City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -16 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Goal 3.10: A City designed to improve the quality of the built and natural environments to reduce disparate health and environmental impacts.
Policy 3.10.7 Support practices that promote low impact development, including water resilient communities, prevention of urban runoff, and mitigation of industrial pollution.
Implementation LUCD-7 Development Fact Sheets. Create and promote a series of one -page fact sheets about permitting, zoning, building, and development requirements and questions. Incorporate sustainability practices related to building construction, site design, and renovation into materials.
Economic Development and Fiscal Element
Goal 5.9: A community with sustainable and improved infr astructure.
Policy 5.9.3 Support local businesses and economic development by improving Beaumont’s infrastructure including well-maintained streets, transit improvements, adequate water and sewer services and communications infrastructure.
Implementation EDF35 Utility Services Benchmarking. Establish thresholds or standards for levels of service as a benchmark to evaluate adequacy of community and utility services.
Community Facilities and Infrastructure Element
Goal 7.1: City-wide infrastructure to support existing development and future growth.
Policy 7.1.1 Manage and upgrade the City’s aging infrastructure, as funds allow, and leverage funds whenever possible.
Policy 7.1.2 Explore options available to attain sustainable funding levels for maintaining existing infrastructure in the City.
Policy 7.1.3 Require that new and existing development pay its fair share of infrastructure and public service costs.
Policy 7.1.4 Require developers to present a plan to provide adequate infras tructure and utility service levels before approving new development.
Implementation CFI1 Underground Infrastructure Mapping. Work collaboratively with regional utility agencies to adopt smart city technology to map underground infrastructure.
Implementation CFI5 Funding. Work with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to identify and pursue funding to support efforts that protect the Santa Ana Watershed.
Implementation CFI9 Area Drainage Plan. Develop an Area Drainage Plan w ith the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to accompany the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -17 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Implementation CFI24 Sewer and Stormwater User Fees. Work with local and regional agencies to update existing user fees for sewer and st ormwater, fund needed system upgrades, and to the extent feasible, allow for wastewater recycling and stormwater capture.
Goal 7.2: A clean and sustainable water supply that supports existing community needs and long -term growth.
Policy 7.2.1 Work with BCVWD and SGPWA to ensure an adequate supply of potable water facilities to sustain existing and projected water needs.
Policy 7.2.2 Coordinate with the BCVWD to ensure that adequate water supplies and pressures are available during a fire, earthquake, or both.
Policy 7.2.3 Ensure adequate funding is available to maintain existing and future water facilities.
Policy 7.2.4 Provide the Beaumont 2040 land use plan to the San Timoteo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for use in preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for management of the San Timoteo Subbasin that is outside of the adjudicated boundary of the Beaumont Basin.
Policy 7.2.5 Provide the Beaumont 2040 land use plan to the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District to incorporate into their next UWMP and PWMP.
Policy 7.2.6 Require developers to present a plan to provide adequate water infrastructure and supply levels before approving new development.
Policy 7.2.7 Continue to optimize groundwater recharge from new and redevelopment projects by infiltrating stormwater in accordance with State, regional, and local requirements.
Policy 7.2.8 Seek opportunities to incorporate groundwater recharge elements into City drainage projects and work with other agencies t o implement regional groundwater recharge projects.
Policy 7.2.9 Coordinate with the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District to periodically assess, monitor, and manage the quality of groundwater.
Policy 7.2.10 Review development proposals to ensure that adequate water supply, treatment, and distribution capacity is available to meet the needs of the proposed development without negatively impacting the existing community.
Implementation CFI3 Adequate Water Supply for New Development. Require a Water Supply Assessment for new developments to ensure adequate water supply.
Implementation CFI4 Water System Plans and Rate Study. Participate in the revision of the Urban Water Management Plan and Potable Water System Master Plan based on current requirements and policy.
Goal 7.3: Buildings and landscapes promote water conservation, efficiency, and the increased use of recycled water.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -18 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Policy 7.3.1 Partner with BCVWD to promote and implement water conservation measures and reuse practices, including water efficient fixtures, leak detection, water recycling, grey water reuse and rainwater harvesting.
Policy 7.3.2 When feasible, augment regional conservation programs with City resources to encourage reduced water use in homes and businesses.
Policy 7.3.3 Support and engage in educational and outreach programs that promote water conservation and wide-spread use of water-efficient technologies to the public, homebuilders, business owners, and landscape installers.
Policy 7.3.4 Support and implement third-party programs and financing sources, such as the PACE program, to improve water efficiency of existing buildings.
Policy 7.3.5 Expand the supply of recycled water and distribution facilities in the City for irrigation at city facilities/parks /sports fields. When such supply is available, require new developments to utilize for their common irrigation needs.
Policy 7.3.6 Encourage innovative water recycling techniques, such as rainwater capture, use of cisterns, and installation of greywater s ystems.
Policy 7.3.7 Update and improve water conservation and landscaping requirements for new development.
Policy 7.3.8 Require the use of recycled water for irrigation of parks and golf courses in Beaumont.
Implementation CFI2 Zoning and Implementation Ordinances. Update zoning and building codes to enable innovative sustainability measures such as:
▪ Greywater capture and reuse systems
▪ On-site bioretention-based stormwater facilities
▪ Coordinated below grade installation/repair between various providers and agencies
▪ Wind generation on residential and commercial buildings ▪ Electric vehicle infrastructure requirements
▪ Green building performance standards
Implementation CFI7 Educational materials. Produce a City resource guide for commercial and residential water recycling techniques, including conservation strategies, landscaping, rainwater capture, greywater systems, and use of cisterns.
Goal 7.4: Incorporate sustainable and improved stormwater management practices.
Policy 7.4.1 Incorporate low-impact development (LID) techniques to improve stormwater quality and reduce run-off quantity.
Policy 7.4.2 Explore opportunities for “green streets” that use natural processes to manage stormwater runoff, when feasible.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -19 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Policy 7.4.3 Require new development and redevelopment projects to reuse stormwater on-site to the maximum extent practical and provide adequate stormwater infrastructure for flood control.
Policy 7.4.4 Use agency websites, public service announcements, and other means to inform the public about water quality issues, methods to prevent contaminants from entering the storm drain system, public stormwater pollution, and a system for reporting non - stormwater discharges to waterways. Some of these materials can be sourced from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Goal 7.5: Manage and effectively treat storm water to minimize risk to downstream resources.
Policy 7.5.1 Ensure compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit requirements.
Policy 7.5.2 Continue to work with co-permittees of the NPDES permit to promote public awareness of water quality issues.
Policy 7.5.3 Minimize pollutant discharges into storm drainage systems, natural drainages, and groundwater. Design the necessary stormwater detention basins, recharge basins, water quality basins, or similar water capture facilities to protect water quality by capturing and/or treating water before it enters a watercourse.
Policy 7.5.4 Require new development to fund fair -share costs associated with the provision of stormwater drainage systems, including master drainage facilities.
Policy 7.5.5 Require hydrologic/hydraulic studies and WQMPs to ensure that new developments and redevelopment projects will not cause adverse hydrologic or biologic impacts to downstream receiving waters, including groundwater.
Policy 7.5.6 Participate, when appropriate, in regional task force efforts in partnership with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, including but not limited to, the development and ongoing implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and water quality sampling programs.
Policy 7.5.7 Pursue grant funding and partnership opportunities for stormwater capture and/or restoration projects.
Policy 7.5.8 Continue to routinely monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the storm drain collection and conveyance system and adjust as needed. This may include retrofitting for enhanced infiltration.
Policy 7.5.9 Continue to monitor influent rates at the wastewater treatment plant as new development projects are proposed, and coordinate treatment capacity expansion as needed.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -20 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Policy 7.5.10 Seek opportunities to integrate stormwater facilities into public spaces as architectural design elements. Include informational and educational signs to raise public awareness of water use and water pollution issues.
Implementation CFI8 Low Impact Development. Develop standards to:
▪ determine where Low Impact Development techniques are appropriate and can incorporate be st management practices.
▪ identify and eliminate barriers to incorporate watershed protection principles.
Implementation CFI20 Green Streets. Implement best practices for Green Streets on transportation corridors associated with new and existing redevelopment projects.
Implementation CFI21 Local Implementation Plan. Prepare a Local Implementation Plan (LIP) that documents the internal procedures for implementation of the various program elements described in the Drainage Area Management Plan and Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2010- 0033 (“MS4 Permit”).
Implementation S23 Update Municipal Code. Update municipal code to require:
▪ on-site stormwater runoff retention
▪ limit stormwater runoff impacts on adjacent properties Goal 7.6: A zero -waste program that increases recycling and reduces waste sent to the landfill.
Policy 7.6.2 Expand programs to collect food waste and green waste from commercial and residential uses.
Policy 7.6.4 Ensure waste facilities and infrastructure are designed to be safe and compatible with adjacent uses.
Policy 7.6.5 Ensure construction demolition achieves the State’s 50 percent target for material salvage and recycling of non-hazardous construction materials.
Policy 7.6.6 Promote waste reduction, recycling, and composting by making separate containers available in gathering areas of City-owned facilities.
Policy 7.6.7 Continue to work with regional agencies to educate residents about available drop - off and/or pickup points for e-waste and hazardous materials and chemicals, to avoid disposal into the sewer system, waste stream, or open space areas.
Implementation CFI25 Food Recovery Program. Work with local organizations and restaurants to develop a food rescue program that distributes edible food to low-income residents and promotes food waste prevention.
Implementation CF26 Zero Waste. Work with regional partners, such as the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources, and community partners to foster a zero
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -21 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems waste cult ure, including outreach, marketing, and local grant program to support efforts.
Implementation CFI27 Public Stewards of Zero Waste. Commit all City departments to zero waste, including provision of technical support and diversion at City facilities.
Implementation CFI30 Composting Program. Expand existing recycling programs to include composting yard and garden waste.
Goal 7.7: Provide for a clean and healthy community through an effective solid waste collection and disposal system.
Policy 7.7.1 Implement source reduction, recycling, composting, and other appropriate measures to reduce the volume of waste materials entering regional landfills. Establish a goal to achieve 100 percent recycling citywide for both residential and nonresidential development.
Policy 7.7.2 Implement a commercial solid waste recycling program that consists of education, outreach, and monitoring of businesses in order to divert commercial solid waste and report progress in the annual report to CalRecycle.
Policy 7.7.3 Require businesses (including public entities) that generate four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week, or a multifamily residential dwelling of five units or more, to arrange for recycling services.
Policy 7.7.4 Offer economic incentives to businesses within the City which are “zero waste.” Policy 7.7.5 Develop City programs and/or advertise County-wide programs that encourage residents to donate or dispose of surplus furniture, old electronics, clothing, oils/grease, household hazardous materials and other household items rather than disposing of such materials in landfills.
Implementation CFI28 Technical Assistance. Partner closely with commercial and owners of multifamily properties to start or expand recycling and waste reduction practices.
Implementation CFI29 Debris Recycling Ordinance. Create a construction and demolition debris recycling ordinance to support the diversion of recyclable and recoverable materials. Work with local partners to conduct outreach targeting waste generators.
Goal 7.8: City-wide access to high -quality energy utility and telecommunication services.
Policy 7.8.1 Ensure that adequate utility and telecommunication infrastructure support future development.
Policy 7.8.3 When feasible, place new utilities underground to promote attractive neighborhoods and streetscapes and reduce wildfire risk.
Policy 7.8.4 Consider aesthetic design, including well maintained grounds and fencing around substations.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -22 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Policy 7.8.5 Ensure that siting of telecommunication facilities provides efficiency and quality services to emergency response providers in the City.
Policy 7.8.6 Work with Southern California Edison to encourage joint use of the power line corridors.
Implementation CFI31 Telecommunication Siting. Establish siting parameters to minimize community impacts, including demonstration of compliance with federal safety standards, low -profile designs, co-location (where feasible), and minimum setbacks from residences.
Implementation CFI32 Fiber Optic Communications. Work with regional and state partners to support fiber optic market development and Beaumont’s participation in the statewide diffusion of fiber optic technology.
Safety Element
Goal 9.10: A City that is prepared for the potential impacts of climate change .
Policy 9.10.3 Require enhanced water conservation measures in new development and redesign of existing buildings to address the possibility of constrained future water supplies, including:
▪ Compliance with existing landscape conservation ordinance (Chapter 17.06 of the Municipal Code).
▪ Use of water conservation measures in new development beyond current requirements.
▪ Installation of recycled water use and graywater systems.
Implementation S7 Community Risk Assessment. Conduct a community risk assessment to identify critical facilities and community assets.
Implementation S8 Climate Change Risk Assessment. Conduct a climate change risk assessment to identify potential risks and vulnerable populations. Prioritize programs and funding for populations most likely to be impacted by climate change, in accordance with SB379.
Implementation S10 Community Preparedness Toolkit. Adopt a local Community Preparedness Toolkit that can be used to prepare for disasters, including fires, earthqu akes, and extreme heat events.
Implementation S11 Maintenance Fund. Re-evaluate development impact fees to cover costs of maintaining community fire breaks and other similar activities.
Implementation S28 Water Conservation. Review Chapter 17.06 of the M unicipal Code to consider adding additional water conservation measures.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -23 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
4.17.4 Impact Thresholds and Significan ce Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions concerning utilities and service syst ems. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• 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; • Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capac ity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
• Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid wa ste reduction goals; or • Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Methodology and Assumptions
The proposed Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning utilities and service systems. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact.
Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on utility resources examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined above. For each criterion, the analyses are generally divided into two main categories: (1) temporary impacts; and (2) permanent impacts. Each criterion is discussed in the context of Project components that share similar characteristics/geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.
The baseline conditions and impact analyses are based on the following: technical assessments provided by the BCVWD utility agency; review of project maps and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents.
The determination that the Project would or would not result in in “substantial” adverse effects on utilities or service systems is based on the capacity of those systems and their ability to efficiently accommodate the Project’s development into their infr astructure, as well as the Project’s compliance with all relevant regulations and policies. An example of a substantial adverse effect would be if utility systems needed to
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -24 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems expand, or new facilities needed to be built to accommodate the Project. Unsubstant ial effects would not require existing utility systems to facilitate the Project through large modifications.
4.17.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.17-1 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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Water Facilities
As part of the Project, and as analyzed in this document, water services would be extended into and within the Project site as a part of the proposed improvements. Within the Project Site, all potable and recycled water delivery lines would be designed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and BCVWD; and would be coordinated with existing water systems serving any neighboring development. Although non -potable water service is not currently available, the proposed Project includes the improvements within the site so that it may be able to be served in the future. All water systems constructed within the Project site and connections to the municipal water system would comply with City -stipulated water system design, construction, and opera tional requirements. This would act to ensure water systems are properly designed, implemented, operated, and maintained; thereby furthering efficiency and adequacy of facilities while reducing facilities life cycle costs.
The Project site would tie into a n existing 24-inch water line located within Brookside Avenue via a new waterline from the south side of the Project site along the eastern edge of Planning Area 3. All impacts associated with installation of the new water lines (potable and non-potable) would occur within areas already proposed to be disturbed as part of the Project, and within areas such as roadways and utility easements that were previously disturbed and paved, and that have been planned for tie ins from new development and to provide services.
Water Use
The Project would allow for up to a maximum of 2,707,465 SF of mixed commercial, e-commerce, and office uses and approximately 31 acres of open space. The WSA estimated the proposed Project’s water demands to be 183 AFY, or approximately 66 percent less water dema nd is anticipated compared to the previously approved Sunny-Cal Specific Plan on the same property footprint of 531 AFY with 560 DUs, and this is commensurate with the number of EDUs that the BCVWD assumed for buildout of the property and its water demands projections in the 2020 UWMP.6 Although the Project site currently uses little to no water use, the proposed Project would have a planned water use of approximately 183 AFY which is a reduction of approximately 66 percent compared to the previously approved Sunny-Cal Specific Plan development which as previously stated would have generated a need of 531 AFY of water use . Because the water supplier’s water demand projections assumed a higher development density based on a
6 Albert A. Webb Associated. (2021). Water Supply Assessment. Page 2-10.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -25 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems previously approved project, than that which is proposed by the Project for the same property, it can be deduced that the water demand for the Project would result in a net decrease in potable water demand.
The proposed Project is comprised of three Planning Areas (PAs) and would require water for consumptive, sanitary, and operational purposes to support employees at the facility and for irrigation of landscaped areas.
According to the WSA, it is anticipated that the new water demand created by the Project would not exceed the City’s anticipated water supply. Furthermore, the Project will demonstrate consistency with the City Landscaping Standards located in the Beaumont MC Chapter 17.06, which require efficient systems and plants with low-water demands. Project water demand and each accompanying PA includes:
• PA 1: The potable water demand factor is 15 GPD/employee, with the number of employees sourced from the Project ‘s traffic study (2,011 in Planning Area 1). This is slightly higher than an estimate using the oft -cited 2010 National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) study.7 Potable water demand in PA 1 is measured over 365 operating days per year, which is more than the 260 days used in certain other BCV WD WSA’s and a 2010 U.S. Department of Energy Study (USDE, 2010). The non-potable (landscaping) water demand factor is 1,835.6 GPD/acre (or 670,000 gallons per year per acre) and 365 days per year.8 • PA 2: Potable water demand factors used are 100 GPD/hote l room assuming 220 rooms, 1 GPD/SF (or 1,000 GPD/kSF) for “general retail” and “food uses.” These unit water demand factors consistent with those used in the 2021 BCVWD Beaumont Pointe WSA which states they a re “based on typical water usage used by water agencies throughout southern California.” The landscaped area for PA 2 (i.e., 1,835.6 GPD/acre). Both potable and non -potable water demand in this PA is assumed to be in use 365 per year.
• PA 3: Because it is planned as passive open space . According to the Office of the Fire Marshal who was consulted during preparation of the WSA, the Project site does not fall within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; therefore, no fuel modification zone would be required by the fire department. Because it is planned as passive open space and no fuel modification zone would be required, the water demand was assumed to be zero.
As stated above, potable water demand is estimated at 183 AFY (114 AFY and non-potable water demands is 69 AFY). Based on these figures and bas ed on the evaluation of water demand from the previously approved Specific Plan, water demand from the proposed Project would not result or require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities which could cause significant environmental effects beyond the scope and scale of those already evaluated. These impacts would be less than significant.
7 Hidden Canyon Industrial Park (2019, p. 112) and Beaumont Pointe Water Supply Assessments (Mar. 2021, p. 12), based their emp loyee counts on a 2010 NAIOP Research Foundation study (NAIOP), which is 1 employee per 1,500 SF of warehouse and office space. 8 This is the same factor used for the Beaumont Pointe Water Supply Assessment (2021, p. 12).
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -26 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater
Refer to Impact 4.17-3, below for additional information on wastewater service. As previously discussed, sewer service would be provided by the City of Beaumont, with treatment provided by the Beaumont WWTP No. 1. The WWTP is located within BCVWD’s service area and has been upgraded and expanded to include the ability to produce recycled water for distribution9 . Based on the relatively low wastewater generation rates of e-commerce and commercial uses that would be implemented within the Project area, development would result in nominally increased wastewater treatment demands compared to the two mgd of increased treatment capacity. The County of Riverside uses an average wastewater generation rate of 1,200 gpd per acre for commercial uses .10 The approximately 150-acre building area of the e- commerce and commercial PAs would therefore generate 180,000 gpd. This total would comprise less than one percent of the two mgd increased treatment capacity. The WWTP would have sufficient wastewater treatment capacity t o serve the proposed Project as the undergoing upgrades would allow for an increase in treatment capacity. Therefore, the Project would not trigger the need for new or expanded regional wastewater treatment facilities and/or exceed capacity. In addition, t he Project applicant would be required to pay standard BCVWD sewer connection fees, which are used to fund wastewater treatment and regional wastewater conveyance improvements associated with new development. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Regarding the wastewater collection systems and proposed connections to the municipal wastewater collection system, Project facilities would be designed and installed in conformance with the City stipulated wastewater system design, construction, and operational requirements. This would ensure wastewater collection facilities are properly designed, implemented, operated, and maintained; thereb y furthering efficiency and adequacy of facilities while reducing facilities lifecycle costs.
The Project applicant also would pay fees pursuant to the incumbent City of Beaumont Fee Schedule.
These fees would cover the City's cost to fund plan review, coordination, and inspection of proposed wastewater collection system improvements. The Project applicant would be responsible for any capital costs to extend the existing sewer lines, as well as applicable sewer connection and service fees, which. act to fund future improvement plans, operations, and maintenance of existing wastewater collection facilities. As previously discussed, the Project sewer infrastructure would be a gravity system placed in drive aisles and the central private drive and connecting wi th a proposed sewer line in Brookside Avenue (see Exhibit 3.0-10 in Section 3.0, Project Description ). An approximately 488 feet long proposed sewer line is to be installed just southeast of the site along Brookside Avenue to an existing sewer line located at Morgan Avenue.
Therefore, the Project would have little or no net effect on the operation of wastewater collection facilities or wastewater treatment capacity. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
9 Albert A. Webb Associates. 2021. Water Supply Assessment, page 3-12. 10 County of Riverside. (2015). County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521. Table 4.19 -BL. Page 4.19-287. Riverside, CA: County of Riverside
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -27 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Stormwater
The Project’s drainage plan will collect stormwater through catch basins placed throughout the Specific Plan area. Stormwater will be discharged into a series of above and below -ground detention basins to reduce flows and to provide treatment prior to being discha rged into the existing stream course in PA 3.
On-site runoff will be conveyed through the site via proposed curb and gutters, and ribbon gutters. Runoff would be collected via a network of inlets provided at low point throughout the Project site and conveyed via underground storm drain towards the proposed water quality treatment facilities. For the Building 1, stormwater will be conveyed to an underground detention basin that will have limited infiltration ability.
Stormwater will then be pumped at a reduc ed flow rate to a biofiltration basin to further cleanse the water before draining into the proposed infiltration basin for Building 2. Only after the stormwater from Building 2 has infiltrated, will stormwater from Building 1 be pumped from the undergroun d detention basin. Stormwater runoff from the BSS - Building 2 site would be treated in a proposed infiltration basin.
Stormwater runoff from Building 3 will be conveyed to an underground detention basin that will have limited infiltration ability. Stormwater will then be pumped at a reduced flow rate to a biofiltration basin to further cleanse the water before draining into the natural drainage system downstream of the project site.
Due to the lack of downstream storm drain facilities, the Project site would be required to mitigate for increases in runoff. For Buildings 1 and 3, a CMP detention chamber system would be constructed for each site. The CMP detention chamber system would be pumped out at a reduced discharge rate to mitigate for the increased runoff. The proposed infiltration basin in the Building 2 site would serve to treat for water quality requirements and mitigation along with a proposed CMP detention system which would equalize with the basin. The proposed mitigation systems for each Building project site have been sized to mitigate for increased runoff for the 2 -year, 5-year, and 10-year storm events with a duration of 24 hours. Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality , for additional information.
The proposed site plan and building layouts do not allow for the same tributary drainage areas to each of the south and west discharge points. To maintain existing outlet conditions, portions of the site would be required to over mitigate to ensure the downstream facilities are not adversely impacted. The total flows from both discharge points will drain to the west and would not be in excess of pre-Project flows. As such, less than significant impacts would occur.
Electric Power
SCE provides basic electrical service for all residential and nonresidential customers within the City and would provide electricity to the proposed Project. There are no under -served areas within the City and are no significant constraints that would make it infeasible to provide electric service needed for the proposed Project. Underground power is available to most service areas, with lines situated along several of the major streets. As part of the Project development, electricity lines and other junctions (as needed) would be extended into the Project site in areas already proposed for disturbance. The proposed Project would tie into existing utility lines in existing roadways or other easements that have already experienced disturbances or that were anticipated for such use. The proposed Project would not require the
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -28 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems construction or unanticipated relocation of electric power facilities resulting in unanticipated environmental effects. Additionally, the Project would not require a substation for electrical power, per SCE. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
Natural Gas
SoCalGas provides basic residential and business gas services. There are no u nderserved areas, and SoCalGas does not foresee any constraints to substantial future development within the City. Natural gas services for the Project will be provided by underground pipes to distribute the gas within the Project area. These pipes are not existing and would therefore require trenching to place them. However, this can be done in conjunction with the construction of roads or other ground disturbing activities such as laying foundations or sewer systems. Therefore, the installation of natural gas infrastructure would not create an increased impact on the environment.
Telecommunication
Verizon provides home and business phone service, as well as offering fiber optics capabilities. Video and data lines are also possible for each residence via an existing network. There are currently no under -served areas.
Telecommunication facilities would be provided to the Project site by Verizon. Verizon would connect the Project site to existing telecommunication facilities, which are in the vicinity of the Project site. Less than significant impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Impact 4.17-2 Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Estimated Project Demand
Development of the proposed Project would increase water consumption compared to existing conditions . The BCVWD 2020 UWMP identifies water supply and delivery systems to serve the City's incorporated and areas in the SOI, which includes the Project site. The UWMP evaluates water demands through the year 2045. Through 2045, BCVWD is anticipated to have ad equate water supply to meet current demand, the increased demands for the proposed Project, and water needed for other anticipated growth. It should be noted that BCVWD's anticipated water use and demand for imported water are accounted for and included in SGPWA's water demand forecasts. The adequate supply is dependent on
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -29 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems the anticipated availability of recycled water as planned, and the planned SGPWA water supply projects are finalized, and water banking.
BCVWD would use some of the imported water to rec harge groundwater and use this bank water to provide in times of shortfall. The Beaumont Basin, which has a large storage capacity is used by BCVWD as a water source. BCVWD and other agencies in the San Gorgonio Pass Area bank imported water during wet years for use during extended droughts. Complementing the large storage capacity is the fact that percolation and recharge occur at relatively high rates. BCVWD also focuses on maintaining well -managed groundwater levels.
As discussed above, the WSA projecte d water demand of the proposed Project at 15 gallons per person per day, which is consistent with other BCVWD WSA’s in City. The estimated number of employees, 2,011, was derived from the Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis . This would result in a water demand of approximately 34 AFY. Total Project water demand is 183 AFY (114 AFY for potable indoor water and 69 AFY for non-potable irrigation water).11
Water demand for landscaping also was calculated and would require approximately 69 AFY or 61,296 gpd. This was based on using drought tolerant landscaping and a cap the City placed on water availability for landscaping. Recycled water is not currently ava ilable but would be evaluated for use for landscaping when it is available at the Project site.
Normal Year
Although, available water supplies are dependent on local climate conditions, BCVWD estimates in its 2020 UWMP that the customer water demand and a vailable water supply from 2025 to 2045 are at least equal during “normal” precipitation years and there will be water available for banking in the Beaumont Basin. This is consistent with what occurred in 2020; supply met demand with 427 AF going to banked groundwater storage. With BCVWD's total potable and non-potable water supply and demand BCVWD would be able to meet water demands for the proposed Project. A summary from the 2020 UWMP of the normal year water supplies projected to be available to BCVWD, as well as the normal year water demand projections are compared in Table 4.17-3, below.
Table 4.17-3: BCVWD Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply 18,565 18,478 23,175 24,738 26,270
Demand 16,929 17,873 18,869 19,846 20,660
To Beaumont Basin Storage 1,636 605 4,306 4,892 5,610 Source: Water Supply Assessment, 2021. Table 3 -6, page 3-13. (Appendix I).
As shown in Table 4.17-3, BCVWD has estimated that sufficient supply will be available during any normal year occurring between 2020 and 2040.
11 WSA. 2021. Spreadsheet 1.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -30 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Dry Years
The availability of water, both locally, regionally, and statewide, are dependent on climate and volumes of precipitation. This is true for both BCVWD and imported that is available from the SGPWA via the SWP.
Accordingly, depending on weather and rainfall patterns the availability of water can change dramatically.
To account for these variances and evaluate potential impacts to wa ter resources over long periods of time, CEQA requires a project be evaluated based on the normal, single, dry, and multiple dry years. The WSA prepared for the proposed Project was evaluated based on the following dry year scenarios:
• A single-dry year for BCVWD corresponds to the conditions observed in 1991, which is when the minimum amount was extracted from Edgar Canyon groundwater, which was 1,117 AF; • A reduction of 15 percent is assumed for average annual forbearance water and reallocated unused Overlying Party rights (i.e., water used for replenishment of Beaumont Basin account) will be available in a dry year (i.e., 85 percent of normal); • Future return flow credits were not reduced by 15 percent for a single-dry year. • A reduction of 15 percent is assumed for recycled forbearance water due to a potential reduction in treated wastewater due to water conservation (i.e., 85 percent of normal). • 5 percent of Table A water will be available to SGPWA for BCVWD’s estimated available imported wat er supplies.
• 90 percent of the expected normal, average recycled water will be available; • 36 percent of average rainfall will be available as new water from stormwater capture projects; • No reduction in water demand was assumed
BCVWD has determined with these assumptions that sufficient water supplies will be available during a single dry year occurring anytime from 2025 to 2045, as shown in Table 4.17-4.
Table 4.17-4: BCVWD Projected Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply 7,349 7,878 8,944 9,195 9,792
Demand 15,429 16,673 18,097 19,124 19,988
From Banked Beaumont Basin Storage (8,080) (8,795) (9,153) (9,929) (10,196) Source: Water Supply Assessment, 2021. Table 3-7, page 3-15. (Appendix I ).
Multiple Dry Year
BCVWD has made the following assumptions in its UWMP to estimate future water supplies and demands during a multiple (five-consecutive) year drought:
• A five-dry year period of BCVWD corresponds to the conditions observed from 1988 to 1992 • The average amount available from Edgar Canyon groundwater for 5 consecutive dry years is 1,305 AF
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -31 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems • 85 percent of average annual forbearance water and reallocated unused Overlying Party rights (i.e., water used for replenishment of Beaumont Basin account) will be avail able in a dry year (a reduction of 15 percent);
• Future return flow credits were not reduced by 15 percent for a dry year; • 85 percent of recycled forbearance water will be available for a potential reduction in treated wastewater due to water conservation (a 15 percent reduction); • 24 percent of Table A water will be available to SGPWA for BCVWD’s estimated available imported water supplies;
• 85 percent of the expected normal, average recycled water will be available; • 61 percent of average rainfa ll will be available as new water from stormwater capture projects; • Total water demand will be reduced 30 percent
BCVWD has projected based on the assumptions above that sufficient water supplies will be available with the use of banked groundwater supplie s during each year of a five-year drought that could occur anytime from 2025 to 2045, shown in Table 4.17-5.
Table 4.17-5: BCVWD Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Five
Consecutive
Dry Years
Supply 10,639 10,697 11,456 11,331 11,642
Demand 10,800 11,671 12,668 13,387 13,992
From Banked Beaumont
Basin Storage (162) (974) (1,212 ) (2,056) (2,350 )
Source: Water Supply Assessment, 2021. Table 3-8, page 3-16. (Appendix I ).
In addition, the WSA concluded that SGPWA has projected in its 2020 UWMP to have reliable water supplies through the 2045 planning horizon year to meet SGPWA’s current and 2045 future water demands in its service area during normal and average rainfall yea rs, during a five-year drought from 2021 to 2025, as well as a five-consecutive year drought between 2025 and 2045. SGPWA’s water reliability assessment for a drought lasting five consecutive years shows sufficient available supplies assuming the retail agencies in SGPWA service area use stored water and regionally managed supplies to offset fluctuations in its SWP supplies.12 According to the WSA, BCVWD can rely on the SGPWA to secure and deliver the imported water needed to meet BCVWD’s current and future demands.
While it is anticipated sufficient water supply will be available, it should be note d that not all of those water supplies are firm with agreements in place. Beyond 2025, SGPWA and BCVWD would rely on the reliability of SWP water, the availability of Article 21 and Turnback Pool Water, short term water transfers which are not yet agreed to, and the Delta Conveyance Project (DCP) and Sites Reservoir. Both DCP and Sites Reservoir are moving forward, and there is more than reasonable probability the se projects will
12 Water Supply Assessment, 2021, Page 3-4.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -32 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems come to fruition. While there is some risk, which BCVWD believes is low, that the projects would not continue, the risk will decrease over time as design and permitting progress.
Further, SGPWA is anticipated to be able to obtain sufficien t imported water supply to supplement local supplies to meet regional needs including BCVWD’s needs, and those of the proposed Project. The proposed Project was planned for in BCVWD’s 2020 UWMP which demonstrated adequate water supplies up to the year 2045. BCVWD also identified recycled water from the City for non-potable water irrigation with a plan for the recharge of surplus recycled water with appropriate treatment and permits, which would reduce demands for potable water. This also would assist loweri ng water demands during critical and multiple dry year reliability analysis demonstrated that BCVWD will be able to meet BCVWD’s existing demands during those times and also would supplement the existing supply sources during these dry periods with banked water in BCVWD’s Beaumont Basin Groundwater Storage Account.
Therefore, pursuant to the CGC § 66473.7, (SB 221) and § 10910 of the California Water Code (SB 610), BCVWD would have sufficient currently available and planned supplies exist to meet the water demands of the proposed Project in addition to the existing and other projected demands during normal, single dry and multiple dry years over the next 20 years. Accordingly, BCVWD has determined that it has sufficient and adequate water supply available to serve long -term needs of the Project in addition to the existing and other projected demands during normal, single dry and multiple dry years over the next 20 years.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Impact 4.17-3 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? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
There are no existing or proposed sewer facilities within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Existing 15-inch sewer lines are in a subdivision to the south of Brookside Avenue, flowing under I -10, and ultimately to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1, located on Fourth Street, east of Viele Avenue.
Sewer infrastructure will be a gravity system placed in drive aisles and the central private drive and connecting with a proposed sewer line in Brookside Avenue, as depicted in Exhibit 3.0-10, Conceptual Sewer Plan ). Wastewater from the Project site would then flow to be treated at the City’s Treatment Plant No. 1. Currently, the City’s WWTP No. 1 is undergoing upgrades that would expand the current permitted capacity from 4 mgd to 6 mgd, as well as construction of advanced treatment, lift station modifications, and the addition of on-site recycled water storage facilities. The treatment upgrades include a new fine screen system, conversion to activated sludge, a new activated sludge pump for secondary clarification, and a new membrane bio-reactor, with a reverse osmosis system to remove dissolved solids. Additionally,
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -33 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems new dewatering equipment and optimization of the existing ult raviolet disinfection system13. Based on the wastewater generation rates of e-commerce and commercial uses that would be implemented within the Project area, development would result in nominally increased wastewater treatment demands compared to the 2 mgd of increased treatment capacity. The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 would have sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed Project as the undergoing upgrades would allow for an increase in capacity. Therefore, the Project would not trigger the need for new or expanded regional wastewater treatment facilities and/or exceed capacity. In addition, the Project applicant would be required to pay standard BCVWD sewer connection fees, which are used to fund wastewater treatment and reg ional wastewater conveyance improvements associated with new development. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Furthermore, wastewater collection systems and proposed connections to the municipal wastewater collection system would be designed and installed in conformance with the City stipulated wastewater system design standards, construction, and operational requirements. This ensures wastewater collection facilities are properly designed, implemented, operated, and maintained; thereby furthering efficiency and adequacy of facilities while reducing facilities lifecycle costs.
The applicant also would pay fees pursuant to the incumbent City Fee Schedule. These fees would cover the City's cost to fund plan review, coordination, and inspection of proposed wastewater collection system improvements. The applicant would be responsible for any capital costs to extend the existing sewer lines, as well as applicable sewer connection and service fees, which act to fund future improvement plans, operations, and maintenance of existing wastewater collection facilities. Therefore, the Project would have little or no net effect on the operation of wastewater collection facilities or wastewater treatment capacity. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Impact 4.17-4 Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The City is in the service area of the Lamb Canyon Landfill, located just south of the City and operated by the RCDWR. Therefore, the City will provide solid waste management services for the Project. Solid waste services within the City are contracted by WM for weekly trash, green waste and recycling curbside service. The City’s agreement with WM includes a tipping fee for the County’s costs to operate the
13 Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Draft. Retrieve from: https://bcvwd.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/2020_BCVWD_UWMP_DRAFT.pdf. Accessed on July 20, 2021.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -34 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Lamb Canyon landfill. The Project will also be served by WM. Solid waste generated from the Project would be collected by WM, with the bulk of recyclable was te and green waste delivered to the Moreno Valley Solid Waste Recycling and Transfer Facility (MVTS) for processing. The MVTS is located at 17700 Indian Street in Moreno Valley. It is permitted for a 2,500 -tpd operation.
Recently, RCDWR estimated in its Annual Report Summary to CalRecycle, pursuant to the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, that the County’s disposal facilities will provide approximately 20 years of disposal capacity, based on current and future disposal. Based on the Calrecyle web site, there are various waste disposal generation factors for industrial and commercial uses. Some of the generation factors are based on the number of employees and others are based on the square footage of the facility.
The Project would primarily be used for mixed commercial, e-commerce, and office uses. Commercial development may contain a variety of uses, including hotel, general retail, and food services. These uses could potentially produce new goods and therefore, waste generation compared to more p roduction oriented industrial uses that use raw materials to make products would be more. Based on these factors, an estimated waste generation rate of 5 lbs./1,000 sf of facility from the Calrecycle website was used.14 The proposed Project is vacant and s olid waste would initially be generated as construction debris. At the end of Project buildout , construction debris would stop being generated. Remnant construction debris including wood products, metals, and concrete and paving would be recycled or reused when possible.
Operational waste would be generated from business operations and green waste from landscaping.
Based on the listed generation rate, the approximately 2,707,465 square feet mixed commercial, e-commerce, and office uses is anticipated to generate approximately 13,537 lbs. (2,707,465/1,000*5) of waste per day or 7 tons per day (tpd). The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. The proposed Project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
As discussed above, solid waste would likely be primarily disposed of at the Lamb Canyon Land Fill facility.
Green waste can also be transported to this facility where it is sorted and then transferred for disposal.
Based on the anticipated tonnage generated, the proposed Project would contribute a negligible volume of waste, approximately 0.03 percent of existing daily disposal. In addition, the other two landfills available for use, the Badlands Landfill and Sobrante Landfill, can accept up to 4,800 tpd and up to 7,000 tpd, respectively. If these facilities are used, the proposed Project would make a similarly slight contributions.
Solid waste created by the Project would be collected and handled in compliance with all applicable regulation including those in Beaumont MC § 8.12.100 – Disposal of Solid Waste Required. To help reduce the waste stream, the Beaumont MC Chapter 8.12 details the City’s waste management policy which includes requirements and strategies to reduce solid waste and increase the amount of material that is recycled.
14 Commercial Sector Generation Rates. (2019). Retrieved from: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates .
Accessed on July 20, 2021.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -35 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems The proposed Project also would follow the state requirements related to reducing and recycling of the waste stream and comply with AB s 341 and 1826 by implementing a recycling program to separate recyclable, and recyclable organic materials, from non-recyclable solid waste and coordinating with the respective waste hauler(s) to have it disposed of at a proper facility. This also would satisfy other state requirement related to large scale businesses such as the proposed Project to maintain recycling and organics recycling programs. These requirements are designed to move California to its statewide goal of a 75 percent recycling rate, including a reduction in the level of organic waste disposal by 50 percent from its current levels. To help ensure businesses comply with the City's ordinance and s tate laws, the City's franchise waste hauler, WM, offers source separated recyclables, green waste, and food waste collection services. Therefore, the proposed Project would implement all required waste reduction strategies and the existing landfills have adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant and mitigation is not required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Impact 4.17-5 Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Refer to Impact 4.15-4, above. Project development would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Project does not propose any activities that would conflict with the applicable programmatic requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
Less t han significant impact.
4.17.6 Cumulative Impacts
Future projects in the area would incrementally increase water demand, wastewater generation, solid waste generation and decrease available capacity of the landfills in the area. However, as with the Project, these projects have been, or would be, required to conduct environmental review. The BCVWD and SGPWA UWMP’s account for growth in the City and Region and have found adequate water supplies exist.
Similarly, the Project would be served by existing and planned wastewater and stormwater facilities.
Additionally, based on BCVWD’s focus on groundwater recharge and the placement of the retention
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.17 -36 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems basins on the Project site, it is anticipated that at least some of the wastewater generated from the Project and much of the stormwater would be used for this purpose. Furthermore, as of 2015, the Lamb Canyon Land Fill facility was processing an average of 5,000 tpd and has a remaining capacity of 19,242,950 cubic yards. Therefore, while the Project would incrementally incre ase demands on public utilities, the increases are within the anticipated growth patterns and within the capacity of existing and planned resources. The Project would not combine with other cumulative projects to result in significant impacts to utilities and service systems . The Project’s contribution is not considered cumulatively considerable.
4.17.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts have been identified.
4.17.8 References
Albert A. Webb and Associates. August 2021. Preliminary Drainage Study.
Albert A. Webb Associate s . November 2021. Water Supply Assessment .
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Draft . https://bcvwd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2020_BCVWD_UWMP_DRAFT.pdf .
CalRecycle. 2017. California’s Statewide Per Resident, Per Employee, and Total Disposal Since 1989.
Available at https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/GoalMeasure/DisposalRate/MostRecent/ .
City of Beaumont. 2019. Mandatory Commercial Recycling. Available at http://www.beaumontca.gov/864/Commercial-Recycling .
City of Beaumont. 2018. Sewer Rate Study. Available at
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31055/Beaumont -Sewer-Rate-Study--- 2018?bidId=.
County of Riverside. (2015). County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521. Table 4.19-BL.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Master Drainage Plan. Available at http://content.rcflood.org/MDPADP/ . Accessed: March 4, 2022.
R iverside C ounty D epartment of Waste R esources . Lamb Canyon Landfill. Available at https://www.rcwaste.org/landfill/lambcanyon . Accessed January 2022.
SGPWA, 2020 – About SGPWA. Available: https://www.sgpwa.com/about -us/. Accessed: August 3, 2020.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-1 4.18 | Wildfire
4.18 WILDFIRE
4.18.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the potential wildfire hazards impacts that may result from the implementation of the Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan (Project) within the City of Beaumont (City) by identifying existing wildfire hazard conditions of the Project site and surrounding area; considering applicable federal, state, regional, and local goals and policies; identifying and analyzing environmental impacts; and recommending measures to minimize or avoid potential adverse impacts resultant of Project implementation.
Information presented in this wildfire hazards impact analysis is derived largely from the City of Beaumont Annex – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)1, County of Riverside Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP) (2018)2, and City of Beaumont General Plan (Beaumont GP) – Safety Element.3 Other information in this section, such as regulatory framework, is derived from the various planning documents including the City of Beaumont General Plan (Beaumont GP), City of Beaumont Municipal Code (Beaumont MC), and pertinent State of California Building Codes (CBC).
4.18.2 Environmental Setting
In general, wildfires pose the greatest risk in the open space and undeveloped portions of the City. The severity of potential wildfires is influenced by four factors: vegetation, climate, slope, and how the fire was started. In the southern and western portions of the City, the vegetation is comprised of native chamise chaparral, California scrub oak, white sage, and manzanita. Sparse vegetation of canyon and live oak can also be found. The grasslands, shrubs, and chaparral in both the flat and hilly areas are considered to be highly flammable. However, since much of the Beaumont area consists of open space and flat areas containing sparse vegetation or included areas used for agriculture, the potential for wildfires is significantly reduced.4
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the state through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These maps place areas of the state into different Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) based on a hazard scoring system using subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing density, and occurrence of severe fire weather where urban conflagration could result in catastrophic losses. As part of this mapping system, land where CAL FIRE is responsible for wildland fire protection and generally located in unincorporated areas is classified as a State Responsibility Area (SRA). Where local fire protection agencies, such as the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), are responsible for wildfire protection, the land is classified as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). In addition to establishing local or state responsibility for wildfire
1 City of Beaumont. 2012. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at http://beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29599/Beaumont-LHMP- ?bidId=.
2 County of Riverside. Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. (2018). Available at https://www.rivcoemd.org/Portals/0/FINAL%20PUBLIC%20VERSION%20Riv_Co_%202018%20Multi%20Jurisdictional%20Local%20Hazard%2 0Mitigation%20Plan.pdf. (Accessed August 2021).
3 City of Beaumont, General Plan. (2020). Chapter 9, Safety, pg. 223. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont-GPU_Final-rev-22521 . 4 Ibid.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-2 4.18 | Wildfire
protection in a specific area, CAL FIRE designates areas as very high fire hazard severity zones FHSZs (VHFHSZ), High (HFHSZ), and Moderate (MFHSZ). According to the State of California Fire Hazard Severity Zone viewer, the entire Project site is designated as LRA.5 It should be noted that RCFD and CAL FIRE have contracted with the City for fire protection services since 19786; and therefore, both currently provide services to the Project site.
Wildfire Characteristics
According to the National Park Service (NPS), a wildfire, or wildland fire, is described as a non-structure fire that occurs in vegetation such as trees, grasses, and shrubs, and is not a prescribed fire.7 Wildfires have differing causes including lightning strikes, wind-blown embers, but are most commonly caused by human activities. Wildfires may originate in undeveloped areas and spread to developed or urban areas where the landscape and structures are not designed and maintained to be ignition or fire resistant. The International Association of Fire Chiefs’ Ready, Set, Go! website defines a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) as areas where homes are built near or among lands prone to wildland fire.8 The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard where development is adjacent to open space or in proximity to wildland fuels or FHSZ. Fires that occur in WUI areas may affect natural resources as well as life and property.
The potential for wildfires to affect an area are largely dependent on vegetation patterns within a given area and the density of the vegetative growth. The vegetation is typically defined as having low, moderate, or high fuel loads. Light fuels typically consist of flammable grasses and annual herbs; medium fuels are brush and shrubs less than six feet in height; and heavy fuels are heavier brush and timber over six feet high. Topography also influences fire risk by affecting fire spread rates. Steep terrain can result in faster fire spread upslope and terrain that create funneling effects, such as canyons, and these landscapes can result in especially intense fire behavior. Conversely, flat terrain or those with slight elevation changes tend to have little effect on fire spread. In these instances, the fire spread is largely driven by vegetation and weather conditions such as humidity and wind.9
4.18.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
In March 2003, FEMA became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. FEMA's continuing mission is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.
5 Calfire. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
6 City of Beaumont. Fire Services. Available at http://beaumontca.gov/Index.aspx?NID=18 , accessed June 2021. 7 National Park Service (2018). Types of Wildland Fire. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/types-of-wildland-fire.htm . Accessed June 2021. 8 International Association of Fire Chiefs (2019). Wildland Urban Interface. https://www.wildlandfirersg.org/s/iafc2/what-is-the-wildland- urban-interface-MCVXRWBEHSZFCQ7IV6PER5CF6UVQ?language=en_US. Accessed June 2021. 9 City of Beaumont. 2012. City of Beaumont Annex – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at http://beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29599 , accessed June 2021.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-3 4.18 | Wildfire
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
This Act (42 United States Code [USC] §§ 5121) was signed into law to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act of 1988 (42 USC §§ 5121-5207). Among other things, this legislation reinforces the importance of pre-disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide and is aimed primarily at the control and streamlining of the administration of federal disaster relief and programs to promote mitigation activities. Some of the major provisions of this Act include:
i. Funding pre-disaster mitigation activities;
ii. Developing experimental multi-hazard maps to better understand risk; iii. Establishing state and local government infrastructure mitigation planning requirements; iv. Defining how states can assume more responsibility in managing the hazard mitigation grant program; and
v. Adjusting ways in which management costs for projects are funded.
The mitigation planning provisions outlined in § 322 of this Act establish performance-based standards for mitigation plans and require states to have a public assistance program (Advance Infrastructure Mitigation [AIM]) to develop county government plans. The consequence for counties that fail to develop an infrastructure mitigation plan is the chance of a reduced federal share of damage assistance from 75 percent to 25 percent if the facility has been damaged on more than one occasion in the preceding 10-year period by the same type of event.
National Fire Plan10
In 2000, the National Fire Plan was developed by the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior as a report on how to respond to severe, ongoing fire activity, reduce impacts of fires on rural communities and the environment, and ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the future. This report, entitled Managing the Impacts of Wildfire on Communities and the Environment: A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000, became the basis of the National Fire Plan. The National Fire Plan addresses five objectives: Firefighting, Rehabilitation, Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Community Assistance, and Accountability (FAR NFP). The National Fire Plan developed its implementation strategy via its 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and its Implementation Plan. Based on these two reports, in 2002 the President at the time (George W. Bush) announced the Healthy Forest Initiative to implement the National Fire Plan; this became the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. The National Fire Plan, as enacted under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, works towards the goals of reducing the devastation of wildland fires and improving the health of forests and rangelands.
The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy11 Under the direction of the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009 (the FLAME Act), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture created the National
10 US Department of the Interior and USDA Forest Service. National Fire Plan. (2002). https://www.fs.fed.us/database/budgetoffice/NFP_final32601.pdf . (accessed August 2021). 11 National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. https://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/cohesivestrategy.shtml . (accessed August 2021).
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-4 4.18 | Wildfire
Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy report. This report contains a cohesive wildfire management strategy as directed by the FLAME Act and under the advisement of the intergovernmental Wildland Fire Leadership Council. The most recent version of this report is 2014’s The National Strategy:
The Final Phase in the Development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.
State
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) CAL FIRE protects the people of California from fires, responds to emergencies, and protects and enhances forest, range, and watershed values providing social, economic, and environmental benefits to rural and urban citizens. Another major responsibility of CAL FIRE’s is to use their firefighters, fire engines, and aircraft to respond to wildland fires. In 2020 (between January 1 and December 29) there were a total of 8,112 wildfires in the state.12
The Office of the State Fire Marshal supports CAL FIRE’s mission by focusing on fire prevention. It provides support through a wide variety of fire safety responsibilities including by regulating buildings in which people live, congregate, or are confined; by controlling substances and products which may, in and of themselves, or by their misuse, cause injuries, death, and destruction by fire; by providing statewide direction for fire prevention in wildland areas; by regulating hazardous liquid pipelines; by reviewing regulations and building standards; and by providing training and education in fire protection methods and responsibilities.
State Fire Regulations
Fire regulations for California are established in § 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Services Code (HSC) and include regulations for structural standards (similar to those identified in the CBC); fire protection and public notification systems; fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms; standards for high-rise structures and childcare facilities; and fire suppression training. The State Fire Marshal is responsible for enforcement of these established regulations and building standards for all state-owned buildings, state-occupied buildings, and state institutions within California.
California Fire Plan
The California Fire Plan is a cooperative effort between the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and CAL FIRE. By placing the emphasis on what needs to be done long before a fire starts, the Fire Plan looks to reduce firefighting costs and property losses, increase firefighter safety, and to contribute to ecosystem health. The 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California is the most current plan.13 California Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 4290 and 4291 These regulations, which implement minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space, apply to the perimeters and access to all commercial, industrial, and residential building construction with an SRA
12 CALFIRE. (2021). https://www.fire.ca.gov/stats-events/ . (accessed August 2021). 13 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California. (2018). https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategic-fire-plan-approved-08_22_18.pdf . (accessed August 2021).
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-5 4.18 | Wildfire
(approved after January 1, 1991), and within lands classified and designated as VHFHSZ (after July 1, 2021).
The person(s) who control, lease, maintain, operate, or own said building in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable materials is required to preserve a defensible space of 100 feet from the perimeter of the building. The regulations shall include the following:
1. Road standards for fire equipment access.
2. Standards for signs identifying streets, roads, and buildings.
3. Minimum private water supply reserves for emergency fire use.
4. Fuel breaks and greenbelts.
These regulations do not supersede local regulations which equal or exceed minimum regulations adopted by the state.
California Government Code § 66474.02
This regulation states that before a county can approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for an area (development) located in an SRA or a VHFHSZ, the following findings must be made:
1. A finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the subdivision is consistent with regulations adopted by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to §§ 4290 and 4291 of the PRC or consistent with local ordinances certified by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as meeting or exceeding the state regulations.
2. A finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that structural fire protection and suppression services will be available for the subdivision through any of the following entities:
A. A county, city, special district, political subdivision of the state, or another entity organized solely to provide fire protection services that is monitored and funded by a county or other public entity.
B. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection by contract entered into pursuant to §§ 4133, 4142, or 4144 of the PRC.
Upon approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for an area (development) located in an SRA or VHFHSZ, the county shall transmit a copy of the findings and accompanying maps to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2019 California Building Code, Chapter 7A
Chapter 7A of the CBC focuses primarily on preventing ember penetration into homes, a leading cause of structure loss from wildfires. These codes have been developed through decades of after fire structure “save” and “loss” evaluations to determine what causes buildings to ignite or avoid ignition during wildfires. The resulting fire codes now focus on mitigating former structural vulnerabilities through
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-6 4.18 | Wildfire
construction techniques and materials so that the buildings are resistant to ignitions from direct flames, heat, and embers, as indicated in the 2019 CBC (Chapter 7A, § 701A Scope, Purpose and Application). 2019 California Fire Code, Chapter 49 Requirements for WUI Fire Areas This code provides minimum standards to increase the ability of a building or structure to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers being projected by a vegetation fire and contributes to a systematic reduction in fire losses through the use of performance and prescriptive requirements. Buildings and structures located on unincorporated land designated as an SRA Moderate, High, and VHFHSZ and land designated as VHFHSZ by a city or other local agency shall maintain the required hazardous vegetation and fuel management standards.
Fire hazard designations are based on topography, vegetation, and weather, amongst other factors with more hazardous sites including steep terrain, unmaintained fuels/vegetation, and WUI locations. Projects situated in HFHSZ’s require fire hazard analysis and application of fire protection measures that have been developed to specifically result in defensible communities in these WUI locations. 2019 California Fire Code
CCR Title 24, Part 9 (2019 California Fire Code) contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings, the use of premises, and the management of WUI areas, among other issues.
The California Fire Code is updated every three years by the California Building Standards Commission and was last updated in 2019 (adopted January 1, 2020). The Fire Code sets forth regulations regarding building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire suppression training. It contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the code also include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. Development under the Project would be subject to applicable regulations of the California Fire Code.
Title 8 California Code of Regulations §§ 1270 and 6773 In accordance with CCR, Title 8 § 1270 “Fire Prevention” and § 6773 “Fire Protection and Fire Equipment,” the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.
2019 California Building Standards Code
California building standards are published in the CCR, Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). The CBSC, which applies to all applications for building permits, consists of 12 parts that contain administrative regulations for the California Building Standards Commission and for
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-7 4.18 | Wildfire
all state agencies that implement or enforce building standards. Local agencies must ensure the development complies with the guidelines contained in the CBSC. Cities and counties can adopt additional building standards beyond the CBSC including the CBSC Part 2, named the CBC which is based upon the 2018 International Building Code, and Part 11, named the California Green Building Standards Code, also called the CalGreen Code.
California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in California Health and Safety Code §§ 13000 et seq., and include provisions concerning building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices, and fire suppression training, as also set forth in the 2019 CBSC and related updated codes.
Emergency Mutual Aid Agreements (EMAA)
The EMMA system is a collaborative effort between city and county emergency managers in the Office of Emergency Services (OES) in the coastal, southern, and inland regions of the state. EMMA provides service in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center, local Emergency Operations Centers, the Disaster Field Office, and community service centers. The purpose of EMMA is to support disaster operations in affected jurisdictions by providing professional emergency management personnel. In accordance with the EMAA, local and state emergency managers have responded in support of each other under a variety of plans and procedures.
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Management Agency (Cal-EMA) In 2009, the State of California passed legislation creating the Cal-EMA and authorizing it to prepare a Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) program (Title 19 CCR §§ 2400 et seq.), which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could result in the state withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster.
Cal-EMA serves as the lead state agency for emergency management in the state. Cal-EMA coordinates the state response to major emergencies in support of local government. The primary responsibility for emergency management resides with local government. Local jurisdictions first use their own resources and, as these are exhausted, obtain more from neighboring cities and special districts, the county in which they are located, and other counties throughout the state through the statewide mutual aid system. In California, the SEMS provides the mechanism by which local government requests assistance. Cal-EMA serves as the lead agency for mobilizing the state’s resources and obtaining federal resources; it also maintains oversight of the state’s mutual aid system.
Local
City of Beaumont 2040 General Plan
Implementation of the following General Plan goals and policies will assist in minimizing adverse impacts related to wildfire. The City’s Beaumont 2040 General Plan includes the following goals and policies, the adherence to which will reduce potential environmental impacts to wildfire:
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-8 4.18 | Wildfire
Community Facilities and Infrastructure Element
Goal 7.1: City-wide infrastructure to support existing development and future growth.
Policy 7.1.8 As feasible, identify the long-term risks from climate change, including changes in flooding, storm intensity, water availability, and wildfire, during infrastructure planning and design to adapt to those changes. This policy is implemented through the Safety Element.
Goal 7.2: A clean and sustainable water supply that supports existing community needs and long-term growth.
Policy7.2.2 Coordinate with the Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District to ensure that adequate water supplies and pressures are available during a fire, earthquake, or both.
Goal 7.8: City-wide access to high-quality energy utility and telecommunication services.
Policy 7.8.3 When feasible, place new utilities underground to promote attractive neighborhoods and streetscapes and reduce wildfire risk.
Safety Element
Goal 9.4: A City that is protected from the effects of natural and manmade disasters.
Policy 9.4.1 Continue coordinated review of development proposals with the Police Department and Fire Safety Specialist to ensure that police and fire staff and resources keep pace with new development planned or proposed in the City and City’s Sphere of Influence.
Policy 9.4.5 Require new development to provide access roads that allow both safe and efficient access of emergency equipment and community evacuation.
Goal 9.5: A City with enhanced fire and emergency response services.
Policy 9.5.5 Coordinate with the Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District to ensure that water pressure for existing and future developed areas is adequate for firefighting purposes.
Policy 9.5.6 Provide fire suppression water system guidelines and implementation plans for existing and acquired lands, including fire protection water volumes, system distribution upgrades, and emergency water storage.
Policy 9.5.7 Continue to provide technical and policy information regarding structural and wild land fire hazards to developers, interested parties, and the general public through all available media.
Goal 9.6: A City that protects human life, land, and property from the effects of wildland fire hazards.
Policy 9.6.6 Require property owners to clear brush and high fuel vegetation and maintain fire- safe zones (a minimum distance of 30 feet from the structure or to the property line, whichever is closer) to reduce the risk of fires. For structures located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the required brush distance is up to 200 feet from structures up to their property line.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-9 4.18 | Wildfire
Policy 9.6.7 Continue to enforce the weed abatement ordinance to mitigate potential fire hazard risks.
Policy 9.6.8 Require that developments located in wildland interface areas incorporate and enforce standards for construction, including a fuel modification program (i.e., brush clearance, planting of fire-retardant vegetation) to reduce the threat of wildfires.
Goal 9.9: A City that promotes preparedness related to the adverse effects of high winds common in the Pass area.
Policy 9.9.1 Consider potential risk posed by high winds in the City in the review of new development applications including those for signs.
City of Beaumont Municipal Code
Chapter 15.20, § 010 relates to the adoption of the 2019 California Fire Code. This Section states, “Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Fire Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9, including Chapter 1, Division II - Scope and Administration, except that §§ 103.2 and 109.3 are not adopted, and Chapters 3, 25, and §§ 403.12, 503, 510.2, and 1103.2 are adopted, including any and all amendments set forth in this Chapter, and including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is hereby adopted as the City Fire Code.” More specifically, subsection Q of § 15.20.020 of the Beaumont MC recognizes that FHSZs and maps as defined in the California Fire Code includes § 4904 and the revision related to CGC §§ 51175 through 51189 for VHFHSZs and that these resources are retained on file at the office of the Fire Chief.
Beaumont MC § 17.06.030 relates to water efficient landscape requirements and discusses plant selection for projects in high fire hazard areas sand that a defensible space or zone around a building or structure is required pursuant to PRC § 4291 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 695. Fire-prone plant materials and highly flammable mulches are required to be avoided to address fire safety and prevention.
City of Beaumont Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)
The purpose of the LHMP is to identify the City’s hazards, review and assess past disaster occurrences, estimate the probability of future occurrences, and set goals to mitigate potential risks to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and man-made hazards.
The LHMP was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to achieve eligibility and potentially secure mitigation funding through FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance, Pre- Disaster Mitigation, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs.
4.18.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions concerning wildfire. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-10 4.18 | Wildfire
• Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire;
• Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or • Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
4.18.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.18-1 If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The Project is entirely in an LRA. Due to the City currently contracting with CAL FIRE and RCFD for fire services, Project buildout would not affect fire services as CAL FIRE and RCFD would both continue to provide fire services.
The City’s planning process, as it does for the proposed Project, follows methodologies consistent with FEMA and Cal-EMA guidance. This process includes conducting meetings with the Operational Area Planning Committee (OAPC) coordinated with the RCFD, Office of Emergency Services, and ensuring compliance with all other applicable regulations set forth by federal, state, and local jurisdictions agencies related to evacuation and safety from fire hazards. It should be noted that the City also recognizes other potential hazards and threats that could occur from earthquakes, flooding, and hazardous materials.
Because of this, the City is prepared on numerous fronts to implement an evacuation should it be needed, in accordance with the LHMP.14
The City’s LHMP has identified routes near the Project that would serve as emergency evacuation routes:
State Route 60 (SR-60), Interstate 10 (I-10), Beaumont Avenue (Highway 79), and 4th Street. Additionally, the City uses a Reverse 911 Emergency Notification System which is managed by the City's Police Department Dispatch Center. This system allows the City to get information to residents if any emergency event that may happen in the area. An evacuation, should it be necessary, would be coordinated by the Beaumont Police Department, California Highway Patrol, and other cooperating law enforcement agencies have primary responsibility for evacuations. These agencies work closely within the with responding fire department personnel who assess fire behavior and spread, which ultimately influence evacuation decisions.
14 City of Beaumont. 2012. City of Beaumont Annex – Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at http://beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29599 , accessed June 2021.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-11 4.18 | Wildfire
Therefore, while construction and operation of the Project would occur within proximity to SR-60 and I-10, neither construction nor operation of the proposed Project would impede the use of either of the freeways or local roadways needed to access them. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Impact 4.18-2 If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Level of Significance: No Impact
As stated previously, the Project site is not within a Very High FHSZ zone nor is it located in an SRA. The Project site is within an LRA zone. Since the Project is with an LRA zone, provision of fire protection services would continue under contract to the RCFD. Fire protection services provided to Project site would not substantially differ from services available through the County; only the service funding mechanism would change. Furthermore, development from the Project site would be subject to Fire Department review.
Department review ensures that the design of proposed developments conform to the RCFD requirements and thereby reduce demands on fire protection services. Additionally, payment of the Fire Protection impact fees, property taxes, and other revenues generated by development within the Project area would be available to the City to offset any increased costs for fire protection services with little or no net effect on the City’s budget. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
No impact.
Impact 4.18-3 If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
As noted in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Wildland Hazards, the Project site is not located within a moderate, high, or very high Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). Additionally, the Project
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-12 4.18 | Wildfire
site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The Project includes development consisting of e-commerce, commercial, and open space land uses, on vacant and previously developed lots.
Improvements to both adjacent roadways would be made as part of the Project in accordance with all City and design standards as part of planned improvements for the area. All improvements would occur within areas already planned for disturbance as part of the Project or within existing or planned roadways or within easements that have been previously disturbed. None of the Project improvements, including landscaping or installation of interior circulation driveways or emergency access lanes, would result in impacts to the environment not analyzed in the respective chapters of this Draft EIR. Because the Project is not located within a VHFHSZ and is not in or near an SRA the Project would also be consistent with Policy 9.6.3 which seeks to ensure that developments in VHFHSZ minimize the risks of wildfires. For these reasons, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Impact 4.18-4 If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is not located in an SRA or in an area classified as very high FHSZ. The Project site’s topography to the northwestern area of the site possesses several east-west and southeast-northwest trending drainage courses. The drainage features possess gradual to steep sidewalls with elevation differences of up to 15± feet below the surrounding topography. To the south of the leech pits, the site slopes towards the south to southwest at a gradient of 10± percent. The topography descends by 50± feet in this area. Another significant east-west trending drainage is located at the base of the descending slope, located in the southern-most region of the site. The drainage possesses gradual to steep sidewalls with an elevation difference up 10± feet below the surrounding topography. A hill, located to the southeast of this drainage, is approximately 20 to 30 feet higher than the surrounding topography. The hill possesses slope gradients ranging from 14 to 40± percent.
Slope is important relative to wildfire because steeper slopes typically facilitate more rapid-fire spread upslope. The portion of the Project where the highest variations of topography elevations exist is in the portion of the site planned for Open Space with no planned development. Additionally, no significant amounts of below-grade construction, such as basements or crawl spaces, are expected to be included in the proposed Project. Based on the assumed topography, cuts of 45± feet and fills of up to 65± feet are expected to be necessary to achieve the proposed site grades.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-13 4.18 | Wildfire
As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, landslide risks from the Project are less than significant with compliance with existing codes and regulations, including the CBC (as adopted by the Beaumont MC). Project flooding and drainage is discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; runoff, flooding, and drainage impacts are less than significant with implementation of relevant Beaumont GP policies and existing regulations, such as compliance with the Beaumont MC. Specifically, Beaumont GP Goal 8.5 and its supporting policies, and Beaumont GP Policies 3.1.6, 3.1.9, 3.1.12, 3.12.2,
3.12.3, 7.4.1, 7.4.3, all help to address and maintain open areas, preserve or discourage development in hillside areas, or drainages that can lead to flooding or downstream risk after fire events. Through compliance with existing regulations and Beaumont GP goals and policies there are no significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes since the Project site is not located in an SRA nor is it located within a very high FHSZ and no development is planned in Planning Area 3 which is where the greatest topography height variation occurs. Additionally, total flows from the discharge points would drain to the west and would not be in excess of pre-Project flows. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
4.18.6 Cumulative Impacts
Projects have the potential to be cumulatively considerable, when evaluated in the context of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects that make a cumulative contribution to impacts. Similar to the Project, cumulative development occurring within the vicinity and similar FHSZs would be subject to risk of wildfire hazards. Cumulative projects also would be subject to compliance with the CBC and California Fire Code, as well as local regulations and all proposed construction would be required to meet minimum standards for fire safety. Development occurring within the City, or those future projects annexed from the County lands adjacent to and near the Project site would be subject to review by the City to ensure cumulative development is designed to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities. This would include compliance with state and local fire codes, inclusion of fire sprinklers if required, proper fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary emergency access routes.
Implementation of these plans and policies, in conjunction with compliance with the Fire Code and City standards, would ensure cumulative impacts with respect to wildfire hazards are less than significant.
4.18.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts have been identified.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 4.18-14 4.18 | Wildfire
4.18.8 References
City of Beaumont. 2020. Beaumont General Plan.
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont-GPU_Final-rev-22521 .
City of Beaumont. 2020. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Beaumont General Plan, SCH No. 2018031022. https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR-090720 .
City of Beaumont. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
//beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29599/Beaumont-LHMP-?bidId=.
National Park Service (2018). Types of Wildland Fire. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/types-of- wildland-fire.htm.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 5-1 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan (Project) discusses additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) considerations.
The additional considerations discussed in this section include:
1. Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes; and
2. Growth Inducing Impacts.
5.1 CEQA Requirements
Section 15126.2 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss any significant impacts associated with the Project. In Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR, describes the potential environmental impacts of the Project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, where feasible. Section 1.0, Executive Summary contains Table 1-2, Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures, which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance before and after mitigation.
5.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes
The CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d), requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project. Generally, the section states that a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the following occurs:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources in a way that would make their nonuse or removal unlikely;
• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses; • The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project, and • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involved the wasteful use of energy).
The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources in a way that would make their nonuse or removal unlikely.
The Project would not involve the utilization of nonrenewable resources in a manner that would make their nonuse or removal unlikely. Nonrenewable resources associated with the development of the Project site would include fossil fuels. Fossil fuels would serve as energy sources during both Project construction and operations. Fossil fuels would act as transportation energy sources for construction vehicles and heavy equipment during the construction period and by vehicles and equipment used during Project operations. Though the Project would endeavor to utilize fossil fuels efficiently, their use would be vital for construction and operations activities, making their nonuse unlikely. However, the Project would not require the continued use of fossil fuels at the end of its operational life. By nature of being a nonrenewable resource, fossil fuels, once consumed, cannot be replaced. Those fuels, once spent, may be transformed into another form of matter such as exhaust or smoke. Standard vehicles and equipment
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 5-2 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
used by the Project in both construction and operational phases would likely utilize fossil fuels. Some construction and operational equipment such as forklifts may be electrified and therefore not rely on fossil fuels. Energy-efficient equipment would be utilized according to their availability and in order to comply with energy regulations and policies for the Project as a whole as it pertains to e-commerce and commercial uses.
The Project does not propose any fueling stations and would not likely store significant amounts of fossil fuels on the site. Fossil fuels on-site would especially not be stored in a manner that would make their removal unlikely. No infrastructure is proposed to store fossil fuels in large amounts or without the ability of removal. The Project would also require the commitment of land on which the Project would be developed for mix-use of e-commerce and commercial uses. Similarly, land is a finite resource in that once developed and in active use it removes the ability for that land to be used for other purposes. However, development of the Project site would not eliminate the possibility of redevelopment in the future.
The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses.
The Project’s development is anticipated to produce some significant and unavoidable impacts based on analyses conducted in Sections 4.2, Air Quality; 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; 4.11, Noise, and
4.15, Transportation. These impacts would also affect the surrounding environment. However, these significant impacts would not commit future generations to similar uses. Although grading would occur in the Project site, the site could be regraded for a different project should the need arise. Additionally, Planning Area 3 of the Project site would be maintained as Open Space which would act as buffer from the residential development to the south of the Project site. As such, Planning Area 3 would remain fully developable, if necessary. As previously stated, the proposed e-commerce and commercial structures would be able to be removed at the end of the Project’s life and replaced.
The use of materials considered hazardous waste would be minimal; mostly used for cleaning, landscaping, and operational maintenance. Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that the usage and storage of any hazardous materials and waste would be completed in the safest and most efficient manner. Similarly, the Project would comply with any federal, state, and local air quality and water quality regulations to further ensure the least amount of environmental impact. The mixed-use nature of the Project is unlikely to lead to impacts that would relegate future generations and developments to similar uses. Therefore, the Project would not influence future development in that land area as the existing land use designations would be unchanged.
The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project.
The Project is intended to develop a mix of e-commerce and commercial development and is not anticipated to release hazardous materials into the environment. Construction and operation of the Project would utilize chemical substances common with typical construction, warehousing, landscaping, and cleaning activities and do not generally pose a significant hazard to the public or environment.
However, in the event that hazardous materials are either used or stored on the Project site, mitigation measures are proposed, which would both reduce the significance of any impacts and ensure the Project’s compliance with any Federal, State, and local policy regarding hazardous materials and accidents.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 5-3 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).
The Project would comply with any applicable federal, state, and local regulation and law regarding the use of resources during both construction and operations. As established in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, development of the Project would not significantly impact water, electricity, solid waste, and telecommunications resources. It was found that the Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District (BCVWD), the water supplier for the City and Project site, has adequate supplies to serve the Project’s expanded demand. Further, development of the Project would include the use of energy-efficient vehicles and equipment in accordance with the most recent Federal, State, and local regulations. Therefore, resources used for the Project, including energy, would be done in an efficient, justifiable manner. Energy resources and consumption is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.5, Energy.
5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts
State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(e) requires that EIRs include a discussion of ways in which a project could induce growth. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as “growth-inducing” if it fosters economic or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial or e-commerce development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. The proposed Project would therefore have a growth inducing impact if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing;
• Remove obstacles to population growth;
• Require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
A project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA, the potential for growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental nor necessarily beneficial, and neither is it automatically considered to be of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of implementing the Project examined in the preceding sections of this Draft EIR.
Direct Growth-Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment Potential growth-inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following questions:
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 5-4 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
Would the project directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing? No
Population and Employment
As shown in Table 4.12-7, Project Generated Employment, the projected number of employees that would result from the implementation of the Project was calculated based on the employment forecast factors used in the Beaumont 2040 GP Draft EIR.1 The Project has the potential to generate approximately 4,010 employment opportunities.
The construction phase of the Project would generate employment opportunities, including construction management, engineering, and labor. Construction related jobs are not considered significantly growth inducing because they are temporary in nature and are anticipated to be filled by persons within the City and the surrounding communities. As noted in Table 4.12-3, Housing Units – City of Beaumont and County of Riverside, the City is housing-rich with an has a 4.8 percent vacancy rate. Additionally, the City is considered “jobs poor” as it has a high 10.5 percent unemployment rate. This suggests that the Project’s employment opportunities would be adequately filled, by local residents or the surrounding community.
Therefore, the Project’s employment opportunities for the construction phase would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.
Population Growth
Buildout of the Specific Plan would increase jobs in the City, which would have the potential to increase the demand for housing in the area. However, the City is housing-rich and therefore, the Project would produce more jobs that would help lower the unemployment rate of the area. Because the City is housing- rich, it is expected that jobs at the Project site would be drawn from the local and regional labor force.
The Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.
Would the project remove obstacles to population growth? No The Project site currently consists of vacant parcels, which were previously improved with commercial/animal farming uses that have since been demolished (see Section 3.0, Project Description for more information). The demolition of these structures did not induce population growth since they will be replaced with the proposed e-commerce and commercial facilities. Additionally, the zoning and General Plan designation for the Project site would be Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan and would not allow for residential development without a Zone Change or General Plan Amendment to a residential designation. The Project would be an allowed and anticipated use within the Specific Plan and would therefore not create or remove an obstacle for growth.
1 City of Beaumont. (2019). Beaumont General Plan 2040 Program DEIR – Section 5.13 Population and Housing: page 5.13-13. Retrieved at:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR-090720 (Accessed August 24, 2021).
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 5-5 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
Would the project require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects? No
The Project site was previously disturbed and developed with commercial/animal farming buildings which have since been demolished. These uses required utility and infrastructure improvements in order to function. The Project would include infrastructure improvements and connections to existing facilities to allow for the efficient use of resources such as natural gas, electricity, and water. Improvements to the Project adjacent streets would also include underground dry utility facilities (e.g., cable, electric, telephone, natural gas, television and fiber optics) along the Project’s frontage street: Cherry Valley Boulevard. The environmental impacts associated with the facility improvements associated with the Project have been analyzed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics through Section 4.18, Wildfire of this EIR. In the presence of potentially significant impacts which were not minimized by the Project design features, mitigation measures have been proposed which, when implemented, would reduce potential impacts stemming from the Project’s development to less than significant levels, with the exception of impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic, which would remain significant and unavoidable. Further, the proposed Project would not require the expansion of utility facilities such as water treatment plants or landfills. Adequate capacity was concluded for each of those facilities.
Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
Refer to Section 4.1, Aesthetics through Section 4.18, Wildfire of this EIR. No cumulative impacts were discovered during the analysis of the Project. The design features and objectives of the Project were concluded as having the potential to create significant unavoidable impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation analyses. Mitigation is proposed in each case to minimize the potential of these impacts. However, through the nature of development some impacts cannot be avoided.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 5-6 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-1 6.0 | Alternatives
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Introduction
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6). The State CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include sufficient information about each Alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Project. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the Project as proposed, the significant effects of the Alternative must be discussed, but these effects may be discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed (California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 15126.6[d]). The EIR is not required to consider every conceivable Alternative to a project but is guided by a rule of reason. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. Section 15126.6[d]) states that the EIR must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (§ 15126.6(a) through (f)) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the Alternative’s analysis in the Draft EIR. • “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly” (§ 15126.6(b)).
• “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact” (§ 15126.6(e)(1)).
• “The no Project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation was published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior Alternative is the ‘no Project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (§ 15126.6(e)(2)).
• “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that require an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project” (§ 15126.6(f)).
• “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (§ 15126.6(f)(1)).
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-2 6.0 | Alternatives
• For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (§ 15126.6(f)(2)(A)). • “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative” (§ 15126.6(f)(3)).
6.2 Project Objectives
Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an EIR should include “a statement of objectives sought by the proposed Project.” The Specific Plan was prepared to achieve the following Project objectives, which are also described in Section 3.0 of this Draft EIR:
1. Provide a comprehensive land use plan that designates the distribution, location, and extent of land uses.
2. Provide a land use plan that is sensitive to the environment through avoidance of sensitive resources, aesthetically pleasing through application of design guidelines, and places compatible land uses and facilities in an appropriate location.
3. Develop a state‐of‐the‐art logistics/e‐commerce center with complimentary commercial uses that take advantage of existing and planned infrastructure, is feasible to construct, is economically competitive with, and in the general vicinity of, similar logistics/e‐commerce center uses.
4. Develop and operate a large format logistics center that is in close proximity to the I‐10 freeway to support the distribution of goods throughout the region and that also limits truck traffic disruption to sensitive receptors within the surrounding region.
5. Facilitate the development of underutilized land currently planned for residential uses with uses that maximize the use of the site as a large format e‐commerce center consisting of one or more buildings with total e‐commerce building space in excess of 2,557,465 square feet in size and approximately 150,000 square feet of mixed commercial uses responding to market demand.
6. Provide a system of infrastructure that includes public and private transportation, sewer, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, and other essential facilities to serve the needs of the Project.
7. Provide access patterns that minimize traffic conflicts.
8. Develop project identity through the identification of project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, walls, fencing, signage, and entry treatments.
9. Facilitate the establishment of design guidelines and development standards that create a unique, well‐defined identity for the proposed Project.
10. Positively contribute to the economy of the region through new capital investment, creation of new employment opportunities, and expansion of the tax base.
11. Establish landscape guidelines that emphasize the use of drought‐tolerant and water‐efficient plant materials.
12. Provide and plan that incorporates appropriate buffers with the surrounding development through the use of landscaped setbacks and expanded parkways along Cherry Valley Boulevard and Brookside Avenue.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-3 6.0 | Alternatives
6.3 S ignificant and Unavoidable Environmental Impact of the Project Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of this Draft EIR address the environmental impacts of implementation of the Project. The analyses contained in these sections identified the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the Project:
Air Quality
The Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures: (1) conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, due to operational ROG and NOx emissions; (2) result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in a criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment, due to operational ROG and NOx emissions; and (3) result in cumulative air quality impacts, as a result of operational ROG and NOx emissions.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts, despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures: (1) generation of 33,940 MTCO2e per year (mitigated) of GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment; (2) conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency, adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, as a result of total emissions; and (3) the Project would result in a potentially significant cumulative GHG impact.
Noise
Noise impacts would be less than significant with the exception of cumulative off-site traffic noise along Cherry Valley Boulevard (from Project access to Hannon Road, from Hannon Road to Union Street, and from Union Street to Nancy Avenue). Cumulative traffic noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the proposed Project and other projects in the vicinity. Noise levels along the affected segments of Cherry Valley Boulevard would be Conditionally Acceptable. However, mitigation was determined to be infeasible to reduce mobile traffic noise to Normally Acceptable levels in accordance with the Land Use Compatibility standards.
Transportation
The Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impact, despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures: (1) the Project would exceed the City’s Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds of 8.9 VMT per Employee and 30.4 VMT per service population. The former threshold would be exceeded by 6.4 VMT and second by 12.1 VMT. A cumulatively consideration transportation impact would also occur.
6.4 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives
Per § 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to a project, or its location, that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening significant impacts of a project, even if the alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-4 6.0 | Alternatives
would be more costly. This alternatives analysis, therefore, focuses on project alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen environmental impacts of the Project related to the environmental categories listed in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Per State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d), additional significant effects of the alternatives are discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. For each Alternative, the analysis below describes each Alternative, analyzes the impacts of the Alternative as compared to the Project, identifies significant impacts of the Project that would be avoided or lessened by the Alternative, assesses the Alternative’s ability to meet most of the Project objectives, and evaluates the comparative merits of the Alternative and the Project. The following sections provide a comparison of the environmental impacts associated with each of the Project alternatives, as well as an evaluation of eac h Project alternative to meet the Project objectives.
6.5 Alternatives Removed from Further Consideration
State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c) states that an EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but rejected because the Alternative would be infeasible, fail to meet most of the basic project objectives, or unable to avoid significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, an EIR may consider an alternative location for the proposed Project but is only required to do so if significant project effects would be avoided or substantially lessened by moving the Project to another site and if the Project proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
In developing the Project and alternatives, consideration was given to the density of development that could meet Project objectives and reduce significant impacts. The anticipated significant impacts would result from the intensity of the development proposed. In developing a reasonable range of alternatives, an alternative site alternative was considered but removed from consideration for a variety of reasons.
These Alternative and the reasons are discussed briefly below:
Alternative Site Alternative
The analysis of alternatives to the proposed Project must also address “whether any of the significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Project in another location” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(2)(A)). Only those locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered. If no feasible alternative locations exist, the agency must disclose the reasons for this conclusion (CEQA § 15126.6(f)(2)(B)). In this case, while it is feasible that an alternative site could be selected for the Project, an alternative site would entail either the same or new significant environmental effects as the Project site. For example, development of the proposed Project on any suitable alternative site in or around the City may not avoid or substantially lessen the proposed Project’s impacts. This generally applies to impacts such as air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, or transportation impacts that occur over a wider area than generally site- specific impacts such as those to aesthetic or biological resources. Additionally, impacts like these could be greater if the alternative site is located further away from a major transportation corridor or in areas with existing unacceptable traffic levels. Moreover, an alternative site that is adjacent to undeveloped lands could result in increased impacts on aesthetics and utilities due to increased service capacity and
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-5 6.0 | Alternatives
incongruous development, than a site, such as the Project site that is surrounded by existing and future planned development.
Furthermore, viable alternative locations for the Project are limited to those that would feasibly attain most of the Project objectives. There are no other lots appropriately located and sufficient sized and owned by the Project applicant in the City and along a major transportation corridor that would satisfy the Project objectives and eliminate or reduce impacts from the Project. The Project is proposed to be located near a major transportation route with Interstate 10 (I-10) directly to the southwest.
6.6 Alternatives to the Project
Two alternatives to the Project are analyzed in additional detail in this EIR. First, as required by CEQA, the No Project Alternative is considered. Second, a Reduced Building Intensity Alternative is considered. Per the State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d), additional significant effects of the alternatives may be discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the Project as proposed. In addition, the EIR is to include sufficient information about each Alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Project. For each Alternative, the analysis below describes each Alternative, analyzes the impacts of the Alternative as compared to the Project, identifies significant impacts of the Project that would be avoided or lessened by the Alternative, assesses the Alternative’s ability to meet most of the Project objectives, and evaluates the comparative merits of the Alternative and the Project. The following sections provide a comparison of the environmental impacts associated with each of the Project alternatives, as well as an evaluation of each Project alternative to meet the Project objectives. • “No Project/Existing Specific Plan”
• “Reduced Building Intensity”
6.7 Comparison of Project Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Project/Existing Specific Plan
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6, the No Project/Existing Specific Plan assumes that the existing land uses and condition of the Project Site at the time the NOP was published (September 2021) would continue to exist without the Project. The setting of the Project site at the time the NOP was published is described as part of the existing conditions within Section 3.0, Project Description and throughout Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR. The discussion within the respective sections provides a description of the environmental conditions in regard to the individual environmental issues.
The No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative assumes the Project would not be implemented and proposed land uses, and other improvements would not be constructed related to proposed Project and under this alternative none of the proposed improvements would occur. However, development allowed under the previously approved Sunny-Cal Specific Plan could occur and is analyzed as part of this Alternative.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-6 6.0 | Alternatives
The previously approved Sunny-Cal Specific Plan allows for the development of 200 acres with approximately 560 Dwelling Units (DU) on approximately 159 acres, over 30 acres of parks, open space, landscaped buffers, and paseos, and approximately 10 acres of circulation improvements.1 Under this Alternative, the Sunny-Cal Specific Plan would remain and would not be replaced with the proposed Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan. While the Sunny-Cal Specific Plan allows for a variety of land uses, this Alternative assumed development in accordance with the residential densities allowed under the specific plan which, as noted above, allows for up to 560 DUs, park space, and roads.
Infrastructure improvements including water, wastewater, drainage, extension of electrical and natural gas, and roadway improvements and right-of-way dedications identified in the Project would still be required to be extended into the Project site under the Sunny-Cal Specific Plan.
Comparison of Project Impacts
An evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative, as compared to those of the Project, is provided below. Impacts from the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative are largely derived from the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Sunny-Cal Specific Plan, Annexation, and Sphere of Influence Amendment SCH # 2004121092 (Sunny-Cal DEIR; May 2006).
Aesthetics
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that implementation of the Specific Plan and related approvals as proposed would result in significant aesthetic impacts by creating a fundamental change in views from a nearby scenic route (I-10 Freeway) and the rural Cherry Valley area to the east. Furthermore, the project could have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and could substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Furthermore, the project could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Current DEIR Analysis
The proposed Project was found to have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas, as the City does not contain any designated scenic vistas. No impact would occur with regard to substantially damaging scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway because I-10 is no longer designated as a scenic highway by Caltrans.2 A less than significant impact would occur with regard to degradation of the existing visual character or quality of public views because the Project would incorporate perimeter landscaping, trees, and ground covers to visually buffer the structures. Lastly, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on day/night-
1 Stantec. 2007. Sunny-Cal Specific Plan.
2 Caltrans. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa (accessed November 2021).
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-7 6.0 | Alternatives
time views in the area due to light and glare because the Project would comply Chapter 8.50, Outdoor Lighting of the Beaumont MC which sets forth restrictive lighting standards that act to prevent or minimize overall illumination levels, and effectively reduce or preclude potential light/glare overspill impacts.
Based on the above discussion, the No-Project alternative would have impacts regarding aesthetics, light, and glare that would be greater when compared to the proposed Project.
Air Quality
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that even with implementation of all feasible mitigation, the project would create significant short-term air quality regional impacts during construction from ROG and NOx emissions and would create long-term regional impacts during project occupancy from ROG emissions. The Project also has the potential to create similar significant localized impacts during project construction and operation from PM10. Because the Project has the potential to emit air pollutants in excess of the appropriate standards, there is the potential that air emissions of PM10 and ROG during construction and operation of the Project could impact the health of nearby residents. Therefore, the Project may result in pollutant concentrations to significantly affect sensitive receptors. In addition, the Project was not compliant with the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Current DEIR Analysis
With mitigation incorporated, the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction-related emissions. The same does not hold true for operational emissions at Project buildout, which exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10. Even with the implementation of numerous PDFs and mitigation measures included to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Due to the exceedances, the Project would not be consistent with the AQMP. Impacts to sensitive receptors due to exposure of substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-6.
There would be no impact pertaining odors.
The No-Project Alternative and the proposed Project would exceed thresholds for criteria pollutants, and it is anticipated that the No-Project Alternative would result in both construction and operational impacts as well as impacts to sensitive receptors. This is because the No-Project Alternative provides the opportunity for the site to still be developed under the Sunny-Cal Specific Plan which, as noted above, would create significant impacts on air quality Therefore, based on the above discussion, under this Alternative, impacts regarding air quality are anticipated to be equivalent to No-Project Alternative/the possibility for the site to be developed under the Sunny-Cal Specific Plan.
Biological Resources
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that through the Fish and Game § 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement process, direct impacts to riparian habitat would be reduced to below the level of significance. Mitigation measures included in the Sunny Cal EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. Through
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-8 6.0 | Alternatives
implementation of MM BR-5, impacts to avian nesting sites would be reduced to below the level of significance. Through the Section 404 permitting process, direct impacts to waters of the U.S. and wetlands would be reduced to below the level of significance. Implementation of MMs BR-1 and BR-2 would reduce indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters to below the level of significance.
Current DEIR Analysis
With mitigation incorporated, the proposed Project would have less than significant impact on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. MM BIO-1 would address least Bell’s vireo; MM BIO-2 burrowing owl, and MM BIO-3 nesting birds
According the Project DBESP Report (Appendix C3), the Project site contains approximately 8.48 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, as defined by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, of which, 2.41 acres (0.24 acre of riparian habitat and 2.17 acres of vegetation streambed) would be directly impacted by construction; approximately 6.07 acres of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas would be avoided on site. The on-site MSHCP riparian/riverine areas coincide with CDFW-jurisdictional vegetated streambed and associated riparian habitat. To address impacts to riparian/riverine areas, MM BIO-4 is proposed, which would mitigate direct impacts at a 2:1 ratio.
No impact would occur to wetlands and a less than significant impact would occur to wildlife corridors or nursery sites. A less than significant impact would occur with regard to conflict with local policies or ordinances. With mitigation incorporated (MM BIO-1 through BIO-4), a less than significant impact would occur regarding conflict with the MSHCP.
Based on the above discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding biological resources would be equivalent when compared to the proposed Project.
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that impacts to potential cultural resources from construction of the proposed Sunny-Cal Specific Plan would be less than significant after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. MMs CR-1 and CR-2 would address impacts to undiscovered archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources. MM CR-3 and MM CR-4 would address impacts to historical resources (a monument commemorating Gorgeous George and his turkey farm and a historian to monitor grading and construction in the vicinity of the Danny Thomas Ranch House.
Current DEIR Analysis
The proposed Project would have no impact to historical resources as no historic-age resources were identified on the Project site. Archaeological impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2. Under MM CUL-1, a qualified archaeological monitor will be present during Project-related ground-disturbing activities in undisturbed native sediments.
MM CUL-2 addresses the discovery of potentially significant cultural materials. Impacts to human remains would be less than significant following adherence with applicable laws, including California HSC §§ 7050.5-7055 and California PRC § 5097.98 and § 5097.99. Impacts to tribal cultural resources were
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-9 6.0 | Alternatives
found to be less than significant due to the lack of TCRs found during the site visit, the lack of TCRs noted by NAHC and the SLF search, and the lack of tribal interest for the APE from tribes.
Based on the above discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding cultural resources would be equivalent when compared to the proposed Project.
Energy
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR did not evaluate energy impacts. However, the DEIR did analyze impacts to air quality impacts, which are largely related to the consumption (and associated combustion) of energy resources.
As previously mentioned, this Alternative would result in both construction and operational air quality impacts despite implementation of all feasible mitigation.
Current DEIR Analysis
The proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact as it pertains to resulting in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation. The proposed Project would not Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Based on the above discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding energy are anticipated be greater when compared to the proposed Project because the proposed Project would not result in impacts that would require the implementation of mitigation.
Geology and Soils
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, potential impacts of the project related to geologic, seismic, and soil-related constraints would be reduced to less than significant levels. MM GS-1 requires the developer to comply with the recommendations and general earthwork and grading specifications found in the project-specific geotechnical studies and MM GS-2 requires a detailed geotechnical investigation to be prepared and approved for all foundations for residential structures. MM CR-5 was proposed to prevent significant impacts to paleontological resources that may have been present within the Sunny-Cal Specific Plan area.
Current DEIR Analysis
The proposed Project was found to have a less than significant impact regarding the rupture of known earthquake faults; strong seismic ground shaking; and seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. No impact would occur with regard to landslides and the ability for the Project to support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Soil erosion or loss of topsoil impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of MM GEO-1 which addresses inclusion of a Settlement Monitoring Program and Foundation and Grading Plan Review and over- excavation. MM GEO-1 would also address impacts regarding expansive soils. MM GEO-2, which includes a Paleontological Construction Monitoring and Compliance Program, retention of a Qualified
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-10 6.0 | Alternatives
Paleontologist, paleontological monitoring, and completion of a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program, would mitigate impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
Based on the above discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding geology and soil resources and paleontological resources would be equivalent when compared to the proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR did not evaluate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) impacts.
Current DEIR Analysis
Even with the implementation of numerous standard conditions and mitigation measures, the proposed Project would result in a significant unavoidable impact as it pertains to GHG emissions and conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
At proposed Project buildout, the mitigated GHG impact would be 25,107 MTCO2e per year, exceeding the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. Based on air quality impacts, it is assumed that the Sunny-Cal Specific Plan project would result in an exceedance of the City’s threshold due to the extensive construction and operational activities that would result from the development of the 560 DUs However, it is likely that mitigation, including compliance with the City’s CAP would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Based on this discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding GHG emissions would be reduced when compared to the proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that with implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, the proposed Specific Plan would not have significant impacts relative to hazardous materials, fire hazards, and airports/airfields. MM HZ-1 requires the preparation of a Voluntary Work Plan in consultation with the State Department of Toxic Substances Control.
Current DEIR Analysis
The Phase I ESA for the Project site evaluated the potential for hazardous materials, based upon readily discernible and/or documented present and historic uses of the properties and uses adjoining the sites and generally characterized the expected nature of hazardous materials that may be present as a result of such uses. Evidence of contaminated soils were not found on-site.
The Project site is not listed on an NPL or Superfund site, however the site was identified on the Historical HIST UST and SWEEPS UST databases at the site address 37251 Cherry Valley Boulevard under Sunny-Cal Egg & Poultry Co for having historically one 550-gallon diesel UST, one 8,000-gallon diesel UST and one 1,000-gallon unleaded gasoline UST, installed between 1978 and 1979. The removal date of the USTs is unknown. Based on the lack of UST removal and closure documents, the historical USTs are considered evidence of a REC in connection with the site, resulting in a potentially significant impact. A request to the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health has been submitted for closure records. Their
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-11 6.0 | Alternatives
response is currently pending at the time of this report and is expected the week of March 22. The report will be updated pending the receipt of the records.
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact as it pertains to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials; emitting hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school; being located on a Government Code § 65962.5 site; impairing/interfering with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and exposure of people/structures to wildland fire. The Project site is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; therefore, no safety hazard or noise impacts would occur.
Based on the above discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding hazardous materials and waste would be similar when compared to the proposed Project because the proposed Project would have to address any site-specific REC on the site. Result in impacts that would require the implementation of MM HAZ-1.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.
MMs H-1 through H-3 would address flood control/drainage channels and MMs H-4 through H-10 would address water quality.
Current DEIR Analysis
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact as it pertains to water quality/waste discharge standards/requirements; groundwater supplies and recharge; erosion or siltation; flooding/floodflows and runoff; and conflict or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impact would occur regarding flood hazard, tsunami, and seiche zones and project inundation.
Based on the above discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding hydrology and water quality would be greater when compared to the proposed Project because the proposed Project would not result in impacts that would require the implementation of mitigation.
Land Use and Planning
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that it would not physically divide an established neighborhood. In addition, it does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (e.g., general plan, specific plan, zoning, etc.) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Sunny-Cal Specific Plan was found to be consistent with surrounding planned land uses and with applicable policies of the General Plans of the County of Riverside, including The Pass Area Plan, and the City of Beaumont. Therefore, it would not create significant impacts related to land use or planning.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-12 6.0 | Alternatives
Current DEIR Analysis
Like the Sunny-Cal Specific Plan project, the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. The proposed Project would be compatible with the SCAG’s RTP/SCS strategies and would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map; therefore, it would be consistent with all goals, policies, within the Beaumont GP. Note, however, that a General Plan Amendment would be required which would change the property’s land use designation from Single Family Residential to Industrial, General Commercial, and Open Space. The proposed land use designations would be consistent with the proposed e‐commerce center, commercial area, and open space uses. Ultimately, the proposed Project is consistent with its context as the area is rapidly developing with other similar uses, such as the development across the way just north of Cherry Valley Boulevard. However, because the proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment, it is determined that the No -Project (or the development of the site under the existing Specific Plan), the No-Project is considered to be the superior Alternative.
Noise
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, potential noise impacts on and from the project would be reduced to less than significant levels. At project buildout, projected traffic along adjacent roads/highways could generate significant noise impacts on future project residents. Therefore, on-site uses must be shielded or otherwise protected from anticipated future noise impacts. Project traffic alone would not expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Similarly, the project was not expected to produce a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Construction of the project could cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This potential impact is significant. The project is not expected to expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The project is not located within two miles of a public airport, a private airfield, and is not within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from these sources. MMs N-1 through N-3 would apply to long-term noise and MM N-4 to construction noise.
Current DEIR Analysis
The proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact as it pertains to generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. At Project opening year and Project buildout, the proposed Project would not exceed traffic noise level thresholds. A less than significant impact would occur regarding groundborne vibration/noise levels and airport noise. However, it was determined that the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impact and no mitigation would be feasible. Based on the above discussion, the No-Project Alternative would be the superior alternative.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-13 6.0 | Alternatives
Population and Housing
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that the amount of new housing and population generated by the project was consistent with regional growth projections and did not represent a significant impact in this regard.
Potential population and housing impacts of the project were not expected to be significant over the short- or long-term, based on local and SCAG demographic projections.
Current DEIR Analysis
The proposed Project was found to result in a less than significant impact as it pertains to employment growth, population growth, and the jobs-housing balance. The Project would generate approximately 4,010 new employment opportunities in the City of Beaumont. All growth is planned according to the Beaumont GP 2040 and SCAG Connect SoCal Plan and would support SCAG’s job-housing imbalance. The Project’s employment is anticipated to be served by the regional and local workforce and would not require additional housing.
While both the No-Project Alternative and the proposed Project were found to result in a less than significant impact, this Alternative would result in both direct population and housing growth. Therefore, based on the above discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding population and housing would be greater when compared to the proposed Project.
Public Services
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and payment of applicable development impact fees, potential impacts to public services as a result of the proposed Specific Plan would be less than significant. MM PS-1 pertains to fire services and dedicating land within the project for a station; MM PS-3 to police services and dedicating land within the project for a substation; and MM PS-5 to school services and whether or not BUSD requires a joint school/park site in the final mapped area.
Current DEIR Analysis
The proposed Project was found to have a less than significant impact as it pertains to fire and police protection and following compliance with design/building standards. The Project would not substantially affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives such that new facilities are required.
The Project also would include design elements such as lighting of streets, walkways, and bikeways; visibility of doors and windows from the street; and fencing of the property. These measures would help reduce demands for law enforcement services and impacts would be less than significant.
Riverside County Fire Department has reviewed the Project design to ensure conformance to RCFD requirements and would thereby reduce demands on fire protection services. Additionally, payment of the Fire Protection impact fees, property taxes, and other revenues generated by development within the Project area would be available to the City to offset any increased costs for fire protection services with
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-14 6.0 | Alternatives
little or no net effect on the City’s budget. Additionally, Project development would be subject to BPD review. BPD has previously reviewed the Project for consistency with crime prevention design and BPD requirements.
Project payment of fees in compliance with Government Code § 65996 fully mitigates all impacts to school facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. The Project would pay the Public Services impact fees of $38.36 per square foot according to the City’s Fee Schedule, a portion of which could be used to pay for library services among other public facilities. Therefore, the Project would not affect the District’s ability to provide library services with no net effect on the City’s budget. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard and no mitigation is required.
Based on the above discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding public services would be greater when compared to the proposed Project because the proposed Project would not result in impacts that would require the implementation of mitigation.
Recreation
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that with implementation of the proposed mitigation, the project would not have significant impacts on recreation. Under MMs R-1 and R-2 pocket parks would be improved; under MM R-3 paseos and trails constructed; and under MM R-4 improvements to the neighborhood park.
Current DEIR Analysis
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact as it pertains to the increase in the use of park/recreation facilities resulting in physical deterioration. Through compliance with the City’s goals and policies within its GP, the Project would comply with Quimby Act and City regulations through the dedication of parkland and/or payment of in-lieu fees for parks/recreation purposes, as determined by the City. Therefore, impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities will be less than significant.
Based on the above discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding recreation would be greater when compared to the proposed Project because the proposed Project would not result in impacts that would require the implementation of mitigation.
Transportation
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed Sunny-Cal Specific Plan project would not have significant impacts related to traffic, circulation, or parking. Data from the consultant who prepared the Circulation Element as part of the City’s then current General Plan update indicated that implementation of the improvements shown in MMs T-1 and T-2, including the fair share contribution by the project, would allow local streets to function within City standards at build out.
MMs T-1 and T-2 require participation by the developer in the phased construction of designated roadway segments and traffic signals through payment of an established City of Beaumont impact fee and
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-15 6.0 | Alternatives
participation in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program. MM T-3 calls for the developer to install the site-specific circulation and access recommendations shown in Sunny-Cal EIR Exhibit 4.11-4 prior to the issuance of building permits. MM T-4 includes improvements to Cherry Valley Boulevard. Per MM T-5, the plans shall show bicycle racks and other non-vehicular transportation improvements for the proposed parks and any clubhouse facilities. MM T-6 requires the installation of up to three bus stops if requested by RTA. Lastly, MM T-7 requires the developer shall contact the RTA in writing to identify and pay an appropriate fair share contribution for park and ride facility along Cherry Valley Boulevard or Brookside Avenue at I-10.
Current DEIR Analysis
Public transportation within the City of Beaumont is provided by PASS Transit, operated by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) and the Sunline Transit Agency lines. The nearest bus stop to the Project site is Bus Route 3, located near the intersection of Cherry Valley Boulevard and Beaumont Avenue approximately 2 miles away from the Project site.
Bus Route 3 ends at the Walmart Supercenter, at Highland Springs Avenue and I-10. This shopping center is a transfer point for the PASS Banning Lines, as well as the RTA and Sunline Transit Agency lines.
Coordination with the Pass Transit System would be required as the Project builds out to determine the need for future bus turnouts along Cherry Valley Boulevard.
The proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact as it pertains to conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses nor result in inadequate emergency access. For Project impacts at specific intersections, the Project shall be conditioned to pay a combination of fee payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair-share contribution toward future improvements, or a combination of these approaches. VMT impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to exceeding City impact thresholds.
Based on the above discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding transportation would be lesser when compared to the proposed Project because the proposed Project would result in a significant unavoidable impact.
Utilities and Service Systems
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR found that the project would consume less water than could be used by the former egg ranch operations (631 versus 1,748 acre-feet per year). Without egg production activities, it is estimated the site would consume less than 200 acre-feet of water per year. According to the analysis, implementation of the project would not result in the need for new utility systems, or substantial alterations to electric or natural gas systems, communication systems, water, sewer, or solid waste disposal systems. Therefore, the project would not have any significant utility impacts. Implementation of MMs U-1 through U-4 would occur to help assure that potential impacts related to water consumption, sewage and solid waste generation, and utility systems would remain at less than significant levels.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-16 6.0 | Alternatives
Current DEIR Analysis
For the proposed Project, a less than significant impact would occur regarding relocation or construction of utilities which could impact the environment. The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Project would have little or no net effect on the operation of wastewater collection facilities or wastewater treatment capacity. Impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Lastly, Project development would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Project does not propose any activities that would conflict with the applicable programmatic requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the above discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding utilities and service systems would be greater when compared to the proposed Project because the proposed Project would not result in impacts that would require the implementation of mitigation.
Wildfire
Sunny-Cal DEIR Analysis
The Sunny-Cal DEIR did not evaluate wildfire. However, it did find that the project was consistent with the following policy from the City’s then current general plan update: The City of Beaumont will continue to implement those measures that will be effective in reducing the potential for wildfire. The project would increase the need for fire services, and the Sunny-Cal EIR proposed the project provide space for a fire station if the City fire department determined it was needed to adequately serve the project and/or surrounding area. Also note that according to the then current County general plan, most of the project site was categorized as having ‘low’ risk from wildland fires.
Current DEIR Analysis
The proposed Project site is not located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ. A less than significant impact would occur regarding impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. All improvements would occur within areas already planned for disturbance as part of the Project or within existing or planned roadways or within easements that have been previously disturbed. Lastly, through compliance with existing regulations and Beaumont GP goals and policies there are no significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts are considered less than significant.
Based on this discussion, under the No-Project Alternative, impacts regarding wildfire would be equivalent when compared to the proposed Project.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-17 6.0 | Alternatives
Alternative 2: Reduced Building Intensity
As estimated by the City, Alternative 2 would entail the development of e-commerce and commercial uses, but at a smaller square footage (15 percent less) than what was proposed for the Project. The Alternative would involve the development of 2,173,846 square feet of e-commerce space. Additionally, since the Project footprint would be smaller, it is anticipated that the amount of graded area would be smaller as well. Modifications would occur to multiple on-site features such as drainage basins, parking, and landscaping. Table 6-1, Alternative 2 Design Comparison summarizes the similarities and differences between the Project design features and Alternative 2’s design features.
Table 6-1: Alternative 2 Design Comparison
Feature Project Alternative 2
Net Site Area 181.3 ac 181.3 ac
Warehouse Building Area Bldg. 1: 985,860 sq. ft. Bldg. 1: 837,981 sq. ft.
Bldg. 2: 1,213,235 sq. ft. Bldg. 2: 1,031,250 sq. ft.
Bldg. 3: 358,370 sq. ft. Bldg. 3: 304,615 sq. ft.
Total: 2,557,465 sq. ft. Total: 2,173,846 sq. ft.
Coverage Bldg. 1: 43.2% Bldg. 1: 36.7%
Bldg. 2: 41.8% Bldg. 2: 35.5%
Bldg. 3: 39.7% Bldg. 3: 33.8%
Total: 32.4% Total: 27.5%
Auto Parking Provided Bldg. 1: 628 stalls Bldg. 1: 534 stalls Bldg. 2: 610 stalls Bldg. 2: 519 stalls
Bldg. 3: 222 stalls Bldg. 3: 189 stalls
Total: 1,460 stalls Total: 1,242 stalls
Trailer Parking Provided Bldg. 1: 246 stalls Bldg. 1: 209 stalls Bldg. 2: 514 stalls Bldg. 2: 437 stalls
Bldg. 3: 149 stalls Bldg. 3: 127 stalls
Total: 909 stalls Total: 773 stalls
Floor Area Ratio 1.0 0.85
Notes:
ac = acre
sq. ft. = square feet
Off-site improvements to the adjacent roadways of Cherry Valley Boulevard and Brookside Avenue would remain consistent with the Project.
Comparison of Project Impacts
Alternative 2 would minimize impacts related to the scale of the Project. Therefore, environmental impact areas such as aesthetics, energy, utilities and service systems, and wildfire may see a nominal improvement regarding potential impact significance. However, these resource areas are anticipated to have a less than significant impact under the Project. The Project was able to achieve a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated in all environmental impact areas except air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. These resources were anticipated to create significant and unavoidable
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-18 6.0 | Alternatives
impacts. An evaluation of the impacts associated with the development of Alternative 2 (Reduced Building Intensity) are described below.
Aesthetics
The same general aesthetics impacts would occur with the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative when compared to the proposed Project. Although the building footprint would be reduced with this Alternative, the same general mass and scale of the site would be the same. When compared to the proposed Project, aesthetics impacts associated with the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative 2 would be similar when compared to the proposed Project.
Air Quality
As previously stated, the Project would conflict with established air quality plans for the region and pollutant generation. Specifically, the Project would exceed ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10 emissions thresholds during its operational phase.
Alternative 2 would propose the same e-commerce land use as the Project although the e-commerce building space would be reduced by 383,619 square feet for the Alternative. Presumably, this would reduce potential operational emissions through the reduced building area. However, the majority of operational emissions stemmed from mobile sources such as vehicles and construction equipment. The vehicular traffic generated from the Project is not anticipated to be significantly reduced in Alternative 2.
Operations of Alternative 2 is expected to be similar to the Project. Because the usage would be similar, the emissions generated from the Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project and would also likely create a significant and unavoidable impact.
Biological Resources
Under this Alternative, the construction footprint would be smaller due to the 15 percent reduction in e- commerce building space and associated amenities. This would result in a smaller area being graded, thus leading to a reduction in impacts to wildlife habitat and water crossings. As with the proposed Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce biological resource impacts to a level of le ss than significant. However, lesser impacts would occur with implementation of the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative 2 due to the reduced footprint.
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under this Alternative, the construction footprint would be smaller due to the 15 percent reduction in e- commerce building space and associated amenities. This would result in a greater area being designated as open space, leading to a reduction in potential impacts to undiscovered archaeological resources. As with the proposed Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce cultural resource impacts to a level of less than significant. However, lesser impacts would occur with implementation of the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative 2 due to the reduced footprint.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-19 6.0 | Alternatives
Energy
Both the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative and the proposed Project would require energy during both the construction and operations phases of the Project, although the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would require approximately 15 percent less energy to build and operate when compared to the proposed Project. When compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative 2 would result in fewer energy-related impacts than the proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
Under this Alternative, the construction footprint would be smaller due to the 15 percent reduction in e-commerce building space and associated amenities. This would result in a greater area being designated as open space, leading to a reduction in potential impacts to geological and paleontological resources. As with the proposed Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce geological and paleontological resource impacts to a level of less than significant. However, lesser impacts would occur with implementation of the Alternative 2 due to the reduced footprint.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project’s significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts were associated with the potential to conflict with GHG emissions regulations through the generation of excess MTCO2e. For this impact, mitigation was proposed to reduce potential impacts, however, the Project was still found to exceed thresholds with mitigation. Like air quality above, the Project’s emissions stem largely from mobile source emissions.
Alternative 2 would likely reduce emissions impacts through a reduction in energy use in a smaller space.
However, the usage rate of the Project site would remain similar. Even with a reduction in energy use emissions, the mobile source emissions associated with vehicular travel would not be largely reduced.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would likely remain in excess of the City’s GHG emissions thresholds. The impact would be expected to remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under this Alternative, the construction footprint would be smaller due to the 15 percent reduction in e-commerce building space and associated amenities. This would result in a greater area being designated as open space, leading to a reduction in potential discovery of hazardous materials and decreased generation of hazards and hazardous materials. As with the proposed Project, mitigation measures would not be required to reduce hazards and hazardous materials impacts to a level of less than significant.
Lesser impacts would occur with implementation of the Alternative 2 due to the reduced footprint.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under this Alternative, the construction footprint would be smaller due to the 15 percent reduction in e-commerce building space and associated amenities. This would result in a smaller area of disturbance, leading to a reduction in impact to floodplain and hydrological resources, and water quality due to reduced grading, excavation, or construction activities. As with the proposed Project, mitigation measures
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-20 6.0 | Alternatives
would not be required to reduce hydrology and water quality impacts to a level of less than significant.
Lesser impacts would occur with implementation of the Alternative 2 due to the reduced footprint.
Land Use and Planning
Both the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative and the proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment. Therefore, impacts between Alternative 2 and the Project would be similar.
Noise
Both the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative and the proposed Project would generate noise during both the construction and operations phases of the Project, although the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would generate approximately 15 percent less noise when compared to the proposed Project given the reduction in size. When compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would result in fewer noise-related impacts than the proposed Project; however, it is anticipated that both the Reduced Intensity Alternative and the proposed Project would require similar mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts. Although the under Alternative 2 traffic noise would be reduced by 15 percent compared to the proposed Project, it was determined that the Project would have a significant impact from cumulative traffic noise and no feasible mitigation would reduce the impact. As such, cumulative off-site traffic noise impacts are anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable for both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project. Because Alternative 2 wo uld see a 15 percent reduction in traffic noise, it is determined that Alternative 2 would be the superior alternative in this regard.
Population and Housing
The Project site would be comprised of e-commerce and commercial uses and therefore would have an indirect impact on population. Because this Alternative would include smaller sized warehouses than the Project, it is anticipated that the demand for employees would be less. It is anticipated that most employees would come from within the City and surrounding areas, resulting in a demand for new workers potentially needing housing within the City. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have slightly less impacts to population and housing than the Project.
Public Services
Both the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative and the proposed Project would require additional public service needs, although the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would require approximately 15 percent less public service needs when compared to the proposed Project given the reduction in size.
When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in fewer public service impacts related impacts than the proposed Project; however, it is anticipated these reductions would be nominal.
Recreation
Neither this Alternative nor the proposed Project would increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated nor include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project would include approximately 30 acres of designated Open Space, allowing for further recreational development within the City. The Reduced
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-21 6.0 | Alternatives
Building Intensity Alternative would result in a 383,619-square foot reduction in e-commerce space which could lead to a proportional increase in open space under Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in a reduced impact.
Transportation
The Project was found to conflict with the requirement that VMT be three percent lower than the City average. The VMT for the Project was instead found to exceed the City threshold by 6.4 for the HBW VMT and 12.1 for VMT per SP.
As previously discussed, Alternative 2 would involve the development of a smaller e-commerce buildings which would utilize a smaller portion of the Project site for e-commerce uses. With the smaller size, Alternative 2 would likely have a lesser usage intensity than the Project. The number of dock doors would be reduced and the number of employees less under this Alternative. Alternative 2 e-commerce uses would be approximately 15 percent less than the Project. It is anticipated that a 15 percent reduction of projected employment would occur with this Alternative. VMT impacts associated with the proposed Project were found to be significant and unavoidable. While the Reduced Building Intensity Alterative e- commerce buildings would be 15 percent smaller, it is anticipated that this Alternative would still exceed City VMT thresholds and realize a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, the Alternative 2 would result in a similar impact.
Utilities and Service Systems
Both the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative and the proposed Project would require additional utilities and service systems needs, although the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would require approximately 15 percent less utility needs when compared to the proposed Project given the reduction in size. When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in fewer utility and service system impacts related impacts than the proposed Project; however, it is anticipated these reductions would be nominal.
Wildfire
Under the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative, the development of the Project site would occur similar to the Project, but e-commerce use would be reduced 15 percent. Development in the Project area includes roadways, residential, and commercial, and well as planned industrial development to the north.
The Project site is not within a Very High FHSZ zone nor is it located in a SRA. The Project site is within a LRA zone. Since the Project is within an LRA zone, provision of fire protection services would continue under contract to the RCFD. The warehouse structures would be predominantly concrete which is not typically susceptible to fire. Specifically, the warehouses would be built consistent with the California Building Code requiring new buildings to use ignition-resistant construction methods and materials as well as have a fire suppression system.
Neither this Alternative nor the Project would interfere with any emergency plan or evacuation plan. This Alternative also would not exacerbate any existing fire hazards associated with slopes or spreading of wildfire. Lastly, neither the Project nor this Alternative would require construction of any infrastructure
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-22 6.0 | Alternatives
that could exacerbate fire hazards. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding wildfire.
6.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior Alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. Section 15126.6 (e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmentally superior alternative be designated and states that if the environmentally superior Alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
Based on the summary of information presented in Table 6-2, Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts with the Project, the environmentally superior Alternative is Alternative 2:
Reduced Building Intensity. Because Alternative 2 would reduce the e-commerce development footprint by 15 percent, this Alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project or any of the other alternatives.
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if the “No Project” alternative is found to be environmentally superior, “the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative was not found to be environmentally superior.
The context of an environmentally superior alternative is based on the consideration of several factors including the reduction of environmental impacts to a less than significant level, the Project objectives, and an alternative’s ability to fulfill the objectives with minimal impacts to the existing site and surrounding environment. According to Table 6-2, the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative would be the environmentally superior Alternative because it would reduce some of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project. However, while the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, it is not capable of meeting all of the basic objectives of the Project.
Table 6-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts with the Project EIR Resource Section
Alternatives
Heading Project - Level of Impact
After Mitigation
Alternative 1: No
Project/Existing Specific Plan
Alternative 2: Reduced
Building Intensity
Aesthetics Less than Significant + =
Air Quality Significant Unavoidable + =
Biological Resources Less than Significant = -
Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources Less than Significant = -
Energy Less than Significant + -
Geology and Soils Less than Significant = -
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significant Unavoidable = =
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Less than Significant + -
Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant + -
Land Use and Planning Less than Significant - =
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-23 6.0 | Alternatives
EIR Resource Section
Alternatives
Heading Project - Level of Impact
After Mitigation
Alternative 1: No
Project/Existing Specific Plan
Alternative 2: Reduced
Building Intensity
Noise Less than Significant = +
Population and Housing Less than Significant + -
Public Services Less than Significant + -
Recreation Less than Significant + -
Transportation Significant Unavoidable - =
Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant + - Wildfire Less than Significant = =
Attainment of Project
Objectives
Meets all of the Project
Objectives
Meets some of the Project
Objectives
Meets some of the
Project Objectives
Notes:
A minus (-) sign means the Project Alternative has reduced impacts from the proposed Project.
A plus (+) sign means the Project Alternative has increased impacts from the proposed Project.
An equal sign (=) means the Project Alternative has similar impacts to the proposed Project.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 6-24 6.0 | Alternatives
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 7-1 7 .0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant
7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
7.1 Introduction
California Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21003 (f) states: “…it is the policy of the state that…[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with t he objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” This policy is reflected in the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Guidelines) § 15126.2(a), which s tates that “[a]n E nvironmental I mpact Report [EIR] shall identify and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project” and § 15143, which states that “[t]he EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment.” State CEQA G uidelines § 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR.
7.2 Agriculture and Forestry Services
Agricultural Resources
According to available historical sources, the Project site has been utilized for agricultural purposes since 1964; developed with rural residential or farming related structures but is currently undeveloped and unoccupied. Most of the site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance, while the western portion of the site is designated as Grazing Land and Other Farmland. The site is not designated as either Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statew ide Importance. Additionally, the Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.
Forestry Resources
The Project site is in an area surrounded by existing and planned development to the north , south, east, and west. The Project site does not meet the definition of lands designated as forestland or timberland as defined by PRC §§ 12220(g), 4526, and 51104(g).
Impact 7.2-1 Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Level of Significance: No Impact
According to the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the Project site is located on land mapped as “Farmland of Local Importance,” ”Grazing Land,” and “Other Land.”1 Therefore, no impact to agricultural resources would occur.
1 Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ . Accessed August 5, 2021.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 7-2 7 .0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Impact 7.2-2 Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Level of Significance: No Impact
The Project site is not enrolled under the Williamson Act and is currently zoned as Specific Plan that would allow for homes and open space. The proposed Summit Station Specific Plan would allow for commercial, e-commerce, and open space land uses . As neither the existing zoning, nor the proposed zoning include agriculture as an intended use, the Project would be no impact on the conversion of agriculturally zoned land to non-agricultural uses.2
Impact 7.2-3 Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
Impact 7.2-4 Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use?
Level of S ignificance: No Impact
According to PRC §§ 12220(g), 4526, and 51104(g), the Project site does not contain forestland and does not meet the definition of lands designated as forestland or timberland . Therefore, no impact would occur to timberland.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
No impact.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact in the conversion of farmland to non- farmland or forest land to non-forest use.
7.3 Mineral Resources
Impact 7.3-1 Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Level of Significance: No Impact
2 City of Beaumont. Beaumont General Plan 2040 Update Dr aft PEIR. (2021). Figure 5.2-2, Agricultural Zoning Designations , page 166.
Retrieved from: https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR-090720 Accessed August 5, 2021.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 7-3 7 .0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant There are no known or identified mineral resources of regional or statewide importance in the City.
According to the City’s Agricultural Zoning Designations Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) Map,3 the Project site is within MRZ -3 zone. MRZ -3 zone is where the significance of mineral deposits are undetermined.
Approximately 11,00 acres within the City limits is and approximately 5,730 acres within the City’s S phere of I nfluence are within MRZ -3. Where no mineral resource information is available (e.g., MRZ -3), no impacts to “known mineral resources” would occur. Because there are no known mineral resources on the Project site or in the vicinity of the site, the Project would have no impact on the availability or recovery of mineral resources.
Impact 7.3-2 Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Level of Significance: No Impact
As stated previously, the Project site does not contain any “locally important mineral resource recovery sites.” Although the current Zoning Ordinance has a Mineral Resources Overlay Zone (§ 17.03.160), neither the City’s 2006 General Plan, existing Zoning Map, or any specific plan within the City identifies a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, because no conditions in the threshold are applicable, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
No impact.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project would have no impact on mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact in the availability of mineral re sources.
7.4 Public Services
Impact 4.13-1 Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the cons truction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
• Schools?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
3 City of Beaumont. Beaumont General Plan 2040 Update Draft PEIR. (2021). Figure 5.11-1, Mineral Resource Zones, page 477. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR-090720 . Accessed on August 5, 2021.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 7-4 7 .0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Sc hool services for students in residential areas surrounding the Project site are provided by the Beaumont Unified School District (BUSD). However, because the Project involves e -commerce and commercial development, no students would be directly generated b y the construction and operation of the Project. Development and use of the Project could result in indirect generation of students by encouraging new growth needed to house employees and their families. It is anticipated that most workers would come from surrounding areas or from currently planned residential development. As such, a limited number of new students would likely be generated by the Project.
Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 passed in 1986 and allows school districts to collect impact fees from develope rs of new residential and commercial/industrial building space. Senate Bill (SB ) 50 and Proposition 1A, both of which passed in 1998, provided a comprehensive school facilities financing and reform program.
According to California Government Code (CGC) § 65995(3)(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in gove rnmental organization or reorganization...on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.
The BUSD requires school mitigation impact fees of $0.66 per square foot for commercial/industrial developments.4 The Project applicant would be required to pay the District’s current developer impact fees for commercial/industrial use in effect at the time of submitting the building permi t application. The BUSD uses these fees to pay for facility expansion and upgrades needed to serve new students. While the Project would not generate any new students and increase demand for school services such that new facilities would be required, payment of fees in compliance with CGC § 65996 fully mitigates all impacts to school facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
• Parks?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Refer to Section 4.14, Recreation , for discussion of Project impacts on parks and recreation.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
4 Beaumont Unified School District. ND. Developer Fees. https://www.beaumontusd.us/apps/pages/Developer_Fees (accessed August 2021).
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 7-5 7 .0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
• Other Public Facilities?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
The construction and operation of the Project would not result in a substantial increase in demand for these services such that a significant deterioration of t he existing facilities would occur, or such that new facilities would be required because the Project does not propose housing and would not introduce new residents .
The Beaumont Library District would continue to be responsible for providing services to the general area of the City which includes the Project site. As previously noted, the e-commerce and commercial uses planned for the Project are not sources of demands for library services as they would not directly increase population growth. In addition, the Project would pay the Public Services impact fees of $38.36 per square foot according to the City’s Fee Schedule, a portion of which could be used to pay for future library or other public facilities. Therefore, the Project would not affect the Distr ict’s ability to provide library services with no net effect on the City’s budget. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project would have a less than significant impact on schools, parks, and libraries. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact in the alteration of government facilities.
7.5 R eferences
Beaumont Unified School District. ND. Developer Fees.
https://www.beaumontusd.us/apps/pages/Developer_Fees .
City of Beaumont. (2021). Beaumont General Plan 2040 Update Draft PEIR . https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR -090720 City of Beaumont . (2020). Beaumont General Plan 2040 Update . https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont -GPU_Final-rev-22521.
Department of Conservation’s (DOC). Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ .
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 7-6 7 .0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant This page intentionally left blank.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 8-1 8 .0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
8.0 EIR CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION
This section is consistent with the requirements set forth in § 21153 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and § 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states: “The EIR shall identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and the persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other authorization.” Refer to Section 2.3, Notice of Preparation/Early Consultation for a summary of public notification and consultation.
The NOP and NOP comment letter s are provided in Appendix L, Notice of Preparation . The City provided multiple opportunities for public input, both as part of the CEQA process and as part of Project sc oping.
In addition to required public notifications under CEQA, the City has engaged in extensive consultation with the Quechan Historic Preservation Department , San Manuel Band of Mission Indians , Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians , Pechanga Band of Luiseno I ndians , Serrano Nation of Mission Indians , pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18, as discussed further in Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources .
8.1 EIR Consultation
CEQA Lead Agency
City of Beaumont
Planning Department
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Contacts: Christina Taylor, Community Development Director Carole Kendrick, Planning Manager
Project Applicant
Exeter Cherry Valley Land, LLC
8621 E. Witton Avenue
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Contacts: Andrew Greybar, Senior Project Manager
HPA Architecture
18831 Bardeen Avenue, STE 100
Irvine, CA 92612
Contact: Sha Liu Mahoney
Webb Engineering
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Contact: Byanka Velasco
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 8-2 8 .0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
Interested Parties
As noted above, the City engaged in public and agency consultation through the NOP and public scoping process. The following entities provided comments on the NOP, which have been considered as part of this EIR preparation process.
• California Fish and Wildlife – Inland Deserts Region
• City of Calimesa
• Center for Biological Diversity
• Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice • Elaine Morgan – Resident
• Lozeau Drury, LLP
• Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Riverside County Department of Waste Resources
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
8.2 List of Preparers
Environmental Consultant
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420
Riverside, C A 92501
Contacts: Jennifer Harry, Project Manager
Kari Cano, Project Manager
Achilles Malisos, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Health Risk Assessment /Noise/Energy Alex Pohlman, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Health Risk Assessment /Noise/Energy Trevor Briggs, Traffic
Karina Malouf, Senior Environmental Analyst
Meghan D. Karadimos, Senior Environmental Analyst
Aldo Perez, Environmental Analyst
John Fyne-Nsofor, Environmental Analyst
Ruben Salas, Environmental Analyst
Sabrina Wallace, Environmental Analyst
Amanda McCallum, Document Production
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 8-3 8 .0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
Technical Subconsultants
Rocks Biological Consulting
(Biological Resources and MSHCP Consistency Report , Aquatic Resources Delineation Report , Project DBESP Report)
4312 Rialto Street
San Diego, CA 92107
Contacts: Jim Rocks
Melanie Rocks
Paleo West Archeology
(Cultural Resource Assessment)
517 S. Ivy Avenue
Monrovia, CA 91016
Contacts: Roberta Thomas, MA, RPA
Candra Miller, M.A.
Southern California Geotechnical
(Geotechnical Investigation, Infiltration Report )
22885 Savi Ranch Parkway, Suite E
Yorba Linda, CA 92887
Contacts: Robert G. Trazo, GE, Principal Engineer
Daryl Kas, CEG, Senior Geologist
Pablo Montes Jr., Staff Engineer
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Preliminary Drainage Study, Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan) 22885 Savi Ranch Parkway, Suite E
Yorba Linda, CA 92887
Contacts: Robert G. Trazo, GE, Principal Engineer
Daryl Kas, CEG, Senior Geologist
Pablo Montes Jr., Staff Engineer
The Vertex Companies, Inc.
(Phase I Environmental Site Assessment )
400 Libbey Parkway
Weymouth, MA 02189
Contacts: Stephen P. McCarthy, Vice President – National Technical Lead Michelle Nagy, Project Manager
Mark Jirgal, P.G., Division Manager
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 8-4 8 .0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-1 9.0 | References
9.0 REFERENCES
Section 4.1 Aesthetics
City of Beaumont. (2021). Beaumont MC- Title 15- Buildings and Construction. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/beaumont/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT15BUCO . (accessed June 16, 2021).
Caltrans. (2019). State Scenic Highway Map. Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa. (accessed June 16, 2021).
Section 4.2 Air Quality
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) (2020) Health Effects, Retrieved at:
http://www.capcoa.org/health-effects/ (accessed August 19, 2020).
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf.
California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM) Top Four Summaries from 2015 to 2017, 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam .
California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, 2005. Retrieved from: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf .
California Air Resources Board, Appendix B: Emissions Estimation Methodology of On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks at California Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards. Table II-7. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/drayage_trucks/appbf.pdf .
California Air Resources Board, Current Air Quality Standards, 2016. Retrieved from:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf .
California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles, 2000. Retrieved from:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf .
City of Beaumont, City of Beaumont General Plan, 2007. Retrieved from:
https://beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/63/General-Plan?bidId= .
City of Beaumont, Code of Ordinances, 2018. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/beaumont/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COORBECA .
EXETER Property Group, Conceptual Site Plan, June 2021.
Federal Highway Administration, Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, 2016. Retrieved from:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/msat/inde x.cfm.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-2 9.0 | References
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, 2015. Retrieved from:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf .
Kimley-Horn, Air Quality Assessment Summit Station, February 2022.
Kimley-Horn, Health Risk Assessment Summit Station, February 2022.
Ralph Propper, Patrick Wong, Son Bui, Jeff Austin, William Vance, Alvaro Alvarado, Bart Croes, and Dongmin Luo, Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California. American Chemical Society: Environmental Science & Technology, 2015. Retrieved from:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02766 .
Southern California Association of Governments, 2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal), 2020. Retrieved from: https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan- adopted-final-plan.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2016- aqmp.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air- quality-handbook-(1993).
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, 2009. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized- significance-thresholds.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study IV, 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/health-studies/mates-iv .
United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table, 2016.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table .
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, 2019.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/green-book .
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2014. Retrieved from:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/data/140501_pa_pb_fin.pdf .
Section 4.3 Biological Resources
City of Beaumont. (2020). Beaumont General Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont-GPU_Final-rev-22521 .
City of Beaumont. (2020). Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Beaumont General Plan, SCH No. 2018031022. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR-090720 .
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-3 9.0 | References
City of Beaumont. ND. Application for Tree Removal. Retrieved from:
http://beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30576/Tree-Removal-Application .
Rocks Biological Consulting. (2021). Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation Report.
Rocks Biological Consulting. (2022). Beaumont Summit Station Project Biological Resources and MSCHP Consistency Report.
Rocks Biological Consulting. (2022). Beaumont Summit Station Project DBESP Report.
Section 4.4 Cultural Resources
City of Beaumont. (2020). Beaumont General Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont-GPU_Final-rev-22521 .
City of Beaumont. (2020). Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Beaumont General Plan, SCH No. 2018031022. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR-090720 .
PaleoWest. (2021). Cultural Resource Assessment for The Beaumont Summit Station Project, Riverside County, California.
Rocks Biological Consulting. (2021). Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation Report.
Section 4.5 Energy
Air and Waste Management Association. (1992). Air Pollution Engineering Manual. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
CDTFA. (2021). Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons. Retrieved from CDTFA Website:
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF-10-Year-Report.xlsx Accessed August 27, 2021.
CDTFA. (2021). Fuel Taxes and Statistics & Reports, Motor Vehicle Fuel and Diesel Fuel. Retrieved from CDTFA Website: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/Diesel-10-Year-Report.xlsx Accessed August 27, 2021.
CEC. (2020). Electricity Consumption by County. Retrieved from CEC Website:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx . Accessed August 27, 2021.
CEC. (2020). Gas Consumption by County. Retrieved from CEC Website:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx . Accessed August 27, 2021.
ICC. (2019). 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11. Retrieved from ICC Website:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/chapter/15762/ . Accessed August 27, 2021.
Kimley-Horn, Air Quality Assessment Summit Station, February2022.
Kimley-Horn, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, February 2022.
SCE. (2021). By the Numbers: Who We Serve. Retrieved from SEC Website: https://www.sce.com/about- us/who-we-are. Accessed August 27, 2021.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-4 9.0 | References
SCE. (2019). 2018 Power Content Label, Southern California Edison. Retrieved from Website:
https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/2018SCEPCL.pdf . Accessed August 27, 2021.
U.S. EIA. (2021). California State Profile and Energy Estimates. Retrieved from EIA Website:
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA . Accessed August 27, 2021.
Section 4.6 Geology and Soils
City of Beaumont. (2020) Beaumont General Plan – Figure 9.5 Seismic Zones. Available from City’s website: https://www.elevatebeaumont.com/ (accessed August 17, 2021).
City of Beaumont. (2021). City of Beaumont Municipal Code. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/beaumont/codes/code_of_ordinances (assessed August 23, 2021).
CGS. (2018). California Geological Survey - Landslide Data Viewer. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation (DOC) Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/ . (accessed August 17, 2021).
Southern California Geotechnical. (2021). Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed E-Commerce Development.
Section 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California Air Resources Board, Appendix B: Emissions Estimation Methodology of On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks at California Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards. Table II-7. Retrieved from:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/drayage_trucks/appbf.pdf .
California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2017. Retrieved from:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017_es.pdf .
City of Beaumont, City of Beaumont General Plan, 2007.
City of Beaumont, Sustainable Beaumont: The City’s Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reductions, 2015.
Retrieved from: http://beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27815/Beaumont-Climate- Action-Plan?bidId=.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007.
Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-frontmatter-1.pdf .
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ .
Kimley-Horn, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Summit Station, February 2022.
National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010. Retrieved from:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12782/advancing-the-science-of-climate-change .
State of California, Code of Regulations Section 15064.4, 2018. Retrieved from:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ICB8C7733E574486087D77AEE0EB5836F?viewTy
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-5 9.0 | References
pe=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData =(sc.Default).
Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2020. Retrieved from: https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan- adopted-final-plan.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance- thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #8, 2009. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008- 2009/ghg-meeting-8/ghg-meeting-8-minutes.pdf.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, 2009. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008- 2009/ghg-meeting-13/ghg-meeting-13-minutes.pdf.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15, 2010. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008- 2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf.
U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990- 2016.
U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, 2010. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100717T.PDF?Dockey=P100717T.PDF .
U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview- greenhouse-gases.
Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Vertex Companies, Inc. (2021). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Beaumont, CA.
Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Beaumont, City of. (2020). Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Beaumont General Plan Update.
Figure 5.9-3: Flood Hazard Zones. Page 5.9-11. Retrieved from:
https://beaumontca.gov/121/General-Plan . Accessed August 27, 2021.
Riverside, County of. (2015). Riverside County General Plan, Chapter 6: Safety Element. Figure S-10: Dam Failure Inundation Zones. Page S-39. Retrieved from Riverside County Website:
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-6 9.0 | References
https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_Plan_2017/elements/OCT17/Ch06_Saf ety_DEC2016.pdf?ver=2017-10-06-093651-757. Accessed August 27, 2021.
Southern California Geotechnical. (2021). Results for Infiltration Testing Webb. 2021. Beaumont Summit Station TPM 38223 Preliminary Drainage Study.
Webb. 2021. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan Beaumont Summit Station- Building 1.
Webb. 2021. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan Beaumont Summit Station- Building 2.
Webb. 2021. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan Beaumont Summit Station- Building 3.
Section 4.10 Land Use and Planning
City of Beaumont. (2020). City of Beaumont General Plan 2040 Update. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont-GPU_Final-rev-22521 .
County of Riverside (2015). County of Riverside General Plan. Available at:
https://planning.rctlma.org/General-Plan-Zoning/General-Plan .
Southern California Association of Governments. (2021) 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Available at:
http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf .
Section 4.11 Noise
California Department of Transportation, California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels, 1987. Retrieved from:
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1985/1033/1033-010.pdf .
California Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2011. Retrieved from:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/traffic-noise-protocol-may2011-a11y.pdf.
California Department of Transportation, Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Effects of Traffic and Road Construction Noise on Birds, 2016. Retrieved from: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/noise-effects-on-birds- jun-2016-a11y.pdf.
California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013. Retrieved from: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf.
California Department of Transportation, Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations, 2002. Retrieved from: http://www.vibrationdata.com/tutorials_alt/caltrans_earth.pdf .
California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013. Retrieved from: https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=4521 .
City of Beaumont, General Plan, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.beaumontca.gov/121/General-Plan .
City of Beaumont, Code of Ordinances, 2018. Retrieved from:
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-7 9.0 | References
https://library.municode.com/ca/beaumont/codes/code_of_ordinances/327412 .
County of Riverside, General Plan, 2015. Retrieved from: https://planning.rctlma.org/General-Plan- Zoning/General-Plan.
County of Riverside, Code of Ordinances, 2019. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/riverside_county/codes/code_of_ordinances/354062 .
Federal Highway Administration, Noise Measurement Handbook – Final Report, 2018. Retrieved from:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/measurement/handbook.cfm .
Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide Final Report, 2006.
Retrieved from:
https://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_References/2006_01_Roadway_Construction_N oise_Model_User_Guide_FHWA.pdf.
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, 1992. Retrieved from: https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/reports_noise_analysis.pdf .
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf.
HPA Architecture, Conceptual Site Plan: Brookside Ave. and Cherry Valley Blvd., June 24, 2021 Kimley-Horn, Acoustical Assessment Summit Station, February 2022.
Kimley-Horn, Traffic Study for Beaumont Summit Station Project, February 2022.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100), 1979.
Retrieved from:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ols/catalog/advanced_brief_record.cfm?&FIELD1=SUBJECT&INPUT1=Sou nd%20pressure.&TYPE1=EXACT&LOGIC1=AND&COLL=&SORT_TYPE=MTIC&item_count=17.
Section 4.12 Population and Housing
City of Beaumont. (2021). 6th Cycle Housing Element. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37079/Draft-Housing-Element---2021- 2029---6th-Cycle. (accessed August 22, 2021).
City of Beaumont. (2019). Beaumont General Plan 2040 Program DEIR – Section 5.13 Population and Housing: page 5.13-13. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR-090720 (Accessed August 24, 2021).
Department of Finance. (2021). E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Retrieved from:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-4/2010-20/ (accessed August 24, 2021).
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-8 9.0 | References
Department of Finance. (2021). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Retrieved from:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed August 24, 2021).
Employment Development Department. (2021). Riverside County Profile. Retrieved from:
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSResults.asp?sele ctedarea=Riverside+County&selectedindex=33&state=true&geogArea=0604000065&countyNa me= (accessed August 24, 2021).
Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal – Demographics and Growth Forecast. Retrieved from: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 (accessed August 24, 2021).
Southern California Association of Governments. (2020). Connect SoCal - Environmental Justice.
Retrieved from: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal_environmental-justice.pdf?1606001617 (accessed August 24, 2021).
Section 4.13 Public Services
City of Beaumont. (2021). Development Related Fee Schedule. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2313/Development-Fee-Schedule-Planning- Public-Works-Building--Fire?bidId=. (accessed on June 7, 2021).
City of Beaumont. (2021). Municipal Code - Chapter 15.20 Fire Code. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/beaumont/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT15BUCO_C H15.20FICO. (accessed on June 7, 2021).
City of Beaumont. (2019). Beaumont 2040 General Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont-GPU_Final-rev-22521 . (accessed on June 7, 2021).
County of Riverside. (2015). County of Riverside General Plan - Chapter 5, Multipurpose Open Space Element, pg. OS-1. Retrieved from:
https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_Plan_2017/elements/OCT17/Ch05_M OSE_120815.pdf?ver=2017-10-11-102103-833 (accessed on June 7, 2021).
Section 4.14 Recreation
Beaumont Cherry-Valley Recreation and Park District. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://bcvparks.specialdistrict.org/facilities .
City of Beaumont (2020). Beaumont 2040 General Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont-GPU_Final-rev-22521 .
City of Beaumont. (2021). Beaumont Municipal Code - Title 3, Revenue and Finance. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/beaumont/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT3REFI .
City of Beaumont. (2021). Beaumont Municipal Code - Title 12, Chapter 12.24, Parks-Hours. Retrieved
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-9 9.0 | References
from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/beaumont/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT12STSIPUPL _CH12.24PAOU.
County of Riverside. (2015). County of Riverside General Plan: Chapter 5, Multipurpose Open Space Element, pg. OS-1. Retrieved from:
https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_Plan_2017/elements/OCT17/Ch05_M OSE_120815.pdf?ver=2017-10-11-102103-833.
County of Riverside (2021). County of Riverside Municipal Code: Chapter 16.20, Dedications. 16.20.020, Park and Recreation Fees and Dedications. Retrieved from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/riverside_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT16SU _CH16.20DE.
Section 4.15 Transportation
City of Beaumont (2020). Staff Report: SB 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance Related to Transportation Analysis. Retrieved from: https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/beaumntca-meet- f1da32f813d04b548d03815d09f7fef6/ITEM-Attachment-004-
92c35ec0a7a44ac195e79254290997ac.pdf.
City of Beaumont (2021). Beaumont General Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont-GPU_Final-rev-22521 .
Kimley-Horn, 2022. Traffic Study for Beaumont Summit Station Project.
Kimley-Horn, 2022. Beaumont Summit Station Project Vehicle Mile Traveled (VMT) Analysis.
Section 4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources
PaleoWest. 2021. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Beaumont Summit Station Project, Riverside County, California.
Section 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Albert A. Webb Associates. August 2021. Preliminary Drainage Study.
Albert A. Webb Associates. November 2021. Water Supply Assessment.
Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Draft. Retrieved from: https://bcvwd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2020_BCVWD_UWMP_DRAFT.pdf .
CalRecycle. 2017. California’s Statewide Per Resident, Per Employee, and Total Disposal Since 1989.
Retrieved from:
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/GoalMeasure/DisposalRate/MostRecent/ .
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-10 9.0 | References
City of Beaumont. 2019. Mandatory Commercial Recycling. Retrieved from:
h https://www.beaumontca.gov/1146/Commercial-
Recycling#:~:text=In%20June%202019%2C%20Beaumont%20City,materials%20generated%20fr om%20commercial%20facilities .
City of Beaumont. (2018). Sewer Rate Study. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31055/Beaumont-Sewer-Rate-Study--- 2018?bidId=.
County of Riverside. (2015). County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521. Table 4.19-BL.
https://planning.rctlma.org/General-Plan-Zoning/General-Plan/Riverside-County-General-Plan- 2015/General-Plan-Amendment-No960-EIR-No521-CAP-February-2015.
SGPWA, 2020 – About SGPWA. Available: https://www.sgpwa.com/about-us/ . Accessed: August 3, 2020.
Section 4.18 Wildfire
City of Beaumont. 2020. Beaumont General Plan.
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont-GPU_Final-rev-22521 .
City of Beaumont. 2020. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Beaumont General Plan, SCH No. 2018031022. https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR-090720 .
City of Beaumont. (2012). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved from:
//beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29599/Beaumont-LHMP-?bidId=.
National Park Service (2018). Types of Wildland Fire. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/types-of- wildland-fire.htm.
Section 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
No references.
Section 6.0 Alternatives
No references.
Section 7.0 Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Beaumont Unified School District. ND. Developer Fees.
https://www.beaumontusd.us/apps/pages/Developer_Fees .
City of Beaumont. (2021). Beaumont General Plan 2040 Update Draft PEIR. Figure 5.2-2, Agricultural Zoning Designations, page 166. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR-090720 Retrieved at:
August 5, 2021.
City of Beaumont. (2021). Beaumont General Plan 2040 Update Draft PEIR. Figure 5.11-1, Mineral
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-11 9.0 | References
Resource Zones, page 477. Retrieved from:
https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36627/DEIR-090720 (accessed on August 5, 2021).
Department of Conservation. (2020). Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Retrieved from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed August 5, 2021).
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 9-12 9.0 | References
This page intentionally left blank.
1 22063712.1/201367.0002
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH No. 2021090378
1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that a Lead Agency issue two sets of findings prior to approving a project that will generate a significant impact on the environment. The Statement of Facts and Findings is the first set of findings where the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts, presents facts supporting those conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more findings supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more findings for each impact, and explains the reasoning behind the agency’s findings.
The following statement of facts and findings has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA and Public Resources Code Section 21081. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) provides that:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.
There are three possible finding categories available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to Section 1509(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations is the second set of findings. Where a project will cause unavoidable significant impacts, the Lead Agency may still approve a project where its benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. Further, as provided in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Lead Agency sets forth specific reasoning by which benefits are balanced against effects, and approves the project.
Based upon its review of the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), the Lead Agency finds that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, represents the independent judgment of the City, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this project.
2 22063712.1/201367.0002
The Final EIR is composed of the following elements:
The Beaumont Summit Station project Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2021090378 (April 2022);
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
Response to Comments; and
Corrections and Changes from the Draft EIR to the Final EIR
2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL
The Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan (“Project”) is located in the City of Beaumont (“City”). The Project site is in the northwestern portion of the City within the County of Riverside (County) and regional access to the site is provided by Interstate (I-10) 10 via the Cherry Valley Boulevard exit approximately 3,000 feet west of the Project site.
The approximately 188-acres site is located south of Cherry Valley Boulevard, north of Brookside Avenue, and northeast of I-10. All proposed changes associated with the Project are located within areas previously annexed to the City by the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission. The following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) are associated with the Project site: 407-230-22, -23, -24, -25, -26, -27, -28; 407-190-016; and 407-190-017.
The Project includes the adoption of the new Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan (Specific Plan). In addition to the Specific Plan, other related Project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, approval of a Plot Plan/Site Plan, and a Development Agreement. The Specific Plan entails the development of an approximately 188-acre site with e-commerce/high cube warehouse facility (not a high-cube fulfillment center (sort) facility), commercial development, and open space components.
The Project would also include 6.7 acres of public and private roads.
2.2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The fundamental purpose and goal of the Project is to implement the vision laid out in the Project objectives by providing development standards, and design guidelines to direct future development within the Project area. In order to promote a high-quality development, as well as the functional integrity, economic viability, environmental sensitivity, and positive aesthetic impact of the Project, specific planning and development objectives for the Project were identified:
1. Provide a comprehensive land use plan that designates the distribution, location, and extent of land uses.
2. Provide a land use plan that is sensitive to the environment through avoidance of sensitive resources, aesthetically pleasing through application of design guidelines, and places compatible land uses and facilities in an appropriate location.
3 22063712.1/201367.0002
3. Develop a state‐of‐the‐art logistics/e‐commerce/high cube warehouse facility with complimentary commercial uses that take advantage of existing and planned infrastructure, is feasible to construct, is economically competitive with, and in the general vicinity of, similar logistics/e‐commerce center uses.
4. Develop and operate a large format logistics center that is in close proximity to the I‐10 freeway to support the distribution of goods throughout the region and that also limits truck traffic disruption to sensitive receptors within the surrounding region.
5. Facilitate the development of underutilized land currently planned for residential uses with uses that maximize the use of the site as a large format e‐commerce/high cube warehouse facility consisting of one or more buildings with total e‐commerce building space in excess of 2,557,465 square feet in size and approximately 150,000 square feet of mixed commercial uses responding to market demand.
6. Provide a system of infrastructure that includes public and private transportation, sewer, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, and other essential facilities to serve the needs of the Project.
7. Provide access patterns that minimize traffic conflicts.
8. Develop project identity through the identification of project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, walls, fencing, signage, and entry treatments
9. Facilitate the establishment of design guidelines and development standards that create a unique, well‐defined identity for the proposed Project.
10. Positively contribute to the economy of the region through new capital investment, creation of new employment opportunities, and expansion of the tax base.
11. Establish landscape guidelines that emphasize the use of drought‐tolerant and water‐efficient plant materials.
12. Provide and plan that incorporates appropriate buffers with the surrounding development through the use of landscaped setbacks and expanded parkways along Cherry Valley Boulevard and Brookside Avenue.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City has conducted an extensive review of this Project which included a Draft EIR and a Final EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment period. The following is a summary of the City’s environmental review of the Project:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) and filed a copy with the California Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse to inform the general public, trustee and responsible agencies and other interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for this Project. The NOP was distributed for a 30-day public review period, which began on September 21, 2021. In addition, the City held a public- noticed EIR scoping meeting on October 7, 2021. The scope of the Draft EIR was determined
4 22063712.1/201367.0002
through the NOP and scoping meeting process, whereby it was concluded that the Project would have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts under the following 18 environmental subject areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology & Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, Land Use & Planning, Noise, Population & Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities & Service Systems and Wildfire.
The City circulated the Draft EIR for the Project from April 21, 2022 to June 6, 2022. The City received a total of 144 comment letters from responsible agencies and other interested parties.
The City prepared responses to all written comments received during the public review period.
The comments and responses are contained in Section 2 of the Final EIR.
In accordance with the provisions of the Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City of Beaumont has provided a written proposed response to each commenting public agency no less than 10 days prior to the proposed certification date of the Final EIR.
4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING
The project applicant, Exeter Cherry Valley Land, LLC (“Project Applicant”), retained the independent consulting firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (“Kimley-Horn”) to prepare the EIR for the Project.
Kimley-Horn has prepared the EIR under the supervision, direction and review of the City. The City is the Lead Agency for the preparation of the EIR, as defined by CEQA CPRC Section 21067, as amended. The Beaumont City Council (“City Council”) has received and reviewed the EIR prior to certifying the EIR and prior to making any decision to approve or disapprove the Project. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with respect to each specific finding.
FINDING:
The EIR for the Project reflects the City’s independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant to review the EIR, and directing the consultant in preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City.
The City Council has considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the all the evidence presented in its consideration of the project and the EIR, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR and its supporting studies, written and oral evidence presented at hearings on the project, and written evidence submitted to the City by individuals, organizations, regulatory agencies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence the City Council finds that with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review process (except those described in the following paragraph), the impact is: (1) less than significant and would not require mitigation; (2) potentially significant but would be avoided or reduced to less than a significant level by implementation of identified mitigation measures; or (3) would be significant and
5 22063712.1/201367.0002
not fully mitigatable but would be, to the extent feasible, lessened by implementation of identified mitigation measures.
The EIR also identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects of the project which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Prior to approving this project the City Council also adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations which finds, based on specific reasons and substantial evidence in the record (as specified in Section 6.0), that certain identified economic, social or other benefits of the project outweigh such unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
5.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT/NO IMPACT IN THE EIR The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant or would not result in any impact and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.
AESTHETICS
Impact 4.1-1: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The City does not contain any designated scenic vistas. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9). Because there are no scenic vistas on the Project site or in the vicinity of the Project site and the implementation of the Project would not obstruct views of the scenic vistas provided by the San Bernardino Mountains and the San Jacinto Mountains from any publicly accessible point outside of the Project site, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-10).
Impact 4.1-2: Would the Project substantially damage scene resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No State Designated Scenic Highway traverses the Project site nor is the Project site in the vicinity of a State Designated Scenic Highway. The nearest State Designated Scenic Highway is SR-243, located approximately nine miles southeast of the Project site, south of the Banning city limits. Due to distance and topography, the Project is not visible from the State Designated Scenic Highway portion of SR-243.
Additionally, no structures exist on-site; the Project site is not near a State Designated Scenic Highway, or scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Thus, impacts to scenic resources within a State Designated Scenic Highway would not occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-10).
Impact 4.1-3: Will the Project in a non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? Although construction activities and long-term development are anticipated to change the existing conditions of the site, the Project would not degrade the visual character of the site as much of the site’s view from the public right-of-way is limited and those areas that are currently visible contain remnants of the former eggs and poultry farm. As such, the proposed Project development is anticipated to enhance
6 22063712.1/201367.0002
the Project site in the long-term through the incorporation of aesthetically pleasing building, landscaping, ornamental trees, lighting, among other features. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-11).
Project implementation and operation would allow for new development within a currently undeveloped vacant space, which would result in permanent alteration of the existing landforms and visual quality in the area. The Project would involve grading, landform alteration, and the development of several buildings involving commercial and e-commerce/high cube warehouse facility uses. The Project development would be consistent with the high-cube warehouse buildings planned north of Cherry Valley Boulevard, San Gorgonio Crossing. Further, high quality development with visually appealing elements including landscaping and natural-like building materials would create cohesive designs with other similar facilities in the general vicinity. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-11).
The Project site would transition from a former egg and poultry farm currently containing building pads which are remnant of previous buildings among other debris from the previous use. The Project site has been previously graded to serve the previous use. The site is anticipated to change from its existing condition to a fully developed site containing the proposed uses. The development would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or public views. To further reduce changes in the visual environment, the Project would incorporate perimeter landscaping, trees, and ground covers to visually buffer the structures. For this reason, it is anticipated that implementation of the commercial and e-commerce/high cube warehouse facility uses would not degrade the visual characteristics that are already considered low. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-11 – 4.1- 12).
Impact 4.1-4: Will the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which will adversely affect day or nighttime view in the area?
Implementation of the Project will introduce new lighting elements on-site to primarily illuminate the parking areas, truck docking areas, and building entrances. All lighting elements will need to comply with the lighting requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. In addition, the majority of the Project’s building materials will consist of painted tilt-up concrete panels that will contain a matte finish. The remaining areas will contain low-reflect blue glass, which will not adversely affect daytime views of surrounding properties or motorists along the adjacent roadways. Therefore, Project-related development will not create substantial light or glare. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code requirements for lighting will ensure less-than-significant impacts associated with light and glare affecting day or nighttime views in the area from on-site lighting elements. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-12 to 4.1-13).
Cumulative Effects. Although the Project would change the current visual quality of the Project site, the changes would not result in degradation of the site. As noted in Section 4.0 Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan, the architectural design guidelines describe the intended architectural themes and styles for buildings permitted within the Specific Plan area and are intended to provide a basis for decisions regarding the built environment that contributes significantly to the visual order and consistency of the entire Specific Plan area and provide a high-quality development. specific planning and development objectives for the Project are identified in Draft EIR Section 3.8, Project Purpose and Objectives. These
7 22063712.1/201367.0002
objectives specifically have some bearing on the aesthetic design of the development within the Specific Plan. As such, the Project would not adversely affect any protected public viewsheds or destroy any scenic vistas, nor would it impede views of the San Jacinto Mountains or the San Bernardino Mountains.
Therefore, the Project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution. The cumulative impact related to scenic vistas and resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-13 to 4.1-14).
AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.2-4: Will the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with the Project’s construction-related and operational activities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2- 56).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.3-3: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Three separate field visits were conducted on April 22, June 3, and June 7, 2021. Field staff examined the potential for wetland waters of the U.S. and State and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”)-jurisdictional wetlands. Data was collected at three representative Wetland Data Form Points within the Project site, one within NWW-2, one within NWW-3, and one within Basin-4, to determine the presence or absence of jurisdictional wetlands. The delineated aquatic features on-site did not meet the appropriate wetland parameters to qualify as wetland waters of the U.S./State or CDFW-jurisdictional wetlands based on the data collected during the field visits. No areas within the Project site meet the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (“MSHCP”) definition of a vernal pool. Because no State or federally protected wetlands were identified on the Project site, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3- 24).
Impact 4.3-4: Will the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
8 22063712.1/201367.0002
The Project site is situated at the northern end of the City of Beaumont and occurs immediately north of a developed residential area. Land located north of the site, north of Cherry Valley Boulevard, has been graded in preparation for planned industrial development, and nearby areas to the west and immediately south are highly developed. The site is not identified as a wildlife corridor or criteria area under the MSHCP, and does not serve as a regional wildlife corridor. The drainages in the southwest portion of the site likely serve as minor local wildlife corridors and avian ‘stepping stone’ corridors. The largest drainage (Planning Area 3) would not be developed as part of the Project so it would continue to function as a local wildlife corridor. Significant impacts on wildlife corridors are not anticipated with Project implementation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-25).
Impact 4.3-5: Will the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Implementation of the Project would be subject to all applicable Federal, State, regional, and local policies and regulations related to the protection of biological resources. The Project would be constructed in compliance with the requirements of the Beaumont General Plan and the Beaumont Municipal Code. The City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance. An application and approval from the City is required for any removal of front yard/street tree or trees. No street trees occur on-site and no residential structures and associated front yards occur on site. There are occasional trees near the outbuildings at the east of the site; however, these do not appear to meet the definition of street or yard trees. As such, the Project would comply with City of Beaumont requirements and no street tree approvals would be required, as no impacts to such resources would occur with project implementation. Based on compliance with all local policies and ordinances, impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-25 to 4.3-26).
Cumulative Effects. There is a related project located directly north (across Cherry Valley Boulevard) of the Project site that has recently been graded in preparation of the development of industrial land uses.
In addition, areas to the west and south of the Project site are developed. Development of the Project site and the surrounding existing and future development precludes the area as a wildlife corridor and eliminates the potential for impacts to go beyond the Project site.
The Project site is relatively disturbed and does not support significant stands of native vegetation, with the possible exception of the riparian habitat in the southwestern portion of the site which would remain undeveloped. Further, the Project would be fully compliant with the regional MSHCP which protects biological resources regionally such that cumulative impacts within the plan area are avoided. As such, the Project would not result in significant cumulative effects. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-29).
CULTURAL IMPACTS
Impact 4.4-1: Will the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 150645?
9 22063712.1/201367.0002
There are no historic-age resources present on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-14).
Impact 4.4-3: Will the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Past land uses of the Project site include residential and poultry farming. The Project site is currently vacant. No cemeteries exist onsite. The closest cemetery, Desert Lawn Funeral Home and Memorial Park, is located approximately 1,200 feet to the south of the Project site, across Brookside Avenue and Interstate 10. An intensive pedestrian survey of the Project site was conducted June 8 – 11, 2021, during which time no human remains were identified. It is unlikely that any human remains would be encountered during ground disturbing activities given that the Project site is already partially disturbed, and the onsite drainages are ephemeral (i.e., flows only in direct response to precipitation). If human remains are found, those remains would be properly treated in accordance with applicable laws. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-16 to 4.4-17).
Cumulative Effects.
No historic resources are present on the Project site. Therefore, no historic resources could be altered or destroyed by construction or operation of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-17). The Project will be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq. As concluded above, previously undiscovered human remains could be encountered during Project construction activities; however, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard following compliance with the established state regulatory framework. Cumulative development could impact previously undiscovered human remains during construction. However, all cumulative development would undergo environmental review on a project- by-project basis to evaluate the site-specific archaeological sensitivity. Additionally, cumulative development would be subject to compliance with the established state regulatory framework concerning the discovery of human remains on a project-by-project basis. The Project’s cumulative impacts concerning the potential to disturb human remains would be less than significant given compliance with the established regulatory framework would be required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-18).
ENERGY
Impact 4.5-1: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Energy Use During Construction. Energy use during the construction phases of the Project is discussed and quantified in detail at Draft EIR pages 4.5-22 to 4.5-26. The equipment and vehicles used for Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and State emissions, and the Project’s fuel from the
10 22063712.1/201367.0002
entire construction period would increase fuel use in the County by less than one percent. There is no evidence that the Project construction will require the use of equipment that will be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities elsewhere in the region. Accordingly, the amount of energy and fuel consumed by construction will not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Impacts will be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-22 – 4.5-26).
Energy Use During Operation. The Project’s operational energy use is discussed and quantified in detail at Draft EIR pages 4.5-26 to 4.5-31. The Project building incorporates contemporary, energy- efficient/energy-conserving design and operational programs and will be subject to compliance with the latest Energy Code and CalGreen standards, which are more stringent than prior versions of the respective codes. Due to mandatory compliance with Energy Code and CalGreen standards will ensure that Project building operations will not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, MM GHG-1 requires the Project to install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable energy generation that would provide 100 percent of the expected on-site energy demands for the warehouses in Phase 1. None of the Project energy uses exceed one percent of their corresponding County use. The Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. The Project would comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-26 to 4.5-31).
Impact 4.5-2: Will the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
As discussed under Impact 4.5-1 above, the energy conservation policies and plans relevant to the Project include the California Title 24 energy standards and the 2019 CALGreen building code. The Project would be required to comply with these existing energy standards. Compliance with state and local energy efficiency standards would ensure that the Project meets all applicable energy conservation policies and regulations. As such, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Southern California Association of Government’s (“SCAG’s”) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal) (“RTP/SCS”), adopted in September 2020, integrates transportation, land use, and housing to meet GHG reduction targets set by CARB. The document establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks, as well as an overall GHG target for the region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of SB 375. The Project would not conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-31).
Cumulative Effects. The Project and new development projects located within the cumulative study area would also be required to comply with all the same applicable federal, state, and local measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption and the conservation of energy. The anticipated Project impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development in the vicinity, would increase urbanization and result in increased energy use. Potential land use impacts are site-specific and require evaluation on a case-by- case basis. The Project would not result in significant impacts to state or local plans for renewable energy
11 22063712.1/201367.0002
or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-32).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impacts 4.6-1 to 4.6-4: Will the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?; (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?; and/or (iv) Landslides?
Rupture of Known Earthquake Fault. The Geotechnical Investigation determined that none of the Project components are located on any known active earthquake faults as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map and on Figure 9.5, Seismic Zones, of the Beaumont 2040 General Plan.
Regardless, the Project site is within a seismically active region and therefore, subject to seismic activity.
The nearest active faults are the Cherry Valley Fault, located within a mile of the Project site to the east, and the Beaumont Plain Fault Zone, located approximately two miles further east of the Project site. All Project components would be designed accordingly to the latest California Building Code (“CBC”) seismic standards and in conformance with all applicable standards set in the Beaumont Municipal Code to resist structural collapse from strong seismic activity as stated in Title 15, Chapter 15.42 Earthquake Hazards Reduction, § 15.42.060 – General Requirements of the Beaumont Municipal Code. The Project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault zone. Furthermore, the Project’s operational activity would adhere to all applicable City regulations and engineering standards and specifications. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR at p. 4.6-15 to 4.6-16).
Strong Seismic Ground Shaking. As noted above, the Project is subject to regional seismicity. Therefore, all Project components would be designed in accordance with the requirements of the 2019 edition of the CBC and in compliance with all the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act and the adopted policies and criteria of Ordinance No. 547. In addition, all relevant documents would be submitted to the Beaumont Public Works Department as part of the Project’s discretionary review process. Furthermore, adherence with Goal 9.7 and Policies 9.7.1 through 9.7.5 of the Beaumont 2040 General Plan would ensure that adverse impacts from strong seismic ground shaking is reduced through the adequate planning and building of structures in seismic prone areas through the implementation of the previously noted policies which seek to enforce the most recent seismic requirements, require that all developments located within Alquist- Priolo zones are accompanied with appropriate geotechnical analysis, properly coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) to identify earthquake risks and or mitigation techniques, and ensuring that Building and Safety agencies are involved throughout the plan checks and inspections of the Project. Therefore, impacts concerning strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16 to 4.16-17).
12 22063712.1/201367.0002
Seismic-Related Ground Failure (Liquefaction). The Geotechnical Investigation determined that based on underlying soil conditions (which included moderate strength older alluvium), the groundwater table was considered to exist beyond 50 feet. Therefore, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for this Project and ground-moving activities (i.e., excavation, grading, etc.) would not contribute to the susceptibility of the site. Overall impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-17).
Landslides. No evidence of previous land sliding or debris flow was observed during review of the CGS landslide inventory maps. Additionally, the risk of landslides impacting the Project site is considered low to negligible since the Project’s topography does not contain steep slopes. Furthermore, the Project is not surrounded by steep topography with exposed rock-cropping or boulders. Since ground-moving activities would cease at the end the construction phase, and the Project site is not located adjacently to steep topography, no impacts associated with landslides would occur during Project operations. (Draft EIR at p. 4.6-18).
Impact 4.6-8: Will 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 Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
Accordingly, no impact will occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-22 to 4.6-23).
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impacts 4.8-1 and 4.8-2: Will the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Will the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, transport, removal, and disposal of any hazardous materials from the Project site would be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider. Any handling, transport, use, or disposal would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“CalOSHA”), Caltrans, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Branch (the Certified Unified Program Agency for Riverside County). Operations of the proposed Project would not represent a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Additionally, any potentially hazardous material handled on the Project site would be limited in both quantity and concentrations, consistent with other similar industrial uses located in the City, and any handling, transport, use, and disposal would comply with applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. Furthermore, as mandated by the OSHA, all hazardous materials stored on the Project site would be accompanied by a Material Safety Data Sheet, which would inform employees and first
13 22063712.1/201367.0002
responders as to the necessary remediation procedures in the case of accidental release. In addition, and if applicable, future operations would include a hazardous materials business plan in accordance with §§ 25500–25543.3 of the Health and Safety Code. Compliance with existing regulations would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant. Additionally, the Project would require various outdoor landscape maintenance activities. These demands would include the storage of, and periodic application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. If equipment needed for landscaping are used and housed on-site, the Project may require the storage and of fuels and solvents on-site. Use of this type of equipment and listed materials are common to such facilities and compliance with existing regulations regarding their use would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-19 – 4.8-20).
With regard to foreseeable upset and accident conditions, Project operations would involve the routine transport, use, and storage of materials/chemicals typical of industrial facilities. The routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials during Project operations must adhere to federal, State, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. The Project would also be subject to compliance with the regulatory framework which would ensure that Project operations would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-20 – 4.8-21).
Impact 4.8-3: Will the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. As such, the Project has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school to the Project site is the Tournament Hills Elementary located at 36611 Champions Drive, approximately
0.9 miles to the southwest. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-21).
Impact 4.8-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? The Project site is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the area. The nearest airstrip is the Banning Municipal Airport in Banning located approximately 9.5 miles east of the Project site.
Furthermore, the proposed Project does not include any towers or tall structures that would result in a safety hazard. According to the Specific Plan, Planning Area 1 buildings are subject to a 60 feet maximum height and Planning Area 2 buildings are subject to a 50 feet maximum height. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-23).
Impact 4.8-6: Will the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
14 22063712.1/201367.0002
The proposed Project shall comply with the City’s adopted Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. The developer is required to design, construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities to comply with the applicable federal, state, and local requirements related to emergency access and evacuation plans. The proposed plan will be reviewed and approved by the fire marshal during the plan review. Through compliance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements, a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-24).
Impact 4.8-7: Will the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? The majority of surrounding areas have been previously disturbed with residential or industrial developments or other areas that are highly disturbed from off-road activity. Although these areas and the Project site are surrounded by developed areas and undeveloped areas, they are designated as a moderate fire hazard severity zone. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-24).
While the Project site is located in an area with vegetation that can be prone to fire, due to the presence of surrounding development, non-contiguous nature of the existing undeveloped areas, presence of area roadways, and concrete construction of development, it is not likely to be affected by a wildfire during construction or operations. In addition, the undeveloped area to the north would be separated from the Project area by parking, the drive isle, and landscaping. This buffer would ensure an appropriate width to reduce the risk of potential fire hazards. Lastly, the Project site would be in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code Chapter 7A which would require the use of fire-resistant building materials and fire sprinklers. It is anticipated that these design elements would reduce exposure of the Project site to wildfire. Therefore, although the surrounding areas could experience a fire, because of the above-listed factors, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-24 – 4.8-25).
Cumulative Effects. The potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited since the impacts from hazardous materials use on site are site-specific. Although some of the cumulative projects and other future projects associated with buildout of the surrounding communities also have potential impacts associated with hazardous materials, the environmental concerns associated with hazardous materials are typically site specific. As with the proposed Project, future development within the area must comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations applicable to hazardous materials.
Each project is required to address any issues related to hazardous materials or wastes on a project- specific basis. With adherence to applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing hazardous materials, the potential risks associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant. The incremental effects of the proposed Project related to hazards and hazardous materials, if any, are anticipated to be minimal, and any effects would be site-specific. Therefore, considering the above, Project impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance of applicable federal, State, and local requirements, policies, and regulations. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-25).
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
15 22063712.1/201367.0002
Impact 4.9-1: Will the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Construction activities associated with the development of the proposed Project would be typical of those used in comparable warehouse and commercial developments. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-15). The Project Applicant will be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit, the City Municipal Code, and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program, which includes preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) and Water Quality Management Plan (“WQMP”). The WQMP (which addresses post-construction water quality) must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit.
This Project proposes to treat on-site runoff using a series of treatment control measures including biofiltration and infiltration basins. Where feasible, stormwater will be captured within underground detention basins. While the underground detention basins have limited infiltration ability, the captured stormwater will be pumped to irrigate natural vegetation and infiltrate into native soils. On-site flows would be directed towards the proposed underground corrugated metal pipe (“CMP”) detention system for increased runoff mitigation for Buildings 1 and 3. On-site flows for Building 2 will be directed to a detention basin that provide both infiltration and mitigation for increased runoff. Flows would ultimately discharge to the existing natural streambed to the west of the Project site. The Project would also include self-treating landscape areas throughout the Project site. Routine inspection and maintenance of the biofiltration and infiltration basins and underground detention system are requirements of the City. (Draft EIR at p. 4.9-16 to 4.9-17).
As identified in Standard Condition (SC) HYD-1, preparation, implementation, and participation with the Construction General Permit, including preparation of a SWPPP containing site-specific best management practices (“BMPs”), would reduce Project construction effects on water quality to acceptable levels.
Compliance with SC HYD-2 would require the Project provide a Final WQMP specifically identifying BMPs that would be incorporated into the Project to control stormwater and non-stormwater pollutants during and after construction. Compliance with SC HYD-3 would require preparation of an Erosion Control Plan that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion. Therefore, SC HYD-1 through SC HYD-3 are proposed to preclude the violation of water quality standards during and after construction.
Thus, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-17).
Impact 4.9-2: Will the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with the groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The Project site is within the service area of the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District (“BCVWD”).
BCVWD’s potable water system is supplied by wells in Little San Gorgonio Creek (Edgar Canyon) and the Beaumont Basin. Although the proposed Project would result in additional impervious surfaces on-site, the proposed Project would treat on-site runoff with biofiltration, infiltration, and reuse. On-site flows would be directed towards a proposed underground CMP detention system. Flows would then be pumped from the detention system at a reduced rate to mitigate for increased runoff to the biofiltration and
16 22063712.1/201367.0002
infiltration basins. Flows from the detention system for Building 3 would also be pumped to an area of native vegetation to be reused as irrigation and to promote infiltration within the native soils. Infiltration tests were conducted to determine appropriate infiltration rates for the proposed infiltration systems. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18).
Flows would ultimately discharge to the existing natural streambed to the west of the Project site, to landscaped areas within the built-up portions of the site and to the natural water drainage feature located in Planning Area 3 which would allow for infiltration and groundwater recharge. The Project would also include self-treating landscape areas. The pre-treatment of water would minimize pollutants from entering the basin, thereby minimizing impacts to groundwater management. The site does not contain any active or decommissioned groundwater wells. This, along with the Project’s compliance with the recommendations of the Infiltration Report (Draft EIR Appendix H) will ensure that the proposed Project would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-18 to 4.9-19).
Impact 4.9-3: Will the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which will: (i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?; (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which will result in flooding on- or off-site?; (iii) Create or contribute runoff which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?; or (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? Erosion and Siltation. The proposed site plan and building layouts do not allow for the same tributary drainage areas to each of the south and west discharge points. To maintain existing outlet conditions, portions of the site would be required to over-mitigate to ensure the downstream facilities are not adversely impacted. The total flows from both discharge points would drain to the west and would not be in excess of pre-Project flows. As noted under Impact 4.9-1, the Project would be subject to the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit and would implement a SWPPP, which would help minimize erosion and sedimentation from construction activity. The Project would also implement a WQMP and Final WQMP for each building that would include construction and post-construction BMPs to further minimize erosion and sedimentation. In addition to the SWPPP and WQMP, the Project is also subject to the applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulatory framework concerning water quality listed above. Therefore, with implementation of the SWPPP, WQMP, and applicable regulatory framework, the Project is not anticipated to result in substantial erosion or siltation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-19 – 4.9-20).
On- or Off-Site Flooding. The Drainage Report (Draft EIR Appendix H) concluded that the proposed Project’s drainage improvements would adequately convey flows to the proposed basins at pre-Project flows and as such would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-21).
Stormwater Drainage System Capacity and Polluted Runoff. The proposed underground detention system and the proposed biofiltration basins would provide adequate water pre-treated from Buildings 1