Planning commission approves TEC Properties business-park project with major setback variance

The Yucaipa Planning Commission on a 5-0-1 vote approved a conditional use permit and a major variance for a proposed 47‑unit business park on a vacant 5.7‑acre parcel on the south side of Boulevard, and adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the project.

Staff recommended approval of case number 23-088/89, saying the project would demolish an existing, deteriorated residence and build 11 new buildings with a total of 119,564 square feet that would be leased as multi-tenant flex space. The applicant, TEC Properties, sought a major variance to reduce a required 10‑foot side yard setback to 1 foot on a portion of the west property line to allow a larger drive aisle and to use building walls as part of the perimeter improvements.

City staff said the development includes six “live‑work” caretaker units, a perimeter combination of block wall and wrought iron, a looped 30‑foot drive aisle designed to accommodate large vehicles, and about 89 parking spaces. Staff reported the project would generate an estimated $666,966.80 in development impact fees under the current fee schedule. Notices were mailed within 300 feet and AB 52 tribal noticing was completed; two written responses were received (one expressing support with drainage concerns). Staff prepared a mitigated negative declaration that included measures for pre‑construction biological surveys, oak tree buffers, water quality treatment, tribal monitoring and procedures for inadvertent discovery.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about water retention, emergency access, the live‑work units and whether plumbing would be roughed‑in for future residential conversion, and the proposed block walls. Staff explained the project will submit a Water Quality Management Plan and water will be captured and pretreated on site with underground storage and then discharged only with flood control permits to existing outlets; the fire marshal reviewed the 30‑foot loop and confirmed access for fire apparatus. Staff also said caretaker units are permitted under the city’s development code as an accessory commercial use and that converting additional units to residential would require additional permits and building‑code review.

Applicant representative Glenn Schmidt described the live‑work concept as an attempt to offer small contractors an affordable option, and said two of the six caretaker units were contemplated primarily for on‑site security. After public testimony (staff recorded no public speakers for this item), the planning commission moved to accept staff’s recommendations and adopt the findings, variance findings, the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, and to direct staff to file a notice of determination.

The motion carried with five votes in favor and one opposed; the chair had an excused absence for the meeting.

The commission’s approval included architectural and conceptual landscape review; final tenant uses will be reviewed as part of business licensing and building permits, and signage and tenant‑specific signs will be reviewed under separate building permits.

The applicant must comply with the mitigation measures listed in the environmental documents (biological, cultural/tribal monitoring, water quality), secure any flood‑control permits needed for the discharge, and submit final engineering and building permits before construction can proceed.