community" has been rezoned at least once in that time. The current state mandates require an equitable distribution of the housing . The “planned communities” can share that requirement just as much as my ‘community” is being forced to share via the rezoning you are proposing.

2. There are two developments in current county land that do not appear to haveany affordable housing proposed as far as I have seen. Yet Yorba Linda has enteredinto agreements to fast track , at least one (Cielo Vista) into Yorba Linda once built. Iunderstand that the county is currently managing the development. One , I don’tunderstand why the county is approving without some affordable mandate but I dounderstand YL does not have that control. What Yorba Linda Can do is mandate thatthe area will Not be assimilated into the city of Yorba Linda with a fair share ofaffordable housing. The city Does have that capability.The same requirement should hold for the second, larger , development in the area.

3. Your proposal seems to have addressed all the potential properties within thecity. However I don’t see any mention of a requirement that any new developmentprovide their Fair Share of the cities Housing Element .I know that I have heard that we can’t tell a developer what to build. The state hasmandated that I Have to Accept additional housing to my community that wasnever Planned when I purchased here.Yorba Linda tells developers what their building will have to conform to via citycode, so we can certainly mandate via code that they contribute to the citiesHousing Element need.

Thank you again for your time and the hard work of the team.

Russ Heine5441 Mesita Way47+ years in YL

31-3(CONT.)

31-4

31-5




Russell Heine, dated June 7, 2022

31-1 The commenter provides introductory remarks and appreciates that this is a very challenging project because it is difficult to please all residents. No further response is required.

31-2 The commenter expresses they are not in favor of Measure B until the comments below are addressed. Responses to detailed comments are provided in responses to Comments 31-3 to 3-15, below.

31-3 The commenter expresses concern regarding the equitable distribution and that a number of projected housing appears to be in “protected areas.” Please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection.

31-4 The commenter states that there are two developments in the County that do not have any proposed housing. Both the Esperanza Hills and Cielo Vista developments are located in the unincorporated County of Orange. These projects were processed through the County of Orange and the City of Yorba Linda has no jurisdiction over these projects. When a project is entitled for development, the property owner is granted land use development rights. The City does not have the authority to require that these developments provide affordable housing.

31-5 The commenter addresses concerns regarding City’s requirements for new development to provide fair share of affordable housing. Any development in the City of Yorba Linda must comply with the written, objective development standards for the zone in which the property resides. While not all zones in the City require that affordable housing be provided, there are three new overlay zones that will require that at least 20% of the housing units developed under those development standards would meet certain affordability criteria.



Comment Letter 32

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 3:43 PMTo: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Beth Haney <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang<[email protected]>; Susan Lamp <[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth<[email protected]>; Mark Pulone <[email protected]>; Dave Christian<[email protected]>; Marcia Brown <[email protected]>; David Brantley<[email protected]>; Karalee Darnell <[email protected]>; Robert Pease<[email protected]>; Don Bernstein <[email protected]>; Michael Masterson<[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>Subject: DPEIR

Dear City Council Members,We have received the letter concerning various zoning and general plan modifications and would like to express our concerns regarding these changes.

Specific to the Richfield Road that has the most unit potential, 340:How will the city accommodate the potential traffic of another 680 cars when there have already been an increase of accidents.

Will Richfield be expanded to 4 lanes from Yorba Linda Blvd to La Palma?Will an overpass be constructed over the train tracks like Rose Drive to handle additional traffic?How will traffic be handled on Buena Vista to prevent short cuts due to lack of All Way Stops between Lakeview and Richfield?

Specific to Friends Church parcels, Eureka and Bastanchury parcels:How will the city accommodate the additional traffic on Bastanchury and Lakeview?Currently the traffic is horrendous and those poor residents living on Lakeview are subjected to noise pollution, air pollution, speeding vehicles, increase of accidents in addition to the safety hazards of exiting and entering their driveways.

What controls will be constructed to reduce and manage the speeding currently taking place on old residential streets? For example, roundabouts?

What major street will the new Highland Ave housing development exit from, Yorba Linda Blvd?Again what major street construction will take place to accommodate the additional traffic and ensure the safety of pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists?

We are already experiencing heavy traffic, unsafe speeding, and increased major accidents.The focus should be on land parcels closest to freeway access such as Imperial and 91 to lessen the already burdened old residential streets in West Yorba Linda.

Thank you for your consideration,

Very concerned Yorba Linda Residents

32-1

32-232-3

32-4

32-5

32-6

32-7

32-8




Very Concerned Yorba Linda Resident, dated June 7, 2022

32-1 The commenter expresses opposition with housing opportunity site S3-207 due to the amount of units that would be constructed and the increase in cars. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required. However, refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, concerns on traffic congestion. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.

32-2 The commenter asks if Richfield Road will be expanded to four lanes to accommodate for the increase in vehicles. This improvement is not required for the Project. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on safety for site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, concerns on traffic congestion.

32-3 The commenter asks if an overpass will be constructed to accommodate for the increase in cars. This improvement is not required for the Project. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on safety for site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, concerns on traffic congestion.

32-4 The commenter asks about how traffic will be handled on Buena Vista regarding safety issues from short cuts. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on safety for site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, concerns on traffic congestion.

32-5 The commenter inquires how the City will accommodate the additional traffic and that currently residents are subjected to noise, air pollution, speeding, and accidents on Bastanchury and Lakeview. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. The City continually evaluates its roadway systems as part of its capital improvement program to ensure facilities meet the needs of existing and future land uses. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on safety for site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. Also please note that air quality, noise, transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.1, 4.6, and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively.

32-6 The commenter expresses concern around current speeding regarding safety. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, concerns on traffic congestion and thus no further response is required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

32-7 The commenter asks where the exit point from housing opportunity site S3-205A will be and how it will impact street construction and pedestrian and equestrian safety. Specific design details such as construction timelines, site plan, grading plan, landscaping plan, utility plan,



site access, renderings, and more are currently not available at this time. Prior to approval of any site-specific development under the Housing Element, the City must conduct further environmental review under CEQA. Future housing development would conduct a project-level traffic impact analysis based on City’s Guidelines that will analyze the existing traffic condition at the time of preparation of the study and the LOS impacts due implementation of the development in the opening year scenario. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. Please also refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. No further response is required.

32-8 The commenter raises concern with the existing heavy traffic, speeding, and accidents and suggests a housing plan closer to the SR-91 freeway to decrease the burden on old residential streets. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required. This suggestion is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 33

From: XIAOHONG CHEN <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 4:34 PMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject:

Dear Manager,

we are residents of Newbury .we are so very strong dis agree you will building so many houses around in our home.It's very unsafe for us residents.

The following addresses disagree for forever！

S3-012

S3-074

S3-205A

S3-103

S3-207

Thank you and best regards.

NEWBURY residents

33-1




Xiaohong Chen, dated June 7, 2022

33-1 The commenter expresses general opposition on several housing opportunity sites (S3-012, S3-074, S3-205A, S3-103, and S3-207) in regards to safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 34

From: Martha <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 2:53 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Comment on the DPEIR for General Plan Housing Element modifications


We received your request for comments on the above referenced item.

We are opposed to the proposed rezoning actions for site IDs: S3-033, S3-034 and S3-210. Weoppose any rezoning of these properties. To allow denser development on these sites is inconsistentand incompatible with the existing residential properties which completely surround them. Theincrease in density of these sites will negatively impact the value of our homes and the quality of ourneighborhoods which we currently enjoy.

We ask that the Planning Commission oppose the modifications to the general plan housing elementas presented.

Thank you,

Martha RodriguezMartha Fordowners of 4302 San Pablo Circle, Yorba LInda

34-1




Martha Rodriguez, dated June 10, 2022

34-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to rezoning at housing opportunity sites S3-033, S3-034, and S3-210 and the impact of affordable housing on property values at the existing nearby residences. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 35

From: Elliott Levin <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 3:57 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]; Elliott Levin <[email protected]>Subject: Comment on S5-008 in Draft PEIR

RE: Fairmont Canyon Site:


I am a Yorba Linda resident, who opposes the planned density of housing on the Fairmont Canyon Site. It is obvious that the characteristics of the site were not considered when approving it for 230 units. The site has steep slopes, shares a border with Chino Hills State Park, and is a habitat for many species. 14 acres of the site is Open Space!

The geography of the area means the housing units will need to be high-density, concentrated on the lower portion of the site:

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES MAKES THIS LOT UNSUITABLE FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING

VERY HIGH-RISK FIRE ZONE,

ENDANGERED WILDLIFE ZONE

LANDSLIDE ZONE

WHITTIER FAULT (PREVIOUS EPICENTERS)

WATER RUNOFF FROM STORMS AND AQUIFER RUNNING UNDER HILLSIDES

DIFFICULTY IN SUPPORTING SAFE EVACUATION PLANSPOTENTIAL TO BUILD ON OPEN SPACE

LACK OF RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE: WATER SHORTAGES, ROLLING BROWNOUTS

LIGHT AND NOISE POLLUTION

INCREASED TEACHER TO STUDENT RATIOS AT YLHS, FAIRMONT ELEMENTARY & BERNARDO YORBA

The City of Yorba Linda needs to reduce the housing density so that it will be a safe and responsible use of this area.

Respectfully submitted.

Elliott Levin20839 Fallen Leaf Rd.Yorba Linda, CA 92886

(714) 507-9928

35-1

35-2

35-3

35-4

35-5

35-6

35-7

35-8

35-9

35-10

35-11

35-12



Responses to Comment 35 Elliott Levin, dated June 11, 2022

35-1 The commenter opposes the plan at housing opportunity site at Fairmont Canyon (site S5-008) because it is a habitat for number species, borders Chino Hills State Park, and has steep slopes. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter. No further response is required.

35-2 The commenter expresses concern stating that the geography of the area would lead to high density housing and states that there are environmental issues make the lot unsuitable for high density housing. Detailed comments for each environmental issue raised are provided in the responses below. As discussed in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.5-10), based on the restrictions of the General Plan for Open Space (OS), no residential development would occur in the Open Space portion of S5-008. It should also be noted that changes to the General Plan would be subject to Measure B. The Measure B vote on the Housing Element Implementation Programs would not change the OS designation on site S5-008. Further, the Project would continue to uphold current development standards for determination of density and regulation of quality within hillside areas similar to the density of surrounding developed properties. Thus, no further response needed.

35-3 The commenter is concerns because the housing opportunity site S5-008 is in a high-risk fire zone. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for further details. No further response is required.

35-4 The commenter states the area is an endangered wildlife zone. As discussed above and in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-11, and 4.2-15 to 4.2-16), there is a Riverine habitat on housing opportunity S5-008. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would require applicants of future development projects on S5-008 to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall be a reconnaissance level field survey of the sites for the presence and quality of biological resources potentially affected by project development housing opportunity site. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-5 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands be mitigated through obtaining. appropriate permit authorization(s). With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands would be reduced to less than significant.



35-5 The commenter expresses concerns that the area is in a landslide zone. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-14 to 5-15), the commenter is correct in stating that housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a landslide zone. However, regardless of the landslide susceptibility, future development pursuant to the Project would be required to have a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted. The geotechnical investigation for each project on a site within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced landslides would be required to evaluate the potential for such landslides onsite provide any needed recommendations for minimizing hazards. Each project must also comply with seismic safety regulations and requirements regarding slope stability in the CBC and City of Yorba Linda Building Code. Additionally, development along hillside would be required to comply with the standards in Chapter 18.30, Hillside Development, of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts to landslides would be less than significant.

35-6 The commenter expresses concerns because the housing opportunity site is along the Whittier Fault. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

35-7 The commenter expresses concerns that water runoff from storms and aquifers running under

the hillsides could cause issues. Development of the site would increase impervious surfaces as the site is currently undeveloped. However, as stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-23 to 5-24), existing requirements for future development include review by the City Engineer to ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided that meet City design and requirements. Additionally, implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan would reduce runoff from the site and identify Best Management Practices for runoff controls and treatments. Implementation of the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern, nor is the potential increase in surface runoff anticipated to be substantial. No further response is required.

35-8 The commenter expresses concern with difficulty in supporting the safe evacuation plan and potential development on open space. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for concern with evacuation and refer to Response to Comment 35-2 about development within the OS portion of the site.

35-9 The commenter states that there is a lack of resources and infrastructure such as water shortages and rolling brownouts. Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District, impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and according to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water



supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project.

35-10 The commenter states that the project will lead to light and noise pollution. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-8), development would be required to comply with the existing requirements to control lighting (Municipal Code Chapter 18.10.110); therefore, impacts related to lighting would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Noise, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.6-15 to 4.6-19), the Project would result in potential significant impacts in construction and operational stationary noise. Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1 through MM 4.6- 3 would contribute in minimizing construction-related noise. However, due to the unknown number of construction activities that could occur at one time, proximity of construction activities to sensitive receptors, and other factors that cannot be quantified at this time, such as the longevity of activities, construction-related noise impacts may not be reduced to less than significant levels for some future development. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. With the implementation of Goal N-4 of the City of Yorba Linda General Plan Noise Element and compliance with the exterior noise level limits outlined in the City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code Section 8.32.060 and Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-5, the Project stationary source impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts.

35-11 The commenter expresses concern for the increase in teacher to student ratio at Yorba Linda High School, Fairmont Elementary, and Bernardo Yorba from the implementation of the Project. As discussed in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.7-15 to 4.7-16), there is sufficient capacity to accommodate to serve the Project generated students at both Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District (PYLUSD) and Orange Unified School District (OUSD).

35-12 The commenter states that the City needs to reduce housing density so it will be a safe and responsible use of the area. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 36

From: Elena Levin <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2022 4:50 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: Elena Levin <[email protected]>Subject: Fairmont Canyon Site-Comment on S5-008 in Draft PEIR


I am a Yorba Linda resident, who opposes the planned density of housing on the Fairmont CanyonSite.

223 units means at least 446 more vehicles (2 vehicles per unit, and maybe 3 or 4 or more vehiclesper house hold, depending upon how many others live in each unit) on Yorba Linda's alreadycrowded city streets.

Already, returning home from work traveling on Imperial Highway south, turning left ontoBastanchury traveling east is a nightmare during rush hour traffic, as well as traveling to work.

The density of this project is just too large to add so many vehicles to our already crowded streets.

The City of Yorba Linda needs to lower the density.

Best regards.Elena Levin20839 Fallen Leaf RdYorba Linda, CA 92886

36-1

36-2




Elena Levin, dated June 12, 2022

36-1 The commenter expresses opposition to housing opportunity site S5-008. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

36-2 The commenter expresses concern with existing and additional traffic surrounding Imperial

Highway. Future housing development would conduct a project-level traffic impact analysis based on City’s Guidelines that will analyze the existing traffic condition at the time of preparation of the study and the LOS impacts due implementation of the development in the opening year scenario. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2,Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion.



Comment Letter 37

From: Natalie L <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2022 4:56 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: Natalie L <[email protected]>Subject: Comment on S5-008 in Draft PEIR

Nate Farnsworth:

As a Yorba Linda Resident, I am opposed to the planned density of the Fairmont Canyon Site.

Within a few blocks of where I live, this density will have a negative impact upon the quality of life -too many more cars on the road, pollution -- what another 400 vehicles in our tiny area - fireevacuation, are you kidding? Backed up traffic? More crowding to the local schools?

Lower the density!

Natalie Levin92886Yorba Linda, CA

37-1

37-2




Natalie Levin, dated June 12, 2022

37-1 The commenter expresses opposition to housing opportunity site S5-008. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

37-2 The commenter expresses concern with the decreased quality of life, increased traffic and pollution, fire evacuation plans, and overcrowding at the local schools. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion on traffic congestion and fire evacuation. Also please note that air quality, school services, and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1, 4.7, and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 38

38-1

38-2

38-3

38-4

38-5




Bill and Francine Felgemaker, dated June 13, 2022

38-1 The commenter expresses opposition on several housing opportunity sites (S4-053, S4-060, and S4-201) related to existing traffic congestion and parking. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion.

38-2 The commenter discusses the impact on the views and rural nature of the neighborhood along with the increase in traffic at the corner of Grandview and Buena Vista along with Linda Vista School caused by the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. Also please note that transportation and aesthetics impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.9 and 5.4.1 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

38-3 The commenter is displeased of how they were informed of the project through flyers. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15201, the Notice of Preparation for the Project was posted on the City’s website, OC Register, and at the Orange County Clerk’s office on April 29, 2022. Additionally, on June 1, 2022, the Notice of Availability (NOA) was mailed to responsible agencies, local government agencies, interested parties that received the NOP, individuals who had previously requested the NOA or PEIR, to individuals who provided NOP comments, and to individuals within a 2,000-foot radius to any of the 27 housing opportunity sites. The NOA was also published in OC Register on June 1, 2022; the NOA and Draft PEIR were made available for review, on the City’s web site at: https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/Environmental-Documents.

38-4 The commenter recommends the City work with residents for housing density that is more equitable. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

38-5 The commenter recalls when the Mayor would come to their home in 1987 to discuss neighborhood issues and expresses their opposition to the project stating they will vote against it. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 39

From: Bill Barcikowski <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 1:04 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Housing Element EIR

Good afternoon,

I'm writing to comment on the EIR for the new Housing Element, specifically on the propertieslocated on Ohio St and Grandview Ave. Unlike many of my neighbors, I am not opposed to therezoning as I recognize the demand for housing needs to be met, and that 10 units/acre isnecessary to keep market rates in the realm of affordability for moderate incomes. However, I dohave some concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety.

The majority of Grandview from Kellog to Linda Verde has narrow lanes and no sidewalks, as well astwo 90 degree blind corners. Buena Vista from Ohio to Lakeview is similarly narrow in a few sections,though sidewalk coverage is better. I would like to see the developers contribute to construction of acontinuous sidewalk along one side of both Grandview and Buena Vista to the exit points for theneighborhood at Kellogg and Lakeview respectively.

Thank you,

Bill Barcikowski19095 Rockwood Dr Yorba Linda, CA 92886

39-1




Bill Barcikowski, dated June 13, 2022

39-1 The commenter expresses their agreement with rezoning but is concerned with traffic and pedestrian safety due to the existing narrow streets and limited sidewalks surrounding housing opportunity sites S4-060, S4-201, and S4-053. Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, and 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. The commenter recommends the development of sidewalks along Grandview and Buena Vista. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 40

From: Connie Bryant <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 7:31 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: Comment on S5-008 in Draft PEIR

Hello Mr. Farnsworth: We'd like to comment on the report with our concerns about site S5-008 Fairmont Canyon and theproposed dense housing developed there.

We feel that the characteristics of the site were not considered when approving it for 230 units. Thesite has steep slopes, shares a border with Chino Hills State Park, and is a habitat for manyspecies. 14 acres of the site is unbuildable Open Space!

· The site is at very high risk for wildfire, landslides, and is on an active earthquake fault.· The topography and constraints of the area means the units will need to be high-density,

concentrated on the lower portion of the site.· Endangered species habitat would be impacted.· Also let's not forget all the traffic that will ensue if these are built· More dense housing brings the possibility of more crime

We and our neighbors are advocating for safe, responsible use of this area. We are not opposed todevelopment - only to the density proposed.

It is unsafe. Also, if the state is struggling with electricity and water how is this helping that situationby building anywhere let alone the proposed dense housing all over our city and others.

We need to fight the state on their housing mandates. It just never ends.

Sincerely,Connie and Brad Bryant

40-1

40-2

40-340-440-540-6

40-7




Connie and Brad Bryant, dated June 13, 2022

40-1 The commenter opposes the plan at housing opportunity site at Fairmont Canyon (site S5-008) because it is a habitat for number species, borders Chino Hills State Park, and has steep slopes. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter. No further response is required.

40-2 The commenter expresses concern because the Project Site is in a high-risk fire, landslide, and earthquake zone. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), S5-008 is located within a very high Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). For sites within or adjacent to a Very High FHSZ, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for further details.

Moreover, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

40-3 The commenter expresses concern stating that the geography of the area would lead to high density housing and states that there are environmental issues make the lot unsuitable for high density housing. Detailed comments for each environmental issue raised are provided in the responses below. As discussed in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.5-10), based on the restrictions of the General Plan for Open Space (OS), no residential development would occur in the Open Space portion of S5-008. It should also be noted that changes to the General Plan would be subject to Measure B. The Measure B vote on the Housing Element Implementation Programs would not change the OS designation on site S5-008. Further, the Project would continue to uphold current development standards for determination of density and regulation of quality within hillside areas similar to the density of surrounding developed properties. Thus, no further response needed.

40-4 The commenter expresses concerns for the number of endangered species that will be impacted due to the Project. As discussed above and in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-11, and 4.2-15 to 4.2-16), there is a Riverine habitat on housing opportunity S5-008. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would require applicants of future development projects on S5-008 to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey



shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall be a reconnaissance level field survey of the sites for the presence and quality of biological resources potentially affected by project development housing opportunity site. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-5 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands be mitigated through obtaining. appropriate permit authorization(s). With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands would be reduced to less than significant.

40-5 The commenter expresses opposition to the Project due to increased traffic in the

neighborhood. Future housing development would conduct a project-level traffic impact analysis based on City’s Guidelines that will analyze the existing traffic condition at the time of preparation of the study and the LOS impacts due implementation of the development in the opening year scenario. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. No revisions to the Draft PEIR analysis or conclusions are required and no further response is required.

40-6 The commenter expresses concern with the housing opportunity site in regards to crime. as stated in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.7-14), implementation of the Project would result in an increase in calls for service; however, OCSD has indicated that this increase would not adversely impact OCSD’s existing resources. OCSD will work closely with the City to determine proper level of law enforcement staffing based on best practices for population and crime statistics.

40-7 The commenter opposes the development of the Project Site because it is unsafe and increase the cities struggle with electricity and water. Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District, impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project.



Comment Letter 41

From: Devin DeVore <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 11:03 AMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth<[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: Fairmont Canyon Housing

Hello, I'm writing about the proposed housing development in Fairmont Canyon. Let's talk ACCESS

WILDERNESS ACCESSAs a resident of Yorba Linda and a mountain biker who is in these hills three to four times a week, I see a lot of what is happening every week in these hills. I could tell you where the deer live, where coyotes live and routes they travel, when and where the rabbit babies live, when and where the tarantula live and I can even tell you as of right now where the tarantula hawks are. There are places the mountain lions like to wander and times of the year where poisonous wild parsnip is in full bloom. I can even show you where two American bald eagles were living so they could overlook the town and canyons below. This is just up from Rimcrest trail head near the proposed Fairmont Canyon Build. A lot of what I notice in all of this is access. I'm not talking about access for hikers and bikers, I'm talking about animal access and also how it affects their world. If you watch closely you can see the footpaths of the animals, what direction they are going, and where they might be going and why. You can see this change with the seasons and you can see this change with the fires we just had. With the fires, everything was gone. The soul of those hills gutted. Over time though, hawks and black crows would venture into the burn areas. This spring is the first real cycle of wild life coming back to these rich areas. There isn't anywhere I know of that is as dense with wildlife.I don't really believe environmental studies are accurate and this is why. As a city builds into the wilderness, the animals just keep moving back their barrier between civilization. Cities push into their habitat and they just move back. So the environmental impact on wildlife is all relative to how development has already pushed into the new area. And the same goes for plants. The birds or wind that spread the seeds of the plants are also subject to how development has pushed into these areas. And no, I'm not just some tree hugger.

FIRE ACCESSFire access - I have a degree in fire science. We studied how things burn. No, I didn't become a firefighter. My degree was from the late 80's and a white American couldn't be hired by fire departments during this affirmative action era. This doesn't change the way I think and see things, As one who is out in nature a lot, you never stop thinking about the choices you're making, how safe it is, and the consequences of managing risk. Building in a canyon has risks. Building dense living spaces with little access has risks. Managing risk normally has a plan B or escape route. There is no plan B escape in Fairmont Canyon.

41-1

41-2



PEOPLE ACCESSI lived in Corona for many years (1999 - 2018) and saw the development and the impact on the wilderness, schools, city culture, and traffic. From the center of town to the Greeenriver/ 91 access is a 45 minute drive. From main street downtown to Temescal canyon is 45 minutes to get across town. Quality of life was stolen from the citizens. Business and culture followed the decline of ACCESS. My wife and I were born and raised in OC and wanted to get back to the OC life we grew up with. Yorba Linda was the only place back in OC that felt like home. We have been here for several years now and love this town. The people and community make Yorba Linda what it is. The values each of us has as residences in Yorba Linda runs deep. It's not just a home in a town, this is our habitat. Don't take away ACCESS for wilderness and the ACCESS Yorba Linda residents live for.

Devin DeVore | Yorba Linda Resident

41-3




Devin DeVore, dated June 13, 2022

41-1 The commenter expresses concern with wilderness access for housing opportunity site S5-008. As discussed in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.5-10), based on the restrictions of the General Plan for Open Space (OS), no residential development would occur in the Open Space portion of S5-008. It should also be noted that changes to the General Plan would be subject to Measure B. The Measure B vote on the Housing Element Implementation Programs would not change the OS designation on site S5-008. Further, the Project would continue to uphold current development standards for determination of density and regulation of quality within hillside areas similar to the density of surrounding developed properties. Thus, no further response needed.

41-2 The commenter expresses concern related to fire evacuation. S5-008 is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for further details.

41-3 The commenter recounts the past experience in the City of Corona and the impacts of development to the City of Corona. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 42

From: Dr. Marek A. Suchenek <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 5:45 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Regarding the Zoning and General Plan Modifications


It was a pleasure talking to you earlier, today.

After reading the document posted at YL City website I have few more questions.1. Regarding site S7-001: What will happen to the existing commercial structures at that site? The plan suggests that the gas station andFantasy Hamburger are not affected, but will the other commercial buildings be replaced if the plan is approved?

2. Regarding site S7-001: What percentage of the new housing units will need to be affordable or otherwise subsidized?

3. Regarding site S7-001: What will be the qualification criteria for the affordable or otherwise subsidized units?

4. Regarding site S7-005: The Table 1 of the document posted at YL City website indicates Proposed Zoning Action as RM but CurrentGeneral Plan and Proposed General Plan specify RH. Which one, RM or RH, will become the actual zoning?

5. Regarding site S7-001 and S7-005: Will HUD or any state or local housing authority have any say in deciding who resides in the newhousing units?

For your convenience, here is the link to the document that I was referring to:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.yorbalindaca.gov_DocumentCenter_View_6180_Housing-2DElement-2DDPEIR-2DNotice-2DJune-2D2022&d=DwICaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=-I8fwtrRWhODC5UAaIxgCfLnQsqxWGbR3UDHGAHJIkE&m=SGgRILaHWrSsyBQxvAuHeZcfyu20wDAldBvcg3Z0S0U&s=E8yeW--hsRm58eNOBzpqep49fKuTlfODOT0vGrHY0po&e= .

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,

Dr. Marek A. SuchenekYorba Linda resident

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they areaddressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential informationand is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

42-1

42-2

42-3

42-4

42-5

42-6




Dr. Marek A. Suchenek, dated June 13, 2022

42-1 This comment serves as introductory remarks and thus, no further response is required.

42-2 The commenter asks what would happen to the existing commercial uses if development occurs on housing opportunity site S7-001. Future housing development could redevelop the site as mixed use. Under the proposed Mixed-Use Housing Overlay (MUO) designation for the site, there is a requirement to integrate a minimum of 10,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial uses to service nearby neighborhoods. As for whether existing commercial uses will be retained, that would be a discussion between the property owner and renter and not within the City’s control.

42-3 The commenter asks about the percentage of affordable housing required. Under the MUO designation, at least 20 percent affordable units will be required.

42-4 The commenter asks what the proposed zoning would be for the site based on Table 1 of the NOA for housing opportunity site S7-005 due to the difference in the General Plan and zoning designations. As shown in Table 3-2, Housing Opportunity Sites for Rezoning, the proposed zoning for S7-005 will be RM.

42-5 The commenter inquires whether HCD has any authority as to who the future resident will be. HCD does not have control as to who will reside in the units in the future.

42-6 The commenter provides a link to the NOA and thus, no further response is required.



Comment Letter 43

From: Nerissa Hall <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 5:52 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Traffic Impact on Propose Project

I live off Camino De Bryant and experienced difficulty evacuating the area during two fires.Based on those experiences, the proposal to build houses on Meadowland near Camino de Bryant, even during normal times would impede the flow of traffic, and during a fire emergency could have catastrophic results.While I’m cognizant that there is a need for additional houses, the location cited above would definitely have an adverse impact on the quality of life.Sincerely,Nerissa Hall.

43-1




Nerissa Hall, dated June 13, 2022

43-1 The commenter expresses concerns related to safety concerns during wildfires. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for further details. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 44

June 13, 2022

City of Yorba Linda Community Development Department Attn: Mr. Nate Farnsworth, Planning Manager 4845 Casa Loma Avenue Yorba Linda, CA 92886 nfa rnsworth@yor balinda ca .gov

RE: City of Yorba Linda DEIR Appeal Comments

Dear Mr. Nate Farnsworth,

Previon is writing to comment on the City of Yorba Linda's proposed DEIR. As a company residing in the industrial portion of the city, Previon is appealing the city's plans to build Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) sites, with respect to the East Park and Oakcrest site areas.

Previon Solutions, LLC. is located at 22895 Eastpark Drive, Yorba Linda, CA 92887. This puts Previon in the middle of two (2) housing rezone sites: S6-015 and S6-020. In the East Park area there is two (2) apartment complexes at the front of Previon's location: Oakcrest Heights and Oakcrest Terrace. In accordance with your hosing element update website. these two complexes are classified as affordable housing. Per Government Code section 65584.04 (e)(D)(G-7), by including S6-015 and S6-010 rezone sites, the City of Yorba Linda fails to take into account the efficient use of existing infrastructure and encourage areas to protect rural character by limiting sprawl and overcrowding. Proposing rezone sites S6-015 and 56-020 will increase energy use, traffic congestion, and fails to take into account the pre-existing affordable housing complexes in the area.

The City of Yorba Linda prides itself in its semi-rural character. A key element of this characteristic, as cited in City of Yorba Linda City Council Pol,cies P-5 section IJ, "is the absence of sidewalks." As a company that resides in the industrial section of the city and deals heavily on shipping, amongst other services, Previon sees a great deal of traffic with trucks and delivery vehicles throughout the business day. Building more housing complexes in this area will increase the flow of traffic and foot traffic. In return, rezoning sites 56-015 and 56-020 create exponential liob11ity fo1 our company dnvers and our clients.

Previon has also seen an increase in liability as surrounding apartment complexes use Previon's private parking lot. Whether it's an issue of low availability of parking spaces for the complexes currently in place, the main issue remains that this is a private property and an increase of apartment complexes will only increase the number of residents using our property, with higher increases of trespassing during the weekends.

Previon relocated to Yorba Linda from Mira Loma in 2020. Three of the main factors that influenced our company's decision to reside ourselves in Yorba Linda was the industrial location, the low noise and safety measures of residing in an industrial section of the city. Adding housing sites to East Park and Oakcrest will

44-1

44-2

44-3

44-4



-------- ----------- - -------

only cause business like ours to look outside the city for true industrial areas with lower liability for our company. At the rate of overcrowding in our surrounding area, Previon will no longer be able to conduct business in a safe location.

In accordance with the city's RHNA methodology, as you have cited in your website, twenty-seven (27) of the thirty (30} proposed sites for rezoning are to accommodate housing opportunities. The underlying issue is the City of Yorba Linda is stating that the East Park and Oakcrest areas lack affordable housing. We disagree and appeal the city's housing rezone sites in accordance with S6-015 and S6-020, urging the city to include S6-015 and S6-020 as two (2) of the sites NOT proposed ln this project.

For any questions or if further information is needed, please contact Lizethe Arce at [email protected] or by phone at (657) 600-6843.

Thank you for considering our appeal.

Joel Luce Previon CEO.

44-4(CONT.)

44-5




Joel Luce, dated June 13, 2022

44-1 This commenter expresses concern on the increase in energy use and traffic congestion and note the failure to take into account the pre-existing affordable housing complexes in the area. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. Also please note that energy and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.3 and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively.

SCAG has taken into account the existing affordable housing units through its RNHA process. Based on California’s continued population growth, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) estimates that the State needs upwards of 200,000 housing units per year in order to maintain a healthy housing sector. Currently, the market is producing less than half of that amount. State housing element law requires each city and county to plan for their “fair share” of the State’s housing growth needs. Based on economic and demographic forecasts, the State has determined that the SCAG region needs to accommodate 1,341,827 housing units between 2021 and 2029 to meet housing demand.

44-2 The commenter expresses related to the increase in traffic congestion due to housing opportunity sites S6-015 and S6-020. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

44-3 The commenter expresses concern with the increase in trespass that is already currently occurring onsite. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

44-4 The commenter expresses concern with conducting safe business due to increases in housing nearby. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

44-5 The commenter express opposition to housing opportunity sites S6-015 and S6-020. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 45

From: Rebecca Maravilla <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 12:54 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Safety risk of Site ID# S7-005 and S7-001

Dear Mr. Nate Farnsworth and Yorba Linda Planning Commission:

This email is in response to the proposed rezoning of the Bryant Ranch area of Yorba Linda.

I urge you to cancel the idea of rezoning Site ID# S7-005 and S7-001 due to an increased safetyrisk for the current residents.

The Freeway Complex wildfire, in November 2008, left us gridlocked for several hours trying toevacuate through the only exit route on La Palma Avenue. We faced a similar situation duringthe Blue Ridge Fire in October 2020. Increasing the housing density would only serve tocomplicate a dangerous situation that already exists.

Thank you for you attention on this matter,

Rebecca Maravilla27760 Tamara DriveYorba Linda, CA 92887

45-1




Rebecca Maravilla, dated June 13, 2022

45-1 The commenter expresses opposition to S7-005 and S7-001 due to safety concerns during wildfires. S7-001 is located within a Very Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High FHSZ, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Also, refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for further details.



Comment Letter 46

From: David Brantley Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 10:25 AMTo: Robert Gaudette <[email protected]>Cc: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Monse Garcia <[email protected]>;Jamie Lai <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Charlene Hwang So<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Tony Wang <[email protected]>;Shirjeel Muhammad <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Traffic around Linda Vista Elementary School

LOS means Level of Service. It is a standardized engineering metric for gauging how motoristsexperience traffic as they drive around on City streets. It is based on traffic volume-to-capacityrelationship of roadways and the delay experienced by motorists at intersections. The amount ofdelay is rated on a scale of A through F, with F representing the poorest level of intersection functionwith the greatest amount of delay. The City’s target LOS is “D.” Thankfully, there are very fewintersections in the City that do not operate at at least LOS D. But the intersection at the eastboundon-ramp to Imperial from southbound Kellogg is one of the intersections identified in the trafficstudy prepared for the Housing Element as operating at LOS F during peak hours (i.e., AM and PMrush hours). There is a recommended fix that would ameliorate this situation; essentially adding asignal to this intersection that would improve the LOS to C and A during peak AM and PM hours,respectively. This intersection is located in the City of Anaheim, and the City will need to work withAnaheim to install recommended improvements. This would be funded by Traffic Impact Feesrequired by future development projects that contribute traffic to this location.

DAVID BRANTLEYCommunity Development Director

46-1



From: Robert Gaudette <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 6:04 PMTo: David Brantley <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Traffic around Linda Vista Elementary School

Thanks. Can you tell me more about LOS?

RobOn Jun 13, 2022, at 5:28 PM, David Brantley <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Mr. Gaudette, good afternoon. Thank you for your traffic-related comments inrelation to the Housing Element. We are forwarding all comments received in relationto the upcoming Traffic Commission meeting to the Traffic Commissioners forconsideration in order to provide advisory comments to the Planning Commission andCity Council as they review the Housing Element during upcoming public hearingsbefore each of those bodies. Comments related to the overall project also may besubmitted directly to the Planning Commission and/or City Council for consideration at

their upcoming public hearings on June 29th and July 27th (Planning Commission) and

August 2nd and August 9th (City Council). Additionally, we would encourage you tosubmit comments regarding environmental issues to Nate Farnsworth, PlanningManager, for inclusion in the Program EIR. The City will be preparing responses to allenvironmental comments received at the conclusion of the 45-day public review periodfor the Draft PEIR. In the meantime, we also would invite you to visit the City’s HousingElement website for more information: https://www.ylhousingelementupdate.com/.

In terms of your below question, the traffic study is a programmatic document toanalyze traffic impacts citywide and not meant to analyze each project in detail. Futureimplementing projects will have to address site access, safety, LOS, etc., on a project-by-project basis pursuant to the City's traffic guidelines. Additionally, the City is in theprocess of identifying roadway improvements Citywide for purposes of updating thetraffic impact fees. And, you are correct, the study did identify need for a traffic signalat the SB Kellogg to EB Imperial On-ramp to improve the existing LOS deficiency duringpeak hours at this location. Future projects (both related and unrelated to the HousingElement) will be evaluated to ensure fair-share payment of fees towards the necessary

traffic improvements in the City.

Best regards,-David

DAVID BRANTLEYCommunity Development Director4845 Casa Loma Avenue | Yorba Linda, CA 92886P: 714-961-7134 W: yorbalindaca.gov

46-2

46-1(CONT.)



From: Robert Gaudette <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 3:15 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Cc: Susie Gaudette <[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth<[email protected]>Subject: Traffic around Linda Vista Elementary School

Ms. Garcia,

I have reviewed the environmental impact report and I did not see any information, or a traffic study, around Linda Vista Elementary School regrading the proposed rezoning to allow for the construction of 28 units directly across from the school. The intersections are Buena Vista and Ohio, Buena Vista and Mountain View, Mountain View and Linda Verde, as well as Linda Verde and Ohio.

The only intersections that required mediation were Buena Vista and Lakeview for a traffic signal and Kellogg/Imperial.

Did I miss the traffic study? Please advise.

Thanks in advance.

Rob Gaudette18666 Buena Vista714-815-0766

46-2(CONT.)




Robert Gaudette, dated June 13, 2022

46-1 The commenter asks to know more about Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a standardized engineering metric for gauging how motorists experience traffic as they drive around on City streets. It is based on traffic volume-to-capacity relationship of roadways and the delay experienced by motorists at intersections. The amount of delay is rated on a scale of A through F, with F representing the poorest level of intersection function with the greatest amount of delay. The City’s target LOS is “D.”

46-2 The commenter expresses concern with lack of traffic information around Linda Vista Elementary School, specifically at the intersections of Buena Vista and Ohio, Buena Vista and Mountain View, Mountain View and Linda Verde, and Linda Verde and Ohio. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion of Traffic. Detailed responses are also provided by the City in the body of the commenter letter. Thus, no further response is required.



Comment Letter 47

From: Stephanie Nichols <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 12:12 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: Kellogg and Grandview parcel Strawberry field

Concerns for Traffic Commission Meeting

1, Street alignments, grades and widths2. . Drainage and sanitary facilities and utilizes including alignments and grad thereof3. . I want to make sure the plan has conformity to or implementation of the gener plan4. . I want appropriate infrastructure and utilities either already serve the site or can readily expandedto serve the site and there are no unmitigable topographical peculiarities associated with the physicalcharacter of the property5 The project must constitute a class 15 (Minor land division categorical exemption and is thereforeexempt from the requirements of the California environmental quality act pursuant to title 146. . The design must not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large f access through or useof property within the proposed subdivision.7. . The discharge of waste from the proposed sub-division the existed sewer syst will not result in aviolation of existing requirements prescribed by the applicants or developer California regional qualitycontrol board.8. Street improvements, to include lights, lanes, gutters, space for new road on Grandview and Kelloggplans prepared by a licensed civil engineer shall be submitted for approval.9. All exterior street improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city engineer. toinclude Grandview and kellogg and Imperial on ramp and off ramps10. Grading of the property shall be in accordance with the grading ordinance and shall be to thesatisfaction of the city engineer.11. Any grading required outside of the project boundaries will require either slope easements or rightof entry letters from the adjacent property and the developer pay the costs12. Erosion control plans submitted and made ready for residents.13. 3. A soil report prepared by a qualified engineer to satisfaction to the reside across the street.14. Drainage plans and easements shall be provided by a city engineer15. 5. Storm drainage shall be construct16. 6. Water supply should be addres17. Sewer reports should be addressed18. All new street lights shall be constructed.19. Prior to the issuance of any permits the residents be made aware in writing20. 0. A fire hydrant plan to be submitted to the O21. A police entrance, exit plan from the OCSD.22. OCFA water availability for fire protection form shall be submitted and signed by the applicablewater district and for approval.23. all proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground in accordance with currentutility engineering practice.24. All proposed gas mains and services shall be installed prior to paving.25. Any approved technical drawings and or specification that will be changed.26. Noise report completed and submitted.27. Traffic report completed and submitted

Thank you,

Stephanie Nichols

47-147-247-3

47-4

47-5

47-6

47-7

47-8

47-9

47-10

47-1147-1247-1347-1447-1547-1647-1747-1847-1947-20

47-22

47-2347-2447-2547-2647-27

47-21





47-1 The commenter expresses concerns related to traffic regarding the housing opportunity site S4-053, specifically with street alignments, grades, and widths. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on roadway improvements. No further response is required.

47-2 The commenter expresses concerns on drainage and sanitary facilities for housing opportunity site S4-053. As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-24), future development would require the study of localized conditions and construction of additional storm drains based on site-specific conditions and proposed development plans. Moreover, as stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-31), no housing opportunity sites are constrained by infrastructure availability and individual developments would be reviewed by the City and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) in order to determine if sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development. No further response is required.

47-3 The commenter expresses concerns with housing opportunity site S4-053 and the Project’s conformity with the City’s General Plan. As stated in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.5-7 to 4.5-28), the Project would not conflict with any of the applicable General Plan goals and policies and would result in a less than significant impact with respect to a conflict with the City of Yorba Linda General Plan.

47-4 The commenter expresses concerns related to the availability of infrastructure and utilities of housing opportunity site S4-053. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33), impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and there is adequate capacity to accommodate the increase in housing units. No further response is required.

47-5 The commenter expresses concern related to housing opportunity site S4-053 qualifying for a class 15 CEQA categorical exemption. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15315, Class 15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. Future residential development would not qualify for categorical exemption under Class 15 since the exemption only applies to the division of a site not development of the site for residential uses.

47-6 The commenter expresses the design of the future development must not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Site-specific details are not available at this time. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



47-7 The commenter expresses concerns related to waste discharge and violation of existing requirements regarding housing opportunity site S4-053. As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-21 to 5-26), impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant and mandatory adherence to the Construction General Permit and implementation of measures outlined in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities.

47-8 The commenter expresses concerns related to roadway improvements on Grandview Avenue and Kellogg Drive for housing opportunity site S4-053. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project for a discussion on the analysis of the Draft PEIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15146, the Program EIR does not evaluate site-specific development and the program-level analysis correspond with the degree of specificity that is currently available for the Project. Future land use development projects would also be analyzed in detail through the City’s plan check process and an evaluation of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features will be required as future development occurs. Future improvements will be subject to review and future consideration by the City of Yorba Linda, Public Works Department.

47-9 The commenter states that all exterior street improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to include Grandview, Kellogg, and Imperial on- and off-ramps. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

47-10 The commenter states that grading shall be in accordance with the grading ordinance and be satisfaction to the City engineer. Grading plans will be submitted as part of the City’s plan check process and approval of plans by the City would be required prior to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

47-11 The commenter expresses concern with grading being required outside of the project boundaries and the possibility of slope easement. Site-specific details are not available at this time. Site plans and grading plans will be submitted to the City and approval of plans by the City would be required prior to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

47-12 The commenter expresses erosion control plan be completed, submitted, and available for public review. Site-specific details are not available at this time. Site plan such as erosion control plan will be submitted to the City and approval of plans by the City would be required prior to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

47-13 The commenter expresses concerns related to a soil report for housing opportunity site S4-053. Future development built in accordance with the Project would be required to comply with applicable Building and Safety regulations and the CBC. The geotechnical investigation would



be prepared and include site-specific assessment of soils onsite. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

47-14 The commenter expresses concerns related to provision of a drainage plan for housing opportunity site S4-053. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project for a discussion on the analysis of the Draft PEIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15146, the Program EIR does not evaluate site-specific development and the program-level analysis correspond with the degree of specificity that is currently available for the Project. Site-specific drainage reports would be prepared when future development is proposed. No further response is required.

47-15 The commenter asks for a storm drainage report. Site-specific details are not available at this time. Site plan such as drainage study will be submitted to the City and approval of plans by the City would be required prior to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

47-16 The commenter states that water supply should be addressed for housing opportunity site S4-053. Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District (refer to Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR), impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and according to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project.

47-17 The commenter states that sewer should be addressed for housing opportunity site S4-053. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-31), individual developments would be reviewed by the City and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) in order to determine if sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development. No further response is required.

47-18 The commenter expresses concerns related to the construction of new street lights. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project for a discussion on the analysis of the Draft PEIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15146, the Program EIR does not evaluate site-specific development and the program-level analysis correspond with the degree of specificity that is currently available for the Project. Site-specific studies would be prepared when future development is proposed. No further response is required.

47-19 The commenter expresses concerns related to the notice of issuance of permits for housing opportunity site S4-053. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on



the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

47-20 The commenter expresses concerns related to the submittal of a fire hydrant plan to OCFA for housing opportunity site S4-053. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion on compliance with OCFA. Future development would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinances for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. No further response is required.

47-21 The commenter expresses concerns related to the access of police protection services for housing opportunity site S4-053. As discussed in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.7-4), implementation of the Project would not have a significant impact on OCSD services. Future development will be required to pay development impacts fees that will provide its fair share of future police needs. Site-specific studies would be prepared when future development is proposed. No further response is required.

47-22 The commenter expresses concerns related to submittal of a water availability for fire protection form regarding housing opportunity site S4-053. Site-specific plans such as water availability for fire flow will be submitted to the City and approval of plans by the City and any responsibly agencies would be required prior to development. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

47-23 The commenter expresses concerns related to the installation of underground utilities for housing opportunity site S4-053. Site specific details such as utilities plan are not available at this time. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

47-24 The commenter expresses concerns related to the installation of gas mains and services prior to grading. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

47-25 The commenter related to the noticing of revisions to site-specific technical drawings for housing opportunity site S4-053 as a result of planning commission approval. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

47-26 The commenter expresses concerns related to the completion of a noise report for housing opportunity site S4-053. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project for a discussion on the analysis of the Draft PEIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15146, the Program EIR does not evaluate site-specific development and the program-level analysis correspond with the degree of specificity that is currently available for the Project. Site-specific studies would be prepared when future development is proposed. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.6, Noise, of the Draft PEIR (refer to 4.6-22 and 4.6-23), Mitigation Measures 4.6-5 would require applicants for individual projects that are within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor to prepare and submit to the City of Yorba Linda Planning Department a noise study to evaluate



potential operational-related stationary source noise impacts. Thus, no further response is required.

47-27 The commenter expresses concerns related to the completion of a traffic report for housing opportunity site S4-053. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project for a discussion on the analysis of the Draft PEIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15146, the Program EIR does not evaluate site-specific development and the program-level analysis correspond with the degree of specificity that is currently available for the Project. Site-specific studies would be prepared when future development is proposed. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 48

From: Susan Whittier <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 5:59 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Proposed High Density

Mr Farnsworth

Regarding your request for feedback for “ Proposed High Density”:

The State of California is over-reaching our city with these demands. We don’t have enough water for our community now!!

How can we possibly supply water to more development?!?!?!

This Proposed High Density proposal is an INSANE PROPOSAL!!No! No! No! No!

They have “destroyed” our Central California BREAD BASKET because of the Delta Smelt fish!!! This is crazy!!!They must open up the pumps and provide water for agriculture for FOOD which is a “human Necessity”!!!!!!!Forget about that tiny little fish. It has it’s own habitat reserve now. Give us back our water.

Colorado River supply is dangerously limited. Again where will water come from to supply more development here in Yorba Linda and elsewhere?!?!?

Building more high density development is an absolute “outrage” for Yorba Linda!!! NO! NO! NO MORE!!!

Our home is 33 years old and we barely got a trickle of water from our faucets. 20 years ago we had decent water pressure and a descent flow of water. This is the reality of the matter.

Common sense says: this proposal is BOLDLY and EMPHATICALLY an insane idea!!! These are the facts!

Additionally we all well know we live in a FIRE DANGER area!! With our reservoirs, lakes and rivers practically dried up - AGAIN where will we get water to put out fires?!?Let alone more development to BURN When there is a fire (or any other emergency) we can’t even get out of our neighborhood or community with all the TRAFFIC! “High Density” development will give us more gridlock making any Emergncy more dangerous with more traffic.

Please can we be “sensible” about this issue?!? Which would be NO MORE High Density development!

Respectfully, Susan Whittier5389 Via Santander, YL 92886

48-1




Susan Whittier, dated June 13, 2022

48-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the Project and raises general concerns related to water supply, fire hazards, and traffic regarding the increase in density in the City due to additional housing. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, and 2.1.5, Water Supply, for a discussion on traffic, fire evacuation, and water supply. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 49

From: 510463905 <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 1:44 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Newbury lane

My respect city of Yorba Linda official,We are residents who live the Newbury community, we strongly object to your willbuilding around our community. This will cause traffic congestion and a lot ofsocial problems. We loveYorba Linda city and don’t hope it is change.We especially object is:S3-103S3-074S3-205A

Best regards.

Newbury residents06/14/2022

49-1




Newbury Residents, dated June 14, 2022

49-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to housing opportunity sites S3-103, S3-074, and S3-205A due to traffic congestion and social problems. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns for a discussion related to traffic congestion. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 50

From: Robert Hogbin <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 8:24 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Draft PEIR Comments

Good morning

I understand and don’t object to the proposed zoning changes to accommodatemandated housing requIrements as this has been in the works for some time in YorbaLinda.

However, is there any consideration in the EIR for our current and potential watershortages/drought conditions ?

Building more residences and or commercial buildings and bringing in more peoplewhile restricting water usage and raising water rates for established residents seemsabsurd. Understandably, it will take some time before actual construction will begin ifall is approved but there appears to be no end in sight for our drought conditions.

As I drive around Southern California there’s new construction going on in every city. Ijust scratch my head and wonder if there really is a water shortage.

Seems like cities should be challenging these State mandates and a temporarymoratorium placed on new construction until there is some remedy in sight for anywater shortages.

Thank you,Bob Hogbin48 year resident of Yorba Linda

50-1

50-2




Bob Hogbin, dated June 14, 2022

50-1 The commenter expresses understanding of the Project’s requirements to accommodate State mandated housing requirements in the City of Yorba Linda. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

50-2 The commenter expresses concerns related to current and potential water shortages and drought conditions. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District (refer to Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR), impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and according to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 51

From: Steve Schinhofen <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 7:16 AMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Traffic to much

My name is Steve Schinhofen and my wife Kathy we live at 5678 Grandview av Yorba Linda for thelast 15 years and love are neighborhood ! We feel if this new housing elements site gets approvedwould really congest traffic in the neighborhood ! We already have a lot of traffic in the morningsand afternoon from the school down the street so please do not approve this plan! This is the reasonwe brought are house because of the lot size

Thank you Steve Schinhofen

51-1




Steve Schinhofen, dated June 14, 2022

51-1 The commenter expresses general concerns related to traffic congestion on Grandview Avenue. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion related to traffic congestion. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 52

From: ji jingbin <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 11:34 PMTo: [email protected]; Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Fwd: 反对rezoing

City Council and City Officials,

My name is Jingbin Ji. I live at Yorba Linda CA 92886

I’m reaching out for assistance and guidance regarding concerns that members of my community have recently raised to the planning Rezoing in the Housing Element within our neighborhood. We ask that you please take the time and consider our concerns.

The properties we are concerned about are:

1) No REzoing

2) Stop new RM-20 with AHO building.Unfortunately, we only recently learned about these plans after a neighbor notified us. I was not notified by the city although I reside in very close proximity to these sites. City officials also did NOT notify residents of the scope meeting on June 29th where big changes to our very own neighborhood were being discussed. This is inconsiderate as we didn’t know to voice our opinions and opposition.

3) We are requesting that the above sites be removed from the potential of being re-zoned on the “Housing Opportunity Sites List” which could potentially add RM-20 with AHO households to an already dangerously congested neighborhood. The addition of potentially 2417 more families and vehicles into this area would nearly 5% the density of our city which would be catastrophic. We will realize that the Yorba Linda still has only a few areas left with its UNIQUE LOW-DENSITY country feel and is WHY many families choose to live in Yorba Linda.

4) Our request is to REMOVE these RM-20 with AHO properties.

5) We loved the City of Yorba Linda. This place has been designated as Low Density city and safety city. This city arealready very congested during peak times. The more new building means more badly trafic.We need more polices, more public trafic and public place to set up. Do you have any idea to plan it?

6) Please do not start with our City!

Respectfully,

Print Name: Jingbin Ji

Sign: J.J

--

Thanks,

Jingbin.J

52-1

52-2

52-3

52-4




Jingbin Ji, dated June 15, 2022

52-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project regarding the proposed rezoning. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

52-2 The commenter raises general concerns related to the notice of the scoping meeting on June 29. The scoping meeting for the Project was held on May 23, 2022 at the Community Center located at 4501 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda. In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed and posted on the City’s website, OC Register, and at the Orange County Clerk’s office on April 29, 2022, which included the noticing of the scoping meeting.

52-3 The commenter requests the City to remove the above sites from proposed zoning action of RM-20 with AHO, but does not specify the housing opportunity sites in the letter. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

52-4 The commenter expresses general concerns related to traffic congestion and public safety. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety of this Final PEIR, for a discussion on traffic congestion and safety concerns. No further response is required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 53

From: 2578014048 <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 10:14 PM To: Monse Garcia <[email protected]> Subject: No rezoning

City Council and City Officials,

My name is Jingchao Jia . I live at 23275 Azela Cir, Yorba Linda CA 92887 .

I’m reaching out for assistance and guidance regarding concerns that members of my community have recently raised to the planning Rezoing in the Housing Element within our neighborhood. We ask that you please take the time and consider our concerns.The properties we are concerned about are:

1) No REzoing

2) Stop new RM-20 with AHO building.

Unfortunately, we only recently learned about these plans after a neighbor notified us. I was not notified by the city although I reside in very close proximity to these sites. City officials also did NOT notify residents of the scope meeting on June 29th where big changes to our very own neighborhood were being discussed. This is inconsiderate as we didn’t know to voice our opinions and opposition.

We are requesting that the above sites be removed from the potential of being re-zoned on the “Housing Opportunity Sites List” which could potentially add RM-20 with AHO households to an already dangerously congested neighborhood. The addition of potentially 2417 more families and vehicles into this area would nearly 5% the density of our city which would be catastrophic. We will realize that the Yorba Linda still has only a few areas left with its UNIQUE LOW-DENSITY country feel and is WHY many families choose to live in Yorba Linda.

Our request is to REMOVE these RM-20 with AHO properties.

We loved the City of Yorba Linda. This place has been designated as Low Density city and safety city. This city are already very congested during peak times. The more new building means more badly trafic.We need more polices, more public trafic and public place to set up. Do you have any idea to plan it?

Please do not start with our City!

Respectfully,

Jingchao Jia

53-1

53-2

53-3

53-4




Jingchao Jia, dated June 15, 2022

53-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project regarding the proposed rezoning. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

53-2 The commenter raises general concerns related to the notice of the scoping meeting on June 29. The scoping meeting for the Project was held on May 23, 2022 at the Community Center located at 4501 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda. In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed and posted on the City’s website, OC Register, and at the Orange County Clerk’s office on April 29, 2022, which included the noticing of the scoping meeting.

53-3 The commenter requests to remove the above sites from proposed zoning action of RM-20 with AHO, but does not specify the housing opportunity sites in the letter. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

53-4 The commenter expresses general concerns related to traffic congestion and public safety. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety of this Final PEIR, for a discussion on traffic congestion and safety concerns. No further response is required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 54

From: Youssef Malek <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 7:59 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: Rezoning of South Ohio St.

My family and I relocated from Paris France to Yorba Linda in 1991 and we love our neighborhood. Both our adult sons went to Linda Vista Elementary school which is less than a mile from our home. In 5th grade our kids were old enough to walk to school but all the traffic caused by parents dropping off and picking up their children made us decide to have an adult escort ours everyday for their safety.Adding 28 housing units to South Ohio st will probably add 56 cars to that small Cul de Sac and make the traffic look like place de la Concorde.If that is what you are planning to do you better consider widening the streets, adding some roundabouts and maybe a couple of statues.We are in our late 60’s early 70’s please don’t change our neighborhood and force us to consider relocating again.Best regardsJoe Malek18921 vista realYorba Linda, CA. 92886657-387-1712

54-1




Joe Malek, dated June 14, 2022

54-1 The commenter expresses general concerns related to traffic congestion on South Ohio Street. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 55

From: Duane Mcgrath <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 5:48 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: Comment on S5-008 in Draft PEIR

It is crazy to even think of building any new homes during a drought: not to mention more kids in overcrowded schools, more traffic and pollution and lastly, some if those business have been there for OVER 25 years! So selfish and completely unnecessary!

Sincerely,

Kathy McGrath24475 Via Arriba Linda92887

55-1




Kathy McGrath, dated June 15, 2022

55-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and raises concerns related to drought conditions, availability of school services, traffic, and air pollution for housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter raises general concerns related to traffic, pollution, and noise and the impacts to nearby schools and surrounding neighbors from allowing additional development. Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.5, Water Supply for a discussion related to traffic and water supply. Also please note that air quality, public services (schools), and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1, 4.7, and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 56

From: lrizzo yukonplastering.com <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 8:47 AMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Cc: mrizzo yukonplastering.com <[email protected]>Subject: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR VARIOUS ZONING -PLAN HOUSING ELEMENTIMPLEMENTATIONPROGRAM

Dear Ms. Garcia:

I am responding to the City of Yorba Linda letter dated June 10, 2022 .

We live at 5211 Highland Avenue in Yorba Linda, Ca. We are concerned about adding more traffic tothis street. There is only one way in and one way out for all the residents that reside in that area. The dirt road at the end of Highland is locked and closed down. The Water Department only hasaccess to that road.

Friends Church uses Mountain View via Yorba Linda Blvd for the main entrance for their school andchurch. There is even a mailbox on Mountain View now. Additionally, all the parents use theMountain View and Yorba Linda Blvd. entrance to drop off their children at the school and pick themup.My wait time to enter Highland can be 20 minutes or more if I happen to be exiting my residenceeither early in the morning or afternoon. The people at the church do not stop at the MountainView stop sign. That corner is very dangerous and all of us who live in there have had near misses ingetting out of the street. Also, the church services become very congested as well. The same thinghappens. We cannot get into or out of our street.

My main concern is for emergency vehicles being allowed to reach us. If the traffic is backed up atthe Intersection of Mountain View and Highland, they will not be able to get to us. This has alwaysbeen our main concern back there.

Thank you for allowing me to respond to your letter and my feedback concerning the possiblerezoning above.

Yours truly,

Linda Rizzo

56-1

56-2

56-3




Linda Rizzo, dated June 15, 2022

56-1 The commenter expresses general concerns related to traffic and safety near Mountain View and Yorba Linda Boulevard. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on traffic congestion and pedestrian safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

56-2 The commenter expresses general concerns related to emergency access in the area. Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

56-3 The commenter expresses commendation for the ability to provide feedback to the Project and provides closing comments. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 57

From: LINDA RIZZO <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 9:47 AMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: [Ylheu] Website Public Comments - new submission

LINDA RIZZO just submitted your form: Website Public Commentson Ylheu

Message Details:First Name: LINDALast Name: RIZZOEmail: [email protected]: PLEASE REVIEW MY COMMENTS THAT WERESUBMITTED. HIGHLAND AND MOUNTAIN VIEW ARE HIGHLYCONGESTED AND THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY IN AND OUT FORALL RESIDENTS THAT LIVE ON HIGHLAND AND THE NEWNEWBURY TRACT ALL THE WAY TO THE RESERVOIR. VERYCONCERNED THAT EMERGENCY CREWS CANNOT GET IN IFTHERE IS AN EMERGENCY. MOUNTAIN VIEW AND YORBA LINDABLVD IS NOW THE ACCESS WAY FOR THE FRIENDS CHURCH TOENTER FOR ALL SERVICES AND ALSO SCHOOL CHILDREN ANDCLASSES COMING AND GOING

57-1




Linda Rizzo, dated June 15, 2022

57-1 The commenter (also Comment Letter 56) submitted similar comments via the City’s website. The commenter expresses concerns related to traffic congestion near Highland and Mountain View, noting that there is only one way in and out for residents that live on Highland and the new Newbury tract to the reservoir. The commenter is concerned congestion related to church and school services. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on traffic congestion and pedestrian safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

This comment letter is the email accompanying Comment Letter 57. Refer to Response to Comment 56-1 and 56-2. Thus, no further response is required.



Comment Letter 58

From: Rebecca Maravilla <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 10:48 AMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Safety risk

Dear Mr. Garcia,

This email is in response to the proposed rezoning/increased traffic of the Bryant Ranch areaof Yorba Linda.

I urge you to cancel the idea of rezoning Site ID# S7-005 and S7-001 due to an increased safetyrisk for the current residents.

The Freeway Complex wildfire, in November 2008, left us gridlocked for several hours trying toevacuate through the only exit route on La Palma Avenue. We faced a similar situation duringthe Blue Ridge Fire in October 2020. Increasing the housing density would only serve tocomplicate a dangerous traffic situation that already exists.

Thank you for your attention on this matter,

Rebecca Maravilla27760 Tamara DriveYorba Linda, CA 92887

58-1




Rebecca Maravilla, dated June 15, 2022

58-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic and proposes cancellation of housing opportunity sites S7-005 and S7-001 due to increased safety risk. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on traffic congestion and pedestrian safety.

The commenter also recalls past wildfire events and raises concerns about emergency access for housing opportunity sites S7-005 and S7-001. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 59

From: Vince Rinner <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 9:52 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>; Shirjeel Muhammad <[email protected]>Subject: Traffic impact analysis Rose Drive

Hi Monsie,

My name is Vince Rinner and I own/live at 2509 N Rose Dr, Placentia, CA 92870. It is myunderstanding that additional housing will be coming to the properties directly across the streetfrom my home as well as down the block on Rose.

My biggest concern would be the additional traffic that will be coming down Rose Drive. As it isalready, it is difficult to exit my driveway due to the fact that it is already difficult to see comingtraffic at the turn of Rose Dr and Blake Road when exiting my driveway and especially if there arecars parked along the street on Rose in front of my house.

I doubt there is much I can do to stop the development of the homes but I would request at aminimum that the parking on the street in front of my home is perhibitted (like a red curb) and alight is put in at Blake and Rose. The small most northern section of curb in front of the big pine treeis the worst when cars are parked there. I cannot even see cars on Rose until after they get past thatpoint. With all the new homes coming in I am sure that residents will be parking full time in front ofmy home blocking the view and safety to get out.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter and it would be nice to get a response from youregarding the situation.

Vince Rinner2509 N Rose DrivePlacentia, CA 92870562-201-3221

59-1

59-2

59-3




Vince Rinner, dated June 15, 2022

59-1 The commenter understands that one of the housing opportunity sites would be directly across the street from the commenter’s property and expresses general concerns related to traffic increases. The commenter notes that it is difficult to see traffic at the turn of Rose Drive and Blake Road. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns for a discussion related to traffic. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

59-2 The commenter requests that parking on Rose Drive be prohibited and installation of a traffic signal at Blake Road and Rose Drive. The commenter notes visibility issues with ongoing traffic on Rose Drive. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

59-3 This comment provides conclusionary remarks; thus, no further response is required.



Comment Letter 60

From: Diana Yan <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:28 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Oppose to Zoning Change & General Plan Modification

Dear Ms. Farnsworth,

I am a resident at Yorba Linda and recently received the Notice of Public Hearing Concerning VariousZoning and General Plan Modifications Related to the 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan HousingElement Implementation Program. My family has big concerns about this Zoning Change and GeneralPlan Modifications. We oppose such change and modification.

We moved to Yorba Linda in 2005 when my daughter was born. We had opportunities to buy a home inother cities in various circumstances. We finally chose Yorba Linda because we think it is the best placeto raise a family. It is safe, it offers excellent education to kids, and the neighborhoods/communities areall family-oriented. Most importantly, we find space and privacy in homes in Yorba Linda, because mostof them have bigger lots. In the past 18 years, we feel that Yorba Linda is truly a Land of Gracious Living,and we are proud of living in this beautiful city.

The proposed zoning change and General Plan Modification will allow more housing built in the YorbaLinda, and increase the density of the whole city, which will create problems in different areas, includingbut not limited to traffic, education, privacy, safety and security, and evacuation when there is a fire. Toadd those housing units, the city should first improve the public works, such as roads and streets, parks,schools, fire stations, hospitals, police stations, etc, to ensure that the traffic, education, and safety arekept on the same level as before. In addition, since Yorba Linda is right next to the Chino State Park, andwe have had more often wildfires in recent years, adding more housing will slow the evacuation processand put more people in danger.

I will take the closest parcel to my community as an example. This is the one on Fairmont Blvd – APN326-081-01. It is a piece of low-lying land next to the hills. There are environmental issues that make thislot unsuitable for high-density housing. It is located in a very high-risk fire hazard and landslide area.

There is a lack of ability to support an evacuation plan. In addition, it will increase the teacher-to-studentratios in the nearby schools. It is not the right site to build 230 units.

Hereby we ask the leaders of our city to preserve this Land of Gracious Living. Avoid high density, keepour privacy and safety, and keep the excellent education for our kids.

Respectfully,

Diana Yan4233 Genoa WayYorba Linda, CA

60-1

60-2

60-3

60-4




Diana Yan, dated June 16, 2022

60-1 The commenter discusses their living history in the City of Yorba Linda and expresses general opposition to the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.

60-2 The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic, school services, safety, and emergency access regarding the Project. The commenter recommends improvements to roads, recreation, and public services. The commenter notes that the City is next to the Chino State Park and mentions the increasing occurrence of wildfires in the area. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, and 2.1.4. Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion on traffic, safety, and fire evacuation/emergency access concerns. Also, please note that public services (school) impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.7 of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.

60-3 The commenter provides an example of a property (housing opportunity site S5-008) that is subject to fire hazards and landslide risk. The commenter mentions there is a lack of ability to support an evacuation plan. In addition, the commenter notes that the Project will increase the teacher-to-student ratios for nearby schools. With respect to landslides, refer to Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) and all applicable Building and Safety division requirements. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant. Refer to Response to Comment 60-2, regarding impacts related to fire hazards, evacuation and schools.

60-4 The commenter asks the City to avoid high density development and to maintain safety and school services for children. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.



Comment Letter 61

From: Elliott Levin <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:55 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Traffic impact Fairmont/Caynon housing project

Dear M Garcia:Please add the following comments to the Traffic Commission consideration of the impact of the proposed 223 new housing units for the Fairmont/Canyon project:

Adding 223 households will produce at a minimum 446 vehicles (2 cars per household at a minimum), that will have a highly significant impact upon the already crowded traffic in and around Bastanchury and Fairmont Blvd. The line of vehicles in the morning arriving and departing in the afternoon at Yorba Linda High School is intolerable.The traffic traveling west in the morning commute on Bastanchury is at times bumper to bumper, as well as traveling east when people are returning home.

The above project due to its density of housing units ( adding at a minimum 446 vehicles) will only intensify the traffic impact and create a higher level of congestion. In addition, there is another housing project being built on Bastanchury just a few blacks east of Imperial Highway that will dump more vehicles on the already highly congested commute patterns.Evacuation during a fire will be impacted that will endanger public safety, which the City of Yorba Linda will be liable for, as it is evident that there is no additional traffic lanes that will be built to reduce this congestion/bumper to bumper traffic that is already occurring and will get worse with the density of housing units that is proposed.

I invite any and all members of the traffic commission to join me in my morning and evening commute to first hand experience the traffic congestion that is taking place. … I hope you do not ignore the common sense facts of what the current conditions are and how approving the have high density housing units will add to our commute misery.

Best regardsElliott, Elena, Natalie Levin20839 Fallen Leaf RdYorba Linda, CA 9288620 year residents of Yorba Linda

61-1




Elliott, Elena, and Natalie Levin, dated June 16, 2022

61-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic on Bastanchury Road and Fairmont Boulevard and fire evacuation. The commenter notes existing traffic conditions near Yorba Linda High School and on Bastanchury Road. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.



Comment Letter 62

From: SHARLENE DUNN <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 8:55 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Kellogg and Grandview proposal

Dear Mr FarnsworthIt would be a ridiculously bad decision to rezone the lot on Kellogg and Grandview for 10 homes. It used to be a gas station at one time. Kellogg terrace across the street was a dump and old time residents noted increase cancer in our parkside estates.1 traffic is already bad there next to the imperial highway on and off ramps. Traffic from Yorba Linda Blvd and the other end Orangethorpe is bad and a wait to get out of our homes onto Kellogg. This parcel is just blocks from Esperanza Hight School with all that daily traffic. It is the road to our church with several Sunday sessions. Traffic comes from Yorba Linda blvd and also Orangethorpe to access imperial highway on ramps to Anaheim Hills, placentia Brea . The townhouses at that intersection can only exit there. They already have two signals and three in a row would be necessary.Please do the right thing and deny rezoning for all of the above reasons plus I’m sure there are more.SincerelyMrs. Sharlene Dunn6071 Saddletree LaneYorba Linda 92886714 779-6066

Sent from my iPhoneSharlene

62-1




Sharlene Dunn, dated June 16, 2022

62-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to rezone the lot on Kellogg and Grandview (housing opportunity site S4-053) and discusses the previous uses of the site. The commenter expresses concerns related to existing traffic regarding housing opportunity site S4-053. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.



Comment Letter 63

From: Sue <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 6:16 AMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: New proposed housing in the Bryant Ranch area

As a 28 year resident of Bryant ranch my husband and I are very saddened to hear about the proposed housing being planned in this area. Having been here through wildfires and the traffic on Lapalma (especially during rush hour) we are very concerned about the impact of these structures in our neighborhood. Please reconsider adding housing to this area. We appreciate your time in this matter

Randy and Susan Siegmund5060 WoodlandYorba Linda 92887

63-1




Randy and Susan Siegmund, dated June 16, 2022

63-1 The commenter expresses general concerns related to wildfire and traffic regarding the Bryant Ranch area. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion related to traffic and fire evacuation. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.



Comment Letter 64

From: Rory Gilham <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:20 AMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: [Ylheu] Website Public Comments - new submission

Rory Gilham just submitted your form: Website Public Commentson Ylheu

Message Details:First Name: RoryLast Name: GilhamEmail: [email protected]: My wife and I have lived in Anaheim Hills & Yorba Linda since 1991. We moved to Yorba Linda from Anaheim Hills in 2007, for the less crowded & more laidback community. However, poor city management, poor involvement with community preferences, development greed and just bad government have contributed to over-crowding, traffic jams and endless annoyances. I wouldn’t recommend Yorba Linda to anyone looking for a better lifestyle in SoCal. Over the years it has become controlled by financial greed by the developers and city management. WE VOTE NO ON ANY FURTHER GREED AND DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY. AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS, CRIME, AND SHEAR STUPIDITY HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT INCREASE FOR YEARS AND YOUR PLANS ARE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT MORE OF THE SAME.

64-1




Rory Gilham, dated June 16, 2022

64-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and City services. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.



Comment Letter 65

From: Cheri Durthaler <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 6:11 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>; City of Anaheim Traffic Eng <[email protected]>Cc: Mark Tacconelli <[email protected]>; Madison Murray <[email protected]> Subject: Grandview/Kellogg

Monse;

I am concerned about the traffic at my complex, across from the strawberry field. In the last year or two the number of people who flat out run BOTH lights at that intersection on Kellogg is blatantly appalling. I took a few seconds extra to drive out onto Kellogg one day as I was putting on my sunglasses, as I started out someone blasted right past the other people waiting at the light and nearly took my front end off. If I had been a second earlier I might be dead.

A number of other times I was also readying to pull out and so many other people did the same thing. Usually just one here and there, but once it was two separate drivers, one after the other. They are doing about 40mph plus and just totally ignore BOTH lights. One at the freeway off-ramp and the next one two car lengths farther at our entrance/exit.It is not a mistake or overlook, they just flat don't care. Usually it is the north bound vehicles, but less often people from the north going south do it.

Last April one of my friends was coming home in the morning from dropping her grandchildren off at school, as she was crossing Kellogg to come home a lady literally blasted thru the lights and T-Boned her, that lady is STILL in the hospital from the accident. My friend has recovered but her NEW Honda Odessy was totaled, she got hit SO HARD it took the entire WHEEL off. Not just a flat but the whole wheel rim and all came off the axle. The cost to fix it is $18,000.00. The insurance decided to fix it because it is nearly impossible to get those vehicles without a long wait due to all the shipping and production issues. If the kids had been in the vehicle it would have been even more of a disaster.

The hardest part is there are three jurisdictions at that intersection with Imperial highway. Anaheim is the south side of the bridge, Caltrans in above and maybe below, and Yorba Linda is just past it. So who can you get some help out of. I don't do a lot of running around and I always see people running the lights, going past every other person who is waiting at the red light. And now you want to add high density housing? This is insane.

There needs to be a couple 2 foot wide strips of those yellow bumps added crossing the road on the Anaheim side, another light wont do a bit of good. And the strips of bumps need to go all the way to the other side for both lanes each way. Maybe even three sets of them. These people couldn't care less. They may even be on drugs for all we know. I am tired of seeing my neighbors in near misses and getting myself killed because they just don't care at all. And worse yet, there shouldn't be two lights right after one another. The Caltrans one should be moved to the other side of the bridge so people coming north can see it better.This is really getting insane and more people isn't going to help.

And I am on the board at Kellogg Terrace Condominiums and people are constantly asking me to have traffic change the light so we don't have to wait 2 cycles to get out most of the time. You people have no idea what a crazy mess this is, and then we have to wait to make a left turn or to just go straight sometimes as long as 5-10 minutes. It's absolutely crazy.

Thank you ahead of time for listening, please do something about this.

Cheri Durthaler, KTC HOA VP19165 Parkland StYorba Linda, CA 92886714-886-8620

65-1

65-2

65-3

65-4




Cheri Durthaler, dated June 17, 2022

65-1 The commenter recalls past traffic incidents on Kellogg Drive and expresses general concerns with traffic on Grandview and Kellogg (housing opportunity site S4-053). The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

65-2 The commenter notes traffic conditions at the intersection of Kellogg Drive and Imperial Highway and that it is under multi-jurisdictional control. The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

65-3 The commenter recommends traffic calming for Kellogg Drive and expresses general opposition to the Project due to the projected increase in population. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

65-4 The commenter notes the conditions of the traffic signals on Kellogg Drive. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 66

From: Karen Bertram <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 7:08 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Housing Element, DPEIR

Mr. Nate Farnsworth:

Our family has lived on Montecito Drive for forty-four years and have watched the city grow. Although Yorba Linda has changed a lot during those years, it is still a nice community to live in. Zone changes in residential neighborhoods would dramatically change Yorba Linda for everyone.

We have been notified of the potential for twenty-eight new residences on two parcels close to us, Sites S4-060 and S4-201 on South Ohio St. We drive on Buena Vista Ave. between Grandview Ave. and Rose Drive several times a week, sharing the narrow road with cyclists, mail trucks and trash trucks. During school hours traffic is increased with parents dropping off and picking up children at Linda Vista Elementary School. Twenty-eight additional homes would certainly add traffic on Buena Vista and the one block of South Ohio and endanger children walking to and from school.

Rick and Karen Bertram

66-1




Rick and Karen Bertram, dated June 17, 2022

66-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic and safety at housing opportunity sites S4-060 and S4-201, due to increased traffic and sharing a narrow road with cyclists, mail trucks, trash trucks, and school drop offs. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on traffic and safety concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 67

67-1

67-2

67-3

67-4

67-5

67-6




Richard and Amelia Fellner, dated June 17, 2022

67-1 The commenter expresses concern with the Project and requests reconsideration of housing opportunity sites S7-005, S7-001, S6-015, and S6-020. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

67-2 The commenter notes current traffic conditions at Bryant Ranch Elementary School near housing opportunity site S7-005. The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic congestion and fire evacuation regarding housing opportunity site S7-005. Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion on traffic and fire evacuation. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

67-3 The commenter expresses general concerns with the proposed residential units and traffic regarding housing opportunity site S7-001. Refer to Response to Comment 67-2 above.

67-4 The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic and notes existing traffic conditions at housing opportunity sites S6-015 and S6-020. Refer to Response to Comment 67-2 above.

67-5 The commenter notes current traffic conditions near the SR-91. The commenter expresses concern with traffic, air quality, and noise regarding the Project. Refer to Response to Comment 67-2 above. Also please note that air quality, noise, and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1, 4.6, and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

67-6 This comment provides conclusionary remarks and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 68

From: Rich & DJ <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 12:22 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: General Plan Housing Element Re-Zoning

Good afternoon. Unfortunatley, I cannot make the in-person meetings, but I am writing you about theproposed changes in zoning for areas around Yorba Linda to accommodate the states housing elementthat the city adopted. Let’s start off I don’t agree with the states overreaching and forcing cities to addlow-income housing to their jurisdiction. With that being said there are many areas in Yorba Linda thatSHOULD NOT be re-zoned to accommodate this implementation. Yorba Linda used to be known as arural neighborhood with open space and large parcel for horses. In respects to the two parcels that theyare trying to re-zone at 5531 South Ohio Street and the SWC of Kellogg Dr/ Grandview Ave, these twoparcels should not be re-zoned to accommodate this type of housing. Both properties will add Blythe tothe neighborhood, increased traffic, and will change the completion of this area of Yorba Linda. This areaspecifically is one of the remaining few that has Yorba Linda's rural feel with equestrian and propertiesbacked by horse trails. This area mostly with no curbs or street lights adding to the feel. The location onOhio St. is directly across the street from Linda Vista Elementary School and would not only add to trafficmess during school pick up and drop offs it will drastically change the look of the neighborhood. Ipersonally know this property because the current owner bought the property and has already rezoned itinto 3 parcels and failed with his plan on building three monstrosities on those lots. I’m ashamed of thecity trying to come in with the owner and rezone them again to build even more units there. This is notthe area for this type of housing and should be left alone instead of the city trying to force this type ofhousing into certain neighborhoods. As for the parcel on Kellogg/Grandview (Strawberry Patch), thisshould not be developed into 10 units. This too will add more traffic to the area and change the feel of theentrance to this rural neighborhood. Yes, I do believe that the owner has the right to build here but not 10units. This property could accommodate 3 homes max that wouldn’t affect the feel or add much traffic.There are already a large condominium property accords the street. If anything, do something with theempty lot on the other side of the street (the old gas station) and put 3 units there. I moved to thisneighborhood for the rural equestrian feel and the state and now the city is trying to take it away. When isenough, enough? It’s time for the city to fight back against the state’s mandates and time for us citizensto say NO to this intrusion into our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Richard Canfield 5199 Mountain View Ave, Yorba Linda.

68-1




Richard Canfield, dated June 17, 2022

68-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the State-mandated RHNA obligation and the Project. The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic and pedestrian/equestrian safety regarding housing opportunity sites S4-201 and S4-053.

The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion and safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 69

From: [email protected]: "David Brantley"Cc: "Nate Farnsworth"; "Monse Garcia"; "Jamie Lai"; "[email protected]"; "Charlene Hwang So"; Nicole Morse;

"Tony Wang"; "Shirjeel Muhammad"Subject: RE: Traffic impact analysis Rose DriveDate: Friday, June 17, 2022 11:42:06 AM

Thank you so much for the quick replies. I really appreciate that.

Also here are a couple of pictures coming out of my driveway taken from my car. Note that I do have a circular driveway and it is even more of an issue if I try and exit from the north driveway. The posted speed limit is 35 but cars are usually traveling much faster than that (40-55-60 mph).

Thanks again for your consideration and help in this matter.

Vince Rinner562-201-3221

-----------------------------------------

From: "David Brantley" To: "[email protected]"Cc: "Nate Farnsworth", "Monse Garcia", "Jamie Lai", "[email protected]", "Charlene Hwang So", "Nicole Morse", "Tony Wang", "Shirjeel Muhammad", "Nicole Morse"Sent: Thursday June 16 2022 3:39:30PMSubject: RE: Traffic impact analysis Rose Drive

Hello M. Rinner, thank you for your comments. We are forwarding all comments received in relation to the upcoming Traffic Commission meeting to the Traffic Commissioners for consideration at their upcoming meeting on June 23, 2022. Additionally, comments related to the overall project may be submitted directly to the Planning Commission and/or City Councilfor consideration at their upcoming public hearings on June 29th and July 27th (PlanningCommission) and August 2nd and August 9th (City Council). Additionally, we would encourage you to submit comments regarding environmental issues to Nate Farnsworth, Planning Manager, for inclusion in the Program EIR. The City will be preparing responses to all environmental comments received at the conclusion of the 45-day public review period for the Draft PEIR. In the meantime, we also would invite you to visit the City’s Housing Element website for more information: https://www.ylhousingelementupdate.com/.

In terms of your concern regarding sight distance visibility issues along Rose Drive, I have copied our Traffic Engineering Manager, Tony Wang, for discussion of this issue. Tony currently is out of the office but expect to hear from him shortly about this concern upon his return. There are potential immediate measures that may be able to be implemented to address this concern.

Best regards,-David

69-1

69-2



From: Vince Rinner <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 9:52 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>; Shirjeel Muhammad<[email protected]>Subject: Traffic impact analysis Rose Drive

Hi Monsie,

My name is Vince Rinner and I own/live at 2509 N Rose Dr, Placentia, CA 92870. It is myunderstanding that additional housing will be coming to the properties directly across thestreet from my home as well as down the block on Rose.

My biggest concern would be the additional traffic that will be coming down Rose Drive. As itis already, it is difficult to exit my driveway due to the fact that it is already difficult to seecoming traffic at the turn of Rose Dr and Blake Road when exiting my driveway andespecially if there are cars parked along the street on Rose in front of my house.

I doubt there is much I can do to stop the development of the homes but I would request at aminimum that the parking on the street in front of my home is perhibitted (like a red curb) anda light is put in at Blake and Rose. The small most northern section of curb in front of the bigpine tree is the worst when cars are parked there. I cannot even see cars on Rose until afterthey get past that point. With all the new homes coming in I am sure that residents will beparking full time in front of my home blocking the view and safety to get out.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter and it would be nice to get a response fromyou regarding the situation.

Vince Rinner

2509 N Rose Drive

Placentia, CA 92870

562-201-3221

69-3




Vincer Rinner, dated June 17, 2022

69-1 The commenter notes current traffic conditions on Rose Drive and provides photographs of Rose Drive from the driveway. The commenter describes difficultly exiting his property and speeding cars in the area. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

69-2 This comment consists of the response from the City from comments received in response to comments 69-3. Thus, no further response is required.

69-3 The commenter expresses concern for the increase in traffic on Rose Drive. Refer to response to comment 69-2 and Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Thus, no further response is required.



Comment Letter 70

From: craigallen1954 <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 2:20 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Yorba Linda, rezoning

I, have lived in this community for 34 years. Is the City Council's position a progressive one or is it one of monetary (ie, tax breaks) or both? Either way this will be contested and voices will be heard in opposition to this incongruous, ludicrousness. See you there.

70-1




Craig Allen, dated June 18, 2022

70-1 The commenter notes their living history in the City of Yorba Linda. The commenter inquires about the City Council’s position and expresses opposition to the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 71

From: erwen zhuo <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 2:19 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Disagree the DPEIR related to the 2021-2029 yorba linda generl plan housing elementimplementation programs

Hi managerI am resident at yorba lindaI disagree with the DPEIR plans related to the 2021-2029 yorba linda generl plan housing elementimplementation programsI strongly don't accept especially the affordable housing overlay(AHO) sites, or the 27properties/sites which were mentioned in the notice of public availability of a DPEIR, or anyrezoning.

Erwen Zhuo

71-1




Erwen Zhuo, dated June 18, 2022

71-1 The commenter is a resident in the City of Yorba Linda and expresses general opposition to the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 72

From: Robin Rubinstein <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 2:38 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Rezoning Bryant Ranch

HiThank you for allowing the opportunity to voice concerns. Having lived through and been severely impacted by last 2 fires that occurred in our area, it would be dangerous and irresponsible to impact this area any further. Those of us who currently live here couldn’t get out. Paseo de Toronto was bumper to bumper, Camino de Bryant had total gridlock and we sat and watched as the fire blazed around us - unable to escape.

There is no realistic or safe escape route for current residents, it would behoove you to address that.

There is no way to describe the fear of coming down Camino de Bryant with the fire burning right next to the car.

Please don’t allow this area to become a death trap for those of us who live here now.

Thank youRabbi Robin Rubinstein, PhD Bryant Ranch Resident

72-1




Rabbi Robin Rubinstein, dated June 18, 2022

72-1 The commenter recalls previous wildfire events and expresses general concerns with fire evacuation and emergency access regarding the Bryant Ranch area. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 73

From: rui zhang <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 2:24 PMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: [Ylheu] Website Public Comments - new submission

rui zhang just submitted your form: Website Public Commentson Ylheu

Message Details:First Name: ruiLast Name: zhangEmail: [email protected]: I am resident of yorba linda I disagree with the DPEIR of the2021-2029 yorba linda generl plan housing element implementationprograms I don't want the affordable housing overlay(AHO) sites or anyrezoning.

73-1




Rui Zhang, dated June 18, 2022

73-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the AHO site and rezoning with implementation of the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 74

From: Tegdeep Kondal <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 1:47 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>; Shirjeel Muhammad<[email protected]>Subject: Input for Review of traffic impact analysis for various zoning

Hello,

I am concerned about the impact that the upcoming housing development will have in the BryantRanch area. I am a resident in the area and am already concerned with the increased traffic due to

the 91 spillover.

With upcoming developments, I would like to know specifically how the city will address:1)) increased traffic due to cemetery wo2)) increased traffic due to increased housing in the ar3)) plan to ensure evacuation of residents in a safe and timely manner during fires. For reference, took our family 45 minutes to evacuate in the last fire. And we only had to drive the stretch betweenKodiak Mountain Dr and LaPalma on Camino de Bryant. We had to inhale fire smoke for 45 minuteson a stretch that normally can be done in 2 minutes because of the increased traffic due to theevacuation. Note that all streets in the area are single lanes.

Thanks you,Tegdeep Kondal5400 Kodiak Mountain Dr, Yorba Linda, CA 92887

74-1

74-274-3

74-4




Tegdeep Kondal, dated June 18, 2022

74-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with the Project and existing traffic from the SR-91 spillover. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

74-2 The commenter asks how the City will handle increased traffic due to cemetery work. Please refer to Response to Comment 74-1.

74-3 The commenter how the City will handle increased traffic due to increased housing in the Bryant Ranch area. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

74-4 The commenter asks about the plan to ensure safety of residents during fire evacuations and emergency access with implementation of the Project. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 75

From: Beverly Williams <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 11:33 AMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Cc: Beverly Williams <[email protected]>Subject: Traffic Impact

Good Morning Monse,Sending you this message as I am concerned about the Traffic Impact that we would personally experiencefrom this Development near Rose and Imperial area, specifically at Rose and Wabash.I am a Senior Citizen and Live in Lake Park Mobile Home Park, where I have lived for the past 13 years. I have experienced the Major congestion at this intersection at traffic times. This is our only in and out excess as Wabash was closed down to through traffic several years ago.Please take this under consideration as you move forward with these projects.

Respectfully,Beverly Williams16982 Lake Park Way Yorba Linda 92886714-524-0043

75-1




Beverly Williams, dated June 20, 2022

75-1 The commenter expresses concerns with traffic and notes experience with traffic congestion at the intersection of Rose Drive and Wabash Avenue. Future housing development would conduct a focus traffic impact analysis based on City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines that will include the discussion of access and safety impacts on the surrounding area due to the implementation of each development project. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 76

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 1:33 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Low Income Housing

I am a long time resident of YL (1989) and just heard about the proposed low income housing proposedin the Bryant Ranch area.

I am totally opposed to this proposal. Currently the traffic on La Palma, Gypsum Canyon and some of theaccess streets are backed up from regular traffic. Adding 400+ homes and families will make it evenworse.

We bought homes in this area based on what the neighborhood was like and our surroundings. This

would totally take away from the density of our homes and ultimately increase traffic.

If we were to have another evacuation for fire, we would never be able to get out of the area.

Please vote NO on this proposal.

Carmen Walter24550 Avenida de MarciaYorba Linda, CA 92887

76-1




Carmen Walter, dated June 20, 2022

76-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and raises concerns with traffic and fire evacuation in the Bryant Ranch area. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion on traffic and fire evacuation. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 77

From: Paulina Rodriguez <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 10:21 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]; David Brantley <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Thanks for Meeting

Hi Nate,I’ve been reading through the Draft PEIR and one thing that is standing out to me is that the issue ofGeology (Earthquake & Landslide) and Hydrology (Water runoff) is listed as not to be significant andtherefore not studied and discussed in the Draft PEIR even though our comments to the NOPrequested that it be.I’m confused by this statement given S5-008 is clearly in both hazard zones and surprised it’s beingomitted from the report. At minimum, I would have expected a clear mitigation action to beidentified like the other topics (Wildfire & Biological). Can you explain what's behind this, specificallywhy it’s not called out as a topic of significance in the report?

5.4 IMPACTS CONSIDERED LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “an EIR shall contain a statement brieflyindicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to besignificant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” Based on review of the Project andsupporting technical studies, it was determined that the following topical issues would result in lessthan significant or no impacts after mandatory compliance with regulatory requirements: Aesthetics,Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and HazardousMaterials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, and Population and Housing, andUtilities and Service Systems.

Regards,Paulina

Section 1.5 The environmental topics identified for further study in this EIR include: Air Quality,Biological Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise,Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire.

On Jun 20, 2022, at 9:37 AM, Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>wrote:

That’s a really good summary of the process a developer would need to follow beforedevelopment of the site. Obviously, CEQA is a lot more detailed, but this is a good,concise summary.

NATE FARNSWORTHPlanning Manager

77-1

77-3

77-2



From: Paulina Rodriguez <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 2:52 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]; David Brantley <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Thanks for Meeting

Hi Nate,

I’ve been reading up on CEQA and I wanted to confirm I understand the steps that thedeveloper would need to follow. Can you confirm or clarify the following:

1. Preliminary Review2. Initial Study (IS)3. Negative Declaration (ND) / Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) /Environmental Impact Report (EIR)4. Project Consideration/Approval

Regards,Paulina

On Jun 15, 2022, at 2:00 PM, Nate Farnsworth<[email protected]> wrote:

This is a very good summary but I’ll just add a couple slight clarifications inbold below. Dave is copied here in case he wants to clarify anything else.


From: Paulina Rodriguez <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 12:47 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]; David Brantley<[email protected]>Subject: Re: Thanks for Meeting

Thank you for the meeting as well Nate, it was very informative.

I also had a good discussion with Dave to understand the planning /approval process for development of the property once it moves from the program level to an actual project. Dave is following up on the timing of when a project goes on to the major projects list (eg. when application is complete or when it’s submitted and still in the incomplete stage) and will get back to me on this. This will alert us that the application process has officially kicked off. We are trying to avoid having to chase info or missing any of the key decision milestones along the way so to the extent we can be proactive in our engagement, we would prefer that.

77-3(CONT.)

77-4



The key take aways from our discussion yesterday are the following and please feel free to revert back if we misunderstood anything.

1. Objective of the meeting was to see what was possible from a slope development perspective - how much slope could be manipulated and whether it’s plausible to have terraced/split level units that are two stories on one side and three stories on the garage/street side. Our understanding based on your professional opinion is that would be plausible. We understand that there have not been any plans submitted to the city at this time so the discussion was hypothetical.2. In lieu of not having an actual parcel map that shows the 9 acre buildable vs 14 acre unbuildable delineation, you showed us a parcel map where the buildable portion on the lower part of the lot extends a line across the property starting on or below Vista Glen. Upper portion of the lot is OS and will remain OS approx. 14 acres. No residential building would happen on the 14 acre portion of the lot.3. If there is a shortfall of units built, the no net loss would be made up from buffer the city has from ADU’s and other HE sites and these units would not transfer to other areas of the YLHPD either through zoning changes in other YLHPD Areas or lot line adjustments to expand Area E. So other properties within the YLHPD would not be able to simply make a zoning change to RM-10 to build some of these units without a Measure B vote.4. If Measure B does not pass and the developer wanted to build the 27 units based on current zoning, only a Planning Commission and council vote would be required to change from PD Church to PD RM-3. This development plan change would not require a Measure B vote, only a council vote. The Council would also have to decide whether or not to remove the property from the Housing Element.5. The weed abatement on the OS will continue to be the responsibility ofthe owner of the property (e.g. HOA) and not passed on to the residentsof Country Homes through an easement granted to the city.6. Once development plans area submitted, the developer will undergo anapplication process and prepare the Mitigated Negative DeclarationAnalysis appropriate environmental analysis as required by CEQA basedon the proposed project. Through that process, it will be determinedwhether an EIR is required per City’s peer review process and CEQA flowchart to fully address main area of concerns raised:

a. Geotechnical Analysis - steep slope analysis / stability - Landslideavoidance and Alquist-Priolo Act Complianceb. Hydrological Analysis - Proper water and storm drainage(Recharging the ground water - Storm and Aquafer runoffredirection)c. Wildfire Analysis - hardening of development to prevent spreadof wildfire and evacuation plans also access roads, compliance withAssembly Bill 12 should it pass.

77-4(CONT.)

77-5

77-6

77-7



c. Biological Analysis - Determination of Endangered/ProtectedWildlife and Plant Species, Riverine (not sure this falls inHydrological), etc

@Gary - feel free to comment if I missed anything.

Regards,Paulina

On Jun 15, 2022, at 8:01 AM, Nate Farnsworth<[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you both for meeting yesterday. I hope that we wereable to answer all of your questions. We also appreciatedthe additional insight you provided to us during thediscussion. If there is anything else we can answer, please letus know.

Sincerely,


77-8

77-9




Paulina Rodriguez dated June 20, 2022

77-1 The commenter expresses concern with the impacts to geology and hydrology were listed as not significant and not studied and discussed in the Draft PEIR. Geology and hydrology are discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-17), and Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality (refer to Pages 5-21 to 5-26), in the Draft PEIR. Impacts to hydrology and water quality and geology and soils would be less than significant after mandatory compliance with regulatory requirements. Additionally, any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Future development would also require the study of localized drainage conditions and construction of additional storm drains based on site-specific conditions and proposed development plans. City standards require developed storm flows to be less than or equal to existing storm flows. The Project would also be required to comply with General Plan goals and policies and General Plan EIR mitigation measures that are intended to reduce environmental related impacts. No further response is required.

77-2 The commenter asks about Section 5.4, Impact Considered Less than Significant, of the Draft PEIR and the determination of the topics discussed under that section. As noted in the comment letter, based on review of the Project and supporting technical studies, it was determined that the topical issues would result in less than significant or no impacts after mandatory compliance with State mandated and City regulatory requirements. The reasoning for the determination for each topic is discussed in detail within each response for each CEQA threshold. Refer also to response to Comment 77-1.

77-3 The commenter provides a list of studies that a developer would need to provide if they were to propose development on site. The commenter is correct, future development would be required to be analyzed in detail through the City’s plan check process and would follow the provisions under CEQA Guidelines §15160 and §15162 to determine the appropriate CEQA documentation required. According to CEQA Guidelines §15060, a lead agency is allowed 30 days to review for completeness applications for permits or other entitlements for use. While conducting this review for completeness, the agency would be alerted to environmental issues that might require preparation of an EIR or that may require additional explanation by the applicant. Once an application is deemed complete, a lead agency must first determine whether an activity is subject to CEQA before conducting an initial study. If the lead agency can determine that an EIR will be clearly required for a project, the agency may skip further initial review of the project and begin work directly on the EIR process described in Article 9, commencing with Section 15080. In the absence of an initial study, the lead agency shall still focus the EIR on the significant effects of the project and indicate briefly its reasons for determining that other effects would not be significant or potentially significant.

A Negative Declaration (ND) is a written statement by the Lead Agency briefly describing the reasons why a proposed project, that is not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant



effect on the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an EIR. A mitigated negative declaration (MND) is a ND that incorporates revisions (mitigation measures) in the proposed project that will avoid or mitigate impacts to a point where clearly no significant impacts on the environment would occur.

77-4 The commenter notes a discussion with the City Planning Manager regarding the planning/approval process for development of a property. The commenter provides key takeaways from the meeting and requests verification on the meeting notes. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter. The City made clarifications to the summary in bold. No further response is required.

77-5 The commenter requests the analysis for geology and soils to be addressed as part of the future development process. Future development built in accordance with the Project would be required to comply with applicable Building and Safety regulations and the CBC. The geotechnical investigation would be prepared and include site-specific assessment of soils onsite, geologic hazards, development feasibility, and engineering/grading controls, as required. No further response is required.

77-6 The commenter requests the hydrological analysis to be provided as part of the future development process. As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-23 to 5-24), existing requirements for future development include review by the City Engineer to ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided that meet City design and requirements. Refer also to response to Comment 77-1.

77-7 The commenter requests that a wildfire analysis be provided as part of the future development process. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). No further response is required.

77-8 The commenter requests that a biological analysis be provided as part of the future development process. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would require applicants of future development projects on S5-008 to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall be a reconnaissance level field survey of the sites for the presence and quality of biological resources potentially affected by project development housing opportunity site. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-5 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands be mitigated through obtaining. appropriate permit authorization(s). No further response is required.

77-9 The City Planning Manager expresses gratitude towards the commenter for the discussion. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 78

From: Frank Hofmann <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 11:28 AMTo: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez<[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Beth Haney<[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Susan Lamp<[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Mark Pulone<[email protected]>; Dave Christian <[email protected]>; Marcia Brown<[email protected]>; David Brantley <[email protected]>; Karalee Darnell<[email protected]>; Robert Pease <[email protected]>; Don Bernstein<[email protected]>; Michael Masterson <[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>; Housing Element 2021<[email protected]>Subject: Oppose Proposed Rezoning/Upzoning of parcel in Yorba Linda

Yorba Linda has strived for decades to maintain itsimage as a "Land of Gracious Living," a low-density cityof family-friendly neighborhoods, where people can workand play. I believe that the proposed rezoning of certain properties in the city will lead to the destruction of this heritage. I have lived in my home on Short Street here since 1984. It is nestled in a quiet neighborhood ofhomes built in the Residential-Estate zone. Many people keep horses and ride them in the streets, which are small and winding. There are few sidewalks, in keeping with the rural-style atmosphere, and people share the streets with the horses and even sheep-walkers.

I live near the Ohio Street properties, set for upzoning near the Linda Vista Elementary School. I oppose the zoning change for several reasons that the city report has dismissed as not sufficient to prevent the zoning change. Residents have raised our concerns about increased traffic, safety, especially for walkers, equestrians, and around the school, which is on a cul-de-sac.

The approval process has continued rapidly, with a City Council meeting scheduled June 21 and a Traffic discussion set for June 23. Few citizens have the time to attend back-to-back meetings.

78-1

78-2



I only became aware of the rezoning proposals after I got a city letter May 31 and saw the yard signs of neighbors against the proposals. I think the city should have sent a letter to area residents before it held the soc-called Scoping meeting in April.

I doubt many residents read the so-called eNews on the city's website. I didn't know it existed until yesterday. I don't get my news from the social media, so did not see the city's notice of the proposals there either. I don't get the newspaper, so didn't see it there.

I think this lack of direct notice to residents meant few, only 49, attended the scoping session to express their concerns. The City Council also discussed the proposals on Election Day, another reason that might have affected meeting attendance.

I know that the rezoning proposal will come to the voters Nov. 8, and I see that the city report cites many dire consequences if the proposal is not approved.

The state's refusal to allow the city to meet its residential needs in Carbon Canyon and allow the city a bigger total of Accessory Dwelling Units in its count of demanded units certainly adds to the difficulty, but I think residents may turn down the rezoning proposals. In which case, I wonder what the city's Plan B is.

I would like to know the alternatives should the vote be against the proposals.

In the meantime, I continue to oppose the rezoning, especially the South Ohio Street and Grandview proposals.

Frank Hofmann. 5882 Short Street, Yorba Linda

78-2(CONT.)

78-3

78-4

78-5




Frank Hoffman, dated June 21, 2022

78-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and raises concerns with traffic and pedestrian and equestrian safety. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion and safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

78-2 The commenter expressed that they were not notified by the City about the Project or the Draft PEIR Scoping Meeting held on May 23, 2022. In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the NOP for the Project was posted on the City’s website, OC Register, and at the Orange County Clerk’s office on April 29, 2022. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

78-3 The commenter notes the pending approval of Measure B election in November 2022. The commenter is correct that the Project will require Measure B voter approval.

78-4 The commenter asks what the alternative is if the Measure B vote does not pass. Housing Element Implementation Program 8 requires that the City conduct another Measure B vote by November 2024 if the Measure B vote in 2022 does not pass. If, after a second failed Measure B attempt, HCD may revoke housing element compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply with state law.” Jurisdictions like Yorba Linda are subject to a range of penalties and consequences, including, but not limited to the following: legal suits and attorney fees, loss of permitting authority, financial penalties, court receivership, and streamlined ministerial approval process.

78-5 The commenter expresses opposition to housing opportunity sites S4-060, S4-201, and S4-053. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 79

From: Larry Wetta <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 8:03 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Traffic Impact analysis

The General Plan Housing Element project as proposed will add substantial more car trips to Bastanchury Road. During peak morning drive time west bound traffic backs up past Denver and evening left turn pocket from Imperial Hwy does not empty or is not accessible. Additional housing units will only add to the current problem unless solutions to current traffic problems are solved before plan implementation.

The other problem with current Bastanchury Road traffic is speeding and the lack of effective speed zone enforcement. It seems like every other major street in Yorba Linda has solar powered radar speed advisers installed, why not Bastanchury? If the speed limit is not going to be enforced this could be a option. The devises need to be installed between Valley View and Denver and between Lakeview and Eureka. The slope is down hill west bound which adds to the speeding.

Thank youLarry Wetta4261 Trix CirYorba Linda, CA 92886

79-1

79-2




Larry Wetta, dated June 21, 2022

79-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and raises concerns with traffic on Bastanchury Road and Imperial Highway. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

79-2 The commenter notes current traffic conditions on Bastanchury Road and the lack of effective speed zone enforcement. The commenter recommends the solar powered radar speed devices be installed between Valley View Avenue and Denver Avenue and between Lakeview Avenue and Eureka Avenue. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 80

From: Ty Dillman <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 4:44 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>

Subject: 18402 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Yorba Linda, CA

Hi Monse,

We just received this notice regarding the "2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing ElementImplementation Programs project". We just need to understand how (If any) this affects our subjectproperty (El pollo Loco).

What is this in regards to and what is the timing of the project, etc?

Thank you

Thank you,Ty DillmanInternEquitas Investments, LLC2200 Pacific Coast Hwy.Suite 305Hermosa Beach, CA 90254(310)310) [email protected]

80-1




Ty Dillman, dated June 21 2022

80-1 The commenter ask how the Project affects El Pollo Loco (assumed address 18402 Yorba Linda Boulevard). 18402 Yorba Linda Boulevard is not listed as one of the housing opportunity sites under the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 81

From: B. Kent <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 5:15 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Zoning

The zoning laws in Yorba Linda should not rezone to build more units. No on rezoning for higher density. We already have nightmare traffic increase and compacted issues. Do not sell out to builders. We chose to live here because we wanted a place where there was room to breathe and not a traffic nightmare. We have no more room for schools or public services. No more multiple dwellings.

81-1




B. Kent, dated June 22, 2022

81-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and raises concerns related to traffic, schools, and public services. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion. Also please note that public services (including school) impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.7 of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 82

From: Lorena Garcia <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 3:34 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: TIA

There should not be new housing near LA Palma and Gypsum canyon. There already are lowerpriced condos compared to other parts of Yorba Linda. Building these will hurt the homeownersnot only in pricing, but in traffic as well. There is not that much parking and this would add toomany cars affecting the streets the condos are on, when it is private parking. The location needsto be somewhere else, there are too many people here already.

82-1




Lorena Garcia, dated June 22, 2022

82-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project near La Palma and Gypsum Canyon due to existing price of condos in the area and raises concerns with parking, traffic, and the existing number of people in the area. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 83

From: Rick Fellner <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 6:41 AMTo: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>Cc: Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Beth Haney <[email protected]>; GeneHernandez <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>Subject: Objections to Zoning and General Plan Modifications

Dear Mayor Rodriguez and Members of the Yorba Linda City Council,

My wife and I oppose the proposed Zoning and General Plan Modifications described in thisdocument: Notice Of Public Availability Of A Draft Program Environmental Impact Report(DPEIR) And Notice Of Public Hearing Concerning Various Zoning And General PlanModifications Related To The 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing ElementImplementation Programs and posted at:https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6180/Housing-Element-DPEIR-Notice-June-2022.

Specifically, we oppose the proposed re-zoning of Site ID S7-001 to add to it Mixed UseOverlay. We oppose re-zoning of Site ID S7-005 to Residential Urban, Residential Multiple,and Residential High-density zones, and we oppose re-zoning of Site IDs S6-015 and S6-020to add an Affordable Housing Overlay.1. Site ID: S7-005: This location is just a couple of blocks from the Bryant Ranch ElementarySchool. There are very few roads leading into and out of this area, and the roads are alreadycongested with parents coming in and dropping off their children every morning and comingin to pick up their children in the afternoon. Proof of the problem of plugged arteries is theevidence from the fire evacuation in this area a couple of summers ago – The Blueridge Fire.We could not get out when a mandatory evacuation was ordered – all arteries were completelyjammed up – this could have been a very dangerous situation. It took us almost an hour toevacuate from where we live to get to safety near Weir Canyon. With the 400 units of TheBryant Apartments near River Bend, there is already too much traffic in this area. And just asimportant, additional housing in this area will add to the existing fire hazard.2. Site ID S7-001: Mixed-Use Overlay: 320 units at this location is very troubling. Every dayof the week, except Sunday, traffic backs up from the entrance onto the 91 Fwy at GypsumCanyon, across the bridge crossing the Santa Ana River, and down La Palma almost alwayspast the Bryant Ranch Center (this site), but many times even as far as Via Del Rio. Addinghousing units in that center will only add to the already horrible traffic congestion situation. Inaddition, it is being considered (or has already been decided) to add three (3) cemeteries in theGypsum Canyon area that will back up the 91 and its entrances and exits even more than theyare today. At least the Yorba Linda Planning Commission have asked for our comments – thecemetery proposal team never asked for comments from impacted residents. Again, theseadditional units here will add significantly to the time it takes to evacuate in case of a wildfire. Lives are at stake here!3. Site ID: S6-015 & Site ID S6-020: Affordable Housing Overlay: The streets leading intoand out of the area of these two sites is already congested due to Costco and the otherbusinesses. Too few roads in and out, too many businesses. Before adding residential units,perhaps it would be prudent to solve the already atrocious traffic congestion problem here.New units at any of the sites mentioned above in #1 and #2 will just add to this existing trafficcongestion problem.

83-1

83-4

83-2

83-3



All East Yorba Linda arteries anywhere near the 91 Fwy are already jam packed. This projectwould add to that problem. And of course, heavy traffic leads to air and noise pollution aswell. This proposed re-zoning will create additional fire hazards and increased evacuationtimes, lead to potential increased crime and decreased property values. This is not what wewant in this most beautiful city.We oppose the Zoning and General Plan Modifications for re-zoning and developing land forresidential units in the eastern end of Yorba Linda, specifically Site IDs S7-005, S7-001, S6-015 and S6-020. We hope that you listen to your constituents.Respectfully,Richard & Amelia Fellner27870 Tamara Dr, Yorba Linda, CA 92887

83-4(CONT.)




Richard and Amelia Fellner, dated June 22, 2022

83-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project, specifically, housing opportunity sites S7-001, S7-005, S6-015, and S6-020. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project

83-2 The commenter notes current traffic conditions at Bryant Ranch Elementary School near housing opportunity site S7-005. The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic congestion and fire evacuation regarding housing opportunity site S7-005. Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion on traffic and fire evacuation. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

83-3 The commenter expresses general concerns with the proposed residential units and traffic regarding housing opportunity site S7-001. Refer to Response to Comment 83-2 above.

83-4 The commenter expresses general concerns with fire hazards and increased evacuation times regarding the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to fire evacuation. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 84

From: Ron Love <[email protected]>Date: June 22, 2022 at 12:30:20 PM PDTTo: [email protected]: Zoning and traffic in Yorba Linda

Monse Garcia The recent letters from the City requesting opinions on changes in zoning from 10 per acre to 30 persons per acre , followed up by the Traffic Impact Analysis can only lead to more congestion when the zoning allows 3 times as many cars and people on land now being used for the rural usage that used to be our beautiful Yorba Linda, Ca. Any average resident in the land of gracias living will testify that current traffic conditions are stressed and heavily congested multiple times per day already. Anyone who supports stacking people in the areas designated in the new zoning and traffic that will follow is likely being compensated by the developers or corporations involved in making the improvements. These changes are only good for you Supervisors and Council Members who stand to make the most money selling out the rest of the residents in our now not so gracias Yorba Linda!! Please do not allow this to be adopted!! You will sleep better and get to work faster!

Best Regards,

Ron H. Love

84-1




Ron Love, dated June 22, 2022

84-1 The commenter notes the Project would lead to increased traffic. The commenter mentions existing traffic conditions and raises general concerns related to traffic congestion. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion and safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 85

From: Russell Heine <[email protected]>Subject: YL EIR Housing ElementDate: June 7, 2022 at 12:59:29 PM PDTTo: [email protected] Sirs,

In regards to the YL EIR for YL’s plan to address the state Housing Element mandate.

Before my comments specific to the plan, I would like to commend your team on the very difficult task that you were given. I can appreciate that it would be very difficult to “please” everyone on this topic. I do think that you came up with a number of creative and credible potential solutions to the very difficult mandate. Thank you for your dedication and hard work.

That said, below are my concerns /issues with the proposal.There has been mention that a Measure B vote to allow all these changes will need to occur.I would Not Support nor vote in favor of a Measure B rezone until the items below are addressed.

I understand that the options are somewhat limited but believe there are a few avenues to be explored.Most of my comments were raised via earlier workshops as well.1.. Equitable distributioIn looking at the locations and numbers of projected housing there appear to be

“protected” areas and those areas that appear targeted to receive the added housing.

Cases in point . Vista del Verde , north of Bastanchury, Hidden Hills, East Lake These are all very nice communities and I have no argument with them. However, I believe the “wealth should be shared”.

Some of these areas are termed “planned communities” and thus can’t be rezoned. My locale

was a “planned community “ as well by virtue of the zoning when I purchased my property 45+ years

ago. My “community" has been rezoned at least once in that time. The current state mandates

require an equitable distribution of the housing . The “planned communities” can share that

rezoning you are requirement just as much as my ‘community” is being forced to share via the proposing.

2. There are two developments in current county land that do not appear to have any affordable housing proposed as far as I have seen. Yet Yorba Linda has entered into agreements to fast track , at least one (Cielo Vista) into Yorba Linda once built. I understand that the county is currently managing the development. One , I don’t understand why the county is approving without some affordable mandate but I do understand YL does not have that control. What Yorba Linda Can do is mandate that the area will Not be assimilated into the city of Yorba Linda with a fair share of affordable housing. The city Does have that capability.The same requirement should hold for the second, larger , development in the area.

3. Your proposal seems to have addressed all the potential properties within the city. However I don’t see any mention of a requirement that any new development provide their Fair Share of the cities Housing Element .I know that I have heard that we can’t tell a developer what to build. The state has mandated that I Have to Accept additional housing to my community that was never Planned when I purchased here. Yorba Linda tells developers what their building will have to conform to via city code, so we can certainly mandate via code that they contribute to the cities Housing Element need.

Thank you again for your time and the hard work of the team.

Russ Heine 5441 Mesita Way 47+ years in YL

85-1

85-2

85-3

85-4




Russel Heine, dated June 7, 2022

85-1 The commenter appreciates that this is a very challenging project because it is difficult to please all residents. The commenter expresses they are would not vote in favor of the Project in a Measure B vote until the following problems are addressed (Comments 85-2 to 85-4). Responses to Comments 85-2 to 85-4 are provided below.

85-2 The commenter expresses concern regarding equitable distribution and that a number of projected housing appeared to be in “protected areas.” Please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection, of this Final PEIR.

85-3 The commenter states that there are two developments in the County that do not have any proposed housing. Both the Esperanza Hills and Cielo Vista developments are located in the unincorporated County of Orange. These projects were processed through the County of Orange and the City of Yorba Linda has no jurisdiction over these projects. When a project is entitled for development, the property owner is granted land use development rights. The City does not have the authority to require that these developments provide affordable housing.

85-4 The commenter addresses concerns regarding City’s requirements for new development to provide fair share of affordable housing. Any development in the City of Yorba Linda must comply with the written, objective development standards for the zone in which the property resides. While not all zones in the City require that affordable housing be provided, there are three new overlay zones that will require that at least 20% of the housing units developed under those development standards would meet certain affordability criteria.



Comment Letter 86

From: D NICHOLS <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 4:27 PMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject:

traffic hazards on kellogg and grandviewpeak periods of the day, along with peak direction of traffic on kelloggincrease traffic congestion kelloggincrease of traffic collisions kellogginclude impact on bicycle and pedestrian traffic kellogg, grandview, buena vista, sunny slope,sunnyview, lakeviewinclude impact on equestrian center buena vista, grandview, linda verdewhat roadway improvements to kellogg, grandview, imperial will be donefuture traffic conditions, grandview, kellogg, buena vista traffic deficiencies now and what will they betraffic lanes what will they bepedestrian walkways, in all streetsbike lanes grandview, buena vista, lakeview, kellogg, infront of schools linda vista, esperanza highschoolu turns, left turns, right turn lanes kellogg, grandview, ohio, buena vistexisting roads have no sidewalks no street lights, no curbs, no sewers buena vista, kellogg,grandviewtraffic for school kids to walk, no crossing guards on two intersections/stop signs kellogg,granview, buena vistatraffic flow on ohio dead endtraffic flow on buena vista from lake viewtraffic in and out of grandview from kellogg including kellogg terracetraffic signs there are 2 within 30 feet from each other on kellogg and grandview and imperial onramp and off rampkellogg is only one lane in each direction,

All these I want to be included also in traffic commision report

Stephanie Nichols

86-1

86-286-386-486-5

86-6

86-7





86-1 The commenter requests a traffic report to address traffic hazards, peak periods, congestion, and collisions on Kellogg Drive and Grandview Avenue. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program versus Project EIR and Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

86-2 The commenter requests the traffic report to include impacts on bicycle and pedestrian traffic on Kellogg, Grandview, Buena Vista, Sunny Slope, Sunnyview, and Lakeview. Refer to response to Comment 86-1. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety.

86-3 The commenter requests the traffic report to include impacts on equestrian facilities on Buena Vista, Grandview, and Linda Verde. Refer to response to Comment 86-2.

86-4 The commenter asks what roadway improvements would occur for Kellogg, Grandview, and Imperial. Recommended improvements are shown on Table 1-4 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (see Attachment I of this Final PEIR).

86-5 The commenter asks what the future traffic conditions are for Grandview, Kellogg, and Buena Vista. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and Table 1-3 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (see Attachment I of this Final PEIR).

86-6 The commenter asks what the traffic deficient are (existing and future), what traffic lanes will be, and pedestrian walkways in all streets. Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, and Table 1-3 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (see Attachment I of this Final PEIR).

86-7 The commenter describes roadway conditions on Grandview, Buena Vista, Ohio, Kellogg. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 87

From: Santamaria <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 5:56 PMTo: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Beth Haney <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang<[email protected]>; Susan Lamp <[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth<[email protected]>; Mark Pulone <[email protected]>; Dave Christian<[email protected]>; Marcia Brown <[email protected]>; David Brantley<[email protected]>; Karalee Darnell <[email protected]>; Robert Pease<[email protected]>; Don Bernstein <[email protected]>; Michael Masterson<[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>; Housing Element 2021<[email protected]>Subject: The traffic commission meeting - Bryant Ranch

Hello all,The Bryant Ranch Community proposed housing development plan of (320 units) is unsafe to the current residents of the entire Bryant Ranch community. If you have lived in this area during a fire evacuation or at even 5 pm every weekday, you would know the traffic's impact. The amount of traffic to try and safely get everyone out was dangerous with its current resident, and you willingly want to add another 600+ persons, vehicles & pets. This idea is just plain reckless to the existing community & the persons you are proposing to live here.

PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR CURRENT PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE BRYANT RANCH COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns,

Cali M. Santamaria5500 Vista CantoraYorba Linda CA 92887

87-1




Cali Santamaria, dated June 23, 2022

87-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with fire evacuation and traffic regarding the Bryant Ranch area (housing opportunity site S7-001). The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion and safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 88

88-1




Nichols Flyer, dated June 23, 2022

88-1 The comment shows a flyer which includes the traffic analysis in the Housing Element and General Plan Update and highlights the LOS of Kellogg & Imperial Highway EB and Lakeview & Buena Vista Avenue. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 89

From: Frank Hofmann <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 3:11 AMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>; Dennis Equitz <[email protected]>;[email protected]; Nathaniel Behura <[email protected]>; Matthew Cugini<[email protected]>; Anthony Johnson <[email protected]>Subject: Traffic Impact Analysis and Buena Vista Avenue

June 23, 2022To: Honorable members of Yorba Linda Traffic Commission, for June 23, 2022 meeting record

Re: Traffic Impact Study for proposed rezoning, specificallyBuena Vista Avenue

As a longtime Yorba Linda homeowner in the neighborhood of the proposed upzoning of parcels on South Ohio and on Grandview, I am keenly interested in the possible traffic impacts increased population would bring. I drive in the area every day and share the road with walkers,equestrians and bicyclists, and lately, sheep-walkers. I travel on Buena Vista Avenue several times a day, going from my home on Short Street to the three-way stop at Scenic View, then turning left onto Buena Vista, and then to the four-way stop at Lakeview. I agree that the intersection of Lakeview and BuenaVista needs a traffic signal. Many times during the day, it would be faster without a traffic signal; however, during the times when drivers are going to and coming from work, and parents are taking their children to school and picking them up, a signal would be safer. Some drivers don’t follow the right-of-way rules when it comes to the four-way stop.I oppose adding lanes to Buena Vista Avenue, east of Lakeview. Buena Vista east of the Lakeview intersection is a two-lane (one in each direction) roadway. There is a narrow walking path on the south side and a partial path on the north side.

89-1

89-2

89-3



Buena Vista is used by many equestrians, often children, to get on the nearby trail and to go to and from the equestrian center. The residential streets that intersect Buena Vista east of Lakeview are two-lane streets, most with no sidewalks and are not north-south through streets. They currently have “stop” signs at the intersections. Buena Vista ends in T-intersection at Grandview on the east. It does not connect to a major roadway to leave the neighborhood. If I understand the Traffic Impact Analysis correctly, Buena Vista is classified as a Secondary Arterial, having an 80-foot right-of-way and a 64-foot curb-to-curb measurement. Secondary Arterial includes two lanes of travel in each direction. It appears that Buena Vista would be widened to add two lanes, making four lanes. Adding lanes to Buena Vista on this segment would not only be expensive, but would not help with traffic flow, even if more housing is added. The east end of the avenue essentially doesn’t go outside the neighborhood. It also would make it more dangerous if drivers have to cross two lanes of traffic to enter Buena Vista from neighboring streets. Buena Vista also goes under ImperialHighway, adding to the difficulty of expansion, plus the equestrian arena is adjacent to this underpass, raising another safety issue.

Frank Hofmann,5882 Short Street, Yorba Linda

89-3(CONT.)

89-4




Frank Hofmann, dated June 23, 2022

89-1 The commenter is specifically interested in impacts of traffic due to the increase in population. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also, please note that transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft PEIR. No further response is required.

89-2 The commenter agrees with the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Lakeview and Buena Vista. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

89-3 The commenter expresses opposition to the addition of lanes on Buena Vista Avenue, east of the Lakeview and Buena Vista intersection because it is a two-lane road with limited access and is frequented by equestrians and children. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

89-4 The commenter expresses general concerns with congestion and safety regarding the identified roadway improvements. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion and safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 90

From: Juanita Dunham <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 10:23 AMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Traffic Commission Meeting Comments

Comments Regarding Traffic:

I’ve lived in Yorba Linda for 28 years off Buena Vista Ave. The last 6 years or more, I’ve seen the traffic steadily increase along with all the issues caused by overcrowded congested old small residential streets.

Here is a list of safety hazards residents are currently experiencing on older small residential streetsespecially along Lakeview. These matters have been brought forth to city council previously.

- Increased major accidents with injuries and even death -Speeding -Illegal passing -Running of traffic lights and stop signs -Racing on streets -Vehicles taking short cuts to avoid signals and congestion on Yorba Linda Blvd

Traffic is horrendous, you don’t need a study to tell the residents of YL that, we experience it everyday! Lakeview is a good example, 80,000 plus new residents North of Yorba Linda Blvd all flowing down onto old small residential streets.These old small residential streets were not designed for heavy traffic. It’s a tragedy that should have been avoided. Now we need to learn from that mistake and ensure that infrastructure is in place before more housing is built.

We must ensure the safety of our residents: pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and vehicles.Maybe an option is roundabouts which would eliminate the deadly racing and speeding residents are experiencing. We all know about the accident that took place on Lakeview killing two people and damaging a residential house. We do not want this to happen again!

If we must rezone and add affordable housing then we must build or upgrade streets such as Lakeview, Eureka, Richfield, Buena Vista, Kellogg and other old small residential streets to adequately accommodate the proposed additional traffic of approximately 5,000 plus more vehicles before building more housing.

West Yorba Linda cannot accommodate more traffic safely on their streets!

To quote “One Life is Too Many!”

90-1




Juanita Dunham, dated June 23, 2022

90-1 The commenter describes current traffic conditions on older, smaller residential streets in the City. The commenter states that if affordable housing is built then street upgrades to Lakeview, Eureka, Richfield, Buena Vista, Kellogg and other old small residential streets are required to adequately accommodate the additional traffic. Additionally, the commenter states that West Yorba Linda cannot accommodate more traffic safely. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project. Please also refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR; no further response is required.



Comment Letter 91

From: Renee H. <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 10:10 AMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: 24635 Los Adornos, YL

My name is Renee Hammond and my husband and I have lived here for 28 years. We have beenhere long enough to remember VIVIDLY the 2008 fire that even burnt my next door neighbor'shome. With 2 children and 4 pets I drove down the hill to leave the area being told by firefighters. Ittook me 90 minutes to get to the Honda dealership 2 miles away. The palm branches at Honda onfire fell on my car and panicked my kids horribly.I never want to experience this again AND ADDING AT LEAST 400 MORE CARS TO BRYANT RANCHSHOPPING CENTER WILL MAKE MORE OF A DISASTER. We have 2 exits off La Palma- Gypsum or LaPalma and that is IT! The Gypsum traffic backed up the La Palma side also. HORRIBLE SITUATION! We just had another fire same place 2 yrs ago and we had a house catch on fire on our block- theCAL fire came thru with 3 aerials that put out quickly. This fire was far more localized than 2008when Santa Ana winds burn down 187 homes. What a blessing for maor response. Thank goodness!PLEASE DON'T PUT US AT ADDED RISK FOR DANGER WITH MORE POPULATION AND CARS! We are proud of being the JEWEL of Orange County and need to protect property and LIFE!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

Renee Hammond24635 Los AdornosYL, CA 92887714 403 6680

91-1




Renee Hammond, dated June 23, 2022

91-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and raises concerns with fire evacuation/emergency access. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion and safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 92

From: Roger VanKirk <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 10:19 AMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>Subject: Traffic on Eureka Ave

Hi Monsa: I wanted to express our concern for the potential traffic on Eureka Ave between bastanchury and yorba Linda blvd because of the affordable housing. With the potential of 218 units, equating to at least 436 more cars using Eureka, it will almost become impossible to leave our track on Oak Leaf Ln where there is only one way in and one way out. Another concern is the signal light on eureka and imperial hwy, where there are turning signals on imperial hwy but no turning signals on eureka. It is very scary right now to make those turns as you can hardly see the oncoming traffic before you turn and with the added extra traffic will even be more dangerous. Eureka doesn’t have a lot of sidewalks, and when cars do park on the street, they already have to park a little bit on the sidewalks because the two lanes are narrow, so with the potential of many more cars having to park on Eureka street, also makes it dangerous for pedestrians. Our infrastructure on the on the westside streets are just not equipped to handle all this new traffic coming from all directions since most of the potential affordable parcels are on the westside. Please take into consideration Eureka Ave traffic nightmare and hear our cries. Thank you.

92-1




Roger VanKirk, dated June 23, 2022

92-1 The commenter expresses general concern with potential traffic on Eureka Avenue between Bastanchury and Yorba Linda Blvd due to the lack of infrastructure. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 93

From: dan danclineinc.com <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 6:24 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: Comment on S5-008 in Draft PEIR

Dear Mr. Farnsworth,The proposed HIGH DENSITY is completely out of character with Yorba Linda values. We have all worked hard to secure our properties in Yorba Linda. The proposed HIGH DENSITY will eventually ruin our property values and as a result, ruin Yorba Linda. This city is a unique microcosm of Orange County and such needs to be preserved. Therefore, I am absolutely opposed to ANY HIGH DENSITY housing in the city. It is already crowded enough as it is. I and many of my neighbors will be voting against the proposed rezoning of all of the properties.

Sincerely,Dan ClineArchitect

93-1




Dan Cline, dated June 24, 2022

93-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 94

From: Gregory Schlentz <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 8:32 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Carlos Rodriguez<[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Beth Haney <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang<[email protected]>; Susan Lamp <[email protected]>; Mark Pulone<[email protected]>; Dave Christian <[email protected]>; Marcia Brown<[email protected]>; David Brantley <[email protected]>; Karalee Darnell<[email protected]>; Robert Pease <[email protected]>; Don Bernstein<[email protected]>; Michael Masterson <[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>; Housing Element 2021<[email protected]>Subject: Re: Traffic Issues and Hazards for Potential New Housing

Nate,

This seems to be a very canned response to my expressed concerns as well as my Neighbors.I understand that you were at the meeting last night in regards to Traffic issues for the new Project. I was at the meeting as well.

As previously noted Traffic concerns are a big issue for SAFETY and your team needs to consider additional Traffic and Speeding Issues that already exist on Ohio Street between Mountain View and YLB and not just the areas that were looked at last night and reviewed by your Traffic Team. I have called on YL PD on several occassions for reckless driving on Ohio and Speeding with no response from local authorities. Very Frustrating!! Please review and keep in mind that Ohio Street will be the main access point for your new housing track to get to YLB and to the nearest Grocery Stores and other establisments near the YLB and Imperial Hwy Intersection.

It is my opinion that your Traffic Team needs to evaluate this area of concern as well. There are many children that live on this street and with added traffic an accident of some sort is inevitable. Remember there are NO SIDEWALKS on this this stretch of Ohio or Street Lights for that matter.

Please keep in mind I do understand that new housing is required I am just kindly asking you to remove Site locations 18 and 17 at the very least. And even though Site 21 is nearest to my house, it is on YLB and would not effect additional traffic up and down the already NARROW, NO SIDE WALK, DARK STREET. Please put yourself in our Shoes. Thank you for your consideration.

Greg Schlentz5251 Ohio Street

94-1

94-2




Greg Schlentz, dated June 24, 2022

94-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic and safety and recommends additional discussion on Ohio Street between Mountain View and Yorba Linda Boulevard. The commenter requests the City Department of Public Works to evaluate the area above due to the lack of sidewalks and existing speeding issues.

Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion and safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

94-2 The commenter requests removal of site locations 17 and 18 but makes no reference to the site number. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 95

From: victoria tejeda <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 11:01 AMTo: Shirjeel Muhammad <[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth<[email protected]>; Tony Wang <[email protected]>; Monse Garcia<[email protected]>Cc: David Brantley <[email protected]>; Housing Element 2021<[email protected]>Subject: Yorba Linda TIA Report

Hello,

As a concerned citizen and 28 year resident of Bryant Ranch, I attended and made comments at last evenings Traffic Commission meeting regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis report. I thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns and thank you for your diligence.

I would like to add the following to my public statements.

I am particularly concerned with the traffic analysis findings for Gypsum Canyon/ La Palma. The report states the LOS and ICU of this intersection to be acceptable and without any concern. The report indicates AM/PM usage evaluations which are not reflective of the actual intersection activity. The findings are inaccurate and do not take into consideration the congestion from Eastbound 91 Freeway traffic. Gypsum Canyon Bridge is our only evacuation route to the 91 Freeway. This bridge is not accessible many hours of the day due to non resident Eastbound travelers using La Palma Blvd/ Gypsum as their daily commute route.

Please compare pages 39 through 41 of the TIA. The comparisons of the “with and without” Project Traffic Conditions 2022 versus Horizon Year 2045 indicates minimal increases of traffic flow, and in some directions, an actual DECREASE of vehicle uses. How can this be with the increase of approximately 350 housing units?Additionally, there is no mention of the eventual increase of traffic related to the proposed cemetery project. Cemetery traffic will find it necessary to use La Palma/ Gypsum as alternative routes due to the 91 gridlock, much like the commuters of today.

All in all, we find ourselves feeling increasingly landlocked, unsafe, and unprotected. The fear of insufficient evacuation routes is very real as we have experienced the fear of feeling trapped in a fire inferno.

As residents of Yorba Linda, we have the right to expect protection from inaccurate macro traffic survey findings leading to proposed planning agendas which would further place already vulnerable residents in potentially fatal circumstances. This is not a matter of the irritation of increased traffic, but a matter of life or death. The evacuation vulnerabilities of East Bryant Ranch are known and documented. Please add these comments.

Thank you,Victoria Tejeda28665 Brush Canyon DriveYorba Linda

95-1

95-2

95-3

95-4

95-5




Victoria Tejeda, dated June 24, 2022

95-1 The commenter expresses concerns with fire evacuation/emergency access and the findings of the traffic analysis for Gypsum Canyon/La Palma. Refer to 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. Consistent with the City’s guidelines the intersection of Gypsum Canyon & La Palma has been evaluated using the ICU methodology (applicable to all signalized intersections within the City). The ICU methodology is based on a calculation of the intersections overall volume with respect to the available capacity. Although the intersection experiences queuing or capacity issues for specific movements during the peak hours (particularly the evening peak commute hours), the queuing is limited to 1 specific movement. In other words, the 1 movement that experiences deficient queuing/operations (for example, the eastbound right turn movement in the evening peak hour) is averaged against the other remaining 7 movements which have no capacity issues and are operating at acceptable levels of service (northbound left, northbound through, northbound right, southbound left, southbound through, southbound right, eastbound left, eastbound through, westbound left, westbound through, and westbound right). As a result, the average operations for the intersection is found to be acceptable. Improving the intersection of Gypsum Canyon & La Palma to accommodate additional capacity for the 1 deficient movement during the peak hours will not resolve the queuing issue at this location since the queuing issues experienced at the intersection are directly related to the operations of the nearby SR-91 Freeway which is a regional issue (freeway congestion).

95-2 The commenter requests comparison of pages 39 through 41 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The commenter asks how the addition of approximately 350 housing units would minimally increase traffic flow and decrease vehicle use. While some locations that are in close proximity to the housing opportunity sites may experience a net increase in traffic, it is possible for other locations to result in a decrease in traffic. As noted on Table 2-1 of the TIA (see Attachment I of this Final PEIR), each housing opportunity site has an underlying land use (not vacant land) that is assumed for the “Without Project” traffic condition. As such, the net effect of the “With Project” condition is not the addition of all units but the net change in total units from that previously contemplated by the General Plan. Furthermore, the traffic generated by the different housing types also varies with the changes in residential densities. The traffic modeling tool utilized also accounts for intersections between different land use types. In other words, changes to the land use assumptions (such as the housing opportunity sites) will result in changes to the way the traffic from those sites interacts with other nearby uses, such as commercial retail, etc. Not all traffic generated by the sites are treated as new and leaving the immediate area.

95-3 The commenter notes there is no mention of the eventual increase of traffic related to the proposed cemetery project. The purpose of the Project is to evaluate the long-term effects of the City’s General Plan Buildout conditions without and with the contemplated land use changes proposed on each housing opportunity site. When a development plan comes forward on one of the sites, an evaluation of near-term cumulative effects will be evaluated. The cemetery project and other cumulative projects have been addressed as they are currently contemplated in the City’s General Plan.



95-4 The commenter expresses general concerns with safety and insufficient evacuation routes. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic and fire evacuation. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

95-5 The commenter requests comments to be added to the response to comments. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 96

From: Marcel North <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2022 5:20 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Comments on the Draft PEIR and proposed rezoning


Thank you for providing residents the opportunity to comment on the City's Draft PEIR and the proposed rezoning. As a long-time resident of the City (over 24 years at 5811 Grandview Avenue), I would like to express my opposition to the rezoning of parcels S4-201, S4-060 and S4-053 in my neighborhood.

The proposed rezoning of parcels S4-201 and S4-060 to a potential 28 residential units is located in a cul-de-sac and would seriously impact traffic in front of the elementary school. Traffic is already an issue in the morning around 8 o'clock when parents park their vehicles and walk their children to school.Increase traffic would affect safety of children and parents walking their children to school, impact air quality in the area and would require the City to invest in traffic remediation and public safety measures such as addressing parking space for potential new residents, widening of the street and evaluate access of fire emergency vehicles. My second reason for opposing the rezoning of these two parcels is that the area is a low density of mostly single-story houses. The proposed rezoning would require two or three-story apartment units and would disfigure and change the character of the neighborhood.

Regarding the proposed rezoning of parcel S4-053 to a potential of 10 units, as above the proposed rezoning would require two or three-story apartment units and would disfigure and change the character of the neighborhood. In addition, such an increase in density would require residents to park on the street. This would be compounded on the weekend when guests of these residents would also need to park on the street. Since parcels across the street have been built, guests of residents are regularly parking on the street during the weekend and hampering traffic. The only remediation would be to widen the street. This would make this parcel too narrow to be buildable.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments.

Marcel North (714) 624-8791

96-1

96-2

96-3

96-4




Marcel North, dated June 25, 2022

96-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to housing opportunity sites S4-201, S4-060, and S4-053. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project

96-2 The commenter expresses concerns with traffic and pedestrian safety regarding housing opportunity sites S4-201 and S4-060. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety for a discussion related to traffic congestion and safety.

The commenter expresses concerns with aesthetics and visual character of two or three-story apartment units. As discussed in Section 5.4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-6 to 5-8), impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant since the housing opportunity sites are not located within or near any officially designated state scenic highway and have not a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The City has Multi-Family Design Guidelines to provide upfront direction to the development community regarding the desired quality and character of multi-family development. The Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) would allow sites to increase height limits (3 stories) in exchange for providing 20% affordable units and the Mixed-Use Housing Overlay (MUO) would allow development of a maximum of 4 stories in height. The Congregational Lands Overlay (CLO) will also only allow 3 stories in height. Future development would be subject to Design Review, the goals and policies in the City’s General Plan and would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code inclusive of the Zoning Code, including general development standards and sign regulations. No further response is required.

96-3 The commenter expresses concerns with aesthetics and traffic regarding housing opportunity site S4-054. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns.

As discussed in Subsection 5.4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-6 to 5-8), impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant. Future development would be subject to Design Review, the goals and policies in the City’s General Plan and would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code inclusive of the Zoning Code, including general development standards and sign regulations. No further response is required.

96-4 The commenter expresses commendation for the opportunity to provide comments. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 97

From: Shaun Bell <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2022 4:27 PMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: [Ylheu] Website Public Comments - new submission

Shaun Bell just submitted your form: Website Public Commentson Ylheu

Message Details:First Name: ShaunLast Name: BellEmail: [email protected]

Message: I’ve been a resident of Yorba Linda since 1968 my first home as a boy was on Lemans, then moving as a teenager to a home on Highland, then after becoming an adult moving out on my own to the east end of Yorba Linda. First to the Villages, then to Vila Del Rio and now on Bayberry in Bryant Ranch. I’ve seen many changes in Yorba Linda and most have been for the better to make it the “Land of Gracious Living”. But nothing like what the city is proposing now. These changes would lead to the depreciation of the quality of life in Yorba Linda and have a huge negative impact.

• Section 8 housing that typically includes felons and will lead to Increased crime rates. • Decreased security • Illicit drug use • Heavier workload on the Sherriff A higher density population will eliminate open spaces and make the enjoyment of living here more and more difficult. • Reduce our property values• Increased traffic • Increased noise • Increased water usage when we are already faced with water rationing • Increased air pollution A higher density population will also make it more difficult to evacuate during emergencies like the fires that have destroyed many homes in the city in recent years. • The evacuation routes on the east end of Yorba Linda were jammed and many could not evacuate because of the traffic congestion that already exists within the city. Adding high density housing would only make matters worse and possibly lead to fatalities. The only area that would be suitable for more affordable housing would be in the Savi Ranch area, not mixed with in our neighborhoods. The current roads are designed to only handle the traffic for the homes currently developed and not the traffic that will be added if these proposed changes are approved. Also, to just squeeze this affordable housing into every available land source in Yorba Linda, (i.e. S7-005, Meadowland/Camino De Bryant) would be irresponsible on the city’s’ part and unacceptable for us that purchased our homes in neighborhoods without these types of dwellings. If the state gives us no other options, building more low-income housing in the Savi Ranch area by the Oakcrest Development is the only area that should be considered. Besides Savi Ranch, another secondary consideration could be the shopping center on Imperial Hwy. and Yorba Linda Blvd. There is already similar housing in that area and the proposed housing could be designed similar to downtown Brea with the business below and residences atop. When I was a young boy, my parents moved here because it was a safe and secure place to raise a family and the rural feel that Yorba Linda had then and still does. The Land of Gracious Living is why I chose to stay here, raise my family and why most have come to live in the City of Yorba Linda – Don’t take that away from us.

97-1




Shaun Bell, dated June 25, 2022

97-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and notes that changes would lead to the depreciation of the quality of life in the City. The commenter mentions increased crime rates, decreased security, and reduction of property values. Issues relating to quality of life and reduction of property values are non-CEQA issues. However, please note that potential impacts to police services were addressed in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR.

The commenter also expresses general concerns with increased traffic, increased noise, increased water usage, increased air pollution, and evacuation routes. Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, and 2.1.5, Water Supply. Also please note that air quality, noise, and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1, 4.6, and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively.

The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 98

From: Rick Clewett <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2022 2:20 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Low Income housing in Bryant Ranch

Mr Farnsworth,

We are Rick and Shelley Clewett. We are residents of Yorba Linda and have been for 38 years.

We oppose the zoning and general plan modifications.We oppose rezoning of the site S7–001 to add to it mixed use overlay.We oppose rezoning of the site S7–005 to residential urban, residential multiple, and residential high-density zones.

Please consider the amount of traffic we already have out here, you can’t even get across the Gypsum Canyon Bridge after 3 PM due to the high volume of traffic. This would only increase it.Also, we would like you to consider with that many new people moving into this area how are you going to get them all out in the case of a fire. We had an awful experience during the evacuations of the fires as family members could not get up here to help us load belongings into our vehicles. And then getting back in We had very long delays. These two reasons alone are very valid reasons for no more homes out here unless you are planning on widening the GypsumCanyon bridge or La Palma Avenue.We moved out here 38 years ago and Yorba Linda was known to be the land of gracious living not the land of traffic, crowds and crime.

Thank You,Rick and Shelley Clewett27800 Aleutia Way, CA 92887

98-1

98-2

98-3

98-4




Rick and Shelley Clewett, dated June 26, 2022

98-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and housing opportunity sites S7-001 and S7-005. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

98-2 The commenter requests consideration of current traffic conditions and expresses concerns with the increase in traffic from the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion related to traffic congestion. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

98-3 The commenter requests consideration of evacuation routes and expresses concerns with fire evacuation/emergency access. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to fire evacuation. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

98-4 The commenter notes their history in Yorba Linda and mentions the City is not the land of traffic, crowds, and crime. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 99

From: Loren Castro <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:41 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: City Housing Element comment


I am a long-time resident of Yorba Linda who resides at 4336 Eureka Avenue, Yorba Linda. I havereviewed the current City Housing Element. Currently, Eureka is a two-lane street with little to nosidewalks. The street is bordered to the north by Bastanchury and to the south by Imperial. We havenoticed increased traffic up and down Eureka as development continues. The speed limit is 30 mphbut is seldom headed as it is a arterial street to the town center. Now you are considering increasingthe density via a large parcel on Eureka. I am not in favor of this location however despite myobjection I highly suggest at least two things: 1) you conduct a current traffic study and the negativeimpact of your intentions towards public safety should the density be realized through a newmultiunit development, and 2) analyze whether the installation of speed bumps would mitigate thevehicular speed and traffic.

Mr. Loren J. Castro

REAL ESTATE | BUSINESS LAW | ESTATE PLANNING377 E. Chapman Ave. Suite 220Placentia, CA 92870Office: 888-560-2743Direct: 714-880-8275Fax: 888-792-9110www.CastroLawPC.com

99-1




Loren Castro, dated June 27, 2022

99-1 The commenter is a resident of the City and describes existing traffic conditions on Eureka Avenue between Bastanchury and Imperial Highway. The commenter suggests preparation of a traffic study to discuss safety impacts and an analysis on whether speed bumps would mitigate vehicular speed and traffic. Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.1, Program Versus Project, and 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety.

Future housing development would conduct a focus traffic impact analysis based on City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines that will include the discussion of access and safety impacts on the surrounding area due to the implementation of each development project. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. Further, as discussed in Section 4.9, Transportation, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.9-12 to 4.9-13), an evaluation of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features will be required as future development occurs and improvements have been designed. All future roadway system improvements associated with future development and redevelopment activities would be designed in accordance with the established roadway design standards incorporated into the City’s Circulation Element. These improvements will be subject to review and future consideration by the City of Yorba Linda, Public Works Department. Future land use development projects would also be analyzed in detail through the City’s plan check process to ensure adequate site access, sight-distance, and pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle safety



Comment Letter 100

June 29, 2022 Dear Planning Commission: My name is Paulina Rodriguez and I live at 3800 Forest Glen Rd. off Rimcrest and Fairmont Blvd. My home is adjacent to Opportunity Site S5-008 in the 2021-2029 Housing Element, which is the Fairmont property owned by the LDS Church. A group of my neighbors and I addressed both the Planning Commission and City Council in May during the Notice of Preparation period regarding the constraints and safety concerns with Opportunity Site S5-008. On the NOP document itself, Wildfire, Geology & Soils, Hydrology, Biological Resources and Land Use Planning had not been checked as items of concern. The City had determined that none of these topics have the potential to result in significant environmental impact and did not need to be further evaluated in the PEIR. (Refer to Appendix A page 5). I believe this determination was in error and based on our comments during the NOP period, it was decided that these topics were areas of controversy and needed to be included in the PEIR. (Refer to Section 1.3 Page 20) It is very surprising to me that the City reached the initial determination and did not believe these topics needed to be studied for this property. The constraints are well understood and documented in the city’s General Plan and various Elements. In fact, many of these topics were also the basis for the city’s RHNA appeal. The property is under contract with a potential developer, so we understand that the likelihood for this site being developed is high. This makes the lack of attention paid to these concerns all the more troubling. PREVIOUSLY RAISED CONSTRAINTS AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR S5-008: 1. Wildfire: S5-008 is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), and the proposed

project will add a substantial number of people and cars to the area. We are very concerned about the impact on evacuation plans and safety as well as fire prevention measures to be taken to harden the development and implementation of impending legislature for construction in VHFHSZ e.g., dual access roads. This area has burned at least 3 times (Appendix A Page 31). I was informed by staff that OCFA’s response will not be available until the final PEIR version which is after the public comments period. (Section 4.11 page 296)

2. Landslide Zone: S5-008 is in a landslide zone. Without a proper study being performed, it is uncertain how stable the slopes are. We requested a steep slope analysis be included (Appendix A page 105). We do not want a repeat of the incident that occurred in Bryant Ranch over 20 years ago when two homes were lost in a landslide because of improper

100-1

100-2

100-3

100-4

100-5



development practices. I’m not saying this will happen here, but highlighting it because it sets a precedence (Section 5.4.4 Geology & Soils page 323) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-feb-25-me-slide25-story.html

3. Earthquake Zone: S5-008 is in an Earthquake zone with previous epicenters. Development needs to be compliant with the Alquist-Priolo Act and again, we do not want a repeat of Bryant Ranch. Also, refer to the attached Usable Land Study completed by a licensed civil engineering firm for the current owner, the LDS church, which highlights the fault area (Section 5.4.4 Geology & Soils page 325)

4. Hydrology: S5-008 is identified as wetlands with a Riverine as noted by CA Fish & Wildlife. We have also advised the city about the aquifer that runs under our properties along the slopes and drains out by my neighbor Gary Poage’s home on Sherwood. (Section 4.2.6 Page 138 Threshold C)

a. Water runoff and drainage is a concern. There is a storm drain at the bottom of the property and all that water will need to be drained properly and the ground soil recharged. (Section 5.4.6 Page 332) (Refer to page 6 of Tract 11969 map for location of storm drain)

b. Again, improper maintenance and drainage of water/storm drain was determined to be a cause of the Bryant Ranch landslide in 1998.

5. Biological Resources: S5-008 is a natural Habitat for endangered wildlife. This site is currently listed in the city’s adopted conservation element as natural habitat. The Hills for Everyone organization, the charity that helped create Chino Hills State Park, has pointed out that it is a habitat for the endangered gnatcatcher. (Section 4.2 Page 126 and Section 4.2.6 Page 138)

Other areas of concerns that were raised: 6. Land Use & Planning: The proposed density for S5-008 is unsuitable for this property and

the math does not work. The density is being calculated based on the gross acreage 23 acres times RM-10 = 230 units with a realistic unit potential of 196. (Table 4.5-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Page 197 Policy LU 8.2) However, Table 4.5-1 spells out that only 9 acres are buildable, with the remaining 14 acres being open space. 9 x RM-10 is a realistic potential of 90 units, not 196. I understand the city wants to use this property to receive a large RHNA credit and is applying density averaging to do so. But unless you are going to forgo building height standards or build into the slopes, it is impossible to build 230 or even 196 units on this property. The unit potential is factually inaccurate.

100-6

100-5(CONT.)

100-7

100-8

100-9



By comparison, opportunity site S7-005 is also in a VHFHSZ and has a unit potential of 30 (3 acres x RM-10) however its realistic number is 10 – 33% of gross, whereas S5-008 is 85% of the gross. Why such a disparity in calculations?

Finally, with respect to 4.5.2 NOP/SCOPING COMMENTS – Our comments regarding Land Use and Planning density concerns for S5-008 were omitted. Please refer to my comments in Appendix A on page 81 and 87. Why were they omitted?

7. Traffic & Parking: The traffic and parking concerns were addressed at the Traffic Commission meeting so will not repeat those here. Please refer to the minutes from that meeting regarding evacuation plans, traffic, and parking concerns on Fairmont.

PROPOSED MITIGATIONS IN DRAFT PEIR ARE VAGUE AND INCOMPLETE: In the Draft PEIR, the City (Lead Agency) identified these as areas of controversy in the following topics: traffic, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, geology and soils, noise, air quality, wildfire, and aesthetics. However, aside from traffic only wildfire and biological resources were identified for further study. Geology and soils (earthquake and landslide) and hydrology and water quality are listed as “less than significant” and therefore not studied and discussed in the Draft PEIR despite us specifically requesting they be during the NOP period (Refer to page 105 in Appendix A). I read through the 300+ page draft PEIR. Not all of the constraints for this property are addressed. When “potentially significant impact” issues are identified, the PEIR asserts that the level of significance after mitigation will be “less than significant”. The Draft PEIR relies on vague/generic measures to mitigate identified significant impacts related to the included CEQA topics for this property. It defies logic that such a conclusion could be drawn when the actual risks and impacts are not quantified. Without quantifying the actual risks, they cannot be analyzed in the Draft PEIR. Actual surveys and assessments have not been performed, therefore a conclusion of “less than significant” cannot realistically be taken at this stage of the process. Put simply: If the specification of the mitigation is being deferred, then the risk rating should also be deferred. For example, the report points out that the property is a natural habitat, and a biological assessment should be performed to mitigate any potential impact, but it doesn’t state what the actual biological risks are. One assumes this will have to be done later when a project is submitted to the Planning Department. Essentially, the lead agency is deferring its analysis of significant effects to a later project-level study. Without quantified risks, how can this report be used by the Planning Commission to advise the City Council if this property is suitable for rezoning? How can the City assert that it is capable of supporting 230/196 high density homes?

100-9(CONT.)

100-10

100-11

100-12



The purpose of CEQA is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. This report is doing the opposite – it’s advising the decision makers to approve the rezoning and high-density development without the actual impacts being quantified. The Draft PEIR’s failure to provide any specific details regarding the actual risks and impacts is a shortcoming of the process. The Draft PEIR must provide a more detailed analysis of this particular property given its constraints and safety concerns. S5-008 IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER IDENTIFIED SITE: Since May, we have been communicating to the city that this property is an outlier and unlike any other in the entire Housing Element. It does not align with the plan’s overall strategy to select only infill sites. It needs to be analyzed on its own and at the micro level. The purpose of a Program EIR:

A Program EIR (PEIR) is prepared for a series of actions that are characterized as one large project through reasons of geography, similar rules or regulations, or where individual activities will occur under the same regulatory process with similar environmental impacts that can be mitigated in similar ways.

This property does not have similar environmental impacts that can be mitigated in similar ways as the other properties. In fact, it is the only property in the entire plan that has these constraints and characteristics. It’s not even an infill site: it’s an Urban Wildland Interface with steep hillsides and open space. S5-008 is referenced over 37 times in the Draft PEIR. Whereas 21 out of the 27 properties are referenced less than 10 times with the remaining five less than 20 times (those including Grandview and Ohio sites). This property checks off twice as many CEQA topics than any other property in the entire Housing Element. It’s clearly an outlier. Why is it in the Housing Element? The fundamental question and concern is “How do you intend to safely fit 230 RM-10 units on 9 acres”? Even this is an assumption. Given the usable land studies we have seen for this property, we expect much less than 9 acres is actually developable in the first place. (See attached usable land study) MY FAMILY’S SAFETY: I am personally concerned with how this property will be developed because my house sits on top of the hill that a developer can potentially bulldoze into. I’m concerned for my family’s safety. Please do the right thing and not allow a repeat of Bryant Ranch. Excerpt from LA Times article: http://www.ela-iet.com/LATimesonQuake81102.htm

100-13

100-14

100-15

100-16

100-17



The developers hired new geologists, who declared the faults inactive. That allowed more homes to be squeezed onto the hillsides than otherwise would have been permitted. It was all perfectly legal. Those familiar with the Alquist-Priolo Act say it's a common pattern: When one geologist says not to build, developers find another to tell them to go right ahead.

Again, I’m not saying this would happen with S5-008, but I am pointing it out to make sure that everyone who is involved with approving this property for high density development and its future construction is on heightened alert to ALL of its constraints and safety concerns. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, I am respectfully requesting the Planning Commission - who is responsible for advising the City Council on the Housing Element - please review this site more closely as to whether it’s a fit for the Housing Element. Ask yourselves and your staff if it can truly support 230/196 RM-10 homes on the buildable acreage before recommending it to be up-zoned. If not, adjust the allocation to what the property can realistically and factually support. As a community, we plan to stay involved with every step of the process and the plans for development of this property. To be clear, we are not opposing the development of this property, only the density being proposed. It’s not safe. This property is currently zoned for 27 homes and there is a reason for that. Of course, seeing is believing! Please look at the drone footage linked below to get a better appreciation of the space. I invite each of you to come look at the property from our backyards so you can see for yourselves that 230/196 units cannot fit on the buildable portion of the S5-008 canyon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex_nmeEaiTY We understand the challenge the city is facing, and we as residents do not want Sacramento to take over our Planning Department either. For this reason, we are trying to work with the City and not seek outside counsel at this time, nor write to the HCD and Sacramento ourselves. In return, we are asking you to please work constructively with us. Respond to our concerns. Reduce the allocation. Analyze the safety issues in detail. Offer your guarantee that the development risks for this property will be properly analyzed and managed so there are no surprises down the road. Sadly, the lack of transparency and inclusion of the residents up until now makes us cautious and question the overall process. Regards, Paulina Rodriguez

100-17(CONT.)

100-18




Paulina Rodriguez, dated June 29, 2022

100-1 This comment consists of introductory remarks and the commenter notes their place of residence is located adjacent to housing opportunity site S5-008. Thus, no further response is required.

100-2 The commenter states they were surprised that the following environmental topics were scoped out in the Notice of Preparation (NOP): Wildfire, Geology & Soils, Hydrology, Biological Resources, and Land Use/Planning and that these topics did not need to be further evaluated in the Draft PEIR. The reasons why the initial environmental topics were "scoped out" or "not checked" in the NOP was because there are already existing regulatory requirements (e.g., Building Codes, Fire Codes, permitting through regulatory agencies), that address and mitigate impacts to environmental resources. These regulatory requirements are a standard part of the development review process and are uniformly applied on projects throughout the City. Therefore, these issues were already addressed and this did not mean that the City was unaware of any wildfire (or other) risk for this area.

Additionally, the purpose of the NOP and scoping is to solicit input related to the environmental impacts of a Project. Wildfire is discussed in Section 4.11, Geology & Soils is discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality is discussed in Subsection 5.4.6, Biological Resources is discussed in Section 4.2, and Land Use and Planning is discussed in Section 4.5 of the Draft PEIR.

100-3 The commenter mentions housing opportunity site S5-008 is under contract with a potential developer and the likelihood of the site being developed is high. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

100-4 The commenter expresses concerns with fire evacuation and prevention measures regarding housing opportunity site S5-008. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for further details. The commenter is correct, correspondence with OCFA is provided in Attachment H of this Final PEIR.

100-5 The commenter notes that housing opportunity site S5-008 is located in a landslide zone. The commenter requests a steep slope analysis for housing opportunity site S5-008. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-14 to 5-15), the



commenter is correct in stating that housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a landslide zone. However, regardless of the landslide susceptibility, future development pursuant to the Project would be required to have a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted. The geotechnical investigation for each project on a site within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced landslides would be required to evaluate the potential for such landslides onsite provide any needed recommendations for minimizing hazards. Each project must also comply with seismic safety regulations and requirements regarding slope stability in the CBC and City of Yorba Linda Building Code. Additionally, development along hillside would be required to comply with the standards in Chapter 18.30, Hillside Development, of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts to landslides would be less than significant.

100-6 The commenter notes that housing opportunity site S5-008 is located in an earthquake zone and that development needs to comply with the Alquist-Priolo Act. The commenter attaches a Usable Land Study completed by a licensed civil engineering firm for the current owner of housing opportunity site S5-008 which highlights the fault area. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

100-7 The commenter expresses concerns with hydrology regarding housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter notes that housing opportunity site S5-008 is identified as wetlands with a Riverine as noted by CDFW. The commenter mentions that they have advised the City about the aquifer that runs under their properties along the slopes. As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-23 to 5-24), existing requirements for future development include review by the City Engineer to ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided that meet City design and requirements. Additionally, implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan would reduce runoff from the site and identify Best Management Practices for runoff controls and treatments. Impacts related to wetlands were analyzed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR.

100-8 The commenter expresses concerns about biological resources for housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter notes that housing opportunity site S5-008 is a natural habitat for endangered wildlife and is currently listed in the City’s adopted conservation element as natural habitat. As discussed above and in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-11, and 4.2-15 to 4.2-16), there is a Riverine habitat on housing opportunity S5-008. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would require applicants of future development projects on S5-008 to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall be a reconnaissance level field survey of the sites for the presence and quality of biological resources potentially affected by project development housing opportunity site. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-5



would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands be mitigated through obtaining appropriate permit authorization(s). With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands would be reduced to less than significant.

100-9 The commenter provides a calculation of the density for housing opportunity site S5-008 and

notes that the proposed density is unsuitable. The commenter also inquires about the omission of land use and planning density concerns for housing opportunity site in the NOP/Scoping comments. These comments were not omitted. The comments are included in Appendix A of the Draft PEIR and a summary of the NOP comments were listed in Table 2-2 in the Draft PEIR. Density concerns on S5-008 is listed within Table 2-2.

100-10 The commenter notes that traffic and parking concerns were addressed at the Traffic Commission meeting. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

100-11 The commenter mentions a request for further study for Geology and Soils and Hydrology and Water Quality in the Draft PEIR during the NOP period. The commenter notes that only Wildfire and Biological resources were identified for further study in the Draft PEIR. The commenter states that not all of the environmental constraints for housing opportunity site S5-008 were addressed in the Draft PEIR and that the Draft PEIR relies on vague/generic measures to mitigate identified significant impacts. The commenter states that without quantifying the actual risks, impacts cannot be analyzed in the Draft PEIR. The City disagrees. The mitigation measures in the Draft PEIR are not vague and incomplete; they provide clear timing, performance standards, and enforceable direction for future development. The Draft PEIR provides adequate analysis of all 20 environmental topical areas. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project, of this Final PEIR. No further response is required.

100-12 The commenter states that the Draft PEIR does not quantify biological risks and that requiring a future study is deferral of analysis. The commenter is incorrect in these statements. The potential biological risk of future development in an area of natural habitat is destruction of sensitive habitat or take of sensitive species. However, the Project involves a Programmatic level (citywide) general plan amendments and zone changes to implement the Housing Element. No site-specific development is being proposed at this time and no project-level details are known (e.g., development impact area, construction details); the timing of future development, if it occurs at all, is also unknown. In this instance, pursuant to CEQA, the City is able to commit itself to feasible, enforceable mitigation measures that satisfy performance criteria to ensure that significant impacts will be mitigated. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project.

The commenter inquires how the Draft PEIR can be used by the Planning Commission to advise the City Council if housing opportunity site S5-008 is suitable for rezoning. The PEIR is an informational document that discloses environmental impacts. The PEIR does not recommend any particular outcome (approval or denial) of a Project.



The commenter inquires how the City asserts that housing opportunity site S5-008 is capable of supporting 230/196 high density homes. For clarification, HCD has accepted an allocation of 230 units for site S5-008.No further response is required.

100-13 The commenter alleges that the Draft PEIR is opposite of the purpose of CEQA to inform the public of environmental impacts before they are made. The commenter states that the Draft PEIR fails to provide any specific details regarding the actual risks and impacts of the Project. The City disagrees with the commenter; the Draft PEIR fully discloses environmental impacts at a program level. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project.

The commenter incorrectly states that the PEIR is “… advising the decision makers to approve the rezoning and high-density development.” As stated previously, the purpose of CEQA is disclose environmental impacts and does not advise on whether or not to approve a project. The City disagrees with the commenter. No further response is required.

100-14 The commenter states that housing opportunity site S5-008 is different than the other housing opportunity sites and mentions that it does not align with the Housing Element’s overall strategy to select only infill sites. The commenter states that housing opportunity site S5-008 needs to be analyzed on its own and at the micro level. The commenter provides the purpose of a Program EIR and notes that housing opportunity site S5-008 does not have similar environmental impacts that can be mitigated in similar ways as the other housing opportunity sites. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project. The City understands that housing opportunity site S5-008 has different environmental constraints than other housing opportunity sites. However, all of the housing opportunity sites are being evaluated as part of a citywide program to implement the Housing Element. The type of EIR that is prepared is determined by the project description and the analysis must be commensurate with the level of project detail known at the time of the environmental analysis. There are no site-specific developments being proposed at this time, therefore, it would be speculative to provide a focused project level analysis at this time.

100-15 The commenter mentions housing opportunity site S5-008 is referenced over 37 times in the Draft PEIR and compares the references of the other housing opportunity sites. The commenter inquires why housing opportunity site S5-008 is part of the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project. Please also refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection.

100-16 The commenter expresses concern about safely fitting 230 RM-10 units on 9 acres for housing opportunity site S5-008 and references the usable land studies for the property. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

100-17 The commenter expresses concerns about construction and development adjacent to their property. The commenter quotes a statement from a news article regarding fault lines. The



commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

100-18 The commenter requests the Planning Commission perform a closer review of housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter does not express opposition to development of housing opportunity site S5-008, only the density being proposed. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 101

From: Steve Gilman <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 10:18 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Various Zoning and General Plan Modifications for added housing units in YL June 2022(with corrected email address)

To the Planning Manager of Yorba Linda: Nate Farnsworth,

We are long time residents of Yorba Linda. We would like assurances the City Yorba Linda undertake a thorough environmental review process and meets the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to considering the Zoning and General Plan Modifications related to the 2021-29 General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs, specifically for; SITEs: 204B and 204A located at 19081-19111 Yorba Linda BLVD. including the site address located at 19045 Yorba Linda Blvd.

There are significant environmental issues associated with the property that require full investigations and reports including:

Historic Buildings – Need to have approval of the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review and approval for removal of the Knott’s housesReview of rare trees/plants on the site including evaluation of fruit trees and exotic plants on site.Traffic impact reports for surrounding area for changing zoning.Public review and comment on the NEPA/CEQA documents.

We appreciate your attention to our email.

Best regards,

Steve and Denita Gilman5096 Fairway View Blvd.Yorba Linda, CA 92886

101-1

101-2

101-3

101-4101-5




Steve and Denita Gilman, dated June 28, 2022

101-1 The commenter requests assurance that the Project undertake a thorough environmental review process consistent with CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs, specifically with respect to housing opportunity sites S4-204A and S4-204B. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program versus Project EIR, which describes the type of EIR and analysis that was performed as well as subsequent environmental review. Please note that the Project is not under the purview of NEPA and no NEPA document will be prepared for this Project. The Draft PEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA requirements. Thus, no further response is required.

101-2 The commenter requests that California State Historic Preservation Office review and approve the removal of the Knott’s houses, which the commenter states are historic buildings. A Citywide Historic Property Survey was prepared by Galvin Preservation Associates (GPA) dated January 5, 2010. In that report, these two properties were analyzed to determine their historical significance. The Citywide Historic Property Survey determined that the properties and associated buildings were ineligible for listing on the National, State, or local historic registers. The properties were not considered to be significant historical resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Therefore, no changes to the Draft PEIR are required.

101-3 The commenter requests the review of rare trees/plants, including fruit trees and exotic plants onsite. As discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.2-12), trees in the City of Yorba Linda are protected under the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 16.08 (Tree Preservation), which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the City. Future development would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code.

101-4 The commenter requests a traffic impact report for the surrounding area. Future housing development would conduct a project-level traffic impact analysis based on City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines that will analyze the existing traffic condition at the time of preparation of the study and the development’s traffic impact in the opening year scenario. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion.

101-5 The commenter requests public review comment on the NEPA/CEQA documents. As stated previously, the Project is not under the purview of NEPA. Under the requirements of CEQA, the Draft PEIR was distributed to various public agencies, organizations, and individuals on June 1, 2022; the Draft PEIR was available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The review period ended on July 15, 2022. The City used several methods to elicit comments on the Draft PEIR. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft PEIR was distributed to the SCH for distribution to State agencies and was posted on the City’s website. The NOA was posted also at the Orange County Clerk’s office on June 1, 2022. On June 1, 2022, the NOA was mailed to responsible agencies, local government agencies, interested parties that received the NOP, individuals who had previously requested the NOA or PEIR, to individuals who provided NOP comments, and to individuals within a 2,000-foot radius to any



of the 27 housing opportunity sites. The NOA was also published in OC Register on June 1, 2022; the NOA and Draft PEIR were made available for review, on the City’s website at: https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/Environmental-Documents.




Comment Letter 102

From: Janice Morger <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 7:28 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Draft PEIR for housing element

Dear Mr. Farnsworth

As a resident of Yorba Linda since 1991, I would like to comment on the Draft PEIR for the Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program. I live off of Richfield between Buena Vista and Yorba Linda Blvd so I will be commenting mostly on that area.

I completely understand that this program is state mandated and needs to be done. I also understand that the parcels around me would most likely be developed to some degree in the future. I did not expect that a very small area of my city would have to take on the responsibility of the whole city. The current drafts of the housing element do just that. It’s the most unequitable distribution of housing densities and the problems that they bring ever.

I outlined the housing map for our particular block (map attached). The block consistsof Richfield to Yorba Linda Blvd to Lakeview and to Buena Vista…. one big block. Thecurrent plan outlines 5 sites consisting of a total of 529 units. That is almost 25% ofthe entire number of units we needed for the city. Within a four minute drive from “ourblock” there are 2 other sites consisting of a total of another 101 units.

And again, the west side of Yorba Linda that brought many people to Yorba Linda’s“land of gracious living” will take the brunt of the City’s failure to plan properly.

While we are willing to take our share of the problem, these dense sites need to belooked at again and distributed more equitably. You can do it! Let’s start with SaviRanch. If you drive all the way to the back of the development, you will find stores andacres of parking lots that I have never seen even half full. Why? It’s too far to driveback there. You’ve already identified the commercial property of Bryant Ranch. Whynot in Savi Ranch? You can put a ton of units back there and build a little community.Properties are available and the mandate should be distributed evenly.

Of course, all of the problems with these densities go hand in hand - traffic, water service, wildlife corridors and habitat, emergency services etc. Underground parking should be a part of all of the dense projects to accommodate the parking alone as there is no place on Richfield to even pull over.

I’m sure this is a very difficult project, but you CAN do better. If these densities don’t come down, I will have no choice but to vote against and do my best to defeat Measure B. Then what a mess we’ll have.

I wish you all the best in this difficult challenge and I know you can get this done.

Regards,

Janice Morger

102-1

102-2

102-3

102-4



IJl,-1:JNfJH

.ii ""l.1 1,11\A°- ff"'

;ttU.J'Glt�S

:ME"/1.00W\l!cw

� ORAHCiE

OAKHURST

MALCOLM

\lll'ltlA

.. , ...;

61.G.\im,

i R;I.UCHO

CASA ORO J!��s -HtllCREST ,..

;', ft' Ml1'DE�

V � �1 1 s3=211 •

'5i,-,�IA�t ..... lt0 JA�f3fOWN

a SIJ"Wf:ST

S3-03�/-··--

l v.06'"

t>.ee1

,$-� • '

I §

PIPER

ALICIA �"'OLINDA

- .,..,ll]H.IU1.ct. � s-

�

\ ~ I

� g ORANGE \

#

C>

' ' ,

......., ' •• ,-•- I

• i -· ' "

' • ,�'!tw

PROf

§ ;!

ORANG£ �

� �

MEADOWVIEW F

v.cAs,r�'

ai:.,AVOL!NOA. N

ar ORIEHTE

� "

\

CAMILL<r

� .

... ,• ...... � ! 1\,•oow ctt•JSTIO

� MA/OAAIN

�RIOOE � ,.

� <> �

PIA>A

!- ' ! ! -

• ., l

t..r� i ._.. ' " ,_, " . ' �- 3 %

.s � ...,� i r-.

< W �

'<1lt• • AOAMS I; � :<

•=-- -· ' l 53-082 I • j ' 54:200

I f-.§.?�Q:13, i I 54-075 ·- ' -

--

CUMBERLAND 0 "

� -�s =:

DURHAM

. �- I . . ! •

s •

t =· ::j i "(, .. 'OC'

" O • i ►-• I :l ,.. r; :! BUIU<l! ��., . YORlf""'"·

� 1 5 g 11 :tl ci;; ... 1

! ;! LJIW>IOALE

� ii .., � il � i;! 11-� I

" ' l "l'" l • • �-� ,

°'""'�� .--. UI COLlEl'I• l; i

"" u i

,CALGARY

"'o\\'°"' JVIDA

VlAI �

�! �

1 ....... g ! lii . �

ffi z

�, ,.,::WST:.l �

·�--�

i5 I 8. � ! COVENTR,

o e �i i I

> YORKSHIRE:

�l'�•• •<LOOURN�

! ""'"'"'"'o.,,i,,i•

OREE:P .. 1 E

� i r �.€li·o�m; ;elRCHIT !

- .. ,... I CALGARY / '��

CAlGA, .. �, � .. t

�Cflffr""

:r COLI

o<Nf:

MON.£1"rt"

,........,.,

LOlta,_,;: �-�, . ,f S3-07.4Plftemoo1: "'WlLOOU.

BUENA VlSTA

s·3!205A

I j,5�=11-0��i53�;;61J

HEAnfER

�!}Qy' I .,._.,

'lo"1

��

� .i!tX.\.'-"oo

�H!CKET : � I G.901:,.

�� S!LiR TIP j if)�\STlE CC�E: IMA.JfSTIC CYPR1!ss i PlUM TREE

� �

l!:!ANUA�fl'IE

I HOUY

< ., .... oe./r a I - �

'111.AR,.,H;HERO vErPE'�ROVE

WA\.�

\ \ �

'•• '(,:ti

I l �

2 }J'c°"'¾; I f

'!'ORSALINOA

DR'fe,\\eEK

"""��o<\' "'·�� ,...�No

"""' ,., .. �

.., F....

"ov.., -1-.,,.,,,,..

jf ff if

�

,c#"o"�

WH\lEOAK

... � l'II->·•$

f,o ("1,

.\ "..-

•1-.

"1,,

iOOlDEN MA�f �3-207 SEMINOLE� I � •v..,.., SHANE cl �

IT oasc-r.,

�OJ>/

J"J ,,1>" "'"¾- • �,..

'"<o.._,.

•• :.::, .,.. i.I R:tcHFJELO

'MllO'N

Nfff AAHCH

SUN KNOLL

LAPfT,-.

SUN HILL

! I J'°Alf

.,};;01.... MA.RIP.()SA .....

1-Ml'l'lt,.

g " � i •·�

TlMBERl;;

11, S4-201

},j

t,--1\,----54-0601 �· _,_,.

S4-053

I I




Janice Morger, dated June 28, 2022

102-1 The commenter understands the Project is State-mandated and that development would occur in the future for parcels near their property. The commenter expresses concerns with the unequitable distribution of the housing opportunity sites with implementation of the Project. Refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

102-2 The commenter references the housing map and highlights the following housing opportunity sites, S3-207, S3-012, S3-074, S3-205A, and S3-103. The commenter expresses concern with the number of units that would be allowed within these 5 sites. Refer to Response to Comment 102-1 above. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

102-3 The commenter recommends the housing opportunity sites need to be looked at again and distributed more equitably. The commenter uses Savi Ranch as an example for a housing opportunity site. The commenter expresses concerns for traffic, water service, wildlife corridors and habitat, parking, and emergency services with implementation of the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

102-4 The commenter states that if the housing densities do not decrease, they will vote against Measure B. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 103

From: Barbara Blackamore <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 10:04 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Fwd: Housing and Rezoning comments

Begin forwarded message:

> Attn Mr. Farnsworth and YL Planning Commission,

I have been a resident of Yorba Linda since 1985. I have seen horses at the hitching post at McDonalds in thesummer, deer on Bastanchury, and no street lights on Lakeview Ave. It is true that our city have grown quite a bit,but for the most part, it has kept its rural charm with well designed horse trails, parks, and railroad bypasses to easetraffic.

> However, I must strictly oppose any rezoning or added housing!! We already don’t have enough water for our current residents, much less adding more!! It is frustrating to live in a home built in 1963, only to have the Water District ask me to conserve water while multimillion dollar homes built in the last 10 years waste it on extravagant landscaping!!! No more homes until the builders in Orange County pay for a desalination plant!!

Furthermore, the Land of Gracious Living doesn’t need rezoning for more homes and less horse property just to please a few politicians by implementing low density and low income housing projects!! It is getting difficult to get anywhere in this city in a timely and safe manner due the added traffic. Our city is making PLENTY of money in property taxes, we do not need this! If this rezoning occurs, we would be forfeiting it’s identity as a “gracious” place to live. This would also set a precedent for other rezoning projects in the future!

Please do us all a favor and DO NOT APPROVE this project!!

Thank you for your time and God bless, Barbara Blackamore.

103-1

103-2

103-3




Barbara Blackamore, dated June 29, 2022

103-1 The commenter provides introductory comments and has been a resident of the City since 1985 and notes that although development has occurred, the City has kept its rural charm with well-designed horse trails, parks, and railroad bypasses to ease traffic.

103-2 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and raises concerns with water supply. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply, for a discussion on water supply. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

103-3 The commenter states the City does not need rezoning for more homes and less equestrian facilities. The commenter notes that it is difficult to get anywhere in the City due to the traffic conditions. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 104

From: YLShaffers <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 5:33 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Supplemental Memo Regarding Agenda Item 7.3 for the Yorba Linda Planning Commission Meeting

Thank you for sending the supplemental memo. The Richfield property is not mentioned in this memo. I am extremely concerned about the impact to traffic, electrical and water systems in our area should this property ever be redeveloped to include 300 plus households. There have been multiple accidents at Richfield Road and Buena Vista Avenue. We cannot accommodate more traffic here. We need to keep horse property in our area for existing horse owners to ride and find housing that allows for horses. Please do not rezone our rural area excluding horse owners.Thank you for considering our concerns.

Sincerely, Barbara Shaffer

On Jun 29, 2022, at 1:28 PM, Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>wrote:

We wanted to make you aware of a supplemental memo that was prepared andrecently released for the Item 7.3 for Yorba Linda Planning Commission meeting. Thepurpose of this memorandum is to provide supplemental information to the PlanningCommission that was not available at the time when the Planning Commission agendapacket was published on June 23, 2022. Specifically, it includes an update from theTraffic Commission meeting on June 23, 2022; an update on a conversation with theState Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) about potentiallyrevising the previously-approved Housing Sites Inventory; an update on publiccomments received; and, a revised exhibit to one of the recommended approvalactions. Please refer to the following link to access the additional information underagenda item 7.3: https://pub-yorbalinda.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=12681.

Sincerely,


104-1




Barbara Shaffer, dated June 29, 2022

104-1 The commenter expresses concerns with traffic, electric and water systems regarding the Richfield property. The commenter notes that there have been multiple traffic incidents. In addition, the commenter expresses concerns with areas for equestrian use. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety.

As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-31), SCE would update existing facilities or add new facilities in the City based upon specific requests for service from end users. Future developments that require new infrastructure would be required to pay any applicable fees assessed by SCE necessary to accommodate the specific project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Refer also to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District, impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and according to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 105

From: Cheryl Brown <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:49 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Preserve Fairmont Hills

Dear Nate,

My name is Cheryl Brown. I’ve lived in Yorba Linda for the better part of 40 years. As you can imagine, I’ve seen a lot of change take place in that time.

I don’t exactly know what you’re up against in terms of meeting mandated-by-the-state numbers. But I do know howstressful it must be pushing this news on the people of Yorba Linda who will be affected.

I’ve been to all of the meetings regarding the current housing plans and as such I won’t regurgitate all of the complaints and worries, all of which are valid, that you’ve heard a hundred times over.What I’d like to focus on, with you, is how we can work this out in a way that will not only temper the situation but will satisfy those pushing back.I was born with a rebellious hope that by looking inward our hearts will open and enable us to rectify seemingly impossible situations. In almost all cases, exceptions can be found and exceptions can be made.

The Fairmont property in question has so many characteristics to unpack, both good and bad. The bad is that its in a high fire zone, has a fault-line running directly through it, and possesses a deep canyon which houses it’s own natural well.The good is that it’s home to a wonderful array of wildlife, which can be viewed regularly from some of our adjacent homes. It is unkempt, quiet and incredibly peaceful. Oh, and it has that natural well…which to me is pretty amazing.

So, how would you, a Yorba Linda Principal Planner, not only be able to recognize the exceptions that this property has but put those exceptions into play in favor of the people who live next door to it? This property was deemed unbuildable for decades and yet it’s one that someone decided to use to meet numbers?

I’ve heard people say that “it’s already a done-deal” and “nobody in city council or planning cares about the people they represent”; “it’s all about greed” .

It’s very disheartening.

Again, I don’t know what you’re up against with with state but I have to believe that a man of faith can still find a way to dig down and come up with a solution that will work for us all.

As one of many, I do appreciate where you’re coming from and also your potential to help us. Thank you for reading.

Sincerely,Cheryl

By the way, I would’ve sent this to you as an attachment however my desktop is being repaired and my iPad is not much help in terms of writing.

105-1

105-2

105-3




Cheryl Brown, dated June 29, 2022

105-1 The commenter notes their living history in the City and mentions the development of the City over the past 40 years. The commenter states that they have been in attendance at all of the meetings regarding the Project. The commenter expresses concerns with wildfire, fault line, and the geology for housing opportunity site S5-008.

As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for further details.

As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant. No further response is required.

105-2 The commenter notes that housing opportunity site S5-008 has a wonderful array of wildlife, which can be viewed regularly from adjacent homes. This comment is noted.

105-3 The commenter expresses that the property is unbuildable and wishes the City can take action to find a solution that will works for both the residents and the City. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 106

From: Diana Yan <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:47 AMTo: Peggy Huang <[email protected]>Subject: Fw: Oppose to Zoning Change & General Plan Modification

Dear Mrs. Huang,

I am a resident at Yorba Linda and recently received the Notice of Public Hearing Concerning Various Zoning and General Plan Modifications Related to the 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Program. My family has big concerns about this Zoning Change and General Plan Modifications. We oppose such change and modification.

We moved to Yorba Linda in 2005 when my daughter was born. We had opportunities to buy a home in other cities in various circumstances. We finally chose Yorba Linda because we think it is the best place to raise a family. It is safe, it offers excellent education to kids, and the neighborhoods/communities are all family-oriented. Most importantly, we find space and privacy in homes in Yorba Linda, because most of them have bigger lots. In the past 18 years, we feel that Yorba Linda is truly a Land of Gracious Living, and we are proud of living in this beautiful city.

The proposed zoning change and General Plan Modification will allow more housing built in the Yorba Linda, and increase the density of the whole city, which will create problems in different areas, including but not limited to traffic, education, privacy, safety and security, and evacuation when there is a fire. To add those housing units, the city should first improve the public works, such as roads and streets, parks, schools, fire stations, hospitals, police stations, etc, to ensure that the traffic, education, and safety are kept on the same level as before. In addition, since Yorba Linda is right next to the Chino State Park, and we have had more often wildfires in recent years, adding more housing will slow the evacuation process and put more people in danger.

I will take the closest parcel to my community as an example. This is the one on Fairmont Blvd – APN 326-081-01. It is a piece of low-lying land next to the hills. There are environmental issues that make this lot unsuitable for high-density housing. It is located in a very high-risk fire hazard and landslide area. There is a lack of ability to support an evacuation plan. In addition, it will increase the teacher-to-student ratios in the nearby schools. It is not the right site to build 230 units.

Hereby we ask the leaders of our city to preserve this Land of Gracious Living. Avoid high density, keep our privacy and safety, and keep the excellent education for our kids.

Respectfully,

Diana Yan4233 Genoa WayYorba Linda, CA

106-1

106-2

106-3

106-4




Diana Yan, dated June 29, 2022

106-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the change and modifications to the City. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

106-2 The commenter expresses concern with traffic, education, privacy, safety and security, and evacuation due to the increase in housing. Refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, and 2.1.4. Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion on traffic, safety, and fire evacuation/emergency access concerns. As discussed in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.7-15 to 4.7-16), impacts to school services would be less than significant. There is sufficient capacity to serve the Project-generated students within the PYLUSD and OUSD. Moreover, as stated in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.7-14), implementation of the Project would result in an increase in calls for service; however, OCSD has indicated that this increase would not adversely impact OCSD’s existing resources. OCSD will work closely with the City to determine proper level of law enforcement staffing based on best practices for population and crime statistics.

106-3 The commenter uses S5-008 as an example and notes that the site is in a fire hazards and landslide area, lack of support for evacuation plan, and increase teacher to student ratio. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures.

As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-14 to 5-15), the commenter is correct in stating that housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a landslide zone. However, regardless of the landslide susceptibility, future development pursuant to the Project would be required to have a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted. The geotechnical investigation for each project on a site within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced landslides would be required to evaluate the potential for such landslides onsite provide any needed recommendations for minimizing hazards. Each project must also comply with seismic safety regulations and requirements regarding slope stability in the CBC and City of Yorba Linda Building Code. Additionally, development along hillside would be required to comply with the standards in Chapter 18.30, Hillside Development, of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts to landslides would be less than significant. Refer to Response to Comment 106-2 above for discussion on evacuation plan, and increase teacher to student ratio.



106-4 This comment provides conclusionary remarks for the previous listed concerns; thus, no further response is required.



Comment Letter 107

From: Frank Hofmann <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 2:26 AMTo: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez<[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Beth Haney<[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Susan Lamp<[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Mark Pulone<[email protected]>; Dave Christian <[email protected]>; Marcia Brown<[email protected]>; David Brantley <[email protected]>; Karalee Darnell<[email protected]>; Robert Pease <[email protected]>; Don Bernstein<[email protected]>; Michael Masterson <[email protected]>; ShivinderjitSingh <[email protected]>; Housing Element 2021<[email protected]>Subject: General plan and Zoning code amendments to Housing element

June 29, 2022

To: Yorba Linda Planning Commission

Re: Opposed to Rezoning to increase Housing Density

We are longtime homeowners in a quiet, family neighborhood of single-family homes, wheredrivers often share the winding, two-lane streets with children on horseback. Many people chose tolive in this area because of the rural atmosphere and equestrian lifestyle.

We strongly oppose upzoning the properties at 5531 South Ohio and 5541 South Ohio, which arenear Linda Vista Elementary School. Increasing the housing densities on these properties would addto the traffic near the school and church, as well as other streets. Besides safety concerns for bothdrivers and horse-riders, especially near the equestrian center, we believe the rezoning wouldadversely affect our property's value and property values in the neighborhood.

We ask that the South Ohio and Grandview and Kellogg properties be removed fromconsideration for upzoning. They are only 3.76 acres of the total Housing Opportunities Sites List.

Adding up to 38 households in what has for years been a low-density zone is "Spot Zoning," and apractice to be avoided.

We will vote on the proposed rezoning in November. We have read the city's list of possible direconsequences if the zoning changes are not approved. What we have not seen is what the city's PlanB is if voters say No to rezoning.

Sincerely,

Frank Hofmann

5882 Short Street

107-1




Frank Hofmann, dated June 29, 2022

107-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to South Ohio and Grandview and Kellogg properties due to impacts on traffic, safety, and property value. Refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on traffic and safety concerns. Property value is a non-CEQA issue. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 108

From: Irene Bourdon <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 3:52 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>; Karalee Darnell <[email protected]>;Robert Pease <[email protected]>; Don Bernstein <[email protected]>; MichaelMasterson <[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>Subject: Comments regarding the DEIR and the YL Housing Element

My family and I are 27-year residents of Yorba Linda. I am writing to express our concerns regarding the Yorba Linda Housing Element Project. While I do not support the increase in housing density for our city, nor the requirements and solutions related to California’s mandate, I will not waste the time to argue those points. Rather, I will address my concerns related to the proposed development on Richfield (S3-207).

I believe that the proposed zoning of AHO up to 35 units/acre is far too large and dense for the neighborhoods and streets adjacent to S3-207. I take special exception to the proposed plan to extend the boundary of the S3-207 site as far east as Highland. The residential streets there are far too small to accommodate the in-and-out traffic of 340 additional families. The resulting increase in traffic, air pollution and noise will be significant and unavoidable, not only for the immediate radius of the site but also for a much larger area of the community. Already, Buena Vista is a very busy street and tragically, has been the site of many traffic accidents and deaths. Unfortunately, this particular street was not included in the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis. The noise and air pollution has increased dramatically over the past few years, as more and more commuters use this and other Yorba Linda residential streets to cut through our city to drive between the 91, 55 and the 57 freeways. Buena Vista, the street that connects Rose, Lakeview and Richfield, will soon become a“mini-freeway” for the residents and the commuters. This is a health hazard, and a pedestrian, equestrian and traffic safety hazard.

In addition, this area (SW Quadrant- Map 2- enclosure from the Notice of Public Availability of a Draft PEIR) appears to have a disproportionate share of proposed AHO and CLO 35 units/acre development sites (S3-207, S3-074, S3-012) and re-zoning sites (S3-205A). These proposed sites—including S3-024, which is not pictured on the maps but included in the table and and S3-103, which is on the map but not noted in the table—total 6 areas that are very close together and right in the middle of residential streets, many of which are private roads and housing developments also not pictured on the maps. The neighborhoods and their small streets and infrastructure adjacent to and near S3-207 and the other mentioned sites cannot accommodate such a dramatic increase in housing population. The high-density housing developments as proposed in the SW Quadrant Map will significantly and negatively impact the health and safety of the current residents, as well as the peaceful enjoyment of our homes. I strongly urge the Yorba Linda City Council to reduce and/or re-distribute these high-density overlay sites in a more homogeneous and equitable manner.

Lastly, I wish to express my concerns regarding the extent and effectiveness of outreach to affected homeowners and residents regarding the re-zoning proposal. It appears that only a limited number of Yorba Linda residents have participated stakeholder meetings, workshops, community review meetings, etc. In addition, it appears that many homeowners and residents near the proposed areas felt that they were not notified early enough or at all about about such meetings or even about the project itself. Relying on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, the City website, email and other electronic/social media vehicles is not an effective means of transparent and proactive communication, particularly for the majority of homeowners who tend to be older in age. I urge the City Council to direct the City staff to utilize more effective and comprehensive communication strategies to ensure that Yorba Linda residents are better informed and that the information is more accessible.

108-1

108-2

108-3

108-4




Irene Bourdon, dated June 29, 2022

108-1 This comment consists of introductory remarks and raises concerns related to housing opportunity site S3-207. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses. Thus, no further response is required.

108-2 The commenter expresses concern with traffic, air pollution, noise, and safety due to the increase in housing. Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on traffic and safety concerns. Air quality and noise impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1, Air Quality, and 4.6, Noise, of the Draft PEIR.

108-3 The commenter expresses the unequitable distribution for housing sites in the area and requests City Council to reduce or redistribute these sites (S3-207, S3-074, S3-012, S3-205A). Please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection.

108-4 The commenter expresses the extent and effectiveness of outreach to affected homeowners and residents regarding the Project. In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the NOP for the Project was posted on the City’s website, OC Register, and at the Orange County Clerk’s office on April 29, 2022.Addtionally, on June 1, 2022, the NOA was mailed to responsible agencies, local government agencies, interested parties that received the NOP, individuals who had previously requested the NOA or PEIR, to individuals who provided NOP comments, and to individuals within a 2,000-foot radius to any of the 27 housing opportunity sites. The NOA was also published in OC Register on June 1, 2022; the NOA and Draft PEIR were made available for review, on the City’s web site at: https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/Environmental-Documents.



Comment Letter 109

From: Juanita Dunham <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 10:31 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Rezoning

Nate, Many thanks for answering my questions, I appreciate the quick response.

I still challenge back on the Savi Ranch site. There are at least 4 - 5 complex buildings for lease in that area which makes one wonder if businesses are doing well. And with Biden indicating another pandemic one would think businesses would continue to do poorly and close. Therefore, it seems there would be realistic development capacity in that area.

If the sites are now finalized and approved by the State are the plans drawn up for the developments?

Will the public (Yorba Linda Residents) get to see the plans of these developments?

Are the plans for the infrastructure such as the build out or upgrade of the streets completed? And if so, what streets will be upgraded?

If so, will the public get to make comments about the infrastructure that will be required such as the build out or upgrade of streets, roundabouts, side walks, horse trails, bike lanes and berms with soft scape?

I would hope the city council and the planning commission would prevent another tragedy such as Lakeview and ensure that old small two lane residential streets are built out or upgraded before hand to accommodate the increase of heavy traffic and ensure the safety of equestrians, pedestrians, cyclists and traffic flow.

Many of the small old two lane streets don’t have sidewalks. People on Lakeview put their trash cans on the sidewalk so that traffic doesn’t hit them. I’ve seen cars go up onto the sidewalks. There is speeding and illegal passing.

Again, if we must build and increase already heavily used small two lane residential streets then infrastructure must be in place before building developments. We need to prevent another major accident that occurred on Lakeview a few years ago killing two people and damaging a residential house.

109-1

109-2

109-3

109-4

109-5

109-6

109-7

109-8



On Jun 27, 2022, at 7:50 AM, Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for your comments. The City will be preparing a response to all comments received at the conclusion of the 45-day public review period for the draft PEIR. We are also forwarding all comments to the City's Planning Commission, which will be conducting a public hearing on this on June 29, 2022, at 6:30 pm in the City Council Chambers. For more information, please refer to the agenda for this meeting: https://pub-yorbalinda.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=f658cc3a-fdda-492f-9c38-55804737d3e0&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English. In the meantime, we would invite you to visit the City’s Housing Element website for more information:https://www.ylhousingelementupdate.com/. I have also answered your specific questions below.

Sincerely,


-----Original Message-----From: Juanita Dunham <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 9:04 AMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: Rezoning

I have a few questions regarding the Rezoning sites.

Are all the sites finalized? The selection of sites must be approved by the State of California’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and must meet very specific criteria established by HCD to demonstrate that the sites, among many other factors, have “realistic development capacity.” The City is now required to rezone these sites by October 15, 2022, or could face serious fines and penalties from the State.

If a site is eliminated from the current list how will the lost be made up? Any elimination of sites would have to be approved by HCD. There are other State housing laws that require that the City is able to maintain its ability to meet its State-mandated housing requirement of 2,415 housing units between 2021-2029. Therefore, the elimination of site would necessitate adding in additional sites to make up for those sites that would meet the State’s requirements for “realistic development capacity.” While the City does have a minor buffer above its 2,415 unit requirement, the State requires this buffer to remain intact for situations where a property is not developed to the maximum allowable density. This ensures that the City has “no net loss” of housing units throughout the 2021-2029 Housing Cycle.

109-9



Is there opportunities to change the number of units in the sites chosen? Similar to above, any changes would require approval from the State and the City would have to make “no net loss” findings to the State if a sufficient number of other sites are not found and approved by the State. Furthermore, all rezoning efforts must be completed by October 15, 2022, in order to meet the State’s deadlines.

Has the committee explored Savi Ranch commercial buildings? (It appears that many of these stores such as Best Buy, Dick’s, Kohl’s and etc are doing poorly) It seems this property would be a win win as no one neighborhood is impacted and it is in close proximity to the freeway avoiding traffic gridlock on older small two lane residential streets such as Lakeview, Richfield, Eureka and Buena Vista. The City has looked into other properties in Savi Ranch. In fact, two of the sites identified are in Savi Ranch and would accommodate nearly 200 of the City’s 2,415 housing units. There are several challenges with other sites in Savi Ranch: 1) The City must be able to demonstrate that there is “realistic development capacity” which often means that there is a willing property owner interested in redeveloping during the 2021-2029 housing cycle; 2) The City already has an extremely limited amount of commercial land available and the City is very cautious about rezoning commercial land to other land uses because once the commercial is gone, you can’t get it back; 3) Most of the commercial businesses in Savi Ranch are still performing well, so it would be difficult to demonstrate to the State that these sites would reasonably redevelop during the 2021-2029 housing cycle. I would encourage you to review the City’s website for more information on how the City selected the sites through a very open and robust public process. Also if you have any recommendations for other sites for the City to consider in the future, we would welcome the feedback.

109-9(CONT.)




Juanita Dunham, dated June 29, 2022

109-1 The commenter expresses concern on the Savi Ranch site which is not part of the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

109-2 The commenter inquires whether the plans for drawn up for development once the sites are approved by the State. Future housing development would be subject to discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow or at the discretion of the individual property owners. The Project includes the approval and adoption of the General Plan Amendments and Amendments to the Zoning Code under the Housing Element, which will require approval by City Council and be passed through Measure B voting prior to development.

109-3 The commenter inquires whether the public will be allowed to see the plan for the development. Specific design details such as construction timelines, site plan, grading plan, landscaping plan, utility plan, site access, renderings, and more are currently not available at this time. When specific residential developments are proposed, each development project will require discretionary review and City approval to ensure that Yorba Linda’s established expectations of quality are met.

109-4 The commenter inquires whether the buildout of streets will be completed and what street will be upgraded. Refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety.

109-5 The commenter inquires whether the public will be able to comment on infrastructure improvements. Refer to Response to Comments 109-3 and 109-4.

109-6 The commenter expresses concern on the existing condition on Lakeview and hopes such conditions will be prevented for the Project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

109-7 The commenter describes existing traffic conditions on Lakeview. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.


109-9 The commenter asks questions of City staff, which were responded to in this comment. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 110

Notes presented by Margaret Thurston (3790 Forest Glen RD 92886) @ Planning Commission meeting, June 29, 2022.

I would like to speak about your Exhibits A & C, the resolution and zoning code changes that you claim do NOT trigger a Measure B vote. (Right‐to‐Vote / Measure B Municipal Code)

https://library.qcode.us/lib/yorba_linda_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_18‐chapter_18_01?view=all

Measure B approval is REQUIRED for changing the text of the YL General Plan Land Use Element. It also requires approval for density use greater than 10 units per acre.

All municipal code, ordinances, resolutions, and administrative policies of the City that are in conflict with any provisions in Measure B are overridden. Measure B trumps all conflicts. I believe there is a huge conflict specific to S5‐008, the Fairmont Earthquake/Landslide/Fire zone, also referred to as Area E.

110-1



S5‐008 has been owned by LDS for decades and zoned as a combination of OS and RU religious use only. The current zoning of s5‐008 is contradicted in multiple places:

In the adopted HE 2021‐2029 it is currently PD and being proposed as RM, 10 units per acre.

However, Information provided by Yorba Linda to the Current owner/seller S5‐008 is Zoned as “Religious Use Only, with 14 acres as Open Space; The City’s analysis determined an amendment plan would be needed to re‐designate the 9 acres as rezoned for RS (residential medium), allowing 27 units, 3 per acre, without triggering a Measure B vote.”

You are trying to push through this rezoning and bypass Measure B. While 230 units are calculated on the gross acreage 14 acres are OPEN space and unbuildable.

You are claiming something called ‘density averaging’ exists in the Municipal Code allowing you to squash all 230 units on 9 acres. Density Averaging does NOT exist in YL Municipal Code! You are trying to avoid Measure B by limiting the zoning to RM‐10, but the result is 26 homes per acre…there is no way you can build within RM 10 standards. Housing Units on S5‐008 cannot exceed 90 units without ignoring building standards. Now that we know the actual buildable area is 2.55 acres, that number is over 90 per acre!

110-1(CONT.)



In Exhibit C, the “Non‐Measure B” Proposed Zoning Code 2022‐01 ..You are including text from the proposed zoning code that does require M B approval: Amendment 2022‐02, which DOES require M B approval, would amend the text of this site to RM zone standards.

Why was this rezoning verbiage for S5‐008, that requires M B approval, inserted into this document? It does not say ‘pending M B’…

Then you list ITEM #5, that flat out states that Area E is amended as follows: zone RM with 230 lots permitted.

Here there is no reference to 2022‐02 zoning code, pending M B approval, or addressing the resulting 26 units per acre. You are recommending that City Council Adopt this Code that states Area E is amended as RM with 230 lots!

You are deceitfully sneaking in rezoning that clearly requires M B approval! I have printed a copy of these notes and I want assurance that City Council reads them prior to accepting your recommendation to adopt this untruthful zoning code disregarding YLs Right‐to‐Vote.

To be clear: S5‐008 is the Most inappropriate site of all 27 sites in the HE.

110-1(CONT.)



It checks every box for Hazards:

Fire, Earthquake fault lines, natural gas lines, landslides. It is a protected urban wildlife area.

And it checks ZERO boxes for the required infrastructure:

Existing roads, electricity, gas, water, sewer, near mass transit and so on.

The Housing Element states in IV-18. (section 4 pg 18) under heading

6. Availability of Infrastructure and Public Services

All sites are adjacent to existing public roadways and are serviceable by police and fire departments, private companies that provide phone, cable, gas, and electric service. Existing water delivery and wastewater collection infrastructure is available to all properties in the inventory and the City has adequate capacity to accommodate the RHNA of 2,415 units. In summary, no sites included within the sites inventory for the 2021-2029 Housing Element are constrained by infrastructure availability. And that simply is not TRUE. S5-008 does not fill the requirements of the HE inventory and should be removed. There is NO Density Averaging in YL City Code, Open Space Cannot be rezoned for Residential use.

https://library.qcode.us/lib/yorba_linda_ca/pub/municipal_code/search_results

110-2

110-3

110-4

110-5




Margaret Thurston, dated June 29, 2022

110-1 The commenter provides notes presented by the commenter during the Planning Commission meeting on June 29, 2022 and expresses concern on whether housing opportunity site S5-008 requires Measure B voting. The Project would be subject to the Yorba Linda Right-To-Vote Amendment (a.k.a. Measure B), which is a citizen sponsored, voter-approved initiative, incorporated within the City’s Municipal Code. Measure B applies to the 27 housing opportunity sites proposed for rezoning and a corresponding ballot measure is planned for November 8, 2022 as part of the general election. This process will be similar to Measures H and I (consisting of 14 sites including two Savi Ranch properties) successfully passed by Yorba Linda voters on June 5, 2012.

110-2 The commenter expresses concern that housing opportunity site S5-008 is within fire, earthquake fault lines, natural gas lines, landslides, and urban wildlife area. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures.

Moreover, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-14 to 5-15), the commenter is correct in stating that housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a landslide zone. However, regardless of the landslide susceptibility, future development pursuant to the Project would be required to have a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted. The geotechnical investigation for each project on a site within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced landslides would be required to evaluate the potential for such landslides onsite provide any needed recommendations for minimizing hazards. Each project must also comply with seismic safety regulations and requirements regarding slope stability in the CBC and City of Yorba Linda Building Code. Additionally, development along hillside would be required to comply with the standards in Chapter 18.30, Hillside Development, of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts to landslides would be less than significant.



As discussed above and in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-11, and 4.2-15 to 4.2-16), there is a Riverine habitat on housing opportunity S5-008. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would require applicants of future development projects on S5-008 to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall be a reconnaissance level field survey of the sites for the presence and quality of biological resources potentially affected by project development housing opportunity site. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-5 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands be mitigated through obtaining. appropriate permit authorization(s). With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands would be reduced to less than significant.

110-3 The commenter expresses concern for existing roads, electricity, gas, water, sewer, near mass transportation. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District (refer to Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR), impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and according to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project.

110-4 The commenter cites a paragraph from the Housing Element regarding availability of infrastructure and public services. Refer to Response to Comment 110-3 for the availability of infrastructure. As stated in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.7-13 to 4.7-14), implementation of the Project would result in an increase in calls for service; however, OCSD has indicated that this increase would not adversely impact OCSD’s existing resources. OCSD will work closely with the City to determine proper level of law enforcement staffing based on best practices for population and crime statistics. Similarly, in order to ensure adequate level of fire protection service within the City of Yorba Linda, OCFA typically enters into a Secured Fire Projection Agreement with private developers. Therefore, project applicants for future development would be required to enter into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with OCFA to address any incremental impacts to fire facilities and services.

110-5 The commenter expresses that opposition to S5-008 and the Open Space Designated should not be rezoned to residential. As discussed in Section 4.5, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.5-10), S5-008 has a current land use designation of Residential-Medium in the southern portion (9 acres) and Open Space-General (OS) in the northern portion (14 acres). Based on the restrictions of the General Plan for Open Space (OS), no residential development would occur in the Open Space portion of S5-008. It should also be noted that changes to the General Plan would be subject to Measure B. The Measure B vote on the Housing Element Implementation Programs would not change the OS designation on site S5-



008. Further, the Project would continue to uphold current development standards for determination of density and regulation of quality within hillside areas similar to the density of surrounding developed properties. Moreover, as part of the recommendation to City Council, the Planning Commission has recommended the open space language specific to the Fairmont site to be added to the Resolution for the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zoning Code Amendments.



Comment Letter 111

From: Peggy Barlet <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 2:24 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Supplemental Memo Regarding Agenda Item 7.3 for the Yorba Linda Planning Commission Meeting

Mr. Farnsworth-

I have just read the Supplemental Memo that you sent out regarding the traffic study for the potential rezoning in the Bryant Ranch area of Yorba Linda. Please know that I have lived in this area of the city for the past 25 years and I can reliably tell you that the information being provided by the traffic study is incomplete at best! The flow of traffic on La Palma Ave east of Lomas de Yorba East is already limited to one lane in order to accommodate the traffic that uses Hwy 91. For residents that live beyond that point, we are already negatively impacted. The memo, in fact, states that the impact of the 91 Freeway was not studied. This is ridiculous and irresponsible. This traffic has continuously impacted this area for years. The Gypsum Canyon intersection at La Palma is a complete log jam at best during get away hours on Thursdays, Fridays and holidays. All kinds of shenanigans are at play at those times. Illegal turns into housing developments, fire station driveways and across 4 lanes of traffic. Not including this information in a traffic study is preposterous! Any future alleviation thought to be provided by changes at 91/241 are years from now and would have no effect on lessening the drivers that use La Palma. Improvements at that interchange would impact the drivers to and from Riverside County to south Orange County. Finally, we have had two fires out here that required evacuation and neither time did it go especially well. Staff putting together a “Know Your Way” campaign is fine in theory, but when fire hits- and I’m sure it will again- that all goes out the window. Adding additional residential units to an already at risk area is nonsense and I’m sure if you were to ask themtoday, the Orange County Fire Authority would agree. Negatively impacting the current residents of Bryant Ranch because the state passed off in its responsibility and mandated that cities provide solutions for housing and the burden of the costs involved is no way to plan or to govern a city. At the very least, if you have not already done so, I would ask that you experience the issues facing Bryant Ranch first hand before you offer these rezoning proposals as a solution.

Sincerely,Peggy Barlet5415 Castle Bend Way Yorba Linda

111-1




Peggy Barlet, dated June 29, 2022

111-1 The commenter expresses concern on traffic and fire evacuation on La Palma Avenue and states that it was not properly analyzed in the traffic study.

Future housing development would conduct a project-level traffic impact analysis based on City’s Guidelines that will analyze the existing traffic condition at the time of preparation of the study and the LOS impacts due implementation of the development in the opening year scenario. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion, and Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion on fire evacuation.



Comment Letter 112

From: Ron Barlet <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:35 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: 2021-2029 Housing Element Programs

Nate,

Please accept this e-mail as my comments in reference to the above program. My wife and I have been Yorba Linda residents for over 35 years, 32 of which have been at the east end of Yorba Linda in the Bryant Ranch area, and currently reside at 5415 Castle Bend Way. Reviewing parcels referred to S7-001 and S7-005 in section 3 of the above referenced draft, I find it unthinkable that the city would even suggest that these parcels be a part of the program. It appears the proposed parcels create the potential for 30 and 320 homes. With each home typically generating 2 cars per household, that would be an additional 700 vehicles conservatively. I believe this is conservative since the area east of Yorba Linda Blvd. and La Palma, the only reliable ingress to our area, is not serviced by bus or train. In fact, it is very difficult to even get Uber/Lyft to come to our homes as they often cancel repeatedly before showing up. Accordingly, these projects could easily generate an additional 1,000 vehicles.

Unfortunately, the city of Yorba Linda seemingly is unaware of the traffic that occurs every single afternoon on La Palma and certainly must not be aware of the impact of accidents or holidays that essentially turns La Palma into alternate state route 91. This situation creates unsafe and dangerous situations where vehicles try to circumvent the long lines by merging dangerously prior to the concrete median, committing illegal turns at the end of La Palma, in front of the OC Fire Station 53, and also in the gated access to the homes entering Gypsum. On those days, many of us must enter on Lomas De Yorba East and drive through neighborhoods to not sit in delays or be involved in dangerous maneuvers occurring on La Palma. When residents leave their homes, at a minimum, we must drive all the way back to Yorba Linda Blvd/Weir Canyon, as it is impossible to traverse the Gypsum bridge to access the 91 FWY Westbound. While not in the city, Santa Ana Canyon can also backup to at least Woodcreek Rd in Anaheim Hills.

I recall city officials applauding the construction of the Gypsum Canyon bridge in 1990 but due to the failure of the state to maintain the 91 Hwy, this bridge almost immediately severely and negatively impacted our lives each and every afternoon/early evening. More importantly, it is extremely unsafe, not only from the illegal maneuvers, but the inability of police/fire services to easily traverse this area. With our wildfire exposure, this further increases the hazard. During the fires of 2008, during the evacuation, all 4 lanes became westbound evacuation routes as the fires burned. If that were to happen at 4 pm today, evacuation would not be possible. Simply put, the Bryant Ranch area is a very neglected part of the city with La Palma becoming the only way in or out each afternoon. The area has already been negatively impacted from a landscape perspective where the city is not longer maintaining but a 1/3rd of the common slopes, further increasing wildfire potential. Development of these two parcels as residential would be yet another nail in the coffin of the Bryant Ranch community to further negatively impacting us with traffic, noise, and unsafe conditions.

In summary, it is unfathomable as well as irresponsible that the city would even consider additional residents in this area given the debilitating traffic situation occurring nearly every day. In short, while I cannot speak for the rest of Yorba Linda, I trust that city officials, both elected and staff, would re-read the city’s motto: Yorba Linda, known as the “Land of Gracious Living” is a city with a strong sense of community and small-town character”. If this is the city’s interpretation of small town character, I invite city officials to spend time on La Palma Ave/Gypsum Canyon and explain to me the small-town character.

I am available to discus in further detail at the attached email or cell phone- 714/240-6688.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment,

Ron and Peggy Barlet

112-1

112-2

112-3

112-5

112-4




Ron and Peggy Barlet, dated June 29, 2022

112-1 The commenter expresses concern related to traffic impacts related to housing opportunity sites S7-001 and S7-005. Future housing development would conduct a project-level traffic impact analysis based on City’s Guidelines that will analyze the existing traffic condition at the time of preparation of the study and the LOS impacts due implementation of the development in the opening year scenario. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. No further response is required.

112-2 The commenter describes the existing traffic conditions in the area. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. No further response is required.

112-3 The commenter continues to express concern with traffic and fire evacuation. Refer to Response to Commenter 112-1.

112-4 The commenter expresses concern with wildfire. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for further details.




Comment Letter 113

From: Sage McCarty <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 6:14 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Written Public Comments - June 29, 2022 - Zoning and General Plan Modifications

I am a recent high school graduate who lives near the redwood forest of Carbon Canyon. I am writing to support the rezoning plans outlined in the notice of public hearing because of the positive environmental and economic effects that they will have on Yorba Linda.

In 2019, the American Economic Journal published a paper by two University of Chicago academics stating that, if America’s housing crisis had not happened in 2008, our GDP would be seventy-four percent higher than it currently is. The housing shortage throughout California significantly inhibits our ability to grow economically at both a local and a state level. Allowing more housing to be built in Yorba Linda can boost our local economy and protect us from future economic turbulence.

These proposed zoning changes do not sacrifice community character or environmental concerns for the sake of the economy. Mixed-use areas, including both businesses and housing, allow residents greater freedom to run errands without needing to travel by car. Decreased reliance on automobiles enables individuals to reduce their carbon footprint by choosing alternative modes of transportation, such as walking or cycling. Furthermore, the proposed zoning changes allow more homes to be built without destroying the existing animal habitats on Yorba Linda’s hills and mountains. Residents in many of these new homes will also have the liberty of reasonably and conveniently using sidewalks and bike lanes when going to restaurants, bringing home groceries, and attending places of worship.

Mixed-use zoning, congregational land overlays, and affordable housing overlays allow cities to return to a traditional style of development that has fostered community character over centuries. Many neighborhoods across North America that were built before the second World War have an incredibly similar style of development, and these homes are both architecturally pleasing and in high-demand. Therefore, Yorba Linda residents have the opportunity to improve the character of the city by proceeding with these zoning changes.

The one modification I recommend to the rezoning plan is to zone S1-200 as Open Space (OS) or Open Space Ranchette (OSR). This site is very close to the Carbon Canyon dam, and the environment of Yorba Linda will benefit from this site being left open as a home for native animals and a continued home for plants. If this is not possible, I recommend keeping the site zoned as Residential Estate (RE).

Thank you to the city of Yorba Linda for proposing these zoning changes, and thank you for your time.

113-1

113-2

113-3

113-4




Sage McCarty, dated June 29, 2022

113-1 The commenter expresses support for the Project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

113-2 The commenter summarizes information about the housing crisis in the America from the American Economic Journal. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.

113-3 The commenter describes the various benefits of the Project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project..

113-4 The commenter suggests to zone housing opportunity site S1-200 as Open Space (OS) or Open Space Ranchette (OSR) or Residential Estate (RE) due to its close proximity to the Carbon Canyon dam. Housing opportunity site S1-200 is currently proposed to be rezone as RM-20 with AHO. As discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-10, to 4.2-11), S1-200 is not located within a natural habitat area, riparian habitat, state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, redevelopment of these sites would not result in a significant impact to biological resources or elimination of natural wildlife. No revisions to the Draft PEIR analysis or conclusions are required and no further response is required.



Comment Letter 114

From: STEVEN HARMS <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 2:20 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]: YL EIR Housing Element; YL Traffic Commission

Dear Sirs,

In regards to the YL's plan to address the state Housing Element mandate.

I am not in support of nor will I vote in favor of a Measure B rezone in its current form.

I am specifically opposed to rezoning the two sites below:S3-207 5300-5392 Richfield 340 unitsS3-012 Richfield Community Church 55 units

Since the 395 units represents almost 20% of the total city requirement, it seems likethis one small section is taking on an unfair burden of the cities mandate.

I have been a resident of western Yorba Linda since 1987 and there has been oneconstant since I have been here; increasing traffic without additional infostructure tosupport it. There has been a traffic signal added at Richfield and Buena Vista but hathas been it to my knowledge. The expansion of the shopping center at Richfield andYorba Linda blvd and additional housing units have been constructed just to the southof Yorba Linda blvd on Richfield road has increased the traffic on Richfieldexponentially. Adding an additional 395 units will make it impossible for currentresidents to access Richfield at heavy traffic times and difficult during non-peaktimes.

The other issue that's concerning is the western part of YL is the oldest part of town.The power, water and sewage were probably not sized to support this increase inpopulation whereas the newer parts of town have infostructure to support an increasein population. It seems to make more sense to add additional housing in areas thatwere designed to handle it.


Steve Harms17755 Lomita Lane

114-1




Steve Harms, dated June 29, 2022

114-1 The commenter expresses opposition to housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. Comments in this letter are the same as Form Letter E; therefore, refer to response to Comments FLE-1 through FLE-4, below. No further responses is required.



Comment Letter 115

From: tgruschus <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:43 AMTo: Monse Garcia <[email protected]>; Shirjeel Muhammad<[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Traffic Impact of S1-021

Please consider the impact of the purposed occupancy zoning being considered for the specific area marked "S1-021" on the existing neighborhood. "S1-021" is recorded for a potential 62 units. With "S1-021" labeled as 1.76 acres, that is a units per acre of 35. Earlier traffic studies of the region has used the parameter of each household may generate 10 visits a day. That would be at least 350 traffic actions per day, added to the existing neighborhood, per day.

Assuming that the division of those actions would leave by either south on Imperial, south on Prospect or north on Imperial, the bleed off of those actions going into the neighbor could be very impactful. The only way to go south on Imperial is either Prospect, or cut through the neighborhood to Valley View. Depending on the time of day, that cut through traffic will be encouraged to either use Brooklyn or Wabash due to the backup at Prospect. The neighborhood has already been greatly impacted by the private school located at the corner of Prospect and Imperial which earlier traffic studies have shown.

With the private school on the corner of Prospect, LA Fitness, and the potential of "S1-021" adding 350 traffic actions impacting the existing neighborhood, I request the consideration of lowering the occupancy designation of "S1-021" to no more than 5 per acre.

Thank you for you consideration,

Tom and Sharon Gruschus16961 Chestnut StYorba Linda, Ca 92886657-363-7484

115-1




Tom and Sharon Gruschus, dated June 29, 2022

115-1 The commenters express concerns related to traffic impacts due to housing opportunity site S1-021 and requests to lower the occupancy designation to no more than 5 per acre. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 116

From: Tony Sun <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 10:32 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Zoning change

Dear Ms. Farnsworth,

I am a resident at Yorba Linda and recently received the Notice of Public Hearing Concerning VariousZoning and General Plan Modifications Related to the 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan HousingElement Implementation Program. My family has big concerns about this Zoning Change and GeneralPlan Modifications. We oppose such change and modification.

The proposed zoning change and General Plan Modification will allow more housing built in the YorbaLinda, and increase the density of the whole city, which will create problems in different areas, includingbut not limited to traffic, education, privacy, safety and security, and evacuation when there is a fire. Toadd those housing units, the city should first improve the public works, such as roads and streets, parks,schools, fire stations, hospitals, police stations, etc, to ensure that the traffic, education, and safety arekept on the same level as before. In addition, since Yorba Linda is right next to the Chino State Park, andwe have had more often wildfires in recent years, adding more housing will slow the evacuation processand put more people in danger.

I will take the closest parcel to my community as an example. This is the one on Fairmont Blvd –APN326-081-01. It is a piece of low-lying land next to the hills. There are environmental issues thatmake this lot unsuitable for high-density housing. It is located in a very high-risk fire hazard and landslidearea. There is a lack of ability to support an evacuation plan. In addition, it will increase the teacher-to-student ratios in the nearby schools. It is not the right site to build 230 units.

Hereby we ask the leaders of our city to preserve this Land of Gracious Living. Avoid high density, keepour privacy and safety, and keep the excellent education for our kids.

Respectfully,

Yudong Sun4233 Genoa WayYorba Linda, CA 92886

116-1

116-2

116-3

116-4




Yudong Sun, dated June 29, 2022

116-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the Project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

116-2 The commenter expresses concerns related to traffic, education, privacy, safety and security, and evacuation due to the increase in housing. Refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, and 2.1.4. Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion on traffic, safety, and fire evacuation/emergency access concerns. As discussed in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.7-15 to 4.7-16), impacts to school services would be less than significant. There is sufficient capacity to serve the Project-generated students within the PYLUSD and OUSD. Moreover, as stated in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.7-14), implementation of the Project would result in an increase in calls for service; however, OCSD has indicated that this increase would not adversely impact OCSD’s existing resources. OCSD will work closely with the City to determine proper level of law enforcement staffing based on best practices for population and crime statistics.

116-3 The commenter uses S5-008 as an example and notes that the site is in a fire hazards and landslide area, lack of support for evacuation plan, and would require an increased teacher to student ratio. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures.

As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-14 to 5-15), the commenter is correct in stating that housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a landslide zone. However, regardless of the landslide susceptibility, future development pursuant to the Project would be required to have a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted. The geotechnical investigation for each project on a site within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced landslides would be required to evaluate the potential for such landslides onsite provide any needed recommendations for minimizing hazards. Each project must also comply with seismic safety regulations and requirements regarding slope stability in the CBC and City of Yorba Linda Building Code. Additionally, development along hillside would be required to comply with the standards in Chapter 18.30, Hillside Development, of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts to landslides would be less than significant. Refer to Response to Comment 116-2 above for discussion on evacuation plan, and increase teacher to student ratio.



Comment Letter 117

From: Daniel Chao <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:16 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Supplemental Memo Regarding Agenda Item 7.3 for the Yorba Linda PlanningCommission Meeting

Thank you for the updates. I would like to know if the proposal for building along Imperial has beendiscussed with the Brea city councilors, since they are trying to push through a building project onLambert. Has the combined traffic impact been considered? Maybe someone with expertise intraffic analysis could help me to understand that piece of it. Thank you very much for your time!

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 13:28 Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]> wrote:

We wanted to make you aware of a supplemental memo that was prepared and recently releasedfor the Item 7.3 for Yorba Linda Planning Commission meeting. The purpose of this memorandumis to provide supplemental information to the Planning Commission that was not available at thetime when the Planning Commission agenda packet was published on June 23, 2022. Specifically,it includes an update from the Traffic Commission meeting on June 23, 2022; an update on aconversation with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) aboutpotentially revising the previously-approved Housing Sites Inventory; an update on publiccomments received; and, a revised exhibit to one of the recommended approval actions. Pleaserefer to the following link to access the additional information under agenda item 7.3:https://pub-yorbalinda.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=12681.

Sincerely,


117-1




Daniel Chao, dated June 30, 2022

117-1 The commenter inquires whether the proposal for building along Imperial has been discussed with City of Brea City Council and has the combined traffic impact been considered. Please note that the City of Brea was notified of the Draft PEIR. The TIA, as updated (see Attachment I, of this Final PEIR), used the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) Version 5.5 maintained by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to derive traffic projections for Horizon Year (2045) Without Project and With Project conditions. To develop future traffic forecast volumes in the vicinity of the 27 sites proposed to be rezoned to multifamily residential use, changes in population related to each proposed site were added to the OCTAM models and rerun. Please note that the Draft PEIR evaluated buildout of the Project, and no site-specific development is being proposed at this time. When a development plan comes forward a focused-traffic study will be prepared.



Comment Letter 118

From: Darius Gleason <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 11:15 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: Sam Bigonger <[email protected]>Subject: Housing Element , Rezoning Plans

Hi Nate,

Thanks for facilitating another public comment window last night at city hall. After listening to somany personal stories of hardship that will result from this plan, and after listening to the board'sexplanation of how they have resisted this plan, including the last minute transfer of units from theinland empire to OC/LA, it is clear to me that the state's intent to increase Yorba Linda's allocationfrom about 200 to 2400 units is not a good idea.

We wanted to send these comments/questions to you by email and hope it will be considered in thesame manner as the public commentary at the meeting last night.

Our property is right next to the Highland parcel (S3 205a) that is proposed for rezoning. We believethat to retain our property value we should be considered for rezoning as well. The Highland parcelis very likely to be developed (the gentleman who owns the property spoke last night and we arewell aware that he is eager to get on with development or selling to a developer). Once the Highlandparcel is developed we will be sandwiched between two high density developments (Covington rightacross from the Nixon library and the Highland parcel). It only seems fair that we get rezoned too inorder to maintain our property value. We would like our lot to be considered for rezoning as well. Itshould be noted our property already has a drainage easement on it that will likely have to be dealtwith during development anyway. That being said, please let us know how we might go about beingconsidered for inclusion in the rezoning plan.

Second, if a 10 unit /acre development goes in at S3 205a, what will the routes of ingress and egressbe? The way we see it there are 3 possibilities, Eureka Ave, Highland on the side that connects to YLBlvd and Highland on the side that connects to Buena Vista. The scenario we'd most like to avoid isEureka Ave being the exclusive ingress/egress route especially if we are not considered for rezoningin the plan.

Look forward to your reply, thanks,

Darius

--

LAW OFFICE OF DARIUS GLEASON APC4897 Main StreetYorba Linda, CA92886Mobile: (949) [email protected]://www.LOODG.com

118-1

118-2

118-3




Darius Gleason, dated June 30, 2022

118-1 This comment consists of introductory remarks; thus, no further response is required.

118-2 The commenter states that they live next to housing opportunity site S3-205A and wish for their property to be included in the Project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

118-3 The commenter asks about the egress and ingress of housing opportunity site S3-205A.No site-specific development is being proposed at this time. Specific design details such as site plan and site access are currently not available at this time. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and would occur as market conditions allow or at the discretion of the individual property owners.



Comment Letter 119

From: Denise Franklyn <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 3:19 PMTo: Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>Subject: Re zoning meeting

Mr. Singh,As always when I get up to speak I lose my train of thought. Here is what I wanted to say. Iam hoping you can take a moment to read it. Thank you for your suggestion of eliminatingthe Grandview area and one parcel in Bryant ranch.

My name is Denise Frankyn. I have lived here over 30 years, my family over 50. Combinedwe have 10 homes. These areas effect a few of them.

The Rose drive location is already a cluster. To get in and out of the Stators center or Am/Pmgas side is already dangerous. Adding this location along with Brea’s add up the road, this twolane road will never not be stopped.

Fairmont location we know has fire zone safety issues and the cars coming down that hill onthe vere it’s hard to see the hill, I could not image cars leaving from there.

Grandview area is obviously a lousy location so close to the homes and school right next to it.The church parking lot overflow should not be allowed in the traffic study. This area iscongested enough during all hours as people come and go not just during drop off / pick uphours.

My uncle and I both have houses off Short Street. This is not in the study, and I understand butit doesn’t mean it does not affect us. Short is a short cut for many. Why you approved speedbumps years ago. Not because of the residence, because of those that pass thru. Too many nowdriving with little respect for those on this street. No sideways mean we walk with the cars.We are also the last of the horse community. Where will we go? Please do not let this go.

I was told a stop sign at Short and Kellogg is being planned. This does not help anythingexcept make Short have more traffic. Not to mention we have one at Grand, Imperial, andEHS already. How many do we need in a short distance, we won’t get anywhere.

Yorba Linda is an impacted city. We were built like a town, not LA. Our land ownership andreason why we live here should not be compromised do to state regulations. If we re zonethen anyone, anywhere can build a building that does not fit in with our city. We are losingwho we are.

I understand this is a state issue. But we need to be able to submit something without puttingour people in danger as fires will continue. Without compromising our way of life.

I wanted to ask about ADU’s. Why can’t we say 2K are going in? I would submit a permit ifthat helps to show the state.

We are a fire zone city. Newsom, Weiner, Sacramento cannot deny this. Our next fire we mayend up like Paradise. Especially the Bryant Ranch area. Then what? He gets to blame climatechange when it’s his fault? It’s a hard pill to swallow.

119-1

119-2

119-3

119-4

119-5



I don’t understand the Riverside mayors call that we cannot appeal this. Who makes the rulethat we cannot appeal it? Why do they have more power?

If this is not due to 2029 why are we rushing with these answers to them? The Fairmont landLDS owners are in escrow waiting for your answer. They will close. They will build. Thestrawberry field owner is ready to go. These will be built. We can’t say they won’t. If we waitmaybe new bills will pass that give the cities control again.

Last question, I used to live off Palm/Easy Street. We had 3 acres of land. Our kids’motorcycle track backed up to dead land beside us. The church was directly behind. Theywould play over there. It’s off YL Blvd/ Kellogg. This land has a paved street already withhouse pads. Have you contacted this owner? This property is their own neighborhood. Thiswould be a perfect location for many.


119-7

119-6

119-8




Denise Franklyn, dated June 30, 2022

119-1 The commenter starts off with an introduction and states their family has 10 homes, a few that would be affected by the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. No further response is required.

119-2 The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic and fire evacuation. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion and safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

119-3 The commenter expresses general concerns with wildfire and notes the City would lose its character due to development. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-6 to 5-8), impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant. Future development would be subject to Design Review, the goals and policies in the City’s General Plan and would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code inclusive of the Zoning Code, including general development standards and sign regulations. No further response is required.

119-4 The commenter asks why the City cannot take credit for 2,000 ADUs and recommends submittal of a permit. Recent State housing laws passed in 2019 required that jurisdictions allow by right on every residential property at least one Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU). With over 20,000 residential dwelling units in the City, one would assume that the RHNA could easily be met simply by utilizing ADUs. In June 2020, HCD established guidelines to regulate how many ADUs it would allow a jurisdiction to count towards meeting its RHNA. The general rule is that a jurisdiction can use its ADU trends from 2018-2020 or five times the ADU construction trends prior to 2018.

It is important to note that both of these methods were based on construction trends either during the COVID-19 pandemic or prior to the changes in ADU laws. Therefore, the City conducted its own ADU trend analysis and determined that over the course of the eight-year housing cycle, the City would likely see approximately 1,100 ADUs constructed. HCD initially agreed that this was a reasonable request and the City sought to find housing sites to accommodate the remaining 1,300 housing units in the City’s RHNA.

In the City’s first comment letter back from HCD, the City was informed that since it only produced an annual average of 5 ADUs in prior years, HCD was only willing to count 40 ADUs total over the entire 8-year cycle towards the City’s RHNA. Initially, when the City inquired about this significant reduction of over 1,000 units previously agreed upon by HCD, the State indicated that it would be willing to allow the City to double its annual average to 10 ADUs per year for a total of 80 ADUs over the entire 8-year cycle. City staff pressed back on this determination through a detailed ADU analysis and was able to get HCD to count a total of



400 ADUs towards its RHNA over the entire 8-year cycle, which is one of the highest numbers that has been allowed by HCD.

119-5 The commenter notes the City is a fire zone and raises general concerns about wildfire. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required.

119-6 The commenter asks about the appeal process. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

119-7 The commenter asks about the urgency to approve the Project. If the Project is not approved, HCD may revoke housing element compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply with state law.” Jurisdictions like Yorba Linda are subject to a range of penalties and consequences, including, but not limited to the following: legal suits and attorney fees, loss of permitting authority, financial penalties, court receivership, and streamlined ministerial approval process.

119-8 The commenter recommends a housing opportunity site off Palm and Easy Street. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 120

From: Jean Taber <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 8:08 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: FOR OFFICIAL RECORD: Concerns Re: S5-008 Development

Good evening, Mr. Farnsworth,

I am writing in response to the proposed development of site S5-008 on Fairmont Boulevard in Yorba Linda.

My property is directly adjacent to the site, at 3770 Blue Gum Drive. I have lived at this location since 1991. We chose our property because of its proximity to Chino Hills State Park and the habitat that has existed in the undeveloped parcel below (S5-008). It is home to hundreds of native insects, wildlife, and plants. Please refer to the attached document for a partial list of plants and wildlife I have personally observed on my property and directly adjacent to it.

While it would be my preference for site S5-008 to remain undeveloped, I respect the rights of the owner to develop the property as well as the need for affordable housing in Yorba Linda. However, I don't believe this parcel is appropriate for residential housing and have several concerns about the proposed density of 230 units for the site:

NATURAL RESOURCES and INFRASTRUCTURE

The ongoing drought in California is at a critical level.Adding more housing on this site adds unnecessary pressure to our infrastructure and naturalresources, especially water.Open habitat and green space in our city are important natural resources that should bepreserved for native wildlife, insects, and the plants they rely on to survive.

SAFETY

The parcel sits in a high fire hazard zone; a brush fire approached the neighborhood asrecently as October 2020.Homeowners' insurance is very difficult to obtain for anyone living in this area because of firehazard.There is no county bus service to this area of Yorba Linda, which means all of the residents inthis development would have to have vehicles to get to and from work and school.Parking for the proposed 230 units on this parcel means a space requirement for nearly 500vehicles or more, assuming two occupants per unit who each have at least one vehicle.The parcel does not immediately appear suitable for a high number of vehicles, unless parkingis underground or along Fairmont Blvd.Underground parking on the parcel has inherent risks, including fire/wildfireevacuation/egress, earth movement from earthquakes and landslides (which have beendocumented in this specific area of the Chino Hills), and a seasonal stream that runs throughthe property during El Niño years and similar weather periods.Parking along Fairmont Blvd. would detract from the neighborhood aesthetic and creates asafety risk because of the speed vehicles travel along that road.Morning traffic southbound on Fairmont Blvd. is already congested and dangerous forpedestrians at the Bastanchury Rd. and Yorba Linda Blvd. intersections. Students frequentlymake dangerous crossings to the high school at Carerra Rd. and Fairmont Blvd. An additional500 cars or more would significantly degrade the flow of traffic and increase the likelihood ofaccidents and injuries.The exhaust from additional vehicles will increase air pollution.Noise from additional vehicles will increase noise pollution.

120-1

120-2

120-3

120-4

120-5



AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Orange County, and Yorba Linda in particular, is in dire need of affordable housing for LOWand VERY LOW INCOME families and individuals.Unless this project meets the needs of a low or very low income group as defined by the Stateof California, and addresses the safety and infrastructure concerns cited above, the Cityshould reject it.

I hope the City Council and Planning Commission will carefully consider this rezoning anddevelopment request and consider the serious and negative impact it would have on ourinfrastructure and resources, and on traffic and safety. Building more residences on this site isa bad idea.

Sincerely yours and on behalf of my family,

Jean Taber, Jim Taber, Gregory Taber, Calvin Taber, and Valerie Taber

Mammals

Bobcat

Coyote

Long-tailed Weasel

Dusky-footed Woodrat

Reptiles

Southern Pacific Rattlesnake

Red diamond rattlesnake

San Diego Gophersnake

California Kingsnake

California Ground Squirrel Coastal Whiptail

Great Basin Fence Lizard

Western Side-blotched Lizard

San Diego Alligator lizard

California Striped Racer

Western Yellow-bellied Racer

Two-striped Gartersnake

San Bernardino Ring-necked Snake

Desert Cottontail Rabbit

Striped skunk

Raccoon

Opossum

Pocket Gopher

Deer Mouse

California Mouse

Mountain Lion

120-6

120-7



Amphibians Birds

California Toad California Towhee

Baja California Treefrog Common Raven

Cactus Wren

California Thrasher

House Wren

Hooded Oriole

Great Horned Owl

Barn Owl

Greater Roadrunner

Mockingbird

Lesser Goldfinch

House Finch

White-Crowned Sparrow

Song sparrow

Wrentit

Bushtit

Mourning Dove

Spotted Towhee

Yellow-Rumped Warbler

Allen’s Hummingbird

Anna’s Hummingbird

Swainson’s Thrush

Cooper’s Hawk

Red-Tailed Hawk

Turkey Vulture

Nuttall’s Woodpecker

Bewick’s Wren

American Kestrel

Merlin

Common Poorwhill

White-Tailed Kite

Red-Shouldered Hawk

California Quail

Western Screech Owl

Northern Flicker

Western Bluebird

Western Scrub Jay

Black-Headed Grosbeak

Black Phoebe

Cliff Swallow

California Gnatcatcher

Hermit Thrush

American Robin

Western Kingbird



Insects

Plants

Monarch butterfly

Toyon

Painted lady butterfly

Lemonade Berry

Leaf-cutter bee

Coyote Brush

Miner Bee

Prickly Pear Cactus

Thread-Waisted Wasp

Blue Elderberry

European honeybee

Buckwheat

Carpenter bee

California sagebrush

Red Flame Skimmer

Bladder pod

Yellow-Legged Mud Dauber Wasp

Cliff Aster

Tarantula

Manroot

Trantula Hawk Wasp

Popcorn flower

Lacewing

California Sunflower

Cactus Fly

Santa Barbara Milk Vetch

Snakefly

Turkey-mullein

Antlion

Hooker’s Evening Primrose

Praying Mantis

Coyote Melon

Mason Wasp

Laurel Sumac

Funnel Spider

Evergreen Buckthorn

Sunflower Bee

Purple Sage

Scorpion

Bush Sunflower

Trashline Orb Weaver

California Brickellbush

Wolf Spider

Island Morning Glory

Soldier Fly

Jimsonweed

Syrphid Fly

Clustered Tarweed

Long-Legged Fly

Robber Fly

Blister Beetle

Longhorn Bee

Tiger Bee Fly

Red-Humped Caterpillar Moth

Harvestman

Glowworm

Broad-Nosed Weevil

Damselfly

Tumbling Flower Beetle

Thief Ant

Click Beetle

Cochineal Scale

Jerusalem Cricket

Green Fig Beetle

Bordered Mantis

Burying Beetle

Sawfly

Longhorn Cactus Fly

Four-Spotted Hover Fly

Striped Sweat Bee

Carpenter Ant




Jean, Jim, Gregory, Calvin, and Valerie Taber, dated June 30, 2022

120-1 The commenters prefer housing opportunity site S5-008 to remain undeveloped and note the site is adjacent to the Chino Hills State Park which is home to hundreds of native insects, wildlife, and plants. The commenter expresses general concerns with the ongoing drought in California, infrastructure and natural resources, and open habitat and green space. Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

120-2 The commenters express general concerns with wildfire regarding housing opportunity site S5-008. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

120-3 The commenters express general concerns with public transportation service to housing opportunity site S5-008. This comment is noted. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns.

120-4 The commenters express general concerns with parking, earthquakes, landslides, seasonal stream that runs through the property. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please note that traffic, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.9, Subsection 5.4.4, and Subsection 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

120-5 The commenters express general concerns with traffic, pedestrian safety, air pollution, and noise. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns of this Final PEIR, for a discussion related to traffic congestion and safety. Also please note that air quality, noise, and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1, 4.6, and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

120-6 The commenters state that Orange County and the City, in particular, are in need of affordable housing for low and very low income families and individuals. The commenters state the City should reject the Project unless it meets the needs of a low or very low income group as defined by the State and addresses the above listed concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



120-7 The commenters hope that City Council and Planning Commission will carefully consider the Project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 121

From: JENNIFER SHEPARD <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 5:05 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Community concerns

Hi Nate,I appreciated the details shared at the planning meeting last night and will follow up with some additional questions and concerns later but I thought you might find this interesting as my husband and I were trying to get to the freeway today. What a joy for us each day to experience, and then to learn that there are no traffic concerns for this area per the reports that were shared relative to the addition of 300 or more units. I hope some of the consultants can actually take the time to experience the Santa Ana canyon area by car!

Regards,

Jennifer Shepard

24651 Via Vallarta

YL 92887

121-1




Jennifer Shepard, dated June 30, 2022

121-1 The commenter discusses the lack of traffic discussion in the Santa Ana Canyon Area and provides a photo of traffic conditions on Apple Map. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 122

From: John Woo <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 4:46 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: Regina Hu <[email protected]>; Jim Sowers <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Question re 18597 / 18602 Altrudy Ln Yorba Linda, CA 92886

Hi Nate,

Thank you again for all your work for our city and community. We were able to attend the public hearing last night and even submitted a card in hopes to speak for 5 minutes on the zoning issue. But after 2.5 hours of being there, we had to leave and weren't able to get our comment on the record at the hearing. We had not realized how long the hearing would take and did not allocate sufficient time on our end. That said, we learned a lot about what you and the rest of the staff members have already done for the city and want to truly thank you for all the great lengths your team has gone through for the city and its citizens. It's unfortunate that the state still does not understand why their request is unreasonable, but we first wanted to say thank you for your efforts beforegetting into anything further on commenting on the rezoning plan.

As for our comment, we wanted to share our concerns regarding the plans for site S4-200 (18597 / 18602 Altrudy Ln Yorba Linda, CA 92886). Currently, the rezoning plan would rezone the S4-200 property site from what used to be two single family homes into 40 units of housing. The shift from two units to 40 units seems to be unrealistic and problematic. Although the single family homes had decent size lots for a single family home (1 acre each), both are not equipped to handle 20 units each, for a total of 40 units in just 2 acres of land. Not only would parking spaces be an issue for so many units in such little space, but the only way to make this happen would essentially be to build a mid to high rise building in that space. As you are aware, those two properties are surrounded by other single family homes (other than the side that is closest to Lakeview, which we understand is where the city built additional multi-level housing that faces the Lakeview street). Even putting aside the disruption that we and our neighbors would face from the construction, any building that is taller than a single story would look directly into our backyard and our neighbors' backyard - this would have a significant impact on our privacy in our own homes. You had previously noted that the construction design (including plans to plant tall trees on the borders and have the buildings built a sufficient distance away from the borders) would come at a later phase of the process, but our concern regarding the rezoning portion alone is that the number of units being requested for S4-200 is too many. I understand that certain units would need to be built based on the state's mandates, but would greatly appreciate consideration from the staff to reduce the number of rezoned units in S4-200 to 10-15 units maximum across both lots, and limit the build to only include single story buildings.

Please let me know if I need to post my comment on another website, or if this email would be sufficient for the purposes of providing my comment.

Thank you,John

122-1




John Woo, dated June 30, 2022

122-1 The commenter expresses commendation for the staff regarding work in the City and community. The commenter then expresses concerns for housing opportunity site S4-200 regarding the number of units for housing. The commenter understands that certain units would need to be built based on the State’s mandates but would greatly appreciate consideration from staff to reduce the number of rezoned units. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 123

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 2:21 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: Beth Haney <[email protected]>; David Brantley <[email protected]>; CarlosRodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez <[email protected]>; TaraCampbell <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Supplemental Memo Regarding Agenda Item 7.3 for the Yorba Linda PlanningCommission Meeting

I find it absolutely appalling that this revised agenda states over and over how the traffic commissiondidn’t properly do its job in correctly observing and calculating the traffic impacts in the BryantRanch/La Palma/Gypsum/Santa Ana Canyon nightmare we residents live in every single day! I havebeen trapped in our community with multiple fires and evacuations during rush hour when La Palmais bumper to bumper as this is the thoroughfare to the inland empire 91 freeway nightmare as wellas residents that spend a pretty penny to live in these hills! Answering our concerns with a projectbeing in development to expand the 91/241 is in the works is NOT an answer NOR is it a solution.You are passing the buck and not taking our concerns seriously. The last fire in Bryant Ranchhappened so fast we were unable to get our children from school because La Palma was so backedup from people rushing to get home on the 91 that I couldn’t pick up my kids…..This is NOTacceptable, nor will we will sit back and allow it to happen. We have 1 way in and 1 way out. There isnot enough room/lanes for the current residents and you want to stick over 200 more residents in atightly packed community that is busting at the seams trying to accommodate the tens of thousandsof cars daily to jump the 91 thinking it saves time. Not to mention the Semi trucks, trailers etc thatconstantly block intersections and make illegal right turns onto the gypsum bridge because they cantfrom the tight one lane turn right. There has never been anything done about this no matter howmany complains and calls to the City and the OC Sheriff. Please see the attached photo taken on5/26/22 at 4:57 proving my point. I sat through 5 light rotations just to be able to clear theintersection as it was blocked with people flipping illegal u turns at the fire station and blocking theresident parking signs posted not to turn left but people do it daily.

The cemetery is a whole other nightmare we East YL residents are upset about. You all seem tothrow things in the area where you think people wont care. Have any of you driven on Santa AnaCanyon or La Palma from 3pm to 7pm? If not, I encourage you to do it daily for a week and tell me ifthis Cemetery and new low income housing ares a good idea!! You are driving long standingresidents out of the very city we built with your terrible ideas that WE don’t WANT!! I cant even pickup a pizza at Porky’s without going all the way around La Palma because the Gypsum Bridge andSanta Ana Canyon are bumper to bumper!! What does this do to the local business’s and the taxesthey pay this City? It drives them out of here…..

I cant even imagine what will happen if you build this atrocity in the Bryant Ranch/La Palma area.YOU will be responsible for the deaths and damage from not being able to flee a fast moving firebecause you IGNORED it! We will hold you ALL personally accountable.

Thank you,

Kimberly Race

123-1




Kimberly Race, dated June 30, 2022

123-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to housing opportunity sites located in the areas of Bryant Ranch, La Palma, Gypsum, and Santa Ana Canyon. The commenter notes existing traffic conditions and recalls past wildfire events. The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic and fire evacuation. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 124

From: Michael Greene <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 8:49 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Re: [Ylheu] Website Public Comments - new submission

Posting my comments and notes - sitting through the public comments and council responses,I added stuff and my prepared notes suffered as I ran out of time.

============

I had a follow up conversation with Nate Farnsworth earlier today and it seems that myprimary concern about the Highland portion of site ID S3-207 is addressed due to the fact thatthe upper portion of that property was incorrectly included in the re-zone. However, when Ichecked your website at 4:30pm the boundary still fronted Highland

The points I made in opposition are still valid and I would like to see some correcteddocumentation that the Highland access portion of that site is not included in the re-zoningbefore anything is approved, as I believe there are other errors in the documentation Ireceived in the mail.

Two of the points I made about Highland also apply to site S3-205A The following were the points I made in the email and last publicmeeting related to site ID S3-207 – 5300-5392 Richfield Rd – 9.7acres @ 35 units/acre (or 340 units)

· The site is claimed to be 9.7 acres but is actually segregated by a steephill, and is more correctly two distinct areas - the lower one accessedvia Richfield, the upper one by Highland

· Highland is a hilly small side street north of Buena Vista with severalsmall cul-de-sacs. Buena Vista is the only access to Highland - it deadends at the reservoir.

· Most existing houses in the Highland neighborhood are on roughly 1/3to 1/2 acre plots (as are most of the houses in the wider area)

· The street/layout, the sewer and the utilities were all designed back inthe 1970's to support that density of 2 to 3 units per acre

S3-205A – 5225-5227 Highland Ave – 7+ acres @ 10 units/acre – 71 units

I can’t tell access from the map – but based on street description. the only accessis:

From the south: up an alley sized, pitted road off the cul-de-sac at the topof Highland OR From the north: Along a narrow, constrained, already recently widenedroad also Highland, south of Yorba Linda Blvd

124-1

124-2

124-3



Widened for a small gated development of ~15 houses on Newberry,

The houses on the east side of the street have a 30’ stacked blockretaining wall in their backyard – luckily we don’t live in anearthquake zone

Unless you’re planning on using eminent domain to widen access, 71additional units and 140 cars in that location is going to be a trafficnightmare for existing residents My concerns about traffic on Highland are back if access is south of the site– 140 more cars on HighlandChecking Google maps, it looks like there might be access via Eureka?

Primary issue is access - injecting above existing density units into the middle ofexisting properties with limited/restricted access

If access is via Highland north or south, that's single point of entry/exitwhich will fail under stress

On the map I received in the mail, there is a site ID S3-103, but there is no mention ofthat in any of the tables. I also did not find it on the website. Mrs Lee(?) also mentionedthis

Looks like it might be the Friends Church main parking lot? It’s the biggest site on Map 2 – SW Quadrant and has no detailed info in theTables

Back to Site ID S3-207 – the area identified on the map was incorrect, but the acreageand number of units was apparently correct

There are 2 other sites already built on Richfield with density significantly higherthan the surrounding properties:

Cerro Verde – approximately 10 units/acre of attached townhomes – onthe west side of Richfield just south of the new Lamppost Don’t know the name, but streets have French placenames – detachedhouses, no yards, also approximately 10 units / acre – on the east side ofRichfield across from the old Lamppost

The plan is to add 340 new units (~680 additional cars) entering/exiting ontoRichfield each day

124-3(CONT.)

124-5

124-4



This is 2.5 times the density of the existing high density sites, 15 times theexisting single family homes, in addition to being a bigger site It will significantly impact traffic south to 91 – whether going along Richfieldand trying to cross the railroad tracks or cutting over to Lakeview to use theoverpass

Have any of you gotten stuck behind a mile long freight train

Going north to YL Blvd and the Middle School Going west to Van Buren Elementary one block over

Again, I’m not against re-zoning some of these properties, but I am against re-zoning to adensity 15x that of the existing neighborhood, and due to the nature of the terrain andexisting homes, access into/out of high density units has to be a primary consideration.

When you google How many apartment units can fit on an acre: Duplexes and cluster housing achieves 6 to 8 units per acre. Two and three story rowor townhouses provide about 20 units per acre. Three story apartment complexes

achieve 25 units per acre. Multiple story buildings can achieve densities from 50 tomore than 100 units per acre.

Are 3 or 4 story apartment complexes on Richfield a possibility?

Finally, before any decisions are made, correct and accurate documentation must be madeavailable to the public. I’ve focused on three sites of most immediate concern to me, andfound two errors in the mailed document. Averaged over the 24 remaining sites, that’s 16other errors.

Eastern boundary of S3-207 (this is per Nate's follow up that the boundary will notextend to Highland - not sure i this was a later update)S3-103 - on the Map 2 - SW Quadrant, but no details in the table

Additional notes from public comment:

124-5(CONT.)

124-6

124-7



1. If a site is re-zoned to 35 units / acre, if an owner does decide to build, are they requiredto build to 35 units/acre or can they build to a lower density - say 10 units / acre?

2. Regarding the public comment process - I realize a back and forth with commenterswould be impractical, however there are issues with the comment and we'll get back toyou process as well. Things naturally get lost and issues can't be teased out

3. Communication of the processes/meetings needs to improve and the implications ofpassing/rejecting the proposals needs to be clearly identified.

4. I'm a software development manager - the website is difficult to navigate and inaddition to links to 800+ page studies, etc... it seems as if information overload is atactic to blunt criticism/opposition

5. As mentioned, I understand the need to respond to the state mandate, and I'm notagainst re-zoning per-se. My issue is the extreme increases in density being imposed onareas that present multiple issues - from terrain, to access (fire and/or earthquakeevacuation), to existing quality of life. My wife and I left San Francisco years ago becauseof the on the ground/quality of life impacts that misguided policies were starting totake, and our concerns were borne out as it's only gotten worse there.

I realize I, and most of the others, are pissing into the wind, but until I can convince my wife tomove out of California, I'm going to start attending more of these meetings.

ThanksMike

124-8




Michael Greene, dated June 30, 2022

124-1 The commenter expresses concern with housing opportunity site S3-207 regarding an incorrect boundary on the upper portion of the site. The boundary to housing opportunity site S3-207 has been modified as shown in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR. Thus, no further response is required.

124-2 The commenter expresses concerns with housing opportunity sites S3-205A and S3-207 as well regarding the housing density and the characteristics of the land and layout. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

124-3 The commenter expresses concerns with traffic and access regarding housing opportunity site S3-205A. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

124-4 The commenter asks about missing information for housing opportunity site S3-103 in any of the tables. Site ID S3-024 has been modified to S3-103 in Table 1 of the NOA. Table 1 is the same as Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning, of the PEIR. Therefore, Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning, has been modified accordingly as shown in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR. No further response is required.

124-5 The commenter expresses concerns with housing opportunity site S3-207 regarding the housing density and traffic. Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection, and 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns.

124-6 The commenter expresses opposition of rezoning to a density 15 times greater than the existing neighborhood. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

124-7 The commenter notes there are errors in the documentation and correct and accurate documentation must be made available to the public. The boundary to housing opportunity site S3-207 has been modified as shown in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR. Site ID S3-024 has been modified to S3-103 in Table 1 of the NOA. Table 1 is the same as Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning, of the PEIR. Therefore, Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning, has been modified accordingly as shown in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR. No further response is required.

124-8 The commenter asks about building to a lower density if a site is rezoned to 35 units/acre. The proposed zoning allows for a maximum buildout potential. It is important to note that there is no requirement for the site to be built to its maximum potential and under the Housing Accountability Act, there is a requirement that if any project comes in that meets the objective development standards for the zoning on that property, the City will have to approve the project



unless findings were made that there were significant objectively measurable health and safety reasons.

The commenter also expresses concerns with the communication of the public meetings and states the implications of passing/rejecting the proposals needs to be clearly identified. The commenter expresses opposition to the extreme increase in density. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 125

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 6:37 AMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: [Ylheu] Website Public Comments - new submission

A site visitor just submitted your form: Website Public Commentson Ylheu

Message Details:First Name: -Last Name: -Email: [email protected]: We don’t want more high density population areas in YorbaLinda. These projects will have a negative impact in our city! We werealready having issues with traffic, energy, water with all theconstructions in the city during the last years. In addition to all this, wedo not want to change the essence, appearance and lifestyle of our city.

125-1




Myriamvd, dated July 1, 2022

125-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and notes existing issues with traffic, energy, and water. The commenter expresses concerns with aesthetics regarding implementation of the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please note that energy, transportation, aesthetics, and utilities and service system impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.4, 4.9, 5.4.1 and 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 126

From: Mike Difronzo <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2022 10:59 AMTo: Peggy Huang <[email protected]>Cc: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell<[email protected]>; Beth Haney <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez<[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Objections to Zoning and General Plan Modifications

To: Mayor Peggy Huangcc: Yorba Linda City Councilcc: Mr. Nate Farnsworth, Planning Manager

Objections to Zoning and General Plan Modifications

Dear Mayor Huang,

I oppose the proposed Zoning and General Plan Modifications described in this document:

Notice Of Public Availability Of A Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) And Notice OfPublic Hearing Concerning Various Zoning And General Plan Modifications Related To The 2021-2029Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs

and po

126-1




Mike Difronzo, dated July 2, 2022

126-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 127

From: barbara tallabas <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 7:07 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Re-zoning on Richfield

My name is Barbara Tallabas. As a 22 year resident of Yorba Linda I am opposed to re-zoning the two sites below: S3-207 5300-5392 Richfield 340 units

S3-012 Richfield CChurch 55 units

I understand the re-zoning is state mandated, but I feel 395 units within a 2 block area (20% of the total city requirement) is an unreasonable and inequitable burden to west Yorba Linda. We are already preparing for the additional traffic expected from Target and Dennys and adding 395 homes (790 cars) will negatively impact our community and our quality of life. Additionally, Richfield at LaPalma has train delays as Richfield did not receive the train overpasses afforded to Tustin and Lakeview. I am not opposed to additional affordable housing, but the numbers are simply too high! Please work at doing better with the re-zoning allocations.

Adding affordable housing will negatively impact our property values as well!!I know your job is difficult, but let’s see some fairness as this project proceeds!Thanks for your consideration!!

127-1




Barbara Tallabas, dated July 5, 2022

127-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012, specifically with the housing density and traffic. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns for a discussion related to traffic. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 128

From: DAYNA KRUGER <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 10:13 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: RE-ZONE CHURCH AND TREE FARM

Hello,

My name is Dayna Kruger, Brent Robson and I purchased a home that borders the tree farm. It isliterally our backyard.

We purchased it with the knowledge that the zoning did not permit HOMES. We strongly urge younot to move forward with the rezoning! The fact that this can even move forward is very deceitful!This is only in the best interest of the monetary compensation NOT in the best interest of the homeowners who purchased their home KNOWING that the zoning would protect them.

WE, along with many other homeowners will be attending all future meetings an protesting thischange.

Sincerely,Dayna Kruger and Brent Robson

128-1




Dayna Kruger and Brent Robson, dated July 5, 2022

128-1 The commenters express general opposition to the Project and notes that they will be attending all future meetings to protest. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 129

From: MICHAEL MCNEES <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 7:41 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: PEIR Rezoning S5-008

Good morning,

I am completely opposed to the rezoning location S5-008. The Envormental, Economic and trafficimplications of having a 220 unit housing complex located in the area will negatively effect ourproperty values and quality of life.

Sincerely,

Michael McNees19955 Winners CircleYorba Linda, CA 92886

129-1




Michael McNees, dated July 5, 2022

129-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to housing opportunity site S5-008 due to environmental, economic, and traffic implications. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 130

From: Victor Seto <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 9:58 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Rezoning on Richfield Yorba Linda

Hi, my name is VIctor Seto. As a resident at 5458 Richfield Pl, I wish to voice my concern with the rezoning for approx 400 dwelling units just north of my home. I am specifically opposed to rezoning the two sites below:

S3-207 5300-5392 RichfieldS3-012 Richfield Community Church

I understand this is mandated, but with that area covering 20% of the proposed rezoning, I must state that it is inequitable. The area has already seen an increase in traffic and the projected traffic with Target and Denny will likely increase it beyond its infrastructure. I strongly oppose the rezoning of these properties and will vote against it. I propose more equal distribution of the number of dwellings and reconsider the plan as a whole.

Regards,Victor Seto

130-1




Victor Seto, dated July 5, 2022

130-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. The commenter proposes more equitable distribution of housing and expresses concerns with traffic. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 131

From: Penelope Sherry <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 7:44 AMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: [Ylheu] Website Public Comments - new submission

Penelope Sherry just submitted your form: Website Public Commentson Ylheu

Message Details:First Name: PenelopeLast Name: SherryEmail: [email protected]: The homes being built of off del aqua and Yorba Linda Blvdare in the path of wild fire 2 years ago. It diverted from my house andwent to the left where it was an inferno and no one listens. I watch thewater canyon daily for people starting fires and have called police in2022 where they started a fire on July 4. No one listens. I will try to goto meetings.I have lived here 33 years,

131-1




Penelope Sherry, dated July 6, 2022

131-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with wildfire regarding homes developed off of Del Aqua and Yorba Linda Boulevard. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 132

From: Mary Glaser <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 6:41 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: Comment on S5-008 in Draft PEIR

Mr. Farnsworth -

I am against the re-zoning of the Fairmont Canyon (area S5-008). While it is the city’s duty to providemore high density housing, this is not the area for that. The reasons are laid out in the letter writtenby Hills for Everyone which was addressed to you.

My understanding is that Measure B (2006 ballet) requires this to go to a vote of the citizens ofYorba Linda. However, why waste any more taxpayer dollars on a project that is obviously going tofail the majority of the points in the environmental impact report and not when the votes of thecitizens.

It’s a very bad idea. There are other areas more suited for high density housing within Yorba Linda.

SincerelyMary GlaserYorba Linda home owner for over 30 years

132-1




Mary Glaser, dated July 8, 2022

132-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to housing opportunity site S5-008 and references the letter written by Hills for Everyone for reasons why. Please refer to responses to Comment Letter C, above. The commenter does not raise any other specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 133

From: Corinne Griffiths <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2022 8:46 AMTo: AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>Subject: High Density housing is NOT good!

Dear City Council,I have lived in Yorba Linda since 1975! It has notably been a place where you feel out in thecountry with many equestrians and over 100 miles of walking/riding paths. Over these past 49years, it has changed to be a very busy place. My house backs up to Yorba Linda Blvd. at RioDel Oro and the noise level is horrible due to the 50,000+ cars/trucks/motorcycles going byeach day. We need to STAY AWAY from such high-density housing or we will have gridlock on our majorstreets all hours of the day and night!Please do NOT approve such housing. In particular, this email is referring to the plan torezone the Christmas Tree Farm and the Richfield Community Church to allow 400 additionaldwelling units there. Please VOTE NO on this!I’m also not too happy with the rezoning across from the Mormon Church on Ohio andMountain View.Sincerely,Corinne Griffiths

Corinne Escobar Griffiths714-970-1525 Home714-336-2350 Cell

133-1




Corinne Griffiths, dated July 10, 2022

133-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and notes existing traffic and noise conditions. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also please note that noise and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.6 and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 134

From: Donna Gore <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2022 9:39 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: High rise dwellings on Richfield

Hello Nate,

I am a definite NO to the proposed 400 high rise dwellings on Richfield. I live in the area and this would not be good for many reasons ( traffic, water, unsightly, etc, etc). As someone who grew up in Fullerton, the city council approved alot of these and they are not what is best for the city. They are expensive, cause more traffic and parking issues, and are plain ugly). They are clearly just a way to make money on taxes but severely ruins the aesthetics of the community.

My words will probably not be considered but please take them into account and do not let this happen in the area on Richfield.

Sincerely,

Donna

134-1




Donna Gore, dated July 10, 2022

134-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012 due to the negative impact related to traffic, water supply, and aesthetics. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.5, Water Supply. Also please note that transportation, aesthetics, and utilities and service systems impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.9, 5.4.1, and 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 135

From: Ellen and Ron Grau <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2022 11:44 AMTo: Karalee Darnell <[email protected]>; Robert Pease <[email protected]>; DonBernstein <[email protected]>; Michael Masterson <[email protected]>;Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>; David Brantley <[email protected]>; NateFarnsworth <[email protected]>; Arlene Laviera <[email protected]>Cc: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez<[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang<[email protected]>; Beth Haney <[email protected]>; Mark Pulone<[email protected]>; 'Preserve Fairmont Canyon' <[email protected]>;'Ellen and Ron Grau' <[email protected]>Subject: Ellen Grau letter in response to DPEIR

RE: Site S5-008 in the 2021-2029 Housing Element APN #326-081-01 Latter Day Saints property on Fairmont

I have asked the city for a Request for Public Records, and the time limit has come and gone. I haverepeatedly shown up at city council meetings and addressed my concerns to no avail. This propertyhas SERIOUS issues, but members of this council have plans for it.

That said, I am running out of time to send in my response to the DPEIR.

I keep hoping you will do the right thing…..pull this property due to the various dangers – wildfire,Whittier Fault, unbuildable area, box canyon with one way in and one way out. Which of you arebenefiting from this proposal going through? Will that issue determine how this ends?

Ellen Grau

135-1



June 29, 2022

Dear Planning Commission: RE: Site S5-008 in the 2021-2029 Housing Element APN #326-081-01 Latter Day Saints property on Fairmont My name is Ellen Grau, address: 3700 Blue Gum Drive. My property is adjacent to Site S5-008 in the 2021-2029 Housing Element, which is the Fairmont property. The sale seems to be contingent upon the decision to put all these homes in. So who is buying it? I asked for a public records request, and the city should have replied by the 19th, but instead the city has repeatedly refused, denied, incorrectly named the property so as of July 10th you STILL have not adequately given me the information I asked for. Replies to the Draft PEIR are due, so big surprise as to the delay. I copied this off your SCAG website: SCAG’s Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) is an environmental report that will analyze and disclose potential impacts of the Connect SoCal plan on the environment. The report is required under law by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SCAG’s PEIR will provide a region-wide assessment of potential significant environmental effects of Connect SoCal as well as consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures. More importantly, the PEIR provides a foundation for subsequent, project-specific environmental reviews that will be conducted by local implementation agencies.

What will the PEIR Analyze?

The PEIR is a programmatic document that will analyze potential effects of Connect SoCal on the environment. Although the Connect SoCal plan includes many transportation projects, the PEIR does not specifically analyze environmental effects of any individual transportation or development project. Project-level environmental analyses will be prepared by implementing agencies on a project-by-project basis as projects proceed through the design and decision-making process. SCAG’s PEIR will analyze:

Aesthetics and Views Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources and Open Space

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Noise

135-2

135-3

135-4



Cultural Resources Energy Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Tribal Cultural Resources

Population and Housing Recreation Transportation, Traffic and Safety Public Services and Utilities Wildfire

With regards to this list, you have and will probably continue to ignore all of these supposed important things to consider regarding the Fairmont property. You have not given it proper consideration where it ticks off box after box of these CEQA concerns.

My neighbors (will be referred to as COUNTRY HOMES GROUP) and I have repeatedly hammered the same concerns – life and death concerns about this property all to no avail. In city council meetings and other meetings I have pointed out “This initiative is being pushed by a lobbying group, The California Association of Realtors” and our very own city council who will profit from it. Your planning commission and the Yorba Linda City Council, and the state have done NOTHING to stop it at a time when the Feds are about to come in and decide water issues- September deadline. This is NOT elected officials calling the shots – it is a lobbying group and a syndicate. You kept this a secret all through Covid and beyond. Your “commission” does not live in Yorba Linda, and seems to have no compunction to change direction with those who do. In May 2022, we first learned of this even though you have been working on it since 2018, continuing during a Covid epidemic. You never said one word to let us know what you were planning. The COUNTRY HOMES GROUP and I addressed both the Planning Commission and City Council during the Notice of Preparation period regarding the constraints and safety concerns with Site S5-008. Several items on the NOP document itself, Wildfire, Geology & Soils, Hydrology, Biological Resources and Land Use Planning are incorrect and you know it. The City’s determination is deflect, not address these topics. The property has the potential to result in significant environmental impact and loss of life due to wildfire. However, your commission and the city council has deemed no further evaluation in the PEIR is required. (Refer to Appendix A page 5). This property has serious issues with development. City council meeting agenda item 7.3, June 29, 2022.

(3) change any residential land use to allow any other land use;

135-4(CONT.)

135-5



All topics need to be included in the PEIR. (Refer to Section 1.3 Page 20). The City’s initial determination continues to deny inclusion of these topics. This property needs further study or removal. The constraints are well understood and documented in the city’s General Plan and various Elements. Point after point I will echo what my fellow neighbors have pointed out to you. In fact, many of these topics were also the basis for the city’s RHNA appeal. The property is under contract with a potential developer, so we understand your intent to develop this property using RHNA as a way to dump this property and make money, so it will move forward. The city’s participation with the Latter Day Saints dedication ceremony includes, Mayor Rodriguez, Tara Campbell, Peggy Huang, as well as Nate Farnsworth who is a member of the LDS Church is conflict of interest with Opportunity Site S5-008 in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. LDS Church begins construction on new temple in Yorba Linda, only the 9th in California – Orange County Register (ocregister.com) PREVIOUSLY RAISED CONSTRAINTS AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR S5-008: 1. Wildfire: S5-008 is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ),

a. FHSZ Viewer (ca.gov) b. Cal Fire updating its fire hazard severity zones map - CBS San Francisco

(cbsnews.com) i. June 20, 2022

ii. Yorba Linda Site S5-008 in the 2021-2029 Housing Element on this CAL FIRE website has been declared a VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE

iii. VHFHSZ sends up red flag warnings concerning evacuation

135-6

135-7



c. The proposed project will add a substantial number of people (230 x 4 = 920 so

1000 inhabitants with 460 or more cars to the area. We are very concerned about the impact on evacuation plans and safety as well as fire prevention measures to be taken. It sits in a VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE in A BOX CANYON WITH 1 WAY OUT FOR 1000 PEOPLE. The surrounding area has burned several times (Appendix A Page 31).

d. COUNTRY HOMES GROUP learned from Yorba Linda City Staff that OCFA’s response would not be available until the final PEIR version, which `is after the public comments period. (Section 4.11 page 296) WHY? In addition, WHY was the VHFHSZ CAL FIRE information not brought up at the Traffic Meeting 6/23/2022? Traffic evacuation during a wildfire? AGAIN, you refuse to be honest.

e. Evacuation is WEST ONLY. Due to Chino State Park no evacuation possible, the 91 / 55 / 71 / 241 freeways is a traffic choke point South and East. Imperial to 57 our only route for escape. Fairmont during the Complex Fire 2008 was at a standstill. Completely blocked due to traffic diverted from LaPalma, Yorba Linda Blvd, up Village Center and San Antonio to Fairmont as people tried to flee from the east.

2. Landslide Zone: S5-008 is in a landslide zone. Litigation over homes destroyed due to

improper engineering studies is a certainty. We requested a steep slope analysis be included (Appendix A page 105). We do not want a repeat of the incident that occurred in Bryant Ranch over 20 years ago when two homes were lost in a landslide because of improper development practices.

a. This City did it before, chances are – you will do it again.

135-7(CONT.)

135-8



b. A precedence (Section 5.4.4 Geology & Soils page 323) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-feb-25-me-slide25-story.html

3. Earthquake Zone: S5-008 is in the Whittier Fault Earthquake zone with previous

epicenters. Development needs to be compliant with the Alquist-Priolo Act. a. Refer to the attached Usable Land Study Tract 11969 PDF completed by a licensed

civil engineering firm for the current owner, the LDS church, which highlights the fault area (Section 5.4.4 Geology & Soils page 325)

4. Hydrology: Our COUNTRY HILLS GROUP and I learned S5-008 is identified as wetlands

with a Riverine as noted by CA Fish & Wildlife. The City is aware of the aquifer that runs under our properties along the slopes and drains out by my neighbor Gary Poage’s home on Sherwood due to the fact it bubbles up from the lower portion of my property. (Section 4.2.6 Page 138 Threshold C) a. Water runoff and drainage is a concern. The storm drain at the bottom of the

property will require proper draining and the ground soil recharged. (Section 5.4.6 Page 332) (Refer to page 6 of Tract 11969 map for location of storm drain)

b. Improper maintenance and drainage of water/storm drain was determined to be a cause of the Bryant Ranch landslide in 1998.

5. Biological Resources: Our COUNTRY HILLS GROUP learned S5-008 is a natural Habitat for

endangered wildlife. This site is currently listed in the city’s adopted conservation element as natural habitat. The Hills for Everyone organization, the charity that helped create Chino Hills State Park, has pointed out that it is a habitat for the endangered gnatcatcher. (Section 4.2 Page 126 and Section 4.2.6 Page 138)

6. Land Use & Planning: PER MY request for PUBLIC RECORDS a. Your description of the property currently states in the City DPEIR 9 buildable

acres. This is WRONG, only 2.5 acres are buildable. b. You have no tract map which actually shows these 9 acres c. Per my attached PDF – Useable Land Study Tract 11969 PDF completed by a

licensed civil engineering firm for the current owner, the LDS church, shows the 2.5 acres NOT 9

d. This land study was done during a previous attempt to sell this tract and was done by the above mentioned civil engineering firm for the current owner, the LDS church

e. Therefore city, you need to figure out what the actual acreage is but at minimum the density should be calculated on 2.5 not 9 acres, not 23.

f. SO AGAIN, whom are you selling this to and what protections can we expect – as you make this a slumlord property?

135-8(CONT.)

135-9

135-10

135-11

135-12



7. Our COUNTRY HILLS GROUP learned the proposed density for S5-008 is unsuitable for this property and the math does not work.

a. The density is being calculated based on the gross acreage 23 acres times RM-10 = 230 units with a realistic unit potential of 196. (Table 4.5-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Page 197 Policy LU 8.2)

b. Table 4.5-1 spells out that only 9 acres are buildable, with the remaining 14 acres being open space. 9 x RM-10 is a realistic potential of 90 units, not 196.

i. Again, see above land use and planning #6 – ONLY 2.5 acres is buildable. c. We understand the city wants to use this property to receive a large RHNA credit

and is applying density averaging to do so. Therefore, you are going to forgo building height standards or build into the slopes, it is impossible to build 230 or even 196 units on this property.

d. The unit potential is factually inaccurate. e. Your other opportunity site S7-005 is also in a VHFHSZ and has a unit potential of

30 (3 acres x RM-10). The realistic number is 10 – 33% of gross, whereas S5-008 is 85% of the gross. Why such a disparity in calculations?

f. Finally, with respect to 4.5.2 NOP/SCOPING COMMENTS – Our COUNTRY HOMES GROUP comments regarding Land Use and Planning density concerns for S5-008 were omitted. (Appendix A on page 81 and 87.) Why were they omitted?

g. ONLY 2.5 acres is buildable (and I’m not even bringing up the YLWD reservoir sitting above your soon to be bulldozed site)

i. To use YOUR way of dealing with this issue, you say 9 - I say 2.5 ii. How are you going to build 230 units on 2.5 acres?

7. Chino State Park

a. Not once have you or the city addressed the fact that a state park sits in the heart of this city. This state park is the jewel of Orange County and traffic in and out of the park will only increase due to overdevelopment of the county as a whole. h. Chino will become the Griffith Park of Orange County because you and your City

Council predecessors have allowed so many developers to take away needed green space.

i. WHY IS THERE NO INCLUSION WITH THE CHINO STATE PARK DISTRICT COMMANDER – Kelly Elliot IN THE DRAFT?

8. Traffic & Parking: First and foremost – you ran this traffic study during Covid. Your

greenlighting of high traffic areas IS UNacceptable. Your lead consultant said, “The Blue Ridge Fire was a success.” No, it was not! 1 home burned to the ground and 10 were damaged. Did she mean we did not have a repeat of 101 homes burning to the ground? Or that nobody died?

135-13

135-14

135-15



During school hours, Yorba Linda Boulevard Fairmont should have been high congestion. Regarding these streets, multiple homeowners (people whom ACTUALLY LIVE THERE – not some hired group that showed up during Covid). These homeowners repeatedly contradicted your consultant’s findings. Traffic and especially parking concerns were never addressed. Please refer to the minutes from that meeting regarding evacuation plans, traffic, and parking concerns on Fairmont.

***************** OUR COUNTRY HILLS GROUP HAS DETERMINED THE PROPOSED MITIGATIONS IN DRAFT PEIR ARE VAGUE, WRONG AND INCOMPLETE: In the Draft PEIR, the City (Lead Agency) identified these as areas of controversy in the following topics:

traffic biological resources, hydrology and water quality geology and soils noise air quality wildfire aesthetics

Aside from traffic, only wildfire and biological resources were identified for further study. Geology and soils (earthquake and landslide) and hydrology and water quality are listed as “less than significant”, therefore not studied and discussed in the Draft PEIR. This full speed ahead attitude has permeated all discussion and consideration despite resident’s pleas. Residents concerns during the NOP period continue to be ignored. (Refer to page 105 in Appendix A). OUR COUNTRY HILLS GROUP and I determined - the City’s draft PEIR does not speak to all the constraints for this property. When “potentially significant impact issues” are identified, the PEIR asserts that the level of significance after mitigation will be “less than significant”. The Draft PEIR relies on vague/generic measures to mitigate identified significant impacts related to the included CEQA topics for this property. The consequences of substantial litigious risk to the city and the potential builder is not worth pursuing. Merely stating on the Draft PEIR in category after category “less than significant” is disingenuous. At some point, the truth is going to have to come out and you are going to have to address the actual buildable area of this property given all the problems it presents. That said, and we have hammered this repeatedly, this is a VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE

135-16

135-17

135-18

135-19



and IF anyone dies because you have shoved too many people in a confined space with no escape that is on you. The lawsuits will be forthcoming. Yorba Linda is NOT Fullerton, or Brea, or Placentia with escape routes leading in all directions. It is RURAL. You – the city - put in horse trails. It sits in an area with few escape routes, and high fire danger all around. The 91 is not an escape, it is a hazard due to congestion. The state park wraps the city like a horseshoe. Look at the map! It has happened before, it will happen again.

I copied this off the Wikipedia page.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a California statute passed in 1970 and signed in to law by then-Governor Ronald Reagan,[1][2] shortly after the United States federal government passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to institute a statewide policy of environmental protection. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of every California state and local (public) agency's decision-making process.

The purpose of CEQA is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. The city’s Draft PEIR is doing the opposite – it is advising the decision makers to approve the rezoning and high-density development without the actual impacts being quantified. The Draft PEIR’s failure to provide any specific details regarding the actual risks and impacts is a denial of the process. The Draft PEIR must provide a more detailed analysis of this particular property given its constraints and safety concerns. 9. My question IS – WHO is benefiting from this RHNA project? The group that you have

poised to buy it from LDS and then determine housing costs? Per this June 2022 article in the LA Times……

a. California affordable housing can top $1 million per unit - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

b. More than half a dozen affordable housing projects in California are costing more than $1 million per apartment to build, a record-breaking sum that makes it harder to house the growing numbers of low-income Californians who need help paying rent, a Times review of state data found.

c. June 20, 2022 d. Given ALL the potential problems with this property, this price tag is probably

close to the truth or much higher.

10. California’s water crisis – as of June 15, 2022 e. Feds Will Cut States' Access to Colorado River Water | The Pew Charitable Trusts

(pewtrusts.org)

135-19(CONT.)

135-20

135-21

135-22



f. The cuts could be drastic, she warned, reducing Colorado River water access by between 2 and 4 million acre-feet across seven states that rely on it—close to the 4.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water California is entitled to annually. Arizona, by contrast, is entitled to 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River water every year. --- Dated June 15th 2022 - the state has 60 days to comply. September 5th. STOP DEVELOPING UNTIL YOU GET THIS ISSUE RESOLVED.

g. I understand Yorba Linda recycles water, but given the mega drought this is a huge concern.

h. Site S5-008 does not have water or utilities.

S5-008 IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER IDENTIFIED SITE: Since May, OUR COUNTRY HILLS GROUP has been communicating to the city that this property is an outlier. Unlike any of other sites in the entire Housing Element, it does not align with the plan’s overall strategy to select only infill sites. S5-008 needs to be analyzed on its own. This property does not have similar environmental impacts that can be mitigated in similar ways as the other properties. In fact, it is the ONLY property in the entire plan that has these constraints and characteristics. It is not even an infill site: it is an Urban Wildland Interface with steep hillsides and open space. S5-008 is referenced over 37 times in the Draft PEIR. Whereas 21 out of the 27 properties are referenced less than 10 times. This property checks off twice as many CEQA topics than any other properties in the entire Housing Element. Per conclusions drawn by OUR COUNTRY HILLS GROUP: S5-008 IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER IDENTIFIED SITE and is clearly an outlier. Why is it in the Housing Element? The fundamental question and concern is “How do you intend to safely fit 230 RM-10 units on your alleged 9 acres”? In a VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE . SAFETY: OUR COUNTRY HILLS GROUP and I am personally concerned with this property’s development. My home sits on top of the hill that a developer can potentially bulldoze causing irreparable damage to the hill’s stability. Extreme fire danger, disregard for civil engineering concerns, lack of water, are more than enough for any person to process. Please do the right thing. Fair warning: do not allow a repeat of Paradise Fire or Bryant Ranch civil engineering failures. Excerpt from LA Times article: Fault Lines in Law Leave Homes on Shaky Ground (ela-iet.com) This LA Times article points out the willingness of developers to proceed knowing their actions are illegal and criminal. Developers hire new geologists, who declared the faults inactive. This allowed more homes to be squeezed onto the hillsides than otherwise would have been prohibited. It was all “perfectly legal”. Those familiar with the Alquist-Priolo Act say it is a common pattern: When one geologist says not to build, developers find another to tell them to go right ahead.

135-22(CONT.)

135-23

135-24



Let me ask each one of you involved in this action. If you and your home faced this dangerous situation, what would you do? I will answer for you. It would be unacceptable and removed from any further planning. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, I (Ellen Grau) and our COUNTRY HILLS GROUP are respectfully requesting the Planning Commission - who is responsible for advising the City Council on the Housing Element - adjust the allocation to what the property can realistically and factually support or REMOVE IT! As a community, those living in the Country Homes development plan to stay involved with every step of the process and the plans for development of this property. It is not safe. You know it is not safe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex_nmeEaiTY

135-24(CONT.)

135-25




Ellen and Ron Grau, dated July 10, 2022

135-1 The commenters submitted a Request for Public Records regarding housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter requests to remove housing opportunity site S5-008 due to dangers such as wildfire, fault line, unbuildable area, and access. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses. Thus, no further response is required.

135-2 The commenters note their property is adjacent to housing opportunity site S5-008 and inquire who is buying the property. The City has been told that the property is under contract although the City is not privy to the details of that contract as it is a private contract between the buyer and the seller.

135-3 The commenters submitted a Request for Public Records and notes the City has not adequately given the commenter the information needed. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

135-4 The commenters cite information on the SCAG PEIR which analyzes impacts of SCAG’s Connect SoCal plan. Please note that this is a separate project from the proposed Project, but was one of the documents relied upon in the Draft PEIR.

135-5 The commenters state information in the NOP document pertaining to Wildfire, Geology & Soils, Hydrology, Biological Resources and Land Use Planning are incorrect. The commenter states housing opportunity site S5-008 has serious issues with development. Wildfire is discussed in Section 4.11, geology & soils is discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, hydrology and water quality is discussed in Subsection 5.4.6, biological resources is discussed in Section 4.2, and land use and planning resources is discussed in Section 4.5 of the Draft PEIR.

135-6 The commenters highlight housing opportunity site S5-008 needs further study or removal. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR No further response is required.

135-7 The commenter expresses concerns with the VHFHSZ of housing opportunity site S5-008 and fire evacuation/emergency access. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for further details.



135-8 The commenters express concerns with the landslide zone of housing opportunity site S5-008. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-14 to 5-15), the commenter is correct in stating that housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a landslide zone. However, regardless of the landslide susceptibility, future development pursuant to the Project would be required to have a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted. The geotechnical investigation for each project on a site within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced landslides would be required to evaluate the potential for such landslides onsite provide any needed recommendations for minimizing hazards. Each project must also comply with seismic safety regulations and requirements regarding slope stability in the CBC and City of Yorba Linda Building Code. Additionally, development along hillside would be required to comply with the standards in Chapter 18.30, Hillside Development, of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts to landslides would be less than significant. No further response is required.

135-9 The commenters express concerns with the earthquake zone of housing opportunity site S5-008. As discussed in Section 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant. No further response is required.

135-10 The commenters express concerns with water runoff and drainage for housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter notes that housing opportunity site S5-008 is identified as wetlands with a riverine. Please refer to Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR for an analysis of biological resources. As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-23 to 5-24), existing requirements for future development include review by the City Engineer to ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided that meet City design and requirements. Additionally, implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan would reduce runoff from the site and identify Best Management Practices for runoff controls and treatments. No further response is required.

135-11 The commenters express concerns with biological resources and states housing opportunity site S5-008 is a natural habitat for endangered wildlife. As in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-10, and 4.2-15), housing opportunity S5-008 is located within a natural habitat area. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources be mitigated through biological surveys and impact assessments by a qualified biologist. With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources would be reduced to less than significant. No further response is required.



135-12 The commenters state the description of housing opportunity site S5-008 is incorrect and buildable acreage shows 2.5 acres according to the past usable land survey. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

135-13 The commenter describes the past survey about the net buildable area of the site and the realistic capacity reduction should be larger than 15%. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

135-14 The commenters express concerns with housing opportunity site S5-008 being adjacent to the Chino Hills State Parks and inquires why there is no inclusion with the Chino State Park District commander. Chino Hills State Park is under the California Department of Parks and Recreation and its comment letter and response is included in this Final PEIR above under Comment Letter A.

135-15 The commenters expresses that the traffic study was done during COVID-19 and disagrees with the findings of the TIA. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Future housing development would conduct a project-level traffic impact analysis based on City’s Guidelines that will analyze the existing traffic condition at the time of preparation of the study and the LOS impacts due implementation of the development in the opening year scenario. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis.

135-16 The commenters express concerns with traffic and states traffic and parking concerns were never addressed. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

135-17 The commenters allege that the mitigation measures in the Draft PEIR are vague, wrong, and incomplete and notes that only wildfire and biological resources were identified for further study. The commenters state geology and soils and hydrology and water quality were not studied and discussed in the Draft PEIR. Geology and hydrology and water quality are discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-17), and Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, in the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-21 to 5-26). Impacts to hydrology and water quality and geology and soils would be less than significant after mandatory compliance with regulatory requirements. The Project would also be required to comply with General Plan goals and policies and General Plan EIR mitigation measures that are intended to reduce environmental related impacts. No further response is required.

135-18 The commenters allege that not all of the environmental constraints for housing opportunity site S5-008 were addressed in the Draft PEIR and that the Draft PEIR relies on vague/generic measures to mitigate identified significant impacts. The commenter alleges that without quantifying the actual risks, impacts cannot be analyzed in the Draft PEIR. The City disagrees



with the commenter; the Draft PEIR adequately analyzed all environmental topical areas. Refer to 2.1.1, Program Versus Project. No further response is required.

135-19 The commenters express concern with fire evacuation/emergency access and states the 91 is a hazard due to congestion. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required.

135-20 The commenters reference the purpose of CEQA through a Wikipedia page. The commenter alleges that the Draft PEIR is doing the opposite and is advising the decision makers to approve the rezoning and high-density development without the actual impacts being quantified. The commenter is incorrect. The Draft PEIR is an informational document and does not advise on whether the Project should or should not be approved. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR. No further response is required.

135-21 The commenters inquire who is benefitting from the RHNA project and cites newspaper articles on affordable housing in California. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

135-22 The commenters express concerns with the State’s water crisis and states that housing opportunity site S5-008 does not have water or utilities. Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District (refer to Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR), there is adequate water supply and impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and according to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project.

135-23 The commenters state housing opportunity site S5-008 is unlike any of the other housing opportunity sites and needs to be studied on its own. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR. No further response is required.

135-24 The commenters express concern with the development of housing opportunity site S5-008, specifically with extreme fire danger, disregard for civil engineering concerns, lack of water and references an LA Times article that points out the willingness of developers to proceed know their actions are illegal and criminal. Refer to Master Responses 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access.

As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing



within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District, impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and according to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project. No further response is required.

135-25 The commenters request the planning commission to adjust the housing allocation to what the property is realistically and factually support or remove housing opportunity site S5-008. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 136

Mr. Nate Farnsworth 7/10/2022

Planning Manager

4845 Casa Loma Ave.

Yorba Linda, CA 92886

RE: 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs

Mr. Farnsworth,

My comments below are regarding the Draft PEIR for the 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs. My wife and I have been residents of Yorba Linda since 1975. We were drawn to the charm of this once sleepy town of Yorba Linda at that time. We raised our 2 kids in this city and they reside here as well. One by one the charms of our little Yorba Linda city are being stripped from us. Gone are the orange groves, Horse trails and open fields that drew us into this town. We are very concerned about the proposed addition of over 2,400 units to our city. Our grandchildren attend Linda Vista School. The 2 sites near there off of Grandview and Ohio are of our utmost concern as we feel it will impact our grandchildren’s safety and the safety of other children. We are asking the planning commission to please remove these 2 sites off of the Housing plan. We understand that cities need to grow and that housing must increase, but there has to be better areas to do so. Packing in 28 units on Ohio Street in less than 2 acres of land and an additional 9 units in less than an acre off of Grandview seems way overdone. It is difficult to comprehend exactly where all of the cars will flow through these areas which are already impacted, not to mention the safety concerns of the kids, extra pollution and impacting of not only Linda Vista, but other schools in PYLUSD. We hope the planning commission will take our comments into consideration.

Sincerely,

Hal Straabe

5821 Casson Drive


714-906-4122 (C)

714-986-9827 (H)

[email protected]

136-1




Hal Straabe, dated July 10, 2022

136-1 The commenter express general concerns with housing opportunity sites off of Grandview and Ohio, specifically with pedestrian safety, traffic, pollution, and school services. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. Also, please note that air quality, school services, and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.1, 4.7 and 4.11 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 137


Planning Manager

4845 Casa Loma Ave.



Mr. Farnsworth,

My comments below are regarding the Draft PEIR for the 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs. I have lived in Yorba Linda my entire life, since 19782 My family was drawn to the charm of this once sleepy town of Yorba Linda at that time. My parents raised my sister and me in this city and they still reside here as well. One by one the charms of our little Yorba Linda city are being stripped from us. Gone are the orange groves, Horse trails and open fields that drew my family into this town. We are very concerned about the proposed addition of over 2,400 units to our city. My niece and nephew attend Linda Vista School. The 2 sites near there off of Grandview and Ohio are of my utmost concern as I feel it will impact their safety and the safety of other children. I am asking the planning commission to please remove these 2 sites off of the Housing plan. I understand that cities need to grow and that housing must increase, but there has to be better areas to do so. Packing in 28 units on Ohio Street in less than 2 acres of land and an additional 9 units in less than an acre off of Grandview seems way overdone. It is difficult to comprehend exactly where all of the cars will flow through these areas which are already impacted between the hours of 7am-8am and 2pm-3pm Monday through Friday, September through June. I can’t imagine possibly 37 more families with kids in that immediate area. Extra pollution, not to mention the safety concern for all the kids, and impacting of not only Linda Vista, but other schools in PYLUSD. We hope the planning commission will take our comments into consideration.

Sincerely,

Nickolas Straabe

714-717-1689 (C)

[email protected]

137-1




Nickolas Straabe, dated July 10, 2022

137-1 The commenter express general concerns with housing opportunity sites off of Grandview and Ohio, specifically with pedestrian safety, traffic, pollution, and school services. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. Also, please note that air quality, school services, and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.1, 4.7 and 4.11 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 138

From: Roxanne Leiblic <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2022 9:21 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Re:Rezoning and plan modifications

Mr Farnsworth,

I’ll keep this short and sweet. As a resident of Yorba Linda for 40 years, I am very opposed to the proposed rezoning and plan modifications. My concerns are traffic, fire safety, and water usage. This plan will RUIN what we have left of this beautiful city. The safety concerns in the event of a fire, are too numerous to mention. We do not have the infrastructure to support this plan! Please share with those that need to know. This plan is wrong on so many levels!

Thank you,Roxanne Leiblic

138-1




Roxanne Leiblic, dated July 10, 2022

138-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and raises concerns with traffic, fire safety, and water usage. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access and 2.1.5, Water Supply. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 139

From: David <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 10:07 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Proposed development on Richfield

Mr. Farnsworth,

I am David Pryor and live off Richfield on Page Court. We bought the home in 1998 and we haveseen a steady increase in speeding traffic and noise since then. I know that many use this to get tothe freeway. I cannot even think how bad the traffic will be if rezoning happened to allow morethan 300 units to be built on the tree farm and church.

I am specifically against S3-207 and S3-012. I understand if these are made into single familyhome but to have this high concentration on Richfield will be a disaster for traffic and people. It istoo many units and does not bode well for us who live here. Why should we have to bear the bruntof the state mandated unit.

I have been here and seen and hear every day the increased traffic form early morning 5:00 am tillthe end of the day. Speeding and noise. Sometime I cannot even turn on Richfield. I would liketo hear your response. Thank you for reading this.

David Pryor714-299691317577 Page ct.YL 92886

139-1




David Pryor, dated July 11, 2022

139-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012 and raises concerns with traffic and noise. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also, please note that noise and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.6 and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

.



Comment Letter 140

From: Ellen and Ron Grau <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2022 11:44 AMTo: Karalee Darnell <[email protected]>; Robert Pease <[email protected]>; DonBernstein <[email protected]>; Michael Masterson <[email protected]>;Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>; David Brantley <[email protected]>; NateFarnsworth <[email protected]>; Arlene Laviera <[email protected]>Cc: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez<[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang<[email protected]>; Beth Haney <[email protected]>; Mark Pulone<[email protected]>; 'Preserve Fairmont Canyon' <[email protected]>;'Ellen and Ron Grau' <[email protected]>Subject: Ellen Grau letter in response to DPEIR

RE: Site S5-008 in the 2021-2029 Housing Element APN #326-081-01 Latter Day Saints property on Fairmont

I have asked the city for a Request for Public Records, and the time limit has come and gone. I haverepeatedly shown up at city council meetings and addressed my concerns to no avail. This propertyhas SERIOUS issues, but members of this council have plans for it.

That said, I am running out of time to send in my response to the DPEIR.

I keep hoping you will do the right thing…..pull this property due to the various dangers – wildfire,Whittier Fault, unbuildable area, box canyon with one way in and one way out. Which of you arebenefiting from this proposal going through? Will that issue determine how this ends?

Ellen Grau

140-1

140-3

140-2




Ellen Grau, dated July 10, 2022

140-1 This comment serves as introductory remarks. The commenter states that they have made a request for public records and went to City Council meeting to express concerns on housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

140-2 The commenter notes they are running out of time to send in responses to the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

140-3 The commenter states to remove housing opportunity site S5-008 due to various dangers such as wildfire, Whittier Fault, unbuildable area, and access. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion related to fire evacuation. Also please note that wildfire and geology and soils impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.11 and 5.4.4 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 141

141-1




Stan Wright, dated June 21, 2022

141-1 The commenter provides a discussion on the City’s General Plan and recommends the citizens of Yorba Linda and elected officials to consider the questions in the comment letter such as reviewing the current General Plan, how the Project affects the quality of life, the representation of current elected officials, why is the EIR in the works before project is in the books, and the justification on up-zoning. The commenter expresses general opposition to up-zoning and concerns on the quality of life. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 142

To: Nate Farnsworth, City of Yorba Linda Planning Manager

From: John Simon, Resident of Yorba Linda

Date: June 23, 2022

Subject: Comments on Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Program, JUNE 2022

Reference: Property: 24-204/A/B, Chabad Center, 19045 Yorba Linda Blvd. 19081-19111 Yorba Linda

This letter provides comments on the subject DPEIR, in particular to the referenced property. The impact report does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines as it fails to investigate several environmental issues, mainly issues in the following areas:

Scope of the DPEIR – The DPEIR combined all the properties in Yorba Linda under a single DPEIR. This approach fails to adequately assess the environmental impacts of each property as the impacts on the City residents varies significantly based on the location of the property. Each property should be evaluated independently. Being located in the City center, the referenced property has significant impacts on the quality of life in Yorba Linda including the City’s carbon footprint, traffic, and air quality.

Traffic Impacts – With access to the property only from Yorba Linda Blvd., the traffic impacts on Yorba Linda Blvd., the main arterial roadway in the City must be fully investigated and mitigated. The DPEIR does not adequately address traffic impacts and mitigation measures on Yorba Linda Blvd.

Historic Cultural Resources – The referenced property has two buildings of historic importance to Orange County that were not discussed in the report. The property includes two houses that were owned by the Knott’s family that were relocated in 1960 from the property that is now home to Knott’s Berry Farm. These houses should be considered important historic resources to Orange County and should be reviewed by the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

Agricultural Resources – The referenced property has numerous large trees and plants that are considered rare or endangered. The current owner planted exotic fruit trees and plants over the past several years. In addition, there are numerous large trees on the property. A complete survey of all agricultural resources located on the property should be conducted and the impact of removing the trees on the City’s carbon footprint be provided.

Until these issues are fully studied and mitigated, the City must disapproved the DPEIR. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely, John Simon 5011 Fairway View Drive Yorba Linda, CA 92886

142-1

142-2

142-3

142-4

142-5

142-6




John Simon, dated June 23, 2022

142-1 The commenter provides comments to the Draft PEIR, regarding housing opportunity sites S4-204A and S4-204B and states the report does not meet CEQA guidelines as it fails to investigate the issues discussed below. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses. Thus, no further response is required.

142-2 The commenter expresses concerns with the scope of the Draft PEIR and states the approach fails to adequately assess the environmental impacts of each housing opportunity site. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR. Specific design details such as construction timelines, site plan, grading plan, landscaping plan, utility plan, site access, renderings, and more are currently not available at this time. Prior to approval of any site-specific development under the Housing Element, the City must conduct further environmental review under CEQA. Timing of construction will be determined by the housing market, with specific development proposals requiring a comprehensive environmental analysis of impacts to traffic, pedestrian circulation, fire hazards, wildlife, and more. When specific residential developments are proposed, each development project will require public review and approval to ensure that Yorba Linda’s established expectations of quality are met. Until site-specific details are provided, project-level analysis would be speculative and therefore is not required under CEQA. No further response is required.

142-3 The commenter expresses concern with traffic and states the Draft PEIR does not adequately address traffic impacts and mitigation measures on Yorba Linda Boulevard. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

142-4 The commenter expresses concern with historic cultural resources and states the two housing opportunity sites should be reviewed by the California State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). A Citywide Historic Property Survey was prepared by Galvin Preservation Associates (GPA) dated January 5, 2010. In that report, these two properties were analyzed and determined they were ineligible for National, State or local designation and were not historically significant. Thus, no further response is required.

142-5 The commenter expresses concerns with agricultural resources and mentions the two housing opportunity sites include numerous large exotic trees and plants that are considered rare of endangered. The commenter states a complete survey of all agricultural resources located on the property should be conducted. As discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.2-12), trees in the City of Yorba Linda are protected under the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 16.08 (Tree Preservation), which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the City. Future development would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code. Refer to Section 5.4.2, Agricultural and Forestry Resources.

142-6 The commenter states until the issues above are fully studied and mitigated, the City must disapprove the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the



decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 143

From: Lindsay Ofstad <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 5:34 PMTo: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez<[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Beth Haney<[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Susan Lamp<[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Mark Pulone<[email protected]>; Dave Christian <[email protected]>; Marcia Brown<[email protected]>; David Brantley <[email protected]>; Karalee Darnell<[email protected]>; Robert Pease <[email protected]>; Don Bernstein<[email protected]>; Michael Masterson <[email protected]>; ShivinderjitSingh <[email protected]>; Housing Element 2021<[email protected]>Subject: Proposed Housing In Bryant Ranch Shopping Center

Hello,

I am reaching out in concern about the proposed Section 8 housing in the Bryant Ranch ShoppingCenter. I recently purchased my home at 5035 Lotus Ave, Yorba Linda, CA 92887. In October 2020,we had to evacuate our home due to a fire. If there were an increase in housing in this area, therewould be a huge safety concern as there is only one way in and out on La Palma and it could cause amajor gridlock. I was told this happened 30 years before and people were terrified. We cannotchange that we live in a dangerous fire zone, but we can stop building in an area that manyinsurance companies have pulled out of.

Also, my young children attend Fun 4 Kids Preschool which is in that shopping center. The managerat their preschool was not aware of this and will be reaching out soon. This preschool is the only onein the Box Canyon neighborhood and it accommodates infants, which many preschools do not. If weincrease the housing, we will need more daycares and preschools, not less. This is a major concernfor young families trying to survive in CA.

Please consider the families that live near the Bryan Ranch Shopping Center and please keep ourneighborhood safe.

Thank you,Lindsay Grable5035 Lotus AveYorba Linda CA 92887

143-1




Lindsay Grable, dated June 23, 2022

143-1 The commenter expresses concerns with fire evacuation regarding housing opportunity site S7-001. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 144

From: kroenvee <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 4:34 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: high density housing

Dear Mr. Farnsworth,Along with many other Yorba Linda residents, I am concerned about the mandated high density

housing. I guess we're all NIMBYs. My particular concern is the proposed building of 28 units acrossfrom Linda Vista Elementary School. Traveling down Buena Vista, a two-lane street, when school isbeginning or dismissing, is a nightmare. Adding additional housing would make the situation evenworse. Thanks for listening.VirginiaKroenlein 5571 FircrestDrive Yorba Linda

144-1




Virginia Kroenlein, dated June 23, 2022

144-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic regarding housing opportunity sites S4-060 and S4-201. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 145

145-1




Donna Gates, dated June 28, 2022

145-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project due to concerns with traffic, water and electricity, increased crime, and school services. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. Also please note that public services, transportation, utilities and service system impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.7, 4.9 and 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 146

From: 1316 Films <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 9:18 AMTo: Beth Haney <[email protected]>; AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>; CarlosRodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez <[email protected]>;Marcia Brown <[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>;Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Susan Lamp <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell<[email protected]>Subject: Rezoning

Good Morning, I have been resident and home owner in Yorba Linda for over ten years. I work as a local publicservant. My wife and sister were born and raised in this town. Her parents are also home ownershere. We decided to settle here and start our family here because of the quiet, more rural feel thecity afforded. We recently received notice of a rezoning plan for the town. We, as most of our neighbors, areappalled at the notion that we would have to bear the brunt of a state mandated housing boom inour community. The impact that it would have in our small town is huge and would be negative to the residents inevery way. Traffic, parking, home values, over taxing public safety and infrastructure, andenvironmental to name a few. Although we understand the City and City Council’s feeling that thestate mandate needed to be met. We understand that they voted to implement such a plan withidea of being proactive towards SB9 and SB10. However, they are NOT representing theirconstituents. If this measure were to proceed, it needs to be understood by the city governmentthat all legal and democratic avenues will be used to reverse course, and remove from office thosewho supported it. The “Our Neighborhood Voices” initiatives co sponsored by one of our own council members,Peggy Huang, will hopefully pass and give zoning decisions back to our local governments. I wouldhope this is something our city governing body is supporting. Many of us were present at our latestcouncil meeting and the feeling that residents got from the meeting was that the council seemed“indifferent” to our concerns. I hope this is not truly the case. I am writing this to urge the Council and Yorba Linda city government to listen to its residents andrepresent our needs regardless of personal opinions or inclinations. Keep Yorba Linda a nice place tolive, and do not give in to Sacramento politics. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Joshua and Tracy Baptista 5102 Club Terrace Dr.Yorba Linda, Ca. 92886

146-1




Joshua and Tracy Baptista, dated July 6, 2022

146-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project due to negative impacts with traffic, parking, home values, over taxing, public safety, and infrastructure. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. Also please note that public services, transportation, utilities and service system impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.7, 4.9 and 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 147

From: Amy R <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 4:59 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>Subject: Rezoning project S3-207

Nate FarnsworthPrincipal PlannerPlanning Division, City of Yorba Linda4845 Casa Loma Ave.Yorba Linda, 92886

Dear Mr. Farnsworth, the Yorba Linda Planning Commission, and the Yorba Linda City Council,

As a resident of Yorba Linda since 1978, I wish to voice my concern with the proposed rezoning for the 395 dwelling units along 2 blocks of Richfield Road, between Yorba Linda Blvd. and Buena Vista. I am specifically opposed to:

S3-207 5300-5392 Richfield Road, 340 units

I am aware and understand that this program is state-mandated and needs to be done. I also understand that parcels around my residence will most likely be developed to some degree in the future. I’ve come to see and expect development over the course of 44 years and have welcomed it for the most part. I did not expect that the small area in west Yorba Linda would take on a substantial amount of responsibility for the entire city, nearly 20% of the total city requirement within 2 blocks. Placing 340 units in a single cluster in the middle of a previously already overdeveloped residential area will pose a greater risk and burden to my already continuously growing area.

The current traffic and speeds along Richfield Road have made it difficult to come and go from my residence. Coupled with the increase in traffic accidents at Richfield and Buena Vista from first the 4-way stop to now a traffic signal that still has great challenges. In the past year alone, I have heard at least 4 accidents, some requiring a great deal of public safety assistance. Another area of concern I have is the lack of infrastructure currently in place to support a major project like this. Has the City implemented traffic control planning, and determined the need for more public safety support, including a fire station closer by to handle such a large structure fire possibility? As I am sure other residents have pointed out many of us remember the lack of infrastructure (mainly the inability to access water) during the 2008 fires that devastated our community in East Yorba Linda. Water needs for a fire are only one part of this issue. How has the city worked with the Water Department to ensure that these additional units will not become a burden on the already existing drought conditions, building these units alone will require a significant number of resources and have lasting impacts on our already established residences. Is there a plan in place for the schools and the additional students this might bring to them? As a person who has worked in education for over 18 years, this lack of infrastructure in educational facilities greatly concerns me.

147-1

147-2

147-3



As I previously mentioned, I have been a resident of western Yorba Linda since 1978 and as my neighbors have already mentioned there has been a constant increase in traffic, but I would go a step further and suggest that traffic is only one part of the infrastructure headache that this poses to Western Yorba Linda. As we see additional growth of businesses in the area the traffic has only increased. I am also concerned about the impact on our wildlife in these areas – we constantly see wildlife displaced within this community usually due to building large-scale homes – my preference would have been to use many of those locations for these kinds of parcels (Highland and Lakeview) would have been ideal locations and more able to support this kind of heavy burden. That said, I want to reiterate I do not object to the prospect of having affordable housing, I consider that very beneficial for the community, I do object to the scope of what is being proposed in S3-207. As you can see I do not object to the proposal for S3-012, I think that is relatively sustainable. S3-207 is not even remotely sustainable.

I can appreciate that this is a very difficult project, but if the removal of S3-207 does not occur I will have no choice but to vote against Measure B which I do understand comes to a great cost to the city. There is already greater infrastructure within East Yorba Linda and certainly more areas that come up as vacancies that can be rezoned for this purpose. I would even suggest that there are much more areas with much more lanes to accommodate traffic than the two and in some parts only 1 lane on Richfield.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Amy Rudometkin DeMartino5486 Richfield PlaceYorba Linda, CA 92886

147-4

147-5




Amy Rudometkin DeMartino, dated July 7, 2022

147-1 The commenter is a resident of Yorba Linda and specifically expresses opposition to housing opportunity site S3-207. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses. Thus, no further response is required.

147-2 The commenter understands the Project is State-mandated but expresses concerns with the west side of Yorba Linda taking a substantial amount of responsibility for the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection.

147-3 The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic, wildfire, water supply, and school services. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access and 2.1.5, Water Supply. Please note that impacts to school services, transportation, utilities and service systems impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.7, 4.9, and 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively.

147-4 The commenter expresses general concerns with the impact on wildlife and that their preference is to use parcels such as Highland and Lakeview. The commenter wants to reiterate that they do not object to the prospect of having affordable housing. The commenter expresses opposition to housing opportunity site S3-207 but does not object to the proposal for S3-012. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please note that biological resources were fully addressed in Section 4.2 of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

147-5 The commenter states if the removal of housing opportunity site S3-207 does not occur, the commenter will vote against Measure B. The commenter suggests East Yorba Linda for areas to rezone and there are areas with more lanes to accommodate traffic than one to two lanes on Richfield. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 148

From: Brian DeMartino <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 5:55 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>Subject: Rezoning Project S3-207



As a resident and voter within Yorba Linda since 2011, I wish to voice my concern with the proposed rezoning for the 395 dwelling units along 2 blocks of Richfield Road, between Yorba Linda Blvd. and Buena Vista. I am specifically opposed to:


I am aware and understand that this program is state-mandated and needs to be done. I also understand that parcels around my residence will most likely be developed to some degree in the future. I did not expect that the small area in west Yorba Linda would take on a substantial amount of responsibility for the entire city, nearly 20% of the total city requirement within 2 blocks. Placing a development of 340 units in the middle of an already overdeveloped residential area will pose a greater risk and burden to my already continuously growing area.

The current traffic and speeds along Richfield Road have made it difficult to come and go from my residence. Coupled with the increase in traffic accidents at Richfield and Buena Vista. In the past year alone, I have heard at least 4 accidents, some requiring a great deal of public safety assistance. Another area of concern I have is the lack of infrastructure currently in place to support a major project like this. Has the City implemented traffic control planning, and determined the need for more public safety support, including a fire station closer by to handle such a large structure fire possibility Water needs for a fire are only one part of this issue. How has the city worked with the Water Department to ensure that these additional units will not become a burden on the already existing drought conditions, building these units alone will require a significant number of resources and have lasting impacts on our already established residences. Is there a plan in place for the schools and the additional students this might bring to them? If so, it will be necessary to understand how additional students will be equitably accommodated.

148-1

148-2

148-3



As neighbors have already mentioned there has been a constant increase in traffic, but I would go a step further and suggest that traffic is only one part of the infrastructure headache that this poses to Western Yorba Linda. As we see additional growth of businesses in the area the traffic has only increased. I am also concerned about the impact on our wildlife in these areas – we constantly see wildlife displaced within this community usually due to the building of large-scale homes. I want to reiterate I do not object to the prospect of having affordable housing, I consider that very beneficial for the community, I do object to the scope of what is being proposed in S3-207. As you can see I do not object to the proposal for S3-012, I think that is relatively sustainable. S3-207 is not even remotely sustainable.

I can appreciate that this is a very difficult project, but if the removal of S3-207 does not occur I will have no choice but to vote against Measure B which I do understand comes to a great cost to the city. There is already greater infrastructure within East Yorba Linda and certainly more areas that come up as vacancies that can be rezoned for this purpose.


Brian DeMartino5486 Richfield PlaceYorba Linda, CA 92886

148-4

148-5




Brian DeMartino, dated July 7, 2022








Comment Letter 149

From: SHARON RUDOMETKIN <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 5:16 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>Subject: Rezoning S3-207



As a resident of Yorba Linda since 1978, I wish to voice my concern with the proposed rezoning for the 395 dwelling units along 2 blocks of Richfield Road, between Yorba Linda Blvd. and Buena Vista. I am specifically opposed to:


I am aware and understand that this program is state-mandated and needs to be done. I also understand that parcels around my residence will most likely be developed to some degree in the future. I’ve come to see and expect development over the course of 44 years and have welcomed it for the most part. I did not expect that the small area in west Yorba Linda would take on a substantial amount of responsibility for the entire city, nearly 20% of the total city requirement within 2 blocks. Placing 340 units in a single cluster in the middle of a already overdeveloped residential area will pose a greater risk and burden to my area.

The current traffic and speeds along Richfield Road have made it difficult to come and go from my residence. Coupled with the increase in traffic accidents at Richfield and Buena Vista from first the 4-way stop to now a traffic signal that still has great challenges. In the past year alone, I have heard at least 4 accidents, some requiring a great deal of public safety assistance. Another area of concern I have is the lack of infrastructure currently in place to support a major project like this. Has the City implemented traffic control planning, and determined the need for more public safety support, including a fire station closer by to handle such a large structure fire possibility? As I am sure other residents have pointed out many of us remember the lack of infrastructure (mainly the inability to access water) during the 2008 fires that devastated our community in East Yorba Linda. Water needs for a fire are only one part of this issue. How has the city worked with the Water Department to ensure that these additional units will not become a burden on the already existing drought conditions, building these units alone will require a significant number of resources and have lasting impacts on our already established residences. Is there a plan in place for the schools and the additional students this might bring to them? I ask because when I moved to YL I was promised a high school would be built and my children were nearly middle-aged by the time that happened and were bussed to school in Fullerton.

149-1

149-2

149-3



As I previously mentioned, I have been a resident of western Yorba Linda since 1978 and as my neighbors have already mentioned there has been a constant increase in traffic, but I would go a step further and suggest that traffic is only one part of the infrastructure headache that this poses to Western Yorba Linda. As we see additional growth of businesses in the area the traffic has only increased. I am also concerned about the impact on our wildlife in these areas – we constantly see wildlife displaced within this community usually due to building large-scale homes – my preference would have been to use many of those locations for these kinds of parcels (Highland and Lakeview) would have been ideal locations and more able to support this kind of heavy burden. That said, I want to reiterate I do not object to the prospect of having affordable housing, I consider that very beneficial for the community, I do object to the scope of what is being proposed in S3-207. As you can see I do not object to the proposal for S3-012, I think that is relatively sustainable. S3-207 is not even remotely sustainable.

I can appreciate that this is a very difficult project, but if the removal of S3-207 does not occur I will have no choice but to vote against Measure B which I do understand comes to a great cost to the city. There is already greater infrastructure within East Yorba Linda and certainly more areas that come up as vacancies that can be rezoned for this purpose. I would even suggest that there are much more areas with much more lanes to accommodate traffic than the two and in some parts only 1 lane on Richfield.


Sharon Rudometkin5486 Richfield PlaceYorba Linda, CA 92886

149-5

149-4




Sharon Rudometkin, dated July 7, 2022








Comment Letter 150

From: Jennifer Mirhan <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 9:15 AMTo: AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth<[email protected]>Subject: Yorba Linda Planning Commission and City Council

I am writing to voice my concern with the proposed rezoning for the estimated 395 dwelling unitsalong 2 blocks of Richfield, north of Buena Vista.I am specifically opposed to the rezoning the two sites below:S3-2017 5300-5392 Richfield 340 unitsS3-012 Richfield Community Church 55 units

I completely understand that this program is state mandated. I also understand that the parcelsaround me would most likely be developed to some degree in the future. I did not expect that a verysmall area of my city would have to take on the responsibility of the whole city. 395 units in onesingle cluster in the middle of residential/large lot zoning. Almost 20% of the total city requirement isclustered within only 2 blocks! Current drafts of the housing element do just that. It's the mostinequitable distribution of housing densities and the problems that will arise.

I have been a resident of western Yorba Linda since 1998 and there has been one constant since Ihave been here; increasing traffic without additional infrastructure to support it. @2 cars/hour = 790extra cars per day on Richfield, plus the added traffic times and difficulty during non-;peak times.By definition, the addition of Affordable Housing will have a negative effect on existing, higher value,properties.

I'm sure this is a very difficult project, but you CAN do better. If these densities don't come down, Iwill have no choice but to vote against and do my best to defeat the proposed density increases viaMeasure B.

Sincerely

Nelson/Jennifer Mirhan

150-1

150-2

150-3




Nelson and Jennifer Mirhan, dated July 8, 2022

150-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with the Project and is specifically opposed to housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012 and the inequitable location of housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection, for a discussion on selection on the housing opportunity sites. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

150-2 The commenter understands the Project is State-mandated but expresses concern with traffic. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic.

150-3 The commenter states if the densities do not decrease, they will vote against Measure B. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 151


Planning Manager

4845 Casa Loma Ave.



Mr. Farnsworth,

My comments below are regarding the Draft PEIR for the 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs. I have lived in Yorba Linda my entire life, since 1979. My family was drawn to the charm of this once slow paced town of Yorba Linda at that time. My parents raised my brother and me in this city and they still reside here as well. One by one the charms of our little Yorba Linda city are being stripped from us. Gone are the orange groves, rolling hills, Horse trails and open fields that drew my family into this town. We are very concerned about the proposed addition of over 2,400 units to our city. My children attend Linda Vista School. The 2 sites near there off of Grandview and Ohio are of my utmost concern as I feel it will impact my children’s safety and the safety of other children. We are asking the planning commission to please remove these 2 sites off of the Housing plan. We understand that cities need to grow and that housing must increase, but there has to be better areas to do so. Packing in 28 units on Ohio Street in less than 2 acres of land and an additional 9 units in less than an acre off of Grandview seems way overdone. It is difficult to comprehend exactly where all of the cars will flow through these areas which are already impacted between the hours of 7am-8am and 2pm-3pm Monday through Friday, September through June. I have a hard time just getting through now to park and pick up my kids and I can’t imagine possibly 37 more families with kids in that immediate area. Extra pollution, not to mention the safety concern for all the kids, and impacting of not only Linda Vista, but other schools in PYLUSD. We hope the planning commission will take our comments into consideration.

Sincerely,

Marissa Bellanti

714-906-4457 (C)

[email protected]

151-1




Marissa Bellanti, dated July 10, 2022

151-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with housing opportunity sites off of Grandview and Ohio, specifically with pedestrian safety, traffic, pollution, and school services. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. Please note that air quality and school services impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1 and 4.7 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 152

From: Connie Bryant <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 1:23 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Fairmont Canyon development


Please accept my comments into public record in response to the Housing Element Draft PEIR forOpportunity Site S5-008 off Fairmont Blvd. Our neighbors and I are totally against thisdevelopment.

The Draft PEIR has failed to cover many environmental issues pertaining to this site and has notquantified the risks of developing it. Because of this, I am writing to state this site needs its own EIRperformed to adequately quantify the risks on the following CEQA topics:

1. Wildfire - S5-008 is in a VHSFHZ and would be the only site in the entire Housing Element withthis designation after the Planning Commission’s recommendation to remove S7-005. Evacuationplans and hardening of site for fire prevention and access roads is not addressed in DPEIR2. Biology - S5-008 is a habitat for endangered wildlife and borders Chino Hills State Park. It is awildland-urban interface and not an infill site. This is not adequately addressed or quantified in theDPEIR.3. Geology - S5-008 is in an earthquake and landslide zone. The DPEIR fails to address this.4. Hydrology - S5-008 is designated wetlands and contains a storm drain for runoff water. TheDPEIR fails to address this.5. Land Use and Planning - S5-008 has limited buildable acreage (anywhere from 2.5 - 9 acres with14 acres of Open Space). However, the DPEIR has designated 230 with 196 realistic units which isnot possible for RM standards. The land use for this site is misrepresented in the Housing Element.6. Traffic - S5-008 will bring additional cars and traffic onto Fairmont Blvd. Parking has not beenfully addressed to make sure it does not spill over to Fairmont Blvd and/or adjacent properties suchas Kerrigan Ranch, Forest or Rimcrest.

As a result of these issues, I do not believe S5-008 is a proper candidate for high density housing. Itshould be removed or the unit allocation reduced to what is actually possible for this propertybased on the buildable acreage.

The Planning Commission and City Council should take a closer look at this property since it does notalign with the overall Housing Element goals.go

Given the uniqueness of this site, and the inadequate analysis of it in the DPEIR, S5-008 shouldreceive its own EIR.

Sincerely,Brad Bryant

152-1

152-2

152-3

152-4

152-5152-6

152-7

152-8

152-9




Brad Bryant, dated July 11, 2022

152-1 The commenter provides comments below and expresses general opposition to housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

152-2 The commenter states that the Draft PEIR has failed to cover the environmental issues below pertaining to housing opportunity site S5-008 and requests preparation of a separate EIR on the site. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project. No further response is required.

152-3 The commenter notes housing opportunity site S5-008 is located in a VHSFHZ and expresses concerns with evacuation plans not addressed in the Draft PEIR. Zone. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required.

152-4 The commenter states that impacts to biological resources for housing opportunity site S5-008 are not adequately addressed in the Draft PEIR. As in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-10, and 4.2-15), housing opportunity S5-008 is located within a natural habitat area. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources be mitigated through biological surveys and impact assessments by a qualified biologist. With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources would be reduced to less than significant. No further response is required.

152-5 The commenter states that housing opportunity site S5-008 is in an earthquake and landslide zone and impacts to geology and hydrology relate to storm drain for runoff water were are not adequately addressed in the Draft PEIR. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology



conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant. No further response is required.


152-6 The commenter expresses concerns with hydrology for housing opportunity site S5-008. As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-21 to 5-26), impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant and mandatory adherence to the Construction General Permit and implementation of measures outlined in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. No further response is required.

152-7 The commenter expresses concerns with the realistic units for housing opportunity site S5-008 and states the land use is misrepresented in the Housing Element for housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

152-8 The commenter expresses concerns with traffic for housing opportunity site S5-008. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

152-9 The commenter does not believe housing opportunity site S5-008 is a proper candidate for high density housing and it should be removed or the unit allocation reduced to what is actually possible based on the buildable acreage. The commenter states housing opportunity site S5-008 receive its own EIR. These comments are noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 153

From: Janice Morger <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 12:12 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: Comments on the Deir for the Y.L. housing element

Dear Mr. Farnsworth,This is a follow-up to my email of June 28,2022, regarding the outrageous densities that havebeen recommended for the parcels on Richfield Road - specifically the Christmas tree andchurch properties. The total units recommended are 395! Really 395! The traffic alone willbring 790 (2 cars/unit) new trips on Richfield - and that's just one way! Richfield does nothave the infrastructure for that kind of traffic, water, and utility availability not to mention theschools will have an influx (assuming 1 child per house) of almost 400 hundred new students.That is not counting the many other sites proposed in our big block.Then we find that at the last planning commission meeting that they are recommending 30homes be removed from 3 sites in the S. Ohio St. area whose densities were already VERYlow.That recommendation came even before the time frame for comments to the DEIR is over. Dowe now make judgements before the commissioners have all of the concerns from all of thecitizens of Yorba Linda?I would recommend to deduct those 30 units from the Richfield properties. Let's let all ofYorba Linda share this burden.I urge the City Council not to accept the recommendation from the planning commissionregarding the Ohio properties.I also urge you and the City Council to find fairness in the plan, lower these densities and findadditional properties to take on some of the massive weight of the housing element that YOUare putting on our neighborhood.Spread the love!Sincerely,

Janice Morger17745 Lomita LaneYorba Linda, Ca

153-1




Janice Morger, dated July 11, 2022

153-1 The commenter describes the densities of the parcels on Richfield Road as outrageous. The commenter alleges Richfield does not have the infrastructure for the traffic, water, utility, and school services. The commenter opposes the recommendation to City Council for removing the Ohio sites and recommends to deduct 30 units from the Richfield properties and find additional properties in Yorba Linda. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.5, Water Supply. Please note that school services, transportation, and utilities and service systems were fully addressed in Sections 4.7, 4.9, and Subsection 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 154

From: Kyle Taylor <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 12:11 PMTo: AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>Subject: The Yorba Linda Planning Commission and the Yorba Linda City Council

Hello,

My name is Kyle Taylor. As a resident of Yorba Linda since 1990, I wish to voice my concernwith the proposed rezoning for ~395 dwelling units along 2 blocks of Richfield, north ofBuena Vista.I am specifically opposed to rezoning the two sites below:S3-207 5300-5392 Richfield 340 unitsS3-012 Richfield Community Church 55 units

I completely understand that this program is state-mandated and needs to be done. I alsounderstand that the parcels around me would most likely be developed to some degree in thefuture. I did not expect that a very small area of my city would have to take on theresponsibility of the whole city. 395 units in one single cluster in the middle ofresidential/large lot zoning. Almost 20 % of the total city requirement clustered withinonly 2 blocks! Current drafts of the housing element do just that. It’s the most inequitabledistribution of housing densities and the problems that they bring ever.

I have been a resident of western Yorba Linda since 1990 and there has been one constantsince I have been here; increasing traffic without the additional infrastructure to support it. @2cars /house = 790 extra cars per day on Richfield, plus the added traffic from Dennys andTarget. An additional 395 units will make it impossible for current residents to accessRichfield at heavy traffic times and difficult during non-peak times. By definition, the addition of Affordable Housing will have a negative effect on existing,higher-value, properties.

I’m sure this is a very difficult project, but you CAN do better. If these densities don’t comedown, I will have no choice but to vote against and do my best to defeat the proposed densityincreases via Measure B.

154-1

154-2

154-3

154-4




Kyle Taylor, dated July 11, 2022

154-1 The commenter expresses concerns with the Project, specifically opposed to housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

154-2 The commenter expresses concerns with the inequitable distribution of the Project, specifically at housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection.

154-3 The commenter expresses general concerns with the increase in traffic and impacts on property value. Property value is a non-CEQA issue. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

154-4 The commenter makes concluding statements and expresses opposition to vote against the Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 155

From: Marta Ayala <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 1:16 PM To: AllCityCouncil <City_Council@yorba‐linda.org>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on the DEIR for YOrba LInda Housing Element

To: The Yorba Linda Planning Commission and the Yorba Linda City CouncilMy name is Marta Taylor. As a resident of Yorba Linda since 2005. I wish to voice my concern with the proposed rezoning for ~395 dwelling units along 2 blocks of Richeld, north oBuena Vista.!I am specically opposed to rezoning the two sites beloS3-207# # 5300-5392 Richeld# # # # # # # # # 340 unitS3-012# # Richeld Community Church# # # #55 unitI completely understand that this program is state mandated and needs to be done. # I also understand that the parcels around me would most likely be developed to some degree in the future. I did not expect that a very small area of my city would have to take on the responsibility of the whole city. 395 units in one single cluster in the middle of residential/large lot zoning. Almost 20 % of the total city requirement clustered within only 2 blocks! Current drafts of the housing element do just that. It’s the most inequitable distribution ohousing densities and the problems that they bring ever.!I have been a resident of western Yorba Linda since 2005 and there has been one constant since I have been here; increasing traffiwithout additional infrastructure to support it. @ 2cars /house = 790 extra cars per day on Richeld, plus the added traffic from Denand Target. An additional 395 units will make it impossible for current residents to access Richeld at heavy traffic times and difficult dnon-peak times.!By denition, the addition of Affordable Housing will have a negateffect on existing, higher value, propertiesI’m sure this is avery difficult project, but you CAN do better. If thdensities don’t come down; I will have no choice but to vote againsand do my best to defeat the proposed density increases via Measure B.MARTA http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/07.gif

MARTA

155-1




Marta Ayala, dated July 11, 2022

155-1 The commenter expresses concerns with the Project and is specifically opposed to housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012 due to the inequitable distribution of the Project, traffic, and property value, specifically at housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection, for discussion to traffic congestion and the selection of the sites. Also please note that transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 156

From: Sandy Dileo <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 12:43 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: Fwd: - Comments on DPEIR for Site S5-008

---------- Forwarded message ---------

Subject: DUE JULY 15 - Comments on DPEIR for Site S5-008To:

Subject: Comments on DPEIR for Site S5-008


Please accept my comments into public record in response to the Housing Element Draft PEIR for Opportunity Site S5-008 off Fairmont Blvd.

The Draft PEIR has failed to cover many environmental issues pertaining to this site and has not quantified the risks of developing it. Because of this, I am writing to state this site needs its own EIR performed to adequately quantify the risks on the following CEQA topics:


As a result of these issues, I do not believe S5-008 is a proper candidate for high density housing. Itshould be removed or the unit allocation reduced to what is actually possible for this propertybased on the buildable acreage.

The Planning Commission and City Council should take a closer look at this property since it does notalign with the overall Housing Element goals.

Given the uniqueness of this site, and the inadequate analysis of it in the DPEIR, S5-008 shouldreceive its own EIR.

Sincerely,Sandra Dileo

156-1

156-2

156-6

156-4156-5

156-3

156-7

156-8




Sandy Dileo, dated July 11, 2022



156-3 The commenter alleges that impacts to biological resources for housing opportunity site S5-008 are not adequately addressed in the Draft PEIR. The City disagrees. As in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-10, and 4.2-15), housing opportunity S5-008 is located within a natural habitat area. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources be mitigated through biological surveys and impact assessments by a qualified biologist. With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources would be reduced to less than significant. No further response is required.

156-4 The commenter states that housing opportunity site S5-008 is in an earthquake and landslide zone and impacts to geology and hydrology relate to storm drain for runoff water were are not adequately addressed in the Draft PEIR. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant. No further response is required.

Moreover, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-14 to 5-15), the commenter is correct in stating that housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a landslide zone. However, regardless of the landslide susceptibility, future development pursuant to the Project would be required to have a site-specific geotechnical



investigation conducted. The geotechnical investigation for each project on a site within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced landslides would be required to evaluate the potential for such landslides onsite and provide engineering controls to minimize hazards in accordance with the CBC. Each project must also comply with seismic safety regulations and requirements regarding slope stability in the CBC and City of Yorba Linda Building Code. Additionally, development along hillside would be required to comply with the standards in Chapter 18.30, Hillside Development, of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts to related landslides would be less than significant.

156-5 The commenter expresses concerns with hydrology for housing opportunity site S5-008. As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-21 to 5-26), impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant and mandatory adherence to the Construction General Permit and implementation of measures outlined in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. No further response is required.






Comment Letter 157

From: notonmyscreen <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 11:07 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Regarding the Rezoning on Richfield...

My name is Andre Miller, I and my family have been residents of Yorba Linda for decades. I amwriting to voice my concerns with the rezoning on Richfield.

In particular, I am opposed to sites S3-207 and S3-012.

We live and are impacted directly by what goes on in this stretch of street. For years, pitifully littlepositive development has occurred. The last bit of infrastructure added was proper crossing lightsand signals installed at the intersection of Richfield and Buena Vista. That was undoubtedlyexpensive and has since resulted in no added safety, but rather a consistent quantity of trafficaccidents. Late night joyriders also use the signals as an official race starting point on occasion.

I think it is also worth mentioning that despite several complaints to the city, the landscaping alongRichfield, specifically on the portion traveling to and from Orange Thorpe has received nomeaningful maintenance in years. Diseased plants, stumps tangled in chainlink, dangerouslyunmanaged overgrown trees and trash demonstrate how little city officials care about us.

So you can imagine how the Miller family feels about the idea of rezoning land owned byrespectable citizens so it can be crammed full of budget housing. Regardless of what thegovernment finds necessary or is obligated to do, this comes off as a desperate attempt toincrease city revenue. It blatantly disregards the quality of life of existing residents, ourselvesincluded.

Besides trying to immorally strong arm land from folk, there are a number of issues that wouldarise if this plan is allowed to go through. More dense traffic, invariable increases in crime,habitats for wild life destroyed, existing property values decreasing etc...

We will be joining every known community group against this development. We will also bekeeping an eye what our city officials are doing. This is a betrayal as our elected officials shoulddo a good enough job (as they generally have for decades) not rocking the boat when we workhard and pay our considerable taxes. In this harsh political climate, we have depended on theYorba Linda City Council and it's staff to hold true to what has made Yorba Linda a greatcommunity for all this time. Now we feel like our local politicians are just looking out for their owninterests like everywhere else.

Please do better.

157-1




Andre Miller, dated July 12, 2022

157-1 The commenter expresses concerns with the Project and is opposed to housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012 due to traffic, increased crime, wildlife, and decrease of property value. The commenter describes exiting traffic conditions on Richfield and Buena Vista and additionally, the current landscaping along Richfield, specifically the portion traveling to and from Orange Thorpe. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also please note that police protection services, transportation, and wildfire impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.7, 4.9, and 4.11 of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 158

158-1

158-2




Cathleen Stubbs, dated July 12, 2022

158-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and describes past fire evacuation, existing traffic and noise. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

158-2 The commenter describes existing noise, air quality, and traffic conditions in the area of Savi Ranch, Gypsum Canyon bridge, and the SR-91. The commenter expresses opposition to the Project and requests the City to find a solution that will not be a liability. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also please note that air quality, noise, and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.1, 4.6, and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 159

159-1

159-2

159-3159-4159-5




Mark and Tina Ward, dated July 12, 2022

159-1 The commenter requests assurance that the Project undertake a thorough environmental review process specifically for housing opportunity sites S4-204A and S4-204B. The commenter is correct, prior to approval of any site-specific development under the Housing Element, the City must conduct further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The level of CEQA documentation required for future development or redevelopment would be determined following submittal of a development application with the City.

159-2 The commenter expresses concerns with historic buildings and states the need to have approval from SHPO for removal of the Knott’s houses. A Citywide Historic Property Survey was prepared by Galvin Preservation Associates (GPA) dated January 5, 2010. In that report, these two properties were analyzed and determined that they were ineligible for National, State or local designation as historical resources. Thus, no further response is required

159-3 The commenter requests a full investigation/report for rare trees/plants on housing opportunity sites S4-204A and S4-204B including evaluation of fruit trees and exotic plants on site. As discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.2-12), trees in the City of Yorba Linda are protected under the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 16.08 (Tree Preservation), which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the City. Future development would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code.

159-4 The commenter requests a traffic impact report for surrounding area. Future housing development would conduct a focused project-level traffic analysis based on City’s Guidelines that will analyze the existing traffic condition at the time of preparation of the study and the LOS impacts due implementation of the development in the opening year scenario. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results of the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion.

159-5 The commenter requests public review and comment on the NEPA/CEQA documents. Please note that the Project is not under the purview of NEPA and no NEPA document will be prepared for this Project. Under CEQA, the Draft PEIR was distributed to various public agencies, organizations, and individuals on June 1, 2022; the Draft PEIR was available for a 45-day public review period, which ended on July 15, 2022. The City used several methods to elicit comments on the Draft PEIR. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft PEIR was distributed to the SCH for distribution to State agencies and was posted on the City’s website. The NOA was posted also at the Orange County Clerk’s office on June 1, 2022. On June 1, 2022, the NOA was mailed to responsible agencies, local government agencies, interested parties that received the NOP, individuals who had previously requested the NOA or PEIR, to individuals who provided NOP comments, and to individuals within a 2,000-foot radius to any of the 27 housing opportunity sites. The NOA was also published in OC Register on June 1, 2022; the NOA and Draft PEIR were made available for review, on the City’s web site at: https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/Environmental-Documents.




Comment Letter 160

160-1

160-2




Robert Stubbs, dated July 12, 2022

160-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and describes past fire evacuations, existing traffic and noise conditions. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

160-2 The commenter describes existing noise, air quality, and traffic conditions in the area of Savi Ranch, Gypsum Canyon bridge, and the SR-91. The commenter expresses opposition to the Project and requests the City to find a solution that will not be a liability. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also please note that air quality, noise, and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1, 4.6, and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 161

161-1

161-2

161-4161-5

161-3




Steve and Agnita Gilman, dated July 12, 2022

161-1 The commenter requests assurance that the Project undertake a through environmental review process specifically for housing opportunity sites S4-204A and S4-204B. The commenter is correct, prior to approval of any site-specific development under the Housing Element, the City must conduct further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The level of CEQA documentation required for future development or redevelopment would be determined following submittal of a development application with the City.

161-2 The commenter expresses concerns with historic buildings and states the need to have approval from SHPO for removal of the Knott’s houses. A Citywide Historic Property Survey was prepared by Galvin Preservation Associates (GPA) dated January 5, 2010. In that report, these two properties were analyzed and it was found that they were ineligible for National, State or local designation and were not historically significant. Thus, no further response is required

161-3 The commenter requests a full investigation/report for rare trees/plants on housing opportunity sites S4-204A and S4-204B including evaluation of fruit trees and exotic plants on site. As discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.2-12), trees in the City of Yorba Linda are protected under the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 16.08 (Tree Preservation), which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the City. Future development would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code.

161-4 The commenter requests for a traffic impact report for surrounding area. Future housing development would conduct a project-level traffic impact analysis based on City’s Guidelines that will analyze the existing traffic condition at the time of preparation of the study and the LOS impacts due implementation of the development in the opening year scenario. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion.

161-5 The commenter request public review comment on the CEQA documents. The Draft PEIR was distributed to various public agencies, organizations, and individuals on June 1, 2022; the PEIR was available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The review period ended on July 15, 2022. The City used several methods to elicit comments on the Draft PEIR. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft PEIR was distributed to the SCH for distribution to State agencies and was posted on the City’s website. The NOA was posted also at the Orange County Clerk’s office on June 1, 2022. On June 1, 2022, the NOA was mailed to responsible agencies, local government agencies, interested parties that received the NOP, individuals who had previously requested the NOA or PEIR, to individuals who provided NOP comments, and to individuals within a 2,000-foot radius to any of the 27 housing opportunity sites. The NOA was also published in OC Register on June 1, 2022; the NOA and Draft PEIR were made available for review, on the City’s web site at: https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/Environmental-Documents.




Comment Letter 162

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 11:07 AMTo: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>Cc: 'city [email protected]' <city [email protected]>Subject: Proposed housing on Richfield

We have been residents of Yorba Linda for 2 years and bought in Cerro Verde because of the quietneighborhood with beautiful landscape in the surrounding area.

We are extremely concerned about the proposed development of the two sites on Richfield S3-207and S3-012. If those properties are rezoned and 395 affordable houses are built on these propertiesthe property values will decrease not to mention the additional traffic it would cause on Richfield.Almost 20% of the total city requirement is clustered within only 2 blocks.

If these densities don’t come down we have no choice but to vote against and do our best to defeatthe proposed density increases via Measure B.

Thank you for your serious consideration in this matter.

Tom and Pat Conlon17572 Cerro Verde Dr.Yorba Linda, CA 92886

162-1




Tom and Pat Conlon, dated July 12, 2022

162-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012, specifically with traffic and property value. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 163

From: Daniel Clem <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 5:34 PMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: Public Comment on the draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)


If the city of Yorba Linda is to move forward with constructing low income housing in the Bryant Ranch area this could cause a catastrophe in the event of another fire in the hills. During the last fire evacuation out of Bryant Ranch came to a screeching halt due to the high density area of the existing residence. Adding a low income housing complex at the bottom of Bryant Ranch will clog all arteries and will not allow for a safe dispersal out of the fire zone. Yorba Linda should not take the liability and risk by adding this high density housing complex. This public comment is to record that the City Council of Yorba Linda understands and is liable for any person unable to get out of the fire zone and that the City Council is putting a high density building in a fire zone which is pure negligence. I strongly advise the City to stop moving forward with this zoning plan and to fight against California’s overreach in requiring our City to build such dangerous complexes in areas that cannot nor should not support them.

Daniel ClemBryant Ranch Resident

163-1




Daniel Clem, dated July 13, 2022

163-1 The commenter describes the last fire evacuation out of Bryant Ranch expresses general concerns with wildfire. The commenter then advises the City to stop moving forward with the Project and to fight against the State’s overreach in requiring Yorba Linda to build dangerous complexes in areas that cannot support them. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 164

From: Harry O. Ellis <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 1:51 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Comments and Concerns Regarding DPEIR for Site S5-008Importance: High

Hello Mr. Farnsworth,

Please accept my comments into public record in response to the Housing Element Draft PEIR forOpportunity Site S5-008 off Fairmont Blvd.

https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/8724/Environmental-Documents

The Draft PEIR has failed to cover several environmental issues pertaining to this site and it has notquantified the risks of developing it. Due to this, I’m writing to state on the record that this siteneeds its own EIR performed to adequately quantify the risks on the following CEQA topics:


As a result of these issues, I don’t believe S5-008 is a proper candidate for high density housing. Itshould be removed or at a minimum the unit allocation reduced to what is actually possible for thisproperty based on the buildable acreage.

The Planning Commission and City Council should take a closer look at this property since it does notalign with the overall Housing Element goals.

As mentioned above, given the uniqueness of this site, and the inadequate analysis of it in the DPEIR,S5-008 should receive its own EIR.

Respectfully,

Harry EllisC: (714) 222-4017

164-1

164-2

164-3

164-4

164-5

164-6

164-7




Harry Ellis, dated July 13, 2022



164-3 The commenter expresses that impacts to biological resources for housing opportunity site S5-008 are not adequately addressed in the Draft PEIR. As in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-10, and 4.2-15), housing opportunity S5-008 is located within a natural habitat area. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources be mitigated through biological surveys and impact assessments by a qualified biologist. With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources would be reduced to less than significant. No further response is required.






As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-21 to 5-26), impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant and mandatory adherence to the Construction General Permit and implementation of measures outlined in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. No further response is required.






Comment Letter 165

165-1

165-2



165-2(CONT.)

165-3

165-4

165-5



165-5(CONT.)

165-6

165-7

165-8



165-8(CONT.)

165-9

165-10

165-11

165-12



165-12(CONT.)

165-13

165-14

165-15

165-16

165-17

165-18

165-19



165-20




Law Offices of Geoffrey Willis, dated July 13, 2022

165-1 The commenter represents the Neighbors of Grandview, an unincorporated association of individuals brought together for the sole purpose of preserving the quiet residential nature of their neighborhood. This comment consists of introductory remarks, raises concern for housing opportunity sites S4-060, S4-201, and S4-053, and provides aerial photographs of the site which are located in Attachment F, Commenter’s Attachment, of this Final PEIR. The commenter describes the existing conditions of the three housing opportunity sites, particularly that they are located in a semi-rural area with narrow streets, no curb or gutter, no street lights, and one-way in and out for school traffic. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses. Thus, no further response is required.

165-2 The commenter alleges that the City has failed to adequately study all significant environmental impacts regarding these three sites. The commenter states that the Project will have significant aesthetic impacts but does not provide the reasoning in this comment; please refer to response to Comments 165-6 and 165-10 for responses related to aesthetics. Refer also to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses. Thus, no further response is required.

165-3 The commenter alleges that traffic impacts were inadequately studied in the Draft PEIR. The City disagrees with the commenter. Please refer to Master Responses 2.1.1, Program versus Project EIR, and 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Additionally, refer to response to Comments 165-11 to 165-19 below.

The commenter further alleges that the Draft PEIR failed to adequately study the Project impacts on air quality, safety, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. The City disagrees with the comment. Technical reports were prepared for air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise (refer to Draft PEIR Technical Appendices B, D, and E, respectively), which were analyzed in detail in the Draft PEIR (refer to Draft PEIR Sections 4.1, 4.4, and 4.6, respectively). Please also refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety.

165-4 The commenter notes that these sites make up a small fraction of the Project and requests removal of these sites. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

165-5 The commenter states the purpose of CEQA and cites various court cases that describes CEQA’s objective and role. The commenter alleges that the City did not prepare a Draft PEIR in compliance with CEQA and deprived the public and decision markers of the ability to meaningfully participate. The City disagrees with the comment; the Draft PEIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project, for details regarding the adequacy of the Draft PEIR.



165-6 The commenter states that the Project will result in significant aesthetic impacts to the three sites. The commenter alleges that future development that would convert single family to multi-family or construct multi-family on a vacant site would result in a significant aesthetic impact.

The City disagrees with the comment. No site-specific development is being proposed at this time. Specific design details such as bulk, massing, height, architectural design, site plan, grading plan, landscaping plan, renderings, and more are currently not available at this time. However, according to the City’s Municipal Code Table 18.10-02, under the R-M zoning designation, the maximum height allowed would be 35 feet, or 2 stories, whichever is less. Additionally, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-6 to 5-8), the City has Multi-Family Design Guidelines to provide upfront direction to the development community regarding the desired quality and character of multi-family development. Further, future development would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code inclusive of the Zoning Code, including general development standards. Future development would be subject to Design Review, the goals and policies in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, impacts to aesthetics were determined to be less than significant. Examples of R-M development within the City include Anderson Grove on Lakeview Avenue and the Covington on Yorba Linda Road.

165-7 The commenter recounts the past proposal that occurred on housing opportunity site S4-053 in 1999 and attached a copy of the conditions of approval, which are located in Attachment F, Commenter’s Attachment, of this Final PEIR. The commenter alleges that the City imposed 87 conditions of approval when the applicant was a developer and now that the applicant is the City, the City will not impose those conditions. This comment is incorrect. Conditions of approval are applied when a site-specific development is proposed; no site-specific development is proposed at this time.

165-8 The commenter provides citations and CEQA requirements relating to the standard of review for environmental documents relying on a Program EIR. Prior to approval of any site-specific development under the Housing Element, the City must conduct further environmental review under CEQA. The level of CEQA documentation required for future development or redevelopment would be determined following submittal of a development application with the City. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

165-9 The commenter continues to express concerns related to aesthetics and states the City did not review aesthetics impacts to these sites. The commenter alleges that the size, bulk, lot coverages, height and increased “weight” are significant and would alter the surround residents the ability to quietly enjoy their homes and neighborhood. The City disagrees with the comment and the commenter does not provide evidence that future compliance with the City’s Multi-Family Design Guidelines, Municipal Code, and General Plan policies would result in a significant aesthetic impact. Please note that quiet enjoyment is not an aesthetic impact under CEQA. Also, please refer to response to Comment 165-6; thus, no further response is required.

165-10 The commenter states the City relied on inadequate information and failed to provide mitigation measures that should have been impose for aesthetics impacts. The Draft PEIR



incorporated by reference analyses from the City’s General Plan EIR to provide a background context for environmental impacts that were determined based on buildout of the City. The Draft PEIR adequately analyzed aesthetic impacts related to Project. Please refer to response to Comment 165-6; thus, no further response is required.

165-11 The commenter states the City did not study the intersections in the immediate vicinity of these sites and failed to truly study the impacted streets. The TIA study area was selected consistent with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines by determining where two General Plan roadways of Secondary classification or higher intersect one another and are in close proximity to housing opportunity sites and generated 50 or more peak hour trips. These analysis locations were then reviewed and refined with City staff during the scoping process prior to commencing with the operations analysis. Local and collector streets were not included as these more localized intersections would be addressed as part of any future environmental review of each housing opportunity site as development plans come forward (if applicable). Future housing development would conduct a focus traffic impact analysis based on City’s Guidelines that will include the discussion of access and safety impacts on the surrounding area due to the implementation of each development project. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. No further response is required.

165-12 The commenter is incorrect in stating that the traffic study fails as a matter of law. First LOS-based traffic impacts are not considered a CEQA impact. Second, the purpose of the Housing Element Implementation Programs is to evaluate the long-term effects of the City’s General Plan Buildout conditions without and with the contemplated land use changes proposed on each housing opportunity site. Third, refer to response to Comment 165-11, above, and Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, related to how the study area was selected. No further response is required.

165-13 The incorrectly states that the City’s failure to accurately analyze traffic spills over to air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and safety issues. Refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on safety concerns. As discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.1-15 to 4.1-23), construction-related emissions are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process due to the variables that must be considered when examining construction impacts (e.g., development rate, disturbance area per day, specific construction equipment and operating hours, etc.) and Project buildout will exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD thresholds for VOC, and NOX during operation. Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1, which would require future development projects to conduct project-specific analysis and incorporate mitigation measures, was identified to reduce potential construction air quality impacts. However, despite the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1, it cannot be definitively stated that all future development projects would not exceed the applicable thresholds, especially since some individual projects would exceed the thresholds. As such, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact for emissions of emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 with respect to future development projects even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Similarly, there is uncertainty regarding the specific nature of operational activities that would be facilitated by future development projects on a project level. Despite the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-2, which would require future development



projects to conduct project-specific analysis and incorporate mitigation measures, it cannot be definitively stated that all future development projects at buildout would not exceed the applicable thresholds at this time. Therefore, the emissions reductions that would be achieved by cannot be accurately quantified and are not accounted for in the analysis herein. As such, a significant and unavoidable impact during operation is presumed even with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-2. It is important to note that even though the Draft PEIR concluded that impacts to air quality would be significant and unavoidable, it is mainly due to the reason that site specific details are not available at this time to accurately quantified emission rates for each project. Future development would be required to undergo further environmental review under CEQA. No further response is required.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Noise, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.6-15 to 4.6-19), the Project would not result in a significant impact from operational off-site traffic increases. However, the existing noise sensitive receivers located within 50 feet of parking lot activities, trash enclosures, dog parks, pool/spas, or other similar source of outdoor activity may experience unmitigated exterior noise levels exceeding the exterior noise level limits. Additionally, future development would likely occur in close proximity to noise sensitive receptors and elevate the ambient noise environment. Therefore, stationary and construction noise impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1 through MM 4.6-3 would contribute in minimizing construction-related noise. However, due to the unknown number of construction activities that could occur at one time, proximity of construction activities to sensitive receptors, and other factors that cannot be quantified at this time, such as the longevity of activities, construction-related noise impacts may not be reduced to less than significant levels for some future development. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. With the implementation of Goal N-4 of the City of Yorba Linda General Plan Noise Element and compliance with the exterior noise level limits outlined in the City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code Section 8.32.060 and Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-5, the Project stationary source impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts.

As discussed in Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.4-28), there is uncertainty regarding the specific nature of the construction and operational activities that would be facilitated under implementation of the Project. It cannot be definitively known or stated at this time what level of emissions reductions future development projects occurring under implementation of the Project would achieve. While the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 and MM 4.1-2 would reduce GHG emissions, it cannot be definitively known or stated at this time if future emissions in the City would be reduced to levels that are below applicable thresholds. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of applicable regulatory requirements and policies that have been incorporated with the intent of reducing GHG emissions and the incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.1-1 and MM 4.1-2.

165-14 The commenter alleges that the City failed to study the intersection at peak hours to determine the ability of first responders/emergency access and response time. The comment is incorrect the intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in March 2022. The 2022 weekday AM and PM peak hour count data is representative of typical weekday peak hour traffic conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic



conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity or detour routes and nearby schools were in session and operating on normal schedules. Furthermore, impacts related to public services (police and fire) were fully analyzed in the Draft PEIR Section 4.7. Please refer also to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access.

165-15 The commenter expresses concern on the development of housing nearby equestrian center and safety impacts to the horses due to the increase in traffic. Refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on safety concerns.

165-16 The commenter recites Public Resource Code Section 201099 (b)(3) and (4) and incorrectly states the Draft PEIR analysis of air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and safety are fatally detective. The City disagrees with the comment; the Draft PEIR provided a comprehensive analysis of air quality, greenhouse gas and noise with supporting technical reports. Refer to response to Comment 165-13.

165-17 The commenter continues to incorrectly state that the Draft PEIR is inadequate in regards to traffic and safety. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project, for details regarding the adequacy of the Draft PEIR.

165-18 The commenter alleges that the recommendation for adding a traffic signal and removing a four-way stop at the intersection of Buena Vista and Lakeview endangers horse traffic. Refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on safety concerns.

165-19 The commenter incorrectly states the air quality, GHG, and noise impacts are flawed and inaccurate. Refer to response to Comment 165-13.

165-20 The commenter requests removal of these three sites from the Project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 166

From: SHARLENE DUNN <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 2:52 PMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: Rezoning Kellogg and Grandview property

I have already sent one response and would like to add another reason for not rezoning. Our very active church uses this intersection most of the week in addition to Sundays. Traffic will be a nightmare!

SincerelySharlene Dunn6071 Saddletree lane

Sharlene

166-1




Sharelene Dunn, dated July 13, 2022

166-1 The commenter expresses opposition to housing opportunity site S4-053 due to the active church usage of this intersection and traffic concerns. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for a discussion on traffic congestion. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 167

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 8:01 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Re: housing element / upzoning

Also, your Energy Analysis is flawed because the Project is defined as the 2021-2029 housing elementsites in yorba linda, but YL doesn't have its own electric, gas, water company.

To view the YL development in isolation and say it has no impact, ignores the fact that all cities served bySCE, for example, are running the same analysis and "isolating" the impact to just their city, but SCEserves all these cities.

your analysis should take into account the implementation of ALL of these Projects that are served bySCE. YL residents will definitely feel the impact of no electricity as we do now, as more of these Projectscome on line, even with the use of solar panels and energy efficient appliances. same for the gas andwater companies. If there is so much water available, why the constant drought conditions, water userestrictions, increases in water rates.

-----Original Message-----From: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>To: [email protected] <[email protected]>Sent: Thu, Jul 7, 2022 8:17 amSubject: RE: housing element / upzoning

Thank you for your comments. The City will be preparing a response to all comments received at theconclusion of the 45-day public review period for the draft PEIR. We are also forwarding all comments tothe City's Planning Commission, which will be conducting a public hearing on this on July 27, 2022, at6:30 pm in the City Council Chambers. For more information, please refer to the agenda for this meeting:https://pub-yorbalinda.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=f658cc3a-fdda-492f-9c38-55804737d3e0&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English. In the meantime, we would invite you to visit the City’sHousing Element website for more information: https://www.ylhousingelementupdate.com/.

Sincerely,


167-1

167-2



To: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: housing element / upzoning

I'm reading the HCD 9.15.20 memo on the HAA. You are allowed to deny a housing development basedon public health and safety concerns - fire risk, evacuation, lack of water, lack of electricity, environmentalhazards. Has your office considered all of these concerns that have been raised at public meetings? itdoesn't appear so.

Specifically, the Bryant Ranch site is sandwiched between a RR track, highway, gas station. All adjacentuses that are discouraged for affordable housing. The bryant ranch site is located within 100' for a RRtrack, which would negate eligibility from HUD financing

Under the Housing Accountability Act, if a housing development project is consistent with localplanning rules, can it be denied or conditioned on a density reduction?

Yes. However, a local government may deny a housing development that is consistent with local planningrules, or condition it on reduction in density, only under very specific circumstances. (Gov. Code, §65589.5, subds. (j)(1)(A), (B).) The local government must make written findings based on apreponderance of the evidence that both: (1) The housing development project would have a specific,adverse impact upon public health or safety unless disapproved or approved at a lower density; and (2)There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact. (See definition of and specificrequirements for finding of “specific, adverse impact” discussed below.)

Under the Housing Accountability Act, can a housing development project affordable to very low-,low-, or moderate-income households (including farmworker housing) or emergency shelter thatis inconsistent with local planning requirements be denied or conditioned in a manner thatrenders it infeasible for the use proposed?

Yes, but only under specific circumstances. The local government must make written findings based on apreponderance of the evidence as to specific criteria. However, inconsistency with zoning does not justifydenial or conditioning if the project is consistent with the general plan. (See Page 11 for more details).See also Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(1)-(5).)

Is there a definition for “specific, adverse impact” upon public health and safety?

Yes. The HAA provides that a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, andunavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, orconditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with thezoning ordinance or general plan land use designation is not such a specific, adverse impact upon thepublic health or safety. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(2) and (j)(1)(A).)

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 12:54 PM

167-3

167-4

167-5

167-6

167-7




Czech Designs, dated July 14, 2022

167-1 The commenter notes the Energy Analysis in the Draft PEIR is flawed because the City does not have its own electric, gas, water company. This comment does not provide an evidentiary basis for alleging that the energy analysis is flawed. As described in the Draft PEIR, Southern California Edison provides electricity services to the City and the City is within the service area of Southern California Gas Company. Water services to the City is provided by the Yorba Linda Water District. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District (refer to Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR), impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and according to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project. No further response is required.

167-2 The commenter disagrees with the impact conclusions of the Energy Analysis and states that the analysis ignores all cities served by SCE. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-31), SCE and SoCalGas would update existing facilities or add new facilities in the City based upon specific requests for service from end users. Future developments that require new infrastructure would be required to pay any applicable fees assessed by SCE and SoCalGas necessary to accommodate the specific project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District, the Yorba Linda Water District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. As presented in Section 7.3, Water Service Reliability Assessment, of the YLWD 2020 UWMP, YLWD has forecasted water demand and supply for a normal year, single dry year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. As shown therein, even with a conservative demand increase of 6% each year for five consecutive years, YLWD is capable of meeting all customers’ demands from 2025 through 2045, with significant reserves held by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) and water use efficiency measures.

167-3 The commenter cites the HCD memo and notes the ability to deny a housing development based on concerns with fire risk, evacuation, lack of water, lack of electricity, and environmental hazards. The commenter asks if these concerns have been raised at public meetings. Wildfire and utilities and service systems impacts have been raised by the public as



documented within this Final PEIR; these impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.11 and 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively.

167-4 The commenter notes that housing opportunity site S7-001 is located between a railroad track, highway, and gas station and states that these uses are discouraged for affordable housing. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

167-5 The commenter cites text from Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions of the Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory regarding the Housing Accountability Act. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

167-6 The commenter text from Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions of the Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory related the Housing Accountability Act and approval of affordable housing. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

167-7 The commenter text from Appendix A: Frequently Asked Questions of the Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory regarding the definition of “specific, adverse impact” upon public health and safety. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 168

From: Elaine Armogida <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 4:56:38 PMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: [Ylheu] Website Public Comments - new submission

Elaine Armogida just submitted your form: Website Public Commentson Ylheu

Message Details:

First Name: Elaine

Last Name: Armogida

Email: [email protected]

Message: I really pray they do not put anything in the ranch shopping

center out on Lapalma. The east end is a high fire zone and when

there’s a fire it is very difficult to get out on Lapalma. Being that there is

only one way in and one way out that would cause a major amount of

traffic in a very dangerous situation for all of the homeowners that are

further down from that location closer to Camino de Bryant. I think it

would be a very scary move on the city to do this to all the residents in

this area.

168-1




Elaine Armogida, dated July 14, 2022

168-1 The commenter expresses opposition to housing opportunity site S7-001 and raises general concerns regarding fire evacuation. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for a discussion related to fire evacuation. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 169

From: Janice Corbin Taylor <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 8:48 PMTo: AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>Subject: rezone proposals

To The Yorba Linda Planning Commission and the Yorba Linda City Council

My name is Janice Taylor and I live at 5430 Mesita Way. I wanted to share concerns I have for the proposed rezoning of S-3207 5300-5392 Richfield 340 unitsand S-3012 Richfield Community Church 55 units

I moved to Yorba Linda with my late husband and our 2 young boys in 1986. I have seen manychanges but felt that the city continued with the spirit of wanting to maintain "gracious living" Unfortunately this has not been the case in recent years.

When Richfield was going to be widened and a street light placed at the intersection of Buena Vistaand Richfield I went to the planning meeting and expressed concern about not being able.to turn leftonto Richfield to shop in my city. I requested that a keep clear area be made between Colina andOlive Tree Circle so we could still turn out if cars were stopped for a red light.. My request wasapproved, but to my disappointment I received a call from the city engineer telling me that he didnot feel it was necessary and that people to not like the keep clear areas. That being said now with the widening of Richfield and the traffic light there is speeding trying to make a green lightthat makes is hard to pull onto Richfield. There have been accidents at that intersection and on Buena Vista between Richfield and Lakeviewbecause of speed and disregard of road laws.

Proposing to add approximately 400 homes in this 2 block area seems to be the opposite of"gracious living" Taking proposed sites off the list before the end of the residents opportunity to speak on the issueseems illegal. (Grandview) You can and should do better. Clustering this many homes into a small area where the city isunable to manage the current traffic flow in a safe manner is irresponsible.

This is a difficult project and is state mandated but if the proposed densities do not come down inthis area I will have no choice but to vote against and do my best to defeat the proposed densityincreases via Measure B.

Janice TaylorTTFN Janice

169-

169-2

169-3

169-1

169-4




Janice Taylor, dated July 14, 2022

169-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the comment letter; thus, no further response is required.

169-2 The commenter discusses previous requests for roadway improvements between Colina and Olive Tree Circle and mentions existing traffic conditions on Richfield, Buena Vista, and Lakeview. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

169-3 The commenter states the addition of 400 homes in a two block area is the opposite of gracious living. The commenter notes that the City is unable to manage the current traffic flow. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

169-4 The commenter states that if the proposed densities do not come down for housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012, the commenter will vote against Measure B. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 170

From: Lisa Kulovitz-Joca <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 8:29 PMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: homeowner comment in regards to Draft program Environmental impact report


I am a homeowner on Newbury Lane in Yorba Linda. S3-074, S3-103, and S3-205A will directlyimpact my neighborhood and my small street to which we drive on to get into our 15 homecommunity on Newbury lane. Adding an additional large volume of homes and buildings willdrastically impact not only the safety of our neighborhood and community but add additionalvolumes of traffic along this small street. We only have one road, Highland Ave that takes us intoour community, and it is already a small, tight road along Highland ave. We already have many carsnot only driving daily on this road but parking along the sides that make it narrow and tight alreadyto drive on. Adding more homes will greatly impact the traffic and commute to our homes here onNewbury. There are plenty of other areas in YL that could be used for these homes, please do notadd any homes or any additional buildings in these zoned areas!

Thank you so much for the consideration.

Lisa JocaResident: 5293 Newbury Lane Yorba Linda Ca 92886

170-1




Lisa Joca, dated July 14, 2022

170-1 The commenter expresses general concerns with traffic and safety for housing opportunity sites S3-074, S3-103, and S3-205A. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety for a discussion on traffic and safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 171

To: From:

Subject: Date:

Yorba Linda City Council, Planning CommissionMargaret Thurston 3790 Forest Glen Rd. YL Response to DPEIR July 14, 2022

Dear Yorba Linda City Council/Planning Commission,

My response references various pages from the DPEIR along with the following attachments: Attachment A: Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code

Section 65583.2 Attachment C: CEQA: PROGRAM VS. PROJECT EIR Attachment E: Exhibit LU-1 Land Use Map

My comments and questions are specific to S5-008, the physical, structural, and nonexistent resource suitability of the site, the assumption of 'less than significant' impacts, and the density calculations as shown in the DPEIR.

Thankfully, on July 13th, lawmakers granted a three-year reprieve to 191 jurisdictions in the region to complete planning to meet state housing goals. Under the new provisions, SCAG jurisdictions now have until February 2025 to complete the rezoning.

Hopefully this 3-year extension will permit Yorba Linda to slow down, perform necessary survey/reports and fully evaluate the results before rezoning the wildlife/riparian corridor site S5-008 for residential housing.

Respectfully,

Margaret Thurston

171-1



ZONING. DPEIR pgs. 77, 349

S5‐008 is a split zoned lot.

S5‐008 zoning in the DPEIR shows PD/Church as current with proposed rezoning action as ‘Amend YL Hills PD’…yet there is no further information on the ‘Amendment’.

Does this loophole allow ANY rezoning beyond RM‐10?

What is the exact text of the ‘Amendment’?

ANSWER?

The DPEIR confirms the current general plan as RM/OS and being proposed as RH/OS.

Site S5‐008 is Currently zoned as PD/Church & RM/OS in the Yorba Linda General Plan and being proposed as RH/OS….the OS portion is NOT changing.

This split zoning is clear on the YL General Plan Map. (Attachment E)

OS does not allow for residential units.

Since OS does not allow any residential units, it cannot be used to calculate the 230 unit density for the RM portion of the lot as the DPEIR reflects.

171-2

171-3



DPEIR Page 4.11-9

Impact Analysis

Mitigation of Significant Impact on S5‐008 not possible. Throughout the DPEIR there are warnings and alerts about 2 specific sites: S5‐008 & S7‐005.

4.11.6 IMPACT ANALYSIS As shown in Figure 4.11-1, Fire Hazards Severity Zones within the City, the northeastern portion of the City is located within a Very High FHSZ within a LRA. The majority of the opportunity sites that would be re-zoned as part of this Project are not within a FHSZ. Among the 27 housing opportunity sites, there are only two sites (S7-005 and S5-008) that are located within a Very High FHSZ.

Future projects would be subject to an environmental review process and federal, state, and local regulations that support emergency response and evacuation plans and would be required to mitigate for fire-related impacts. Moreover, future developments would be required to comply with goals and policies of the City’s General Plan and mitigation measure PS-2 from the City’s General Plan EIR. However, the increase in dwelling units for opportunity sites S7-005 and S5-008, which are located within a Very High FHSZ could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City of Yorba Linda or Orange County’s emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, Project related impacts would be potentially significant.

Development within or adjacent to areas designated as Very High FHSZ has the potential to exacerbate wildfire risk, particularly if it occurs in areas with steep topography and/or prevailing winds as these conditions contribute to the spread of wildfires. Among the housing opportunity sites, there are two sites (S7-005 and S5-008) that are located within a Very High FHSZ.

However, the increase in dwelling units for sites located within a Very High FHSZ could potentially impact wildfire risk and pollutant exposure. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant.

DPEIR PG. 27

As stated above in the 4.11.6 IMPACT ANALYSIS, Very High FHSZ areas, Mitigation of wildfire risk is not possible; Potentially Significant Impact will remain for Wildfire Risk & Pollutant Exposure.

Since mitigation is NOT possible, why does the DPEIR table 4.11 WILDFIRE (pgs 27-28) state that after another analysis the Impact is ‘less than significant’? Answer?

171-4



DPEIR PG. 29

The DPEIR risk mitigation addresses the infrastructure and flooding caused by potential structures.

This information is based on sites OTHER than S5-008: S5-008 does NOT have any infrastructure in place, so how can the impact be known?

S5-008 is a clear OUTLIER and Must be handled independent of the sites that satisfy inventory infrastructure and hazard requirements.

How can the DPEIR conclude current ‘Less than Significant Impact’ before any mitigation efforts AND that NO MITIGATION is required when S5-008 has ZERO infrastructure? Answer?

171-5



S5-008 Buildable Acreage

Page 4.11-9

The Engineering survey has been performed. The slopes, landslides, fault lines etc. conclude the buildable area is far less than the 9 acres asserted in the Element.

The Engineering Map titled ‘Usable Land Study’ for Lot 93 Tract 11969 shows the actual buildable area on S5‐008 is 2.55 acres.

171-6



DPEIR Page 3-10

Both S5‐008 & S7‐005 are proposed for RM‐10 zoning. The Engineering Map titled ‘Usable Land Study’ on Lot 93 Tract 11969 shows the actual buildable area on S5‐008 is 2.55 acres. S7‐005 has a realistic Unit potential of 10 units over 3 acres, or 3.3 units per acre. S5‐008 has a realistic Unit potential of 196 over 2.55 acres, or 78.8 units per acre!

The above information demonstrates that S5‐008 represents an OUTLIER with the application of the methodology used to identify inventory sites. Based on the consistency with the development requirements of the YL Element inventory site S5‐008 should have been removed, or, at the very least, calculated accurately for RM‐10 over 2.55 acres.

Will YL Planning Commission remove Very High Wildfire Risk Sites from the Inventory? Will YL PC update FHSZ S5‐008 matching S7‐005 density and change the realistic Unit potential to 10? Answers?

171-7



Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code Section 65583.2

(Attachment A, pg 5‐10)

S5‐008 is not suitable as a developable Inventory site.

According to the Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code Section 65583.2, there are 5 types of sites that could be identified as developable for the Housing Element. When a site is identified it passes through to the ‘next step’.

Site S5‐008, currently PD/OS, would fall into the ‘type of site’ listed last, passing Step 1.:

Step 1: Identification of Developable Sites, Government Code section 65583.2(a)

Types of sites include: •Vacant sites zoned for residential use.•Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development.•Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density (nonvacantsites, including underutilized sites).•Sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.•Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use and a programis included to rezone the site to permit residential use.

Step 2 instructs on the information needed for each site in the inventory, S5‐008 passes Step 2.

Site 05‐008 does NOT pass Step 3:

Step 3: Infrastructure Availability

Government Code section 65583.2(b)(5)(B)

Determine if parcels included in the inventory, including any parcels identified for rezoning, have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities available and accessible to support housing development or whether they are included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a public or private entity to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to support housing development on the site in time to make housing development realistic during the planning period. Dry utilities include, at minimum, a reliable energy source that supports full functionality of the home and could also include access to natural gas, telephone and/or cellular service, cable or satellite television systems, and internet or Wi‐Fi service.

If No: Include a program in the housing element that ensures access and availability to infrastructure to accommodate development within the planning period. If this is not possible, the site is not suitable for inclusion in the site inventory or in a program of action identifying a site for rezoning.

Site S5‐008 Does NOT have any utilities required to support housing; the ‘If No’ step applies.

171-8

171-9



The ‘If No’ step requires the Element include a Program that ensures access to infrastructure necessary to accommodate the housing development. There is NO Program present in the 2021‐2029 Element. S5‐008 is out of compliance with the lack of this program and is, therefore, NOT suitable for inclusion in the Site Inventory per Government Code Section 65583.2.

Does Yorba Linda have a program written for adding the infrastructure to Site S5‐008? Not an instruction for a plan down the road, but an actual plan as required per Government Code?

ANSWER?

Site S5‐008 does NOT have any of the following infrastructure or resources:

EXISTING ROADS EXISTING FIRE SAFTEY ROADS EXISTING ELECTRICITY EXISTING WATER SUPPY EXISTING WASTEWATER EXISTING SEWER EXISTING NATURAL GAS EXISTING JOB CENTER EXISTING MASS TRANSIT

Site S5‐008 does NOT pass Step 7:

Step 7: Environmental Constraints Government Code section 65583.2(b)(4)

Provide in the analysis a general description of any known environmental or other features (e.g., presence of floodplains, protected wetlands, oak tree preserves, very high fire hazard severity zones) that have the potential to impact the development viability of the identified sites. The housing element need only describe those environmental constraints where documentation of such conditions is available to the local government. This analysis must demonstrate that the existence of these features will not preclude development of the sites identified in the planning period at the projected residential densities/capacities. This information need not be identified on a site‐specific basis.

Although Step 7 does not require the environmental constraint analysis be done on a site‐specific basis, it Does require that the analysis must demonstrate that these constraints/hazards will not prevent the development of the units identified in the Element. Constraints present on Site S5‐008 include:

VERY HIGH FIRE ZONE EARTHQUAKE FAULT LINE NATURAL GAS LINE

171-9(CONT.)

171-10



SEVERE LANDSLIDE EXTREME SLOPES PROTECTED URBAN WILDLIFE NATURAL HABITAT PROTECTED SPECIES

The DPEIR does not contain an analysis demonstrating that these constraints will not prevent the development of 230 units. Stating that a report will be done down the road is out of compliance.

Where is the analysis showing these environmental constraints will not prevent 230 units from being built as identified in the Element? Answer?

Step 7 (attachment A), continued: Step 7, Part C: Capacity Analysis. (HE Guidebook pg. 19) S5‐008 does NOT pass part C, step 2, Last factor:

Step 2: Utilizing factors to calculate realistic capacity of sites Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2) The housing element must describe the methodology used to determine the number of units calculated based on the following factors: • Land use controls and site improvements requirements,• *NEW* The realistic development capacity for the site,• *NEW* Typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similaraffordability level in that jurisdiction,• *NEW* The current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dryutilities.

Neither the DPEIR or Housing Element include the plan to identify the volume of resources required for the 230 ‘dwellings’ nor the plan to construct the accessibility of sufficient water, sewer and dry utilities. Inferring a plan will be done down the road is out of compliance.

Where is the analysis of the resources that will be required and the plan to construct accessibility to these resources? Answer?

171-10(CONT.)

171-11



Step 7, continued. Site S5‐008 does NOT pass Step 7, part C

Step 7, Part C: Capacity Analysis. (HE Guidebook pg. 20)

There is No methodology stated in the DPEIR as to how S5‐008 results in 230 Housing Units, however, the 2021‐2029 Element shows undevelopable acreage was used in the calculation of 230.

171-12



The HE Guidebook is clear: ‘The jurisdiction start with the gross acreage and adjust buildable acreage accordingly to reach net buildable acreage.’ An example is provided on page 22:

The civil engineering report on page 3 indicates 2.55 acres ONLY are buildable. The 14 acres of S5‐008 OS is UNBUILDABLE and should be removed from the NET acres.

Will YL PC update the Element to reflect the CORRECT buildable acreage? Will YL correct the calculation of S5‐008 to comply with the HE Guidelines? Answer?

The HE Site Inventory Guidebook pg. 35 shows how the Housing Accountability Act affects the Housing Element.

It includes the requirements for NOT approving a development. S5‐008 does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve any development and should not be included in the inventory.

171-12(CONT.)

171-13



Site S5‐008 is unsuitable for inclusion in the YL 2021‐2029 Housing Element.

(Attachment A, pg 20) Portions of GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65583.2 that site S5‐008 does not comply with: …“land suitable for residential development” includes all of the sites that meet the following standards set forth in subdivisions (c) and (g):

(1) Vacant sites zoned for residential use.(2) Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows residential development.

S5‐008 is not zoned residential and should not be included

(4) Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which thehousing element includes a program to rezone the site, as necessary, rezoned for, to permit residentialuse, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.

S5‐008 is being proposed for rezoning while ignoring the Very High Fire/Landslide/Earthquake hazards, natural habitat protection and the Non‐existence of ANY and all resources required.

(5) (A) A description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including theavailability and access to distribution facilities.(B) Parcels included in the inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supplyavailable and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general planprogram or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a public or private entityproviding water or sewer service, to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to supporthousing development.

S5‐008 does NOT have any existing water, sewer, or dry utilities. There is NO program in the Element describing access to any of these utilities.

(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as necessary, based onthe land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a)of Section 65583, the realistic development capacity for the site, typical densities of existing orapproved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on thecurrent or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

S5‐008 was calculated without adjusting for non‐buildable acreage. S5‐008 does NOT have any planned availability of sufficient water, sewer and dry utilities. Again, the HE Inventory Guidebook are clear that net buildable acreage be reduced by undevelopable acreage before calculation:

171-13(CONT.)



As supported by GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65583.2 S5‐008 does not qualify as ‘suitable for residential development’ because:

o not currently zoned for residential.o proposed for rezoning while ignoring the Very High Fire/Landslide/Earthquake hazards,

natural habitat protection.o proposed for rezoning while ignoring the Non‐existence of all resources required.o NO existing water, sewer, or dry utilities.o NO program in the Element describing access to any of these utilities.o S5‐008 units calculated without adjusting for non‐buildable acreage. Net‐buildable

acreage should be reduced by undevelopable acreage before calculation

Will YL seek an alternative site based on the list of hazards, absence of infrastructure, absence of resources and incorrect calculation of potential and realistic units? Answer?

171-13(CONT.)



DPEIR Table 1‐1: Summary of Environmental Impacts (16 CATEGORIES), Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation.

The categories cover a broad policy of the planning document that apply to most sites. S5‐008 is specifically listed under BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES and indicate a Potentially Significant Impact to the natural habitat and wildlife. To ‘mitigate’, or offset the potential adverse environmental consequences of development, the DPEIR fails to address potential site‐specific impacts of the individual project and provide solutions based on actual reports. The Table simply indicates ‘next steps’ when mitigation is NOT possible:

MM 4.2‐1 Perform an environmental survey; If impact is still significant, move to MM 4.2‐2 MM 4.2‐2 Biologist to Perform a report identifying species affected & move to MM 4.2‐3 MM 4.2‐3 If mitigation is not feasible, move to MM 4.2‐4 MM 4.2‐4 Evaluate relocation of impacted species. If not feasible, move to MM 4.2‐5 MM 4.2‐5 A Qualified Biologist will assess the value of all impacted species possibly resulting in one

of more of the following: 1) compensation for lost habitat or waters in the form of preservation or creation of

in‐kind habitat or waters, either onsite or offsite, protected by conservationeasement; and

2) purchase of appropriate credits from an approved mitigation bank servicing theYorba Linda area; and

3) payment of in‐lieu fees.

The Yorba Linda DPEIR ‘mitigation’ table identifies inventory sites with Potentially Significant Impacts, then adds a few steps resulting in Payment in exchange for significantly damaging our environment! The Yorba Linda Planning Commission is treating this as a ‘Program’; a broad overview of the project when what is Required here is a Report that must contain detailed information on the potential effects, measures to mitigate those effects, and an analysis of alternatives to the project. The purpose is not to ‘kick the can down the road’ to the unsuspecting developers.

Will YL Planning Commission conduct the Mitigation process in a transparent manner making clear to the residents of YL the process of ‘compensation’ instead of protecting urban/wildlife areas? Answer?

171-14



PEIR LEVEL OF MITIGATION

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) generally requires state and local government agencies, including the Commission, to inform decision makers and the public about the potentially significant environmental effects of a proposed project, ways to minimize those environmental effects, and to indicate alternatives to the project. If the project may cause adverse environmental effects, the Commission will prepare a more detailed informational document called an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). An EIR contains detailed information on potential effects, measures to mitigate those effects, and an analysis of alternatives to the project.

The Yorba Linda Draft PEIR is titled: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, not Project.

The California Appellate Court (Attachment C) ruled that the project determines the level of specificity required within the EIR, not the name. The court explained a project‐level EIR generally focuses on the environmental changes caused by a development project, including planning, construction, and operation. A program EIR, on the other hand, generally looks at the broad policy of a planning document, i.e., a general plan, and may not address potential site‐specific impacts of the individual projects that may fall within the planning document. The court emphasized, however, that the project determines the level of specificity required within the EIR, not the name, as all EIRs must include the same general content. Because the EIR covered all of the CEQA required elements based on the project at hand, the court found the name to be inconsequential. (doc. Calif Appellate Court, attachment C)

In the Yorba Linda Draft PEIR, acronyms and abbreviations: PEIR: Program Environmental Impact Report Project: Yorba Linda 2021‐2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs

While the title may be Program, the Project is the 2021‐2029 Housing Element Implementation Program. The purpose of the report is to provide a general broad policy of the planning document. However, S5‐008 is wholly unique and requires a report detailing potential site‐specific impacts to continue to be included in the inventory with the density of 230 Housing Units.

Site S5‐008 contains ALL the warned hazards and NONE of the infrastructure and resources the inventory requires.

Will the YL Planning Commission conduct a site‐specific EIR on S5‐008 to permit residents and developers access to realistic zoning changes and the environmental costs associated? Answer?

171-15



DPEIR pg. 215 cites amending the zoning of YL Hills PD from Church to RM allowing 230 sites. Amending zoning from non‐residential to residential REQUIRES the approval of the residents of Yorba Linda, Right‐to‐Vote aka Measure B. There is nothing mentioned about YL Right‐to‐Vote with this amendment.

Why is this amendment written into the DPEIR sidestepping YL’s Right‐to‐Vote? ANSWER?

171-16



YORBA LINDA RIGHT‐TO‐VOTE AMENDMENT

DPEIR PAGE 2‐2:

The DPEIR confirms the Right‐to‐Vote amendment types covered. Voter approval is REQUIRED to Rezone S5‐008 per Yorba Linda Municipal code 18.01.030

Top split portion: Current OS to remain OS.

Bottom split portion: Church / RM (3) to RM‐10. The bottom portion, 11.5 acres, would calculate to allow potential 34 units, realistic 29 units; rezoning to RM‐10 would allow 115 units, realistic 98 however as only 2.55 acres are buildable, the result would be 38 per acre triggering Measure B.

DPEIR pg. 83: Program 14 specifically overrides Chapter 18.01 YORBA LINDA RIGHT‐TO‐VOTE AMENDMENT “by providing City Council with explicit authority to rezone…without further ballot initiative.”

Why is the DPEIR confirming the intent to Disregard the Yorba Linda Right‐to‐Vote Measure B? ANSWER?

171-17



MISLEADING/FALSE INFORMATION

The DPEIR is based on the Project 2021‐2029 Element that is filled with misleading or false information regarding S5‐008.

A clear example of the Housing Element Survey reviews on pgs. 16‐17 with highest priority resident concerns and City response in ():

The following were identified as the top three housing priorities (out of 6):

‐ Encouraging the maintenance and rehabilitation of housing in older neighborhoods (Addressed in the following HE Programs: Residential Rehabilitation, Community Preservation and Abatement, Multi‐family Acquisition and Improvement)

‐ Establishing special needs housing for seniors, persons with disabilities and veterans (Addressed in the following HE Programs: Affordable Housing Overlay, Zoning Text Amendments for Special Needs, Housing Opportunities for Persons Living with Disabilities)

‐ Focusing new housing within existing developed areas and/or cluster/compact housing in order to preserve surrounding open space (The HE sites inventory focuses exclusively in infill areas)

One of the TOP 3 concerns from the residents of Yorba Linda is PRESERVING OPEN SPACE. The response from YL states that site inventory is EXCLUSIVELY IN INFILL AREAS! S5‐008 is NOT and infill areas; it is Vacant Open Space! Either the response to the resident concern is false, or S5‐008 was mistakenly added.

False statement DPEIR Pg III‐30:

Will YL remove S5‐008 from the Inventory as it does NOT comply with the Inventory attributes of Existing Resources? Will YL remove S5‐008 from the Inventory as it is NOT an infill area? Will YL correct the false statements throughout the DPEIR taken from the Element regarding S5-008?Answers?

171-18




Margaret Thurston, dated July 14, 2022

171-1 The commenter notes the following comments and questions are specific to housing opportunity site S5-008, the physical, structural, and nonexistent resource suitability of the site, the assumption of ‘less than significant’ impacts, and the density calculations in the Draft PEIR. The commenter notes that on July 13, lawmakers granted a three-year reprieve to 191 jurisdictions in the region to complete planning to meet state housing goals. Under the new provisions, SCAG jurisdictions now have until February 2025 to complete the rezoning. This comment is noted. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the letter; thus, no further response is required.

171-2 The commenter inquires about the proposed zoning action for housing opportunity site S5-008 which is “Amend Yorba Hills PD”. As shown in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR, Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning, has been modified and the proposed zoning action for S5-008 is now modified to “Amend Yorba Linda Hills PD to PD with RM standards.” The text of the amendments were provided in that Staff Report Attachments for the Planning Commission Hearing on June 29, 2022.

171-3 The commenter notes the proposed general plan land use designation as RH/OS. The commenter states that OS zone does not allow any residential units. The commenter states it cannot be used to calculate the 230-unit density for the RM portion of the lot. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

171-4 The commenter asks why the impacts conclusions for wildfire are less than significant and states that mitigation of wildfire risk is not possible. The commenter is incorrect; impacts to wildfire were determined to be potentially significant and mitigation measures were imposed. The commenter is also incorrect in stated that mitigation is not possible.

As stated in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-6 and 4.11-15), the increase in dwelling units for sites located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) could potentially impact wildfire risk and pollutant exposure and impacts would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.11-2 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to wildland fire hazards be mitigate through the installation of fire systems, fire-resistant landscaping and appropriate defensible space around structures, and water availability to serve to the Project site. With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, and EIR mitigation measure PS-1 through PS-3, the Project’s potential impacts to exacerbate wildfire risk would be reduced to less than significant.

171-5 The commenter inquires about the impact conclusions for threshold c and threshold d of the Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR. As stated in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-7 to 4.11-10), compliance with regulatory requirements would result in less than significant impacts. The need for installation and maintenance of new infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water resources, power lines, or other utilities) for future



development projects would be evaluated as part of the discretionary permit review process. Future development would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinances for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. For example, site plans would be submitted to OCFA to ensure compliance with Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) standard conditions, including access to and around structures. Compliance with OCFA and CFC requirements would ensure adequate emergency access. No further response is required.

171-6 The commenter highlights housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a landslide zone and that an engineering survey has been performed which concludes that the actual buildable area on housing opportunity site S5-008 is 2.55 acres. Future development pursuant to the Project would be required to have a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted at the time the development is proposed. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

171-7 The commenter refers to the realistic unit potential for housing opportunity site S5-008 and S7-005 and uses the attached usable land study to calculate the units. The commenter asks whether sites within a VHFHZ will be removed and if the density of housing opportunity site S5-008 will be updated based on their calculation. Refer to Response to Comment 171-5 and 171-6. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

171-8 The commenter references the Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code Section 65583.2, which are located in Attachment F, Commenter’s Attachment, of this Final PEIR. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

171-9 The commenter provides reasons why housing opportunity site S5-008 is not a developable inventory site. The commenter asks about a City program for adding infrastructure pertaining to Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(5)(B). The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

171-10 The commenter mentions the lack of existing infrastructure/resources for housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter incorrectly states that the Draft PEIR does not contain an environmental analysis specific to housing opportunity site S5-008. Please refer to response to Comments 110-2 through 110-5. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



171-11 The commenter states that the Housing Element does not include a plan to identify the volume of resources required for housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter asks about the analysis of the resources that will be required and the plan to construct accessibility to the resources for housing opportunity site S5-008. Refer to response to Comment 110-3. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

171-12 The commenter states there is no methodology in the Draft PEIR to show how housing opportunity site S5-008 results in 230 housing units. The commenter refers to the civil engineering report attached and mentions only 2.55 acres are buildable. The commenter inquires if the housing element will be updated to reflect the correct buildable acreage. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

171-13 The commenter ask whether the City will find an alternative site to housing opportunity site S5-008 and claims that the site is unsuitable due to lack of infrastructure, hazards, and incorrect calculation of potential/realistic units. Please refer to response to Comments 110-2 through 110-5. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

171-14 The commenter asks about the mitigation measures for biological resources and notes that the Yorba Linda Planning Commission is treating the Project as a ‘Program”. The commenter states that a report is required which must contain detailed information on the potential effects of housing opportunity stie S5-008. The commenter asks whether the City will conduct the mitigation process in a transparent manner making clear to the residents of the City the process of ‘compensation’ instead of protecting urban/wildlife areas. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project. No further response is required.

171-15 The commenter states that the EIR for the Project is a Program EIR instead of a Project EIR. The commenter asks if the City will conduct a site-specific EIR on housing opportunity site S5-008 to permit residents and developers access to realistic zoning changes and the environmental costs associated. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15146, the Program EIR does not evaluate site-specific development and the program-level analysis corresponds with the degree of specificity that is currently available for the Project. No site-specific development at any of the 27 housing opportunities sites are currently proposed. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project, related to future CEQA review. No further response is required.

171-16 The commenter asks why is no mention of the Yorba Linda’s Right to Vote in the Draft PEIR when discussing the proposed zoning code amendments. Measure B is discussed in Page 2-2 of the Draft PEIR.

171-17 The commenter incorrectly states that the Draft PEIR confirms the intent to disregard the Yorba Linda Right-to-Vote Measure B and cites Program 14 of the Project. As stated in the Housing



Element for Program 14, the City recognizes the constraints of Measure B upon the provision of higher density and affordable housing related to development certainty, timing, and associated costs. As codified in Section 18.01.110 of the Zoning Code, any amendment to Measure B requires a ballot measure with majority voter approval; the City is therefore seeking to mitigate the constraints imposed by Measure B through several alternative methods. (1) Immediately upon adoption of the Housing Element in February 2022, the City will develop and adopt three new overlay zones (Affordable Housing Overlay, Congregational Land Overlay, and Commercial Mixed-Use Overlay) which provide modified development standards and ministerial approvals to facilitate affordable multi-family development (refer to Programs #9, #10, #11). (2) The City is pursuing rezoning through a Measure B election to designate 27 sites at densities appropriate to address the community’s lower and moderate income housing needs (refer to Program # 8). The City will initiate the Measure B election, conduct community outreach and education on the benefits of higher density housing, and pay for all costs associated with the ballot measure. (3) The City has adopted a specific plan for the Town Center which integrates a mix of housing types near both jobs and bus lines, and is seeking to expand high density and mixed use housing in Savi Ranch, the City’s major employment center, located adjacent to the 91 Freeway (the primary east/west connector from Riverside County through central Orange County) which will assist with the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to these actions, beginning in 2023 and in conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office, the City will evaluate various options to mitigate the constraints of Measure B by providing City Council with explicit authority to rezone to higher densities and approve affordable housing projects and comply with all requirements in State Housing Element law without further ballot initiative.

171-18 The commenter requests removal of housing opportunity site S5-008 as it does not comply with the inventory attributes of existing resources. The commenter incorrectly states that highlighted statement is from the Draft PEIR when the text is from page III-30 of the Housing Element. The Draft PEIR has discussed the environmental impacts of S5-008 throughout and incorporates mitigation measures required prior to development of the site.



Comment Letter 172

July 14, 2022 Dear City Council, Housing Element Project Team, and Planning Commission: RE: Opportunity Site S5-008 This is a follow-up to the letter submitted by P.Rodriguez on 6/29 in response the DPEIR for the 2021-2029 Housing Element regarding Opportunity Site S5-008 Fairmont Property. This letter is to request:

1. S5-008 receive its own EIR 2. S5-008 be re-evaluated whether it’s the right fit for high density housing 3. S5-008 RHNA allocation and zoning be reduced to what the site can actually support

based on buildable acreage We recognize that the city is in a tough spot with the Housing Element:

• We understand that Sacramento has made unrealistic demands on the city, and that failing to comply may have serious consequences.

• We are not opposed to the responsible, safe development of this property. • We are trying to work with the city and the planning department towards the best and

right outcome.

The planning department has all but acknowledged that getting a credit for 230/196 for this site benefited their ability to meet the RHNA quota.

• No one expects this site can support 230 units or even 196. 14 acres of the site is unbuildable Open Space, so it’s at most 9 acres. Usable Land Surveys show closer to 2.5 acres (see attached studies). At 10 units/acre, that would have to be a huge apartment building, which would violate RM-10 zoning. And this doesn’t consider the VHSFHZ requirements for ingress/egress, road/driveway widths, etc.

• At the 6/29 planning commission it was acknowledged and discussed that the buffer would be used for the no net loss finding that will undoubtedly have to be submitted for this development project (if unit potential is not made up from other sites). If this is already known, meaning the risk has materialized, is there another way to mitigate it by reducing the allocation and avoid having to use the buffer before a project has even started? Otherwise, you begin the program knowing a large percentage of the buffer is already gone.

• This site accounts for a large RHNA allocation, but the actual unit potential is overstated.

The DPEIR does not quantify the risks with developing that many units on a constrained property which is unlike any other in the Housing Element. The residents are concerned that long-term consequences are not being thought through.

172-1

172-2

172-3



Here are 3 examples:

• S5-008 is the largest parcel in the Housing Element (undeveloped with no infrastructure). It’s the only one in a Very High Severity Fire Hazard Zone (after the PC recommendation to remove S7-005). It’s a Wildland Urban Interface with Steep Slopes (not an infill site). It’s within the YLHPD Community with split zoning – RM & Open Space. It shares a border with Chino Hills State Park and habitat for endangered wildlife in the city’s Conservation Element. There is Hydrology, and Geology concerns. The list is expansive, and it sticks out like a sore thumb in the DPEIR (mentioned 37 times with 2x amount of CEQA topics as all other sites). The DPEIR underestimates the mitigations that will be required. This site needs a dedicated EIR.

• What if someone challenges the over-allocation? What are the impending buyer’s expectations and conditions for closing escrow? Could a developer sue the city or use the state laws (Density Bonus Laws and HAA) to demand exemptions or waivers and be allowed to build all 230 anyway? There’s no definitive answer to this.

• Those 230 units will be left on the YLHPD map as an unbuilt Area E allocation forever and could later be placed on any re-zoned property (with a Measure B). What is the longer-term impact to the YLHPD if unbuilt unit allocation remains on the books?

In conclusion, please take a closer look at this property and the requests made in this letter. Given the recent Feb 2025 extension1 to complete the zoning, there may be time for the city to slow down and take the necessary steps to properly evaluate all the concerns the public has been raising regarding S5-008. 1https://www.ocregister.com/2022/07/11/southern-california-cities-get-more-time-to-rezone-land-for-housing/ Regards, Paulina Rodriguez Gary Poage

172-4

172-5

172-6



FAULT ZONE




Paulina Rodriguez, dated July 14, 2022

172-1 The commenter notes the letter is a follow-up to the comment letter on June 29. The commenter requests housing opportunity site S5-008 to receive its own EIR, be re-evaluated whether it’s the right fit for high density housing, and be reduced to what the site can actually support based on buildable acreage. This comment is noted. Also, please refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project.

172-2 The commenter understands the State-mandated RHNA and is not opposed to responsible, safe development of housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter notes working with the City to produce the best outcome. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

172-3 The commenter expresses concerns regarding RHNA allocation and units for housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter incorrectly states that the Draft PEIR does not quantify the risks with developing the unit potential for housing opportunity site S5-008. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project. No further response is required.

172-4 The commenter expresses concern with the environmental constraints for housing opportunity site S5-008 and states a dedicated EIR is required. Refer to Response to Comment 100-2 to 100-10 for environmental concern raised. No further response is required.

172-5 The commenter inquires about the allocation of units, impending buyer’s expectations and conditions for closing escrow, use of state laws (Density Bonus Laws and HAA) to demand exemptions or waivers to build 230 units. The commenter inquires about the long-term impact if unbuilt unit allocation remains on the books. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

172-6 The commenter requests a closer look at housing opportunity site S5-008 and mentions the February 2025 extension to complete the rezoning for housing. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 173

From: Dana Gigliotti <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 7:57:43 PMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: YORBA LINDA GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT CONCERNS

To Whom It May Concern,

It is with great concern that I write this email. I have been speaking with many of our friendsand neighbors concerning Yorba Linda's General Housing Element and we are all deeply concerned about this plan. I am a retired police officer and my wife is a teacher in the PYLUSD and we have a vested interest in what happens to and in our town. My family and I have resided in the Bryant Ranch area since 1998 and my wife has lived in Yorba Linda since 1982. My wife's grandparents moved to Yorba Linda in 1959 and lived here until their passing in 2015. I provide this information for context...we are true Yorba Lindans! We support many of the decision made for our city because we understand that you have our best interest at heart; however, with this recent housing rezoning and element plans, it appears that you are not considering the safety and security of your citizenry, We live in the Brush Canyon areaand have been through a lot, including fires, mudslides and the like.

In 1998 we experience the Freeway Complex Fire, which engulfed our area and required that we quickly evacuate. During this evacuation process, La Palma Ave was closed down and we were required to exit the area the only other way out. This required our family to gather our pets, drive north on Camino De Bryant an turn west on Via De Toronto. Unfortunately for us, this route was packed with vehicles trying to escape. The flames were all around us and my family was scared for their lives. Without exaggeration, we all could have lost our lives. While the Freeway Complex Fire in 2008 wasn't as bad or harrowing, it did require a swift evacuation. Once, again, La Palma was packed with vehicles and made a safe evacuation extremely difficult.

East Yorba Linda seems to get the least consideration when it comes to beatification, policeresponse times and low density housing considerations. We already have an apartmentcomplex and numerous condominium complexes in our area and the thought of more is shocking. I am very familiar with the land you have marked as S7-005 and the idea that you want to place 30 units is baffling. We have bus stops right across the street and numerous children walk past that plot of land when returning home from Bryant Ranch. How on earth are these people expected to evacuate during the next fire? This has not been thought out.This is unsafe and unfair! Please reconsider this plan.

It appears by your plan (S7-001) that you are also considering tearing down our only shopping center and putting 320 units in its place. WHAT? Is this really being considered?This can not happen! It is dangerous! Throughout our many years of living in Yorba Linda I have seen many people move away for various reasons and we remained stedfast in our love for our city; however, if this is true and approved, I will be putting our house on the marked the following day. I say this not as a threat, because it does not affect you, I say this as fact. Please, please reconsider these plans. Consider fighting the State, paying fines, alternative plans... But please do not place our lives at risk by following though with this awful idea. Represent the people. NO ONE WANTS THIS!!!

RYAN GIGLIOTTIBrush Canyon Resident714-616-4042

173-1

173-2

173-3




Ryan Gigliotti, dated July 14, 2022

173-1 The commenter resides in the Bryant Ranch area and expresses general concerns with the Project. The commenter raises concerns with safety and security of the public and notes that they have been through fires and mudslides. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

173-2 The commenter recalls the Freeway Complex Fire and the evacuation process. The commenter notes housing opportunity site S7-005 and expresses concern with fire evacuation/emergency access with the site. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

173-3 The commenter expresses general opposition to housing opportunity site S7-001. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 174

From: BARBARA REINIG <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 2:20 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: High Density Housing

Nate,Please do not re-zone any area for high density housing… California already has water and electricity issues without adding to the problem.

Sincerely,

Barb Reinig

174-1




Barb Reinig, dated July 15, 2022

174-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project due to the State’s existing water and electricity issues. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 175

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:25 PMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: YL Housing Element

Mr. Farnsworth, YL Planning Commission, and YL City Council,I am opposed to the YL Housing Element that is currently under consideration.

The proposed development on North Fairmont is particularly inappropriate because itis adjacent to a State Park and out of character with the neighborhood.

I think that this plan has been poorly publicized to the residents of Yorba Linda, andthat most residents are unaware of this proposed major change to City development.

Please make sure that notices of further information or action on this topic are sentto my email address. Sincerely, Bob Kanne 35 year resident of Yorba Linda

175-1




Bob Kanne, dated July 15, 2022

175-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project, specifically housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter states the site is adjacent to a State Park and is out of character with the neighborhood. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 176

From: Chelsea Gutierrez <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:16:38 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Arlene Laviera <[email protected]>Subject: S7-001 Rezoning- Resident Concerns

Hello,

I am a current resident near the Bryant Ranch Shopping Center (S7-001). I have read and researchedall of the information sent out/posted and I have many concerns as a resident

It is my understanding that this area may be rezoned for up to 320 new apartment units. According toyour traffic analysis, it states this will pose little to no effect on traffic. As a resident who drives thisarea every day, I am curious at what time of day this study was conducted because I do not believethis is accurate. Daily there are hundreds of drivers (or more) who use La Palma in order to avoid thetraffic on the 91E freeway. If you’ve ever driven on La Palma during rush hour traffic, you knowthat this traffic easily backs up from well beyond Yorba Linda Blvd heading East towards theGypsum Canyon entrance.

Additionally, this area will continue to be at risk for fires and in the event of a community wideevacuation, it is already incredibly difficult to navigate the traffic that this causes in the area withvery limited ways out. I can’t imagine there being an additional 320 vehicles (if not many more)trying to evacuate the area in the event of a fire. This makes me incredibly worried for the safety ofmy family and young children should an emergency arise. Is it really wise to add such a high numberof apartment housing/people/vehicles to an already congested area?

I recognize that the city is looking into re-zoning these areas due to state-mandated requests becausemore housing is needed. However, when was this information last analyzed? It is my understandingthat HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people have left/are leaving California due to rising cost ofliving, politics, government overreach, etc. Could the city of Yorba Linda perhaps suggest that thegovernment re-analyze the true need for more housing in THIS area?

Lastly I will say that my husband and I have worked extremely hard for decades to afford and live ina home in the Bryant Ranch area. We loved this area because of the small town neighborhood feel,AWAY from apartments which will always have a high-turn over and transient individuals.Regardless how “nice” these 320 apartments would be, it would without a doubt, cause safetyconcerns as transients would be frequenting our beloved Bryant Ranch community, and it’s likelythey would not have the same pride the current home owners have for our dear community. Thiswould be heartbreaking for us to see as homeowners who specifically chose this area to raise ourgrowing family.

I would hope that our concerns will be HEARD and I will be attending the public hearing to ensure itis realized just how much we oppose this. It is my hope that this Bryant Ranch shopping center canbe revitalized to better serve the community, but not for 320 housing units.

Respectfully,

Chelsea Hoy

176-1

176-2

176-3

176-4




Chelsea Hoy, dated July 15, 2022

176-1 The commenter is a current resident near housing opportunity site S7-001 and expresses general concerns to the Project. Detailed comments are provided in the following responses, thus, no further response is required.

176-2 The commenter asks about the findings of the Traffic Analysis and mentions existing traffic conditions during rush hour. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns.

176-3 The commenter expresses general concerns with fire evacuation/emergency access with housing opportunity site S7-001. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

176-4 The commenter recognizes the Project due to State-mandated requests and inquires if the City could re-analyze the true need for more housing for housing opportunity site S7-001 since people are leaving the state. The commenter then provides why they chose to live near housing opportunity site S7-001 and expresses concerns about apartments with high turnover and transient individual. The commenter will attend the public hearing. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 177

From: Cheri Child <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 11:28 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Rezone of West Yorba Linda

Dear Mr. Farnsworth,I am a Yorba Linda resident for 21 years. We specifically chose Yorba Linda for our home because of its significance difference from all the other surrounding bedroom communities; Yorba Linda has charm, larger lots, and is a country style community. All of these intangible factors make Yorba Linda a sought after city in Orange County to live. It is because of these differences and low density city planning that actually creates the draw and desire for our community. Why on earth do you and the city seek to destroy the very fabric and charm of our community. Horses, trails, and a small town feel (despite being in Orange County) are being eroded away at our feet. Please stop the gross and over loaded rezoning of 400 units off Richfield! The citizens of this community DO NOT WANT IT. If development does occur it needs to be complimentary to the surrounding community…large lots, horses, trails, and the intangible country charm of West Yorba Linda (the houses on the corner of Richfield and Yorba Linda Blvd are not reflective and don’t fit in with our community at all…they should stand as a cautionary tale of what NOT to do!) We do not want a community like Irvine with rows and rows of cookie cuttercondos/townhomes/or single family residences stacked side by side. Richfield will already will see a huge increase of traffic due to Target and Dennys. Do not bloat and strain our streets anymore with an additional tidal wave of people from the proposed 400 units. This is NOT the right plan for our neighborhood. Gov. Newsom and his agents do not know or have Yorba Linda best interest at heart. This is why we rely on people like you to stop the nonsense from invading and ruining our charming city and neighborhoods. With mandates always being wielded at citizens and communities, we need to not accept government money, bribes, or “incentives” to adopt these ugly policies that are wrong for our city. Please stop the upzoning of West Yorba Linda (Richfield Community Church and Christmas tree lots). Perhaps consider rezoning the location for all the underperforming businesses in Savi Ranch by Bed, Bath, and Beyond to meet your criteria NOT West Yorba Linda.Concerned Citizen and YL Resident,Cheri Child714-467-2837

177-1




Cheri Child, dated July 15, 2022

177-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project, specifically for housing opportunity sites S3-012 and S3-207 and requests development to be complimentary to the surrounding community. The commenter also expresses concerns with existing traffic from Target and Denny’s. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Additionally, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-6 to 5-8), impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant. Future development would be subject to Design Review, the goals and policies in the City’s General Plan and would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code inclusive of the Zoning Code, including general development standards and sign regulations. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 178

From: Cheryl Brown <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 8:00 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: Preserve Fairmont Canyon <[email protected]>Subject: Comments on DPEIR for Site S5-008


Please accept my comments into public record in response to the HousingElement Draft PEIR for Opportunity Site S5-008 off Fairmont Blvd.

The Draft PEIR has failed to cover many environmental issues pertaining to thissite and has not quantified the risks of developing it. Because of this, I am writingto state this site needs its own EIR performed to adequately quantify the risks onthe following CEQA topics:

1. Wildfire - S5-008 is in a VHSFHZ and would be the only site in the entireHousing Element with this designation after the Planning Commission’srecommendation to remove S7-005. Evacuation plans and hardening of site forfire prevention and access roads is not addressed in DPEIR2. Biology - S5-008 is a habitat for endangered wildlife and borders Chino HillsState Park. It is a wildland-urban interface and not an infill site. This is notadequately addressed or quantified in the DPEIR.3. Geology - S5-008 is in an earthquake and landslide zone. The DPEIR fails toaddress this.4. Hydrology - S5-008 is designated wetlands and contains a storm drain forrunoff water. The DPEIR fails to address this.5. Land Use and Planning - S5-008 has limited buildable acreage (anywhere from2.5 - 9 acres with 14 acres of Open Space). However, the DPEIR has designated230 with 196 realistic units which is not possible for RM standards. The land usefor this site is misrepresented in the Housing Element.6. Traffic - S5-008 will bring additional cars and traffic onto Fairmont Blvd.Parking has not been fully addressed to ensure it does not spill over to FairmontBlvd and/or adjacent properties such as Kerrigan Ranch, Forest or Rimcrest.

As a result of these issues, I do not believe S5-008 is a proper candidate for highdensity housing. It should be removed or the unit allocation reduced to whatis actually possible for this property based on the buildable acreage.

The Planning Commission and City Council should take a closer look at thisproperty since it does not align with the overall Housing Element goals.

Given the uniqueness of this site, and the inadequate analysis of it in the DPEIR,S5-008 should receive its own EIR.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Brown

178-1

178-2

178-3

178-4

178-5

178-6

178-7

178-8




Cheryl Brown, dated July 15, 2022




178-4 The commenter states that housing opportunity site S5-008 is in an earthquake and landslide zone and impacts to geology were are not adequately addressed in the Draft PEIR. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant. No further response is required.





178-5 The commenter expresses concern with Hydrology and Water Quality and states the Draft PEIR did not sufficiently address housing opportunity site S5-008, which is designated as wetlands and contains a storm drain for runoff water. As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-21 to 5-26), impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant and mandatory adherence to the Construction General Permit and implementation of measures outlined in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. No further response is required.

178-6 The commenter expresses concern with Land Use and Planning and states the buildable acreage of housing opportunity site S5-008 is misrepresented in the Housing Element. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

178-7 The commenter express concern with traffic regarding housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also please note that transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft PEIR.

178-8 The commenter recommends housing opportunity site S5-008 should be removed due to the reasons provided in the comment letter. The commenter requests a site-specific EIR for housing opportunity site S5-008. These comments are noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR.



Comment Letter 179

SENT VIA EMAIL ([email protected])

Date: July 15, 2022

Mr. Nate Farnsworth Principal Planner Planning Division City of Yorba Linda 4845 Casa Loma Avenue Yorba Linda, California 92886 RE: 2021-2029 Yorba Linda Housing Element Implementation Programs Draft Program Environmental Impact Report

Dear Mr. Farnsworth: My name is Diane Kanne and I am a 35-year property owner and resident of Yorba Linda. While I do not represent any particular group or organization, I am a concerned resident with professional experience in environmental issues including over 20 years of experience as a research chemist and administrator of environmental programs for the petroleum industry. My expertise includes air pollution, toxic air contaminants, risk assessment and communication, and mobile and stationary source emissions and control. I have also worked on soil contamination and clean-up. This letter addresses the 2021-2029 Yorba Linda Housing Element Implementation Programs (HEIP) Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) completed to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). My comments are specific to Opportunity Site S5-008 (Fairmont Boulevard). General Comments on the Process The hurried nature of this process is unsettling and frankly, insulting to members of the public. It implies that you are not taking our input seriously. A Yorba Linda Planning Commission meeting where adoption of the zoning changes and changes to the Yorba Linda General Plan will be considered has already been scheduled only eight (8) business days after final comments are due on the DPEIR. How can staff and your environmental consultant review and respond to all the comments that the public submits, make changes to the DPEIR, issue a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR), and make a recommendation on approval of the zoning and General Plan changes to the Yorba Linda

179-1

179-2



Planning Commission in little more than a week? A DPEIR is a lengthy and detailed document designed to inform the public about significant environmental and safety impacts of a proposed project, in this case, a huge project involving numerous sites within the city, all with their own potential issues. This hurried process on approving the DPEIR is an extension of what happened in May when the deadline for submitting comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was on Memorial Day, May 30, 2022, and the DPEIR was released to the public on June 1, 2022. Clearly, staff and the consultant could not have addressed all public comments or concerns in their DPEIR as their deadline for comments fell on a Federal holiday and the DPEIR was released on the next business day. As stated in the Executive Summary of the DPEIR, “A Program EIR (PEIR) is prepared for a series of actions that are characterized as one large project through reasons of geography, similar rules or regulations, or where individual activities will occur under the same regulatory process with similar environmental impacts that can be mitigated in similar ways.”(DPEIR Page 1) (Emphasis added) This statement may be true for some of the Opportunity Sites found in the HEIP, but it is patently untrue for Site S5-008. No other site borders Chino Hills State Park (CHSP). No other site has the biological, geological, and wildfire issues of Site S5-008. If this site is to be developed, then a complete, separate EIR should be completed for S5-008. This DPEIR is wholly inadequate at addressing the environmental and safety concerns of building a proposed 230 homes or the Reduced Density Alternative project of 196 homes on S5-008, and should not be used by the City of Yorba Linda in the future to avoid completing a comprehensive EIR for any proposed development of S5-008. Opportunity Site S5-008 should be removed from the Yorba Linda HEIP until a site specific EIR is completed. Wildfire By bundling all these sites together and addressing wildfire concerns as though they are the same for all sites, the DPEIR neglects to address the serious wildfire risk to current Yorba Linda residents and future residents of S5-008. This property is one of only two (2) sites out of 27 located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. This site has burned three (3) times during the past 80 years (most recently in the devastating Freeway Complex Fire of 2008). It is even more vulnerable than other opportunity sites as it will always border CHSP, thus putting it at increased risk in the future, especially as the

179-3

179-4

179-2(CONT.)



frequency of wildfires has increased in recent years as the result of drought and global warming. The DPEIR does not address how the addition of 230 more homes in a fire prone area, bordered by permanent wildland and including steep slopes leading into a canyon, will affect loss of property, injury, death, and evacuation, nor does it address the mitigation measures that may be needed to reduce these significant impacts. For example, the DPEIR asks: “Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?” (DPEIR Page 4.1-8) The response is less than adequate. The wildfire dangers of Opportunity Site S5-008 are briefly recognized as existing although they are not elucidated, and no mitigation measures are proposed. Instead, the DPEIR just states that the dangers will be studied and mitigated. CEQA requires that environmental and safety impacts not only be identified, but that mitigation measures be included in the document and implemented by the developer if the EIR is approved. Nowhere in the DPEIR are actual mitigation measures identified for wildfire dangers to S5-008. In fact, the DPEIR ignores the geography and future proposed zoning when discussing the environmental and safety impacts of potential wildfires, instead stating that the impacts will be studied and mitigation proposed at a later date. “Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites within or adjacent to a Very High FHSZ, the project applicant shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan (FPP). Prior to preparation of an FPP, the Project proponent shall coordinate with OCFA to ensure that modeling of the FPP and design of the project is appropriate to meet the requirements and standards of the OCFA. The FPP shall be subject to the review and approval from the City of Yorba Linda and OCFA. The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures.” (DPEIR Page 28) Evacuation is also not addressed. There is only one evacuation route off this property: Fairmont Boulevard. All new traffic must exit onto this road which is the evacuation

179-5

179-4(CONT.)

179-6



route for hundreds of other residents in the area. With more than half the property remaining as permanent open space and the added wildfire danger of CHSP bordering the site, including the increased use of CHSP when 230 residences are placed on its border, the DPEIR should address the unique evacuation dangers for S5-008 separate from all the other sites. Biological Resources Again, Opportunity Site S5-008 is unique when compared to the other 26 sites proposed in the HEIP. Over half the land will remain permanent open space, and unlike other properties, S5-008 borders CHSP. There are numerous sensitive plant and animal species living near or potentially on Site S5-008. CHSP is a sanctuary for many threatened and endangered species, including mountain lions, gnatcatchers, rufous-crowned sparrows, and many other plants and animals. How many of these species reside on S5-008 and how will development of S5-008 affect those and other species residing in CHSP? We don’t know because it has not been studied. Destruction of habitat, including unrecognized riparian areas, habitat fragmentation, and introduction of non-native plants and animals will affect both the site itself and CHSP if S5-008 is developed. Again, none of these effects are addressed in the DPEIR. A less than significant impact to biological resources, as outlined in the DPEIR, cannot be ascertained because biological studies, especially of site S5-008, have not been completed. The biological uniqueness of Opportunity Site S5-008 when compared to the other 26 sites should inform and even demand its removal from the HEIP. A separate EIR should be completed for any proposed development. Public Services Once again, the DPEIR does not address the specific effects of Opportunity Site S5-008 on public services, especially fire services. As discussed above, unlike infill sites that are further from wildlands, S5-008 will very likely experience a wildfire event in the next 20 years. With 230 new units planned for the site, resources to protect life and property will need to be expanded. Other projects planned near the wildland-urban interface (WUI) have required developers to address these needed changes to public services and mitigate their impacts. This DPEIR states that there will be no significant impacts on public services. From experience in Yorba Linda alone, this is probably not the case, but we don’t know, because it has not been studied for Opportunity Site S5-008.

179-7

179-6(CONT.)

179-8



The uniqueness and size of the development planned for Opportunity Site S5-008 demands that it be removed from the HEIP and a separate EIR completed before any planned project is approved. Transportation Given its location on the WUI and far from most public transportation, the planned 230 units on Opportunity Site S5-008 will likely generate almost 500 new vehicles exiting only onto Fairmont Boulevard, less than one half mile from a high school. With an estimated total of about 1000 more daily trips being generated by the new development, the impacts on traffic on Fairmont Boulevard will be significant, especially during peak commute hours and especially when students are arriving and departing from Yorba Linda High School, Fairmont Elementary School, and Bernardo Yorba Middle School. New traffic measures may be necessary, including a possible traffic light at Opportunity Site S5-008. Additionally, placing low- and moderate-income residences so far from public transportation makes these residences inaccessible for many families. Either the residences must be moved to more accessible areas or more public transportation will be required to meet the needs of these new residents. These issues are not addressed in the DPEIR. Instead, the DPEIR states that the effects on transportation are less than significant. Again, the uniqueness and size of the development planned for Opportunity Site S5-008 demands that it be removed from the HEIP and a separate EIR completed before any planned project is approved. How to meet the transportation needs of the new residents and mitigate the impacts of increased vehicle traffic on Fairmont Boulevard and the intersection of Fairmont Boulevard and Bastanchury Road must be studied and addressed. Geology and Soils Again, Opportunity Site S5-008 is unique from all the other 26 sites with respect to geology and soils. The Whittier Earthquake Fault passes through the site, and the site includes a steep canyon and a blue stream. To build 230 units on this site while leaving 14 acres as open space would require building a structure taller than the two-story limit in the current and planned zoning code. In fact, the presence of the fault is one reason that part of the site will remain permanent open space. To state that the risk of loss, injury, or

179-9

179-8(CONT.)

179-13

179-10

179-11

179-12



death from seismic activity is less than significant without even studying the potential impacts is ludicrous. Landslides, particularly after grading and development of Opportunity Site S5-008 are also certainly a possibility. Landslides are common in this area of Yorba Linda, especially in steep canyons with unstable soils. One example currently can be seen visually by observing the erosion and landslides in Blue Mud Canyon, southeast of Opportunity Site S5-008. Stating that there are no potential problems with soils or geology on Opportunity Site S5-008 is ignoring the history of building on the WUI in the hill and canyon areas of Yorba Linda. Again, the uniqueness and size of the development planned for Opportunity Site S5-008 demands that it be removed from the HEIP and a separate EIR completed before any planned project is approved. Hydrology and Water Quality Under Section 5.4.6, Threshold c, The DPEIR asks: “Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impeded or redirect flood flows?” (DPEIR Page 5-23) The DPEIR then states: “The City of Yorba Linda General Plan EIR concluded that there are no existing streams or rivers in this area and General Plan Policy CN‐4.5 promotes the retention of local drainage courses.” (DPEIR Page 5-23) This statement is obviously incorrect for Opportunity Site S5-008. There is a stream on this site that provides drainage from a substantial area of the hills above Fairmont Boulevard. Furthermore, this section of the DPEIR seems to refer to the Esperanza Hills and Cielo Vista planned developments instead of the Opportunity Sites in the HEIP. The DPEIR goes on to state that:

179-13(CONT.)

179-14



“Additionally, the Cielo/Esperanza Focus Area could experience new development on undeveloped hillsides and canyons. However, construction in this area, as with all others, would require runoff BMPs to be implemented and would not be of a large enough scale to impact runoff at a level that could lead to flooding or be considered significant.” (Emphasis added) (DPEIR Page 5-23) It appears that much of this DPEIR, especially those sections that deal with the hillside development, may have been lifted from previous EIRs (like the Cielo Vista and Esperanza Hills EIRs) or previous analyses of these proposed EIRs. How can the public adequately analyze the impacts of the HEIP when a separate analysis was apparently not completed? This is especially true for Opportunity Site S5-008. Stating my position once again, the uniqueness and size of the development planned for Opportunity Site S5-008 demands that it be removed from the HEIP and a separate EIR completed before any planned project is approved. Conclusions We need more housing to meet the needs of California residents, and Yorba Linda should contribute to meeting those needs. A well-studied and well thought out plan that takes into account all the infrastructure, cultural, transportation, recreation, etc. needs of current and future residents should be included. This HEIP does not rise to that standard. This is especially true with respect to Opportunity Site S5-008. The Yorba Linda Planning Commission recognizes the uniqueness of Site S5-008. At their meeting on June 29, 2022, Commissioner Singh questioned whether 230 units or even the Reduced Density Alternative of 196 units could be built on S5-008, especially given the constraints of geology, hydrology, zoning requirements, and development standards. Further discussion by board members at the meeting revealed that their solution for not being able to build the full 196 units is to use the buffer the State of California gives each jurisdiction for their HEIP. Given the constraints of Opportunity Site S5-008, the likely reduction in units would result in most or all of Yorba Linda’s buffer being wiped out. At the least, this discussion at the June 29, 2022 Yorba Linda Planning Commission meeting revealed the HEIP is poor planning. At the most, it reveals that the HEIP is deceptive in that the City of Yorba Linda does not plan to build much of the planned housing.

179-14(CONT.)

179-15



For this reason alone, I recommend that the Planning Commission not recommend the zoning changes and General Plan changes needed to implement the HEIP. I recommend that the City Council not approve the zoning changes and General Plan changes required to implement the HEIP. Instead, I recommend that the City of Yorba Linda go back to the drawing board and develop a comprehensive, realistic HEIP that can be implement as planned, taking into account all the realist development opportunities of various sites within the City and all of the needs (transportation, infrastructure, cultural, etc.) of current and future residents. Regardless, if the HEIP moves forward, with the Planning Commission recommending approval of the zoning and General Plan changes and the Yorba Linda City Council approving those changes, for all the reasons stated above, Opportunity Site S5-008 should be removed from the HEIP. Very truly yours, Diane D. Kanne Diane D. Kanne

179-15(CONT.)




Diane D. Kanne, dated July 15, 2022

179-1 The commenter provides work experience as a research chemist and administrator of environmental programs for the petroleum industry. The commenter notes the following comments are specific to housing opportunity site S5-008. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter. Thus, no further response is needed.

179-2 The commenter expresses concerns with the hurried nature of the Draft PEIR and inquires how City staff and the environmental consultant can review and respond to all public comments, make changes to the Draft PEIR, issue a Final PEIR, and make a recommendation on the approval of the zoning and General Plan Changes to the City Planning Commission in little more than a week. This comment is noted. As presented in this Final PEIR, all commenter letters received during the Draft PEIR have been addressed and revisions to the Draft PEIR has been made accordingly.

179-3 The commenter states the Draft PEIR is inadequately addressing the environmental and safety concerns for housing opportunity site S5-008 and should not be used by the City in the future to avoid completing a comprehensive EIR for any proposed development on housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter states the site should be removed from the Project until a site-specific EIR is completed. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project. No further response is required.

179-4 The commenter expresses concerns with wildfire for housing opportunity site S5-008. Refer to 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-8 and 4.11-15), the increase in dwelling units for sites located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) could potentially impact wildfire risk and pollutant exposure and impacts would be potentially significant. Housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a Very High FHSZ. For sites within or adjacent to a Very High FHSZ, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 would require a Fire Protection Plan to ensure that the design future development meets the requirements of OCFA, including but not limited to fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures.

Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall assess the time required for emergency evacuation under Existing and Existing with Project Conditions, assuming a worst case, wind-driven fire. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall also identify how much the project would increase evacuation times by; how long it would take residents to evacuate; and how emergency response times would be affected by a mass evacuation under multiple scenarios. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall be subject to the review and approval from the City of Yorba Linda and OCFA and shall demonstrate how the development would not impair or physical interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-1, impact to an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation route would be less than significant.



179-6 The commenter states evacuation is not addressed in the Draft PEIR and raises concerns with fire evacuation for housing opportunity site S5-008. Refer to 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required.

179-7 The commenter expresses concerns with biological resources and mentions housing opportunity site S5-008 is adjacent to the Chino Hills State Park. The commenter asks about the impact of development to sensitive species adjacent to the site. As in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.2-10, and 4.2-15), housing opportunity S5-008 is located within a natural habitat area. Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-4 would ensure the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources be mitigated through biological surveys and impact assessments by a qualified biologist. With implementation of the required mitigation and General Plan goals and policies, the Project’s potential impacts to sensitive or protected biological resources would be reduced to less than significant. No further response is required.

179-8 The commenter expresses concerns with public services and lack of site-specific studies with housing opportunity site S5-008. As stated in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.7-13 to 4.7-14), implementation of the Project would result in an increase in calls for service; however, OCSD has indicated that this increase would not adversely impact OCSD’s existing resources. OCSD will work closely with the City to determine proper level of law enforcement staffing based on best practices for population and crime statistics. Similarly, in order to ensure adequate level of fire protection service within the City of Yorba Linda, OCFA typically enters into a Secured Fire Projection Agreement with private developers. Therefore, project applicants for future development would be required to enter into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with OCFA to address any incremental impacts to fire facilities and services.

179-9 The commenter expresses concern with transportation, specifically trip generation for housing opportunity site S5-008. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

179-11 The commenter expresses concern with the location of housing opportunity site S5-008 and accessibility to public transportation. As stated in Section 4.9, Transportation, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.9-3), transit service is reviewed and updated by OCTA periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs.

179-12 The commenter states the issues for transportation above are not addressed in the Draft PEIR. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project and 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

179-13 The commenter expresses concern with geology and soils for housing opportunity site S5-008. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering



report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

Moreover, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-14 to 5-15), the commenter is correct in stating that housing opportunity site S5-008 is located within a landslide zone. However, regardless of the landslide susceptibility, future development pursuant to the Project would be required to have a site-specific geotechnical investigation conducted. The geotechnical investigation for each project on a site within a zone of required investigation for earthquake-induced landslides would be required to evaluate the potential for such landslides onsite provide any needed recommendations for minimizing hazards. Each project must also comply with seismic safety regulations and requirements regarding slope stability in the CBC and City of Yorba Linda Building Code. Additionally, development along hillside would be required to comply with the standards in Chapter 18.30, Hillside Development, of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts to landslides would be less than significant.

179-14 The commenter expresses concern with hydrology for housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter states there is a stream on housing opportunity site S5-008 that provides drainage from a substantial area of the hills above Fairmont Boulevard. The commenter inquires how the public can adequately analyze the impacts of the Project when a separate analysis was not completed. The stream that commenter is referring to is not found in the USGC 7.5-Minute Topographic Map. However, as stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-23 to 5-24), existing requirements for future development include review by the City Engineer to ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided that meet City design and requirements. Additionally, implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan would reduce runoff from the site and identify Best Management Practices for runoff controls and treatments. No further response is required.

179-15 The commenter states the Draft PEIR does not take into account all the infrastructure, cultural transportation, and recreation needs. The commenter expresses opposition to the Project. The commenter states housing opportunity site S5-008 should be removed from the Project for the reasons above. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.



Comment Letter 180

From: Edward Diaz <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:25 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: Preserve Fairmont Canyon <[email protected]>Subject: Comments on DPEIR for Site S5008


Please accept my comments into public record in response to the Housing Element Draft PEIR for Opportunity Site S5-008 off Fairmont Blvd.

The Draft PEIR has failed to cover many environmental issues pertaining to this site and has not quantified the risks of developing it. Because of this, I am writing to state this site needs its own EIR performed to adequately quantify the risks on the following CEQA topics:

1. Wildfire - S5-008 is in a VHSFHZ and would be the only site in the entire HousingElement with this designation after the Planning Commission’s recommendation toremove S7-005. Evacuation plans and hardening of site for fire prevention and accessroads is not addressed in DPEIR2. Biology - S5-008 is a habitat for endangered wildlife and borders Chino Hills StatePark. It is a wildland-urban interface and not an infill site. This is not adequatelyaddressed or quantified in the DPEIR.3. Geology - S5-008 is in an earthquake and landslide zone. The DPEIR fails to addressthis.4. Hydrology - S5-008 is designated wetlands and contains a storm drain for runoffwater. The DPEIR fails to address this.5. Land Use and Planning - S5-008 has limited buildable acreage (anywhere from 2.5 -9 acres with 14 acres of Open Space). However, the DPEIR has designated 230 with196 realistic units which is not possible for RM standards. The land use for this site ismisrepresented in the Housing Element.

6. Traffic - S5-008 will bring additional cars and traffic onto Fairmont Blvd. Parking has not been fully addressed to ensure it does not spill over to Fairmont Blvd and/or adjacent properties such as Kerrigan Ranch, Forest or Rimcrest.

As a result of these issues, I do not believe S5-008 is a proper candidate for high density housing. It should be removed or the unit allocation reduced to what is actually possible for this property based on the buildable acreage.

The Planning Commission and City Council should take a closer look at this property since it does not align with the overall Housing Element goals.go

Given the uniqueness of this site, and the inadequate analysis of it in the DPEIR, S5-008 should receive its own EIR.

Sincerely,Ed Diaz

180-1

180-2

180-3

180-4

180-5

180-6

180-7

180-8




Ed Diaz, dated July 15, 2022




180-4 The commenter states that housing opportunity site S5-008 is in an earthquake and landslide zone and impacts to geology were not adequately addressed in the Draft PEIR. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant. No further response is required.





180-5 The commenter expresses concern with Hydrology and Water Quality and states the Draft PEIR did not sufficiently address housing opportunity site S5-008, which is designated as wetlands and contains a storm drain for runoff water. As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-21 to 5-26), impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant and mandatory adherence to the Construction General Permit and implementation of measures outlined in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. No further response is required.


180-7 The commenter express concern with traffic regarding housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also please note that transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft PEIR.

180-8 The commenter recommends housing opportunity site S5-008 should be removed due to the reasons provided in the comment letter. The commenter requests a site-specific EIR for housing opportunity site S5-008. These comments are noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for their review and consideration. Please also refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR.



Comment Letter 181

From: ED Gunderson <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 5:55:45 PMTo: Arlene Laviera <[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: High Density Rezoning on Eureka

Rezoning high density in a single family neighborhood that is all one story is exactly what the City did onthe corner of Prospect and Yorba Linda Blvd.Giant towers were built to wipe out any privacy, the sun and quality of life attainable in one's backyard ontwo sides of the project. On Eureka the project areas are surrounded on 3 side by single story homes.This style of building is called "ghetto". How about rezoning the Esperanza Hills and Cielo Vista Projectsin the hills off San Antonio with no neighbors but Coyotes or is that two close to the homes of people inpower?

Thank you for your time

Ed Gunderson

714-777-3335

181-1




Ed Gunderson, dated July 15, 2022

181-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the Project and recommends rezoning the Esperanza Hills and Cielo Vista Projects. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 182


Planning Manager

4845 Casa Loma Ave.



Mr. Farnsworth,

My comments below are regarding the Draft PEIR for the 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs. My husband and I have been residents of Yorba Linda since 1975. We were drawn to the charm of this once sleepy town of Yorba Linda at that time. We raised our 2 kids in this city and they reside here as well. One by one the charms of our little Yorba Linda city are being stripped from us. Gone are the orange groves, Horse trails and open fields that drew us into this town. We are very concerned about the proposed addition of over 2,400 units to our city. Our grandchildren attend Linda Vista School. The 2 sites near there off of Grandview and Ohio are of our utmost concern as we feel it will impact our grandchildren’s safety and the safety of other children. We are asking the planning commission to please remove these 2 sites off of the Housing plan. We understand that cities need to grow and that housing must increase, but there has to be better areas to do so. Packing in 28 units on Ohio Street in less than 2 acres of land and an additional 9 units in less than an acre off of Grandview seems way overdone. It is difficult to comprehend exactly where all of the cars will flow through these areas which are already impacted, not to mention the safety concerns of the kids, extra pollution and impacting of not only Linda Vista, but other schools in PYLUSD. We hope the planning commission will take our comments into consideration.

Sincerely,

Elena Straabe

18711 Evergreen Ave


714-721-9886 (C)

714-777-3537 (H)

[email protected]

182-1




Elena Straabe, dated July 10, 2022

182-1 The commenter expresses concern with the Project and requests removal of housing opportunity sites S4-060 and S4-201 due to impacts with traffic, safety, pollution, and school services. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. Also please note that air quality and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1 and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 183

From: Esther Harrier <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 6:40:08 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Yorba Linda Zoning Measure


It has come to my and my husband's attention that the State of California has decided to try toreplace well established property in the area of Richfield and Buena Vista Blvd. in WestYorba Linda with affordable/low-income housing.This is not only a means of congesting traffic, which adds to environmental pollution. Thismeasure also brings heightened crime; with low income housing, comes lower economicstatus, thus more crime.This measure also encompases reduction in existing home values. The majority ofhomeowners in this area have lived in the area for more than 25 years. Home owners savedtheir hard earned money, purchased in a community that was family oriented and safe, andhoped for increased revenue for their beneficiaries of their property. With the addition of lowincome housing, this will reduce the value of existing property, thus reducing the value of ourchildren's inheritance.

Furthermore, the addition of the low income housing on Yorba Linda Blvd. and Jefferson, ourentire neighborhood has had their cars broken into; we never had a break in before thishousing went in.I'm sure this may be a difficult situation, but we know that you can, and will do away with thisdecision to bring in additional housing in the mentioned areas.

With all due respect, if this measure procedes, I will be voting against and defeating theproposed density increases via Measure B.

Regards,Esther Harrier

183-1




Esther Harrier, dated July 15, 2022

183-1 The commenter expresses concern with traffic congestion regarding development in the area of Richfield and Buena Vista Boulevard. The commenter expresses concern with increased crime due to low-income housing. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns for discussion on traffic congestion. Also please note that police protection services and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.7 and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 184

Gary Poage 3750 Sherwood Drive Yorba Linda, CA 92886 (714) 469-5040 [email protected] July 15, 2022 Yorba Linda Planning Commission 4845 Casa Loma Ave. Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Planning Commission Members, I am writing on behalf of my family and my neighbors of our concerns for the proposed zoning changes to Housing Element Opportunity Site S5-008 (AKA LDS Fairmont Site). Since becoming aware of the inclusion of this site in the latest 6th Cycle (2021-2029) state mandated housing element many of my neighbors and I have addressed the city council, planning committee, traffic committee, city manager, city attorney and most notably the planning department of our concerns regarding this site. As you know the site seemingly shows high potential for the housing element with 23 gross acres. However the site is now (and always has been) very misleading regarding the true buildable area. I feel the planning department with very sincere intentions was also misled in believing and therefore conveying to the California Department of Housing and Community Development the potential of this site. As you are aware there is an open space designation on 14 acres – essentially the upper portion of the site. This yields 9 net acres, however the 9 net acres is also very misleading in that 6 of the net acres are major slopes – either leading to the only access at Fairmont Blvd or leading up a very steep slope to the 7.2 million gallon water reservoir for the Yorba Linda Water District. To the very real point, approximately 20 of the 23 acres have topography constraints that cannot be mitigated. This yields a “net-net” approximate 3 acres. My neighbor Pauline Rodriguez and I have provided the Usable Land Study that was completed for the current owner (LDS Church). This study was carried out by a Licensed Civil Engineer Firm. This study shows the usable area of 2.95 acres and the net buildable area of 2.55 acres. (It should be noted that the selling agent has a multipage brochure for the site, references a usability study is available, and shows the same Usable Land Study Lot 9 Tract 11969, completed by Alan R Short Licensed Civil Engineer – thus this information is in the public domain). These are very similar acreage the original developer Baldwin Brothers Development advertised when the lot was originally offered for sale (1987). Again, the lot was misleading then and it has now mislead the planning department. My point to all of this: My neighbors and I have asked the planning department if they EVER visited or walked the site..… the response was “No”. We have and still do invite any responsible member of the city staff, planning committee and city council to our backyards and we will gladly give a guided tour of the property. If any responsible individual saw the site in person and from our prospective or specifically view from our backyards it would be alarmingly obvious to the dangers of building the site to the potential density that was adopted in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Every time I address the planning city council, planning committee and planning Department I address SAFETY. At this point, the PEIR does not address the true safety concerns of this site. This site that is the very definition of a Wildland Urban Interface. This site that is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. This site has burned in its entirety before. This site that was filmed burning during the 2008 Freeway Complex Fire from my backyard, by CBS Channel 2 News

184-1

184-2



with Dave Lopez interviewing me and filming throughout the night. Most notably there is no input from the Orange County Fire Authority. It is realized that the PEIR indicates that input will be forthcoming but that input could potentially void the viability of this site. Certainly if Senate Bill 12 is passed the site would likely be removed as anything over 9 dwelling units will then require two separate roads (two distinct separate ingress and egress roads). As it is right now, it will be very difficult to provide even one ingress and egress road. It is constrained by steep slopes on 3 sides and there is a very narrow passage down to Fairmont Blvd. Because of the very real safety concerns the site should be removed from the Housing Element. It should also be noted of the progressive moves neighboring counties and cities have taken. Reference Los Angeles County in that they will not up-zone in VHFHSZ. Reference the city of Murrieta, they will not build in VHFHSZ. Reference the city of Brea, they are not waiting for any mandate such as Senate Bill 12, in high fire potential areas - they have recently revised their development standards to require two distinct ingress and egress roads. My next concern is the potential legality of implying that 230/196 units could ever be developed on the site. I know and fully stand behind the tireless work the planning department has done to meet the (use whatever expletive you desire) RHNA number Sacramento has placed upon Yorba Linda. We fully realize that there is the potential threat of a punitive consequence for failure to achieve the RHNA allotment. However it is my opinion that there will be far greater consequences from not being completely forthright in providing the realistic development capacity for this site [reference Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2)]. It has been said in desperate times, desperate people do desperate things. I realize the planning staff has been put in a somewhat difficult/reactive situation…. To that point, this site can certainly give the illusion to the less informed (Sacramento) for a great potential. I do not feel the planning department should be pushed to make desperate decisions. Additionally, overstating the capacity has a very real potential of legal issues with the potential purchaser and their developer. In my opinion that may prove to be short sided in the long term. At any rate, I know the overstating of RHNA allotment is not to be addressed in my response to the PEIR, but it should be considered before continuing – at least that is my opinion. I feel everyone involved needs to come to terms with the true viability of this site. I feel that it really is in the best interest of everyone concerned that the site be removed from the housing element. This may be redundant but I am including the following attachments:

• Usable Land Study, Lot 93 Tract 11969 • Screen Capture of the Orange County Public Works www.ocgis.com/ocpw/landrecords/

that shows slope topography and the true developable area of the 9 net acres • Orange County Fire Authority Guideline B-09a; Fire Safe Development for Very High

Fire Hazard Severity Zones • Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, Government Code Section 65583.2

As a side note, I am a Degreed Mechanical/Aerospace Engineer, I have done a “deep dive” into the true viability of this site. I have overlaid the currently required road structure per the California Fire Authority Guideline – incline, width (run-off width), radius etc. I have done an overlay including the slope to the 7.2 million gallon water reservoir for potential road access. The usable area values I calculated correlates with those from the Usable Land Study for the LDS and the original buildable values as determined by Baldwin Brothers Developers. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Gary Poage

184-3

184-2(CONT.)

184-4

184-5

184-6




Gary Poage, dated July 15, 2022

184-1 The commenter expresses concerns with housing opportunity site S5-008 regarding the buildable acreage and references a Usable Land Study. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

184-2 The commenter expresses with fire evacuation/emergency access for housing opportunity site

S5-008 and that the Draft PEIR was not adequate due to the lack of input from OCFA. Responses from OCFA have been provided in Attachment H to this Final PEIR. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required.

184-3 The commenter states Los Angeles County will not up-zone in VHFHSZ, the City of Murrieta

will not build in VHFHSZ, and the City of Brea revised their development standards to require two district ingress and egress roads in high fire potential areas. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

184-4 The commenter expresses concerns with the RHNA allocation number for housing opportunity

site S5-008 and states that the site should be removed. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

184-5 The commenter references the attachments in the comment letter. Attachments submitted along

with this commenter letter are found in Attachment F, Commenter’s Attachment, of this Final PEIR.

184-6 The commenter establishes that he has a degree in Mechanical/Aerospace Engineering and has

completed analysis of the true viability of housing opportunity site S5-008. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the



Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 185

From: James Francese <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 3:05 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: comments on Draft PEIR

Dear Mr. Farnsworth

These are comments related to the Draft PEIR for the GeneralPlan Housing Element Implementation Programs.

I know the Housing rules for the state are something that YorbaLinda must respond to. However the sites chosen seemsclustered in the older section of Yorba Linda. Yorba Linda has amuch larger land mass, why cannot these sites be distributedmore across all of Yorba Linda?

The older equestrian sections of Yorba Linda are a key part ofthe City' past and current heritage. I am from the East Coast,where many towns work hard to both develop and also preservethe heritage that makes then unique. There are so manyproposed sites - Grandview, Ohio, Richfield etc. that seemunnecessarily clustered together. I note the traffic impact showsthat the corner of Lakeview and Buena Vista, a common familywalking area and riding area, will be deemed inadequate if theproposed changes are made.

Already, with all the development in Yorba Linda and Placentia inthat area, crossing Lakeview means you are crossing a very busyintersection. These plans will make it even more so. Richfieldroad is also becoming exceptionally busy at times.

These plans are a huge alteration to one of the cores of YorbaLinda. I suggest the City can take a more balanced approach. Ialso read that Yorba Linda was the first city to submit plans.

Maybe more public comments, more discussion, and more studyfirst?

We know the State must be responded to. However there mustbe a way to do it in a manner that is more sensitive to thehistory and environment of Yorba Linda, with fewer of theimpacts listed in the PEIR Draft report.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jim Francese 562 237 9334Lisa Francese

5771 Highland Ave Yorba Linda

185-1




Jim and Lisa Francese, dated July 15, 2022

185-1 The commenter expresses concerns with the housing opportunity sites and mentions the sites are clustered in the older section of the City. The commenter expresses concern with traffic and safety for housing opportunity sites near Grandview, Ohio, and Richfield. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 186

From: Juanita Dunham <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 2:33 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: DEIR

Dear Nate,I’m sending a follow up email regarding the Rezoning.

I’m against all Rezoning in Yorba Linda as it’s an older city that has been built out and cannot accommodate more traffic. Yorba Linda does not have the infrastructure or land to build more infrastructure to move additional traffic safely and efficiently.Our current designated evacuation routes are gridlock, as we experienced in the complex fire. All primary roads suchas Yorba Linda Blvd, Bastenchury, imperial and La Palma were gridlocked.

If building must occur then it should be in the Savi Ranch area as many of the businesses are doing poorly and I would foresee them continue to do poorly due to inflation and the oncoming recession, many of the commercial buildings are up for lease already (you will see signs along Savi Ranch Parkway), there is plenty of room for development, there are plenty of fast food places to walk to and most importantly there would be no existing neighborhoods impacted by the additional affordable housing building.

Other questions have come to my attention such as the city’s plan for additional sheriff budget, water, electricity and schools.

According to our sheriffs Yorba Linda does not have the budget to police all of Yorba Linda. I was told by our sheriffs to call and complain to the city of Yorba Linda. When you call the city they either say they will do something and nothing ever happens or to call the sheriff. Again, nothing happens. Who will pay for the additional sheriff budget.

Another point to make is the majority of the affordable housing is on the West side of Yorba Linda. Richfield S3-207 has 340 potential units versus the site S6-015 that has 89 units.

Additionally, the majority of the Rezoning projects are on the West side of Yorba Linda that has the smaller two laneold residential streets with no or partial sidewalks. These streets cannot accommodate the current traffic much lessadditional traffic.This is not fair to anyone living on the West side. All development should be distributed equally.Please do not allow this project to be corrupted and bought out by money.1. Rezone fairly2. Do not increase traffic on small two lane old residential streets such as Lakeview, Richfield and Eureka 3. Keep our residents safe

186-1

186-2

186-3

186-4




Juanita Dunham, dated July 15, 2022

186-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the Project and states the City does not have the infrastructure or land to build more infrastructure to move additional traffic safely and efficiently. The commenter also raises concerns with fire evacuation routes. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required.

186-2 The commenter recommends Savi Ranch as an alternative for a housing opportunity site. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

186-3 The commenter expresses concerns with sheriff budget, schools, water, and electricity. The commenter also raises concerns with fire evacuation routes. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to 2.1.5, Water Supply, for discussion on water supply. Also please note that public services and utilities and service systems impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.7 and 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

186-4 The commenter states development should be distributed equally since majority of the Project area on the West side of the City and the streets cannot accommodate existing traffic. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 187

From: Karen Farley <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 10:59:17 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Rezoning

Hi-I’m writing to let you know I’m completely opposed to what is being proposed and we need to fight this tooth and nail. This will only continue to erode our city and bring a in more crime and overcrowding. And how can we possibly absorb more residents of this magnitude when we already have a water and power shortage?? And traffic? Please help us fight this.

Thank you,Karen Farley54 year YL resident

187-1




Karen Farley, dated July 15, 2022

187-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the Project and raises concerns about increased crime, water power shortage, and traffic. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.5, Water Supply, for discussion on traffic congestion and water supply. Also please note that police protection services, transportation, and utilities and service systems impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.7, 4.9, 5.4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 188

July 15, 2022

Attention:

Yorba Linda City Council

Yorba Linda City Planning

Re: Opposition to Housing Element Rezoning for High Density Housing

Dear City of Yorba Linda City Council and Planning Department,

I am submitting this document as my public comment in opposition to the Housing Element and High Density Housing Rezoning Plan. Please see my list of reasons and concerns below. Thank you in advance for considering my position.

Extension until 2025 of the rezoning

Why the rush to be the first city in California to submit rezoning proposals? Southern California cities and counties just got a three year extension to complete rezoning. Surely, now there is time to comply with the requisite notice and reevaluate the targeted rezoning sites. Reference: https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-riverside-press-enterprise/20220714/281758453009266

Once the rezoning is in place, the city will lose the ability to deny approval to future high density projects. Basically, rezoning now will tie the city’s hands for the future. The city council and the city planning department are obligated to protect the best interests of the residents of Yorba Linda, those same people that voted the city council into office. Please listen to the residents and not to the developers.

The Perceived California Housing Shortage is Not Real and Projected Housing Needs are Not Accurate

The panic over a housing shortage in this state is completely misguided. Even if there was a potential housing shortage in years past, recent reports provide evidence that the population in California is shrinking. It is undeniable that residents are fleeing this state in droves. Sadly, the last few years during the COVID pandemic have also taken a toll on our community as well. The original rezoning model California legislators used to calculate the projected housing need was based on the density of New York City. California cities are not able to support the population density of New York city so the

188-1

188-3

188-2



modeling used to project the housing need is faulty. Further, most recent census numbers prove our population in California is dwindling. We even lost a congressional seat because of this. There is a current movement to force the state legislature to recalculate the projected housing needs and independent studies show that the need is actually 1 million potential housing units instead of the 3 million number that was calculated several years ago. I ask the city to take the extension time, participate in the fight against the misguided rezoning legislation and wait to see if we are actually going to need all of these units.

Reference: https://www.livablecalifornia.org/the-3-5-million-housing-shortage-lie/

Defective Notice to Residents

The burden of proper notice lies with the city to comply with notice requirements. Somehow the city has been working on this housing element project for almost two years now. Somehow, this Housing Element was put to vote and approved on February 9, 2022. Yet, the notification, public review and public comment period isn’t until June 2022. The Housing Element covers 27 separate locations with thousands of housing units proposed throughout the city. The impact of these zoning changes will affect EVERYONE that lives in the city. Despite access to numerous methods for notification, the city failed to notify the residents within the designated distance of each site. It is the city’s burden to demonstrate that they have complied with notice requirements.

Unbalanced/Inequitable distribution of housing units

It is very obvious when looking at the housing element map that the majority of the rezoning sites and all of the highest density sites are in the western half of the city. Why? The western half of the city has the worst most over crowded schools, the least amount of funding and community development, the fewest parks and community resources, the most over loaded infrastructure and NOW the heaviest allocation of rezoning. 17 out of 27 sites are on the west side. This is completely inequitable.

Targeting of Religious Establishments

It is disturbing that the city sought out and targeted the rezoning of multiple locations that house religious establishments. According to one current city council member, the city specifically targeted church properties for rezoning. Twenty six percent of the parcels identified are churches. Each of these sites are currently in use for religious purposes. Out of 27 proposed locations, the city Targeting religious establishments – instead of vacant parks, golf courses and empty shopping centers with expansive

188-4

188-3(CONT.)

188-6

188-5



parking lots. There are 20 parks located within the city limits. Many of these parks are scarcely used by a very small percentage of city residents. Were any of these locations or portions thereof considered? Additionally, there are two large golf courses in the city that account for many acres of space that are arguably only accessible to a very small percentage of the residents of the city.

Apparent Conflict of Interest

Although there are no current formal allegations of inappropriate activities, the connection between the current Mayor and the Homebuilding Industry certainly raises the question as to whether there is an existing bias and the potential for conflicts of interest that contributed to the Housing Element plan and the city’s swift approval back in February before any notification or allowance for public comment. Mayor Rodriguez is the current CEO of BIA, Baldy View, the self proclaimed “Voice of the Homebuilding Industry.” The BIA’s Mission: “The mission of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, Baldy View Chapter (BIA) is to promote, advocate for and grow the homebuilding industry through member representation and community education at the local level. In addition, the Baldy View Chapter shall maintain a presence and influence on industry-related issues at regional, state, and national levels.” Further, “BIA helps to unleash the enormous job potential of the homebuilding industry…” Moreover, “BIA membership connects you to the largest group of homebuilding industry companies in Southern California.” “1,100 Member Companies” Reference: https://www.biabuild.com/

I respectfully submit this information in opposition to the ongoing high density housing rezoning efforts by the city of Yorba Linda.

Sincerely,

Kristine Dane

16 Year Yorba Linda Resident

188-7

188-6(CONT.)

188-8




Kristine Dane, dated July 15, 2022

188-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the Project and provides a list of reasons and concerns below. Detailed comments are provided in the following responses; thus, no further response is required.

188-2 The commenter inquires about the rush to become the first city in California to submit rezoning proposals and provides a reference to discuss the 2025 extension for rezoning. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

188-3 The commenter states the California housing shortage is not real and projected housing needs are not accurate. The commenter references a link which discusses the housing shortage lie. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

188-4 The commenter expresses concern with the public notice and states the City failed to notify residents within the designated distance of each housing opportunity site during the preparation of the Housing Element. The City held a series of public workshops before the City Council and Planning Commission throughout development of the Housing Element. Noticing for the public workshops and stakeholder meetings were advertised through a display ad in the local newspaper, posted on the City website, and advertised on the City’s social media channels. The City also maintained a stakeholder interest list who received email notification of all meetings, and were directly notified of the availability of the draft Housing Element for review over one week prior to its submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This stakeholder list included local housing service providers and housing advocacy organizations, property owners of candidate housing sites, as well as any residents or other stakeholders interested in the Housing Element.

188-5 The commenter expresses concern with the location of the housing opportunity sites and states that the distribution of the housing opportunity sites are unbalanced/inequitable. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection.

188-6 The commenter expresses concern with the rezoning of multiple locations that house religious establishments. The commenter inquires why parks, golf courses, and empty shopping centers weren’t considered. Refer to Response to Comment 188-5 above for the City’s process on the selection of site. No further response is required.

188-7 The commenter expresses concern over a conflict of interest between the current Mayor and the Homebuilding Industry. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



188-8 This comment includes conclusionary remarks and express opposition to the Project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 189

From: Lesley White <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:20 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Site S5-008 Fairmont Blvd Resident Letter of Request 07.15.2022

RE: Comments on DPEIR for Site S5-008 FairmontDear Mr. Nate Farnsworth:Please accept my comments, into the public record, in response to the Housing Element Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for Opportunity Site S5-008 off Fairmont Blvd.The Draft PEIR has failed to cover many environmental issues about this site and has not quantified the risks, feasibility, and alternatives of developing it. Consequently, I am writing to request a site-specific Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to adequately address/quantify topics related to Site S5-008 (Fairmont canyon).

1. Biology - S5-008 contains pristine native California flora and fauna, endangered wildlife, and borders Chino Hills, State Park. Native habitat c is a wildland-urban interface and not an infill site. This is not adequately addressed or quantified in the DPEIR or addressed concerning CEQA.

As S5-008 is contiguous with the existing state park, a well-suited alternate use of this site would be a park as it is adjacent to an existing region and native habitat.

2. Geology/soils - S5-008 is in an earthquake and landslide zone which has not been adequately addressed in the DPEIR

3. Hydrology/water quality - S5-008 is designated wetlands and contains a storm drain for runoff water that has not been sufficiently addressed.

4. Land Use/Planning - S5-008 has limited buildable acreage (anywhere from 2.5 - 9 acres with 14 acres of Open Space). However, the DPEIR has designated 230 with 196 realistic units which are not possible for RM standards (up to 10 units/acre). The land use for this site is misrepresented in the Housing Element.

5. Traffic/noise/pollution – the housing development plan for S5-008 will bring additional autos and traffic onto Fairmont Blvd. Further, parking has not been fully elucidated to understand the spill-over impact to Fairmont Blvd and/or adjacent properties such as Kerrigan Ranch, Forest, or Rimcrest areas.

6. Wildfire - S5-008 is in a VHSFHZ and would be the only site in the entire Housing Element with this designation after the Planning Commission’s recommendation to remove site S7-005. Evacuation plans and the hardening of asite for fire prevention and access roads are not adequately addressed in the DPEIR.

189-1

189-2

189-3

189-4

189-5

189-6

189-7



As a result of the important issues outlined above (1-6), site S5-008 is not areasonable candidate for high-density housing and should be removed orconsiderably modified from current development plans.

Further, given the current and recent housing development of property on theBastanchury corridor, the cumulative impacts of the relevant housing projects havenot been adequately addressed.

Site S5-008 is well positioned to be a part of an environmentally friendly park site andpreserves native habitat and the balance of biodiversity in this area.

The Planning Commission and City Council need to provide a more in-depth analysisof this property as a home building site since it does not align well with the overallHousing Element goals and has not addressedan alternative use for this site.

Given the uniqueness of this site and the insufficient analysis of it in the DPEIR, S5-008 should receive its own EIR that addresses specific issues of this particular site.

Sincerely,

Lesley White

-----------------------------------Lesley White

Address3770 Forest Glen RoadYorba Linda, CA 92886 USA

189-8




Lesley White, dated July 15, 2022

189-1 The commenter incorrectly states that the Draft PEIR has failed to cover the environmental issues below pertaining to housing opportunity site S5-008 and requests preparation of a separate EIR on the site. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project. No further response is required.


189-3 The commenter states that housing opportunity site S5-008 is in an earthquake and landslide zone and impacts to geology were are not adequately addressed in the Draft PEIR. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.4, Geology and Soils, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-12 to 5-13), one Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, Whittier‐Elsinore Fault Zone, passes through the City and also is within the northern portion of housing opportunity site S5-008. Any future development projects pursuant to the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Building and Safety division requirements, which includes avoiding the siting of housing within a fault zone. Further, the City’s Building Code (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 15) requires future development to submit an engineering geology report and soils engineering report to identify and mitigate geology conditions and hazards. Compliance with the CBC and City’s Building Code would ensure impacts would be less than significant. No further response is required.


189-4 The commenter expresses concern with Hydrology and Water Quality and states the Draft PEIR did not sufficiently address housing opportunity site S5-008, which is designated as



wetlands and contains a storm drain for runoff water. As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-21 to 5-26), impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant and mandatory adherence to the Construction General Permit and implementation of measures outlined in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. No further response is required.


189-6 The commenter express concern with traffic, noise, and pollution regarding housing opportunity site S5-008. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also please note that air quality, noise, and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.1, 4.7, and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively.

189-7 The commenter expresses concern with wildfire regarding housing opportunity site S5-008. and states that evacuation plans/fire prevention were not adequately addressed in the Draft PEIR. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required.

189-8 The commenter recommends housing opportunity site S5-008 should be removed due to the reasons provided in the comment letter. The commenter requests a site-specific EIR for housing opportunity site S5-008. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR.

The commenter expresses concern with the cumulative impact analysis for relevant current and recently developed housing projects. As discussed in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.0-3 to 4.0-5), the cumulative impact analysis in the Draft PEIR uses projections in the long-range planning documents – such as Yorba Linda’s General Plan, SCAG RTP/SCS, and SCAQMD 2016 AQMP. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 190

Levin P. Messick & Darlene Messick17421 Coventry Lane


Phone 714-996-1839E-mail [email protected]

Mr. Nate Farnsworth Planning Manager City of Yorba Linda, CAnfarnsworth@yorbalindaca,gov.

Dear sir:

May we begin by saying that we oppose the Planning Commission Recommendations adopted on June 29, 2022. Why is that?

1) There was no official notice provided by mail to us of such meeting and where and when it was taking place or what it was about at that time.

2) The official notice sent by you of what was agreed upon in that meeting came today July 14,2022 with a notice that it impacts us as our residence is within 2,000 feet of at least two of the proposed zoning changes. I also note that I have until tomorrow July 15th.to reply.

3) The immediate impact is that between the two Rezone Sites on Richfield Road you are proposing adding 395 housing units there. That is the most of any of the sites in the rest of Yorba Linda. The vastly added number, of people, amount of traffic, pollution, and both the increased school district and city financial (including fire and police) services required for this proposal are staggering.

4) There is also environmental concern regarding this proposal. There is a reason Richfield Road carries that name. This area of the city is on former oilfield land. Indeed, there are currently wells still located along this road. Earlier construction was not necessarily as strict as current requirements. In our tract, shortly after it was built, in 1971, several neighbors dug up tanks and oil piping well after their purchase. I would assume that the city would have to have a complete Environmental Impact Survey carried out before adopting any zoning changes of this magnitude.

5) It is our understanding that the city is currently below open space requirements required for the current population. These areas would in our opinion be better used as open/park space.

We have lived in this area of town for over 50 years. There has been a great deal of change during this time. Much of it has been positive. This is not.

Sincerely,

Levin and Darlene MessickCc; City Council

190-1

190-2

190-3

190-4

190-5




Levin and Darlene Messick, dated July 15, 2022

190-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the Project and raises concerns with the public notice and meeting. The commenter then mentions the official notice was received by the commenter on July 14, 2022. The Draft PEIR was distributed to various public agencies, organizations, and individuals on June 1, 2022; the PEIR was available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The review period ended on July 15, 2022. The City used several methods to elicit comments on the Draft PEIR. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft PEIR was distributed to the SCH for distribution to State agencies and was posted on the City’s website. The NOA was posted also at the Orange County Clerk’s office on June 1, 2022. On June 1, 2022, the NOA was mailed to responsible agencies, local government agencies, interested parties that received the NOP, individuals who had previously requested the NOA or PEIR, to individuals who provided NOP comments, and to individuals within a 2,000-foot radius to any of the 27 housing opportunity sites. The NOA was also published in OC Register on June 1, 2022; the NOA and Draft PEIR were made available for review, on the City’s web site at: https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/Environmental-Documents.

190-2 The commenter expresses concerns with traffic, pollution, school services, fire services, and

police services for housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. Also please note that public services (fire, police, and schools) and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.7 and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

190-3 The commenter expresses concern with the former oilfield land on Richfield Road. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.7, Mineral Resources, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-27 to 5-28), no impact to mineral resources would occur. Implementation of the Project would not change or impact ongoing oil operations, including oil extraction activities. Development in accordance with the Project would not expand into mineral resource recovery sites or currently utilized oil fields. No further response is required.

190-4 The commenter notes the City is currently below open space requirements for the current

population and the housing opportunity sites would be a better use as open/park space. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

190-5 The commenter expresses opposition to the Project and notes the change is not positive. This

comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action




being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Comment Letter 191

From: lorie felling <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 9:23 AMTo: Housing Element 2021 <[email protected]>Subject: Proposed Site East Yorba Linda

My name is Lorie Felling I live in Bryant Ranch area. I have been here for30 years. I am very concerned about the proposed low income housingplan in our area. The traffic has become very heavy down La Palma overthe years trying to get to the 91 freeway at Gypsum Canyon. The proposalfor low income housing will bring more traffic to the area along with morepeople. The area has only one way to get to the freeway from La Palmawhich impacts all of the people that live in the area trying to get home onany afternoon. There is also High Fire Danger in our area which will alsoimpact the traffic trying to leave the area in the event of a fire. Last firehere it took 45 minutes to get from Lomas De Yorba East to Weir Canyonon La Palma. The other issue I have will all of this you are taking away theonly center we have to go grab a bit to eat, sit and have a cold beverageand Gas, not to mention the bike shops and the skate rink, people have aplace to gather here. (Bryant Ranch Center, Skate Rink, Bicycle Shop,Donut Shop, and Gas Station)

I do not agree with the proposed plan for more Homes, Town homes orCondos in the area.

SincerelyLorie [email protected](714) 883-1093

191-1




Lorie Felling, dated July 15, 2022

191-1 The commenter resides in Bryant Ranch area for the past 30 years and expresses concerns with the Project, specifically traffic, the high fire danger in the area, and fire evacuation. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also please note that transportation and wildfire impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.9 and 4.11 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 192

From: Lorraine Downing <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 9:11 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; [email protected]: rezoning plan

My name is Lorraine Downing. As a resident of YL since 1995 I wish to voice my concernwith the proposed rezoning for ~395 dwelling units along 2 blocks of Richfield, north ofBuena Vista. I am specifically opposed to rezoning the 2 sites: S3-207 5300-5392 Richfield(340 units) and S3-012 Richfield Community Church (55 units). Almost 20% of the total cityrequirement is clustered within only 2 blocks.

If these densities don't come down, I will do my best to defeat the proposed density increasesvia Measure B.

192-1




Lorraine Downing, dated July 15, 2022

192-1 The commenter expresses concern with the densities and clustering of housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012 and opposition to Measure B if density does not decrease. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 193

To: Yorba Linda City Council, Planning Commission From: Margaret Thurston 3790 Forest Glen Rd. YL Subject: Response to DPEIR, addendum Date: July 15, 2022 Dear Yorba Linda City Council/Planning Commission, My amended response to the DPEIR reference Table 4.5-1 from the DPEIR along with California law as attachments: Attachment F: DPEIR Table 4.5-1 Attachment H: AB-1397 While my comments and questions are specific to S5-008, they also concern the overall misinformation and Policy conflict in the DPEIR. Hopefully the rezoning extension to February 2025 will permit Yorba Linda to slow down, perform necessary survey/reports, fully evaluate the results, correct the information in the Housing Element, and revise the DPEIR before rezoning the wildlife/ riparian corridor site S5-008 for residential housing. Respectfully, Margaret Thurston

193-1



AB-1397 (2017-2018) Attachment H

California law requires that sites identified in the Element inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply available/accessible OR have a plan included in the GP to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply available/accessible to support housing development.

S5-008 DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA AB 1397. This location does NOT have ANY or the resources required to support any housing development. There is NO plan authored and included in the General Plan to secure these resources.

Additionally, as this site is a Very High Fire Zone, Earthquake Fault Line Zone, Steep Slope/Landslide Zone and Protected Urban Corridor the plan to secure resources cannot begin until extensive EIR, biological, geological, et al assessment reports are completed.

Why is S5-008 included in the 2021-2029 Inventory when it is out of compliance with California AB-1397?

Where are the assessments, reports, plans etc verifying the physical, biological and geological condition of this property?

Where is the plan mapping the process to secure water, water removal, sewer, gas, electricity, all dry utilities for this property?

Answers?

193-2



DPEIR Table 4.5-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis Attachment F

The DPEIR describes this table as the General Plan Consistency Analysis, providing an analysis of the Project’s consistency with all applicable General Plan goals and policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As shown in Table 4.5-1, the Project would not conflict with any of the applicable General Plan goals and policies. Accordingly, the Project would have a less-than significant impact with respect to a conflict with the City of Yorba Linda General Plan.

This table is 25 pages long and lists dozens of Goals and Policies from the YL General Plan.

In every section, the Policy is listed and the YL Action Result is described. In EVERY result description, they end with ‘would not conflict’ or ‘is consistent with’.

This is FALSE misleading information either by mistake or by design. A few examples:

S5-008 does NOT have existing water delivery and wastewater colloection infrastructure!

The city is rcommending indoor and outdoor water conservation, California cities are handing down new mandated water restriction uses daily.

Claiming the project is ‘consistent’ with GP Policy while providing misinformation is unethical.

When will the DPEIR be corrected adding the conflicts with with GP Policy presented with S5-008?

Answer?

193-3



Table 4.5-1 continued…

The table alleges to be consistent with Policy PS-6.3 stating ‘There are adequate police, fire, and emergency service facilities and personnel within the City to serve the Project’.

However, on Page 4.7-14, the DPEIR clearly states the ‘Buildout of the Project would increase demands for police protection services in the City’.

The DPEIR information conflicts throughout the document. This table is only one example. If the Buildout will increase the demand for police, which is obvious and logical, how can section 4.7 claim there are adequate police already in the City?

When will ALL of the misinformation in the DPEIR be corrected?

Answer?

193-4




Margaret Thurston, dated July 15, 2022

193-1 The commenter alleges overall misinformation and policy conflict in the Draft PEIR. Detailed comments are provided in the following responses. No further response is required.

193-2 The commenter asks why housing opportunity site S5-008 is included when it is out of compliance with AB 1397. The commenter asks about the assessments, report, and plans to verify the physical, biological, and geological condition of the site and about the plan to secure water, water removal, sewer, gas, electricity, and dry utilities for housing opportunity site S5-008. Refer to responses to Comments 110-2 through 110-5. Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project EIR.

193-3 The commenter expresses concern with Project consistency with the General Plan and states the information is misleading. The commenter provides consistency with Policy 5.1 on Page 4.5-9 as example. Page 4.5-9 of the Draft PEIR has been modified in Response to Comment E-2 as shown in Section 3.0 of this Final PEIR. Thus, no further response is required.

193-4 The commenter incorrectly states information in the Draft PEIR conflicts throughout and compares the text in Table 4.5-1 and Page 4.7-14 about police protection services as an example. The commenter incorrectly claims that the text in Table 4.5-1 stating there is adequate police service and personnel in the City and that the first sentence on Police Protection services in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR are inconsistent. As stated in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Page 4.7-14), buildout of the Project would increase demands for police protection services in the City. However, OCSD has indicated that this increase would not adversely impact OCSD’s existing resources. OCSD will work closely with the City to determine proper level of law enforcement staffing based on best practices for population and crime statistics. Therefore, no revision to the Draft PEIR is required.



Comment Letter 194

July 15, 2022 City o Yorba Linda Nate Farnsworth, Planning Manager [email protected] Re: Zoning Modification PEIR report Strongly oppose rezoning S4-053, S4-060, S4-201 S3-074, S3-103, S3-205A Mr. Farnsworth,

As a homeowner and equestrian rider living on Tedford Way in Yorba Linda, I strongly oppose rezoning recommendations for Site ID S4-053, S4-060, and S4-201 due to safety concerns. As you’re aware, Philip Paxton Equestrian Center is located at 18611 Buena Vista Ave. This center is on the direct route to get to site S4-201 and S4-060 and indirectly to S4-053. The local area for equestrian riding is Yorba Linda Lakebed Park which requires a minimum of two street crossings on Buena Vista and Ohio Street to access. This area of Yorba Linda does not have a horse trail system, but instead has combined traffic with equestrian, cycling, and automobiles all sharing the same roads. Grandview Ave., for example has the main roadway posted off Buena Vista as shared with cyclists. Mountain view and Ohio street have no trail area whatsoever and the very short trail area on Buena Vista in front of the Equestrian Center ends at the crosswalk with Ohio Street on one end and Grandview on the other. Grandview as it turns from the proposed site S4-053 toward Linda Vista Elementary School, has a blind curve with no sidewalk and shared traffic with equestrian, cycle, and automobile. Simply put, this “equestrian” area of Yorba Linda around the Equestrian Center, while zoned for horses, does not provide separate horse trails for riding or provide equestrian access to the Equestrian Center or Lakebed. Any increase in density and increased traffic would have a substantially negative impact the existing sharing of roadways between horses, cyclists and automobiles. Additionally, many additional proposed sites would likely increase student population and thereby traffic to Linda Vista Elementary School. Linda Vista Elementary has its traffic approach on Buena Vista in front of the Equestrian Center. These already experience a great deal of traffic congestion during peak pick-up and drop off times. Proposed sites S3-074, S3-103, S3-205A appear to have their access on Lakeview north of Buena Vista. I’m sure you’re aware that this 4-way-stop intersection at Buena Vista and Lakeview has already experienced fatalities. Even with current zoning, crossing this intersection on foot or horseback to get to the equestrian center is already very difficult to navigate. Before Yorba Linda decides to combine equestrian with higher density, I would urge you to consider the actual impact even slightly increased traffic will have on the shared usage of our roadways. Horses are unpredictable animals. Some freak when a vehicle comes up to them suddenly from behind. Some freak with a loud noise such as a honking horn or backfire. Some won’t stand and patiently wait for traffic. Some will refuse to go over a dark patch of asphalt (the black hole effect is guess).

194-1

194-4

194-2

194-3



That’s part of the riding experience. However, because this is an equestrian area, drivers are aware and extremely courteous. I’ve had my horses get loose and onto the street and neighbors help round them up. The low density and minimal traffic has allowed Yorba Linda to have an equestrian area like this within the community. Because this area of Yorba Linda has that more rural feel, many roads are very dimly lit with many private streets being not lit at all. At dusk horses and riders are very difficult for drivers to see. Again, area drivers are aware and extremely courteous. The low density and minimal traffic has allowed for the shared road use by people, animals, cyclists and automobiles. For safety reasons, until Yorba Linda is prepared to do substantial investment in creating separate road use areas for horses, cyclists and automobiles such as that done in Norco, I would urge Yorba Linda to NOT do any rezoning designed to increase density in this area. It would seem somewhat negligent for the city to promote an equestrian center within an “equestrian area” of its borders and then change the zoning to create an unsafe environment for the equestrian community around the center. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at 714-926-9075 or [email protected] or 5275 Tedford Way, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Sincerely, Mary Tobin

194-5

194-4(CONT.)

194-6




Mary Tobin, dated July 15, 2022

194-1 The commenter expresses opposition to housing opportunity sites S4-053, S4-060, and S4-201 due to pedestrian/equestrian safety and traffic concerns. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. Also please note that transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft PEIR.

194-2 The commenter expresses concern with school services and increased traffic to Linda Vista Elementary School. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

194-3 The commenter expresses concerns with traffic and pedestrian/equestrian safety for housing opportunity sites S3-074, S3-103, and S3-205A. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. No further response is required.

194-4 The commenter describes the needs for low density for equestrian area and recounts past experiences with horses getting lose. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

194-5 The commenter expresses concerns with the existing dimly lit roadways and urge the City to not rezoning the area. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.

194-6 The commenter notes it is negligent for the City to promote an equestrian center and then change the zoning to create an unsafe environment for the equestrian community. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 195

From: Maxine Russell <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 9:32 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Rezone of Richfield Area

I would like to express my concerns about the rezoning of the tree farm area on RichfieldRoad. My biggest concern is the water shortage that we are experiencing and the addition of400 units and approximately 1 thousand people that would potentially live there. We arealready experiencing a water shortage and that is a lot more water usage that can only makethe shortage worse.

Additionally I am concerned about forcing large projects on a community and the changes thatit will bring. Projects that occur naturally on a smaller scale are more easily assimilated intothe community as they occur without losing the atmosphere of our city.

The loss of control over our environment being forced on us by state government, virtuallyblackmailing us to make the changes they think are best for us is very upsetting. We shouldbe able to control our own city and do the things that we think are best for it.

Sincerely

Maxine Russell

195-1




Maxine Russell dated July 15, 2022

195-1 The commenter expresses concerns with water supply regarding the housing opportunity sites on Richfield Road. Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District, impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and according to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project. No further response is required.



Comment Letter 196

From: Michael A. Mahony <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 8:12 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected]: Comments on DPEIR for Site S5-008Importance: High


Please accept my comments into public record in response to the Housing Element Draft PEIRfor Opportunity Site S5-008 off Fairmont Blvd.

The Draft PEIR has failed to cover many environmental issues pertaining to this site and hasnot quantified the risks of developing it. Because of this, I am writing to state this site needsits own EIR performed to adequately quantify the risks on the following CEQA topics:

1. Wildfire - S5-008 is in a VHSFHZ and would be the only site in the entire HousingElement with this designation after the Planning Commission’s recommendation to removeS7-005. Evacuation plans and hardening of site for fire prevention and access roads is notaddressed in DPEIR2. Biology - S5-008 is a habitat for endangered wildlife and borders Chino Hills State Park. Itis a wildland-urban interface and not an infill site. This is not adequately addressed orquantified in the DPEIR.3. Geology - S5-008 is in an earthquake and landslide zone. The DPEIR fails to address this.4. Hydrology - S5-008 is designated wetlands and contains a storm drain for runoff water.The DPEIR fails to address this.5. Land Use and Planning - S5-008 has limited buildable acreage (anywhere from 2.5 - 9acres with 14 acres of Open Space). However, the DPEIR has designated 230 with 196realistic units which is not possible for RM standards. The land use for this site ismisrepresented in the Housing Element.6. Traffic - S5-008 will bring additional cars and traffic onto Fairmont Blvd. Parking has notbeen fully addressed to make sure it does not spill over to Fairmont Blvd and/or adjacentproperties such as Kerrigan Ranch, Forest or Rimcrest.

As a result of these issues, I do not believe S5-008 is a proper candidate for high densityhousing. It should be removed or the unit allocation reduced to what is actually possible forthis property based on the buildable acreage.

The Planning Commission and City Council should take a closer look at this property since it does not align with the overall Housing Element goals.

Given the uniqueness of this site, and the inadequate analysis of it in the DPEIR, S5-008should receive its own EIR.

Sincerely,

Michael A. Mahony

196-1

196-2

196-3

196-4

196-5

196-6

196-7




Michael A. Mahony, dated July 15, 2022

196-1 The commenter incorrectly states that the Draft PEIR has failed to cover the environmental issues below pertaining to housing opportunity site S5-008 and requests preparation of a separate EIR on the site. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project. No further response is required.








As stated in Subsection 5.4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-21 to 5-26), impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant and mandatory adherence to the Construction General Permit and implementation of measures outlined in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. No further response is required.



196-7 The commenter does not believe housing opportunity site S5-008 is a proper candidate for high density housing and it should be removed or the unit allocation reduced to what is actually possible based on the buildable acreage. The commenter states housing opportunity site S5-008 receive its own EIR. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Program Versus Project. No further response is required. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 197

[Type the sender name]

5262 Liverpool St. Yorba Linda, CA 92886

714-381-1998

Nate Farnsworth

4845 Casa Loma Ave. Yorba Linda, CA 92886

To Yorba Linda Planning Commission and Yorba Linda City Council:

My family has been living in western Yorba Linda since 1999. It’s been an ideal place to live and raise our children. Friends that visit often comment how quiet and non-crowded it is here compared to other cities in Orange County. However, it has come to our attention that a 395-dwelling unit apartment complex has been proposed to be built on Richfield, only one street down from our residence. In particular, sites S3-207 and S3-012.

Apparently, this proposed high-density dwelling complex comprises about 20% of the total city requirement in one area! I feel this is too large a proportion for our area to absorb. It will lead to a major increase in traffic on Richfield, as well as the entire surrounding area. In particular, this addition will impact traffic around Van Buren Elementary in the morning and afternoon, which already makes it hard to enter and exit our neighborhood. Property values in the area will also decrease due to having such a prominent high-volume apartment residency nearby.

Yorba Linda has been known as the “Land of Gracious Living”, at lease it says that on the street signs. Please consider a significant reduction in the size of this proposed apartment project to lessen the impact on our area. Let’s keep Yorba Linda a desirable community to live and raise families in!

Sincerely, Michele Aldwir

[Type the sender name] 7/15/2022

197-1




Michele Aldwir, dated July 15, 2022

197-1 The commenter expresses concerns with traffic regarding housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also please note that transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 198

From: Peggy Barlet <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 2:28 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Proposed zoning changes

Mr. Farnsworth-

I am opposed to the proposed zoning changes identified as sites S7-001 and S7-005 and have previously sent an email to you as well as to the planning commission. Since then I have reviewed the materials sent out and also the Traffic Commission notes from June 23 and Planning Commission notes from June 29 as well as reading that the state has approved extending the rezoning deadline to 2025 and feel that recommending approving the rezoning of these sites would be irresponsible and not in the best interest of the citizens of the Bryant Ranch area of Yorba Linda.

The EIR that has been done did not include traffic conditions on La Palma Ave. which affects both sites not to mention the current residents of the Bryant Ranch area. The potential addition of 320 and 30 residential units could realistically generate 600 cars which this area cannot safely accommodate regardless of how many different ways it is viewed. The Gypsum Canyon intersection is not usable by local residents each afternoon and as has been demonstrated twice by fires- in the case of emergency La Palma Ave. provides the only way out for residents and in for emergency equipment.

Rather than rezoning, the S7-001 site should remain commercial and should be redesigned (NOT to include residential) such that it is a more pleasing space that would increase business and generate tax dollars for the city. The tenants and Bryant Ranch neighbors of the center have ideas on how this could be accomplished and should be partnered with to see them implemented.

I urge you to recommend to the Planning Commission that they rescind their support of the rezoning of S7-001 and S7-005 before the public hearing scheduled for August 2. This area of the city of Yorba Linda doesn’t need more residents and even more congestion- it needs neighborhood services. This could be accomplished by rethinking the existing and working with the local citizens rather than putting us in a position to choose sides and fight.

Sincerely,Peggy Barlet5415 Castle Bend WayYorba Linda, CA. 92887714/488-1963

198-1

198-2

198-3

198-4




Peggy Barlet, dated July 15, 2022

198-1 The commenter expresses general opposition with housing opportunity sites S7-001 and S7-005. Detailed comments are provided in the following responses; thus, no further response is required.

198-2 The commenter expresses concerns with traffic and states the Draft PEIR did not include traffic conditions on La Palma Avenue. Future housing development would conduct a project-level traffic impact analysis based on City’s Guidelines that will analyze the existing traffic condition at the time of preparation of the study and the LOS impacts due implementation of the development in the opening year scenario. Future improvements to the existing roadways would be implemented as needed based on the results on the focused site-specific traffic impact analysis. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

198-3 The commenter recommends housing opportunity site S7-001 should remain commercial and should be redesigned to a more pleasing space that would increase business and generate tax dollars for the City. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.

198-4 This comment provides conclusionary remarks to the above-mentioned concerns and opposition to housing opportunity sites S7-001 and S7-005; thus, no further response is required.



Comment Letter 199

From: Roger VanKirk <[email protected]> Sent:Friday, July 15, 2022 12:50 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]> Subject: PEIR/DEIR

The majority of the sites are on the west side of Yorba Linda, 17 west, central has 3 and the east 3. It’s the most inequitable distribution of the housing density and the problems that they bring to especially the west side.

The majority of the Rezoning sites are in the older residential part of Yorba Linda neighborhoods that have the old small two lane residential streets without sidewalks or partial sidewalks. These streets such as Lakeview, Eureka and Richfield cannot accommodate the current traffic much less the additional traffic targeted for the west side of Yorba Linda.

We have no infrastructure to move traffic safely or adequately when there is a major event. I did experience that with our last earthquake, it was a nightmare going only 3 miles down imperial hwy to eureka.

We do not have the sheriffs to enforce the speed limits or to ticket the people that run the signals or all way stops. Our sheriffs say talk to the city and the city says talk to the sheriffs.

We do not have the infrastructure in place for ANY more developments.

We hope our City Council will continue to fight the Rezoning as our city does not have the infrastructure to move traffic adequately or safely. Please please fight for the west side especially as we will have the bulk of all the traffic congestion etc.

Roger and Debbie Vankirk

199-1




Roger and Debbie Vankirk, dated July 15, 2022

199-1 The commenter expresses concerns with the inequitable distribution of housing density on the west side of the City. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection.

The commenter expresses concerns with traffic, fire evacuation/emergency access, and law enforcement. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns and 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. Also please note that police protection services and transportation impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.7 and 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 200

From: Russell Heine <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:55 PMTo: AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth<[email protected]>Subject: YL Hsng Proposal 7/14/22 Observations & Comments

To: Yorba Linda Planning Commission and Yorba Linda City Council

Below are my comments regarding the latest notice of Public Hearing concerning various zoning and General Plan Modifications.

In summary my comments focus on the distribution of the state mandated housing being accomplished in a fair and equitable manner throughout Yorba Linda.I understand that we do not have a lot of options with regard to the state but Yorba Linda DOES have the power and capability to accomplish this in a fair and equitable manner.In my opinion, the current proposal is Not a fair and equitable distribution and I could not support this version in an up zoning vote.

I am not advocating for no development, or even no development in my area , just an equitable allocation.

- Several large properties on the list proposed at ~ 3 - 7 DwellingUnits/ acre vsRichfield at 35 Dwelling Units/acre

- Highland Reservoir proposed at only 10 du/acre ?? Why the difference?- Christmas tree farm 340 14% of total 2410- Richfield church 55 2% of total395 16% of total- Highland Reservoir 71466 within 1 square mile 19 % of the total 2410 Total on the list

- Buena Vista and Lakeview intersection rated F . These 3 sites will make intersection even worse!ie: ( Many trips S on Richfield turn left on Buena Vista and right on Lakeview to used the flyover)( at least 1/2 of Highland Resevoir will likely empty to Buena Vista and to the Lakeview F rated intersection)

- Can the Christmas tree farm owner commit in formal writing that he is Not going to develop until , at least, the last year of this housing cycle

200-1



Is this Equitable distribution?- Christmas Tree farm has the highest DUs for the whole city- Christmas Tree farm is tied with 7 others for 35 du / acre- 17 of the 27 ( 62%) sites are below 20 du/ acre- 19 of 27 (70%) sites are below 35 du/ acre

- Impacts to : Property values, traffic (access to Richfield from Colina after 466 units + Dennys and Target!), safety , quality of YL traditional life, not to mention water , etc.

- 18101 Bastanchury ( 22.83 acres) is listed as “planned development” and so getting only 10 du/acre??

Why do “planned development” get special treatment in the city? Suggestion to adjust the list for Richfield as a “planned development” at 10 du’s / acre

- The “red dot map” clearly shows a number of areas with No high density propopsal while there are significant clusters being proposed in others.

- The Planning Commission is “recommending” dropping 43 du’s from South Ohio, Grandview, and Bryant Ranch prior to the review period closure , thus constraining further negotiation around use of the “buffer”.

- The lower Bastanchury , (Friends Church ) 22-23 acres is not on the list . Supposedly ??? was “sold” to Shae Homes and they are planning (?23 ) homes . Why can’t that change?

- Ranked total DUs1. Christmas Tree farm 3402. Bryant Ranch Center 3203. Top of Fairtmont 2304. Bastanchu 2285. Rose /Blake 2086 . Extended Stay 143

- Ranked du/ acre1. 8 sites @ 35 du/ acre ; Christmas tree farm, 16951 Imperial , Bryant Ranchshopping, Manaserro Farms, YL Preschool, 4791 Eureka (Old YL rental) , Plumosa& Lemon, John Force2. 2 sites @ 20 du / acre West of Imperial & Prospect ; Altrudy Lane3. 1 site @ 13.8 du / acre

Russ Heine47+ year resident

200-1(CONT.)




Russ Heine, dated July 15, 2022

200-1 The commenter expresses concerns with the inequitable distribution of the housing opportunity sites. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection.



Comment Letter 201

From: Tina Schaumann <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 11:15 AMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Arlene Laviera <[email protected]>Subject: Proposed Site S7-001

Good Afternoon,

My name is Tina Harns and I am a resident near the proposed Bryant Ranch re-development site.

I have read through all of the currently available literature on this specific site, and I have a few concerns. While I do think it’s necessary to update and re-develop the shopping center nestled on La Palma, I don’t think that adding housing units as part of the mix-use re-zoning proposal is a viable plan. As it stands, the current proposal lists a possible addition of 320 apartment units which means that if every unit had just 1 driver, that would be an additional 320 cars in an already clogged area of the city.

Because I use La Palma every day, I am very familiar with the bottlenecking that occurs every day between 3-6pm (due to people trying to speed up their freeway commute on the 91E), not to mention the zoo that takes place on Friday evenings. Two years ago when we had our latest batch of fires, I remember having to evacuate my three children under 10 and feeling anxious because every way out of the community was completely backed up. We ended up taking the back road by box canyon park, which moved ever so slightly faster than La Palma. Thankfully, we were fine, but the anxiety I felt trying to leave while maintaining my composure so as not to terrify my kids was overwhelming.

Your traffic report study claims that there will be little to no change to the current conditions, well, I respectfully disagree. Firstly, that statement assumes that the current traffic conditions are acceptable; they are not. They are at best, tolerable. Secondly, whoever conducted the study is clearly not a resident of this area, because there is no way that anyone nestled in this area would say that there are no vehicular issues to be dealt with.

Lastly, I would like to point out that the intersection of La Palma and Yorba Linda Blvd is one of the most accident prone intersections in all of Yorba Linda. Is the addition of at least 320 vehicles really the best idea? Perhaps what we should be exploring is the development of additional roads in and out of the community.

I understand that the state of California has very specific fines for any city found non-compliant in its push for more affordable housing. I would be happy to have a separate conversation about the governmental overreach that cities like ours are having to deal with. My point is, that more housing in this already congested and accident prone area is foolish,and so I oppose the measure to develop Bryant Ranch (S7-001) into a mix-use zone.

Thank you for your time, and I hope you have a wonderful day.

Best,

Tina Harns

201-1

201-2

201-3




Tina Harns, dated July 15, 2022

201-1 The commenter expresses opposition to housing opportunity site S7-001 and describes the existing traffic in the area. Detailed comments are provided in the following response; thus, no further response is required.

201-2 The commenter disagrees with the findings of the traffic report study related to existing traffic conditions and expresses concerns with traffic in the area. The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in March 2022. The 2022 weekday AM and PM peak hour count data is representative of typical weekday peak hour traffic conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity or detour routes and nearby schools were in session and operating on normal schedules. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

201-3 This comment provides conclusionary remarks to the above-mentioned concerns; thus, no further response is required.



Comment Letter 202

From: vicki bolinger <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 10:10:34 PMTo: Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Oppose 27 sites for upzoning

To who it may concern.

I'm a resident in Bryant Ranch Yorba Linda. I am strongly opposing REZONING and tearing down Bryant Ranch center for low income housing. In 2008 we had a horrible fire and residents couldn’t get out of the area! Fire was in the river bend and Lapalma was grind locked. I was directed Left and put on the freeway where i was in solid black smoke do to they fire jumping the freeway. Bryant Ranch also ran out of water in hidden hills. From a safety standpoint we cannot anymore housing in the Bryant Ranch area.

We finally have Mix Gourmet Chinese food restaurant and Taps restaurant and Fantasy burger. We are in need of a grocery store and keeping Arco gas station. We have a thriving bike storeand Canyon hills hair salon. The Bryant Ranch area cannot and will not allow you to rezone and destroy thriving business that we need in our little corner of Yorba Linda! Don’t forget about the thriving ice skating rink.

Take your low housing plan and flush it down the ugly eye sore riverbed!!!!!

Sincerely.Vicki Bolinger

202-1




Vicki Bolinger, dated July 15, 2022

202-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the Project, specifically at housing opportunity site S7-001 and raises concerns with fire evacuation. The commenter also notes the needs of commercial uses within the area. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Comment Letter 203

From: Virginia Gail GIBSON <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 3:26 PMTo: AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>Subject: Rezoning concerns

My name is Virginia Gibson. I've been a Yorba Linda Residence for 28 years. This concerns me greatly.

I live on Monette Cir. The rezoning planed for Richfield would impact us greatly, the traffic is already compacted on Richfield.

I understand this is state mandated and needs to be addressed. But there is so much empty land in different areas of Yorba Linda that would work without impacting an already trafficked street.

Not to mention that a new Target and Denny's is planned also. That's even more traffic added. I vote NO on this measure.

With much empty land in different parts of Yorba Linda please take advantage of that space.

Again I vote NO on measure B.

This would only add heavily to the city density within 2 city blocks.

Virginia Gibson17605 Monette CirYorba Linda 92886

203-1




Virginia Gibson, dated July 15, 2022

203-1 The commenter expresses general opposition to the Project and raises concerns with traffic. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR. However, please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. Also please note that transportation impacts were fully addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft PEIR. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project.



Form Letter A Gregory Schlentz 6/2/2022 Law Offices of Kathryn Greer 6/2/2022 Allie Lloyd 6/5/2022 Bryan Lloyd 6/5/2022 Susie Villaran 6/5/2022 Vicky Prisco 6/5/2022 Jason Klems 6/7/2022 Zsuzsana Williams 6/7/2022 Henry G. Prisco Jr. 6/8/2022 Brenda Vitelli 6/9/2022 Binbin Wang 6/10/2022 Margarita Cooper 6/11/2022 Yong Li 6/13/2022 Xin Wang 6/14/2022 Gayle Langlois 6/17/2022 Paul Langlois 6/17/2022 Kevy McNeill 6/20/2022 Lindsay Membreno 6/20/2022 Ryan Brueckner 6/20/2022 West Wendy 6/21/2022 Gregory Schlentz 6/22/2022 Kristin Francis 6/22/2022 Linda Hayase 6/27/2022 Stephanie Forshee 6/28/2022 Jackie Cruz 7/10/2022

This comment letter, with some nonsubstantive variations, was submitted by the individuals listed above. Copies of the individual letters are in Attachment A in this Final PEIR.



Form Letter A

From: Gregory Schlentz <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 7:43 AMTo: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez<[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Beth Haney<[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Susan Lamp<[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Mark Pulone<[email protected]>; Dave Christian <[email protected]>; Marcia Brown<[email protected]>; David Brantley <[email protected]>; Karalee Darnell<[email protected]>; Robert Pease <[email protected]>; Don Bernstein<[email protected]>; Michael Masterson <[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>; Greg Schlentz <[email protected]>Subject: Safety Concerns with proposed rezoning of Grandview and South Ohio Street sites.CityCouncil and City Officials,

My name is Gregory Schlentz. I live at 5251 Ohio Street, YL 92886.

I’m reaching out for assistance and guidance regarding concerns that members of my community have recently raised to the planning department about several of the properties in the Housing Element within our neighborhood. We ask that you please take the time and consider our concerns.

The properties we are concerned about are:

1)) 5531 South Oh2)) 5541 South Oh3)) SWC Grandview x Kello

Unfortunately, we only recently learned about these plans after a neighbor notified us. I was notnotified by the city although I reside in very close proximity to these sites. City officials alsodid NOT notify residents of the scope meeting on May 23rd where big changes to our very ownneighborhood were being discussed. This is inconsiderate as we didn’t know to voice our opinionsand opposition.

We are requesting that the above sites be removed from the potential of being re-zoned onthe “Housing Opportunity Sites List” which could potentially add 38 households to an already dangerously congested neighborhood. The addition of potentially 38 more families and vehicles into this area would nearly double the density of our small neighborhood which would be catastrophic.

Our request is to REMOVE these 3 properties and choose other’s that do not have thefollowing SAFETY issues. When looking at the aerial map it is obvious that there are many other areas in the city of Yorba Linda that are more suitable to fulfill the state mandated requirements. These properties total only 3.76 acres squeezed into a neighborhood that for generations has been designated as Low Density.

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4



Impacts to Safety:

1) There are very few entry and exit points into/out of our neighborhood which are already very congested during peak times and many dead ends surrounding Linda Vista Elementary posing a high risk to children.

Linda Verde Street dead ends into 5531 and 5541 South Ohio St. which puts the children at risk of being trapped in Linda Vista Elementary School, should there be any type of an emergency in that area. South Ohio Street dead ends at the Linda Vista Elementary School property. Everything piles up in this area from school buses, to hundreds of cars per day plus parents & grandparents walking orparking.

The ONLY EXITS from the area of Linda Vista Elementary School and Linda Verde Street are Grandview to Kellogg(Which involves the SWC of Kellogg Dr./Grandview on your list.), Buena Vista to Grandview to Mt. View to Kellogg, or Buena Vista Ave. to Lakeview. The speed limits are not adhered to by some drivers on Grandview and Buena Vista. There are parts of Grandview where two vehicles cannot pass due to the narrow street especially if there are cars parked on that section of street (which is where many parents park to wait for school to get out).

2) Our neighborhood consists of narrow two-lane streets throughout and cannot accommodate increased density.

There is Extreme HIGH Traffic between certain hours of the weekday when school is beginning 7am -8:00am and ending 12-2:45pm. Noise Levels are high and Air Quality is extremely bad, during these times. Existing residents absolutely CAN NOT get out of their driveways which means they are basically trapped in their properties until this process is completed each day. Any added residents with vehicles would also be trapped within their homes.

High density and low density should not share the same narrow two-lane street such as on the proposed site “SWC Kellogg/Grandview” which would place a high-density development directly in front of existing homes. The nearby Kellogg Terrace housing complex for example, has its very own network of dedicated roads with an entrance and exit point on a MAJOR multi-lanestreet(Kellogg Dr) and not on a narrow residential two-lane street(Grandview Ave) which already serves as one of the only entry and exit points into and out of our neighborhood.

A-5

A-6



On my street specifically, I believe that not only local neighbors, but others use Ohio and Grandview and a "Short Cut" over to Kellogg and not only do they live in the Neighborhood these People Speed down our street. My son was almost hit once, a lady actually had the nerve to try and remove my Slow Sign in front of my house as well and someone ran over a skateboard and kept driving. I have contacted YL Police department about this and have also inquired about speed bumps on this street. Adding more housing, would add more traffic which is a big safety concern for me and my family.

3) Emergency responders will not be able to access our neighborhood during peak times.

Should an unfortunate event happen where an Emergency Vehicle such as a Fire Truck, Ambulance, or Police need access this area it would NOT be accessible to them. It is a basic bottleneck and is dangerous during these times.

4) Very little streetlights, sidewalks throughout the proximity of the 3 sites, and 2 blind curves on Grandview Avenue. Essentially doubling the density of the area would greatly intensify the risk to children, parents, and residents in ourneighborhood.

There are TWO BLIND curves on Grandview where there are no sidewalks, so are even more dangerous when parents are distracted, while maneuvering around pedestrians and some students who have to walk to or from school on these streets. Any increased traffic on Buena Vista heading West with its limited visibility has become extremely more dangerous. There have been times when certain vehicles have attempted to pass on this two-lane road where there are few sidewalks and into blind curves.

There are certain times during the school year when the entire CROSS COUNTRY Team from Esperanza High School run and train throughout our neighborhood streets, there is additional traffic on Sundays when the church is in session, Linda Vista Elementary often has Special Events, soccer practice, and our neighborhood streets are often already used as parking for the nearby bike and bridle trail.

5)) The sites are in close proximity to the Philip S. Paxton Equestrian Cent posing a safety risk to people attempting to maneuver their horses and horse trailers through this traffic congestion.

Many families have chosen to live in this specific area because of the Equestrian Center and the trails that are adjacent to the Center. West Yorba Linda is VERY UNIQUE in that it is one of the LAST areas of the city where many horses can be kept safely and ridden onto the lakebed, bike and horse trails designated for their use. People from all over the city come to this neighborhood to access these amenities that the city offers.

A-7

A-8

A-9

A-10



We hope that the Community Development Dept. and your Council will re-consider their decision on these 3 sites by designating different 3 ¾ acre locations that are more suitable for Re-Zoning and will realize that the very soul of Yorba Linda still has only a few areas left with its UNIQUE LOW-DENSITY country feel (our neighborhood is one of them) and is WHY many families choose to live in Yorba Linda. This unfortunately is disappearing one property at a time. Please do not start with our neighborhood!

My Family and I moved to this neighborhood for the fact that houses in this neighborhood were not stacked on each other, neighbors were close enough but yet at a distance and the neighbor hood is somewhat quiet and unique. Again adding more housing and or "affordable" housing adds more traffic, more people and more cars which means not only is this a housing project but would need to expand roads, sidewalks, larger grocery stores, parks, lighting, trail maintenance, police and first responders. Is this something that is also in the plans?

Respectfully,Gregory Schlentz5251 Ohio Street, YL 92886

A-11

A-12



Responses to Comment Form Letter A (FLA)

FLA-1 This comment consists of introductory remarks and raises concerns for housing opportunity sites S4-060, S4-201, and S4-053. Detailed comments are provided in the body of the commenter letter, which are responded to the in following responses to Comments FLA-2 through FLA-12. Thus, no further response is required.

FLA-2 The commenters expressed that they were not notified by the City about the Project or the Draft PEIR Scoping Meeting held on May 23, 2022. In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the NOP for the Project was posted on the City’s website, OC Register, and at the Orange County Clerk’s office on April 29, 2022. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

FLA-3 The commenters are requesting the removal of the above-mentioned housing opportunity sites. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

FLA-4 The commenters are requesting the removal of the three housing opportunity sites due to safety concerns. Detailed comments regarding safety are provided in the following responses.

The commenters state that there are other properties within the City that are more suitable. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection. The City conducted a strategic and transparent effort to identify and narrow down the sites that were ultimately selected for the Housing Element. The City released a survey to the public with an interactive map seeking public recommendations for potential housing sites. Concurrently, the City conducted its own analysis to analyze all properties greater than 1 acre in size that could potentially accommodate additional housing. The City then used California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD’s) guidelines and criteria for determining eligible sites to remove sites that would not meet State law requirements. This resulted in a list of properties that were eligible potential candidate sites. City staff reached out to the property owners to determine which property owners would be interested or supportive of having their properties considered for rezone purposes. As the candidate sites list was refined with guidance from the Planning Commission and City Council through various public workshops, City staff recommended various levels of density to each site based on the context of its surrounding geographic conditions. Ultimately, this was further narrowed down to the final list that was approved by HCD. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

FLA-5 The commenter expresses concerns with pedestrian and school children safety on roadways near the Linda Vista Elementary School and the surrounding neighborhood due to the existing congested traffic conditions in the area. Refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. No further response is required.



FLA-6 The commenters describe the existing traffic conditions in the area and express concerns related to traffic congestion due to the increase of high-density development. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

FLA-7 The commenters describe the existing travel pattern and behavior in the area and express concern with safety due to the increase of housing. Refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. No further response is required.

FLA-8 The commenters express concern with emergency access due to the implementation of the Project. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access. No further response is required.

FLA-9 The commenters state that there are currently is no sidewalk and two blind curves on Grandview Avenue and existing school events that lead to increase in traffic in the area. Refer to Master Responses 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety and 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns. No further response is required.

FLA-10 The commenters express concern on the development of housing near the Philip S. Paxton Equestrian Center and safety impacts to the horses due to the increase in traffic. Refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety. No further response is required.

FLA-11 The commenters are requesting City officials to reconsider the above-mentioned housing

opportunity sites. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

FLA-12 The commenters make concluding statements reiterating opposition to the Project due to

impacts relating to traffic, public services, and recreation. Please note that that public services, recreation, and traffic impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 of the Draft PEIR, respectively. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Form Letter B Ming Zhang 6/15/2022 Michelle 6/16/2022 Xuemin Chen 6/16/2022

This comment letter, with some nonsubstantive variations, was submitted by the individuals listed above. Copies of the individual letters are in Attachment B in this Final PEIR.



Form Letter B

B-1

B-2

B-3



B-3(CONT.)

B-4

B-5



Responses to Comment Form Letter B

FLB-1 The commenters express opposition to rezoning and the RM-20 with AHO overlay. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

FLB-2 The commenters express concerns related to the notice of the scoping meeting on June 29. The scoping meeting for the Project was held on May 23, 20222 at the Community Center located at 4501 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda. In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed and posted on the City’s website, OC Register, and at the Orange County Clerk’s office on April 29, 2022, which included the noticing of the scoping meeting.

FLB-3 The commenters request removal of the above sites from proposed zoning action of RM-20 with AHO due to traffic, safety, noise and reduction in property value, but does not specify the sites in the letter. Reduction in property value is a non-CEQA issue. Refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, and 2.1.3, Pedestrian and Equestrian Safety, for a discussion on traffic congestion and safety concerns.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Noise, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.6-15 to 4.6-19), the Project would not result in a significant impact from operational off-site traffic increases. However, the existing noise sensitive receivers located within 50 feet of parking lot activities, trash enclosures, dog parks, pool/spas, or other similar source of outdoor activity may experience unmitigated exterior noise levels exceeding the exterior noise level limits. Additionally, future development would likely occur in close proximity to noise sensitive receptors and elevate the ambient noise environment. Therefore, stationary and construction noise impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1 through MM 4.6-3 would contribute in minimizing construction-related noise. However, due to the unknown number of construction activities that could occur at one time, proximity of construction activities to sensitive receptors, and other factors that cannot be quantified at this time, such as the longevity of activities, construction-related noise impacts may not be reduced to less than significant levels for future development. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. With the implementation of Goal N-4 of the City of Yorba Linda General Plan Noise Element and compliance with the exterior noise level limits outlined in the City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code Section 8.32.060 and Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-5, the Project stationary source impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts. No revisions to the Draft PEIR analysis or conclusions are required and no further response is required.

FLB-4 The commenters request removal of the site with RM-20 with AHO. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project.

FLB-5 The commenters describe existing traffic conditions in the City and the need for more police, teachers, school, public transit, and public places. Please note that that public services, recreation, and traffic impacts were fully addressed in Sections 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 of the Draft PEIR,



respectively. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Form Letter C Shelly Steffel 6/20/2022 Rui Sun 6/24/2022 심영훈 (Yeong Hoon Shim) 6/20/2022 Tryna Edwards 6/24/2022 Aaron Pourhassanian 6/21/2022 Zahra Azadbadi 6/24/2022 Alex Ton 6/21/2022 Bill Langdon 6/25/2022 Cheryl Haag 6/21/2022 Cheryl Haag 6/25/2022 Cyrus Pourhass 6/21/2022 Family Urquiza 6/25/2022 Dennis Bruce 6/21/2022 Kavita Catana 6/25/2022 Grishma Verma 6/21/2022 Patti Langdon 6/25/2022 Jake Pituch 6/21/2022 Anees Ahmedi 6/27/2022 Lan Vu 6/21/2022 Azra Ahmedi 6/27/2022 Mike Papin 6/21/2022 Brandon Lowe 6/27/2022 Nabil Shmara 6/21/2022 Charles Lowe 6/27/2022 Patrick Edwards 6/21/2022 Dan Clem 6/27/2022 Peggy Barlet 6/21/2022 Jacquie Lowe 6/27/2022 Sanjay Shah 6/21/2022 Janet Miller 6/27/2022 Shikhil Seth 6/21/2022 Karina Cooke 6/27/2022 Sydney Cook 6/21/2022 Kris Studer 6/27/2022 Tiffany Zaken 6/21/2022 Maureen Dawson 6/27/2022 Victoria Andreanne 6/21/2022 Rachelle Markovich 6/27/2022 Edward Cook 6/22/2022 Rody Azar 6/27/2022 Elizath Zavala-Acevez 6/22/2022 Sa Cool 6/27/2022 Kathleen Ehret 6/22/2022 Russ Heine 6/28/2022 Kimberly Moore 6/22/2022 Catalina Laterneau 6/28/2022 Kristin Kierulff 6/22/2022 Cong Vo 6/29/2022 Laura Thener 6/22/2022 Nilou Shahabi 6/29/2022 Laure Lampi 6/22/2022 Ramiro Uribe 6/29/2022 Rocio Vallero 6/23/2022 Reggie Sadler 6/29/2022 Celo Enifernandez 6/24/2022 Rick and Lynne Watkins 6/29/2022 Dave Nicholson 6/24/2022 Robin Sadler 6/29/2022 Dirty Jeff 6/24/2022 Vijay Gulani 6/29/2022 Erik Miller 6/24/2022 Bill Wickersheim 6/30/2022 Greg Lasiewski 6/24/2033 Karina Cooke 7/6/2022 Jacqueline Mahan 6/24/2022 Aaron Pourhassanian 7/8/2022 Julia Forbes-Modarres 6/24/2022 Tiffany Zaken 7/13/2022 Mark Holman 6/24/2022 Priya Sprenger 6/24/2022 Randy W. Morgan 6/24/2022 Robin Sadler 6/24/2022

This comment letter, with some nonsubstantive variations, was submitted by the individuals listed above. Copies of the individual letters are in Attachment C in this Final PEIR.



From: Shelley Steffel <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 5:37 PMTo: Peggy Huang <[email protected]>Cc: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell<[email protected]>; Beth Haney <[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez<[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>Subject: Objections to Zoning and General Plan Modifications

To: Mayor Peggy Huangcc: Yorba Linda City Councilcc: Mr. Nate Farnsworth, Planning Manager

Objections to Zoning and General Plan Modifications

Dear Mayor Huang,

I oppose the proposed Zoning and General Plan Modifications described in this document:

Notice Of Public Availability Of A Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) And Notice OfPublic Hearing Concerning Various Zoning And General Plan Modifications Related To The 2021-2029Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs

and posted at:

https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6180/Housing-Element-DPEIR-Notice-June-2022

I oppose the proposed re-zoning of the Site S7-001 to add to it Mixed Use Overlay.

I oppose re-zoning of the Site S7-005 to Residential Urban, Residential Multiple, and Residential High-density zones.

Low-income housing - if constructed - may facilitate or even mandate infusion of certain undesirable individuals, including felons and other asocial element. This, if it takes place, will likely result in increased crime rates, decreased security, and other detriments that are often plaguing housing projects across California and the nation.

Moreover, allowing high-density housing in areas currently not designated for such will gradually lead to higher density of population and less open space, which will make enjoyment of living here more and more difficult for all of us who value space, views, and nature, - never mind increased traffic that is already beyond bad in certain areas, and increased noise, water use, and air pollution.

C-1

C-2

C-3



In particular, allowing high-density housing in the hilly areas of potential fire hazard may lead to more fires. It appears imprudent and very risky to allow construction of clustered, presumably wood-framed homes (an excellent fuel for fire) at a brush-fire hazard area, the site S7-005.

Moreover, the location of the site S7-001 does not conform to the general requirement that the`affordable housing' be located in close proximity to major hubs of public transportation. As a matter of fact, it appears irrational to develop large, densely-populated urban dwellings that are situated miles away from grocery stores and adequate means of public transit.

The single-family residential zones that we currently have in Yorba Linda do protect the residents from many negative impacts mentioned above. The proposed re-zoning will allow and facilitate those negative impacts to lower residents' life quality, their safety, convenience, and enjoyment of their homes that so many of them worked so hard for decades to buy and pay off. It will also lower the values of those homes due their lower desirability once the mentioned above negative impacts take place.

Therefore, I oppose the proposed Zoning and General Plan Modifications.

Best regards,Shelley Steffel Resident of Bryant Ranch for 12 years

C-4

C-5

C-6



Responses to Comment Form Letter C

FLC-1 The commenters express opposition to housing opportunity sites S7-001 and S7-005. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

FLC-2 The commenters raise concern in the construction of low income housing leading to an increase crime rates and decrease security. As stated in Section 4.7, Public Services, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.7-14), implementation of the Project would result in an increase in calls for service; however, OCSD has indicated that this increase would not adversely impact OCSD’s existing resources. OCSD will work closely with the City to determine proper level of law enforcement staffing based on best practices for population and crime statistics.

FLC-3 The commenter express concern with the reduction of open space, increase in noise, water use, and air pollution. As discussed in Section 4.8, Recreation, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.8-8 to 4.8-9), although the Project would result in an increase in residents, all residential development would be required to pay Park and Recreation Impact Fees. Additionally, there are regional and joint uses park and recreational facilities to supplement the need for additional recreational facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park, and impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Noise, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.6-15 to 4.6-19), the Project would result in potential significant impacts in construction and operational stationary noise. Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1 through MM 4.6- 3 would contribute in minimizing construction-related noise. However, due to the unknown number of construction activities that could occur at one time, proximity of construction activities to sensitive receptors, and other factors that cannot be quantified at this time, such as the longevity of activities, construction-related noise impacts may not be reduced to less than significant levels for some future development. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. With the implementation of Goal N-4 of the City of Yorba Linda General Plan Noise Element and compliance with the exterior noise level limits outlined in the City of Yorba Linda Municipal Code Section 8.32.060 and Mitigation Measure MM 4.6-5, the Project stationary source impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts.

Refer to Master Response 2.1.5, Water Supply. As stated in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 5-30 to 5-33) and in response to the revisions recommended by the Yorba Linda Water District (section 3.0 of this Final PEIR), impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and according to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), YLWD has adequate water supplies to serve the Project in combination with the City’s buildout over the next 25 years during normal, dry- and multiple dry years. The YLWD District’s 2020 UWMP includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. Further, YLWD is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development



evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project.

As discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.1-15 to 4.1-23), construction-related emissions are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process due to the variables that must be considered when examining construction impacts (e.g., development rate, disturbance area per day, specific construction equipment and operating hours, etc.) and Project buildout will exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD thresholds for VOC, and NOX during operation. Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1, which would require future development projects to conduct project-specific analysis and incorporate mitigation measures, was identified to reduce potential construction air quality impacts. However, despite the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1, it cannot be definitively stated that all future development projects would not exceed the applicable thresholds, especially since some individual projects would exceed the thresholds. As such, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact for emissions of emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 with respect to future development projects even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Similarly, there is uncertainty regarding the specific nature of operational activities that would be facilitated by future development projects on a project level. Despite the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-2, which would require future development projects to conduct project-specific analysis and incorporate mitigation measures, it cannot be definitively stated that all future development projects at buildout would not exceed the applicable thresholds at this time. Therefore, the emissions reductions that would be achieved by cannot be accurately quantified and are not accounted for in the analysis herein. As such, a significant and unavoidable impact during operation is presumed even with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-2. It is important to note that even though the Draft PEIR concluded that impacts to air quality would be significant and unavoidable, it is mainly due to the reason that site specific details are not available at this time to accurately quantified emission rates for each project. Future development would be required to undergo further environmental review under CEQA.

FLC-4 The commenters express concern with fire hazards at housing opportunity site S7-005. S7-005 is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. As discussed in Section 4.11, Wildfire, of the Draft PEIR (refer to Pages 4.11-15), for sites within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 would require a site-specific Fire Evacuation Analysis and Fire Protection Plan (FPP). The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Fire Evacuation/Emergency Access, for further details.

FLC-5 The commenter expresses that the location of S7-001 does not conform with the general requirements of affordable housing due to the lack of major hubs of transportation within proximity. Proximity of the housing opportunity sites to transit was evaluated as a whole in the Draft PEIR. However, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) for their required review and



consideration prior to any action being taken on the proposed Project. The commenter does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft PEIR.

FLC-6 The commenters make concluding statements reiterating opposition to the Project due to impacts relating to quality of life, safety, convenience, and property value. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



Form Letter D Cheryl Haag 7/8/2022 Cyrus Pourhass 7/8/2022 Daniel Clem 7/8/2022 Dirty Jeff 7/8/2022 Nabil Shmara 7/8/2022 Tryna Edwards 7/8/2022 Kristin Jierulff 7/9/2022 Anees Ahmedi 7/9/2022 Lan Vu 7/9/2022 Maureen Dawson 7/9/2022 Patrick Edwards 7/9/2022 Patti Langdon 7/9/2022 Sanjay Shah 7/9/2022 Karina Cooke 7/10/2022 Charles Lowe 7/11/2022 Dr. Marek A. Suchenek 7/11/2022 Kimberely Moore 7/11/2022

This comment letter, with some nonsubstantive variations, was submitted by the individuals listed above. Copies of the individual letters are in Attachment D in this Final PEIR.



Form Letter D

From: Cheryl Haag <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 10:57 PMTo: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>Cc: Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Beth Haney<[email protected]>; Gene Hernandez <[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth<[email protected]>Subject: A request to pursue legal action against the state-mandated housing production requirements

To: Mayor Carlos Rodriguezcc: Yorba Linda City Councilcc: Mr. Nate Farnsworth, Planning Manager

A request to pursue legal action against the state-mandated housing production requirements that allow high-density housing insingle-family residential zones and otherwise infringe on City's land use authority and circumvent community planning

Dear Mayor Rodriguez,

I my opposition to the proposed Zoning and General Plan Modifications described in this document:

Notice Of Public Availability Of A Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) And Notice Of Public Hearing Concerning Various Zoning And General Plan Modifications Related To The 2021-2029 Yorba Linda General Plan Housing Element Implementation Programs

and posted at:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.yorbalindaca.gov_DocumentCenter_View_6180_Housing-2DElement-2DDPEIR-2DNotice-2DJune-2D2022&d=DwIFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=BFdXNo1APF3MZOqEOMquFWANNEbRgut6uJuTlSGjTTc&m=x8aJ5X5pMmiMrYkZNnL8kRM-fvWnvUES-NtnSJbda9I&s=fh7w2KvFuSVtTE3cSIp2MXXckASeaUJCbspO6IGRMDU&e=

I am urging you and the Yorba Linda City Council that the City of Yorba Linda petition a respective court for a declaratory and injunctive relief against State of California, challenging the constitutionality of the SB 9 housing density law that infringeson City's land use authority and circumvents community planning. I also urge you and the Council to seek collaboration with other cities and the Orange County in pursuit of judicial remedies against the State in this matter.

According to said Notice, the City is in the process of re-zoning of 27 properties/sites throughout the City to increase the amount of housing development that may occur on these properties in the future, following the allegedly unconstitutional mandate and quota from the State of California imposed by the last-year's Senate Bill 9, also known as the California HousingOpportunity and More Efficiency Act.

To my utmost disappointment, I learned that the City Council is not attempting to challenge this allegedly unconstitutional mandate and quota from the State, and is vigorously and zealously implementing them, instead.

In my opinion, by neglecting to explore and exercise all available venues, options, and remedies for People's of Yorba Linda defense against allegedly unconstitutional mandate and quota from the State, the City Council appears to be neglecting their fundamental and unrelinquishable duties of representative government. The People of Yorba Linda have elected the City Council in order to represent their legitimate interests and desires, and not to have the Council act as the general enforcement agency for the State government.

What disappoints me even more is that Yorba Linda City is an outlier in this respect when compared to many other cities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Those other cities are not nearly as zealous in implementation of this allegedly unconstitutional mandate and quota as our City is, but they look for valid excuses to not to follow the State-imposed mandate and quota, and many of them are suing State of California for alleged usurpation of a general law city's land use authority, which is a uniquely municipal affair.

D-1



For example, on June 23, 2022, cities of Lakewood and Rancho Palos Verdes filed A Petition For Writ Of Mandate And Complaint For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief with Superior Court Of The State Of California, County Of Los Angeles, Central District.

Their Petition and Complaint has been posted at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rpvca.gov_DocumentCenter_View_18475_RPV-2DLakewod-2DSB-2D9-2DVerified-2DPetition-2Dfor-2DWrit-2Dof-2DMandate-2Dand-2DComplaint&d=DwIFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=BFdXNo1APF3MZOqEOMquFWANNEbRgut6uJuTlSGjTTc&m=x8aJ5X5pMmiMrYkZNnL8kRM-fvWnvUES-NtnSJbda9I&s=6f9nHk87WcEtRjimS_7ZxK1hKnDS4Bil_UZd8UKH8Jw&e= .

Below is an excerpt from said Petition and Complaint.

QUOTE

1. Petitioners/Plaintiffs City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a general law city and municipal corporation, and City of Lakewood, ageneral law city and municipal corporation, bring this action to uphold the California Constitution and prevent the State ofCalifornia from usurping a general law city's land use authority, which is a uniquely municipal affair.

2. It is undisputed that planning and zoning laws are matters of municipal affairs. The constitutional right of municipalities tozone single-family residential districts and the sanctioning principle upon which that right is founded has been well settledlaw for almost 100 years. (Miller v. Bd. of Public Works of City of Los Angeles (1925) 195 Cal. 477, 486.) Likewise, theright of housing development approvals has historically been a municipal affair.

3. In enacting Senate Bill 9 [...] in 2021, the State of California eviscerated a city's local control over land use decisions and acommunity-tailored zoning process. [...] In essence, SB 9 eliminates local authority to create single-family zoning districtsand approve housing developments, a right that has existed for practically a century.END QUOTE

I urge you and the City Council to use the above legal arguments, and other applicable legal arguments, while pursuingjudicial intervention and relief from allegedly unconstitutional State's mandate and quota.

Low-income housing - if constructed - may facilitate or even mandate infusion of certain undesirable individuals, includingfelons and other asocial element. This, if it takes place, will likely result in increased crime rates, decreased security, andother detriments that are often plaguing housing projects across California and the nation.

Moreover, allowing high-density housing in areas currently not designated for such will gradually lead to higher density ofpopulation and less open space, which will make enjoyment of living here more and more difficult for all of us who valuespace, views, and nature, - never mind increased traffic that is already beyond bad in certain areas, and increased noise, wateruse, and air pollution.

The single-family residential zones that we currently have in Yorba Linda do protect the residents from many negativeimpacts mentioned above. The proposed re-zoning will allow and facilitate those negative impacts to lower residents' lifequality, their safety, convenience, and enjoyment of their homes that so many of them worked so hard for decades to buy andpay off. It will also lower the values of those homes due their lower desirability once the mentioned above negative impactstake place.

Therefore:

- Please, do petition a respective court for a declaratory and injunctive relief against State of California, challenging the constitutionality of the SB 9 housing density law that infringes on City's land use authority and circumvents community planning, and

- Please, do seek collaboration with other cities and the Orange County in pursuit of judicial remedies against the State in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you, soon.

- Best regards,

D-1(CONT.)



Responses to Comment Form Letter D (FLD)

FLD-1 The comment asserts that the City of Yorba Linda should pursue litigation pertaining to the requirements imposed by the State regarding the rezoning of potential sites for housing and Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”). An agency is only required to respond to comments that present significant environmental issues (14 Cal. Code Regs., §§ 15058(c), 15132(d), and 15204(a)). Decisions pertaining to potential legal challenges will be made by the City’s City Council and no further response is required.

To date, litigation against California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) allocations has not been successful including a lawsuit by the Orange County Council of Governments of which the City is a member. (See OCCOG et al. v. HCD et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCP01970 [on appeal]; City of Coronado et al. v. San Diego Association of Governments et al., Fourth Appellate Dist., Div. 1, Case No. D079013.) SB 9 litigation to date has not reached a judicial determination. (See City of Redondo Beach et al. v. State of California et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCP01143; City of Lakewood et al. v. State of California et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case.)



Form Letter E Eric Hsiao 7/4/2022 Fanny Tsao 7/4/2022 Joseph Wilson 7/9/2022 Douglas Herb 7/10/2022 Debbie Goshen 7/12/2022 Jerry and Pauline Burton 7/12/2022 Joseph Linda Moran 7/12/2022 Nancy and Mark Bergman 7/12/2022 Rose Chemente 7/12/2022 Brooke White 7/13/2022 Michelle Diaz 7/13/2022 Robert White 7/13/2022 William Goshen 7/13/2022 James and Christina Day 7/14/2022 Lindsay Blair 7/14/2022 Marshall and Kristy Ron 7/15/2022 Michael Moffett 7/15/2022 Pat Heine 7/15/2022 Aaron Zapata 7/15/2022 Bernardette B Julian 7/15/2022 Dawn Zapata 7/15/2022 Richard Paramenter 7/15/2022 Robert Newsome 7/15/2022

This comment letter, with some nonsubstantive variations, was submitted by the individuals listed above. Copies of the individual letters are in Attachment E in this Final PEIR.



Form Letter e

1993

1993

Eric Hsiao

Eric Hsiao

E-1

E-2

E-3

E-4



Responses to Comment Form Letter E

FLE-1 The commenters express opposition to housing opportunity sites S3-207 and S3-012. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.

FLE-2 The commenters express concern equitable distribution for the selected sites. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Housing Opportunity Site Selection.

FLE-3 The commenters expresses concern with the increase in traffic and impacts on property value. Property value is a non-CEQA issue. Please refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Traffic Concerns, for concerns related to traffic congestion.

FLE-4 The commenters make concluding statements and express their intent to vote against the Project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft PEIR and thus no further response is required.



SECTION 3.0 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS

Corrections to the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) text generated either from responses to comments or independently by the City, are stated in this section of the Final PEIR. The information included in this section does not constitute substantial new information that requires recirculation of the Draft PEIR. Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines states in part:

(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:

(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.

(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.

The minor Draft PEIR revisions identified below are provided to clarify information in the Draft PEIR. None of the information contained in this section constitutes significant new information or changes to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft PEIR. There were no new significant environmental impacts identified following circulation of the Draft PEIR. Likewise, there were no substantial increases in the severity of environmental impacts identified after circulation of the Draft PEIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft PEIR is not required because the new information added to the PEIR through these modifications clarifies or amplifies information already provided in the already adequate Draft PEIR.



CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT PEIR

This section includes recommended clarifications and revisions to the Draft PEIR. This section is organized by respective sections of the Draft PEIR. Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined.

Section 3.0 – Project Description

Table 3-2, Housing Opportunities Sites for Rezoning and Figure 3-3, Housing Opportunity Sites have been modified for clarification purposes and in Response to Comment 22-2.



Table 3-2 Housing Opportunity Sites for Rezoning

Site ID Site Description and Address Acres

(Developable acres)

Current Zoning

Proposed Zoning Action

Current General

Plan

Proposed General

Plan

Total Net Unit

Potential

Realistic Unit

Potential Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre S1-200 SEC Rose Dr/Blake Rd 5.94 RE

(1.8 du/ac) RM-20 with AHO RML RH 208 178

S3-207 5300-5392 Richfield Rd 9.7 RU (4.0 du/ac) RM-20 with AHO RM RH 340 291

S3-074 Yorba Linda Preschool 18132 Yorba Linda Blvd 0.42 CG RM-20 with AHO AP AP 15 13

S3-082 4791 and 4811 Eureka Ave 1.75 CG RM-20 with AHO AP AP 61 53 S4-075 4742 Plumosa Drive 1.62 CG RM-20 with AHO AP AP 57 48 S6-015 Prior John Force Racing

22722 Old Canal Road 2.56 PD/Industrial R & D PD with AHO IM IM 89 77

S6-020 Extended Stay America 22711 Oak Crest Circle 10.35 PD/Office-

Commercial RM-20 with AHO IM IM 143 122

Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 782 Total Net Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 913

Congregational Land Overlay (CLO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre S2-008 Friendship Baptist Church

17151 Bastanchury Rd 4.92

(2.01) RE

(1.8 du/ac) RE with CLO RML RML 60 60

S3-012 Richfield Community Church 5320 Richfield Rd

9.48 (3.7)

RU (4.0 du/ac) RU with CLO RM RM 55 55

S2-013 Messiah Lutheran Church 486 Liverpool St

6.2 (2.03)

RU (4.0 du/ac) RU with CLO RMH RMH 40 40

S3-024 103

Friends Church Overflow Parking 17.45 (1.61)

RE (1.8 du/ac) RE with CLO AP AP 48 48

S4-204A Chabad Center 19045 Yorba Linda Blvd

1.85 (0.93)

RE (1.8 du/ac) RE with CLO RML RML 17 17

S3-033 Islamic Center of Yorba Linda 4382 Eureka Ave

3.88 (1.58)

RS (3.0 du/ac) RS with CLO RM RM 30 30

S3-210 Shinnyo-En USA 18021-18111 Bastanchury Rd

9.23 (4.09)

PD/RA Standards PD-26 with CLO AP AP 105 105

Realistic Unit Potential on CLO Sites: 355 Total Net Unit Potential on CLO Sites: 355

Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre




(Developable acres)

Current Zoning


Current General

Plan

Proposed General

Plan

Total Net Unit

Potential

Realistic Unit

Potential S1-021 Vacant Parcel (W of 16951 Imperial

Hwy) APN 322-121-07 1.76 CG-(I) CG-(I) with MUO C C 62 53

S7-001 Bryant Ranch Shopping Center 23611-23801 La Palma Ave 9.15 CG CG with MUO C C 320 272

Realistic Unit Potential on MUO Sites: 325 Total Net Unit Potential on MUO Sites: 382

RM-20 – up to 20 units/acre S4-200 18597-18602 Altrudy Lane 2.0 RS

(3.0 du/ac) RM-20 RM RH 40 40

S4-204B 19081-19111 Yorba Linda Blvd 3.90 RE (1.8 du/ac) RM-20 RML RH 78 66

Realistic Unit Potential on RM-20 Sites: 106 Total Net Unit Potential on RM-20 Sites: 118

RM – up to 10 units/acre S3-034 4341 Eureka Avenue 2.19 RS

(3.0 du/ac) RM RM RH 22 19

S3-205A 5225-5227 Highland Ave 7.08 RE (1.8 du/ac) RM RML RH 71 60

S3-211 17651 Imperial Highway 2.32 RS (3.0 du/ac) RM RM RH 23 20

S4-053 SWC Kellogg Dr/ Grandview Ave 0.98 RE (1.8 du/ac) RM RML RH 10 9

S4-060 5541 South Ohio St 0.96 RE (1.8 du/ac) RM RML RH 10 9

S4-201 5531 South Ohio St 1.82 RE (1.8 du/ac) RM RML RH 18 15

S5-008 Fairmont Blvd 23.01 PD/Church

Amend Yorba Linda Hills PD to PD with

RM standards RM/OS RH/OS 230 196

S7-005 NWC Camino de Bryant/ Meadowland 3.06 RU

(4.0 du/ac) RM RH RH 30 10

Realistic Unit Potential on RM Sites: 338 Total Net Unit Potential on RM Sites: 414

Planned Development (PD)




(Developable acres)

Current Zoning


Current General

Plan

Proposed General

Plan

Total Net Unit

Potential

Realistic Unit

Potential S3-203 18101-19251 Bastanchury

22.83 PD/RA Standards

Amend West Bastanchury PD to PD

with RM standards AP AP 228 194

Realistic Unit Potential on PD Sites: 194 Total Net Unit Potential on PD Sites: 228

Realistic Potential on all Opportunity Sites: 2,100 Total Net Unit Potential on all Opportunity Sites: 2,4101

1 There are also additional dwelling units from residential projects with development entitlements and sites with zoning in place that will contribute to the City’s RHNA requirement. These units have been previously analyzed in other environmental documents and do not require rezoning; thus, they are not included in this Project. With the inclusion of the additional units, the City will adequately meet the RHNA requirement of 2,415 units. RE- Residential Estate; RU-Residential Urban; CG-Commercial General; PD-Planned Development; RS-Residential Suburban; RA- Residential Agriculture; C-G-(I)-Commercial General; RML- Residential Medium Low; RH- Residential High; AP-Area Plan; IM-Industrial Manufacturing; RMH-Residential Medium High; C-Commercial; RM- Residential Medium; OS-Open Space. Source: (City of Yorba Linda, 2022, Table IV-2)

3.0 Project Description

Lead Agency: City of Yorba LindaHOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES

Figure 3-3

SCH No. 2022040574 Page 3-12

Yorba Linda HE Implementation ProgramsProgram Environmental Impact Report

Source(s): ESRI, Nearmap (2022), OC Landbase (2022), SB County (2022), City of Yorba Linda (07-2022)

·|}þ241

·|}þ91

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY

LA PALMA AVE

WEIR CANYON RD

SANTA ANA CANYO N RD

ESPERANZA RD

ESPERANZA RD

IMPE

RIAL H

WY

ORANGETHORPE AVE

LA PALMA AVELAKE

VIEW

AVE

TUSTIN AVE

ROSE

DR IMPERIAL HWYBASTANCH URY RD

CARBO N C ANYON RD

FAIRMONT BLVD

YORBA LINDA BLVD

·|}þ90

FAIRMONT BLVD

YORBA LINDA

COUNTY OF ORANGE

BREA

ANAHEIM

PLACENTIA

CHINO HILLS

0 1,750 3,500875

Feet

LEGEND

RM – up to 10 u nits/acre

RM-20 – u p to 20 units/acre

Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) Sites – u p to 35 u nits/acre

Congregational Land Overlay (CLO) Sites – up to 35 u nits/acre

Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Sites – u p to 35 u nits/acre

Planned Development (PD)

Sites that do not requ ire rezoning

City Boundary



Section 4.0 – Environmental Analysis

Page 4.0-4 has been modified in Response to Comment 11-1.

• Noise. Cumulative traffic noise is assessed relative to applicable City’s noise-level standards, and considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site. The study area is aligned with the traffic study area (see Table 1-2 of the TIA, Technical Appendix G of the Draft PEIR) (see Table 4.0-2).

Section 4.2 – Biological Resources

Pages 4.2-10 and 4.2-11 have been modified in Response to Comment C-7. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors. There are no housing opportunity sites locatedmapped within riparian habitats or in sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, and by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with the exception of housing opportunity sites S3-203, S5-008, and S4-053, which has a forested/shrub riparian habitat, a riverine habitat, and a freshwater forested/shrub wetland and riverine habitat, respectively. (USFWS, 2020b) Under existing conditions, this site is developed and contains residential uses and a berry farm. Therefore, future development at this site has a potential to have substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and impacts would be potentially significant.

Page 4.2-14 has been modified in Response to Comment C-10.

MM 4.2-1 The City of Yorba Linda shall require applicants of future development projects on housing opportunity sites S5-008, S7-005, S3-203, and S4-053 to prepare a biological resources survey. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall be a reconnaissance level field survey of the sites for the presence and quality of biological resources potentially affected by project development, including both direct and indirect impacts. These resources include, but are not limited to, special status species or their habitat, sensitive habitats such as wetlands or riparian areas, and jurisdictional waters. If sensitive or protected biological resources are absent from the sites and adjacent lands potentially affected by the future development, the biologist shall submit a written report substantiating such to the City of Yorba Linda before issuance of a grading permit by the City, and the project may proceed without any further biological investigation.

If sensitive or protected biological resources are present on the project site or may be

potentially affected by the project, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-2 shall be required. If indirect impacts to sensitive, habitats, plant, and wildlife species are identified, measures shall be identified to minimize impact, such as fencing to reduce human and domestic pet intrusion.



Section 4.5 – Land Use and Planning

Figures 4.5-1, Existing Land Use Designation, and 4.5-2, Existing Zoning Designations, have been modified accordingly in response to the change in the Figure 3-3, Housing Opportunity Sites.

ANAHEIM

PLACENTIA

BREA

CHINO HILLS

COUNTY OF ORANGE


ORANGE COUNTY

·|}þ241

·|}þ91FAIRMONT BLVD

·|}þ90

LA PALMA AVE

WEIR CANYON RD


ESPERANZA RD

IMPE

RIAL H

WY

ORANGETHORPE AVE

LA PALMA AVELAKE

VIEW

AVE

TUSTIN AVE

ROSE


CARBON C ANYON RD

FAIRMONT BLVD

YORBA LINDA BLVD

FAIRMONT BLVDLead Agency: City of Yorba Linda

EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Figure 4.5-1

SCH No. 2022040574 Page 4.5-2


Source(s): ESRI, Nearmap (2022) City of Yorba Linda (2022), City of Yorba Linda - General Plan Map (2016)

0 1,750 3,500875

Feet

4.5 Land Use and Planning

LEGEND

Existing Land Use DesignationsOpportunity Sites

City Boundary

Area Plan

C-Commercial

C-Neighborhood

C-Office

I-Manufacturing

OS-General

R-High

R-Low

R-Medium

R-Medium High

R-Medium Low

Water/Lake

ANAHEIM

PLACENTIA

BREA

CHINO HILLS

COUNTY OF ORANGE


ORANGE COUNTY

·|}þ241

·|}þ91FAIRMONT BLVD

·|}þ90

LA PALMA AVE

WEIR CANYON RD


ESPERANZA RD

IMPE

RIAL H

WY

ORANGETHORPE AVE

LA PALMA AVELAKE

VIEW

AVE

TUSTIN AVE

ROSE


CARBON C ANYON RD

FAIRMONT BLVD

YORBA LINDA BLVD

FAIRMONT BLVD

4.5 Land Use and Planning

Lead Agency: City of Yorba LindaEXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS

Figure 4.5-2

SCH No. 2022040574 Page 4.5-3


Source(s): ESRI, Nearmap (2022) City of Yorba Linda (2022), City of Yorba Linda - Zoning Map (2019)

0 1,750 3,500875

Feet

Legend

Existing Zoning DesignationsSphere of Influence

CG - Commercial General

CN - Commercial Neighborhood

CO - Commercial Office

M-1 - Light Manufacturing

MHP - Mobile Home Park

OS - Open Space

OSR - Open Space Ranchette

PD - Planned Development

PL - Presidential Library

PS - Public and Semi-Puiblic

RA - Residential Agriculture

RE - Residential Estate

RLD - Residential Low Density

RM - Residential Multiple

RM-30 - Residential Multiple Family-30

RS - Residential Suburban

RU - Residential Urban

TCSP - Town Center Specific Plan

Opportunity Sites

City Boundary



Page 4.5-9 has been modified in Response to Comment E-2.

Goal LU‐5: Existing and future development coordinated with future infrastructure capacity. Policy LU 5.1: Coordinate future infrastructure improvements through the City’s Capital Improvement Program to ensure facilities meet the needs of existing and future land uses.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, all sites are adjacent to existing public roadways and are serviceable by police and fire departments, as well as private companies that provide phone, cable, gas, and electric service. The Yorba Linda Water District will evaluate each new development to determine the water and wastewater collection infrastructure required to serve the new development. Improvements to the water and wastewater collection infrastructure would be the responsibility of the development. Existing water delivery and wastewater collection infrastructure is available to all properties located in the residential sites inventory and the City has adequate water and wastewater capacity to accommodate the additional 2,415 units. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.

Pages 4.5-25 and 4.5-26 have been modified in Response to Comment E-2.

Policy PSU‐5.1: Support projects, programs, policies and regulations to ensure that development is appropriate in scale to current and planned infrastructure capabilities.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, existing water delivery and wastewater collection infrastructure is available to all properties located in the housing opportunity sites inventory and the City has adequate water and wastewater capacity to accommodate the additional 2,410 units. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, YLWD will evaluate each new development to determine the water and wastewater collection infrastructure needed to serve the new development. Additionally, there would be adequate capacity in the landfill to serve buildout of the Project. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy PSU 5.1.

Policy PSU‐5.2: Work with the Yorba Linda Water District to ensure adequate wastewater facilities for all new developments.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, individual developments would be reviewed by the City and Orange County Sanitization District (OCSD) in order to determine if sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development. Consistent. As discussed in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, individual developments would be reviewed by the Yorba Linda Water District and Orange County Sanitization District (OCSD) in order to determine if sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy PSU 5.2.



Page 4.5-26 has been modified in Response to Comment E-2.

Policy PSU‐6.4: Work with the Yorba Linda Water District to ensure adequate water supply for all new developments.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, the Yorba Linda Water District has forecasted water availability for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy PSU 6.4.The Yorba Linda Water District meets its water demands with a combination of imported water and local groundwater, and works together with two primary agencies, MWDOC and OCWD to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The Yorba Linda Water District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency.

Section 4.6 – Noise

Figure 4.6-1, Noise Measurement Locations, has been modified accordingly in response to the change in the Figure 3-3, Housing Opportunity Sites. Modification are also reflected in the Noise Impact Analysis (Attachment G to this Final PEIR).



Section 4.9 – Transportation

Page 4.9-3 has been modified in Response to Comment D-4. As shown in Figure 4.9-2, Existing Transit Routes, the City of Yorba Linda is currently served by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within Orange County. Based on a review of the existing transit routes within the vicinity of the proposed Project, Route 26 currently runs along Yorba Linda Boulevard, from Rose Drive to Lakeview Avenue; while Route 38 runs along Yorba Linda Boulevard from north side to south side of SR-91 and Route 30 runs along Orangethorpe Avenue. Transit service is reviewed and updated by OCTA periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. (Urban Crossroads, 2022f) Section 4.11 – Wildfire

Figure 4.11-3, Fire Hazards Severity Zones Within the City, has been modified accordingly in response to the change in the Figure 3-3, Housing Opportunity Sites.

4.11 Wildfire

Lead Agency: City of Yorba LindaFIRE HAZARDS SEVERITY ZONES WITHIN THE CITY

Figure 4.11-1

SCH No. 2022040574 Page 4.11-3


Source(s): ESRI, Nearmap Imagery (2022) OC Landbase (2022), SB County (2022), Cal Fire (2022)

·|}þ241

·|}þ91


ORANGE COUNTY

LA PALMA AVE

WEIR CANYON RD


ESPERANZA RD

ESPERANZA RD

IMPE

RIAL H

WY

ORANGETHORPE AVE

LA PALMA AVELAKE

VIEW

AVE

TUSTIN AVE

ROSE


CARBO N C ANYON RD

FAIRMONT BLVD

YORBA LINDA BLVD

·|}þ90

FAIRMONT BLVD

YORBA LINDA

COUNTY OF ORANGECHINO HILLS

BREA

ANAHEIM

PLACENTIA

0 1,750 3,500875

Feet

LEGENDLocal Responsibility Area (LRA)

Statel Responsibility Area (SRA)SRA - Very High

SRA - Moderate

LRA - Very High

Housing Opportunity SitesHousing Opportunity Sites

LRA - High

SRA - High



Page 4.11-7 has been modified in Response to Comment E-2. PS‐3: Prior to issuance of building permits, a service letter from the water agency serving the

project area shall be submitted and approved by the OCFA water liaison describing the water supply system, pump system, and fire flow and lists the design features to ensure fire flow during a major wildfire incident. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City will request a Will Serve Letter from the Yorba Linda Water District for the development, which includes contingencies for providing water service. One contingency requires the applicant to confirm with the OCFA whether the YLWD’s existing facilities are of adequate size, capacity and pressure to satisfy the fire flow requirements and to confirm what improvements are necessary to meet those requirements.

Figure 4.11-2, Flood Hazards Zone, Figure 4.11-3, Flood Hazard Zone - S4-053, and Figure 4.11-4, Flood Hazards Zone - S6-015, S6-020 and S7-001, have been modified accordingly in response to the change in the Figure 3-3, Housing Opportunity Sites.

4.11 Wildfire

Lead Agency: City of Yorba LindaFlood Hazards Zone

Figure 4.11-2

SCH No. 2022040574 Page 4.11-11


Source(s): ESRI, Nearmap Imagery (2022) OC Landbase (2022), SB County (2022), FEMA (2021), City of Yorba Linda (2022)

·|}þ241

·|}þ91


ORANGE COUNTY

LA PALMA AVE

WEIR CANYON RD


ESPERANZA RD

ESPERANZA RD

IMPE

RIAL H

WY

ORANGETHORPE AVE

LA PALMA AVELAKE

VIEW

AVE

TUSTIN AVE

ROSE


CARBO N C ANYON RD

FAIRMONT BLVD

YORBA LINDA BLVD

·|}þ90

FAIRMONT BLVD

YORBA LINDA

COUNTY OF ORANGECHINO HILLS

BREA

ANAHEIM

PLACENTIA

0 1,750 3,500875

Feet

LEGENDFlood Hazard Zones

Housing Opportunity SitesHousing Opportunity Sites

Flood Hazard Zone - X: 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zone

Flood Hazard Zone - A: Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR

Flood Hazard Zone - AE: Regulatory Floodway

Flood Hazard Zone - X

4.11 Wildfire

Lead Agency: City of Yorba LindaFlood Hazards Zone - S4-053

Figure 4.11-3

SCH No. 2022040574 Page 4.11-12


Source(s): ESRI, Nearmap Imagery (2022) OC Landbase (2022), FEMA (2021), City of Yorba Linda (2022)

ANAHEIM

·|}þ90RHNA ID: S4-053

SHORT ST

KELL

OGG

DR

ALAMO LN

RIDGE WAY

ROCKWOOD DR

STONECREST ST

PARKLAND ST

CALL

E MIRA

DOR

GRANDVIEW AV EXT

TERRACE LNGRANDVIE

W AVE

BLUE

BERR

Y ST

SUNNY SLOPE CT

SUNNYVIEW CIR

BRANDON CIR

SUNMIST DR

DEER

FOOT

LN

CALLE CORTEZ PASEO DE GRACE

IMPERIAL HWY

ARROYO CAJON DR

GRAN

DVIEW

AVE

GRANDVIEW AVE

0 100 20050

Feet


Housing Opportunity SiteHousing Opportunity Site

Flood Hazard Zone - A: Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR

4.11 Wildfire

Lead Agency: City of Yorba LindaFlood Hazards Zone - S6-015, S6-020 and S7-001

Figure 4.11-4

SCH No. 2022040574 Page 4.11-13


Source(s): ESRI, Nearmap Imagery (2022) OC Landbase (2022), SB County (2022), FEMA (2021), City of Yorba Linda (2022)

LA PALMA AVE

WEIR CANYON RD

RHNA ID: S7-001

RHNA ID: S6-020

RHNA ID: S6-015

LA PALMA AVE

SANTA ANA CANYON RD

WEIR CANYON RD

SAVI RANCH PKWY

PASEO DE TORONTO

OLD CANAL RD

OAKCREST ST

VIA LENARDO

KAISER BLVD

LARKWOOD ST

MIRAGE ST

FOOTHILL ST

CRYSTAL DR

MEADOWRIDGE ST

VIACA

NTAD

A

VIAVER

ANO

EASTPARK DR

SARATOGA ST

LOS RIOS

VIA BUENA SUERTE

VIA VALLARTA VIA ARRIBA LINDA

VIABRA

VO

ROOS

EVELT

RD

VIA DE CAMPO

AVENIDA DEL TREN

OLD POMEGRANATE RD

VIA MELINDA

CAMINO VISTA

LOS ESTADOS

AMBER

WOOD ST

CLIFFS IDE DR

VISTA CANTOR A

BIRCHWOOD ST

OLD V

ILLAG

E RD

PSEUDO

DOVER LN

WOODCOVE DR

VIA LAS BRISAS

AVENIDA DE MARCIA

TREN TON DR

LOS MONTEROS

NICOLE WAY

TIMBERLINE DR

ESPERANZA RD

CAM CALUROSO

WHITEWATER DR

CAMBRIDGE RD

NANTUCKET LNCAMDEN CT

CA MINOFAMOS A

SALEM RD

VI ALO

MASD

EYOR

BAEA

ST

FROSTWOOD ST

HIDDEN HILLSRD

CAPE

COD

LN

PAT

RICIA WAY

RIVERVIEW DR

CAMI

NO TE

CATE

KIRKWOOD CIR

LAURELTREE DR

BRO O KSIDE CT

NEWPORT L NPORTSMOUTH RD

HAR TFO RD RD

WATER

BURY C

T

CORBIT PL

BRYANT RANCH RD

VI A NUEVA

JUTEWOOD ST

VISTA LAMPARA

DONNYBROOK CIR

PLYMO

UTH C

T

VERMON

T CT

LA PALMA AVE

VIAVA

LLART

A

OLD CANAL RD

VIA LO MAS DE YORBA EAST

0 350 700175

Feet

SANTA ANA RIVER

ANAHEIM


Housing Opportunity Sites

Flood Hazard Zone - X

Housing Opportunity Sites

Flood Hazard Zone - X: 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zone

Flood Hazard Zone - AE: Regulatory Floodway

Flood Hazard Zone - A: Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR



Page 4.11-15 has been modified in response to multiple comments received on the concern of wildfire.

MM 4.11-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites within or adjacent to a Very High FHSZ and within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Zone, the project applicant shall prepare a Fire Evacuation Analysis. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall assess the time required for emergency evacuation under Existing and Existing with Project Conditions, assuming a worst case, wind-driven fire. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall also identify how much the project would increase evacuation times by; how long it would take residents to evacuate; and how emergency response times would be affected by a mass evacuation under multiple scenarios. The Fire Evacuation Analysis shall be subject to the review and approval from the City of Yorba Linda and OCFA. The analysis shall demonstrate how the Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

MM 4.11-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites within or adjacent to a Very High FHSZ

and within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Zone, the project applicant shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan (FPP). Prior to preparation of an FPP, the Project proponent shall coordinate with OCFA to ensure that modeling of the FPP and design of the project is appropriate to meet the requirements and standards of the OCFA. The FPP shall be subject to the review and approval from the City of Yorba Linda and OCFA. The FPP shall assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards have been adequately mitigated. The FPP shall also specifically identify the need for fire systems, water availability, construction requirements, and fire-resistant landscaping i.e. fuel modification zones), and appropriate defensible space around structures.

Section 5.0 – Other CEQA Considerations

Page 5-4 has been modified in Response to Comment E-2. A. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension

of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development?

The City of Yorba Linda 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs would not extend infrastructure into currently unserved parts of the City because the City is almost entirely built out with urban land uses. Some minor extensions or improvements of utility facilities from surrounding roadways, including water and sewer lines, may be required for future development. However, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, implementation of the Project can generally be accommodated by the existing storm drain, water, and sewer infrastructure. Some improvements of utility facilities from surrounding roadways, including water and sewer lines, may be required for future development. However, as discussed in Subsection 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, implementation of the Project can generally be accommodated by the existing storm drain. The Yorba Linda Water District will evaluate each development to determine the adequacy of existing water and sewer infrastructure.



Page 5-6 has been modified for clarification purposes. The City has Multi-Family Design Guidelines to provide upfront direction to the development community regarding the desired quality and character of multi-family development. The Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) would allow sites to increase height limits (3 stories, with 4 stories permitted on Planned Development zoned sites with an AHO) in exchange for providing 20% affordable units and the Mixed-Use Housing Overlay (MUO) would allow development of a maximum of 4 at least three stories in height. The Congregational Lands Overlay (CLO) will also only allow 3 stories in height. Page 5-29 has been modified in Response to Comment 25-34. As of 2021, City has a population of 67,760 (DOF, 2021). Project buildout would result in a total of 74,845 residents. However, this would not result in substantial unplanned growth in the area since 1) SCAG assigned RNHA obligations and would update its RTP/SCS to reflect planned growth consistent with the Housing Element, 2) the planninged housing is in response to an existing unmet need, 3) the housing opportunity stiessites are infill development with adequate nearby infrastructure. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. Impacts would be less than significant. Page 5-16 has been modified in Response to Comment E-2. Threshold e: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic

tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

The City of Yorba Linda General Plan EIR concluded that new development that could occur under the General Plan Update would occur in areas that are either connected or would be connected to the City of Yorba Linda sewer system. Therefore, no impacts would occur. The City of Yorba Linda General Plan EIR concluded that new development that could occur under the General Plan Update would occur in areas that are either connected or would be connected to the Yorba Linda Water District sewer system. Page 5-23 has been modified in Response to Comment E-2. Potable water service is provided to the City by the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD). The YLWD main source of water supply is groundwater from the Orange County Basin. Imported treated and untreated water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) make up the rest of the District’s water supply. The Project does not propose the use of any wells or other groundwater extraction activities. Therefore, the Project would not directly draw water from the groundwater table. Accordingly, implementation of the Project has no potential to substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and the Project’s impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. The Yorba Linda Water District is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine the water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include



recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project. YLWD does not anticipate that the Project will substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies. Further discussion of water supply is provided in Section 5.4.9, Utilities and Service Systems, below. Pages 5-30 to 31 have been modified in Response to Comment E-2. Threshold a: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or

expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

The City of Yorba Linda General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would not cause significant environmental effects and impacts would be less than significant. (City of Yorba Linda, 2016b) Yorba Linda is a younger community with the necessary infrastructure in place to support future development in the established areas. The utility infrastructure is relatively new with the majority of public service capacity not yet in need of repair or replacement. One exception is in portions of the Yorba Linda Water District’s (YLWD) westerly service area where approximately 24,000 feet of waterline was constructed in the 1920s through 1950s. According to YLWD, the majority of these waterlines will be replaced over the 2022 to 2024 period. All sites are adjacent to existing public roadways and are serviceable by existing water and wastewater infrastructure, as well as private companies that provide phone, cable, natural gas, and electric service. Existing water delivery and wastewater collection infrastructure is available to all housing opportunity sites and the City has adequate water and wastewater capacity to accommodate 2,410 new residential units. However, as a requirement of future development, the existing sewer lines on Linda Verde would need to be extended to accommodate housing opportunity sites S4-060 and S4-201. In summary, no housing opportunity sites are constrained by infrastructure availability. The City of Yorba Linda General Plan EIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. The Yorba Linda Water District is in the process of developing its 2022 Water Master Plan to determine water supply and infrastructure needs over the next 25 years. The master plan and individual development evaluations will include recommendations for implementing water system improvements to address YLWD’s needs, including those for the Project. Wastewater generated by the Project would flow by gravity to OCSD’s Reclamation Plant No. 1, which is located in the City of Fountain Valley. Wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed to OCSD’s Reclamation Plants No. 1 and/or 2, which are located in the City of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach, respectively. The reclamation plants are Together with Treatment Plan No. 2, which is located in Huntington Beach, the two facilities are designed to treat 332 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF) to secondary standards and 591 mgd average wet weather flow to secondary standards. Under dry weather conditions, ADWF is 207 mgd without reclamation, and 152 mgd with reclamation. The wastewater that would be generated by implementation of the proposed Project would reflect a



small portion of the capacity of these facilities and would be accommodated within the remaining capacity of the combined facilities (RWQCB, 2012). Development projects are assessed fees for new sewer provision facilities by the YLWD. Individual developments would be reviewed by the City and Orange County Sanitization District (OCSD) in order to determine if sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development. The City and OCSD would ensure that new development does not exceed the capacity of wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities, and that new development pays its fair share to increase capacity of those facilities. The Yorba Linda General Plan includes policies and implementation actions to support projects, programs, policies and regulations to ensuring that development is appropriate in scale to current and planned infrastructure capabilities (Policy PSU‐5.1). The CIP would be used to evaluate and prioritize infrastructure maintenance, replacement, and improvement projects (Action PSU‐5.3). Further, future development projects would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and YLWD regulations, in order to connect to the City’s sewer system, including payment of a sewer maintenance fee in order to construct new sewer infrastructure and/or incremental expansions to the existing sewerage system to accommodate individual development, which would mitigate the impact of the development on the sewerage system. The Yorba Linda Water District provides wastewater services within the City of Yorba Linda and reviews and approves all connections to its wastewater system. New development projects are evaluated to determine the adequacy of the wastewater system that serves the development. If infrastructure improvements are required, then these improvements will become the responsibility of the development. The Yorba Linda Water District’s wastewater discharges into the Orange County Sanitization District (OCSD)’s trunk sewers and is conveyed to OCSD’s Reclamation Plants for treatment. OCSD is responsible for determining if there is adequate capacity in their conveyance and treatment system. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity services to a large majority of southern and central California, including the City. Additionally, the City is within the service area of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for the provision of natural gas at residences and businesses. The anticipated service demands created by implementation of the Project are with the service parameters of SCE and SoCalGas current transmission and service infrastructure. SCE and SoCalGas would update existing facilities or add new facilities in the City based upon specific requests for service from end users. Future developments that require new infrastructure would be required to pay any applicable fees assessed by SCE and SoCalGas necessary to accommodate the specific project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Based on the preceding, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant. Based on the preceding, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant. Any water and/or wastewater infrastructure improvements would become the responsibility of the development.



Pages 5-31 and 5-32 have been modified in Response to Comment E-2. Threshold b: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and

reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

The City of Yorba Linda General Plan EIR concluded that residential population growth and associated increase in water demand are included within the YLWD UWMP growth projections while non‐residential water demand may exceed that planned for in the final draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). However, YLWD has indicated it can meet demands in multiple dry years from 2020 through 2040 and the General Plan Update includes goals and policies that would ensure adequate water supply is available for proposed development projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant (City of Yorba Linda, 2016b). As presented in Section 7.3, Water Service Reliability Assessment, of the YLWD UWMP, the district has forecasted water availability for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. As shown therein, even with a conservative demand increase of 6% each year for five consecutive years, the District is capable of meeting all customers’ demands from 2025 through 2045, with significant reserves held by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) and water use efficiency measures. However, the District can purchase more MET water through MWDOC, should the need arise. UWMPs are important source documents for cities and counties as they update their general plans. Similarly, general plans are source documents for water suppliers updating the UWMPs. The accuracy and usefulness of these planning documents are interdependent. If a project was included as part of the projected water demand of the current UWMP, the water demand for the proposed development does not need to be separately analyzed as long as water demand for the project has remained substantially the same. The City’s UWMP was prepared in 2020, and its service population was based on growth forecasts. Therefore, YLWD would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. As growth is evaluated and accounted for in its General Plan, SCAG forecasts are updated and these numbers will be reflected in the City’s 2024 UWMP.. The Yorba Linda Water District meets its water demands with a combination of imported water and local groundwater, and works together with two primary agencies, MWDOC and OCWD to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The Yorba Linda Water District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes the 2,415 units in projections for water demand and water supply sufficiency. As presented in Section 7.3, Water Service Reliability Assessment, of the YLWD 2020 UWMP, YLWD has forecasted water demand and supply for a normal year, single dry year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. As shown therein, even with a conservative demand increase of



6% each year for five consecutive years, YLWD is capable of meeting all customers’ demands from 2025 through 2045, with significant reserves held by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) and water use efficiency measures. Based on YLWD’s 2020 UWMP, it is anticipated that there will be adequate water supply available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Threshold c: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider

which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

As indicated under Threshold a), above, the wastewater generated by buildout of the Project would not exceed the capacity of the YLWD or OCSD. Impacts would be less than significant. The OCSD has sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to existing commitments.



Attachment A Form Letter A



Attachment B Form Letter B



Attachment C Form Letter C



Attachment D Form Letter D



Attachment E Form Letter E



Attachment F Commenters’ Attachments



Attachment G Noise Impact Analysis



Attachment H OCFA Correspondence



Attachment I Traffic Impact Analysis



Attachment J Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting

Program

Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No ...

Documents

Transcript of Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No ...