APPENDIX E
ARID WEST WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS AND
EPHEMERAL AND INTERMITTENT STREAMS OHWM
DATASHEETS
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. 2.
3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Beaumont Summit Station Beaumont 06/07/2021
Exeter Cherry Valley Land, LLC CA WDP 1
Shanti Santulli, Sarah Krejca, Ian Hirschler T2S, R1W, S30 In basin (constructed)Concave 0-1%
LRR C - Mediterranean California 33.965328 -117.022071 WGS 84 Terrace escarpments None
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 N/A
N/A
10-foot radius
Baccharis salicifolia 25%Yes FAC
25%
5-foot radius
Hirschfeldia incana 15%Yes NL/UPL
Polygonum aviculare 3%No FAC
Croton setiger 2%No NL/UPL
20%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sample point taken within constructed earthen basin, near three individual mulefat. Drought conditions per APT (i.e., atypical hydrologic conditions/naturally problematic); however, wetland hydrology parameter still met based on presence of surface soil cracks. 80%0%
1 2
50%
0 0
0 0
28 84
0 0
17 85
45 169
3.76 4
Sample point taken near three individual mulefat within area mapped as non-native grassland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
WDP 1
0-7 7.5 YR 4/3 100%N/A N/A N/A N/A Clay loam No evidence of redox observed.
Shovel refusal - compact soils
7 inches
Soil moistened with spray bottle to record soil color. Uniform soil throughout. No hydric soil indicators observed.
4 4
4 4
4 4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Abandoned farm/stock pond that may still collect water during rains but no other wetland hydrology indicators observed beyond soil surface cracks. Did not meet FAC-Neutral Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. 2.
3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Beaumont Summit Station Beaumont 06/07/2021
Exeter Cherry Valley Land, LLC CA WDP 2
Sarah Krejca, Shanti Santulli T2S, R1W, S30
In channel Slightly concave 1-3%
LRR C - Mediterranean California 32.964923 -117.023427 WGS 84 Terrace escarpments None
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 10-foot radius
Sambucus nigra 5%Yes FACU
5%
10-foot radius
Baccharis salicifolia 25%Yes FAC
25%
5-foot radius
Brachypodium distachyon 35%Yes NL/UPL
Bromus diandrus 25%Yes NL/UPL
Hirschfeldia incana 15%No NL/UPL
Marrubium vulgare 5%No FACU
80%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sample point taken within earthen channel. Drought conditions per APT (i.e., atypical hydrologic conditions/naturally problematic); no hydrology indicators observed. However, sampling point within ephemeral channel not anticipated to function as wetland - hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils also not observed. 20%0%
1 4
25%
0 0
0 0
25 75
10 40
75 375
110 490
4.45 4
Sample point taken within area mapped as non-native grassland.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
WDP 2
0-11 10 YR 3/3 100%N/A N/A N/A N/A Loam No evidence of redox observed.
Shovel refusal - compact soils
11 inches
Soil moistened with spray bottle to record soil color. Uniform soil throughout. No hydric soil indicators observed.
4 4
4 4
4 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Did not meet FAC-Neutral Test. No wetland hydrology indicators observed.
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. 2.
3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Beaumont Summit Station Beaumont 06/07/2021
Exeter Cherry Valley Land, LLC CA WDP 3
Sarah Krejca, Shanti Santulli, Ian Hirschler T2S, R1W, S30 In channel Slightly concave 1-2%
LRR C - Mediterranean California 33.962825 -117.022836 WGS 84 Terrace escarpments Riverine
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 N/A
N/A
5-foot radius
Baccharis salicifolia 10%Yes FAC
10%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sample point taken within earthen channel. Drought conditions per APT (i.e., atypical hydrologic conditions/naturally problematic); hydrophytic vegetation parameter still met at sampling point, but no hydric soils or wetland hydrology. Sampling point within ephemeral stream not anticipated to function as wetland despite presence of mulefat (FAC).
97%0%
1 1
100%
4 4
Sample point taken within area mapped as mulefat scrub. Less than 5% herbaceous cover (approximately 3%), therefore, per AW manual, no herb stratum. 5-foot radius plot size used for sapling/shrub stratum to only account for vegetation within area with same soil and hydrologic conditions (i.e., within the channel).
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
WDP 3
0-16 10 YR 4/3 100%N/A N/A N/A N/A Sand No evidence of redox observed.
Shovel refusal - compact soils
16 inches
Soil moistened with spray bottle to record soil color. Uniform soil throughout. No hydric soil indicators observed.
4 4
4 4
4 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Did not meet FAC-Neutral Test. No wetland hydrology indicators observed.
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2.Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 0815
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 1 2 2
Chelsea Polevy, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.968238, -117.025022
Surrounding area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm. Lower topographic area between two gentle slopes, just south of developed road (Cherry Valley Boulevard).
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 1 06/03/2021 0815
Lower topographic area did not exhibit bed and bank indicators; no change in sediment texture or break in slope; vegetation did not differ from lower topographic area to adjacent slopes (dominated by non-native grassland and scrub oak). Data was collected during a drought year; however, historic aerials and previous delineation note consistent conditions.
N/A
Lower topographic area
Gentle slope
Facing west
33.968238, -117.025022
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 1 06/03/2021 0815
N/A
N/A
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 0830
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 2 4 4
Chelsea Polevy, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.967162, -117.025097
Area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; gully/erosional feature adjacent to western site boundary. Highly incised area.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 2 06/03/2021 0830
✔
Gully/erosional feature that exhibited a slight break in bank slope, but did not exhibit a distinctive change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other OHWM indicators. Gully and surrounding upland were both heavily vegetated with non-native grasses.
N/A
Facing downstream
(southwest)
gully/incised area
33.967162, -117.025097
Upland Upland
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 2 06/03/2021 0830
N/A
N/A
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 0915
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 3 8 9
Chelsea Polevy, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.966030, -117.024921
Surrounding area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; north and south leg of feature within lower topographic area adjacent to western site boundary.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 3 06/03/2021 0915
✔
✔
Approximately 6-foot wide OHWM defined by a faint break in slope and change in vegetation cover. Data was taken during a drought year. No distinguishable difference in sediment texture from active floodplain (AF) to upland. More defined bed and bank occurs downstream, but off site.
✔
N/A
Low-flow channel (LF) is indistinguishable/cannot be determined from AF/OHWM. 6' LF/AF/OHWM
Northern leg of
feature; facing
downstream (west)
25' Top of bank
UplandUpland
33.966030, -117.024921
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 3 06/03/2021 0915
✔
Same as OHWM
Medium silt
80 0 0 80
✔
✔
AF defined by faint break in bank slope; AF heavily vegetated with non-native grasses. ✔
Just above AF/OHWM
Medium silt
50 0 0 50
✔
✔
No true low terrace; uplands defined by surface relief. Uplands partially vegetated with non-native grasses.
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/07/2021 0900
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 4 18 19
Shanti Santulli, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.964891, -117.023514
Area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; north and south leg of drainage within lower topographic area adjacent to western site boundary.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 4 06/07/2021 0900
✔
✔
Approximately 4-foot wide OHWM defined by a break in slope and a change in vegetation cover. Data was taken during a drought year; however, indicators still observed and consistent with anticipated extent of OHWM based on review of aerials and site conditions/topography. No distinguishable difference in sediment texture from active floodplain (AF) to upland. ✔
N/A
Low-flow channel (LF) is indistinguishable/cannot be determined from AF/OHWM. 4' LF/AF/OHWM
Facing downstream (west)25' Top of bank
UplandUpland
33.964891, -117.023514
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 4 06/07/2021 0900
✔
Same as OHWM
Coarse silt
30 0 0 30
✔
✔
AF defined by faint break in bank slope; AF sparsely vegetated, becoming less vegetated downstream. Vegetation dominated by non-native grasses, including short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and false brome (Brachypodium distachyon).
✔
Just above AF/OHWM
Coarse silt
65 0 0 65
✔
✔
No true low terrace; uplands defined by surface relief. Uplands dominated by non-native grasses, including short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and false brome (Brachypodium distachyon).
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 1200
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 5 27 28
Chelsea Polevy, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.963128, -117.017059
Area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; drainage feature adjacent to/south of developed concrete slabs near southeast site boundary.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 5 06/03/2021 1200
✔
✔
✔
Approximately 6-foot wide OHWM defined by a break in slope, change in sediment texture, and change in vegetation species. Data was taken during a drought year; however, indicators still observed and consistent with anticipated extent of OHWM based on review of aerials and site conditions/topography. ✔
N/A
Low-flow channel (LF) is indistinguishable/cannot be determined from AF/OHWM. 6' LF/AF/OHWM
Facing upstream
(northeast)
30' Top of bank Upland
33.963128, -117.017059
Upland
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 5 06/03/2021 1200
✔
Same as OHWM
Medium silt with cobbles
80 0 15 65
✔
✔
AF defined by break in bank slope; AF heavily vegetated with non-native grasses, including shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).
✔
Just above AF/OHWM
Medium silt
80 5 10 65
✔
✔
No true low terrace; uplands defined by surface relief. Uplands heavily vegetated with non-native grasses, including shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and also included horehound (Marrubium vulgare) and a black elder (Sambucus nigra).
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 1130
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 6 25 25
Sarah Krejca, Chelsea Polevy
✔
✔
Exeter Cherry Valley Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.962849, -117.017148
Area has been recently mowed; area is undeveloped but site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; swale-like feature within area of non-native grassland ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 6 06/03/2021 1130
Area did not contain clear bed and bank indicators; no change in sediment texture or break in slope; vegetation in swale and adjacent upland area did not differ (both heavily vegetated and dominated by non-native grasses). Data was collected during a drought year; however, historic aerials and previous delineation note consistent conditions.
N/A
Swale
Gentle slope
Gentle slope
33.962849, -117.017148
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 6 06/03/2021 1130
N/A
N/A
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2-, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Beaumont Summit Station 06/03/2021 1415
N/A Beaumont CA
ODP 7 33 34
Chelsea Polevy, Sarah Krejca
✔
✔
Exeter Cherry Valley Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Review Area WGS 84 NAD 83
33.962282, -117.021353
Area receives upstream flows from runoff from developed road (Brookside Avenue) and from culvert that crosses under Brookside Avenue; site was formerly used as a ranch/poultry farm.
Disturbed site formerly used as ranch/poultry farm; large drainage feature in southern portion of site within area mapped as tree of heaven.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing:
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________ Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 7 06/03/2021 1415
✔
✔
✔
✔
Approximately 8-foot wide OHWM primarily defined by a change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species and cover, and faint break in bank slope. Data was collected during a drought year; however, indicators still observed and consistent with anticipated extent of OHWM based on review of aerials and site conditions/topography. ✔
N/A
Low-flow channel (LF) is indistinguishable/cannot be determined from AF/OHWM. 8' LF/AF/OHWM
Facing upstream
(east)
55' Top of bank
UplandUpland
33.962282, -117.021353
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low Terrace/8SOaQG GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Beaumont Summit Station ODP 7 06/03/2021 1415
✔
Same as OHWM
Medium sand
0 0 0 0
✔
✔
AF defined by faint break in bank slope; AF unvegetated. ✔
Just above AF/OHWM
Medium silt
100 10 5 85
✔
✔
✔
No true low terrace; uplands defined by soil development and surface relief; uplands were dominated with non-native grasses and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima).
APPENDIX F
A NTECEDENT P RECIPITATION T OOL OUTPUT
Oct
2020
Nov
2020
Dec
2020
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
May
2021
Jun
2021
Jul
2021
Aug
2021
Sep
2021
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Rainfall (Inches)2021-04-22
2021-03-23
2021-02-21
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2021-04-22 0.279528 1.340945 0.153543 Dry 1 3 3
2021-03-23 1.466535 3.561024 4.992126 Wet 3 2 6
2021-02-21 1.404331 5.958268 2.814961 Normal 2 1 2
Result Normal Conditions - 11
Coordinates 33.965141, -117.019732
Observation Date 2021-04-22
Elevation (ft)2485.7
Drought Index (PDSI)Severe drought
WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent CORONA 12.5 SE 33.7346, -117.4315 1301.837 28.496 1183.863 46.559 149 0 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 3.0 NW 33.9855, -116.5415 1338.911 27.438 1146.789 43.813 1581 0 HOMELAND 1.7 NNE 33.769, -117.0923 2248.032 14.177 237.668 9.749 10 3 IDYLLWILD 1.8 NW 33.7631, -116.735 6325.131 21.488 3839.431 92.171 1557 0 HEMET 4.1 ENE 33.7527, -116.9196 1698.163 15.763 787.537 19.507 1076 87 CORONA 12.8 SE 33.7307, -117.4276 1403.871 28.463 1081.829 43.6 102 0 BIG BEAR LAKE 34.2431, -116.9169 6752.953 20.086 4267.253 94.751 6722 0 ELSINORE 33.6861, -117.3458 1268.045 26.87 1217.655 44.81 135 0 HEMET 33.7381, -116.8939 1811.024 17.269 674.676 19.422 21 0
Nov
2020
Dec
2020
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
May
2021
Jun
2021
Jul
2021
Aug
2021
Sep
2021
Oct
2021
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Rainfall (Inches)2021-06-03
2021-05-04
2021-04-04
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2021-06-03 0.054331 0.403937 0.019685 Dry 1 3 3
2021-05-04 0.170079 1.26063 0.251969 Normal 2 2 4
2021-04-04 0.558661 2.34252 4.80315 Wet 3 1 3
Result Normal Conditions - 10
Coordinates 33.965141, -117.019732
Observation Date 2021-06-03
Elevation (ft)2485.7
Drought Index (PDSI)Extreme drought (2021-05)
WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent CORONA 12.5 SE 33.7346, -117.4315 1301.837 28.496 1183.863 46.559 149 0 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 3.0 NW 33.9855, -116.5415 1338.911 27.438 1146.789 43.813 1581 0 HOMELAND 1.7 NNE 33.769, -117.0923 2248.032 14.177 237.668 9.749 10 3 IDYLLWILD 1.8 NW 33.7631, -116.735 6325.131 21.488 3839.431 92.171 1557 0 HEMET 4.1 ENE 33.7527, -116.9196 1698.163 15.763 787.537 19.507 1076 86 CORONA 12.8 SE 33.7307, -117.4276 1403.871 28.463 1081.829 43.6 102 0 BEAUMONT 2.5 NW 33.9543, -117.012 2532.152 0.87 46.452 0.432 0 1 BIG BEAR LAKE 34.2431, -116.9169 6752.953 20.086 4267.253 94.751 6722 0 ELSINORE 33.6861, -117.3458 1268.045 26.87 1217.655 44.81 135 0 HEMET 33.7381, -116.8939 1811.024 17.269 674.676 19.422 21 0
Nov
2020
Dec
2020
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
May
2021
Jun
2021
Jul
2021
Aug
2021
Sep
2021
Oct
2021
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Rainfall (Inches)2021-06-07
2021-05-08
2021-04-08
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2021-06-07 0.017323 0.124409 0.019685 Normal 2 3 6
2021-05-08 0.314173 1.022047 0.251969 Dry 1 2 2
2021-04-08 0.422441 2.075591 4.80315 Wet 3 1 3
Result Normal Conditions - 11
Coordinates 33.965141, -117.019732
Observation Date 2021-06-07
Elevation (ft)2485.7
Drought Index (PDSI)Extreme drought (2021-05)
WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent CORONA 12.5 SE 33.7346, -117.4315 1301.837 28.496 1183.863 46.559 149 0 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 3.0 NW 33.9855, -116.5415 1338.911 27.438 1146.789 43.813 1581 0 HOMELAND 1.7 NNE 33.769, -117.0923 2248.032 14.177 237.668 9.749 10 3 IDYLLWILD 1.8 NW 33.7631, -116.735 6325.131 21.488 3839.431 92.171 1557 0 HEMET 4.1 ENE 33.7527, -116.9196 1698.163 15.763 787.537 19.507 1076 86 CORONA 12.8 SE 33.7307, -117.4276 1403.871 28.463 1081.829 43.6 102 0 BEAUMONT 2.5 NW 33.9543, -117.012 2532.152 0.87 46.452 0.432 0 1 BIG BEAR LAKE 34.2431, -116.9169 6752.953 20.086 4267.253 94.751 6722 0 ELSINORE 33.6861, -117.3458 1268.045 26.87 1217.655 44.81 135 0 HEMET 33.7381, -116.8939 1811.024 17.269 674.676 19.422 21 0
APPENDIX G
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Appendix G. Site Photographs1
Beaumont Summit Station Aquatic Resources Delineation – April 22, 2021; June 3 and 7, 2021
1 See corresponding Figure 5 series for Photo Point Locations. See Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Sections 6 through 8 for a discussion of each feature.
Photo 1. Looking southwest towards Erosional Feature (EF)-1 (yellow line). Vegetation surrounding EF-1 had been recently mowed. EF-1 exhibited a slight break in bank slope, but did not exhibit a distinctive change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) indicators. (33.968462, -117.024590). June 3, 2021.
Photo 2. View of OHWM Datasheet Point (ODP) 1, facing west, within the lower topographic area between two gentle slopes just west of EF-1. The lower topographic area did not exhibit any bed and bank indicators, there was no break in slope, and the sediment texture and vegetation did not differ from the lower topographic area to the adjacent slopes (33.968296,
-117.024925). June 3, 2021.
Photo 3. View of area of low topography between EF-1 and EF-2, facing southwest (33.967847, -117.024635). June 3, 2021.
Photo 4. View of ODP 2, facing southwest, within EF-2. The gully/erosional feature exhibited a slight break in bank slope but did not exhibit a distinctive change in average sediment texture, change in vegetation species or cover, or any other OHWM indicators, and did not continue downstream (33.967305, -117.025013). June 3, 2021.
Appendix G-2
Photo 5. Overview of area of lower topography located east of EF-2, facing east (33.967002, -117.025087). June 3, 2021.
Photo 6. Overview of area of lower topography located west of Basin (B)-2, facing southwest (33.966258, -117.022864). June 3, 2021.
Photo 7. Overview of Non-Wetland Water (NWW)-1A and NWW-1, facing south. NWW-1A and NWW-1 converge just before
continuing off site and downstream and exhibiting a more defined bed and bank (33.966304, -117.025167). June 3, 2021.
Photo 8. Upstream view of ODP 3, facing southeast, within NWW- 1A. The OHWM was defined by a faint break in bank slope and a change in vegetation cover. NWW-1A and NWW-1 continue
downstream where OHWM indicators become more prominent
(33.966120, -117.025049). June 3, 2021.
NWW-1A
NWW-1
Appendix G-3
Photo 9. Downstream view of ODP 3, facing west, within NWW- 1A. As NWW-1A continues downstream, OHWM indicators
become more prominent (33.966076, -117.024773). June 3, 2021.
Photo 10. Downstream view of NWW-1 from upstream extent, facing west. As NWW-1 continues downstream, OHWM
indicators become more prominent (33.965835, -117.024734).
June 3, 2021.
Photo 11. View of B-1, which contained several mulefat
(Baccharis salicifolia), facing north. B-1 was previously used as a settling basin to hold manure (33.966130, -117.021422). June 3, 2021.
Photo 12. View of B-2, which contained some mulefat and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), facing northeast. B-2 was previously used as a settling basin to hold manure (33.966130,
-117.021422). June 3, 2021.
OHWM
TOB
Appendix G-4
Photo 13. View of B-3, facing south. B-3 was previously used as a settling basin to hold manure (33.965818, -117.021455). June 3, 2021.
Photo 14. View of Wetland Data Form Point (WDP) 1 (white arrow) within small stand of mule fat, facing east, within B-4. WDP 1 met the wetland hydrology parameter; however, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydric soil parameters were not met at WDP 1. B- 4 was previously used as a settling basin to hold manure (33.965370, -117.022221). June 3, 2021.
Photo 15. View of B-5 facing southeast. B-5 was previously used as a settling basin to hold manure (33.965122 -117.021874).
June 3, 2021.
Photo 16. View of area mapped by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) as a “Reservoir,” facing west. No evidence of hydrology was observed (33.965010, -117.021979). June 3, 2021.
Appendix G-5
Photo 17. Downstream view of NWW-2, facing west. (33.965125, -117.022334). June 7, 2021.
Photo 18. Upstream view of ODP 4, facing east, within NWW-2.
The OHWM was defined by a faint break in bank slope and a change in vegetation cover (33.964853, -117.023670). June 7, 2021.
Photo 19. Downstream view of ODP 4, facing west, within NWW-
2. Vegetation was dominated by non-native grasses, including short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and false brome (Brachypodium distachyon)
(33.964874, -117.023356). June 7, 2021.
Photo 20. View of WDP 2 (white arrow), facing west, within NWW-
2. WDP 2 did not meet the hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or wetland hydrology parameters (33.964962, -117.023251). June 7, 2021.
OHWM
O
HWM
Appendix G-6
Photo 21. View of NWW-2A (yellow line), which showed faint indicators of an OHWM, as it continues into NWW-2, facing northwest (33.964876, -117.022516). June 7, 2021.
Photo 22. View of culvert outlets located along the southern extent of the review area under Brookside Avenue, facing south.
Flows from the culvert outlets continue into NWW-3 (33.961603, -117.018517). June 3, 2021.
Photo 23. Downstream view of NWW-3, facing northwest, located just north of the two culvert outlets under Brookside Avenue before NWW-3 converges with NWW-3A (33.961636,
-117.018604). June 3, 2021.
Photo 24. View of EF-4 within the review area, facing west. EF-4 continues west into Swale (S)-1, which ultimately converges with NWW-3A (33.963245, -117.013837). April 22, 2021.
NWW-2
TOB
O
H
W
M
Appendix G-7
Photo 25. View of ODP 6, facing east, within S-1. S-1 did not exhibit any bed and bank indicators, there was no change in sediment texture or break in slope, and vegetation did not differ between the swale and the adjacent upland area (33.962812, -117.017420). June 3, 2021.
Photo 26. View at upstream extent of NWW-3A, facing
southwest, just west of S-2 (33.963458, -117.016526). June 3, 2021.
Photo 27. Upstream view of ODP 5, facing northeast, within NWW-3A. The OHWM was primarily defined by a a break in bank slope, change in average sediment texture, and change in vegetation species (33.963053, -117.017202). June 3, 2021.
Photo 28. Downstream view of ODP 5, facing southwest, within NWW-3A (33.963266, -117.017032). June 3, 2021.
O
HW
M
TOB
OHW
M Page 1431 of 2513
Appendix G-8
Photo 29. View of S-3, facing south, as it travels towards NWW- 3A (33.9632961, -117.018316). April 22, 2021.
Photo 30. Downstream view of NWW-3A, facing southwest
(33.962811, -117.018492). June 3, 2021.
Photo 31. Downstream view of area of NWW-3A exhibiting a faint OHWM, facing west (33.962373, -117.019364). June 3, 2021.
Photo 32. Downstream view of NWW-3, located west of the convergence of NWW-3 and NWW-3A, facing southwest
(33.962054, -117.02037). June 3, 2021.
Appendix G-9
Photo 33. Upstream view of ODP 7, facing east, within NWW-3.
The OHWM was primarily defined by a change in average
sediment texture, change in vegetation species and cover, and faint break in bank slope (33.962257, -117.021513).
Photo 34. Downstream view of ODP 7, facing west, within NWW- 3 (33.962335, -117.021187). June 3, 2021.
Photo 35. View of WDP 3, facing north, within NWW-3. WDP 3 met the hydrophytic vegetation parameter; however, hydric soil and wetland hydrology parameters were not met within WDP 3 (33.962696, -117.022892). June 7, 2021.
Photo 36. View of EF-6 (yellow line), facing northwest, which travels into area with some mulefat and tree tobacco, just east of NWW-3B. EF-6 did not appear to contribute flows to NWW-3B (33.963667, -117.020341). June 3, 2021.
O
HWM
OHW
M Page 1433 of 2513
Appendix G-10
Photo 37. View of EF-7 (yellow arrow), just south of EF-6, facing south/southwest. EF-7 converges with EF-8 (white arrow), neither of which appeared to contribute flows to NWW-3B (33.963581, -117.020494). June 3, 2021.
Photo 38. Looking downstream from the south side of the upstream extent of NWW-3B, facing northwest (33.963553, -117.021142). June 3, 2021.
Photo 39. View of D-1, facing east (33.965103, -117.019365).
April 22, 2021.
Photo 40. View of area where D-1 abruptly stops, facing south.
Flows likely continue as sheet flow into S-5, before continuing into NWW-3B1 (33.964824, -117.020845). June 3, 2021.
Appendix G-11
Photo 41. View of NWW-3B1, facing south. Flows continue south/southwest into NWW-3B (white arrow) (33.964550,
-117.021793). June 3, 2021.
Photo 42. Downstream view of NWW-3B, facing west
(33.963775, -117.022856). April 22, 2021.
Photo 43. Downstream view of the convergence of NWW-3 and NWW-3B, facing west, before NWW-3 continues off site
(33.963316, -117.023726). June 3, 2021.
Photo 44. View of slight depressional area surrounded by mulefat scrub, located south of NWW-3B, facing west. No evidence of hydrology was observed (33.963283, -117.021269). June 3, 2021.
NWW-3 NWW-3B
NWW-3B
Appendix G-12
Photo 45. East facing view of area mapped by USGS NHD as a “Reservoir” and where a basin was previously located east of EF-
8. No evidence of hydrology was observed (33.963493,
-117.020227). June 3, 2021.
Photo 46. Southeast facing view of area where a basin was previously located west of S-3. No evidence of hydrology was observed (33.963274, -117.019648). June 3, 2021.
APPENDIX H
LITERATURE CITATIONS AND REFERENCES
APPENDIX H. LITERATURE CITATIONS AND REFERENCES
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T. J. Rosatti (eds). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1400 pp.
California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC). 1994. Fish and Game Commission Comment to the Department of Fish and Game on the Wetland Policy Implementation Proposal.
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. April 6.
Dudek & Associates, Inc. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). June 17.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. with Appendices.
Google Earth Pro V 7.3.3.7786. 2021. Riverside County, California. 33°57'57.55"N, 117°01'05.89"W. Eye alt 4273 feet. Image Google. Last accessed October 2021.
Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Unpublished document, California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, CA.
Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2019. Jepson eFlora. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ Michael Brandman Associates. 2004. Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Sunny- Cal Specific Plan Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. August.
Michael Brandman Associates. 2006. Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Sunny- Cal Specific Plan, Annexation, And Sphere of Influence Amendment, SCH# 2004121092. May.
Munsell Color. 2015. Munsell Soil-Color Charts with Genuine Munsell Color Chips, 2009 Year Revised. Grand Rapids, MI.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2020. National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Drought for May 2021. Last accessed May 2021. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). No date - a. Soil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soils List. Last accessed May 2021.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.html Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). No date - b. Hydric Soils Overview. Last accessed May 2021.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_05 3985
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System (AgACIS) Database. Monthly Total Precipitation for Beaumont 2.5 NW, CA 2020 - 2021. Last accessed May 2021. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=06065 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018a. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 8.2.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018b. Official Soil Series Descriptions (Online). San Diego County, California. Version 10, Sep 13, 2018. Last accessed May 2021. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.aspx .
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 2022. Comment Letter on Draft Environmental Impact Report, Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Project, Tract Map No. 36583, City of Beaumont, SCH No. 2021090378. Received by Christina Taylor, City of Beaumont. May 12.
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 2019. Santa Ana River Basin Plan. Last accessed May 2021.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 1986. Index to Map of the Santa Ana Hydrologic Basin Planning Area. Last accessed May 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/sbp ermit/forms/region8_hydrologic_areas.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2020. Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT) - v1.0.19.
Last accessed June 2021. https://github.com/jDeters-USACE/Antecedent-Precipitation- Tool/releases/tag/v1.0.19
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2018. Arid West 2018 Regional Wetland Plant List.
National Wetland Plant List, version 3.4. Last accessed May 2021. http://wetland- plants.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/data/DOC/lists_2018/Regions/pdf/reg_AW_2018v1.p df
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2017. USACE Los Angeles District’s Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2016. Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program. February 10.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. K.E. Curtis and R.W. Lichvar. EDRC/CRREL TN-10-1. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States, A Delineation Manual. R.W. Lichvar, and S.M. McColley. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12.
Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008b. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Eds. J.S. Wakely, R.W.
Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2000. Accessing and using meteorological data to evaluate wetland hydrology. Sprecher, S.W., and A.G. Warne. ERDC TR-WRAP-00-1.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1971. Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. December.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Last accessed May 2021. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. The National Map, Advanced Viewer. U.S. Department of Interior. Last accessed May 2021. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/ University of California – Santa Barbara (UCSB). No date. Aerial Photography Collection. (1938 – 1977). Last accessed June 2021. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/
APPENDIX I
ORM BULK UPLOAD AQUATIC RESOURCES OR
CONSOLIDATED EXCEL SPREADSHEET
Waters_Name State Cowardin_Code HGM_Code Meas_Type Amount Units Waters_Type Latitude Longitude NWW-1 CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.018 ACRE DELINEATE 33.965908 -117.025153 NWW-1A CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.021 ACRE DELINEATE 33.966006 -117.025084 NWW-2 CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.087 ACRE DELINEATE 33.964929 -117.023925 NWW-2A CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.004 ACRE DELINEATE 33.964977 -117.022656 NWW-2B CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.012 ACRE DELINEATE 33.965185 -117.022994 NWW-2C CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.007 ACRE DELINEATE 33.964845 -117.023224 NWW-3 CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.385 ACRE DELINEATE 33.962391 -117.021747 NWW-3A CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.146 ACRE DELINEATE 33.962760 -117.018132 NWW-3B CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.117 ACRE DELINEATE 33.963540 -117.022834 NWW-3B1 CALIFORNIA R6 Area 0.0301001 ACRE DELINEATE 33.964055 -117.021934
APPENDIX J
GIS DATA (PROVIDED ELECTRONICALLY TO AGENCIES)
Appendix B
Beaumont Summit Station Project
burrowing owl survey Report
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT
PROTOCOL PRESENCE/ABSENCE 2021
SURVEY REPORT FOR BURROWING OWL
(Athene cunicularia)
Riverside County, California
October 5, 2021
Prepared for:
EQT Exeter
8621 East Whitton Avenue
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
(708) 341-9821
Prepared by:
Rocks Biological Consulting
4312 Rialto St,
San Diego, CA 92107
(619) 701-6798
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING i
Table of Contents
1 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Project Location & Proposed Activity .............................................................................. 1
2.2 Burrowing Owl Natural History ........................................................................................ 1 3 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 2 4 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Existing conditions & Habitat Assessment ....................................................................... 3
4.2 Burrowing Owl Survey Results ........................................................................................ 3 5 Burrowing Owl Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 4 6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 4 7 References ............................................................................................................................... 5 TABLES
Table 1. Burrowing Owl Survey Dates and Conditions ................................................................... 3
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Survey Area
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Site Photographs
Appendix B – Bird Species Observed During Burrowing Owl Focused Surveys
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 1
1 Summary
This report is a summary of focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) surveys Rocks Biological Consulting (RBC) conducted for the Beaumont Summit Station Project (project) in the City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. The project is located within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Burrowing Owl Survey Area (RCA 2021).
RBC conducted a habitat assessment for BUOW on April 22, 2021 in accordance with the Western Riverside MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (RCA 2006.
Based on the presence of suitable habitat, RBC conducted breeding season BUOW surveys between May 12, 2021 and July 6, 2021 in accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (RCA 2006 and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). No BUOW, active burrows, or sign were documented within the survey area. 2 Introduction
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION & PROPOSED ACTIVITY
The project is in the northwestern portion of the City of Beaumont, California (Figure 1). The project site is approximately 191 acres, located south of Cherry Valley Boulevard, north of Brookside Avenue, and east of Interstate 10 (I-10). The project would amend the approved Sunny-Cal Specific Plan (2007) and would include development of the site for an e-commerce center, commercial development, open space (parks/trails and buffer), and roads. Development start time will be dependent on processing time but is scheduled to begin in fall 2022 with an estimated construction time of approximately one year.
2.2 BURROWING OWL NATURAL HISTORY
Within California, BUOW is listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a Species of Special Concern (SSC). Suitable habitat for BUOW is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle topography, and well-drained soils, such as naturally occurring grassland, shrub steppe, and desert habitats (Haug et al. 1993). Additionally, BUOW may occur in agricultural areas, ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots and pastures containing suitable vegetation structure and useable burrows and foraging habitat in proximity (Gervais et al. 2008).
Typically, BUOW use burrows that have been dug by other species, termed host burrowers. In California, BUOW frequently use burrows dug by California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and round-tailed ground squirrel (Citellus tereticaudus) and dens or holes dug by other fossorial species, including badger (Taxidea taxus), coyote (Canis latrans), and fox (e.g., San Joaquin kit fox [Vulpes macrotis mutica]) (Ronan 2002). In addition, BUOW also frequently use natural rock cavities, debris piles, culverts, and pipes for nesting and roosting (Rosenberg et al. 1998) and have been documented using artificial burrows for nesting and cover (Belthoff and Smith 2003). Occupancy of burrowing owl habitat is confirmed at a site when at least one burrowing owl, or its sign at or near a burrow entrance, is observed within the last three years (Rich 1984).
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 2
3 Methods
RBC biologists conducted a habitat assessment for BUOW on April 22, 2021 in accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (RCA 2006). Based on the presence of suitable habitat on-site, RBC avian biologists Ian Hirschler and Chris Thomson conducted focused burrow surveys and focused breeding season BUOW surveys between May 12 and July 6, 2021 in accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (RCA 2006) and the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). Mr.
Hirschler is a wildlife biologist with over six years of professional experience and a Bachelor of Science degree in field and wildlife biology. Mr. Thomson is a wildlife biologist with over three years of professional experience and a Bachelor of Science degree in environmental science with a focus on ornithology. Both biologists have extensive experience performing burrowing owl surveys.
The survey area included the project site, as well as all suitable habitat within a 500-foot buffer per CDFW guidance (Figure 2). Survey timing followed MSHCP Instructions which calls for focused burrowing owl surveys consisting of site visits on four separate days; however, survey methodologies followed those presented in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012).
Two visits were required for each survey ‘pass’ due to the size of the site and survey timing restrictions. During each survey, RBC avian biologists walked through suitable BUOW habitat within the survey area via straight-line transects spaced 10 meters (m) to 30 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density, and used binoculars to scan the survey area at least every 100 m for BUOW, active burrows, and/or sign of BUOW. No calls were used. Care was taken to minimize disturbance near suitable burrows to avoid flushing any burrowing owls. All observed burrows were examined for sign, including feathers, pellets, whitewash, and prey remains. Burrows were considered active if a BUOW was observed at or near the entrance or if recent sign was present.
All BUOW, active burrows, and BUOW sign were mapped in the geographic information system (GIS) program ArcGIS Collector. Survey dates, times, and weather conditions are presented in Table 1, below. Climatic and temporal conditions did not affect BUOW detection or survey scope.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 3
Table 1. Burrowing Owl Survey Dates and Conditions
Survey
Number Date Surveyor(s)
Time
(Start;
End)
Temp
(F)
(Start; End)
Cloud
Cover
(%)
(Start; End)
Wind
Range
(mph)
(Start; End)
Precip.
(Start; End)
Visibility
(Lo, Med, High)
(Start; End)
1 (dusk) 5/12/21 I. Hirschler,
C. Thomson
1730-
1930 81-70 0-0 3-7; 3-7 0-0 High; High
1 (dawn) 5/13/21 I. Hirschler,
C. Thomson
0715-
0930 60-70 0-0 0-2; 1-4 0-0 High; High
2 (dusk) 6/6/21 I. Hirschler,
C. Thomson
1730-
1945 77-67 0-0 5-8; 5-8 0-0 High; High
2 (dawn) 6/7/21 I. Hirschler,
C. Thomson
0730-
1000 52-75 100-100 0-2; 1-3 0-0 High; High
3 (dusk) 6/23/21 I. Hirschler 1745-
1930 76-74 80-60 2-5; 0-2 0-0 High; High
3 (dawn) 6/24/21 I. Hirschler 0715-
1000 64-69 15-5 0-2; 0-2 0-0 High; High
4 (dusk) 7/5/21 I. Hirschler,
H. Swarthout1
1715-
1945 88-82 0-0 0-2; 1-4 0-0 High; High
4 (dawn) 7/6/21 I. Hirschler 1715-
1945 88-82 0-0 0-2; 1-4 0-0 High; High
1Hannah Swarthout participated in survey 4 (dusk) as a trainee 4 Results
4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS & HABITAT ASSESSMENT
The project site is composed primarily of non-native grassland dominated by red brome (Bromus rubens) and goldentop grass (Lamarckia aurea) as well as developed land. The developed land on- site consists of multiple concrete foundations and several abandoned outbuildings that supported former poultry and egg farm operations. The project site also supports several canyons and drainages composed of non-native grassland, mulefat thickets, non-native riparian habitat and Riversidian sage scrub.
During the initial BUOW habitat assessment, most of the survey area was determined to be suitable BUOW habitat based on the presence of open grassland and several observations of California ground squirrel activity at suitable burrows throughout the project site. Photographs of site conditions are presented in Appendix A.
4.2 BURROWING OWL SURVEY RESULTS
RBC conducted four focused BUOW surveys during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) between May 12, 2021 and July 6, 2021. No BUOW, sign, or active burrows were observed during focused surveys.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4
No evidence of owl predation was observed; however, common predators in the area include coyote, gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Additionally, 34 bird species were observed during protocol surveys as listed in Appendix B. 5 Burrowing Owl Mitigation
Pursuant to the MSHCP, all project sites containing burrows or suitable habitat require pre- construction surveys (RCA 2006). The pre-construction surveys will be conducted in accordance with MSHCP Objective 6 for BUOW. As such, the following minimization and avoidance measure is required in order to avoid direct impacts on BUOW:
A qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls within 30 days prior to site disturbance. If burrowing owls are documented on site, the owls will be relocated/excluded from the site outside of the breeding season following accepted protocols, as specified in the MSHCP. 6 Conclusions
No BUOW, active burrows, or BUOW sign were documented within the project site during the focused BUOW surveys conducted between May 12, 2021 and July 6, 2021. However, due to the presence of suitable habitat on site and the potential for future occupation of the site, pre- construction surveys will be required to avoid potential direct impacts on BUOW resulting from the project in conformance with the MSHCP.
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT BURROWING OWL SURVEY REPORT
ROCKS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 5
7 References
Belthoff, J.R. and B.W. Smith. 2003. Patterns of artificial burrow occupancy and reuse by burrowing owls in Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin, pp.138-144.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly California Department of Fish and Game). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843 .
Gervais, J.A., D.K. Rosenberg, and L.A. Comrack. 2008. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) in Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.
Haug, E.A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in A. Poole and F.
Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA.
Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring burrowing owl populations: implications of burrow re-use. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12: 178-189.
Ronan, N.A. 2002. Habitat selection, reproductive success, and site fidelity of burrowing owls in a grassland ecosystem. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Rosenberg, D.K., J.A. Gervais, H. Ober, and D.F. DeSante. 1998. An adaptive management plan for the burrowing owl population at Naval Air Station Lemoore, California, USA. Publication 95, Institute for Bird Populations, P.O. Box 1346, Pt. Reyes Station, CA 94956.
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Information obtained from http://www . rctlma. org/mshcp/volume1/index.html Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. 2021. WRC Information Tool Map. Accessed April 2021. https://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index . html?id=a73e69d2a64d41c29ebd3acd67467abd
?z
Cherry Valley Blvd
Brookside Ave
!"`$
Champions Dr
Oak Valley Pkwy Hannon RdUnion StProject Boundary
ROCKS
BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Figure
1 0 1,000 2,000
Feet N
Project Site
?z
%&h(
!"`$
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Aerial Photo: Maxar, Esri 2018Regional Map: National Geographic, Esri 2012 Project Location
Cherry Valley BlvdBrookside Ave!"`$Morgan Ave
N Deodar Dr
Project BoundarySurvey AreaROCKSBIOLOGICAL CONSULTINGFigure20200400FeetNSurvey AreaBEAUMONT SUMMIT STATIONAerial Photo: Nearmap 2021Page 1453 of 2513
APPENDIX A
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Appendix A
Site Photographs
Appendix A-1
Photo 1. Overview of project site from the western site boundary, showing drainages running through non-native grassland, facing northeast on April 22, 2021.
Photo 2. View of non-native grassland in the western portion of the project site, showing oaks and drainages containing mulefat, facing west on April 22, 2021.
Appendix A-2
Photo 3. View of non-native grassland within central portion of the project, facing east on April 22, 2021.
Photo 4. Picture of concrete pads within the central portion of the project, facing south on April 22, 2021.
Appendix A-3
Photo 5. Representative photos from April 22, 2021 of the non-native riparian (Ailanthus altissima) within the drainages in the southwestern portion of the site; stands have a height of up to approximately 25 feet.
Photo 6. South-facing view of mulefat scrub within the drainages in the southwestern portion of the site, facing west on May 27, 2021.
Appendix A-4
Photo 7. Representative picture of the drainages within the southwestern portion of the project site, facing east on April 22, 2021.
Photo 8. Representative picture of the drainages within the southwestern portion of the project site, facing north on April 22, 2021.
Appendix A-5
Photo 9. Representative photo of the small-mammal burrows throughout the non-native grassland within the survey area.
Photo 10. Representative photo of the adjacent chamise chaparral habitat northwest of project boundary on July 20, 2021.
APPENDIX B
BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED DURING FOCUSED
BURROWING OWL SURVEYS
Appendix B
Bird Species Observed During Burrowing Owl Focused Surveys
Family Common Name Scientific Name
Accipitridae red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Alaudidae horned lark Eremophila alpestris
Charadriidae killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Columbidae rock pigeon Columba livia
Columbidae Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Columbidae mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Corvidae American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvidae common raven Corvus corax
Falconidae American kestrel Falco sparverius
Fringillidae house finch Haemorhous mexicanus
Fringillidae Lawrence's goldfinch Spinus lawrencei
Fringillidae lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Hirundinidae barn swallow Hirundo rustics
Hirundinidae cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Hirundinidae northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Icteridae Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus
Icteridae Bullock's oriole Icterus bullockii
Icteridae hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus
Icteridae western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta
Mimidae northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Passerellidae lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus
Passerellidae song sparrow Melospiza melodia
Passerellidae California towhee Melozone crissalis
Passeridae house sparrow Passer domesticus
Picidae Nuttall's woodpecker Dryobates nuttallii
Ptiliogonatidae phainopepla Phainopepla nitens
Sturnidae European starling Sturnus vulgaris
Trochilidae Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Troglodytidae Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii
Turdidae western bluebird Sialia mexicana
Tyrannidae black phoebe Sayornis nigricans
Tyrannidae Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya
Tyrannidae western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis
Tyrannidae Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans
Beaumont Summit Station Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Beaumont July 2022
Appendix K: Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic Study
for
Beaumont Summit Station Project
In the City of Beaumont
Prepared for:
The City of Beaumont
June 2022
TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR THE
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT
IN THE
CITY OF BEAUMONT
Prepared for:
The City of Beaumont
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, CA 92868
June 2022
TRAFFIC STUDY
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 4 Analysis Scenarios ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Intersection Analysis – HCM Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 4 Performance Criteria .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Significance Thresholds .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 AREA CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Study Area ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Roadway System........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 12 Peak Hour Intersection Operations..................................................................................................................................... 12 PROJECT TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 Trip Distribution and Assignment ....................................................................................................................................... 16 OPENING YEAR 2024 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 25 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Peak Hour Intersection Operation ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Opening Year 2024 Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions .......................................... 32 OPENING YEAR 2027 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 35 Peak Hour Intersection Operation ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Opening Year 2027 Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) Conditions ........................... 38 FUTURE HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 41 Horizon Year 2040 Forecasts ................................................................................................................................................ 41 Horizon Year 2040 Operating Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 41 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS........................................................................................................................................... 47 I-10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE ....................................................................................................... 49 SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................................... 49 SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................... 50 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 56
APPENDICES
Appendix A Scoping Agreement
Appendix B Existing Peak Hour Traffic Data Collection Sheets Appendix C PCE Worksheets
Appendix D Intersection Analysis Worksheets
Appendix E RivTAM Model Plots and B-Turns Worksheets
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 – Project Site Plan.............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 – Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Control .............................................................................................. 7 Figure 4 – Existing Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5 – Passenger Car Trip Distribution ........................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6 – Truck Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 7 – Project-Related Traffic Volumes (Phase 1)...................................................................................................... 19 Figure 8 – Project-Related Traffic Volumes (Phases 1 and 2) ....................................................................................... 22 Figure 9 – Location of Cumulative Projects ........................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 10 – Cumulative Project Volumes ............................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 11 – Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... 30 Figure 12 – Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project (Phase 1) Traffic Volumes ......................................... 33 Figure 13 – Opening Year 2027 Cumulative Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... 36 Figure 14 – Opening Year 2027 Cumulative Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) Traffic Volumes .......................... 39 Figure 15 – Horizon Year 2040 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................. 42 Figure 16 – Horizon Year 2040 Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) Traffic Volumes ................................................... 45
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Summary of Intersection Operation – Existing Conditions ........................................................................ 13 Table 2 – Summary of Project Trip Generation – Phase 1............................................................................................... 14 Table 3 – Summary of Project Trip Generation – Phases 1 and 2 ................................................................................ 15 Table 4 – Summary of Cumulative Project Trip Generation .......................................................................................... 26 Table 5 – Summary of Intersection Operation – Opening Year 2024 Conditions ................................................. 31 Table 6 – Summary of Intersection Operation – Opening Year 2024 Plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions .. 34 Table 7 – Summary of Intersection Operation – Opening Year 2027 Conditions ................................................. 37 Table 8 – Summary of Intersection Operation – Opening Year 2027 Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) Conditions ................................................................................................................................................................................. 40 Table 9 – Summary of Intersection Operation – Horizon Year 2040 Conditions.................................................. 43 Table 10 – Summary of Intersection Operation – Horizon Year 2040 Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) ......... 46 Table 11 – Summary of Intersection Operation – With Recommended Improvements .................................... 51 Table 12 – Summary of Recommended Improvements in TUMF Program............................................................. 52 Table 13 – Summary of Project Fair Share for Recommended Improvements – Opening Year 2024 ......... 53 Table 14 – Summary of Project Fair Share for Recommended Improvements – Opening Year 2027 ......... 54 Table 15 – Summary of Project Fair Share for Recommended Improvements – Horizon Year 2040.......... 55
Beaumont Summit Station - 1 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR THE PROPOSED
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT
INTRODUCTION
This traffic study has been prepared to evaluate the project-related traffic effects associated with the proposed Beaumont Summit Station project in the City of Beaumont.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located in the northwestern area of the City of Beaumont, immediately east of the Interstate 10 (I-10) Freeway. A project vicinity map is provided on Figure 1. The site is bounded by Cherry Valley Boulevard to the north, the I-10 Freeway to the west, Brookside Avenue to the south and generally vacant land to the east. Based on the City of Beaumont General Plan, the project site is currently zoned as single-family residential, but is currently vacant. The Project site is comprised of nine vacant parcels.
The Project site is divided into five parcels and will be developed in two phases. Phase 1 will include Parcels 1, 2, and 3 designated for industrial uses. These parcels are proposed to be developed with three separate industrial warehouse buildings, as follows:
·Building 1: 985, 860 square-foot (SF) high-cube short-term storage building ·Building 2: 1,213,235 SF high-cube short-term storage building ·Building 3: 358,370 SF general warehouse
The Project proposed to amend the existing zoning from Single-Family Residential to Light Industrial for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 to allow for industrial uses. Phase 1 of construction is anticipated to begin the second quarter of 2023 and conclude in the third quarter of 2024.
Parcel 4 will be developed as part of Phase 2 and would include the development of Commercial uses, as follows:
·Four-story hotel: 220 rooms
·Shopping center: 25,000 SF
·High-turnover (sit-down) restaurant: 15,000 SF
·Fast-food restaurant with drive-throughs: 10,000 SF
Phase 2 of the Project is anticipated to begin early 2026 and finish mid to late 2027. A copy of the project site plan is provided on Figure 2. Project access would consist of three driveways along Cherry Valley Boulevard. The west and middle project driveways would be signalized and the east project driveway would be an unsignalized right-in-right-out (RIRO) only driveway.
60C
ALIFORNIA79C
ALI
FORNIAINTERSTATE104TH STREETOAK VALLEY PKWYCHERRY VALLEY BLVDBROOKSIDE AVEO A
K
V
I
E
W
D
R
CHERRY AVEN HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVECHAMPIONS DROAK VALLEY PKWYBEAUMONT AVE1ST ST6TH ST8TH STCALIFORNIA AVEELM AVEPOTRERO BLVDVEILE AVEINTERSTATE10DESERT LAWN DRProject SiteLEGEND:= Study Intersection- 2 -Page 1470 of 2513
- 3 -Page 1471 of 2513
Beaumont Summit Station - 4 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS AND METHODOLOGY
Analysis Scenarios
This traffic analysis will provide an evaluation of weekday morning and evening peak hour operations for the following scenarios:
·Existing Conditions
·Opening Year 2024 Cumulative
·Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project (Phase 1)
·Opening Year 2027 Cumulative
·Opening Year 2027 Cumulative Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) ·Horizon Year 2040
·Horizon Year 2040 Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2)
Intersection Analysis – HCM Methodology
The City of Beaumont follows the County of Riverside traffic study procedures (Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled – 2020). Peak hour intersection operations are evaluated using the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 6 th Edition), consistent with the requirements of the City of Beaumont and the County of Riverside. The intersection analysis was conducted using the Vistro software program and using the specified input parameters required by the City.
Per the HCM Methodology, Level of Service (LOS) for signalized intersections is defined in terms of average control delay per vehicle during the peak hours. The average control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, and final acceleration time in addition to the stop delay. The charts on page 5 provide a description of the operating characteristics of each Level of Service and average seconds of delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Beaumont Summit Station - 5 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of
Service Description
A
No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication.
Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.
B
This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized, and a substantial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles.
C
This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted but not objectionably so.
D
This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction, approaching instability at the intersection.
Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups.
E
Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand.
F
This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero.
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of
Service
Signalized Intersection
(Average delay per vehicle,
in seconds) 1
Unsignalized Intersections
(Average delay per vehicle,
in seconds) 2
A 10 – 20 > 10 – 15
C > 20 – 35 > 15 – 25
D > 35 – 55 > 25 – 35
E > 55 – 80 > 35 – 50
F > 80 > 50
1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 6th Edition), Exhibit 18-4. 2 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 6th Edition), Exhibits 19-1 and 20-2.
Beaumont Summit Station - 6 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 Performance Criteria
The City of Beaumont General Plan states that Level of Service “D” is considered acceptable during the peak hours.
Significance Thresholds
A project -related traffic effect would be considered to be significant when the project traffic, when added to existing traffic, causes the Level of Service to deteriorate to below the target Level of Service, and effects cannot be mitigated through project conditions of approval. A cumulative effect would occur when cumulative traffic (existing plus ambient growth plus Cumulative Projects plus project traffic) exceeds the target Level of Service, and effects cannot be mitigated through the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) network, project conditions of approval, or other implementation mechanisms.
AREA CONDITIONS
Study Area
This traffic study includes documentation of existing conditions, future conditions, and identification of project-related deficiencies at the following study intersections:
1.I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard
2.I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard
3.Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard
4.Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard
5.Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard
6.Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard
7.Beaumont Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard
8.Hannon Road at Brookside Avenue
9.Union Street at Brookside Avenue
10.Oak View Drive at Brookside Avenue
11.Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue
12.Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway
13.I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway
14.I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway
15.Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway
16.Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway
D1. Cherry Valley Boulevard at West Driveway
D2. Cherry Valley Boulevard at Middle Driveway
D3. Cherry Valley Boulevard at East Driveway
The study locations were established in consultation with City of Beaumont staff through the Scoping Letter Agreement process. A copy of the approved Scoping Agreement is provided in Appendix A.
The study intersection locations and their existing lane configurations are shown on Figure 3.
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
- 7 -
LEGEND:
= Turn or Through Lane
= Signal
= Stop Sign
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
= Study Intersection
D = Defacto Right Turn
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
Project Site
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
D
D
Beaumont Summit Station - 8 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Existing Roadway System
Regional vehicular access to the site is provided by the SR-60 and I-10 Freeways. The I-10 Freeway is an east-west freeway, located immediately west of the project site. The I-10 Freeway provides three travel lanes in each direction and connects directly to SR-79 (Beaumont Avenue) and SR-60.
SR-60 is an east-west freeway located approximately 2.15 miles south of the project site. SR-60 provides two travel lanes in each direction. Southeast of the project site, SR-60 merges into the I-10 Freeway.
Local access to the project vicinity is provided by surrounding arterial and commuter roadways.
Cherry Valley Boulevard is an east-west undivided roadway that is immediately north of the project site and currently provides one travel lane in each direction. Cherry Valley Boulevard is shown as a Secondary Street in the Riverside County Circulation Element of the General Plan (Circulation Element). On-street parking is prohibited, and bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway.
Cherry Valley Boulevard connects to the I-10 Freeway that is approximately one-half mile from the project site.
Brookside Avenue is an east-west divided roadway located immediately south of the project site and currently provides one travel lane in each direction. Brookside Avenue is shown as a Secondary Street on the City of Beaumont Circulation Element. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway, and there are no bike lanes provided.
Oak Valley Parkway is an east-west undivided roadway that currently provides two travel lanes in each direction. Oak Valley Parkway is shown as an Urban Arterial east of Potrero Boulevard on the City of Beaumont Circulation Element. On-street parking is prohibited, and bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway.
Beaumont Avenue (SR-79) is north-south undivided roadway that currently provides one travel lane in each direction north of Oak Valley Parkway and two lane in each direction south of Oak Valley Parkway. Beaumont Avenue is shown as an Industrial Collector on the City of Beaumont Circulation Element. On-street parking is prohibited, and bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway.
Calimesa Boulevard is a north-south undivided roadway that currently provides one travel lane in each direction. Calimesa Boulevard is shown as a Secondary Street on the City of Beaumont Circulation Element. On-street parking is prohibited, and bike lanes are provided on the east side of the roadway.
Hannon Road is a north-south undivided roadway that provides one lane in each direction. Hannon Road is shown as a Local Street on the City of Beaumont Circulation Element. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway, and no bike lanes are provided.
Beaumont Summit Station - 9 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 Union Street is a north-south undivided roadway that provides one lane in each direction. Union Street is shown as a Local Street on the City of Beaumont Circulation Element. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway, and no bike lanes are provided.
Nancy Avenue is a north-south undivided roadway that provides one lane in each direction. Nancy Avenue is shown as a Local Street on the City of Beaumont Circulation Element. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides, and no bike lanes are provided.
Oak View Drive is a north-south undivided roadway that currently provides one travel lane in each direction. Oak View Drive is shown as an Industrial Collector on the City of Beaumont Circulation Element. On-street parking is prohibited, and bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway.
Desert Lawn Drive is a north-south undivided roadway that currently provides one travel lane in each direction. Desert Lawn Drive is shown as an Urban Arterial on the City of Beaumont Circulation Element. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway, and no bike lanes are provided.
Existing Transit Service
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 the I-10 Freeway. This shopping center is a transfer point for the PASS Banning lines, as well as the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) and the Sunline Transit Agency lines.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Due to the closure of schools and businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, modifications to typical traffic count protocol have been used. Historical counts from 2017 were available for the following intersections:
1.I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard
2.I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard
3.Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard
5.Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard
6.Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard
7.Beaumont Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard
An ambient annual growth rate of two (2) percent per year was applied to the above study intersections to develop existing year 2021 volumes.
Beaumont Summit Station - 10 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 New traffic counts were collected during the morning (7-9 AM) and evening (4-6 PM) peak periods in May 2021, for all study intersections.
Based on a comparison of historical and new traffic count data, a COVID adjustment factor of 32% was applied to new traffic counts during the AM peak hour at the study intersections. In the PM peak hour, the new traffic counts were higher than the historical traffic counts grown to 2021. Therefore, the new 2021 counts were used for the study intersections in the PM peak hour.
Copies of the traffic count data worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
The intersection count data included vehicle classifications for passenger vehicles and trucks. Vehicle classifications are necessary to compute Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) volumes, which are used in the traffic analysis to address the effects of truck traffic on intersection operation.
The PCE volumes were developed by applying a PCE factor of 1.5 for 2-axle trucks, 2.0 for 3-axle trucks, and 3.0 for trucks with 4 or more axles. PCE volume worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
Existing morning and evening peak hour volumes with the PCE factors applied are presented on Figure 4.
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 11 -
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
Beaumont Summit Station - 12 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATING CONDITIONS
Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Intersection Level of Service analysis was conducted for the morning and evening peak hours using the analysis procedures and assumptions described previously in this report. Intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D. The results of the intersection analysis for Existing Conditions are shown on Table 1. Review of this table indicates that all study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service in both peak hours with the following exception:
·#1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS E, PM: LOS F ·#2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F ·#14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F
PROJECT TRAFFIC
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the project are based on daily and peak hour trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11 th Edition) for the following uses:
·ITE Land Use 154: High-Cube Short-Term Storage
·ITE Land Use 150: Warehousing
·ITE Land Use 310: Hotel
·ITE Land Use 822: Strip Retail Plaza (<40k)
·ITE Land Use 932: High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant
·ITE Land Use 934: Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-Through Passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors were applied to the Project truck trips to determine the total PCE trips to be generated by the project.
Trip generation rates and the resulting project PCE trips for Phase 1 of the project are summarized on Table 2. Review of this table indicates that the Project is forecasted to generate 4,667 daily PCE trips on a weekday, with 303 PCE trips during the morning peak hour (233 inbound and 70 outbound) and 362 PCE trips (102 inbound and 260 outbound) during the evening peak hour.
Trip generation rates and the resulting project PCE trips for Phases 1 and 2 of the project are summarized on Table 3. Review of this table indicates that the Project is forecasted to generate 13,152 daily PCE trips on a weekday, with 835 PCE trips during the morning peak hour (520 inbound and 315 outbound) and 832 PCE trips (349 inbound and 483 outbound) during the evening peak hour. Further breakdown of project trip generation and PCE trips can be found in Appendix A.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Int. # Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 42.5 E 82.6 F 2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 67.6 F 22.2 C 3 Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 17.4 C 20.7 C 4 Cherry Valley Boulevard at Hannon Road U 15.4 C 16.3 C 5 Cherry Valley Boulevard at Union Street U 9.8 A 11.0 B 6 Cherry Valley Boulevard at Nancy Avenue U 10.2 B 11.0 B 7 Cherry Valley Boulevard at Beaumont Avenue S 23.4 C 26.3 C 8 Brookside Avenue at Hannon Road U 11.0 B 11.9 B
9 Brookside Avenue at Union Street U 10.0 A 11.6 B
10 Brookside Avenue at Oak View Drive U 8.4 A 8.8 A
11 Brookside Avenue at Beaumont Avenue S 27.4 C 26.6 C
12 Oak Valley Parkway at Desert Lawn Drive U 13.7 B 15.9 C 13 Oak Valley Parkway at I-10 EB Ramps S 51.4 D 41.8 D
14 Oak Valley Parkway at I-10 WB Ramps S 80.5 F 30.1 C
15 Oak Valley Parkway at Oak View Drive S 19.2 B 15.6 B 16 Oak Valley Parkway at Beaumont Avenue S 29.6 C 31.8 C Notes:
- Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.
Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 13 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2022Page 1481 of 2513
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Quantity Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Use
2,199.095 KSF 3,826 169 51 220 78 196 274
358.370 KSF 841 64 19 83 24 64 88
Total Proposed Project PCE Trips 4,667 233 70 303 102 260 362 PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION WITH PCE
Project Land Use
Buildings 1 & 2 (B-1 & B-2): High-Cube Short-Term Storage Building 3 (B-3): Warehousing
1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition KSF = Thousand Square Feet
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - PHASE 1
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT
Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 14 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. June 2022Page 1482 of 2513
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Quantity Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Use
2,199.095 KSF 3,826 169 51 220 78 196 274
358.370 KSF 841 64 19 83 24 64 88
Building 4 (B-4): Shopping Center ----8,485 287 245 532 247 223 470 Total Proposed Project PCE Trips 13,152 520 315 835 349 483 832 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
Building 3 (B-3): Warehousing
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION WITH PCE
Project Land Use
Buildings 1 & 2 (B-1 & B-2): High-Cube Short-Term Storage KSF = Thousand Square Feet
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - PHASE 1 AND 2
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION PROJECT
Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 15 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. June 2022Page 1483 of 2513
Beaumont Summit Station - 16 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed project were developed based on current traffic patterns observed within the study area, as well as trip distribution assumptions for similar high- cube short-term storage buildings and warehouse projects. Separate distribution patterns were assumed for passenger car trips and truck trips. Trip distribution percentages at each study intersection were applied to the project trip generation estimates to determine the project trips through each intersection. Passenger Car trip distribution and assignment assumptions for the Project are shown on Figure 5. Truck trip distribution and assignment assumptions for the Project are shown on Figure 6. The resulting project trips for Phase 1 and Phases 1 and 2 at the study intersections are shown on Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively.
CHERRY VALLEY BLVDBROOKSIDE AVEOAK VALLEY PKWYOA
K
V
I
E
W
D
R
HANNON RD
UNION ST
NANCY AVE
BEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATEDESERT
LAWN DR CALIMESA BLVD5%5%10%5%5%5%5%30%30%LEGEND:= Study Intersection= Project Distribution - 17 -Project SitePage 1485 of 2513
CHERRY VALLEY BLVDBROOKSIDE AVEOAK VALLEY PKWYOA
K
V
I
E
W
D
R
HANNON RD
UNION ST
NANCY AVE
BEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATEDESERT
LAWN DR CALIMESA BLVD45%55%LEGEND:= Study Intersection= Project Distribution - 18 -Project SitePage 1486 of 2513
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 19 -
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 20 -
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 21 -
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 22 -
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 23 -
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 24 -
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
Beaumont Summit Station - 25 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 OPENING YEAR 2024 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
The project Opening Year for Phase 1 is anticipated to be Year 2024. Opening Year 2024 traffic forecasts have been developed by adding an ambient growth factor of 2.0 percent per to existing traffic volumes at the study intersections.
Cumulative Projects
In addition to ambient growth, traffic from Cumulative Projects in the Project vicinity are added to the Opening Year forecasts to develop Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Conditions forecasts.
Cumulative Projects consist of any project that has been approved and is not yet occupied, and projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process but have not yet been approved.
Information regarding Cumulative Projects in the area was obtained from previously approved traffic studies in the area. A summary of the Cumulative Projects, including the associated trip generation is provided on Table 4. The trip generation estimates for the Cumulative Projects were obtained from approved traffic studies, where available; and were developed by Kimley-Horn if approved traffic studies were not available. The locations of the Cumulative Projects are shown on Figure 9.
Trip distribution and assignment for the Cumulative Projects were obtained from approved traffic studies, where available; and were developed by Kimley-Horn if approved traffic studies were not available. Traffic volumes associated with the Cumulative Projects were compiled for each of the study intersections and are shown on Figure 10. The Cumulative Projects traffic volumes were added to the Opening Year 2024 traffic volumes to develop Opening Year 2024 Cumulative forecasts, which are shown on Figure 11.
Peak Hour Intersection Operation
The results of the Opening Year 2024 Cumulative intersection analysis are summarized on Table 5.
Review of this table shows that, with the addition of ambient growth and Cumulative Project volumes, the following study intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service:
·#1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS E; PM: LOS F ·#12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – PM: LOS F ·#16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F Intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
Trip Generation Estimates
Proj #Description Land Use
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
1 Noble Creek Vistas Single-Family Detached Housing 648 DU 6,117 120 360 480 404 237 641 2 Cougar Ranch Single-Family Detached Housing 148 DU 1,397 27 82 109 92 54 146 3 Oak Valley Greens Senior Center Senior Adult Housing-Detached 372 DU 1,588 29 60 89 68 44 112 4 Oak Valley Village Shopping Center 490.000 KSF 18,498 286 175 461 896 971 1,867 5 Kirkwood Ranch Single-Family Detached Housing 403 DU 3,804 75 224 299 251 147 398 6 Sundance Corporate Center General Office Building 300.000 KSF 2,922 299 49 348 55 290 345 7 Beaumont Commons Single-Family Detached Housing 120 DU 878 13 42 55 42 25 67 8 Tuscany Townhomes Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)188 DU 1,376 20 67 87 66 39 105 9 Prologis General Light Industrial 2,200.000 KSF 10,912 1,355 185 1,540 180 1,206 1,386 10 Beaumont Industrial Park Industrial Park 2,890.000 KSF 9,739 936 220 1,156 243 913 1,156 11 San Gorgonio Village Shopping Center 130.000 KSF 4,908 76 46 122 238 258 496 12 Jerome Taurek Single-Family Detached Housing 244 DU 2,303 45 135 180 152 89 241 13 Legacy Highlands (Phase 1)Single-Family Detached Housing 1,159 DU 6,963 128 346 474 394 231 625 14 Hidden Canyon Industrial Park No Land Use 2,890.000 KSF 5,438 221 119 340 125 253 378 15 Fairway Canyon Single-Family Detached Housing 1,650 DU 15,576 305 916 1,221 1,030 604 1,634 16 Potrero Creek Estates Single-Family Detached Housing 700 DU 6,608 130 389 519 437 256 693 High-Cube Fullfillment Center High-Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse 4,500.000 KSF 34,875 1,575 1,575 3,150 1,958 923 2,881 General Light Industrial General Light Industrial 500.000 KSF 2,480 308 42 350 41 274 315 Hotel Hotel 125 Room 1,045 35 24 59 38 37 75
Multipurpose Recreational Facility
(Go-Cart)Multipurpose Recreational Facility 77.00 KSF ----152 124 276 Rock Climbing Rock Climbing Gym 26.000 KSF -12 24 36 24 18 42 Miniature Golf Miniature Golf Course 36 Hole ----4 8 12 Trampoline Park Trampoline Park 24.000 KSF ----17 19 36 Bowling Alley Bowling Alley 40.000 KSF -31 2 33 30 16 46 18 Beyond Beaumont Commercial 6.580 KSF 229 14 4 18 6 16 22 19 CUP 03629 Mini-Warehouse 90 Storage Units 1,616 64 61 125 88 88 176 20 TR 31966 Single-Family Detached Housing 60 DU 566 11 33 44 37 22 59 21 TTM 30545 Holbert Ranch Single-Family Detached Housing 131 DU 1,237 24 73 97 82 48 130 Borstein Property Single-Family Detached Housing 209 DU 1,973 39 116 155 130 76 206 San Gorgonio Crossing High-Cube Warehouse 1,861 KSF 3,126 141 64 205 69 154 223 Single-Family Detached Housing 988 DU 9,327 183 548 731 617 362 979 Shopping Center 126.000 KSF 4,757 73 45 118 230 250 480 American Villas Single-Family Detached Housing 36 DU 340 7 20 27 22 13 35 8th Street Condos Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)16 DU 117 2 6 8 6 3 9 Pennsylvania Ave Apartments Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)8.000 DU 59 1 3 4 3 2 5 25 Sundance Single-Family Detached Housing 4,716 DU 44,519 872 2,617 3,489 2,943 1,726 4,669 26 Rolling Hills Ranch Industrial
Prologis Warehousing 1,200.000 KSF 2,088 157 47 204 61 167 228 27 Dowling Orchard Business Park Warehousing 548.820 KSF 955 72 21 93 28 76 104 Farmer Boys Shopping Center 6.752 KSF 255 4 2 6 12 13 25 Ramona Tire / Firestone Shopping Center 4.792 KSF 181 3 2 5 9 9 18 29 Aspen Creek (TT 31426)Single-Family Detached Housing 106 DU 1,001 20 59 79 66 39 105 30 Taurek (Tract No. 31162)Single-Family Detached Housing 244 DU 2,303 45 135 180 152 89 241 31 Pacific Scene (Tract No. 32850)Single-Family Detached Housing 95 DU 897 18 53 71 59 35 94 Single-Family Detached Housing 2,000 DU 18,880 370 1,110 1,480 1,248 732 1,980 Shopping Center 49.005 KSF 1,850 29 17 46 90 97 187
Single-Family Detached Housing 2,041 DU 19,267 378 1,133 1,511 1,274 747 2,021 Shopping Center 95.832 KSF 3,618 56 34 90 175 190 365
Single Family Residential 3535 DU 33,370 654 1,962 2,616 2,206 1,294 3,500 Condos/Townhomes 453 DU 3,316 48 160 208 160 94 254
Active Park 48.000 Acre 37 1 0 1 3 2 5
Recreational Community Center 9.000 KSF 259 10 5 15 10 11 21 Elementary School 1200 Student 2,268 434 370 804 98 106 204 Commercial Retail 200.000 KSF 7,550 117 71 188 366 396 762 Four Seasons (Tract NO. 31462)
22 34 TTM 33931 Fiesta Oak Valley /
Mesa Verde Estates
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
Quantity Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
17 23 Heartland
24 28
32 Jack Rabbit Trail
33 Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 26 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2022
Trip Generation Estimates
Proj #Description Land Use
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
Quantity Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Single-Family Detached Housing 3,683 DU 34,768 681 2,044 2,725 2,298 1,348 3,646 Elementary School 1,200 Student 2,268 434 370 804 98 106 204 Middle School/Junior High School 900 Student 1,917 282 240 522 75 78 153 Business Park 1,579.000 KSF 19,643 385 246 631 305 358 663 Shopping Center 1,000.000 KSF 37,750 583 357 940 1,829 1,981 3,810 Single-Family Detached Housing 2,366 DU 22,335 438 1,313 1,751 1,476 866 2,342 Shopping Center 505.296 KSF 19,075 295 180 475 924 1,001 1,925 37 World Logistics Center Warehousing 21,450.000 KSF 37,323 2,810 837 3,647 1,094 2,982 4,076 Single-Family Detached Housing 193 DU 1,822 36 107 143 120 71 191 General Office Building 182.342 KSF 1,776 182 30 212 34 176 210 Shopping Center 130.244 KSF 4,917 76 46 122 238 258 496 General Light Industrial 59.512 KSF 295 37 5 42 5 33 38 General Office Building 49.876 KSF 486 50 8 58 9 48 57
Business Park 26.737 KSF 333 7 4 11 5 6 11
Shopping Center 69.827 KSF 2,636 41 25 66 128 138 266
General Office Building 2.363 KSF 23 2 0 2 0 2 2
Shopping Center 1.688 KSF 64 1 1 2 3 3 6
General Office Building 86.826 KSF 846 87 14 101 16 84 100 Shopping Center 62.019 KSF 2,341 36 22 58 113 123 236
42 TAZ 32 Single-Family Detached Housing 94 DU 887 17 52 69 59 34 93 General Light Industrial 35.109 KSF 174 22 3 25 3 19 22 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)41 DU 300 4 15 19 14 8 22 General Office Building 9.605 KSF 94 10 2 12 2 9 11
Business Park 78.147 KSF 972 19 12 31 15 18 33
Shopping Center 6.861 KSF 259 4 2 6 13 14 27
General Office Building 76.459 KSF 745 76 12 88 14 74 88 Shopping Center 54.613 KSF 2,062 32 19 51 100 108 208
45 TAZ 35 Single-Family Detached Housing 28 DU 264 5 16 21 17 10 27 46 TAZ 36 Single-Family Detached Housing 17 DU 160 3 9 12 11 6 17 Single-Family Detached Housing 6 DU 57 1 3 4 4 2 6
General Office Building 16.618 KSF 162 17 3 20 3 16 19
Shopping Center 11.870 KSF 448 7 4 11 22 24 46
General Office Building 97.269 KSF 947 97 16 113 18 94 112 Shopping Center 69.478 KSF 2,623 41 25 66 127 138 265
General Office Building 42.460 KSF 414 42 7 49 8 41 49
Shopping Center 103.023 KSF 3,889 60 37 97 188 204 392
50 TAZ 40 Single-Family Detached Housing 478 DU 4,512 88 265 353 298 175 473 51 Singleton Heights (Mastercraft) TR
26811 Single-Family Detached Housing 268 DU 2,530 50 149 199 167 98 265 52 Sunset Ranch (Osborne/Dunham)
TR 31450 Single-Family Detached Housing 231 DU 2,181 43 128 171 144 85 229 Single-Family Detached Housing 689 DU 6,504 127 382 509 430 252 682 Shopping Center 72.700 KSF 2,744 42 26 68 133 144 277
54 Beaumont Potrero Warehosue High-Cube Warehouse 577.920 KSF 971 44 20 64 21 48 69 Total Project Trips 527,905 17,187 20,909 38,096 27,768 25,176 52,944 44 TAZ 34
49 48
47 TAZ 37
TAZ 38
TAZ 39
40 TAZ 30
TAZ 3141
43 TAZ 33
36 Sun Cal / Various Builders
38 TAZ 28
39 TAZ 29
35 Summerwind Ranch
DU = Dwelling Unit, KSF = 1,000 square feet, FP = Fueling Position 53 JP Ranch5
Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 27 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2022
C
ALI
FORNIAC
ALI
FORNIA4THSTREETOAKVALLEYPKWYCHERRYVALLEYBLVDBROOKSIDEAVEOAK VIE
W
DR
CHERRYAVENHIGHLANDSPRINGSAVECHAMPIONSDROAKVALLEYPKWYBEAUMONTAVE1STST6THST8THSTCALIFORNIAAVEELMAVECOUNTYLINERDCALIFORNIA STCALIMESABLVD POTREROBLVDVEILEAVELEGEND:=CumulativeProjectProjectSite-28-Page 1496 of 2513
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 29 -
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 30 -
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION
OPENING YEAR 2024 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Int. #Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 295.0 F 537.9 F 2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 220.6 F 289.1 F 3 Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 46.0 E 229.3 F 4 Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 25.6 D 29.7 D 5 Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 15.6 C 26.0 D 6 Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 16.0 C 22.2 C 7 Beaumont Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard S 26.0 C 31.1 C 8 Hannon Road at Brookside Avenue U 11.2 B 12.1 B
9 Union Street at Brookside Avenue U 10.1 B 11.8 B
10 Oak View Drive at Brookside Avenue U 8.4 A 8.8 A
11 Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue S 33.4 C 54.8 D
12 Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway U 60.0 F 115.2 F 13 I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 359.2 F 1007.7 F 14 I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 388.6 F 544.6 F 15 Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway S 23.0 C 96.9 F 16 Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway S 200.5 F 384.8 F - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.
Note:
-Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 31 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2022Page 1499 of 2513
Beaumont Summit Station - 32 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 Opening Year 2024 Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions Project-related traffic volumes for the Project were added to the Year 2024 Plus Cumulative Projects forecasts to develop Opening Year 2024 Plus Project (Phase 1) traffic forecast volumes. The resulting traffic volumes are shown on Figure 12.
The results of the Year 2024 Plus Project (Phase 1) intersection analysis are shown on Table 6.
Review of this table shows that, with the addition of ambient growth, cumulative project volumes, and the project volumes, the following study intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service:
·#1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#4 – Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard – PM: LOS E ·#5 – Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard – PM: LOS E ·#11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue – PM: LOS E
·#12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#14 – I-10 Westbound Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – PM: LOS F ·#16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F Intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
- 33 -
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Traffic
Int. # Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 295.0 F 316.2 F 21.2 Yes 537.9 F 561.6 F 23.7 Yes 2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 220.6 F 253.9 F 33.3 Yes 289.1 F 322.9 F 33.8 Yes 3 Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 46.0 E 71.1 F 25.1 Yes 229.3 F 548.9 F 319.6 Yes 4 Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 25.6 D 31.7 D 6.1 No 29.7 D 36.2 E 6.5 Yes 5 Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 15.6 C 19.9 C 4.3 No 26.0 D 39.7 E 13.7 Yes 6 Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 16.0 C 19.0 C 3.0 No 22.2 C 27.2 D 5.0 No 7 Beaumont Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard S 26.0 C 26.5 C 0.5 No 31.1 C 31.9 C 0.8 No 8 Hannon Road at Brookside Avenue U 11.2 B 11.2 B 0.1 No 12.1 B 12.3 B 0.1 No 9 Union Street at Brookside Avenue U 10.1 B 10.3 B 0.2 No 11.8 B 12.2 B 0.4 No 10 Oak View Drive at Brookside Avenue U 8.4 A 8.8 A 0.4 No 8.8 A 9.1 A 0.3 No 11 Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue S 33.4 C 34.2 C 0.8 No 54.8 D 56.2 E 1.4 Yes 12 Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway U 60.0 F 62.9 F 2.9 No 115.2 F 116.7 F 1.5 No 13 I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 359.2 F 361.6 F 2.4 No 1007.7 F 1008.0 F 0.3 No 14 I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 388.6 F 392.6 F 4.0 No 544.6 F 551.3 F 6.7 Yes 15 Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway S 23.0 C 25.4 C 2.4 No 96.9 F 104.8 F 7.9 Yes 16 Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway S 200.5 F 200.5 F 0.0 No 384.8 F 384.9 F 0.1 No D1 Cherry Valley Boulevard at West Project Dwy S - - 22.4 C - - - - 24.5 C - - D2 Cherry Valley Boulevard at Middle Project Dwy S - - 4.1 A - - - - 7.8 A - - D3 Cherry Valley Boulevard at East Project Dwy U - - 11.8 B - - - - 11.5 B - - - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION
OPENING YEAR 2024 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT (PHASE 1) CONDITIONS Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Notes:
-Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service Change
in Delay
Sig
Effect?
Change
in Delay
Sig
Effect?
Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 34 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2022Page 1502 of 2513
Beaumont Summit Station - 35 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 OPENING YEAR 2027 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
The project Opening Year for Phases 1 and 2 is anticipated to be Year 2027. Opening Year 2027 traffic forecasts have been developed by adding an ambient growth factor of 2.0 percent per year to Opening Year 2027 Cumulative traffic volumes at the study intersections. The resulting traffic volumes are shown on Figure 13.
Peak Hour Intersection Operation
The results of the Opening Year 2027 Cumulative intersection analysis are summarized on Table 7.
Review of this table shows that, with the addition of ambient growth and Cumulative Project volumes, the following study intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service:
·#1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue – PM: LOS E
·#12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – PM: LOS F ·#16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F Intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 36 -
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION
OPENING YEAR 2027 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Int. #Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 319.9 F 566.0 F 2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 239.0 F 306.7 F 3 Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 53.1 F 310.2 F 4 Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 28.0 D 32.6 D 5 Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 17.0 C 30.6 D 6 Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 17.4 C 25.2 D 7 Beaumont Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard S 26.2 C 31.8 C 8 Hannon Road at Brookside Avenue U 11.3 B 12.4 B
9 Union Street at Brookside Avenue U 10.1 B 12.0 B
10 Oak View Drive at Brookside Avenue U 8.5 A 8.9 A
11 Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue S 34.7 C 60.3 E
12 Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway U 69.5 F 127.0 F 13 I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 379.3 F 1036.3 F 14 I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 409.9 F 566.0 F 15 Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway S 25.6 C 105.3 F 16 Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway S 200.5 F 388.7 F Note:
-Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.
Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 37 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2022Page 1505 of 2513
Beaumont Summit Station - 38 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 Opening Year 2027 Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) Conditions Project-related traffic volumes for the Project were added to the Year 2027 Plus Cumulative Projects forecasts to develop Opening Year 2027 Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) traffic forecast volumes. The resulting traffic volumes are shown on Figure 14.
The results of the Year 2027 Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) intersection analysis are shown on Table
8. Review of this table shows that, with the addition of ambient growth, cumulative project volumes, and the project volumes, the following study intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service:
·#1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#4 – Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#5 – Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#6 – Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS E; PM: LOS E ·#11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue – PM: LOS E
·#12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#14 – I-10 Westbound Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – PM: LOS F ·#16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F Intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
- 39 -
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Traffic
Int. # Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 319.9 F 371.4 F 51.5 Yes 566.0 F 631.2 F 65.2 Yes 2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 239.0 F 323.1 F 84.1 Yes 306.7 F 377.3 F 70.6 Yes 3 Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 53.1 F 199.6 F 146.5 Yes 310.2 F 1417.6 F 1107.4 Yes 4 Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 28.0 D 81.0 F 53.0 Yes 32.6 D 77.2 F 44.6 Yes 5 Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 17.0 C 52.5 F 35.5 Yes 30.6 D 92.2 F 61.6 Yes 6 Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 17.4 C 36.7 E 19.3 Yes 25.2 D 49.9 E 24.7 Yes 7 Beaumont Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard S 26.2 C 28.2 C 2.0 No 31.8 C 34.5 C 2.7 No 8 Hannon Road at Brookside Avenue U 11.3 B 11.6 B 0.3 No 12.4 B 12.8 B 0.4 No 9 Union Street at Brookside Avenue U 10.1 B 10.7 B 0.6 No 12.0 B 13.3 B 1.3 No 10 Oak View Drive at Brookside Avenue U 8.5 A 10.3 B 1.8 No 8.9 A 10.3 B 1.4 No 11 Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue S 34.7 C 37.8 D 3.1 No 60.3 E 67.2 E 6.9 Yes 12 Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway U 69.5 F 79.0 F 9.5 Yes 127.0 F 134.4 F 7.4 Yes 13 I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 379.3 F 404.8 F 25.5 Yes 1036.3 F 1057.6 F 21.3 Yes 14 I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 409.9 F 429.1 F 19.2 Yes 566.0 F 592.9 F 26.9 Yes 15 Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway S 25.6 C 44.6 D 19.0 No 105.3 F 125.5 F 20.2 Yes 16 Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway S 200.5 F 200.5 F 0.0 No 388.7 F 389.0 F 0.3 No D1 Cherry Valley Boulevard at West Project Dwy S - - 28.5 C - - - - 31.7 C - - D2 Cherry Valley Boulevard at Middle Project Dwy S - - 8.7 A - - - - 11.4 B - - D3 Cherry Valley Boulevard at East Project Dwy U - - 12.8 B - - - - 14.6 B - - With Project Change
in Delay
Sig
Impact?
Notes:
-Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION
OPENING YEAR 2027 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT (PHASE 1 AND 2) CONDITIONS Without Project With Project Change
in Delay
Sig
Impact?
Without Project
Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 40 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2022Page 1508 of 2513
Beaumont Summit Station - 41 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 FUTURE HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS
Horizon Year 2040 Forecasts
To derive intersection forecasts for the Horizon Year 2040 condition, the Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) Base Year 2012 and Horizon Year 2040 future traffic projections were used. The resulting traffic forecasts for Horizon Year conditions are shown on Figure 15.
The raw volumes obtained from the model output were post- processed by determining the annual growth between the base model year and the future model year and applying the growth increment to existing count volumes. This was accomplished using the B-Turns methodology developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). As a conservative approach, if a turning movement volume produced by this process was less than the Opening Year 2027 Cumulative forecast volume for that movement, manual adjustments were made to assure that all forecast Horizon Year volumes would not be less than the Opening Year 2027 Cumulative forecast volumes. The RivTAM Model plots and B-Turns worksheets are provided in Appendix E
Horizon Year 2040 Operating Conditions
Intersection Level of Service analysis was conducted for the Horizon Year 2040 conditions. The resulting traffic volumes for Horizon Year 2040 conditions are shown on Figure 14 (previously mentioned). The results of the intersection analysis are shown on Table 9.
Review of this table indicates that, under Horizon Year 2040 conditions, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service:
·#1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#4 – Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#5 – Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#6 – Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard – PM: LOS F ·#11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue – PM: LOS E
·#12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – PM: LOS F ·#16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F Intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 42 -
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION
HORIZON YEAR 2040 CONDITIONS
Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Int. #Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 319.9 F 577.9 F 2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 275.3 F 354.5 F 3 Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 172.0 F 759.7 F 4 Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 84.0 F 87.6 F 5 Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 53.4 F 138.6 F 6 Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 32.2 D 78.0 F 7 Beaumont Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard S 29.4 C 32.9 C 8 Hannon Road at Brookside Avenue U 13.3 B 15.2 C
9 Union Street at Brookside Avenue U 10.7 B 12.1 B
10 Oak View Drive at Brookside Avenue U 8.8 A 9.5 A
11 Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue S 36.8 D 71.0 E
12 Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway U 92.9 F 158.5 F 13 I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 379.3 F 1037.2 F 14 I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 409.9 F 566.0 F 15 Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway S 25.6 C 105.3 F 16 Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway S 203.6 F 393.8 F Note:
-Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.
Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 43 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2022Page 1511 of 2513
Beaumont Summit Station - 44 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 Horizon Year 2040 Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) Conditions Project-related traffic volumes for the Project were added to the Horizon Year 2040 forecasts to develop Horizon Year 2040 Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) traffic forecast volumes. The resulting traffic volumes are shown on Figure 16.
The results of the Horizon Year 2040 Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) intersection analysis are shown on Table 10. Review of this table indicates that, under Horizon Year 2040 conditions, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service:
·#1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#4 – Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#5 – Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#6 – Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue – PM: LOS E
·#12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·#15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – PM: LOS F ·#16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F Intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
BROOKSIDE AVE
OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VIEW DRHANNON RDUNION STNANCY AVEBEAUMONT AVE10INTERSTATE
DESERTLAWN DRCAL
I
M
E
S
A
B
L
V
D
LEGEND:
= Study Intersection
= AM/PM Peak Hour
Turning Movement
Volumes
- 45 -
2. I-10 WB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
3. Calimesa Blvd at
Cherry Valley Blvd
4. Hannon St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
5. Union St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
6. Nancy St at
Cherry Valley Blvd
7. Beaumont Ave at
Cherry Valley Blvd
8. Hannon St at
Brookside Ave
9. Union St at
Brookside Ave
10. Oak View Dr at
Brookside Ave
11. Beaumont Ave at
Brookside Ave
16. Beaumont Ave at
Oak Valley Pkwy
14. I-10 WB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
13. I-10 EB Ramps at
Oak Valley Pkwy
12. Desert Lawn Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
15. Oak View Dr at
Oak Valley Pkwy
1. I-10 EB Ramps at
Cherry Valley Blvd
D1. Cherry Valley Blvd
at West Project Dwy
D2. Cherry Valley Blvd
at Middle Project Dwy
D3. Cherry Valley Blvd
at East Project Dwy
Project Site
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Traffic
Int. # Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 319.9 F 371.4 F 51.5 Yes 577.9 F 643.3 F 65.4 Yes 2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 275.3 F 370.6 F 95.3 Yes 354.5 F 422.0 F 67.5 Yes 3 Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 172.0 F 729.8 F 557.8 Yes 759.7 F 3150.6 F 2390.9 Yes 4 Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 84.0 F 380.7 F 296.7 Yes 87.6 F 334.0 F 246.4 Yes 5 Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 53.4 F 141.4 F 88.0 Yes 138.6 F 235.1 F 96.5 Yes 6 Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard U 32.2 D 72.5 F 40.3 Yes 78.0 F 127.3 F 49.3 Yes 7 Beaumont Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard S 29.4 C 30.9 C 1.5 No 32.9 C 35.0 C 2.1 No 8 Hannon Road at Brookside Avenue U 13.3 B 13.9 B 0.6 No 15.2 C 15.7 C 0.5 No 9 Union Street at Brookside Avenue U 10.7 B 11.4 B 0.7 No 12.1 B 13.1 B 1.0 No 10 Oak View Drive at Brookside Avenue U 8.8 A 10.8 B 2.0 No 9.5 A 11.6 B 2.1 No 11 Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue S 36.8 D 41.2 D 4.4 No 71.0 E 79.7 E 8.7 Yes 12 Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway U 92.9 F 102.8 F 9.9 Yes 158.5 F 166.8 F 8.3 Yes 13 I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 379.3 F 401.8 F 22.5 Yes 1037.2 F 1058.5 F 21.3 Yes 14 I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway S 409.9 F 429.1 F 19.2 Yes 566.0 F 592.9 F 26.9 Yes 15 Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway S 25.6 C 44.6 D 19.0 No 105.3 F 125.5 F 20.2 Yes 16 Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway S 203.6 F 205.1 F 1.5 No 393.8 F 395.8 F 2.0 No D1 Cherry Valley Boulevard at West Project Dwy S - - 51.6 D - - - - 47.2 D - - D2 Cherry Valley Boulevard at Middle Project Dwy S - - 9.2 A - - - - 11.4 B - - D3 Cherry Valley Boulevard at East Project Dwy U - - 13.5 B - - - - 16.1 C - - Sig
Impact?
Notes:
-Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach.
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION
HORIZON YEAR 2040 PLUS PROJECT (PHASE 1 AND 2) CONDITIONS Without Project With Project Change
in Delay
Sig
Impact?
Without Project With Project Change
in Delay
Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 46 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2022Page 1514 of 2513
Beaumont Summit Station - 47 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the impact criteria presented earlier in the report (page 5), the project effects would be considered significant at the following intersections under Opening Year 2024, Opening Year 2027, and Horizon Year 2040 conditions:
·#1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·#2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·#3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·#4 – Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·#5 – Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·#6 – Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·#11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue
·#12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway
·#13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway
·#14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway
·#15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway
Implementation of the following improvements under Opening Year 2024, Opening Year 2027, and Horizon Year 2040 are recommended to either bring the intersection to an acceptable Level of Service or mitigate the project’s effect at the study intersection:
#1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·Install a traffic signal
·Add a westbound left-turn lane
·Add an eastbound right-turn lane
·Add a southbound right-turn lane
#2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·Install a traffic signal
·Add a northbound left-turn lane
·Add an eastbound left-turn lane
·Add a westbound right-turn lane
#3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·Add a 2nd eastbound through lane
·Add a 2nd westbound through lane
·Install a traffic signal
#4 – Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·Add a 2nd eastbound through lane
·Add a 2nd westbound through lane
·Install a traffic signal
Beaumont Summit Station - 48 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 #5 – Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·Add a 2nd eastbound through lane
·Add a 2nd westbound through lane
·Install a traffic signal
#6 – Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard
·Add a 2nd eastbound through lane
·Add a 2nd westbound through lane
·Add a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane
#11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue
·Add EB right-turn overlap phase
·Add WB right-turn lane
·Add WB right-turn overlap phase
·Traffic Signal relocation and modification
#12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway
·Add a 2nd eastbound through lane
#13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway
·Add a 2nd southbound left-turn lane
·Add a 2nd eastbound through lane
·Add a 2nd westbound through lane
#14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway
·Add a northbound left-turn lane
·Add a 2nd eastbound through lane
·Add a 2nd westbound through lane
#15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway
·Add a 2nd eastbound through lane
·Modify southbound right-turn lane to free right-turn lane ·Traffic Signal relocation and modification
Beaumont Summit Station - 49 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 A summary of the intersection operation before and after implementation of the recommended improvements is provided on Table 11. Recommended improvements may include a combination of fee payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair- share contribution toward future improvements toward future improvements, or a combination of these approaches. A summary of which improvements are part of the regional TUMF program are shown on Table 12. The project fair share proportion at deficient study intersections under Opening Year 2024, Opening Year 2027, and Horizon Year 2040 are shown on Tables 13, 14, and 15, respectively.
I-10/CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE
The City of Calimesa, with Caltrans and the County of Riverside proposes to reconstruct the Interstate 10 (I-10)/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange to relieve congestion and improve traffic operations.
The Locally Preferred Alternative will include the following improvements:
·Widen Cherry Valley Boulevard to two lanes in each direction ·Add turn pockets along Cherry Valley Boulevard approaching on-ramps ·Add pedestrian crosswalks and curb ramps
·Reconstruct and realign on- and off-ramps
·Realign Calimesa Boulevard north of the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange ·Provide channelized turning on Cherry Valley Boulevard to Calimesa Boulevard ·Install new traffic signals
·Construct sidewalks and bicycle lanes along Cherry Valley Boulevard ·Add a 1,300-foot-long auxiliary lane to the eastbound off-ramp and 3,400-foot-long auxiliary lane to the westbound on-ramp
The project proposes to contribute towards the planned improvements at the I-10/Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange by a payment of TUMF fee and or fair share contribution.
SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The project would construct the following site adjacent roadway improvements:
§Cherry Valley Boulevard
o Construction along the Project frontage to its ultimate half width as an Arterial Highway (128-foot right-of-way). A raised median will be constructed by the San Gorgonio Crossing project to the north.
§Brookside Avenue
o Construction along the Project frontage to its ultimate halfwidth as a Secondary Highway (88-foot right-of-way)
Beaumont Summit Station - 50 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Project access would consist of three driveways along Cherry Valley Boulevard. The west and middle project driveways would be signalized, and the east project driveway would be an unsignalized right- in-right-out (RIRO) driveway. The project would construct the following site access improvements:
§Cherry Valley Boulevard
o West Project Driveway
•A signal modification to provide a four-legged traffic signal (future traffic signal to be installed by adjacent development).
o Middle Project Driveway
•Install new traffic signal
•Construct a 300-foot dedicated eastbound right-turn pocket into the project driveway.
•One dedicated left-turn and one dedicated right-turn lane at the northbound approach
o East Project Driveway
•Install a stop sign on the northbound approach and permit right-in-right-out access only.
§Brookside Avenue
o No project-related access is planned along Brookside Avenue.
Traffic
Int. #Intersection Improvements Peak Hour Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM S 295.0 F 316.2 F 85.1 F 319.9 F 371.4 F 115.1 F 319.9 F 371.4 F 115.1 F PM S 537.9 F 561.6 F 168.6 F 566.0 F 631.2 F 222.2 F 577.9 F 643.3 F 228.0 F AM S 220.6 F 253.9 F 82.5 F 239.0 F 323.1 F 88.7 F 275.3 F 370.6 F 113.4 F PM S 289.1 F 322.9 F 21.7 C 306.7 F 377.3 F 21.5 C 354.5 F 422.0 F 21.5 C AM S 46.0 E 71.1 F 8.6 A 53.1 F 199.6 F 8.5 A 172.0 F 729.8 F 9.7 A PM S 229.3 F 548.9 F 10.0 A 310.2 F 1417.6 F 10.8 B 759.7 F 3150.6 F 12.9 B AM S ------------28.0 D 81.0 F 6.1 A 84.0 F 380.7 F 9.8 A PM S 29.7 D 36.2 E 3.7 A 32.6 D 77.2 F 4.1 A 87.6 F 334.0 F 5.8 A AM S ------------17.0 C 52.5 F 14.5 B 53.4 F 141.4 F 22.2 C PM S 26.0 D 39.7 E 4.0 A 30.6 D 92.2 F 4.8 A 138.6 F 235.1 F 5.5 A AM U ------------17.4 C 36.7 E 12.5 B 32.2 D 72.5 F 14.6 B PM U ------------25.2 D 49.9 E 13.8 B 78.0 F 127.3 F 19.5 C
AM S ------------------------------------
PM S 54.8 D 56.2 E 27.0 C 60.3 E 67.2 E 28.6 C 71.0 E 79.7 E 30.5 C AM U ------------69.5 F 79.0 F 19.2 C 92.9 F 102.8 F 30.5 D PM U ------------127.0 F 134.4 F 27.0 D 158.5 F 166.8 F 47.0 E AM S ------------379.3 F 404.8 F 145.4 F 379.3 F 401.8 F 144.3 F PM S ------------1036.3 F 1057.6 F 428.1 F 1037.2 F 1058.5 F 427.0 F AM S ------------409.9 F 429.1 F 290.8 F 409.9 F 429.1 F 290.8 F PM S 544.6 F 551.3 F 217.6 F 566.0 F 592.9 F 235.6 F 566.0 F 592.9 F 235.6 F
AM S ------------------------------------
PM S 96.9 F 104.8 F 10.0 B 105.3 F 125.5 F 11.5 B 105.3 F 125.5 F 11.5 B With
Improvements
Construct Traffic Signal (TUMF)
Add WB left-turn lane (TUMF)
Add EB right-turn lane (TUMF)
Add SB right-turn lane (TUMF)
Construct Traffic Signal (TUMF)
Add NB left-turn lane (TUMF)
Add EB left-turn lane
Add WB right-turn lane
Add NB left-turn lane (TUMF)
Add 2nd EB through lane (TUMF)
Add 2nd WB through lane (TUMF)
Opening Year 2027
Without Project With Project With
Improvements
Add 2nd EB through lane (TUMF)
Modify SB right-turn lane to free right-turn lane
Traffic Signal relocation and modification
Add 2nd EB through lane
Add 2nd WB through lane
Construct Traffic Signal
Add 2nd EB through lane
Add 2nd WB through lane
Construct Traffic Signal
Add 2nd EB through lane
Add 2nd WB through lane
Add dedicated EB right-turn lane
Add EB right-turn overlap
Add WB right-turn lane with overlap
Add WB right-turn lane
Traffic Signal relocation and modification
Add 2nd EB through lane (TUMF)
Add 2nd SB left-turn lane (TUMF)
Add 2nd EB through lane (TUMF)
Add 2nd WB through lane (TUMF)
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATION
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Opening Year 2024 Horizon Year 2040
With
Improvements
Notes:
-Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach. 1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard
2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard
3 4
Add 2nd EB through lane (TUMF)
Add 2nd WB through lane (TUMF)
Construct Traffic Signal
5 6
Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard
Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard
Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard
Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard
Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue11
12 Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway
13 I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway
14 I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway
15 Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway
Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 51 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2022Page 1519 of 2513
#Intersection Juridsiction Recommended Improvements Improvements in TUMF?
Construct Traffic Signal Yes
Add WB left-turn lane Yes
Add EB right-turn lane Yes
Add SB right-turn lane Yes
Construct Traffic Signal Yes
Add NB left-turn lane Yes
Add EB left-turn lane Yes
Add WB right-turn lane Yes
Add 2nd EB through lane Yes
Add 2nd WB through lane Yes
Construct Traffic Signal No
Add 2nd EB through lane No
Add 2nd WB through lane No
Construct Traffic Signal No
Add 2nd EB through lane No
Add 2nd WB through lane No
Construct Traffic Signal No
Add 2nd EB through lane No
Add 2nd WB through lane No
Add dedicated EB right-turn lane No
Add EB right-turn overlap No
Add WB right-turn lane with overlap No
Add WB right-turn lane No
Add 2nd EB through lane Yes
Add a 2nd SB left-turn lane Yes
Add a 2nd EB through lane Yes
Add a 2nd WB through lane Yes
Add NB left-turn lane Yes
Add 2nd EB through lane Yes
Add 2nd WB through lane Yes
Add 2nd EB through lane Yes
Modify SB right-turn lane to free right-
turn lane No
Riverside County
3 Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry
Valley Boulevard
11 Beaumont Avenue at Brookside
Avenue
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS IN TUMF PROGRAM
1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley
Boulevard Caltrans
2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley
Boulevard Caltrans
Calimesa
4 Hannon Road at Cherry Valley
Boulevard Riverside County
5 Union Street at Cherry Valley
Boulevard
Beaumont
13 6 Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley
Boulevard Riverside County
I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley
Parkway Caltrans
14 I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley
Parkway Caltrans
15 Oak View Drive at Oak Valley
Parkway Beaumont
Beaumont/
Riverside County
12 Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley
Parkway
Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 52 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. June 2022Page 1520 of 2513
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF PROJECT FAIR SHARE FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS - OPENING YEAR 2024 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total Volume Total Project Total Volume Total Project
Int. #Intersection 2021 2024 Growth Trips %-age 2021 2024 Growth Trips %-age 1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard 1,532 2,885 1,353 118 8.7%1,646 3,898 2,252 115 5.1% 2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard 1,345 2,605 1,260 206 16.3%1,056 3,024 1,968 243 12.3% 3 Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard 799 1,541 742 206 27.8%915 1,866 951 243 25.6% 4 Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard 729 1,164 435 101 23.2%806 1,357 551 111 20.1% 5 Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard 643 1,053 410 90 22.0%742 1,265 523 100 19.1% 11 Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue 951 1,824 873 42 4.8%1,220 2,372 1,152 46 4.0% 12 Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway 935 1,418 483 11 2.3%1,103 1,992 889 11 1.2% 13 I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway 1,413 3,034 1,621 15 0.9%1,693 4,469 2,776 33 1.2% 14 I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway 1,811 4,150 2,339 37 1.6%1,905 5,683 3,778 43 1.1% 15 Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway 1,518 3,084 1,566 37 2.4%1,686 3,756 2,070 43 2.1% Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 53 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. June 2022Page 1521 of 2513
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF PROJECT FAIR SHARE FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS - OPENING YEAR 2027 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total Volume Total Project Total Volume Total Project
Int. #Intersection 2021 2027 Growth Trips %-age 2021 2027 Growth Trips %-age 1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard 1,532 3,126 1,594 267 16.8%1,646 4,127 2,481 246 9.9% 2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard 1,345 2,960 1,615 472 29.2%1,056 3,335 2,279 478 21.0% 3 Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard 799 1,854 1,055 472 44.7%915 2,157 1,242 478 38.5% 4 Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard 729 1,471 742 365 49.2%806 1,639 833 344 41.3% 5 Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard 643 1,330 687 328 47.7%742 1,518 776 310 39.9% 6 Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard 565 1,168 603 254 42.1%689 1,392 703 242 34.4% 11 Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue 951 1,986 1,035 148 14.3%1,220 2,539 1,319 139 10.5% 12 Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway 935 1,500 565 37 6.5%1,103 2,080 977 34 3.5% 13 I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway 1,413 3,221 1,808 115 6.4%1,693 4,662 2,969 124 4.2% 14 I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway 1,811 4,363 2,552 143 5.6%1,905 5,892 3,987 137 3.4% 15 Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway 1,518 3,284 1,766 143 8.1%1,686 3,951 2,265 137 6.0% Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 54 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. June 2022Page 1522 of 2513
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF PROJECT FAIR SHARE FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS - HORIZON YEAR 2040 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total Volume Total Project Total Volume Total Project
Int. #Intersection 2021 2040 Growth Trips %-age 2021 2040 Growth Trips %-age 1 I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard 1,532 3,126 1,594 267 16.8%1,646 4,151 2,505 246 9.8% 2 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard 1,345 3,325 1,980 472 23.8%1,056 3,569 2,513 478 19.0% 3 Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard 799 2,187 1,388 472 34.0%915 2,351 1,436 478 33.3% 4 Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard 729 1,662 933 365 39.1%806 1,907 1,101 344 31.2% 5 Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard 643 1,638 995 328 33.0%742 1,978 1,236 310 25.1% 6 Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard 565 1,324 759 254 33.5%689 1,691 1,002 242 24.2% 11 Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue 951 2,058 1,107 148 13.4%1,220 2,668 1,448 139 9.6% 12 Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway 935 1,876 941 37 3.9%1,103 2,393 1,290 34 2.6% 13 I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway 1,413 3,455 2,042 115 5.6%1,693 4,698 3,005 124 4.1% 14 I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway 1,811 4,363 2,552 143 5.6%1,905 5,892 3,987 137 3.4% 15 Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway 1,518 3,284 1,766 143 8.1%1,686 3,951 2,265 137 6.0% Beaumont Summit Station
Traffic Study
- 55 -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. June 2022Page 1523 of 2513
Beaumont Summit Station - 56 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
·This study has been prepared to evaluate the traffic-related effects of the proposed Beaumont Summit Station project. The project consists of a 1,213,235 square-foot high-cube short-term storage building, with 20,000 square feet of office space, a 985,860 square-foot high-cube short-term storage building with 20,000 square feet of office space, a 358,370 square-foot general warehouse with 10,000 square feet of office space, a 220-room hotel, a 25,000 square foot shopping center, a 15,000 square foot high-turnover (sit-down) restaurant, and a 10,000 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-through. The project will be conducted in two phases, with the Light Industrial uses being constructed in Phase 1 and completed in 2024, and the Commercial uses being constructed in Phase 2 and complete in 2027. The project is located immediately east of the I-10 Freeway and in between Cherry Valley Boulevard and Brookside Avenue.
·Weekday morning peak hour and weekday evening peak hour operating conditions were evaluated at 16 study intersections for the following study scenarios:
o Existing Conditions
o Opening Year 2024 Cumulative
o Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project (Phase 1)
o Opening Year 2027 Cumulative
o Opening Year 2027 Cumulative Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) o Horizon Year 2040
o Horizon Year 2040 Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2)
·Under Existing Conditions, the following study intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service:
o #1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS E, PM: LOS F o #2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F o #14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F ·Phase 1 of the project is estimated to generate 4,667 daily PCE trips, with 303 PCE trips during the morning peak hour and 362 PCE during the evening peak hour. ·Phases 1 and 2 of the project is estimated to generate 13,152 daily PCE trips, with 835 PCE trips during the morning peak hour and 832 PCE trips during the evening peak hour. ·Ambient traffic growth at a rate of 2.0 percent per year was added to Existing Conditions to develop Opening Year 2024 forecasts.
·Under Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Conditions, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the addition of ambient growth:
o #1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F
Beaumont Summit Station - 57 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 o #3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS E; PM: LOS F o #12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – PM: LOS F o #16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·Under Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project (Phase 1) Conditions, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the of project traffic:
o #1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #4 – Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #5 – Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue – PM: LOS E o #12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #14 – I-10 Westbound Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS E; PM: LOS F o #16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·Ambient traffic growth at a rate of 2.0 percent per year was added to Opening Year 2024 volumes to develop Opening Year 2027 forecasts.
·Under Opening Year 2027 Cumulative Conditions, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the addition of ambient growth:
o #1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue – PM: LOS E o #12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – PM: LOS F o #16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·Under Opening Year 2027 Cumulative Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) Conditions, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the of project traffic:
o #1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F
Beaumont Summit Station - 58 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 o #4 – Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #5 – Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #6 – Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue – PM: LOS F o #12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #14 – I-10 Westbound Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·To derive forecasts for Horizon Year 2040 Conditions, RivTAM 2012 and 2040 forecasts were used.
·Under Horizon Year 2040 Conditions, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service.
o #1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #4 – Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #5 – Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #6 – Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard – PM: LOS F o #11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue – PM: LOS E o #12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – PM: LOS F o #16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F ·Under Horizon Year 2040 Plus Project (Phases 1 and 2) Conditions, the following intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service:
o #1 – I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #2 – I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #3 – Calimesa Boulevard at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #4 – Hannon Road at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #5 – Union Street at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #6 – Nancy Avenue at Cherry Valley Boulevard – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #11 – Beaumont Avenue at Brookside Avenue – AM: LOS E; PM: LOS F o #12 – Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #13 – I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #14 – I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #15 – Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F o #16 – Beaumont Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway – AM: LOS F; PM: LOS F
Beaumont Summit Station - 59 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Study June 2022 ·Recommended improvements to either bring the intersection to an acceptable Level of Service or mitigate the project’s effect at deficient study intersections have been addressed. ·Recommended improvements may include a combination of fee payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair-share contribution toward future improvements toward future improvements, or a combination of these approaches.
Beaumont Summit Station Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Beaumont July 2022
Table A: Summary of Queuing Storage Capacity
Opening Year 2024 Opening Year 2024
Plus Phase 1 Opening Year 2027 Opening Year 2027
Plus Phases 1 and 2
I-10 EB Ramps at Cherry Valley Blvd Southbound 1,150 3,572 3,705 3,733 4,114 I-10 WB Ramps at Cherry Valley Blvd Northbound 1,050 1,435 1,574 1,485 1,738 95th Percentile PM Peak Hour Queue Length (ft/ln)
TABLE A
SUMMARY OF QUEUEING STORAGE CAPACITY
BEAUMONT SUMMIT STATION
Storage Capacity (ft)Intersection Movement
Beaumont Summit Station
DEIR Review Comments and Responses
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2022
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE SUMMIT STATION SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT,
INCLUDING THE SUMMIT STATION SPECIFIC PLAN, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT; ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFOR.CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Summit Station project has been proposed to the City of Beaumont, including the Summit Station Specific Plan (the "SCSP") and a General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Project, which would include approximately 2.5 million square feet of warehouse/e-commerce, 150,000 square feet of commercial and 30.6 acres of open space on approximately 200 acres; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Res. Code, §§ 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR on or about September 22, 2021 and circulated the NOP until October 22, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City solicited comments from potential responsible agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City received written and verbal comments in response to the
NOP, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on or about April 21, 2022 the City initiated a 45-day public review period by filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research and releasing the Draft EIR (the "original Draft EIR") for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the City also provided a Notice of Completion and Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice, and published the Notice of Completion in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area on or about April 21, 2005. The Notice of Completion was also mailed to all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the Project. Copies of the original Draft EIR were provided to interested public agencies, organizations and individuals. Copies of the original Draft EIR were available at the City's Planning Department and public library, and free copies were available to the public; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other Page 1532 of 2513
regulatory agencies, and others during the 45-day comment period; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Project on June 28, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final Revised EIR (the "FEIR")and, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of the Final Revised EIR to all commenting agencies and persons requesting copies of the responses; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Beaumont (the "City Council"), at its regularly scheduled public meeting on October 18, 2022, held a public hearing on the Project; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible Mitigation Measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in the Final EIR attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Exhibit A hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and attached hereto as Exhibit “A” ; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in the Final EIR attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and Page 1533 of 2513
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or any additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BEAUMONT DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby Certifies the Final EIR and adopts the Finding of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations as contained in Exhibit "A" which is incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the terms and conditions stated therein.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Summit Station Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the terms and conditions stated therein.
SECTION 3. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 18th day of October, 2022, by the following roll call vote
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
____________________________
Julio Martinez, Mayor Pro Temp
ATTEST:
____________________________
Nicole Wheelwright, City Clerk
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Beaumont Summit Station Project
SCH No. 2021090378
Lead Agency
City of Beaumont
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
(951) 769-8520
CONSULTANT
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Kari Cano, Project Manager
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420
Riverside, CA 92501
April 2022
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 i Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Overview............................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Environmental Procedures.................................................................................. 1-1
1.2.1 EIR Format ............................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Project Location ................................................................................................ 1-3
1.4 Project Summary............................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Project Purpose and Objectives ........................................................................... 1-4
1.6 Summary of Project Alternatives ......................................................................... 1-5
1.6.1 No Project/Existing Specific Plan .............................................................. 1-6
1.6.2 Reduced Building Intensity ...................................................................... 1-7
1.6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative........................................................ 1-7
1.7 Areas of Controversy ......................................................................................... 1-7
1.8 Unavoidable Significant Impacts .......................................................................... 1-8
1.9 Summary of Environmental Impacts & Mitigation Measures .................................... 1-9
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ....................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ........................................................ 2-1
2.2 Compliance with CEQA....................................................................................... 2-3
2.3 Notice of Preparation/Early Consultation .............................................................. 2-4
2.4 Environmental Review Process ............................................................................ 2-6
2.5 Compliance with CEQA....................................................................................... 2-7
2.6 Final EIR ........................................................................................................... 2-7
2.7 Format of the EIR .............................................................................................. 2-8
2.8 Incorporation by Reference ................................................................................ 2-9
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Project Overview............................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Project Background ........................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Project Location ................................................................................................ 3-2
3.5 Environmental Setting........................................................................................ 3-3
3.6 Proposed Project ............................................................................................... 3-4
3.7 Project Design Features...................................................................................... 3-4
3.8 Project Purpose and Objectives ........................................................................... 3-7
3.9 Development Plan ............................................................................................. 3-8
3.10 Approvals Requested as Part of the “Project” ...................................................... 3-16
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 ii Table of Contents
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 4-1
4.0.1 Approach to Environmental Analysis .................................................................... 4-1
4.0.2 Cumulative Impact Methodology ......................................................................... 4-3
4.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.1-2
4.1.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.1-5
4.1.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................ 4.1-7
4.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................... 4.1-8
4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4.1-13
4.1.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................... 4.1-14
4.1.8 References ....................................................................................... 4.1-14
4.2 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 4.2-1
4.2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.2-5
4.2.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.2-16
4.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................ 4.2-25
4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4.2-56
4.2.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................... 4.2-57
4.2.8 References ....................................................................................... 4.2-57
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.3-10
4.3.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.3-18
4.3.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................ 4.3-19
4.3.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4.3-29
4.3.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................... 4.3-29
4.3.8 References ....................................................................................... 4.3-29
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES.................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.4-3
4.4.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.4-9
4.4.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.4-13
4.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................ 4.4-14
4.4.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4.4-17
4.4.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................... 4.4-18
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 iii Table of Contents
4.4.8 References ....................................................................................... 4.4-18
4.5 ENERGY ........................................................................................................ 4.5-1
4.5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.5-3
4.5.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.5-19
4.5.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................ 4.5-22
4.5.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4.5-32
4.5.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................... 4.5-33
4.5.8 References ....................................................................................... 4.5-33
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.6-4
4.6.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.6-13
4.6.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................ 4.6-15
4.6.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4.6-25
4.6.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................... 4.6-26
4.6.8 References ....................................................................................... 4.6-26
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.7-3
4.7.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.7-24
4.7.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................ 4.7-31
4.7.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4.7-53
4.7.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................... 4.7-54
4.7.8 References ....................................................................................... 4.7-54
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................ 4.8-1
4.8.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.8-5
4.8.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.8-18
4.8.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................ 4.8-19
4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4.8-25
4.8.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................... 4.8-26
4.8.8 References ....................................................................................... 4.8-26
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 iv Table of Contents
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.9-3
4.9.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.9-15
4.9.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................ 4.9-15
4.9.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4.9-22
4.9.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................... 4.9-23
4.9.8 References ....................................................................................... 4.9-23
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................. 4.10-1
4.10.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.10.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.10-1
4.10.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.10-2
4.10.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .........................................4.10-10
4.10.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................4.10-11
4.10.6 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................4.10-15
4.10.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .........................................................4.10-15
4.10.8 References ......................................................................................4.10-16
4.11 NOISE ......................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.11-9
4.11.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .........................................4.11-16
4.11.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................4.11-18
4.11.6 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................4.11-29
4.11.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .........................................................4.11-33
4.11.8 References ......................................................................................4.11-33
4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.12-4
4.12.4 Impact Thresholds a nd Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.12-9
4.12.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................4.12-10
4.12.6 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................4.12-13
4.12.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .........................................................4.12-13
4.12.8 References ......................................................................................4.12-13
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.13-1
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 v Table of Contents
4.13.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.13-3
4.13.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.13-9
4.13.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................ 4.13-9
4.13.6 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................4.13-11
4.13.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .........................................................4.13-12
4.13.8 References ......................................................................................4.13-12
4.14 RECREATION................................................................................................ 4.14-1
4.14.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.14-2
4.14.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.14-5
4.14.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................ 4.14-5
4.14.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4.14-6
4.14.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................... 4.14-6
4.14.8 References ....................................................................................... 4.14-6
4.15 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .................................................................... 4.15-1
4.15.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.15-1
4.15.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.15-1
4.15.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.15-3
4.15.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .........................................4.15-14
4.15.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................4.15-16
4.15.6 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................4.15-24
4.15.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .........................................................4.15-24
4.15.8 References ......................................................................................4.15-24
4.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... 4.16-1
4.16.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.16.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.16-1
4.16.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.16-2
4.16.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.16-9
4.16.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................4.16-10
4.16.6 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................4.16-11
4.16.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .........................................................4.16-12
4.16.8 References ......................................................................................4.16-12
4.17 UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 4.17-1
4.17.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.17-1
4.17.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.17-1
4.17.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.17-1
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 vi Table of Contents
4.17.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.17-9
4.17.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .........................................4.17-23
4.17.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................4.17-24
4.17.6 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................4.17-35
4.17.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .........................................................4.17-35
4.17.8 References ......................................................................................4.17-36
4.18 WILDFIRE .................................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.18.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.18.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.18-1
4.18.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.18-2
4.18.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria .......................................... 4.18-9
4.18.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................4.18-10
4.18.6 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................4.18-13
4.18.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .........................................................4.18-13
4.18.8 References ......................................................................................4.18-14
5.0 ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 5-1
5.1 CEQA Requirements .......................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes................................................ 5-1
5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts.................................................................................... 5-3
6.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................. 6-2
6.3 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impa ct of the Project ............................ 6-3
6.4 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives ........................................................................ 6-3
6.5 Alternatives Removed from Further Consideration................................................. 6-4
6.6 Alternatives to the Project .................................................................................. 6-5
6.7 Comparison of Project Alternatives ...................................................................... 6-5
6.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................. 6-22
7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ........................................................................ 7-1
7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Agriculture and Forestry Services......................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Mineral Resources............................................................................................. 7-2
7.4 Public Services .................................................................................................. 7-3
7.5 References ....................................................................................................... 7-5
8.0 EIR CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION........................................................................... 8-1
8.1 EIR Consultation................................................................................................ 8-1
8.2 List of Preparers ................................................................................................ 8-2
9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 9-1
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 vii Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Existing and Proposed Land Use Plan........................................................................... 1-4 Table 1-2: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 1-10 Table 3-1: Existing and Proposed Land Use Plan........................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2: Planning Areas ......................................................................................................... 3-9 Table 4-1: Cumulative Projects .................................................................................................. 4-6 Table 4.2-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns ......................................... 4.2-2 Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Data ..................................................................................... 4.2-4 Table 4.2-3: Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................. 4.2-5 Table 4.2-4: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................... 4.2-6 Table 4.2-5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status .............................................................. 4.2-10 Table 4.2-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds ......................... 4.2-17 Table 4.2-7: Local Significance Thresholds for Constr uction/Operations ..................................... 4.2-17 Table 4.2-8: Phase 1 Construction-Related Emissions .............................................................. 4.2-27 Table 4.2-9: Phase 2 Construction-Related Emissions .............................................................. 4.2-29 Table 4.2-10: Unmitigated Phase 1 Operational Emissions........................................................ 4.2-29 Table 4.2-11: Mitigated Phase 1 Operational Emissions ........................................................... 4.2-32 Table 4.2-12: Unmitigated Phase 2 Operational Emissions........................................................ 4.2-33 Table 4.2-13: Project Overlapping Emissions .......................................................................... 4.2-34 Table 4.2-14: Project Buildout Mitigated Operational Emissions................................................ 4.2-35 Table 4.2-15: Equipment -Specific Grading Rates ..................................................................... 4.2-42 Table 4.2-16: Localized Significance of Phase 1 Construction Emissions ...................................... 4.2-42 Table 4.2-17: Localized Significance of Phase 2 Construction Emissions ...................................... 4.2-43 Table 4.2-18: Localized Significance of Phase 1 Operational Emissions ....................................... 4.2-44 Table 4.2-19: Localized Significance of Phase 2 Operational Emissions ....................................... 4.2-45 Table 4.2-20: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions at Project Buildout ........................ 4.2-45 Table 4.3-1: Soil Mapped within Project Site ............................................................................ 4.3-2 Table 4.3-2: Aquatic Resource Summary Table: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............................... 4.3-3 Table 4.3-3: Aquatic Resource Summary Table: Regional Water Quality Control Board ................... 4.3-4 Table 4.3-4: Aquatic Resource Summary Table: California Department of Fish and Wildlife ............. 4.3-5 Table 4.3-5: Summary of Vegetation within the Beaumont Summit Station Project Site .................. 4.3-7 Table 4.3-6: Beaumont Summit Station Project Site Vegetation Communities/Land Use Impacts ......................................................................... 4.3-23 Table 4.5-1: Energy Resources Used to Generate Electricity for SCE (2019) ................................... 4.5-2 Table 4.5-2: Phase 1 Energy Use During Construction .............................................................. 4.5-22 Table 4.5-3: Phase 2 Energy Use During Construction .............................................................. 4.5-23 Table 4.5-4: Total Project Energy Use During Construction (Phase 1 Plus Phase 2) ....................... 4.5-24 Table 4.5-5: Phase 1 Annual Energy Use During Operations ...................................................... 4.5-27
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 viii Table of Contents
Table 4.5-6: Phase 2 Annual Energy Use During Operations ...................................................... 4.5-27 Table 4.5-7: Project Buildout Annual Energy Use During Operations .......................................... 4.5-29 Table 4.6-1: 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters................................................................... 4.6-16 Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases .......................................................................... 4.7-2 Table 4.7-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................... 4.7-32 Table 4.7-3: Phase 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................... 4.7-33 Table 4.7-4: Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................... 4.7-34 Table 4.7-5: Project Buildout Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................... 4.7-38 Table 4.7-6: City of Beaumont, Sustainable Beaumont Plan (Climate Action Plan) Consistency ....... 4.7-41 Table 4.7-7: Riverside County Climate Action Plan Screening Table............................................. 4.7-42 Table 4.7-8: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency ............ 4.7-47 Table 4.7-9: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures ............................ 4.7-49 Table 4.8-1: Adjoining Property Summary ................................................................................ 4.8-1 Table 4.8-2: Site Observations................................................................................................ 4.8-3 Table 4.10-1: Existing and Proposed Land Use Plan ................................................................. 4.10-2 Table 4.10-2: Project Compatibility with SCAG 2020-2024 RTP/SCS ..........................................4.10-12 Table 4.11-1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels .............................................................................. 4.11-1 Table 4.11-2: Existing Noise Measurements ........................................................................... 4.11-3 Table 4.11-3: Sensitive Receptors ......................................................................................... 4.11-3 Table 4.11-4: Typical Noise Levels......................................................................................... 4.11-4 Table 4.11-5: Definitions of Acoustical Terms ......................................................................... 4.11-5 Table 4.11-6: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations................................................................... 4.11-8 Table 4.11-7: Base Ambient Noise Level ...............................................................................4.11-13 Table 4.11-8: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure .......................................4.11-15 Table 4.11-9: Typical Construction Noise Levels .....................................................................4.11-18 Table 4.11-10: Phase 1 and Phase 2 Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor....................4.11-20 Table 4.11-11: Cons truction Traffic Noise Levels ....................................................................4.11-21 Table 4.11-12: Phase 1 Traffic Noise Levels ...........................................................................4.11-24 Table 4.11-13: Project Buildout (Phase 1 Plus Phase 2) Traffic Noise Levels................................4.11-25 Table 4.11-14: Horizon Year (Phase 1 Plus Phase 2) Traffic Noise Levels ....................................4.11-26 Table 4.11-15: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ..............................................4.11-27 Table 4.11-16: Opening Year Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels ....................4.11-30 Table 4.12-1: SCAG Projections – City of Beaumont and County of Riverside ............................... 4.12-1 Table 4.12-2: Population – Trends in the City of Beaumont and County of Riverside..................... 4.12-2 Table 4.12-3: Housing Units – City of Beaumont and County of Riverside ................................... 4.12-3 Table 4.12-4: Employment by Sector – City of Beaumont (2020) ............................................... 4.12-3 Table 4.12-5: Job Housing Balance ........................................................................................ 4.12-4
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 ix Table of Contents
Table 4.12-6: Project Generated Employment .......................................................................4.12-11 Table 4.12-7: Projected Jobs -Housing Balance (with Project) ...................................................4.12-12 Table 4.15-1: VMT Thresholds .............................................................................................4.15-21 Table 4.15-2: VMT Impact Evaluation ...................................................................................4.15-21 Table 4.17-1: Projected Future BCVWD Water Demand (AFY) ................................................... 4.17-3 Table 4.17-2: Projected Future Recycled Water Supply (AFY) .................................................... 4.17-5 Table 4.17-3: BCVWD Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand (AFY) ...................................4.17-29 Table 4.17-4: BCVWD Projected Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY)................................4.17-30 Table 4.17-5: BCVWD Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY) ............................4.17-30 Table 6-1: Alternative 2 Design Comparison .............................................................................. 6-17 Table 6-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts with the Project ................... 6-22
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 3.0-1: Regional Location .............................................................................................. 3-19 Exhibit 3.0-2: Local Vicinity ..................................................................................................... 3-21 Exhibit 3.0-3: Specific Plan Area .............................................................................................. 3-23 Exhibit 3.0-4: Specific Plan ...................................................................................................... 3-25 Exhibit 3.0-5: Conceptual Land Use Plan ................................................................................... 3-27 Exhibit 3.0-6: Conceptual Site Plan........................................................................................... 3-29 Exhibit 3.0-7: Conceptual Circulation Plan ................................................................................. 3-31 Exhibit 3.0-8: Cross Sections ................................................................................................... 3-33 Exhibit 3.0-9: Conceptual Water Plan ....................................................................................... 3-35 Exhibit 3.0-10: Conceptual Sewer Plan ..................................................................................... 3-37 Exhibit 3.0-11: Conceptual Drainage Plan.................................................................................. 3-39 Exhibit 3.0-12: Conceptual Grading Plan ................................................................................... 3-41 Exhibit 4.1-1: Site Photos....................................................................................................... 4.1-3 Exhibit 4.3-1: NRCS Soils Survey Data and NWI ....................................................................... 4.3-31 Exhibit 4.3-2: Corps Aquatic Resources. ................................................................................. 4.3-33 Exhibit 4.3-3: RWQCB Aquatic Resources ............................................................................... 4.3-35 Exhibit 4.3-4: CDFW Streambed and Riparian Habitats............................................................. 4.3-37 Exhibit 4.3-5: Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 4.3-39 Exhibit 4.6-1: Boring and Trench Location Plan ....................................................................... 4.6-27 Exhibit 4.8-1: Project Vicinity ............................................................................................... 4.8-27 Exhibit 4.11-1: Noise Measurement Locations .......................................................................4.11-35
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 x Table of Contents
Appendices (Provided under separate cover)
Appendix A - Air Quality Analysis
Appendix B – Health Risk Assessment
Appendix C1 -Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP
Appendix C2 -Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Appendix C3 – Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Report Appendix D – Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix E – Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix F – Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Appendix G – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix H – Hydrology and Water Quality Management Plan Appendix I – Water Supply Ass essment
Appendix J – Noise Assessment
Appendix K – Traffic Impact Analysis and Vehicle Miles Travelled Appendix L – Notice of Preparation
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 1-1 1.0 | Executive Summary
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan (Project), within the City of Beaumont (City). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies consider the environmental consequences before taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority. An EIR analyzes potential environmental consequences in order to inform the public and support informed decisions by local and state governmental agency decision makers. This document focuses on impacts determined to be potentially significant for this Project.
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CE QA and the City’s CEQA procedures.
The City, as the lead agency, has reviewed and revised all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports as necessary to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports.
Data for this Draft EIR was derived from on-site field observations, discussions with affected agencies, analysis of adopted plans and policies, review of available studies, reports, data and si milar literature, and specialized environmental assessments including air quality/health risk assessments, biological reports, cultural resources reports, geological reports, a greenhouse gas emissions assessment, hazard and hazardous materials assessments, a hydrology report, a preliminary water quality management plan, noise modeling, a traffic impact assessment, and a water supply assessment.
1.2 Environmental Procedures
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects as sociated with implementation of the proposed Project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals.
CEQA established six main objectives for an EIR:
1. Disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of pr oposed activities.
2. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.
3. Prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.
4. Disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with signific ant environmental effects.
5. Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.
6. Enhance public participation in the planning process.
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation in CEQA; it is intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis, and full disclosure of the environmental consequences of a proposed project and its potential to result in s ignificant, adverse environmental impacts.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 1-2 1.0 | Executive Summary
An EIR is one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information in the EIR; determine whether the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; adopt findings concerning the project’s sig nificant environmental impacts and alternatives; and adopt a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts cannot be avoided.
1.2.1 EIR Format
The purpose of this EIR is to provide environmental review of the Project, such that the City will be a ble to utilize this EIR to satisfy CEQA for Project -related permits or approvals and to provide CEQA analysis.
This Draft EIR is organized into nine sections:
Section 1.0 Executive Summary provides a Project summary and summary of environmental impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures and alternatives.
Section 2.0 Introduction provides CEQA compliance information.
Section 3.0 Project Description provides Project history, as well as the environmental setting, Project characteristics and objectives, phas ing, and anticipated permits and approvals that may be required for the Project.
Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis provides a discussion of the existing conditions for each of the environmental impact areas. This section also describes methodologi es for significance determinations, identifies both short -term and long -term environmental impacts of the Project, recommends mitigation measures to reduce the significance of environmental impacts, and identifies any areas of potentially significant and u navoidable impacts. This section includes a discussion of cumulative impacts that could arise as a result of the implementation of the proposed Project.
Section 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations , summarizes unavoidable significant impacts, and discusses significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and energy conservation, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Appendix F.
Section 6.0 Alternatives , describes potential Project alternatives, including alternatives considered but rejected from further consideration, the No Project Alternative, various Project Alternatives, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Section 7.0 Effects Found Not to Be Significant , describes potential impacts that have been determined not to be significant throughout the EIR process.
Section 8.0 EIR Consultation and Preparation identifies the CEQA Lead Agency and EIR preparation team, as well as summarizes the EIR consultation process.
Section 9.0 References.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 1-3 1.0 | Executive Summary
Based on significance criteria, the effects of the proposed Project have been categorized as either “less than significant,” “less than significant with mitigation,” or “potentially significant.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts, to avoid or lessen impact s. In the event the proposed Project results in significant impacts even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the decision-makers are able to approve a proposed Project based on a Statement of Overriding Considerations. This determinat ion would require the decision-makers to provide a discussion of how the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh identified unavoidable impacts. The CEQA Guidelines provide in part the following:
• CEQA requires that the decision-maker balance the benefit s of a proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “a cceptable.”
• Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the Final EIR but are not mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under § 15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
• If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the Project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination (§ 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines).
1.3 Project Location
The Project site is located within the San Gorgonio Pass area, which is located between the Coachella, San Jacinto, and Moreno valleys and includes the incorporated cities of Banning, Beaumont, and Calimesa as well as the unincorporated communities of Cherry Valley, Cabazon, and Banning Bench. The Project site is in the northwestern portion of the City within t he County of Riverside (County) and regional access to the site is provided by Interstate (I -) 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.
1.4 Project Summary
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.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 1-4 1.0 | Executive Summary
Each of the specific Project entitlement applications and associated supporting documents a re hereby incorporated by reference into this Draft EIR and are available for review in the City Planning Department located within the Beaumont Civic Center located at 550 E. 6 th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223.
The purpose of this Draft EIR for the Project is to review the existing conditions at and in the vicinity of the Project site; identify and analyze the potential environmental impacts; and suggest feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce significant adverse environmental effects, as descri bed Section 6.0, Alternatives . This Project entails the development of an approximately 188 -acre site with e-commerce, commercial development, and open space components (see Table 1-1, Existing and Proposed Land Use Plan). The Project would also include 6.7 acres of public and private roads. Construction of the Project, including recordation of final subdivision map(s); and design review may be progressively implemented in stages, provided that vehicular access, public facilities, and infrastructure are con structed to adequately service the development, or as needed for public health and safety. However, note that actual phasing sequence and years may vary depending on market conditions.
Table 1-1: Existing and Proposed Land Use Plan
Land Use Existing Sunny-Cal Specific Plan (2007) Summit Station Specific Plan (202 2) Low Density Residential 158.65 acres 560 du -- --
E-Commerce Center
E-Commerce
Office
-- -- 139.8 acres
2,507,465 sf
50,000 sf
Commercial
Hotel (220 rooms)
Retail
Restaurant
-- -- 10.9 acres
100,000 sf
25,000 sf
25,000 sf
Open Space
Park/Trail
Buffer/Open Space
21.15 acres
8.71 acres
0 acres
30.6 acres
Road 9.8 acres 6.7 acres
Total 200 acres 188 acres
Source: Kimley -Horn. 2022. Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan. Table 1. du = dwelling units; sf = square feet
Note: Land use acreages are net of roads and are rounded
1.5 Project Purpose and Objectives
The Project implements the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, as amended; serves as an extension of the General Plan; and, can be used as both a policy and a regulatory document. The purpose of this 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.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 1-5 1.0 | Executive Summary
The Project includes the following objectives:
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 transport ation, 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.
1.6 Summary of Project Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines (§ 15126.6[a]) state that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain 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.” The alternatives were based, in part, on their potential ability to reduce or eliminate the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable for the proposed Project.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 1-6 1.0 | Executive Summary
The following alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in Section 6.0, Alternatives , of this Draft EIR.
• No Project/Existing Specific Plan
• Reduced Building Intensity
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each altern ative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an alterna tive is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. Impacts involving air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 6.8, Environmentally Superior Alternative identifies the environmentally superior alternative.
1.6.1 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, Environmental Impact Analysis, 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 previous ly approved Sunny-Cal Specific Plan could occur and is analyzed as part of this Alternative.
The previously approved Sunny-Cal Specific Plan allows for the development of 200 acres with approximately 560 Dwelling Units (DU) on approximately 159 acres, ove r 30 acres of parks, open space, landscaped buffers, and paseos, and approximately 10 acres of circulation improvements.
Under this Alternative, the Sunny-Cal Specific Plan would remain and would not be changed to 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.
City of Beaumont Draft
Beaumont Summit Station Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
April 2022 1-7 1.0 | Executive Summary
1.6.2 REDUCED BUILDING INTENSITY
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. Off -site improvements to the adjacent roadways of Cherry Valley Boulevard and Brookside Avenue would remain consistent with the Project.
1.6.3 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.
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 the No-Project /Existing Specific Plan Alternative.
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 t o fulfill the objectives with minimal impacts to the existing site and surrounding environment. 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.
1.7 Areas of Controversy
Prior to the preparation of the Draft EIR, the City circulated a N otice of Preparation (NOP) from September 22, 2021 to October 22, 2021, (see Appendix L, Notice of Preparation ). In addition, a public scoping meeting was held during the 30-day public review period, on October 7, 2021 at 6:00 PM at the Beaumont Civic Center . Pursuant to health and safety measures taken by the State of California, the San Bernardino County Members of the public, Project applicants and consultants, and staff were able to participate in the meeting. A total of six comment letters were received in response to the NOP. The comment letters received during the NOP comment period; along with Scoping Reports for the NOP,