Yucaipa planning commission continues review of after‑the‑fact modular office and outdoor storage

The Yucaipa Planning Commission on March 18 continued a public hearing on a conditional use permit for an after‑the‑fact modular office, parking and outdoor storage at 31925 Outer Highway 10.

Planning consultant Kenny Taylor told the commission the application (CUP 250010) would formalize a modular office of approximately 1,421 square feet, a nine‑space paved parking area (including one ADA space), and shipping containers used to store equipment and materials. Taylor said the site sits at Outer Highway 10 and 17th Street and previously operated under CUP 21148 for low‑intensity outdoor storage. He said the proposal meets zoning setbacks in the Service Commercial district but that staff had concerns with findings related to building materials and landscaping and recommended additional screening along both frontage roads.

“The proposed use is allowed within the Service Commercial district,” Taylor said, and told commissioners the project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA Guideline 15332 (infill development). He outlined options for the commission: approve as presented (with findings), approve with modifications, deny, or continue to allow revisions.

Applicant Jean Johnson, who said she bought the property in 2023, acknowledged that the modular and some containers were placed prior to permitting. “I painted them all to match the office,” Johnson said, describing efforts to make containers consistent, add a tan screen around chain‑link fencing and install security cameras and lighting on a 30‑day loop. She said a porta‑potty is provided and serviced weekly and that the modular unit currently houses only a security camera computer and is not yet connected to water or sewer.

Commissioners and staff pressed for specifics on visual screening, grading and utilities. Staff said additional landscaping (fur pines along Outer Highway 10), a solid screening approach on 17th Street (block wall or tubular steel with dense planting) and measures to address a slope that makes rear storage visible from the freeway would be needed to meet the freeway‑gateway design expectations in the city’s guidelines. Staff also said the parcel immediately to the south is in the City of Redlands; if the applicant wishes to include that parcel in the project it would first need annexation to Yucaipa and a conditional use permit modification.

The record showed the modular and containers had not yet been permitted. “No, we have not permitted those shipping containers or the modular as of yet,” staff said during questioning about building permits, and staff advised that containers stored on site longer than 180 days typically trigger building‑permit requirements and that septic or sewer connections would require Regional Water Quality Control and other approvals.

Steve Richie, the applicant’s land engineer, said the site had previous entitlements for equipment storage and that the project team is prepared to add façade enhancements, consistent painting and a landscape plan to reduce visibility from the freeway. “I think he put those together to make it look a little better than just a storage of a bunch of trailers and containers,” Richie said.

Several commissioners said they were not willing to approve the project as submitted and listed items they wanted resolved before a return: a stronger screening treatment (block wall or tubular steel with tall, dense plantings), a written timeline or limit for temporary modular use if it is retained before replacement with a permanent building, paving of required parking, clarification and documentation of water/sewer or septic arrangements, removal or relocation of visible signage or water tanks, and uniform finishes for containers. Commissioners discussed a reasonable temporary period for the modular (applicant suggested up to five years as a planning horizon) but asked staff and the applicant to propose firm conditions.

A motion to continue the hearing so the applicant could work with staff on the requested modifications was made, seconded and carried by the commission. Staff said the continued item will be renoticed and returned to a future commission meeting (staff indicated the April 15 meeting window for renoticing and further review).

The commission’s action was procedural: the hearing remains open and no permit was granted. When the applicant returns, the commission directed staff to provide written modification items so the applicant can respond in revised plans and conditions.

The hearing record shows key outstanding items the commission expects addressed before approval: a screening plan that meets freeway‑gateway standards, a landscape plan with species and maintenance details, paving and ADA compliance for parking, documentation of utility/septic status and required permits, and a clear timeframe or path to a permanent stick‑built office if the modular remains in place.