.I
I; I J
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
off -site. Signage shall also be provided notifying truck operators that a lounge(s) is available for their use.
The California Attorney General has published a list of best practices for warehouse developments:
https://oag . ca. gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best- practices.pdf These include:
• Requiring that all facility -owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model -year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on -site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
• Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero -emission beginning in 2030.
• Requiring on -site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric only with the necessary electrical charging stations provided. • Requiring tenants to use zero -emission light- and medium -duty vehicles as part of business operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer's recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Constructing electric light -duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building's projected energy needs. • Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non -diesel fuel. • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
• Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
• Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
www.tbplanning.com
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
15 (CONT.)
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB- approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on -site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
The EIR finds that NOx (diesel -related) impacts are significant (approximately nine times the threshold of significance). In the aggregate, the southern -California "goods movement network" is a "major source of emissions that contribute to the region's air pollution," and the southern California area "continues to have the worse air quality in the nation." ( https://www.ca- ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/f2012rtpscs.pdf?1383110821) A "key component of air pollution is nitrogen oxides (NOx). NOx is emitted whenever fuel is combusted and reacts in the air to form ozone (smog) and fine particulates." (Id.) Despite "aggressive strategies" in the South Coast Air Basin, "it is estimated that NOx emissions will need to be reduced by approximately two-thirds in 2023 and three-quarters in 2030." (Id.) Addressing NOx impacts associated with mobile sources is key to mitigating the Project's significant air quality impacts. According to the SCAQMD's Blueprint for Clean Air (2016)12, the southern California air basin will require approximately a 65 percent reduction in NOx emissions, above and beyond existing measures, to meet air quality standards.
The Project should thus establish fleet efficiency requirements for vehicle fleets. This should include, at a minimum, requirements that industrial tenants shall use exclusively zero emission light and medium -duty delivery trucks and vans; shall use only zero emission service equipment such as forklifts and yard trucks (electric only/no natural gas); and shall use near -zero and zero -emission technologies in heavy-duty applications such as "last mile delivery."13 As the State moves toward its goal of zero emission goods movement, the City must ensure that the Project is in line with this important objective by also requiring the phase -in of zero emission or clean technology for heavy duty trucks. According to CARB, actions to deploy both zero emission and cleaner combustion technologies will be essential to meet air quality goals in California particularly with respect to goods movement. 14 Additional, feasible mitigation for operational air quality impacts includes the phase -in of electric, hybrid electric, hydrogen electric, or battery operated (i.e., non -diesel) trucks. The Project should be conditioned to adopt a "Diesel Minimization Plan" whereby zero emission trucks are phased in, e.g., 25% of truck fleets shall use zero emission technology by 2030, and increase that percentage by 10% per year, until 100% of trucks operating on sites are zero emission. This approach to mitigation is consistent with California regulations regarding phase -in of electric vehicles.15 16 (California requiring 12 https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/aqmp/white-paper-working-groups/wp-blueprint- revdf.pdf?sfvrsn=2
13 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/treated-sacrifices-families-breathe-toxic-fumes-california-s- warehouse-hub-n1265420
14 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.pdf 15 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035 16 https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/31/california-requires-half-of-heavy-trucks-sales-to-be-electric-by- www.tbplanning.com
15 (CONT.)
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
manufacturers to produce zero emission trucks beginning in 2024); see also (discussing CARB's Advanced Clean Truck Rule)17.) A mitigation measure is feasible if it can be achieved in a reasonable period of time. (Guidelines, § 15364.)
The Project must establish a "Truck Route" otherwise MM 4.3-17 is ineffective. The EIR does not indicate the path of truck travel and we could not locate any condition that would require trucks to use a certain path of travel, but it is assumed that trucks will use local roadways for access to SR -60 and I-10.
Finally, to the extent the Project purports to include "project design features" aimed at reducing air quality emissions these must be made enforceable requirements through the Project's CEQA mitigation program. Impacts must also be assessed and disclosed apart from any "design features" especially where they are not mandatory requirements of the Project.
Biological Resources
-4-
The Project proposes to construct and operate a massive warehouse complex adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Area(s). This has the potential for disruption and harm to biological species and habitat within the Conservation Area. For instance, noise impacts during the Project's anticipated five years of construction are not shown to be less than significant in terms of impacts to biological resources particularly at nighttime. The Conservation Area is a natural area containing biological resources including habitat for protected species. The Project will entail substantial grading and other construction activities including potentially "blasting" of significant landforms.
These impacts have not been properly assessed and mitigated.
The Draft EIR does not demonstrate that noise impacts are less than significant with respect to adjacent conserved lands in terms of the residential noise threshold or otherwise. The record does not demonstrate that Planning Area (PA) 9 would serve as a "buffer" to ensure that noise levels due to Project operations do not exceed the residential noise standard in terms of conserved lands located immediately adjacent to the Project site particularly at nighttime.
The Draft EIR acknowledges the potential for "edge effects" to adjacent conserved lands.
These include nighttime lighting and noise impacts that will adversely impact the habitat of biological species within the conserved lands. Additional biological mitigation should include:
locating building loading docks on the northside of buildings only, or designing buildings so that loading docks and Project roadways are located as far away as possible from sensitive biological areas including the MSHCP Conservation Area. At present buildings have loading docks on both sides which is not necessary for operations as buildings will be built on speculation. The Project site maximizes development at the expense of providing a more sensitive transition between uses for the benefit of established biological habitat and known biological resources. 203 5.htm1#:—:text=The%20state%27s%20rule%20requires%20manufacturers,on%20the%20road%20by% 202035.
17 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-trucks-fact-sheet www.tbplanning.com
16 (CONT.)
17 18
19 certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The State of California has committed to aggressive goals for the reduction of the emissions causing global climate change. Executive Order S-3-05 establishes a 2030 target of a 40 percent GHG reduction below 1990 levels; Executive Order S-3-05 establishes a GHG emission reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050; and Executive Order B-16-2012 establishes a target for the reduction of GHG emissions from the transportation sector of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The City has adopted targets in line with the State Requirements (General Plan Policy 8.3.1 and Sustainable Beaumont/Climate Action Plan ("CAP")). Roughly a billion square feet of the Inland Empire is devoted to warehouses.'$ The Project serves to increase cumulative GHG emissions by building even more warehousing, but it fails to adopt all feasible mitigation for the cumulatively significant impact.
The Project will result in total GHG emissions of 63,911.07 MTCO2e/year. This vastly exceeds the adopted threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. As such the Project must adopt all feasible mitigation. Air quality mitigation measures listed above (including the phase -in of zero emission trucks) should be considered feasible mitigation for GHG impacts. Many of the Project's "sustainability features" are already requirements of Title 24/CalGreen, as such they cannot be considered "mitigation"; and they do not address mobile emissions, which are the greatest source of the Project's GHG emissions. For instance, the Project does not provide bike paths and the site will not be served by public transit. Accessible and safe bike paths as well as access to public transit should be considered feasible mitigation for significant GHG emissions related to mobile emissions.
Moreover, under Table 4.8-5, the Project has significant conflicts with the City's CAP and other plans adopting for the purposes of reducing GHGs, including, but not limited to:
City of Beaumont CAP
Goal 6: the Project can reduce its heat island effects by using only light-colored concrete in parking areas and roadways preferably "white concrete"; by increasing landscaping in parking areas; and by covering parking areas with solar canopy structures.
Goal 7: the Project has a significant VMT impact; the City should investigate and establish a programmatic VMT reduction fund (see discussion below).
Goal 9: the Project should maximize solar power by committing, through enforceable mitigation measures, to 100% solar power for all aspects of the facility's operations as well as requiring buildings to provide maximize "solar ready" roofs to allow for expansion of solar panels to accommodate future electric vehicle charging (trucks).
Goal 10: the Project patently conflicts with this goal as it does not "decrease GHG emissions from new development"; it vastly increases GHG emissions. 18 https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/09/inland-empire-warehouse-boom-rejections/ www.tbplanning.com
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
City of Beaumont General Plan
Policy 3.1.12: The Project does not locate "less intensive rural development within proximity to open space areas". It locates an intense warehouse complex with loading docks on both sides of buildings and truck travel lanes adjacent to open space conservation areas. The Project also includes "disturbance within areas designated as Open Space." (emphasis added) Policy 4.1.5: the Project is not "required" to provide a public transit "connection." Policy 4.4.3: the Project does not "improve safety for all transportation users." There are no bicycle paths and no public transit. The Project is not walkable to homes, and it will require use of personal vehicles by employees and visitors to commercial areas (if built), which is neither equitable nor environmentally sustainable. The same discussion applies to Policy 11.12.6.
County of Riverside CAP
It is not clear that the County of Riverside's CAP Screening Table is relevant to the conclusions of the EIR where the Draft EIR states that consistency with the CAP is shown for "informational purposes." However, to the extent the EIR relies on the CAP to determine the level of Project impacts and relies on the CAP Screening Table for purposes of mitigation, the Project is not shown to be consistent, including there is no enforceable mitigation requirement of photovoltaic power for which the Project claims 19 points under the Screening Table. Many of the Screening Table measures are already requirements of Title 24 (e.g., bike lockers) thus claiming them as "mitigation" is inappropriate particularly where the EIR already reduces GHG emissions by 30% due to compliance with Title 24. The Project incredibly takes "480" points under the Screening Table for installing EV charging stations (the EIR notes that the Project "is anticipated to include 60 EV charging stations"; yet elsewhere the EIR states "15 electric vehicle charging stations"). In either case, the EV chargers are not part of the CEQA mitigation program. The Project further takes 3 points for providing bike lockers but there are no bike paths as part of the Project so that bicycle lockers do not seem to have a practical application. The Project is uphill and not a reasonable walking distance from any existing residential area.
SCAG 2020-2045 RTC/SCS
Goal 5: the Project does not reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality; it causes significant GHG emissions and significant air quality impacts.
Goal 10: the Project develops natural lands and replaces it with warehouse development bringing vehicles, big rig trucks, lighting, and noise ("urban development)" to a natural, undeveloped area adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas. Moreover, the Project is not located within "the City of Beaumont"; it is located in Riverside County in an area designated for conservation under the MSHCP.
Overall, the Project does not decrease VMT (it vastly increases VMT) and therefore is not consistent with plans and polices aimed at reducing VMT to reduce GHG emissions in southern California. In terms of proximity to the regional transportation network, access to the Project site is via 4th Street and local roadways including Portero Boulevard. Trucks and vehicles will must traverse local roadways to reach the Project site; the site is not accessible from SR -60. 23 24
25 County of Riverside General Plan
LU 2.1 (f): the Project does not incorporate "multi -modal transportation opportunities" in 26 www.tbplanning.com
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
L;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
that there are no bike paths and no public transit accommodations or access. The site is not within walking distance of anywhere.
LU 2.1 (g): the Project will be built in an environmentally sensitive, high risk fire zone.
LU 4.1: the Project has no requirement of solar energy; the site has no bicycle routes.
Generally speaking the site is located far away from any other developed areas and therefore necessitates vehicle use.
LU 8.12: there is no requirement of local hiring so it is unclear that the Project would create a substantial number of jobs "that would be filled by residents of the City and surrounding communities" as claimed. Elsewhere in the EIR it is stated that warehouse distribution/e-commerce facilities are becoming increasingly automated.
LU 11.4: the Project does not provide bicycle paths or public transit. The fact that "sidewalks" will be provided is the minimum requirement to meet accessibility standards under Title 24.
LU 11.5: the Project does not "ensure that all new developments reduce [GHG] emissions".
The Project vastly increases GHG emissions.
OS 16.8: the Project does not provide access to public transit. The inclusion of bicycle racks is already a requirement of Title 24. The Project must go beyond existing regulations to increase sustainability measures. The Project must include bicycle paths to encourage the use of bicycles as an alternate mode of transportation. This would include the use of "e -bikes." OS 16.9: the Draft EIR does not include mitigation to provide within Project buildings "passive, solar design and day -lighting" such as sky lights. Sky lights should be required in all warehouse buildings particularly in employee areas to reduce the need for overhead lighting and provide enhanced working conditions for employees.
Overall, the Project does not reduce VMT and therefore is inconsistent with policies and goals related to reducing vehicle dependency. Among other things the Project does not provide bike lanes or access to public transit. The Project is primarily a warehouse complex located on a steep hillside on the south side of SR -60, and it is not located within walking distance from any residential or commercial areas.
Furthermore, MM 4.8-1 is inadequate under CEQA. It states that the Project will implement the measures of Table 4.8-6 but may also "achieve equivalent reductions from other measures approved by the City." This does not amount to certain and enforceable mitigation under CEQA in part because performance standards are not specified and these "other measures" will be formulated after Project approval. Moreover, the City will only "verify" the measures "prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy," which may never occur, since there is no guarantee that all phases of the Project will be developed (including the commercial phase/Phase 3). Additionally, Table 4.8-10 asserts the Project will include a requirement to offset 60% of energy demand via photovoltaic solar but this is neither specified in the GHG Screening Table analysis or in the mitigation program. Again the City should also consider additional measures aimed at reducing VMT including programmatic VMT mitigation (see below).
Energy Demand
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F provides that "[t]he goal of conserving energy implies www.tbplanning.com
-41(-
-4-
f
26 (CONT.)
27 28
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources." (emphasis added) Appendix F puts "particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy." The EIR's finding of less than significant with respect to energy resources is not supported.
The Project will consume 53,857,582 kBTU of natural gas, 25,747,206 kWh of electricity, and 5,318,792 gallons of fuel annually. The Draft EIR concludes that impacts are less than significant because the Project represents a small percentage of energy consumption compared to State-wide energy usage and fuel demand. Accordingly the Project does not adopt any energy mitigation measures.
The Project creates a massive demand for electricity, but does not, for instance, "increase reliance on renewable energy sources." (See CEQA Guidelines Appendix F.) This Project must mitigate its energy impacts. The installation and utilization of a solar energy system for 100% of the facility's total energy demands including all electric vehicle charging could vastly reduce the Project's energy impacts consistent with Guidelines Appendix F. The City must impose measures on the Project to ensure compliance with Guidelines, Appendix F and to advance the policies and goals of Senate Bill 100 which commits to 100% clean energy in California by 2045. The Draft EIR indicates that the Project will rely on renewables for 20% of the Project's energy demands but this is not part of the CEQA mitigation program and it is unclear how this measure will be implemented. Flat -roofed warehouse buildings must maximize their reliance on solar power including maximizing solar readiness for future expansion of PV panels to meet additional energy needs (charging of electric trucks).
The Project should be required to adopt further measures to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled ("VMT") to reduce fuel consumption. The Draft EIR reasons that VMT will be reduced because at full buildout the Project is anticipated to employ approximately 5,000 persons. There is no requirement of local hiring so that assumptions that employees will travel shorter distances to work are not based in fact, and all employees will be dependent on cars as the uphill site is not within reasonable walking distance of any residences or a transit stop. The Project increases VMT and is therefore patently inconsistent with land use plans - local, regional, and State — that aim to reduce VMT. For instance, according to the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan19, 19 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-e-sustainable-and-equitable- communities.pdf
www.tbplanning.com
28 (CONT.)
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I; I
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
[c]ontrary to popular belief, zero -emission vehicles (ZEV) alone are not enough to solve the climate crisis. The 2022 Scoping Plan illustrates that despite cleaner vehicles and low- carbon fuels, the path to carbon neutrality by 2045 also depends on reducing per capita VMT (the total passenger vehicle miles driven by an average person in California on any given day). To meet the carbon neutrality goal, the Scoping Plan proposes reducing VMT from 24.6 miles per day in 2019 to 18.4 miles by 2030 (a 25 percent reduction) and to 17.2 miles per day by 2045 (a 30 percent reduction).
To reduce VMT consistent with State, regional and local plans, the Project should consider an alternate development scenario involving more mixed -use development balancing professional and business park uses with commercial and warehouse uses. As proposed 94% of the Project's developed space are industrial warehouses. The Project should consider committing to local hiring to reduce VMT. The Project should incorporate safe and accessible bike lanes as well as access to public transit. The City should also explore programmatic VMT mitigation options.
Other jurisdictions like the City of Escondido are evaluating "VMT Exchange Programs" for instance20. See also 21 22.
Finally, mitigation measure 4.3-8 must be revised to require only electric outdoor cargo - handling equipment ("non diesel" includes natural gas/CNG).
Land Use Impacts
Contrary to the conclusions of the Draft EIR, the Project results in significant land use impacts, including, but not limited to, conflicts between the Project and City of Banning General Plan policies as discussed in the GHG section above. The Project also conflicts with General Plan Policies 3.4.8, Policy 3.11.9, Policy 3.12.2, Policy 3.12.3, Policy 3.12.4, Policy 4.1.5, Policy 4.6.2, Policy 8.5.1, Policy 8.6.1, Policy 8.9.2, Policy 8.9.3, 8.9.4, Policy 8.10.4, and Policy 10.1.5 as well as General Plan policies related to noise.
The Project is also inconsistent with Riverside County General Plan Policies, including LU
7.7 in that "buffers" are not required between intense industrial uses and watercourse areas including their habitat. The Project does not provide transportation options and bikeways consistent with Policies C 1.2 and C 1.7. In terms of biological impacts, the EIR does not demonstrate that the Project is consistent with Policy OS 4.9 which "discourage[s] development within watercourses and areas within 100 feet of the outside boundary of riparian vegetation." The record does not demonstrate the Project is consistent with Policy OS 5.5 to "preserve and enhance existing native 20 https://www.escondido.org/Data/Sites/1/media/Planning/VMT/EscondidoFeeProgramDocumentation Publ icReviewDraft10212022 clean.pdf
21 https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Implementing-SB-743.pdf 22 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ladot-vmt-mitigation-program- factsheet.pdf? 1643075436
www.tbplanning.com
t
-4-
29 (CONT.)
30 31
32 certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
riparian habitat." The Project is patently inconsistent with Policies OS 11.1, 11.,2, 11.3 and 16.9 regarding solar energy systems.
The Project is also inconsistent with plans and policies aimed at reducing VMT. The Project will result in 213,809 vehicle miles traveled per year; the heavy-duty truck VMT is 91,040. The Project will exceed the City's adopted VMT threshold by 45%. (Draft EIR, Appendix K2) The VMT Technical Analysis (Appendix K2) suggests strategies that should be applied to the Project (pp. 6-7) including to "provide pedestrian and bicycle network improvements within the development connecting to existing off -site facilities to the east along 4311 Street." This was not adopted for the Project. The Draft EIR's transportation section acknowledges that there no transit stops or bicycle facilities within the Project vicinity. (DEIR p. 4.17-2.) The City has apparently an approved Policy on Land Use and Sensitive Receptors which is intended to minimize the effects of warehouses in close proximity to sensitive receptors. This policy includes requirements such as that dock doors shall not be visible from surrounding residential properties; truck bays shall be a minimum of 1,000 feet from the property line of a nearest sensitive receptor; projects shall be designed to ensure adequate on -site queuing; truck driveways shall not front sensitive receptors; that a truck route should be submitted as part of the entitlement package; separate entry and exit points for trucks and passenger vehicles shall be provided to minimize vehicle/truck conflict; pad heights should be varied to provide visual dimension and reduce visible height of a structure; external PA systems are prohibited; wayfinding signage should be posted; a community benefit program shall be funded. (See Attachment B hereto)23. The Project has not evaluated in accordance with this Policy and the Project represents significant conflicts with this Policy.
The EIR must be revised in terms of conflicts with General Plan and other land use policies applicable to the Project. Additional mitigation must be imposed to ensure consistency between the Project and adopted land use plans.
Noise
Construction noise is significant contrary to the EIR's conclusions. The Draft EIR Table
4.13-7 claims a 20 dBA "typical building construction" noise reduction but does not explain why this substantial reduction noise is credited. The Draft EIR's Noise Study (Appendix J) indicates that this 20 dBA reduction is applied "for typical buildings with `windows closed'," meaning, apparently, that the analysis assumes all residences in the vicinity of the Project site will not experience significant noise impacts because they will have their windows closed Monday through Saturday during the five-year construction period. This raw assumption does not account for homes without air conditioning (in summer months), nor does not account for the fact that people use exterior spaces of their homes (backyards). Nor does it account for the fact that wildlife will experience unabated noise during the Project's five-year construction period. Noise has harmful 23 https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37935/Final-PLUS www.tbplanning.com
32 (CONT.)
33 34
35 36
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
L;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
effects on wildlife species (see above). The analysis (Table 10-2) indicates significant impacts at "BIO" receivers during construction in particular as to BIO-3 (164 feed southwest of the Project site opposite the planned loading dock area of Building 4). Moreover, all construction noise levels exceed the residential noise standards applicable to the Conserved Area. Noise is very harmful to animal species.24
Furthermore, the construction noise analysis apparently does not measure or account for off - site construction activities including the extension of 4"' Street or encroachments into the Open Space areas that are described in the Draft EIR including the construction of the "manufactured slopes" in these areas (see Appendix J, Noise Study Exhibit 10-A). The Project Description notes that off -site improvements include the installation of water, recycled water, and sewer lines, which would occur up to 350 feet east of the Project site in the 4th Street right of way. These activities are not captured by the construction noise analysis in terms of receiver locations. Finally, the construction noise analysis does not account for periods where construction will overlap with Project operations, meaning that noise events will be occurring simultaneously.
In terms of operational noise impacts, "loading dock" activity has a referenced noise level of 65.7 dBA at 50 feet according to the EIR. (Appendix J, p. 57). At 164 feet, BIO 3 can be expected to experience significant noise conditions particularly at nighttime. Indeed, the noise study indicates a significant impact at nighttime with respect to BIO-2 and BIO-3 (46.2 dBA and 50.2 dbA respectively.) This is a significant and unmitigated impact of the Project. Also, there were apparently no "ambient noise levels" taken for the BIO receivers meaning that the Draft EIR does not measure or disclose the increase in noise with respect to the conservation area to the south (see Tables 9-5 and 9-6).
The City must adopt all feasible mitigation measures for significant noise impacts. For impacts to the conservation area, this includes relocating, shrinking or clustering buildings to allow for more buffering between noise sources and sensitive biological receptors, installing noise absorbing walls, limiting nighttime activities including truck deliveries, prohibiting "PA" systems especially at night, prohibiting the use of generators except in case of emergency, ensuring a daytime schedule for trash compaction and collection, and ensuring lights are dimmed off to the maximum amount or turned off when not in use. (See Attorney General Warehouse Best Practices "Warehouse Siting and Design Considerations.")25 Thousands of trucks per day are anticipated to arrive at the Project site on a 24 basis, utilizing travel lanes in and around the Project site adjacent to the conserved lands.
For significant traffic noise impacts, again site design measures including reducing the size or number of buildings to reduce the amount of truck traffic is feasible mitigation. Additionally, limiting the hours of operation/deliveries/loading dock activities to daytime hours is another feasible and reasonable means to reduce significant nighttime traffic noise impacts. 24 https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Shale Practices Noise Control.pdf 25 https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf www.tbplanning.com
4 F
F
f
36 (CONT.)
38 35
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
-41E-
The Draft EIR proposes only one noise mitigation measure for significant, long-term noise impacts due to intense industrial operations including significant truck traffic on local roadways.
Sierra Club submits that numerous measures are available to reduce noise at the Project site due to Project operations including, for instance, paving roads with low noise asphalt (see, id., p. 9; see also26, 27). Due to the porous nature of asphalt, this material can reduce roadway noise by 3 dBA to 5 dBA28 (the Draft EIR dismisses this measure). Also for instance, loading docks can be designed with noise attenuating features such as a foam seal and enhanced bumpers on the deck leveler to reduce "dock mating noise." Ensuring a tight connection between the truck and the building will ensure that all unloading is done directly in the building. Again for instance, a completely roofed loading dock and roll up doors that are closed during trailer unloading would reduce nighttime noise if loading activities are permitted at nighttime. In terms of on -site equipment, all cargo moving equipment shall be installed with self-adjusting "back up" beepers that adapt to the noise environment.29 30
Transportation
-41(-
Project related traffic will use SR 60 and I-10 in route to/from the Project site via Portero Boulevard and 4th Street. The Draft EIR does not disclose that Project related traffic will contribute to cumulatively significant traffic impacts thereby requiring mitigation, and in fact, no traffic mitigation is required through the CEQA mitigation program. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix K1), however, states:
the proposed Project is not anticipated to require the construction of any off -site improvements, however, there are improvement needs identified at off -site intersections for future cumulative traffic analysis scenarios. As such, the Project Applicant's responsibility for the Project's contributions towards deficient off -site intersections is fulfilled through payment of fair share and/or payment into pre- existing fee programs (if applicable) that would be assigned to the future construction of the identified recommended improvements. The Project Applicant would be required to pay requisite fees and/or fair share contributions consistent with the City's requirements (see Section 10 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms). (See also Table 1-4.)
26 https://www.petronaftco.com/asphalt-reduces-noise/
27 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/quieter-pavement- al ly.pdf
28 https://www.sunlandasphalt.com/can-we-reduce-road-noise-by-selecting-a-certain-pavement-type/ 29 https://www.cpwrconstructionsolutions.org/heavy equipment/solution/792/self-adjusting-and- directional-backup-
alarms.html#:—:text=Self%2Dadjusting%20and%20directional%20backup%20alarms%20are%20an%20en gineering%20control,the%20vicinity%20of%20the%20vehicle. 30 https://www.forkliftamerica.com/forklift-backup-alarms/ www.tbplanning.com
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
This is a significant cumulative impact contrary to the conclusions of the Draft EIR. (DEIR p. 4-
17.21.) The City must find the impact to be significant. The EIR indicates that a number of intersections will operate at unacceptable levels of service. (See Draft EIR Exhibit 5-7, 5-8, and 5-
9.) The EIR indicates a number of needed improvements. (See Draft EIR section 5.7.1) The Project is not conditioned to make any fair share payments for needed traffic improvements.
The traffic model assumes that 25% of Project related vehicle traffic will use Portero Boulevard between 4"' Street and Oak Valley Parkway thereby passing by existing residences to the west of Portero Boulevard. This is not disclosed in the Draft EIR. The traffic model assumes no truck traffic on this same roadway segment although there is nothing preventing or restricting trucks from using this roadway segment for access to I-10. The Project must establish a "Truck Route" to ensure that Project related truck traffic does not use Portero Boulevard north of the "new" interchange to reach I-10. If trucks use this segment of Portero Boulevard they will pass homes/sensitive receptors. The EIR states that the Project is not "anticipated" to use the Beaumont Avenue and I-10 off ramps but there is no designated and enforceable truck route that would prevent trucks from using this off ramp. On the other hand, the analysis appears to assume that Portero Boulevard and I-10 ramps will be utilized by Project trucks. (See Table 4.17-3.) Contrary to the EIR's conclusions, the Project conflicts with General Plan policies related to transportation including Policies 4.1.5, 4.2.2, 4.2.5, 4.4.3, where there is no public transit available at the Project site and the Project proposes none.
In short, the Draft EIR's conclusion that the Project does not result in cumulatively significant traffic impacts is not supported. Table 4.17.3 indicates that the Project results in cumulatively significant impacts to the studied intersections. Therefore mitigation is required.
Wildfire Evacuation
The Project site is in a "Very High Fire Hazard Zone." The Project is designed so that the entirety of the development will rely on 4th Street and an emergency access point for vehicle ingress/egress points. The location of the Project, the design of the Project, and the intensity of development including the commercial component/hotel raises serious issues of fire safety and evacuation risk.
First, the Draft EIR does not demonstrate that fire response times can be met (the City's goal is five minutes, see General Plan Update p. 2263'). The Fire Protection Plan indicates that the closest fire stations are 6.94 and 9.15 minutes from the entrance to the Project site (not the farthest point of the development). (FPP p. 35.) Both are staffed with a single fire engine. Riverside County has also recommended a 5 minute response time (90% of the time) for land uses such as large industrial complexes under the category of "heavy urban". (FPP p. 36.) There is no indication in the record that the Project can meet this 5 minute response time due to its more remote and hillside 31 https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36923/Beaumont-GPU Final -rev -22521 www.tbplanning.com
41 (CONT.)
-4-
42 t
�43
t
44 45
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
L;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
location.
The Draft EIR also does not demonstrate that the Project site can be safely evacuated during a fast-moving major fire event. In addition to visitors to the commercial businesses, including the 125 -room hotel, the Project is expected to employee roughly 5,500 people. The EIR must demonstrate that the number of persons occupying the Project site at any given time can evacuate in a safe and efficient manner including via 4th Street, that is, whether the capacity of 4th St. can handle the mass evacuation of the site; also the record does not indicate whether nearby roadways (Portero Road) can accommodate evacuating persons including residents of existing neighborhoods and employees and visitors of nearby warehouses assuming 4th Street through to SR 60 is blocked by fire. The Project depends on local roadways for connections to SR 60 which are likely not capable of handling the mass evacuation of the site (the Project apparently only improves 350 feet along 4th Street).
The Draft EIR's Evacuation Study (Appendix M2) indicates that under "Scenario 3" (4`h Street) the Project will take approximately 2.5 hours to evacuate, and in combination with the "Hidden Valley Industrial Park" to the west, will take more than 3 hours to evacuate. This must represent a significant impact of the Project in terms of the need for additional fire protection services. The Project's mitigation program does not include mitigation for wildland fire risk impacts.
The Beaumont General Plan requires the preparation of a fire protection and evacuation plan and requires that new development provide two viable points of ingress and egress for emergency vehicles. The General Plan has other policies intended to mitigate fire risk which are not met here. (See General Plan Goals 9.4, 9.5, 9.6.) This includes Policy 9.5.2 stating that fire department resources shall be increased to meet the targeted response time of five minutes. Even with the construction of a new fire station as indicated in the Final EIR there is not evidence that fire response time of 5 minutes can be met for the Project. This new fire station was not evaluated through the Draft EIR and there is not evidence in the record that this new fire station will meet fire response times. Nor does the Project appropriately consider the Amazon facilities located on 4th Street.
Finally, the Fire Protection Plan must be made a mitigation requirement of the Project through the CEQA mitigation program. We could not locate the FPP in the conditions of approval or the mitigation program.
Cumulative Impacts
As noted above, a billion square feet of the Inland Empire is devoted to warehouses. In just a few months, the World Logistics Center (WLC) - the 40 million square foot warehouse complex in eastern Moreno Valley - will break ground. The WLC is located only a few miles from the Project site. The WLC is estimated to generate 12,000 daily diesel truck trips with most of them using SR - 60 —traveling past the Project. It is also estimated to generate more than 50,000 daily vehicle trips. www.tbplanning.com
-41k-
-411(-
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
45 (CONT.)
4E
47 48
49 50
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
The WLC Project has not been included in the Project's cumulative impact analysis. Because the Project will contribute to traffic impacts on SR -60, the cumulative impact analysis must be updated to include forthcoming the WLC Project. (See attached; see also, Attachment C hereto [map of warehouse development in Inland Empire indicating WLC].) Growth Inducement
Based on the Project's development pattern and expansion of infrastructure, including roadways and utilities, and given the site's proximity to undeveloped rural residential lands, the Project presents the potential for growth inducing impacts contrary to the EIR's findings. (Guidelines, § 15126 (d).)
Proiect Alternatives and Findings of Fact
CEQA requires that an EIR describe "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project." (Guidelines, § 15126.6 (a).) The "range of alternatives" presented through the EIR do not provide decisionmakers with meaningful alternatives that substantially reduce project impacts and meet most of the basic objectives of the Project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would still develop 4,000,000 square feet of industrial uses (a total of 4,495,000 sf of industrial development). It would primarily decrease the amount of commercial uses under the Project.
The Draft EIR should evaluate a development alternative with a greater mix of uses, such as business park or professional park uses, to reduce VMT and noise (due to heavy duty truck traffic). Specific plan zoning is an opportunity to create a comprehensive zoning plan for a particular area; and because the Project proposes to entirely redesignate and rezone the properties it is not a foregone conclusion that only industrial uses (with some limited commercial) must be developed. The City should explore a development that truly balances uses to create the type of "transit oriented" development that reduces VMT. The City should also consider an alternative that substantially reduces the amount of industrial development as this is the "primary" development objective of the Project. By reducing industrial development in a meaningful way there is a real opportunity to reduce Project impacts while still providing employment and tax revenue opportunities.
To ensure that alternatives are properly assessed and considered, CEQA "contains a 'substantive mandate' requiring public agencies to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if `there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures' that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects'." (County of San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Dist. (2006) 141 Ca1.App.4t" 86, 98; Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) A lead agency may not reject an alternative unless the agency makes findings supported by substantial evidence showing that the alternative is infeasible. (Public Resources Code §§ 21081 (a), 21081.5; Guidelines, §§ 15091 (a)(3), 15092.) Rejected alternatives must be "truly infeasible." (County of www.tbplanning.com
50 (CONT.)
4 certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
51 JL
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Siena Club Comments —Beaumont Pointe Project
February 20, 2024
Marina v. Bd of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2006) 39 Ca1.4`h 341, 369.) Absent findings of infeasibility supported by substantial evidence, the City here must adopt the Reduced Intensity Alternative. The Findings do not demonstrate that this alternative is infeasible. The purported fact that fewer jobs would be created and that the alternative would not meet Project Objectives C, D, and E "to the same extent" as the Project is not a finding of infeasibility of the alternative.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, Sierra Club urges the Council to delay a decision on this Project pending revisions to and recirculation of the EIR as well as the adoption of further mitigation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Project.
Sincerely,
Abigail Smith
Enclosure
www.tbplanning.com
54 (CONT.)
55 certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
I
1 Pig
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter
ENVIRONMENT
Ontario still `warehouse king' in
Inland Empire
Large project propels Moreno Valley to No. 2 on
consultant's list of most impacted areas
www.tbplanning.com
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
wp..[NI BUSINESS [Nit999iS[
I
1 Pig
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Traffic flows on Philadelphia Street near warehouses in Ontario last week.
An environmental consultant's data shows the region is becoming more saturated with warehouses.
Image 1 of 2
By Jeff Horseman
jhorseman@ scng.com
It's easy in the Inland Empire to feel surrounded by warehouses. But where is the logistics footprint the largest?
Mike McCarthy thinks he knows. Using publicly available data, including information from county assessors' offices, the Riverside environmental consultant recently updated his list of the Inland communities with the most square footage devoted to existing and planned warehouses.
The rankings help residents hold accountable the elected officials who make land -use decisions allowing warehouses, McCarthy said. "Understanding which cities are disproportionately impacted is helpful for local residents to understand where they fit," he said.
McCarthy's rankings, updated from his first list in 2022, paint a picture of a region increasingly saturated with large warehouses, often 1 million square feet or larger.
Thanks to its nexus of freeways and rail lines, proximity to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, an abundance of flat, cheap, available land and a blue-collar workforce, the Inland Empire is a logistics hub supplying Southern California and a nation thirsty for instant delivery of online -ordered goods.
While warehouses employ thousands and provide an economic foundation in a region lacking the high -paying, white-collar jobs of coastal counties, some also blame logistics for a range of health nrohlems associated with toxic www.tbplanning.com
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMfNS WLNFSS(NI[•mmf
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter exhaust belched by warehouse -bound trucks.
Critics also assail the logistics industry for destroying local roads with a seemingly endless stream of tractor trailers and warehouse working conditions described as unsafe and sweltering.
McCarthy, a member of Riverside Neighbors Opposing Warehouses, said he made two changes from his 2022 rankings. He included warehouses that have been planned and approved but not yet built. And he added unincorporated communities that aren't officially part of a city.
Ontario, which was No. 1 in 2022, remains at the top of McCarthy's list. "Ontario is still the warehouse king of the Inland Empire," McCarthy said.
Moreno Valley, which ranked No. 11 two years ago, is now second.
The biggest factor in Moreno Valley's jump, McCarthy said, is the World Logistics Center, which will feature 40.6 million square feet of warehouse space on 2,610 acres — roughly equal to 700 football fields — once completed.
About 2.6 million square feet of the center has been built and occupied, Eric Rose, spokesperson for the center's developer, Highland Fairview, said via email. Engineering for the next phase of infrastructure is done, with construction expected to start as early as April, he added.
Moreno Valley Mayor Ulises Cabrera said via a text message that, while logistics brings an "economic uplift" to the city, "we must address its impacts on air quality, wages, benefits, and infrastructure strain, particularly affecting our most vulnerable communities."
The city also needs to "pivot" to industries such as "technology, the renewable energy supply chain, manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and health care," Cabrera said.
"This balanced approach aims not only to enhance our economic landscape," Cabrera said, "but also to ensure a higher quality of life, offering residents opportunities that extend beyond living paycheck to paycheck." Fontana is third on the list. Land controlled by the March Joint Powers Authority, Perris, Rialto, Chino, Jurupa Valley, Beaumont and Rancho www.tbplanning.com
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
.I
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter Cucamonga round out the top 10.
One new entry to the top 20 is Menifee, which was not previously ranked.
McCarthy said Menifee makes the latest list because "there's just a lot of planned activity going along on (the city's) border with Perris on Ethanac Road."
Redlands did not make the top 20 list.
Some cities rank lower on the list than they did in 2022.
Chino dropped to No. 7 from No. 4, Riverside dropped from 10 to 13, Corona dropped from 12 to 16 and Colton dropped from 15 to 18. "The biggest trend that I'm seeing is just the continuation of logistics sprawl," McCarthy said. "The cities that are the hotbeds for new activity for the planned warehouses are farther from the ports. We're talking about Moreno Valley, Beaumont, Mead Valley, Temescal Valley (and) Menifee.
Those are all 80 to 100 miles from the ports."
McCarthy said he was "a little surprised" to see the biggest changes on his list occurring in Riverside County.
"I don't know if that's just because the San Bernardino County cities are more built out," he said. "But almost all of the big changes happened in Riverside on my list."
The list is sobering to Ana Gonzalez, executive director of the Jurupa Valley - based Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. "We feel kind of heartbroken" because the list includes cities where the center has been working with residents to mobilize against warehouse growth, Gonzalez said.
The list also includes communities that are heavily Black and Latino, Gonzalez added. "We just see this perpetration of environmental racism in our communities."
Gonzalez said the list underscores the need for the state government to intervene to stem the tide of logistics development. Politico reported last month that Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D -Hollister, asked lawmakers to form a "warehouse working group" to rein in the problems associated with www.tbplanning.com
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMEN'S WLNFSS ENTERPRISE
l
I
1 Pig
I;
PLANNING
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan Project — Response to Comment Letter warenouses m a way tnat aoesn t Km warenouse ions.
www.cbplanning.com
certified
WBENC
PLANNING • DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL • GRAPHICS
WOMf NS OUSNESS (NtE 5>u,S(
Attachment A
NORTH AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR FREIGHT EFFICIENCY
AMPING UP: CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR ELECTRIC TRUCKS
Widespread innovation and technological advances
are producing technologies and practices that could
affect decisive, revolutionary, and potentially disruptive opportunities across the transportation industry. As
novel concepts, new applications, and original modes of behavior reach the market, fleets and manufacturers need information on the benefits, challenges, and risks so that everyone can profit in this evolving landscape. The North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) hopes
that by fleet managers, manufacturers, and others using its Guidance Reports in the months and years leading to launch, the first generation of production technologies will perform much better and offer higher return on investments.
This report focuses on charging infrastructure
considerations for North American commercial battery
electric vehicles (CBEVs). In its previous Guidance Reports, Electric Trucks —Where They Make Sense and Medium
Duty Electric Trucks —Cost of Ownership, NACFE found
that while the benefits of electric vehicles can be huge, so are the power requirements for charging them. In fact, the previous reports identified charging infrastructure as one of the largest unknowns and sources of anxiety for
fleets considering near -term adoption of this technology.
NACFE created this Guidance Report to provide unbiased
information detailing the multiple factors to consider in infrastructure planning for charging CBEVs. While there © 2019 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. All rights reserved. The contents of this document are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute an endorsement of any product, service, industry practice, service provider, manufacturer, or manufacturing process. Nothing contained herein is intended to constitute legal, tax, or accounting advice, and NACFE assumes no liability for use of the report contents. No portion of this report or accompanying materials may be copied, reproduced, or distributed in any manner without express attribution to the North American Council for Freight Efficiency.
C
z
m
m
v
0 m
X
m
C)
c
m
u,
c
3 x1
3 z
G)
c
02 is no "one size fits all" solution to charging, there are common steps and considerations that any fleet considering deployment of electric trucks should undertake in order to ensure they have a complementary and cost-effective
charging strategy in place.
This is the third in a series of NACFE guidance reports on electric trucks. It will be followed by Guidance Reports on Class 7 and 8 day cabs and Class 8 long -haul electric vehicles. The goals of this guidance report are to: a) give an overview of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE); b) provide information on procuring charging stations and the required electricity; and c) provide common steps and considerations to ensure a complementary and cost-
effective charging strategy.
METHODOLOGIES
NACFE's research for this report included
interviewing key people with first-hand knowledge
of electric vehicle charging infrastructure at fleets,
manufacturers, suppliers, utilities, and industry
groups. The report includes an extensive list of
references to assist readers interested in pursuing
more detail. Interviewees were specifically asked what
they would want to see in this report and NACFE has
taken care to include these wants in the final report.
This report builds off the NACFE Guidance Reports:
Electric Trucks —Where They Make Sense, published
in May 2108, and Medium Duty Electric Trucks —Cost
of Ownership, published October 2018.
SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
The report covers charging considerations for CBEVs
currently in production for freight delivery. Because
most CBEVs are currently being deployed in the goods
movement sector in the medium -duty urban delivery and
drayage sectors, much of the best practices and lessons learned come from these applications. And while we
touch on considerations for long -haul CBEVs, much of this information is speculative at this point in time as electric trucks have yet to be deployed for this application in any meaningful way.
c
0 >
z
c-)
m
m
-a
0 m
x
m
n
c
m
cn
c
3 3
D
x1
D
3 z
G)
c
03 FIGURE ES1
ELECTRIC TRUCK CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS
HARDWARE
The physical charging stations, ports,
panels, transformers, etc., including
wiring/conduit, transformer upgrades,
and installation
Does not vary dramatically from
company to company. Main
differentiators are connector types,
speed, and price
Utility programs may cover some
hardware costs
SOFTWARE/NETWORKING
Can be built-in to chargers or purchased
from third -party vendors to complement
chargers' built-in software
Enables cost-effective charging
management, along with integration of
distributed energy resources (DERs) and
grid services
Provides data and analytics to fleet
managers to inform charging decisions
Main differentiator between electric
vehicle supply equipment (EVSE)
provider companies
Networks can be closed or open
1 1 1
_ -H+ _
1 •
1 IIP 77 1 AP n
y II
MAINTENANCE
Timely repair of charging equipment is
essential for ensuring vehicle uptime
Service packages available to monitor
and repair equipment
Necessary for proactively identifying
and addressing issues
INFRASTRUCTURE BASICS
ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT
When planning for charging infrastructure, fleets must
plan for three separate but related components: hardware, software/networking, and maintenance.
The hardware consists of the electric vehicle supply
equipment (EVSE), also known as a charging station,
which charges the batteries of electric vehicles. The most common type of EVSE is a plug-in charging station, which plugs into a port on the truck to recharge it. Unfortunately, charging station connecters are not yet standardized,
and there are a number of competing charging station
connector types throughout the world (e.g., SAE J1772,
CCS, CHAdeMO, Tesla, etc.).
It is important to pair electric trucks with the appropriate type of connector. However, standardizing connectors may eventually occur for regional marketplaces as one
configuration wins significant market share advantage
over others. In the near term, commercial vehicles may
be developed with several adapters to deal with various charging station constraints or forced to use proprietary connections and be limited to proprietary charging stations.
Similarly, some charging stations offer multiple connector types to ensure usability across different vehicles. The connector choice may not be an issue for fleets with only one CBEV model and with dedicated A -B -A type routes
where the vehicle only charges from its home base.
However, if a fleet is using competing CBEV models from different manufacturers but wanting to use the same
charging system, there may be need for adapters. Thus,
for fleets that choose their vehicles first, they will need to know what type of port the truck has in order to plan which charger type(s) to purchase.
C
D
z
m
m
-o
0 m
X
m
c
m
u,
c
3 x1
3 z
G)
c
04 An alternative to charging through wires and plugs is termed wireless power transfer (WPT). Wireless charging protocols are in use with automobiles and some buses.
Applicability of wireless charging to trucks is being
investigated both in static situations where the vehicle is not moving, and in on -road methods were the vehicle is moving. Although static charging presents the least
technical challenge for wireless, currently wireless
charging technology appears too expensive for the
trucking market, with a few exceptions for niche markets.
For example, wireless charging may be an opportunity
for heavy-duty trucks to charge while they're waiting to pick up loads from ports. It is also being considered as a solution in port applications where union contracts may prevent workers from physically plugging in charging
cables. However, some see a bigger opportunity for
wireless charging in the trucking sector.
Other charging options include overhead or in -ground
conductive charging systems and battery swapping —
rapidly charging vehicles by simply replacing the
battery packs.
CHARGING SPEEDS
In regard to charging speed, there are three types of
EVSEs: Level 1—a 120 Volt home wall outlet, typically
only used for light -duty passenger vehicles; Level 2—a 240 Volt charger; and Level 3 —DC Fast Chargers (DCFC).
Since a Level 1 charger is not appropriate for charging commercial fleets, fleets will need to decide between
Level 2 or DCFC (or a mix of both) in order to keep their vehicles charged. Level 2 chargers can range from
$2,000 to $7,000 and offer upwards of 7.2 kW of power,
with some now offering over 19 kW. Depending on duty
cycle, many fleets that employ "return to base" or "depot" charging find Level 2 EVSEs adequate for charging
overnight or during their "dwell time" between shifts.
However, trucks with larger battery packs and/or
shorter dwell times may need to consider DCFCs,
which are much faster and also much more expensive.
Not including installation or any grid/facility upgrades that may be required, current DCFC stations can cost
upwards of $15,000 and as much as $90,000. Deciding
which level of charging is right for your fleet depends on how many trucks need to be charged, the size of their
batteries, and how long they each have to charge.
FIGURE ES2
TYPES OF EVSE (NACFE)
Type of EVSE
Level 1
Voltage
Power (kW)
120V 1.9 kW
Price
Usually included with
vehicle purchase (for
passenger EVs)
Installation Requirements
Most plug-in electric light -duty
vehicles come with a cord
set capable of plugging into
a standard home wall outlet,
so no additional charging
equipment is required
Level 2
208 - 240 V 7.2 -19.2 kW A few thousand
dollars per charger
Requires installation of
charging equipment and a
dedicated circuit of 20 to
100 amps
DC Fast Charge
(sometimes called
Level 3)
Typically
480 V
AC input
72 kW -
1 MW (in
discussion)
$15,000—$90,000
per charger
Requires installation of
charging equipment and
dedicated circuit
C
D
z
m
m
v
0 m
X
m
f7
c
m
u,
c
3 x1
3 z
G)
c
05 FIGURE ES3
POTENTIAL REAL -WORLD CHARGING SCENARIOS
Truck
Chanje V8100
Battery Size
Range
100 kWh 150 miles
Charge Time with
Level 2* **
To 80%
To 100%
3-4 hours 4-6 hours
Charging Time
with DCFC* ***
To 80%
30-40
minutes
To 100%
1-2 hours
Freightliner eCascadia
550 kWh 250 miles
17-18
hours
23-26 2.5-3.5
hours hours
4-6 hours
* Assuming 20% state of charge
** Assuming 19.2 kW
***Assuming 120 kW from charger and that vehicle capable of receiving 120 kW For example, as shown in Figure ES3, an electric delivery van may be able to recharge its batteries in 4-6 hours using a Level 2 charger, whereas an electric Class 8 tractor may require the same amount of time to recharge using a DCFC.
Note: The estimates in Figure ES3 assume a 20% starting state of charge for the batteries, that the Level 2 charger delivers 19.2 kW, and that the DCFC delivers 120 kW. It also assumes that both vehicles are capable of receiving 120 kW. "Fast charging is not really an issue for
most medium -duty trucks in the US.
Most are one -shift operations with lots
of time to charge."
—Don Francis, Clean Cities Georgia
CHARGER COMMUNICATION
In order to ensure proper charging, the charger must know how much power to provide and when. This is accomplished via the EVSE protocol, which, on a basic level, is a two-way communication between the charger and the vehicle. It
detects the battery's state of charge (SOC) and sets the correct charging current based on the maximum current
the charger can provide as well as the maximum current
the vehicle can receive. There's also a safety feature that will prevent current from flowing when the charger is not connected to the vehicle or when there is not proper
grounding. EVSE is also capable of detecting hardware
faults and disconnecting the power in order to prevent
battery damage, electrical shorts, or fire.
The EVSE protocol's ability to understand battery SOC
also creates opportunities for smart charging systems to prioritize the order of charging vehicles based on where power is most needed to optimize charging from the
fleet's perspective rather than by individual truck. For example, a truck with batteries that are 80% depleted will need more power and therefore more charging time than
a truck with batteries that are only depleted 30%. Smartly managing these trade-offs and interactions requires
appropriate software.
C
D
z
m
m
-o
0 m
X
m
C)
c
m
u,
c
3 x1
3 z
G)
c
06 Image courtesy of Wikipedia Commons
CHARGER SOFTWARE AND NETWORKING
Charging software is key for easily and cost-effectively managing fleet charging operations and is now the
main differentiator between EVSE provider companies.
For example, software is what allows multiple chargers
on -site to be able to communicate with one another to
optimize sequencing, load management, and variable
time of day electricity rates and what ensures that a fleet is charging smartly.
Sometimes, software comes built-in to chargers. Software can also be purchased from third -party vendors to
complement the chargers' built-in software. In addition to real-time charging optimization, software is also capable of collecting data and providing analytics to help fleet managers make informed charging decisions.
Most software requires that a charger be connected to
a network in order to achieve full functionality. Generally speaking, there are three types of charging station
networks: non -networked —typically used in residential applications; closed —which communicate between the
charging station and the network server; and open —
which allow charging stations to connect to multiple open networks. Particularly when fleets are first dipping their toe into electrification and piloting charging solutions, they may want to opt for open, standards -based networks in case they want to test multiple chargers but manage them all together on one network or in case they want to switch or mix and match chargers in the future.
CHARGER MAINTENANCE
Similar to networking, charging companies may offer
very different maintenance packages. These may include
services such as proactive monitoring and repair of
equipment if needed. Monitoring is important in order to spot and address issues before they snowball into crises.
And timely repair of charging equipment is essential
for ensuring mission -critical vehicle uptime. Therefore, maintenance packages should be carefully reviewed to
ensure they meet fleet needs.
CHARGING LOCATIONS
Charging will roll out in stages, first at a fleets' home depot. Later, fleets may share charging, where a truck
goes from its home depot to someone else's home depot,
both equipped with chargers. Eventually, remote public
charging is expected to emerge on high density freight
corridors where distances demand a mid -trip boost or
recharge. Charging will evolve as demand grows.
Similar to the personal vehicle market, most commercial vehicles currently charge at "home," or at private, "depot," or "return -to -base" charging stations. Due to the unpredictable "hub and spoke" nature of commercial trucking operations, most fleets currently adopting electric truck technology will want to place chargers at a central home base such as a warehouse, distribution center, or headquarters where trucks start from and return to each day. This type of "return - to -base charging" also makes sense because fleets have full control over site access, charger type, placement, and timing. This may mean redesigning the site, as the vehicles must be co -located with the chargers for some extended period of time to allow charging.
However, charging vehicles at the fleet's base during dwell times between shifts may not be sufficient for vehicles with larger battery packs and/or longer routes. One potential solution, at least for dedicated regional routes, might be to install charging stations not only at the fleet depot, but also at the customer's site(s). This could allow vehicles with relatively long A -B -A routes to charge at point B while unloading, giving them enough of a charge to make it back to their home base for further charging between shifts.
C
D
z
m
m
-o
0 m
X
m
f7
c
m
cn
c
3 x1
3 z
G)
c
07 In addition to depot charging, fleets may also consider "opportunity charging" on the road. For example, vehicles may take advantage of the quickly developing public
charging network if needed for range extension or in
emergencies. However, because of the costs of using
public chargers and the uncertainty of availability, vehicles will likely only want to rely on public charging in case of emergency. But knowing that this option exists should
relieve some of the "range anxiety" that fleet managers and drivers may feel about potentially running out of power while away from their home base. Regardless of where charging takes place, fleets that invest in charging infrastructure will want to ensure that station utilization is maximized in order to justify the significant expense.
GRID INTEGRATION AND UTILITY
BUSINESS MODELS
What is clear, as far as the overall charging system, is that electric trucks will increase demand on electricity. Because of this, grid capacity will need to be improved. New
generation may need to be added if increased efficiency in other sectors (buildings, industry, etc.) is not enough to counterbalance the new load from the quickly electrifying transportation sector. Utilities may also need to develop new demand management and/or storage solutions to
help balance timing concerns with electricity supply and demand. Similarly, new tariff structures may be necessary in order to encourage smart charging when electricity
supply is available, clean, and economical.
Given constraints of the current grid, utilities would prefer that electric vehicles not charge during "peak" times when electricity demand is highest, typically in the late afternoon or early evening when people return home from work and
begin doing energy -intensive chores. Rather, utilities are interested in encouraging charging (and other energy -
intensive tasks) during "off-peak" hours when the grid has more excess capacity.
The growing demand for electric vehicles combined with
state -level greenhouse gas reduction goals and mandates, are causing some utilities to rethink their tariff structures and even to design new tariffs specifically to support
EV charging for commercial and industrial customers.
This includes implementing time -of -use rates, in which utilities charge a different rate for on -peak versus off-peak times, or demand charges, which allow utilities to charge customers based on their individual peak demand or
highest use in a given timeframe. Because of this dynamic, fleets with flexible operations or operations that allow for trucks to be charged at night will likely find charging to be more economical than fleets that may need to charge
during the day or all at once to support mission critical operations. However, this dynamic will vary by region and by utility.
Because many utilities earn a profit based on a "cost - of -service" business model that guarantees a "rate of
return" on the company's assets or "rate base," utilities are incentivized to build the necessary infrastructure to support transportation electrification, a trend which will likely require them to invest in new assets and therefore earn more profits. With this information in mind, fleets should not be shy in demanding reasonable support and
accommodations from utilities to support vehicle charging.
C
D
z
m
m
v
0 m
x
m
c
m
cn
c
3 x1
3 z
G)
c
08 PROCURING CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ELECTRICITY
There are two main business models for procuring
charging stations and associated infrastructure. The
most common is by buying the stations outright, often
through a request for proposal process. In this scenario, fleets may hire a consultant to help make these decisions and set up the infrastructure (and potentially also help manage the relationship with the utility), but in the end, the fleet owns and manages the chargers, which are then considered a capital expense.
The other way is through leasing in which the supplier
owns the stations and the fleet simply pays a fee for using them. This model allows the fleet to pay for the stations out of their operational expense budget. In both the lease and own options, fleets often pay charging suppliers not just for the physical stations but also for access to their fleet management networks, which again, are a recurring operational expense.
Other innovative business arrangements may be
possible, including third parties that step in with capital to create turnkey systems, with various usage rates
that could remove the site owner from the complexity
of managing part or all of the charging system. Those
third parties, similar to an energy service provider in the buildings sector, may specialize not just in infrastructure procurement and installation, but also in optimizing
charging, which can have large financial implications.
Especially for fleets with little experience or interest in optimizing charging, this sort of "charging -as -a -service" model can be a good option since these third -party
companies specialize in this area and therefore may be
better able to maximize efficiency and avoid load spikes and demand charges.
ELECTRICITY BUSINESS MODELS
Just as there are various ways to procure the charging
infrastructure, there are also various ways to procure the electricity. Most fleets procure electricity the traditional way —through the local utility's electric grid. Depending on whether the region is a regulated or deregulated electricity market, fleets may have options with respect to which
company they buy their energy from. In thinking through electricity pricing, fleets must be aware of their utility's rates and if and how demand charges are integrated into those rates.
Fleets can also get their electricity from on -site "behind the meter" solutions such as microgrids and renewables
like solar PV. However, integrating systems like these into electric fleet charging systems is a very new concept and no data is yet available as far as best practices.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fortunately for fleets, depending on the location and
project, there are a myriad of financial assistance
programs available to help make vehicle electrification more economically feasible. While some of these
funding mechanisms are focused more on the vehicles
themselves, some can also help cover the cost of
charging infrastructure.
Utilities are typically aware of any financial incentives offered within their service territory, so speaking with a utility representative is usually a good place to start.
There are also directories available online that allow
fleets to search for funding support by location.
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
AND CONSIDERATIONS
Fleets planning for vehicle electrification must consider many variables for implementation. And while each
project by necessity involves some bespoke engineering
(since each site and project is different), there are some common factors to consider. A suggested chronological
roadmap, including key considerations is outlined in
Figure ES3.
The roadmap will have the same general steps regardless of number or size of trucks; however, as fleets scale the number of electric vehicles at each site, the charging
procurement process will become exponentially more
complex and time-consuming.
C
D
z
m
m
v
0 m
X
m
f7
c
m
tn
c
3 x1
3 z
G)
c
0 9
FIGURE ES4
CHARGING PROCUREMENT ROADMAP
Charging Procurement Roadmap
5. Procure Charging
Components
including hardware,
software, and
maintenance and
repair service plan
4. Assess Financing
to explore utility
programs/incentives,
local, state, and federal
grants and rebates,
ownership model
(capex vs. opex), etc.
1. Engage Utility
to evaluate existing
infrastructure, programs,
case studies, etc.
6. Design Site Plan
including charging location
and spacing
3. Determun
Charging Needs
accounting for daily
kWh needed,
charging time(s),
charging speed,
utility tariffs,
software, etc.
2. Choose Vehicle(s)
and consider duty cycle,
range, dwell time, battery
capacity, charge port, etc.
7. Apply for
Permits
before
construction
or installation
8. Deploy
Charging
Infrastructure
construction,
installation,
software
licensing, and
connection
c
0 D
z
0 m
m
0 m
x
m
n
m
U)
c
Xl
z
G)
c
v
10 FIGURE ES5
CHARGING IMPLEMENTATION COMPLEXITY
Time Intensity of Planning Charging
Number of e -Trucks
This implementation process may be lengthy, but as more fleets and utilities gain more and more experience, this process will become more streamlined as a common
"cookbook" approach evolves.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the opportunities and challenges
mentioned above, other considerations to take into
account when planning for charging infrastructure
include employee safety, fueling schedules and operator time requirements, scaling, grid services, integrating
renewables, workforce dynamics, ratepayer benefits,
and utility business model reform.
Complexity of Planning Charging
"Every charging installation faces a
variety of variables —number of trucks
to charge, local utility rate tariffs and
power delivery structure, existing site
and local grid details. There are no
rules of thumb."
—Chris Nelder, RMI
c
0 >
z
m
m
-a
0 m
m
x
m
n
c
m
u,
c
3 3
D
x1
D
3 z
G)
c
Image courtesy of National Renewable Energy Laboratory
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
NACFE's research into charging infrastructure for
commercial battery electric vehicles to date has revealed the following:
• The focus for the foreseeable future of electric truck charging will be on private, "depot," or "return -to -
base charging."
Planning and permitting for charging infrastructure
can be a time -intensive process, so fleets should
appreciate lead times and start early.
• Fleets planning to electrify some or all of their
vehicles should work closely with their local utility,
regulators, cities, neighbors, OEMs, and charging
system providers.
Fleets should focus on differentiating products
and companies based on their software, network,
and maintenance offerings, and should ensure that
they are comparing apples to apples during the
procurement process.
Fleets must develop a fairly sophisticated
understanding of the existing electric infrastructure
and demand, their electricity rates, and the types,
number, duty cycles, and time available for charging
of their vehicles —or contract a third party to do so for them.
• Fleets should plan on a site -by -site basis since
charging infrastructure is not one size fits all.
Fleet electrification will happen most where special
programs are implemented to help mitigate hardware,
installation, and electricity costs, at least in the initial stages of technology adoption.
• Fleets should consider investing in smart, networked
charging software and services, particularly for
deployments of multiple vehicles and/or vehicles with
large battery capacities.
• Fleets should demand improvements from technology
providers and utilities and inform them quickly of
all dissatisfactions.
• As all new technologies go through learning curves,
fleets should not make rash conclusions in the first
months or year of operation, but realize that solutions will be iterative as experience amasses.
C
z
m
m
-o
0 H
m
X
m
C)
c
m
u,
c
3 x1
3 z
G)
c
12 Fleets as well as utilities, regulators, and technology providers are constantly learning and developing in this rapidly evolving space. And innovative utility programs and rate structures are allowing commercial battery
electric vehicles to charge successfully and economically in growing areas of the country. However, much broader
and faster design and approval of these sorts of programs by utilities and regulators is needed in order to scale electric vehicle adoption across the nation. As much
as possible, EV-friendly programs and rate structures
should be standardized so that fleets with operations
that span multiple utility service territories can scale their electrification efforts without having to reinvent the wheel in each new territory. It's important to remember that
utilities are relatively new to the EV charging space, and that although it will require a significant departure from their historical rate structures and business models, it is in their financial interest to support the build -out of charging infrastructure because it offers additional rate -basing investments and load growth opportunities in an otherwise plateauing market.
It is also imperative that utilities understand the important differences between passenger EVs and commercial EVs.
Not only is the charging capacity much higher for CBEVs, but they have unique needs and constraints due to their mission -focused operations, which are much less flexible "In order for electric trucks to scale,
we need both the truck and the
ability to charge it. The three keys to
infrastructure deployment are
standardization, collaboration for
construction, and teaming with utility
companies for the efficient delivery
of electricity."
—Gary Horvat, VP of eMobility,
Navistar, Inc.
than personal vehicle usage and charging times. As such, CBEVs need to be looked at as a distinct market rather
than an extension of the passenger EV market.
While the charger itself is the most visible piece of the charging infrastructure ecosystem, fleets must focus
more on the big picture than on simply comparing EVSEs.
We expect more and more innovative networking and
maintenance options to arise. Software will be invaluable as smart charging will be key to minimizing costs while also ensuring mission critical uptime of vehicles. Many business models exist to help manage charging, and fleets will need to decide what trade-offs they're comfortable making
between risk management and price volatility. Fleets that develop expertise in smart charging will have a leg up on their peers, though innovative partnerships will allow even fleets new to the electrification space to be successful.
Smart charging and vehicle -to -grid capabilities may
also enable new grid services that, if compensated for
appropriately, may be a win -win -win for utilities, fleets, and ratepayers. That said, it is imperative that these services are piloted in the real world for further refinement, as they are mostly hypothetical today.
Last but certainly not least, charging infrastructure, though no doubt not sufficient today, should not be considered an insurmountable problem. Thomas Edison's first patent for the light bulb was filed in 1879 well before there was a North American power grid. Light bulb and electric
motor technology ignited national development of new
infrastructure to adapt society to the new technology
rather than forcing the technology to fit poorly into the existing infrastructure. The power grid infrastructure was demand driven based on success of the electric devices
that needed it. This lag between product introduction and infrastructure investment has been repeated many times, and there's no reason to think it won't be repeated for CBEV charging infrastructure as well.
C
D
z
m
m
v
0 m
x
m
f7
c
m
u,
c
3 x1
3 z
G)
c
THE FULL REPORT
13 The full report is available at www.nacfe.org and includes 160 references; a robust, current, relevant bibliography of charging infrastructure works; appendices that list
charging infrastructure suppliers and utilities with electric truck charging programs; and 91 figures. See the Table of Contents below for more information on the full report:
1 Table of Contents
2 Table of Figures
3 Executive Summary
4 Introduction
5 Scope
6 NACFE's Mission
7 Report Methodology
8 Charger Basics
8.1 Charger Types
8.1.1 Plug -In Chargers
8.1.2 Wireless Chargers
8.1.3 Conductive Chargers
8.2 Charging Speeds
8.3 Charger Communication
8.4 Charger Software and Networking
8.5 Charger Maintenance
8.6 Charging Locations
8.6.1 Depot Charging
8.6.2 Supplemental Chargers on Dedicated Routes
8.6.3 Opportunity and Public Charging
9 Charging System Overview
10 Charging Business Models
10.1 Infrastructure Business Models
10.2 Electricity Business Models
11 Financial Assistance
12 Implementation Considerations
12.1 Engage the Utility
12.2 Choose Vehicle(s)
12.3 Determine Charging Needs
12.4 Assess Financing
12.5 Procure Charging Infrastructure and Services
12.6 Design Site Plan
12.7 Apply for Permits
12.8 Deploy Charging Infrastructure
13 Additional Considerations
13.1 Employee Safety
13.2 Fueling Schedules and Operator Time Requirements
13.3 Scaling
13.4 Grid Services
13.5 Clean Energy/Renewables Integration
13.6 Workforce
13.7 Ratepayer Benefits
13.8 Utility Business Model Reform
14 Summary Findings
15 Recommendations
16 Bibliography
5 8
22 23
23 23
24 24
25 30
32 36
45 45
50 51
51 53
54 57
73 73
75 76
81 83
84 84
86 86
87 87
87 88
88 89
89 90
93 93
96 96
98 100
102
17 Appendix A: Charging Infrastructure Suppliers 110
17.1 ABB 110
17.2 Amply 110
17.3 BTC Power 110
17.4 ChargePoint 110
17.5 Chateau Energy Solutions 111
17.6 Clipper Creek 111
17.7 Eaton 111
17.8 Ele ctrefy,Inc. 111
17.9 eMotorWerks 111
17.10 EV Connect 111
17.11 EVgo 112
17.12 EVoCharge 112
17.13 EVSE LLC 112
17.14 GE 112
17.15 Greenlots 112
17.16 PLEMCo 112
17.17 PowerFlex Systems 112
17.18 Rhombus Energy Solutions 113
17.19 Siemens 113
17.20 Tellus Power 113
17.21 Tritium 113
113
114
17.22 Webasto
18 Appendix B: Utilities with Electric Truck
Charging Programs
18.1 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
18.2 San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)
18.3 Southern California Edison (SCE)
114
114
114
1 m
x
m
n
c
m
c
z
G)
c
14 NACFE,
NORTH AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR FREIGHT EFFICIENCY
NACFE
The North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to doubling the freight efficiency of North American goods movement. For the
past 10 years, NACFE has operated as a nonprofit in order to provide an independent, unbiased research organization for the transformation of the transportation industry. Data is critical and NACFE is proving to help the industry with real - world information that fleets can use to take action. In 2014, NACFE collaborated with Carbon War Room, founded by Sir Richard Branson and now a part of Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), to deliver tools and reports to improve trucking efficiency. These reports include a series of Confidence Reports that detail the solutions that exist, highlight the benefits and consequences of each, and deliver decision - making tools for fleets, manufacturers, and others. As of early 2019, NACFE and RMI have completed 18 such reports covering nearly all the 85 technologies available.
www.nacfe.org
ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)—an independent nonprofit founded in 1982 —transforms global energy use to create a clean, prosperous, and secure low -carbon future. It engages businesses, communities, institutions, and entrepreneurs to accelerate the adoption of market -based solutions that cost- effectively shift from fossil fuels to efficiency and renewables.
RMI has offices in Basalt and Boulder, Colorado; New York City; Washington, D.C.; and Beijing.
www.rmi.org
GET INVOLVED
Trucking Efficiency is an exciting opportunity for
fleets, manufacturers, and other trucking industry
stakeholders.
Learn more at:
Or contact: Mike Roeth at [email protected]
C
D
z
m
m
v
0 m
x
m
f7
c
m
u,
c
3 x1
3 z
G)
c
Attachment B
Purpose
Policy on Land Use and Sensitive Receptors
MO
BEAU
C A L I F O R N I ANT
For the past decade, the City of Beaumont was one of the fastest growing cities in the region. The City's proximity to Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties, the availability of affordable land and high quality of life have all contributed to making Beaumont an attractive place to live and work. The continuing rate of growth in Beaumont and in the larger region exceeds the capacity of the City's financial resources to meet the needs for transportation infrastructure. Warehousing, logistics, e -commerce and distribution are established sectors of the Inland Empire economy and are increasing in the City of Beaumont. These uses contribute to local job growth and continue to expand based on trends in e -commerce. Due to the City's location, providing direct access to I-10, SR -60 and SR79, it is anticipated that strong demand for growth in the logistics industry will continue.
The City recognizes construction and operations of logistics, warehouses and other similar types of projects in close proximity to sensitive land uses or sensitive receptors, negatively affects quality of life. Sensitive receptors generally include residences, schools, parks, playgrounds, community centers, assisted living, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and similar uses. The City of Beaumont has all of these types of sensitive receptors and additionally has several active -55+ communities.
This policy is intended to provide a guide through which logistics, warehouses and similar projects can be planned in a way that lessens their impact on the community and the environment. This policy will aid in minimizing potential impacts to sensitive receptors by acknowledging the City's existing General Plan and zoning which provides location and standards for development of these types of projects and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project analysis. This policy does not exempt a project from preparation of the appropriate environmental review and application of any necessary measures that may arise as a result.
This policy provides criteria which shall be implemented to supplement project -level mitigation measures, to further reduce impacts related to logistics, warehousing and any project of similar size or type of development.
The application of this policy is intended to be included in the evaluation of and conditions of approval for individual development projects. This will provide standards for which applicants and the public can look to and will provide an opportunity for City staff to monitor individual conditions of approval. The policies are organized into specific categories, to address potential quality of life issues from initial design to construction and operations.
Applicability
The policy guidelines apply to new projects submitted after the policy approval date and will be implemented during the development review process.
This policy applies to logistics, warehouse and similar projects that include any building larger than 100,000 square feet in size or type. It is intended to provide a general guidance that will be appropriate for most industrial or logistics, warehouse or similar projects. Project -level review under CEQA applies to any project,
9.6.22
regardless of square footage and may include any technical reports including, but not limited to noise, greenhouse gas, air quality, and traffic. The Planning Department shall use this policy to review projects and in instances where a project does not conform to the policy shall document findings to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Analysis
1. An "Air Quality" study shall be prepared in accordance with CEQA and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidelines which includes both project specific and cumulative impact analysis.
2. A "Health Risk Assessment" shall be prepared in accordance with CEQA and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidelines when a proposed project meeting the criteria of this policy is located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor.
3. A "Noise Impact Analysis" shall be prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines to assess potential impacts to the neighboring properties and surrounding community.
4. A "Construction Traffic Control Plan" shall be prepared, reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit, which details the locations of equipment staging areas, material stockpiles, proposed road closures, and hours of construction operations.
5. A "Traffic Study" or "Traffic Impact Analysis" shall be prepared in accordance with CEQA, analyzing both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) C as allowed by the City's General Plan. The study shall identify improvements and fair share costs for the project.
6. A stacking or queuing study shall be provided as part of the project review. The study shall identify the necessary on -site queuing area so vehicle and truck traffic waiting to access the site shall not extend into the public right-of-way.
7. A "Water Supply Assessment" shall be prepared as part of the environmental review process.
8. A "Sewer Study" shall be prepared as part of the project review process.
9. An "Economic Impact Study" shall be prepared as part of the project review process. At a minimum, the study shall provide a cost for service analysis, estimate of revenue generated, anticipated property tax revenue and any other information necessary to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the fiscal impacts to the City.
10. An "Energy Efficiency Plan" shall be prepared as part of the project review process which shows how the project will encourage efficiency above and beyond Title 24 requirements.
Construction Phase
1. During construction of the project, all copy of current California registration for each piece of construction equipment accessing the site shall be provided to the City. If equipment is not registered in
9.6.22
California proof of CARB-Compliant engines or newer as identified by the most current CARB engine standards shall be provided.
2. Construction contractors shall locate or park all stationary construction equipment away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
3. The surrounding streets shall be swept on a daily basis to remove any construction related debris and dirt.
4. Dust control measures meeting SCAQMD standards shall be implemented for all land disturbance and construction activity.
5. All Water Quality requirements and best practices shall be adhered to throughout the construction phase.
6. Construction contractors shall prohibit truck drivers from idling more than five (5) minutes and require operators to turn off engines when not in use, in compliance with the California Air Resources Board regulations.
7. During construction, a City representative shall conduct an on -site inspection with a project representative to verify compliance with these policies, and to identify other opportunities to reduce construction impacts.
Siting and Design
1. Truck bays and loading docks shall be a minimum of 1,000 feet, from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the nearest dock door using a direct straight-line method. This distance may be reduced if the site design includes berms or other similar features to appropriately shield and buffer the sensitive receptors from the active truck operations areas. Dock doors shall not be visible from surrounding residential properties or the public right-of-way. Other setbacks appropriate to the site's zoning classification shall be incorporated in the design.
2. Projects shall be designed to provide adequate on -site parking for commercial trucks and passenger vehicles and on -site queuing for trucks not visible from sensitive receptors. Commercial trucks shall not be parked in the public right-of-way or nearby residential areas. Queuing shall not extend into the public right- of-way.
3. Truck driveways shall be placed on streets that do not front sensitive receptors.
4. Sites shall clearly mark entry and exit points for trucks and service vehicles.
5. Facility operators shall establish specific truck routes between the facility and regular destinations, identifying the most direct routes to the nearest highway/freeway and prohibit traveling near sensitive receptors or through residential neighborhoods. The truck route should be submitted as part of the entitlement package.
9.6.22
reparateentry and exit points for trucks and passenger vehicles shall be provided to minimize truck conflict.
7. Sites shall be densely screened with landscaping along all bordering streets and adjacent sensitive receptors, with trees spaced no further apart than 25 feet on center. Trees utilized in landscape screening shall be a minimum of 36 -inch box. A permanent maintenance mechanism shall be approved as part of the entitlement process to assure that the landscaping remains in place and functional in accordance with the approved landscaping plan.
8. A "wing -wall" shall be installed perpendicular to the loading dock areas to further reduce truck or operational noise and to serve as an aesthetic screening feature for the loading area when adjacent to sensitive receptors.
9. All project lighting shall comply with the City's "Dark Sky Ordinance", Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 8.50 Outdoor Lighting. Lighting shall be shielded and directed down to the interior of the site and not spill over onto adjacent properties.
10. Project facilities shall install electrical panels and conduit to facilitate future electrical connections, to eliminate idling of main and auxiliary engines during the loading and unloading process. At all cold storage facilities electrical connections shall be provided to each dock.
11. Facility construction and operational noise shall comply with Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 9.02 Noise Control.
12. Sites shall be designed to significantly minimize aesthetic impact and structures shall have a neutral palette, blending in with the surrounding environment.
13. Any mechanical or structural equipment or components located on the exterior of the building shall be screened from view and enclosed to protect the equipment and deter vandalism.
Operation
1. Facility operators shall prohibit truck drivers from idling more than five (5) minutes and require operators to turn off engines when not in use, in compliance with the California Air Resources Board regulations.
2. Facility operators shall coordinate with CARB and SCAQMD to obtain the latest information about regional air quality concentrations, health risks, and trucking regulations.
3. On -site equipment shall be compliant with CARB and SCAQMD regulations.
4. Facility operators shall require all drivers to park and perform any maintenance of trucks in designated on -site areas and not within the surrounding community or on public streets.
5. Facility operators for sites that exceed 250 employees shall establish a rideshare program, in accordance with AQMD rule 2202, with the intent of discouraging single -occupancy vehicle trips and promote alternate modes of transportation, such as carpooling and transit where feasible.
9.6.22 Paae 2315 of 2470
PPIIIIIIIIIIr
A minimum of 5% or as required by the Cal Green Code, whichever is greater of employee parking p all be designated and infrastructure installed and operational for electric or other alternative fueled vehicles.
7. Externally announcing public address (PA) system are prohibited with the exception of emergency notifications.
8. Facility operational noise shall comply with Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 9.02 Noise Control.
Any ongoing operational noise shall be evaluated through the CEQA process.
Wayfinding
1. Wayfinding signs shall be posted in the appropriate locations that trucks should not idle for more than five (5) minutes and that truck drivers should turn off their engines when not in use.
2. Wayfinding signage shall be posted in the appropriate locations that clearly show the designated entry and exit points for trucks, service vehicles and passenger vehicles.
3. Signs stating parking and maintenance of all trucks is to be conducted within designated areas and not within the surrounding community or on public streets shall be posted in the appropriate locations.
4. Signs should be posted in the appropriate locations and handouts should be provided that show the locations of nearest food options, fueling, truck maintenance services, and other similar convenience services, if these services are not available onsite. The facility operator shall also email this information to drivers expected to visit the site, 24 hours in advance of their arrival.
5. Each facility shall designate a point of contact responsible for implementing the measures described herein and/or in the project conditions of approval and mitigation measures. Contact information should be provided to the City and updated annually, and signs should be posted in visible locations providing the contact information for the point of contact to the surrounding community. These signs shall also identify the website and contact information for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
6. Signage shall comply with the City's Sign Ordinance, Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 17.07 Signage, which may be amended from time to time.
Community Benefit
1. Applicants for proposed projects meeting the criteria for this policy shall engage in meaningful and transparent community outreach to engage the existing community in determining issues of concern. The applicant shall make a quantifiable effort to address concerns through site design and other means during the project entitlement process. Suggested outreach efforts include but are not limited to, hosting community meetings, making presentations at Homeowner's Association meetings, and Planning Commission workshops.
2. Warehouse/distribution, logistics, e -commerce and other similar types of industrial development typically produce some community impacts related to the construction and operation of these facilities. The
9.6.22
applicant for any new project will be required to participate in the Land Use Management Mitigation Fee, which would be utilized to address applied to further off -set potential air quality impacts to the community and provide a community benefit above and beyond any CEQA related mitigation measures. The fee would be based on a nexus study and subject to the requirements of California Government Code sections 66000- 66025 (the "Mitigation Fee Act"), and Assembly Bill (AB) 1600. The fee will be collected on a one-time basis.
Funds collected through the fee program will be subject to designation for use by the City Council and will generally be used for projects that directly benefit the impacted community wherein the project is located
9.6.22
Attachment C
Category
Existing
Planned and
Approved
Warehouse Daily Daily
Warehouse
Acreage floor space Truck Diesel PM
count
(Sq.Ft.) trips (pounds)
Loma Linda
San Jacinto
Perris
231 3,774 90,400,000 61,000 84.4
55 3,972 95,200,000 64,000
Redlands
Yucaipa
Daily NOx
(pounds)
Daily CO2
(metric Jobs
tons)
9,504 2565.5 30,192
88.5 9,971 2691.7 31,776
* Basemap
Q Imagery
O Warehouses
j Jurisdictions
0 Circle
❑ Rail
❑ CalEnviroScreen
ciemet
Status
Existing
Plannarl and AnnrnvPri
Category
Existing
Planned and
Approved
Warehouse
count
.' ,RAMC
� ,. NT6FtlO
oiSMON
Bar
Olt
hino Hills
.
44,
ke Forest
9,011
Acreage
Warehouse Daily
floor space Truck
(Sq.Ft.) trips
59,202 1,418,400,000 950,000
377 18,307 438,600,000 294,000
OL , AN 13,ENTAN
� R�`
■
rs
t1
comirlk
Temesc ka alley
'" on.,
11 , .
RIVERgfbE
4. 1
QRENO VALLEi�% •kJO
oti
Pe r
Canyon Lake Menifee
Lake Elsinore
Daily
Diesel PM
(pounds)
Running
Springs
Yucaipa
Ca I imesa
R
1314
406.7
Daily NOx
(pounds)
148,010
45,805
9nt Banniri!
Sa n.]ac i nto
U rnet
■
TY
Daily CO2
(metric Jobs
tons)
39954.2 473,616
12364.8 146,456
Q Basemap
0 Imagery
O Warehouses
O Jurisdictions
0 Circle
❑ Rail
CalEnviroScreen
DE
PALM SPF
Status
Existing
Plannpri anti AnnrnvP-1i
AAICCIf11U 1fIClf1
Table 4.11-1 General Plan Applicability Analysis
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Land Use and Community Design (Chapter 3)
Goal 3.1: A City structure that enhances the quality of life of residents, meets the community's vision for the future, and connects new growth areas together with established Beaumont neighborhoods.
Policy 3.1.12: Establish buffers between
open space areas and urban development by
encouraging less intensive rural
development within proximity to the open
space areas.
No Conflict. The Project site is bordered to the west and to the south by open space and conservation land uses. The Specific Plan designates PA 9 for Open Space, which accommodates landscaped, manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, project signage, as well as the natural slopes which form a buffer between the Specific Plan's developed areas and the Open Space — Conservation in PA 10. These areas would not be developed with the Project's proposed structures. Some disturbance would occur within the areas designated as Open Space; however, the disturbance would be limited to grading and landscaping. Therefore, the Project would establish a buffer between open space areas and urban development and would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.1.12.
Policy 3.4.8: Where industrial uses are near
existing and planned residential
development, require that industrial
projects be designed to limit the impact of
truck traffic, air and noise pollution on
sensitive receptors, especially in El Barrio.
No Conflict. Existing residential land uses near the Project site are those that abut the Project site on the south and to the north beyond the SR -60 Freeway. As concluded in Section 4.3, Air Quality, Section 4.13, Noise, and Section 4.17, Transportation, the Project would result in unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, and transportation, but these effects are significant due to their effect on the region. However, all mitigation measures have been implemented to reduce impacts to the extent feasible.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.4.8.
Policy 3.5.2: Continue to work towards the
implementation of streetscape and sign
standards.
No Conflict. The Project would develop the Project site in accordance with the Development Standards from Chapter 3 and Design Guidelines from Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan, which establish comprehensive streetscape design standards for interior streets. The Development Standards and the Design Guidelines that define the Project's design theme are intended to create a welcoming visual environment.
Additionally, a Sign Program for the Project is being processed concurrently with the Specific Plan. The Sign Program
provides adequate and appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.5.2.
Policy 3.5.3: Promote quality design in the
review of commercial and residential
projects.
No Conflict. The Project would include "Activities Park" within the General Commercial land uses that would consist of landscaping, seating, video screen walls, and programming for wellness activities such as yoga, movies on the lawn,
"biergarten" games, and a large climbing wall. In addition, to
General Plan Policy
Applicability
encourage social interaction, the Industrial and General Commercial building sites within Project site may include outdoor employee break areas with tables affixed to the ground to provide employees with a location to eat, gather, and enjoy being outside. The Project Applicant would develop the site in accordance with the Development Standards established in Chapter 3 and the Design Guidelines established in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan, which includes comprehensive
architectural and landscape standards and development criteria that provide for an attractive, contemporary industrial/business park. Additionally, the development standards provide
regulations for building placement and orientation, floor area ratio, height, setbacks, open space, landscaping, signage, walls and fencing, roadways, and utilities and service areas. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.5.3.
Goal 3.7: A City with a high -quality pedestrian environment for people, fostering interaction, activity, and safety.
Policy 3.7.2: Create pedestrian -oriented
streetscapes by establishing unified street
tree planting, sidewalk dimensions and
maintenance, pedestrian amenities, and
high -quality building frontages in all new
development
No Conflict. Passive recreational opportunities are provided to employees and visitors of Project site through curb -adjacent sidewalks and pedestrian paths. These amenities encourage and enhance pedestrian activity throughout the Project. Provisions for sidewalks and pedestrian walkways, bicycle storage
facilities, and employee and visitor gathering areas interior to the planning areas are set forth in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan.
The Project includes installation of sidewalks along the Project site's frontage with Jack Rabbit Trail and 4th Street and along Industrial Way. The Project provides a plant palette for three categories: Entrance Planting, Native California Planting, and Industrial Screen Planting. Landscaping is selected to
complement and enhance the setting of the site, while ensuring the conservation of the site's natural vegetation and habitats.
Therefore, the Project would create pedestrian -oriented streetscapes by establishing unified street tree planting, sidewalks, and high -quality building frontages. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.7.2.
Goal 3.8: A City that encourages a healthy lfestyle for people of all ages, income levels, and cultural backgrounds.
Policy 3.8.3 Ensure the design of context-
specific streetscaping that promotes safe
travel for all users, including signs, curbs,
trees and landscaping to provide a more
pleasant environment for drivers, cyclists,
and pedestrians.
No Conflict. The Project Applicant proposes curb adjacent sidewalks and pedestrian paths to encourage and enhance pedestrian activity throughout the Project site. In addition, all driveways and intersections to and from the Project site would be stop -controlled to ensure safety for all transportation users.
Based on the Project's roadway improvements, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.8.3
Policy 3.9.1: Use Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design strategies (CPTED)
No Conflict. The Project site is within the northwestern SOI for the City of Beaumont, which is characterized as
General Plan Policy
Applicability
in new and existing development to
improve public safety, including the
following:
• Active public space
• Building design to promote "eyes
on the street"
• Clean delineation between private
and public space
• Natural access control between
public and private space
• Maintenance of public places
• Removal or repair of vandalism or
broken property.
undeveloped and vacant. Under exiting conditions, there are no sidewalks or pedestrian facilities along the perimeter of the Project site.
The implementation of the Project would result in the
development of the Project site with Industrial and General Commercial uses. The implementation of the Project would provide a clean delineation between public and private space through signage, walls, and fencing. The Project's proposed buildings would feature security lighting to enhance security on site. Additionally, building facades would face public
roadways including SR -60 Freeway, Jack Rabbit Trail,
Entertainment Way, and 4th Street.
The implementation of the Project would not interfere with the City's ability to maintain public places or remove or repair vandalism or broken property. As such, the Project As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.9.1.
Goal 3.10: A City designed to improve the quality of the built and natural environments to reduce disparate health and environmental impacts
Policy 3.10.2: Reduce particulate emissions
from paved and unpaved roads,
construction activities, and agricultural
operations.
No Conflict. During the Project's construction phase, water would be sprayed throughout the site to abate dust particulate emissions as required by South Coast AQMD Rule 403.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 shall ensure that all 75 -horsepower or greater diesel -powered equipment is powered with California Air Resources Board (CARB)-
certified Tier 4 Final engines, except where the project applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Beaumont that Tier 4 Final equipment is not available. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.10.2.
Policy 3.10.4: Designate truck routes to
avoid sensitive land uses, where feasible.
No Conflict. This is not a Project specific policy; however, the Project does not propose truck routes in proximity to sensitive land uses. Located along the south side of the SR -60 Freeway, access to the regional transportation system from the Project site is provided via 4th Street at the Potrero interchange, approximately 1.25 miles to the east. Due to the Project site's proximity to SR -60, trucks accessing the Project site would efficiently reach the State highway system to facilitate the movement of goods throughout the region. In addition, Jack Rabbit Trail will only provide gated, emergency access to the SR -60 Freeway. No access to the SR -60 Freeway is proposed, except during an emergency in order to restrict truck traffic along Jack Rabbit Trail, which would be one of the main roadways that connects to the proposed commercial
development. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.10.4.
Policy 3.10.7: Support practices that
promote low impact development,
including water resilient communities,
No Conflict. In accordance with the Project's WQMP, the Project would install LID BMPs (e.g., bioretention and
biotreatment) to detain stormwater on site for runoff mitigation.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
prevention of urban runoff, and mitigation
of industrial pollution.
The Project proposes to install four detention basins within drainage management areas. The detention basins would
remove pollutants from runoff and filter the water, thereby providing first -flush capture, detention, and filtration of stormwater runoff before it is discharged from the Project site.
Additionally, the Project proposes structural and non-structural source control BMPs (see Table 4.10-4 of this EIR) to mitigate industrial pollution. Furthermore, the Project would slightly reduce peak stormwater flows by approximately 98 cfs and would not cause adverse hydrologic or biologic impacts to downstream receiving waters, including groundwater. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.10.7.
Policy 3.11.5: Preserve watercourses and
washes necessary for regional flood
control, ground water recharge areas and
drainage for open space and recreational
purposes. These include San Timoteo
Creek, Little San Gorgonio Creek and
Noble Creek, among others.
No Conflict. As further discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, the Project site is not within the recharge area for Little San Gorgonio Creek. The Project Applicant proposes to preserve 124.7 acres on site as Open Space and 152.4 acres as Open Space — Conservation. The Project would result in a 98 cfs reduction in peak stormwater runoff rates, and drainage from the development areas would continue to flow to San Timoteo Creek.
The implementation of the Project would not interfere with the City's ability to preserve watercourses and washes necessary for regional flood control, groundwater recharge areas and drainage for open space and recreational purposes. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.11.5.
Policy 3.11.7: Preserve permanent open
space edges or greenbelts that provide a
buffer for separation between adjoining
developments.
No Conflict. See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 3.1.12. The Project Applicant proposes to preserve 124.7 acres on site as Open Space and 152.4 acres as Open Space — Conservation. The Project's on -site Open Space designated areas would provide a buffer between the proposed Industrial and Commercial uses from the existing open space to the west and south. Additionally, the SR -60 Freeway would provide a buffer from the proposed development and existing single-family residences to the north and northeast.
Furthermore, the proposed Industrial and Commercial uses would be compatible with the proposed Hidden Canyon
industrial development to the east. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.11.7.
Policy 3.11.8: Work with Riverside County
and adjacent cities, landowners, and
conservation organizations to preserve,
protect, and enhance open space and natural
resources consistent with the MSHCP.
No Conflict. The Project would provide 124.7 acres of open space to accommodate landscaped manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, and natural open space as a buffer to adjacent conservation area and 152.4 acres of open space — conservation. The Open Space — Conservation area would be preserved as natural habitat and dedicated to the RCA as required by the MSHCP. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.11.8.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Policy 3.11.9: Continue to maintain the
Badlands and Potrero area as primarily a
functioning wildlife habitat.
No Conflict. As described in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, of this EIR, the Project site is located within Criteria Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125 of Subunit 1
(Potrero/Badlands) of The Pass Area Plan, and with "offsite" proposed conservation located within Cell Group A' of Subunit 3 (Badlands North) of the Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan.
The MSHCP defines a "Core" as a "block of Habitat of
appropriate size, configuration, and vegetation characteristics to generally support the life history requirements of one or more Covered Species." The Project proposes a Criteria
Refinement that will support the assembly of Proposed Core 3 in a manner consistent with the existing Cell Criteria. The intent of conserved lands at the Project site is to expand the edge of Core 3.
The Project will impact 112.45 acres of lands described for conservation by the MSHCP Cell Criteria. The Project will offset those impacts with 122.81 acres of replacement lands that are not described by the Cell Criteria, including 41.21 acres on site and 78.40 acres off -site. In addition, the Project will conserve the remaining 93.42 acres of on -site lands described by the Cell Criteria, for a combined conservation area of 213.03 acres, compared with a total of 205.87 acres described by the MSHCP.
The Project's on -site conservation includes 133.27 acres within the Criteria Area (Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125) and
1.36 acres on site that are not part of a Criteria Cell (but adjacent to Cells). Of the offsite lands, approximately 37.89 acres are in Ce11 1125 of Cell Group A', and 40.51 acres are not a part of a Criteria Cell but are adjacent to Cell Group A'.
Although the Project does not achieve minimum described acreage for some of the individual Cells, the Project proposes an overall greater amount of conservation than is described, including the expansion of conservation to the northwest and the southeast into undescribed lands that will extend the conserved edge. The conservation of undescribed lands in the northwestern portion of Cell 933 will extend conservation to SR -60 to link up with the undercrossing constructed as part of the freeway improvements.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policies 3.11.9 and 3.11.10.
Policy 3.11.10: Require the provision of
open space linkages and conservation
between development projects, consistent
with the conservation efforts targeted in the
MSHCP.
Goal 3.12: A City that minimizes the extent of urban development in the hillsides, and mitigates any significant adverse consequences associated with urbanization.
Policy 3.12.1: Develop policies for
hillside development in order to protect
the natural environment and views.
No Conflict. Under existing conditions, the Project site is characterized by rugged steep ridges and hillsides with narrow canyons that are generally situated on the southwest portion of the site. Relatively gentle ridges, broad canyons, and valleys are located on the northwest and southeast
portions of the site. The existing topography of the site
General Plan Policy
Applicability
consists of low rolling hills and canyons, ranging in
elevation between the 2,300 and 2,450- foot contours msl.
The Project would entail extensive grading activities to allow for the development of the proposed Industrial and Commercial uses. However, the proposed development is in proximity to developing areas to the east that are designated for Industrial uses. Additionally, the southern portion of the Project site and the areas surrounding the proposed
structures will be designated as Open Space and Open Space - Conservation, which will also help preserve the scenic views within this area. As discussed above, although
landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, the Project would preserve foreground
landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline views. Therefore, the Project would preserve the scenic views within the area and would not result in an impact on scenic vistas. The Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy 3.12.1.
Policy 3.12.2: Limit the extent and intensity
No Conflict. The Project site is adjacent to and in part within of uses and development in areas of
the San Timoteo Badlands, which is characterized with
unstable terrain, steep terrain, scenic vistas,
and other critical environmental areas.
mountainous terrain. The Project site contains hillsides, ridges, canyons, and valleys in the northwestern and southeastern portions of the site. These areas include PAs 9 and 10 which are designated as Open Space and Open Space - Conservation, respectively. Areas designated as Open Space - Conservation would serve to protect the natural resources on site and no development would occur in this area. As previously discussed, grading would occur on PAs 1 through 9.
Landform modifications would occur under the Project in PAs 1-8 and remedial grading would occur in PA 9, along with landscaped, manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, project signage, as well as the natural slopes which form a buffer between the Specific Plan's developed areas and PA 10.
Although landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, no grading would occur within PA 10 or between the north-northeast property line and SR -60 Freeway, which would preserve foreground landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline views. The boundary between PA 9 and PA 10 is designated as the "Limits of Disturbance" on the Land Use Plan. This designation means that all
development activity will take place inside of the limits of disturbance (i.e., within PA 9 or within PAs 1-8) and not on PA
10. PA 9 would include natural slopes which form a buffer between the developed areas and PA 10, which would be
dedicated to the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), pursuant to the MSHCP. Therefore, this area would preserve deeply incised hillsides and watercourse along with the habitats associated with these landforms.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, a Geotechnical Report was prepared to evaluate geological conditions on the Project site and feasibility of development. As discussed, the Project's proposed 2:1 cut and fill slopes are considered grossly stable and surficially stable; and, impacts relating to unstable soils and geologic units, including landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction would be less than significant.
Furthermore, mandatory adherence to the recommendations contained in the site -specific geotechnical report during Project construction would ensure impacts associated with geological hazards are less than significant.
Moreover, as discussed in Threshold b above, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. As such, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy 3.12.2.
Policy 3.12.3: Control the grading of land,
pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, to
minimize the potential for erosion,
landslides, and other forms of land failure,
as well as to limit the potential negative
aesthetic impact of excessive modification
of natural landforms.
No Conflict. The Project would require extensive grading in order to develop the site with the proposed Industrial and General Commercial land uses. However, the Project's grading plan would be in accordance with the standards identified in the City's Municipal Code, to minimize the potential for erosion, landslides, and other forms of land failure. The Project's grading would occur within the central portion of the Project site where the proposed buildings would be located. Although landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, the Project Applicant does not propose to grade the northwestern or southern portions of the Project site within PA 10 or between the north-northeast property line and SR -60 Freeway, which would preserve foreground landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline views. Future
development would be subjected to the recommendations
contained in the Geotechnical Report (see Section 5 of
Technical Appendix F1, of this EIR), in accordance with the CBC and Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.1.040. The
Geotechnical Report includes requirements for: supplemental subsurface exploration, general earthwork and grading, fill placement and compaction, remedial grading, manufactured slopes, surface drainage, subdrainage, oversized rock
materials, deep fill areas/settlement monitoring, preliminary foundation recommendations, retaining walls, sulfate potential, corrosion potential, preliminary pavement design, and
temporary excavations. Mandatory compliance with the
recommendations contained within the Project site's
Geotechnical Report (as required by the CBSC, Beaumont
Building Code, and conditions of approval) would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on -site and abutting off -site areas. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.12.3; see also discussion under Policy 3.12.2.
Policy 3.12.4: Recognize the value of
ridgelines and hillsides as significant
natural and visual resources and strengthen
No Conflict. The Project designates 152.4 acres (PA 10) as Open Space — Conservation, which is intended to be dedicated to the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), pursuant to the
General Plan Policy
Applicability
their role as features which define the
character of the City and its individual
neighborhood.
Western Riverside County MSHCP, for preservation to
augment existing, adjacent conserved lands in this part of Riverside County. This area consists of deeply incised hillsides and watercourses along with the habitats associated with these landforms. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the EIR, although landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, the Project would not allow grading within PA 10, which would preserve foreground landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline views. No development would occur in this area. The Specific Plan would implement measures to ensure that Project design elements visually enhance and do not degrade the surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.12.4.
Policy 3.12.12: Establish buffers between
open space areas and urban development by
encouraging less intensive rural
development within proximity to the open
space areas.
No Conflict. The Project site is bordered to the north by SR -60 and to the east by new industrial development. The Project site is bordered to the west and to the south by open space and conservation land uses which are buffered under the Beaumont Specific Plan by PA 9 and PA 10 which abut the open space areas and are designated as Open Space and Open Space — Conservation, respectively. PA 9 will be developed with landscaped, manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, as well as the natural slopes which form a buffer between the Specific Plan's developed areas and the Open Space —
Conservation in PA 10. PA 10 will remain ungraded and
undeveloped. These areas would not be developed with the Project's proposed structures. PA 9 will also be developed with project signage along the SR -60 frontage only. As further described in Section 3.0. of this EIR, the Project's on -site Open Space designated areas would provide a buffer between the proposed development and adjoining natural open space. As such, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy
3.12.4. Mobility (Chapter 4)
Goal 4.1: Promote smooth traffic flows and balance operational efficiency, technological, and economic feasibility.
Policy 4.1.1: Reduce vehicular congestion
on auto -priority streets to the greatest extent
possible.
No Conflict. The Project Applicant would be required to pay TUMF fees, DIF fees, and fair share improvement fees that the City would use to ensure the implementation of roadway
improvements in the area in order to minimize traffic
congestion. Additionally, the Project would include the following improvements to accommodate site access and
maintain acceptable peak hour operations: install a traffic signal, and construct southbound left turn lane with a minimum of 200 -feet of storage and a right turn lane, an eastbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100 -feet of storage and a through lane, and westbound through lane and a right turn lane with a minimum of 100 -feet of storage at the intersection of Jack Rabbit Trail & 4th Street; construct an eastbound shared left - through lane and stripe the southbound right turn lane at the
General Plan Policy
Applicability
intersection of Potrero Boulevard and 4th Street; construct 4th Street at its ultimate full -width as a Collector (66 -foot right-of- way) from the western Project boundary to Jack Rabbit Trail and with a minimum of one lane of travel in each direction from Jack Rabbit Trail to Potrero Boulevard. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.1.1.
Policy 4.1.5: Require residential and
commercial development standards that
strengthen connections to transit and
promote walking to neighborhood services.
No Conflict. The Project Applicant proposes curb adjacent sidewalks and pedestrian paths to encourage and enhance pedestrian activity throughout the Project site. Additionally, the Project would provide pedestrian and bicycle network
improvements within the development connecting to existing off -site facilities to the east along 4th Street. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.1.5.
Policy 4.1.6: Review and coordinate
circulation requirements with Caltrans, as it
pertains to freeways and state highways.
No Conflict. The TIA has been prepared in accordance with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The TIA analyzed freeway mainline and ramp junction impacts to the State Highway System, including the I-10 and SR -60. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.1.6.
Goal 4.2: Support the development of a comprehensive network of complete streets throughout the City that provides safe, efficient, and accessible connectivity for users of all ages and abilities.
Policy 4.2.2: Maintain standards that align
with SB 743 and multi -modal level of
service (MMLOS) methodologies.
Incorporate these into impact assessments
when appropriate.
No conflict. Consistent with SB 743, the City of Beaumont adopted thresholds based on VMT. The VMT assessment
(Technical Appendix K2) prepared for the Project included analysis of VMT impacts resulting from implementation of the Project. The VMT assessment for the Project has been
reviewed and approved by the City.
The City has not adopted MMLOS methodologies, however,
the TIA (Technical Appendix KI) analyzes LOS and multi - modal transportation. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.2.2.
Policy 4.2.5: Ensure that existing and future
roadway improvements balance the needs
of all users, including pedestrians and
bicyclists.
No Conflict. As discussed in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan, the Project includes installation of sidewalks along the Project site's frontage with Jack Rabbit Trail and 4th Street and along Industrial Way, a proposed private road located along the north side of the proposed industrial buildings. Access to the Project's proposed industrial and commercial uses would be separated to allow for safe access for visitors to the Project's commercial uses. Jack Rabbit Trail provides access to PAs 1 and 2 while primary access to the Industrial PAs 3 through 8 is provided by 4th Street along the south, with Industrial Way providing secondary access along the north. Additionally, the Project would include the
installation of bicycle racks and lockers at each of the proposed light industrial buildings and the Project proposes curb adjacent sidewalks and pedestrian paths to encourage and enhance pedestrian activity throughout the Project site. Therefore, the
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Project would not conflict be consistent with General Plan Policy 4.2.5.
Goal 4.3: A healthy transportation system that promotes and improves pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety in Beaumont.
Policy 4.3.1: Reduce the potential for car
collisions through design improvements,
speed limit enforcement, and education
efforts, prioritizing areas with a high level
of collision incidence
No Conflict. The Project site is currently undeveloped and therefore is not in an area with a high level of collision incidences. Roadways would be constructed consistent with the Specific Plan (see Figure 3-8, Conceptual Circulation Plan) and designed in accordance with City standards. Roadway
alignments, designations, and widths provided at the
subdivision stage are subject to detailed engineering review and approval by the City Engineer. Traffic control measures shall be installed consistent with the TIA (Technical Appendix K 1 ) and as determined by the City Engineer. Additionally, as discussed above, the Project Applicant would be required to pay TUMF, DIF, and fair share fees; and the Project would include roadways improvements consistent with City
Requirements to accommodate site access and maintain
acceptable peak hour operations. Driveways and access points shall conform to the City's standard intersection spacing and access spacing. Additionally, sight distances would be
reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure that setbacks allow for clear, unobstructed sight distances at intersections. Based on the Project's required design improvements, the Project would reduce the potential for car collisions and the Project would not conflict be consistent with General Plan Policy 4.3.1.
Policy 4.3.5: Integrate land use and
transportation infrastructure to support
higher -density development, a balanced
mix of residential and commercial uses, and
a connected system of sidewalks, bikeways,
greenways, and transit.
No Conflict. The Project involves a mixed development of 232.6 acres of light industrial use, 30.2 acres of commercial use (i.e., hotel, restaurants, recreation -based retail uses), 124.7 acres of open space, and 152.4 acres of open space -
conservation use. The Project also includes a detailed
circulation plan, which is organized to ensure efficient access to individual tenant areas, as well as to public places. Because the Project would integrate land use and transportation infrastructure to support a balanced mix of land uses, the Project would not conflict with Policy 4.3.5.
Goal 4.4: A balanced transportation system that provides adequate facilities for people in the City to bicycle, walk, or take transit to their destinations.
Policy 4.4.3: Improve safety for all active
transportation users.
No Conflict. The Project Applicant proposes curb adjacent sidewalks and pedestrian paths to encourage and enhance pedestrian activity throughout the Project site. In addition, all driveways and intersections to and from the Project site would be stop -controlled to ensure safety for all transportation users.
Based on the Project's roadway improvements, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.4.3.
General Plan Policy 1
Applicability
Goal 4.6: An efficient goods movement system that ensures timely deliveries without compromising quality of life, safety, or smooth traffic flow for Beaumont residents.
Policy 4.6.1: Prioritize goods movement
along specific routes in the City, consistent
with the adopted layered network, to foster
efficient freight logistics.
No Conflict. The Project site is situated in close proximity to the regional transportation network which connects the site to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, both major gateways for international trade, the Inland Empire and the Western United States. Located along the south side of the SR -60 and I- 10 Freeway, access to the regional transportation system from the site is provided via 4th Street, and access to the SR -60 and I-10 Freeway from 4th Street through an industrial area to the east. Interim regional access to the Project site is available from the SR -60 Freeway via Western Knolls and Veile Avenue/6th Street interchanges and the I-10 Freeway via the Oak Valley Parkway and Beaumont Avenue interchanges. Once the
Potrero Boulevard interchange is constructed, regional access to the Project site would be available from the SR -60
Freeway/Potrero Boulevard and I-10 Freeway/Oak Valley
Parkway interchanges. Due to the Project site's proximity to SR -60, trucks accessing the Project site would efficiently reach the State highway system to facilitate the movement of goods throughout the region. In addition, the Project would be consistent with SCAG's Connect SoCal goals, which are
described in detail in EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and
Planning. Based on the foregoing, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.6.1.
Policy 4.6.2: Minimize or restrict heavy
vehicle traffic near sensitive areas such as
schools, parks, and neighborhoods.
No Conflict. The closest sensitive area to the Project site is an existing single-family residence located approximately 483 feet south of the Project site's southernmost boundary. Other residential uses are located north across Frontage Road (1,253 feet) and beyond SR -60. However, the Project would not restrict access to or from the existing residence; the Project would provide private residential access on site to the existing residence; cars and trucks will not pass by this residence under the proposed roadway plan. truck trips would be routed through an industrial area to Potrero Boulevard and would not pass by sensitive areas. Based on these restrictions, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.6.2.
Health and Environmental Justice (Chapter 6)
Goal 6.7: A City that safely and systemically addresses toxics, legacy pollutants, and hazardous materials.
Policy 6.7.1: Prohibit new non-residential
uses that are known to release or emit toxic
waste at levels that are harmful to human
health while continuing to allow R&D uses,
medical uses, and other necessary services
such as dry cleaners.
No Conflict. The Project Applicant proposes to develop the Project site with industrial and commercial uses. However, the building occupants within the industrial land use will include warehousing, manufacturing, fulfillment, parcel hub and/or similar uses. Manufacturing uses may include manufacturing on -site and shipment of goods and/or shipment/transport of goods to the Project site for manufacturing on -site. Building
General Plan Policy
Applicability
occupants within the commercial land uses will include
restaurants, recreation, and entertainment (e.g., athletic fields, batting cages, miniature golf courses, health clubs, etc.). The full list of permitted, conditionally permitted, and ancillary uses allowed within the Project site are listed on Table 3-1 of the Specific Plan. Based on the facilities and uses that would be allowed at the Project site, hazardous materials (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, solvents, corrosives, hazardous materials, etc.) could be used during the course of daily operations at the Project site, subject to mandatory regulatory compliance to insure safe use and disposal. It is possible that other hazardous materials also could be used during the course of daily operations at the Project site. In the event that hazardous materials, other than those common materials described above, are associated with future operations, the hazardous materials would only be stored and transported to and from the Project site subject to applicable safety regulations. General cleaning activities on site that contain toxic substances are usually low in concentration and small in amount; therefore, there is no significant risk to humans or the environment from the use of such cleaning products.
As concluded in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, of this EIR, with mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 6.7.1.
Policy 6.7.2: Continue to work with State,
federal, regional, and local agencies to
eliminate and reduce concentrations of
regulated legacy pollutants.
No Conflict. There are no existing pollutants on site as the Project site is vacant and undeveloped. The Project would comply with State and federal Community -Right -to -Know laws, which allow the public to access information regarding the information about the amounts and types of chemicals that may be used by businesses on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 6.7.2.
Policy 6.7.5: Reduce particulate emissions
from paved and unpaved roads,
construction activities, and agricultural
operations.
No Conflict. During the Project's construction phase, water would be sprayed throughout the site to abate dust particulate emissions. Additionally, Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 shall ensure that all 75 -horsepower or greater diesel -powered equipment is powered with California Air Resources Board (CARB)-certified Tier 4 Final engines, except where the project applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Beaumont that Tier 4 Final equipment is not available.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 6.7.5.
Policy 6.7.6: Designate truck routes to
avoid sensitive land uses, where feasible.
No Conflict. See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 3.10.4. The Project does not propose any truck routes in
General Plan Policy
Applicability
proximity to sensitive land uses. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 6.7.6.
Community Facilities and Infrastructure (Chapter 7)
Goal 7.3: Buildings and landscapes promote water conservation, efficiency, and the increased use of recycled water.
Policy 7.3.6: Encourage innovative water
recycling techniques, such as rainwater
capture, use of cisterns, and installation of
greywater systems.
No Conflict. As disused in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, and Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would commit to using graywater (purple pipe)
irrigation Recycled water will be utilized and used for construction dewatering, irrigation of manufactured and replanted slopes within PA 9, as well as for irrigation of parkway landscaping and irrigation of landscaping within the General Commercial and Industrial land uses (PAs 1-8). The Project would connect a proposed 14 -inch recycled water line that would connect to the existing 14 -inch recycled water line within the adjacent Hidden Canyon development at 4th Street (350 feet east of the Project site in the existing right of way).
As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.3.6.
Goal 7.4: Incorporate sustainable and improved stormwater management practices.
Policy 7.4.1: Incorporate low -impact
development (LID) techniques to improve
stormwater quality and reduce run-off
quantity.
No Conflict. In accordance with the Project's WQMP, the Project would install LID BMPs (e.g., bioretention and
biotreatment) to detain stormwater on site for runoff mitigation.
The Project proposes to install four detention basins within drainage management areas. The detention basins would
remove pollutants from runoff and filter the water, thereby providing first -flush capture, detention, and filtration of stormwater runoff before it is discharged from the Project site.
Additionally, the Project proposes non-structural BMPs to mitigate industrial pollution. Furthermore, the Project would slightly reduce peak stormwater flows by approximately 98 cfs and would not cause adverse hydrologic or biologic impacts to downstream receiving waters, including groundwater. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.4.1.
Policy 7.4.3: Require new development and
redevelopment projects to reuse stormwater
on site to the maximum extent practical and
provide adequate stormwater infrastructure
for flood control.
No Conflict. The Project's proposed stormwater drainage system is designed to capture and convey the Project's
stormwater flows into the Project's proposed on -site
stormwater detention basins that would gradually release stormwater into the downstream public storm drain system.
Additionally, flood protection facilities will be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) and with adequate access easements and facilities provided. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy
7.4.3. Goal 7.5: Manage and effectively treat stormwater to minimize risk to downstream resources.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Policy 7.5.1: Ensure compliance with the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) MS4 permit
requirements.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the implementation of the Project would
involve grading of more than one acre. Therefore, the Project developer would be required to obtain a NPDES General
Construction Permit and comply with permit requirements effective at the time of construction. Additionally, as stated in Regulatory Requirement RR 10-5, prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall provide evidence to the City that the Project comply with the requirements of the RWQCB Municipal
Permit General MS4 Permit. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.5.1.
Policy 7 5 3 • Minimize pollutant discharges
No Conflict. In accordance with the Project's WQMP, the Project would install LID BMPs (e.g., bioretention and
biotreatment) to detain stormwater on site for runoff mitigation.
The Project proposes to install four detention basins within four DMAs. Additionally, the Project proposes non-structural BMPs to mitigate industrial pollution. Additionally, as further discussed in EIR Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project's proposed storm drain system is designed to capture 100 -year storm event peak flows. The Project's proposed storm drain system has sufficient capacity to hold and treat peak stormwater flows. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.5.3.
into storm drainage system, natural
drainages, and groundwater. Design the
necessary stormwater detention basins,
recharge basins, water quality basins, or
similar water capture facilities to protect
water quality by capturing and/or treating
water before it enters a watercourse.
Policy 7.5.5: Require hydrological/
hydraulic studies and WQMPs to ensure
that new developments and redevelopment
projects will not cause adverse hydrologic
or biologic impacts to downstream
receiving waters, including groundwater.
No Conflict. As further discussed in EIR Section 4.10,
Hydrology and Water Quality, a Project -specific WQMP and a Project -specific Hydrology Study was prepared by Proactive Engineering Consultants West, Inc. (PECW). The WMQP
identified BMPs that would be installed to mitigate water quality impacts and the Hydrology Study identified that the implementation of the Project would not result in substantial flooding on or off site. The detention basins to be installed on site would remove pollutants from runoff and filter the water, thereby providing first -flush capture, detention, and filtration of stormwater runoff before it is discharged from the Project site. Furthermore, the Project would slightly reduce peak stormwater flows by approximately 98 cfs and would not cause adverse hydrologic or biologic impacts to downstream
receiving waters, including groundwater. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.5.5.
Goal 7.6: A zero -waste program that increases recycling and reduces waste sent to the landfill.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Policy 7.6.1: Encourage new construction
and additions to avoid "Red List" materials
and chemicals.1
No Conflict. Refer to General Plan Policy 6.7.1. As concluded in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous
construction -related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA and DTSC. With mandatory compliance of applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. The Project Applicant proposes to develop the Project site with industrial and commercial uses. Based on the facilities and uses that would be allowed at the Project site, hazardous materials (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, solvents, corrosives, toxic substances hazardous materials, etc.) could be used during the course of daily operations at the Project site. As concluded in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, with
mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.6.1.
Goal 7.7: Provide for a clean and healthy community through an effective solid waste collection and disposal system.
Policy 7.7.3: Require businesses (including
public entities) that generate four cubic
yards or more of commercial solid waste
per week, or a multifamily residential
dwelling of five units or more, to arrange
for recycling services.
No Conflict. The Project would be required to coordinate with Waste Management, Inc. to develop a collection program for recyclables, such as paper, plastics, glass, and aluminum, in accordance with local and State programs, including AB 341, Mandatory Commercial Recycling, and the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.7.3.
Goal 7.8: City-wide access to high -quality energy utility and telecommunication services.
Policy 7.8.1: Ensure that adequate utility
and telecommunication infrastructure
support future development.
No Conflict. As disused in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project's proposed connections to existing utility infrastructure including electricity, natural gas, and
telecommunications, as well as installation of on- and off -site stormwater management, water, and wastewater infrastructure would be adequate to support future development of the
Project. Therefore, the Project not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.8.1.
1 The "Red List" includes the worst types of materials and chemicals used in the building industry that are harmful to humans and the environment. For a list of material included on the "Red List," see: https://living- future.org/declare/declare-about/red-list/
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Conservation and Open Space (Chapter 8)
Goal 8.1: A City with green buildings and developments that promote energy efficiency.
Policy 8.1.5: Encourage new development
to reduce building energy use by adopting
passive solar techniques and heat island
reduction strategies:
• Maximizing interior daylighting
• Using cool exterior siding, cool
roofing, and paving materials with
relatively high solar reflectivity to
reduce solar heat gain
• Planting shade trees on south- and
west -facing sides of new buildings
to reduce energy load
• Installing water efficient
vegetative cover and planting,
substantial tree canopy coverage
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the Project shall implement the County of
Riverside's 2019 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Screening Table Measures which include 20% project energy generated from solar, cool roofs, and water efficient landscaping. The Project would achieve a minimum of 201 Screening Table Points.
Additionally, the Project would include skylights and
clearstory windows to maximize day lighting. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.1.5.
Policy 8.1.7: Encourage new buildings and
buildings undergoing major retrofits to
exceed Title 24 energy efficiency
standards.
No Conflict. Energy efficiency/energy conservation attributes of the Project would be complemented by increasingly
stringent State and federal regulatory actions addressing vehicle fuel economies and vehicle emissions standards; and enhanced building/utilities energy efficiencies mandated under California building codes (e.g., Title 24, California Green Building Standards Code). The Project proposes conventional industrial and commercial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs.
Uses proposed by the Project are not inherently energy
intensive, and the Project energy demands in total would comply with current Title 24 energy efficiency standards and due to the continued upgrades to Title 24 standards new construction would be comparable to, or less than, other industrial projects of similar scale and configuration in terms of energy use. Compliance with the Riverside County CAP provides additional energy efficiencies that exceed Title 24.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.1.7.
Goal 8.2: A City which encourages energy from renewable sources Policy 8.2.1: Promote the incorporation of
alternative energy generation (e.g., solar,
wind, biomass) in public and private
development.
No Conflict. Approximately 20% of the power needs of each building within the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan shall be provided by Solar Photovoltaic panels or wind, installed on buildings or in collective arrangements. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.2.1.
Goal 8.4: A City that improves awareness and mitigation of negative air quality impacts.
Policy 8.4.3: Avoid the siting of new
project and land uses that would produce
localized air pollution (e.g., Interstate 10,
SR -60, high traffic roads, certain industrial
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the closest sensitive area to the Project site is an existing single - family residence located approximately 483 feet south of the Project site's southernmost boundary. Other residential uses
General Plan Policy
Applicability
facilities) in a way that would adversely
impact existing air quality -sensitive
receptors including schools, childcare
center, senior housing, and subsidized
affordable housing. The recommended
minimum distance separating these uses
should be 500 feet.
are located north across Frontage Road (1,253 feet) and beyond SR -60. The Project would not result in localized exceedances of federal or state ambient air quality standard under
construction or operation of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.4.3.
Goal 8.5: A City that preserves and enhances its natural resources.
Policy 8.5.1: Minimize the loss of sensitive
species and critical habitat in areas planned
for future development.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, the Project would result in permanent impacts to vegetation communities described for conservation by the MSHCP associated with Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125 totaling 109.69 acres and would impact the following
communities: chaparral (0.21 acre), Riversidean sage scrub (24.40 acres), non-native grassland (82.13 acres), and southern riparian scrub (0.03 acre). To offset these impacts, the Project would conserve 133.62 acres of replacement lands, including
0.32 acre of chaparral, 45.85 acres of Riversidean sage scrub,
86.03 acres of non-native grassland, and 0.22 acre of southern riparian scrub consistent with the MSHCP (PDF 4-1).
Additionally, no special -status plants were detected at the Study Area during focused plant surveys; therefore, no impact to special -status plants would occur. The Project would result in potential impacts to crotch bumble bee, coastal California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl during construction activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 through MM
4.4-3 would reduce impacts to special -status animals to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.5.1.
Policy 8.5.2: Require new developments
adjacent to identified plant and wildlife
habitat areas to maintain a protective buffer,
minimize impervious surface, minimize
light pollution, and emphasize native
landscaping.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, the Project would erect wildlife fencing along the southern and western limits of the development footprint, connecting with SR -60 wildlife fencing, to provide a barrier between the edge of the development footprint and the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project would provide 124.7 acres of open space to accommodate landscaped manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, and natural open space as a buffer to adjacent conservation area and 152.4 acres of open space — conservation. The Open Space — Conservation area would be preserved as natural habitat and dedicated to the RCA as required by the MSHCP. The Project through its design would also address edge effects relative to adjacent conserved lands. The Project's night lighting would be designed to prevent spillage into the MSHCP conserved lands along the western and southern development boundary. See Project
Consistency response to General Plan Policy 8.5.3 for a discussion on native landscaping. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.5.2.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Policy 8.5.3: Encourage new development
to support a diversity of native species and
manage invasive species.
No Conflict. As shown on Figure 3-14, Master Landscape
Plan, the Project provides a plant palette for three categories:
Entrance Planting, Native California Planting, and Industrial Screen Planting; and selected to complement and enhance the setting of the site, while ensuring the conservation of the site's natural vegetation and habitats. Prohibited plant species are also identified to protect native habitats within and surrounding the Project due to their flammability or invasive nature. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy
8.5.3. Policy 8.5.7: Discourage the use of plant
species on the California Invasive Plant
Inventory.
No Conflict. See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 8.5.3. The Project Applicant would incorporate plants identified within the Project's landscape plan and plant species list identified in the Specific Plan. Prohibited plant species are also identified to protect native habitats within and surrounding the Project due to their flammability or invasive nature. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy
8.5.7. Goal 8.6: A City that protects and enhances its scenic vistas and views.
Policy 8.6.1: Protect and preserve existing,
signature view of the hills and mountains
from the City.
No Conflict. The Project site is within the Timoteo Badlands, which is characterized with mountainous terrain. The Project site's northwestern and southern portions contain ridges, canyons, and hillsides that are visible from Frontage Road and SR -60. The Project's proposed buildings would be built to a maximum height of 60 feet and therefore would be mainly visible from the SR -60. Landform modifications would occur under the Project in PAs 1-8 and remedial grading would occur in PA 9, along with landscaped, manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, project signage, as well as the natural slopes which form a buffer between the Specific Plan's
developed areas and PA 10. Although landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, the Project Applicant does not propose to develop the northwestern or southern portions of the Project site, which would preserve distant ridgeline views. As such, public views to the site's natural features would continue to be provided from the immediate surrounding area. Additionally, due to the location and orientation of the Project's proposed buildings and signage, views to San Bernardino Mountains, San Gorgonio Mountains, and San Jacinto Mountains would not be obstructed. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.6.1.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Policy 8.6.3: Require the preparation of a
grading analysis on hillside development to
pre -determine where development should
occur to minimize the impact of new
development on views of the City's
hillsides.
Policy 8.6.4: When grading is necessary,
encourage grading for new development
that complements the surrounding natural
features.
No Conflict. The Project's grading plan would be in
accordance with the standards identified in the City's
Municipal Code, to minimize the potential for erosion,
landslides, and other forms of land failure and preserve views of ridges, canyons, and hillsides. Future development
accommodated by the Specific Plan would be subjected to the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report (see Section 5 of Technical Appendix Fl, of this EIR), in accordance with the CBC and Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.1.040.
Mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the Project site's Geotechnical Report (as required by the CBSC, Beaumont Building Code, and conditions of
approval) would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on -site and abutting off -site areas. Moreover, although landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, the Project would preserve foreground landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline view. The boundary between PA 9 and PA 10 is designated as the "Limits of Disturbance" on the Land Use Plan, meaning that no
grading, fuel management or development activities will occur beyond the location of that line. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policies 8.6.3 and 8.6.4.
Policy 8.6.6: Limit light pollution from
outdoor sources, especially in rural hillside
and mountain areas, and open spaces, to
maintain darkness for night sky viewing.
No Conflict. The Project's proposed outdoor lighting would be in accordance with the standards established in City of Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 8.50 (Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance) to limit light pollution. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.6.6.
Goal 8.7: A City where open space is preserved and used for resource conservation and/or recreation.
Policy 8.7.6: Preserve permanent open
space edges or greenbelts that provide a
buffer for separation between adjoining
developments.
No Conflict. See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 3.1.12. The Project Applicant proposes to preserve 124.7 acres on site as Open Space and 152.4 acres as Open Space - Conservation. The location of the Open Space and Open Space - Conservation areas provide permanent preserve open space edges and provide a buffer from the proposed development to the MSHCP conserved lands to the south and west of the Project site and to the adjacent 60 Freeway.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.7.6.
Goal 8.8: A City where the natural and visual character of the community is preserved.
Policy 8.8.1: Promote the maintenance of
open space through the implementation of
the General Plan.
Policy 8.8.2: Protect and preserve open
space and natural habitat wherever
possible.
No Conflict. Under existing conditions, the Project site is within the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside but is designated for Rural Residential. The Project Applicant proposes to modify the Project site's designation from Rural Residential uses to Industrial, General Commercial, Open Space, and Open Space - Conservation. The Project Applicant proposes to designate the central portion of the Project site as
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Industrial and General Commercial. The remaining portions of the Project site would be designated as Open Space and Open Space - Conservation. The Project Applicant does not propose to develop the areas designated as Open Space and Open Space - Conservation. These areas would be retained as open space.
See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 8.8.3.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policies 8.8.1 and 8.8.2.
Policy 8.8.3: Work with Riverside County
and adjacent cities, landowners, and
conservation organizations to preserve,
protect, and enhance open space, and
No Conflict. The Project requires a Criteria Refinement to approve the Specific Plan, as designed, to be consistent with the MSHCP Reserve Assembly requirements. The Project
designates approximately 152.4 acres as Open Space -
Conservation within the southern portion of the Project site which is intended to be dedicated to the RCA, pursuant to the Western Riverside County MSHCP, for preservation to
augment existing, adjacent conserved lands in this part of Riverside County. The Project Applicant does not propose to disturb the areas designated as Open Space - Conservation. The Project Applicant would preserve this area and retain the natural resources. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.8.3.
natural resources consistent with the
MSHCP.
Policy 8.8.6: Establish buffers between
open space areas and urban development by
encouraging less intensive rural
development within proximity to the open
space areas.
No Conflict. See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 3.12.12. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.8.6.
Goal 8.9: A City where the extent of urban development in the hillsides is minimized and mitigated.
Policy 8.9.2: Limit the extent and intensity
of uses and development in areas of
unstable terrain, steep terrain, scenic vistas,
and other critical environmental areas.
No Conflict. The Project site is within the San Timoteo Badlands, which is characterized with mountainous terrain.
The Project site contains hillsides, ridges, canyons, and valleys in the northwestern and southeastern portions of the site which per below will be preserved. These areas include PAs 9 and 10 which are designated as Open Space and Open Space -
Conservation, respectively. Areas designated as Open Space - Conservation would serve to protect the natural resources on site and no development would occur in this area. As
previously discussed, grading would occur on PAs 1 through 9.
Landform modifications would occur under the Project in PAs 1-8 and remedial grading would occur in PA 9, along with landscaped, manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, project signage, as well as the natural slopes which form a buffer between the Specific Plan's developed areas and PA 10.
Although landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, no grading would occur within PA 10 or between the north-northeast property line and SR -60 Freeway, which would preserve foreground landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline views. The boundary between PA 9 and PA 10 is designated as the "Limits of Disturbance"
General Plan Policy
Applicability
on the Land Use Plan. This designation means that all
development activity will take place inside of the limits of disturbance (i.e., within PA 9 or within PAs 1-8) and not on PA
10. As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, geotechnical observation and testing shall be conducted during various stages of grading to avoid geological hazards associated with unstable soils. Mandatory adherence to the recommendations contained in the site -specific geotechnical report during Project construction would ensure impacts associated with geological hazards reduce to a less than significant level. Moreover, as discussed in Threshold a in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.9.2.
Policy 8.9.3: Control land grading to
minimize the potential for erosion,
landsliding, and other forms of land failure,
as well as to limit the potential negative
aesthetic impact of excessive modification
of natural landforms.
No Conflict. The Project's grading plan would be in
accordance with the standards identified in the City's
Municipal Code, to minimize the potential for erosion,
landslides, and other forms of land failure. Mandatory
adherence to the recommendations contained in the site - specific geotechnical report (see Section 5 of Technical Appendix Fl, of this EIR) during Project construction would ensure impacts associated with geological hazards reduce to a less than significant level.
Although landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, the Project Applicant does not propose to grade the northwestern or southern portions of the Project site within PA 10 or between the north-northeast property line and SR -60 Freeway. The Project would preserve the natural on -site landforms in PA 10, which would preserve foreground
landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline views. The Project's on -site Open Space designated areas would provide a buffer between the proposed development and adjoining natural open space. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.9.3.
Policy 8.9.4: Recognize the value of
ridgelines and hillsides as significant
natural and visual resources and strengthen
their role as features which define the
character of the City and its individual
neighborhood.
No Conflict. The Project would implement measures related to the City of Beaumont to ensure that Project design elements visually enhance and do not degrade the surrounding area. As discussed under Threshold a, the Project's proposed structures, which would reach a maximum height of 60 are not anticipated to block views to the San Gorgonio Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and San Jacinto Mountains. Additionally, the Project's proposed Open Space and Open Space - Conservation land uses would ensure that the Project site's existing hillsides, ridges, canyons, and valleys are preserved and retain their rural character. Although landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, the Project would not allow grading within PA 10 or between the north-northeast property line and SR -60 Freeway, which would preserve foreground landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline
General Plan Policy
Applicability
views. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.9.4.
Goal 8.10: A City that promotes the protection of biological resources Policy 8.10.1: Work with landowners and
government agencies in promoting
development concepts that are sensitive to
the environment and consider the
preservation of natural habitats and further
the conservation goals of the MSHCP.
No Conflict. The Open Space — Conservation area would be preserved as natural habitat and dedicated to the RCA as required by the MSHCP. Additionally, the Project Applicant has prepared a Criteria Refinement analysis demonstrating that the proposed Criteria Refinement would be at least equivalent to the existing Criteria as it applies to Effects on Habitats, Effects on Covered Species, Effects on Core Areas, Effects on Linkages and Constrained Linkages, Effects on Non -
Contiguous Habitat Blocks, Effects on MSHCP Conservation Area Configuration and Management, Effects on Ecotones, and Acreage Contributed to the MSHCP Conservation Area.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.10.1.
Policy 8.10.2: Work with landowners and
government agencies in identifying areas
within the City of Beaumont and its SOI
that should be preserved as open space for
passive recreation, resource management,
or public safety and which meet the City's
preservation obligations per the MSHCP.
No Conflict. See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 8.10.1. Moreover, the Project would conserve 133.62 acres of replacement lands, including 0.32 acre of chaparral,
45.85 acres of Riversidean sage scrub, 86.03 acres of non - native grassland, and 0.22 acre of southern riparian scrub consistent with the MSHCP (PDF 4-1). Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.10.2.
Policy 8.10.4: Preserve significant habitat
and environmentally sensitive areas,
including hillsides, rock outcroppings, and
viewsheds through the application of the
Hillside Ordinance Policies.
No Conflict. See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 8.6.1. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, through the Project's participation in the MSHCP, impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be less than significant. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1 through 4.4-5 would reduce the Project's impacts to significant habitat and environmentally sensitive areas to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.10.4.
Policy 8.10.5: Require project proponents
to hire a CDFW-qualified biologist or
monitor for special status species or other
wildlife of low or limited mobility. If
present, prior to and during all ground- and
habitat -disturbing activities, move out of
harm's way special status species or other
wildlife of low or limited mobility that
would otherwise be injured or killed.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, the Project would crotch bumble bee, coastal California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl, and nesting birds.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MMs 4.4-1 through
4.4-3, and 4.4-5 would require pre -construction surveys conducted by a qualified biologist prior to initial ground - disturbing activities (including vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.). If species are present during the survey, measures would be taken to avoid impacts to the sensitive species either through relocation or establishment of buffer areas. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.10.5.
General Plan Policy
Applicability 1
Goal 8.11: A City where archaeological, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and historical places are identified, recognized, and preserved.
Policy 8.11.1: Avoid or when avoidance is
not feasible, minimize impacts to sites with
significant archaeological, paleontological,
cultural, and tribal cultural resources, to the
extent feasible.
No Conffict. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, there are no known prehistoric archeological resources present on the Project site. However, Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-2 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent
treatment of any significant archaeological resources that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, the Project site is identified as within an area of "High" Paleontological Sensitivity; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through 4.7-3 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any
significant paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities.
Similarly, as discussed in Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, although there are no tribal cultural resources are known to occur within the Project site, Mitigation Measures MM 4.18-1 through MM 4.18-3 would ensure impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.11.1.
Policy 8.11.2: Comply with notification of
California Native American tribes and
organization of proposed projects that have
the potential to adversely impact cultural
resources, per the requirements of AB 52
and SB 18.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the City of Beaumont sent notification to the Native American tribes with possible traditional or cultural affiliation to the area that previously requested consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 requirements. Of the tribes that were sent notifications letters, three requested consultation—Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and Soboba Band of Mission Indians. In a letter dated December 15, 2020, the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians stated that they were unaware of specific cultural resources that may be affected by the Project but would like to be notified in the event cultural resources are discovered during development.
The City conducted telephone consultations with Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and Soboba Band of Mission Indians. Mitigation Measure MM 4.18-1 would reduce impacts associated with the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.11.2.
Policy 8.11.4: Require that any human
remains discovered during implementation
of public and private project within the City
be treated with respect and dignity and fully
comply with the California Native
American Graves Protection and
No Conffict. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq. Mandatory compliance with State law would ensure that human remains, if encountered, are appropriately treated, and
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Reparation Act, California Public
Resources Code Amended Status 1982
Chapter 1492, California Public Resources
Code Statues 2006, Chapter 863, Section 1,
CA Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5,
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,
Public Resources Code Section 5097.94,
SB 447 (Chapter 404, Statues of 1987) and
other appropriate laws.
would preclude the potential for significant impacts to human remains. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.11.4.
Safety (Chapter 9)
Goal 9.2: A City with improved community safety and reduced opportunities for criminal activity through appropriate physical design.
Policy 9.2.1: Implement Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
principles with:
• Site design techniques that
maximize natural surveillance and
reduce the potential for criminal
activity.
• Policies and regulations that
encourage a mixture of compatible
land uses to promote visibility and
higher levels of activity and
increased the safety of public use
areas and of pedestrian travel.
• Improve lighting and nighttime
security across all City
neighborhoods, especially in
existing or potential crime problem
areas.
• Involve the City's Police
Department in the development
review process for evaluation of
building and site plan
vulnerabilities to criminal
activities, especially for public
areas within developments.
No Conflict. See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 3.9.1. The Project would result in the development of the Project site with Industrial and General Commercial uses.
The implementation of the Project would provide a clean delineation between public and private space through signage, walls, and fencing. The Project's proposed buildings would feature security lighting to enhance security on site.
Additionally, building facades would face public roadways including SR -60 Freeway, Jack Rabbit Trail, Entertainment Way, and 4th Street. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.2.1.
Goal 9.4: A City that is protected from the effects of natural and man-made disasters.
Policy 9.4.5: Require new development to
provide access roads that allow both safe
and efficient access of emergency
equipment and community evacuation.
No Conflict. During the course of the City of Beaumont's review of the Project, the City evaluated the Project's design, including but not limited to proposed driveway locations and parking lot/drive aisle configuration, to ensure that adequate access would be provided for emergency vehicles at Project build out. The Conceptual Circulation Plan (Figure 3-8) identifies a looped perimeter road system (4th Street and Industrial Way) along with a phased series of 40 -foot wide Interim Fire Access Loop Connections, to ensure adequate fire- fighting and emergency access, during construction and
operation of the site. Under operational conditions, the Project
General Plan Policy
Applicability
would be required by Riverside County Ordinance No. 348, Section 21.32a, to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles on site. In addition, the Project site design provides for adequate egress in case of emergency evacuation.
As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, and Section 4.20, Wildfire, the Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.4.5.
Goal 9.5: A City with enhanced fire and emergency response services.
Policy 9.5.5: Coordinate with the
Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District to
ensure that water pressure for existing and
future developed areas is adequate for
firefighting purposes.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.20, Wildfire, the Project would result in the installation of on -site fire hydrants, that are designed in accordance with the Riverside County Fire
Department standards in coordination with Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District. The internal waterlines are anticipated to supply sufficient fire flows and pressure to meet the demands required for on -site fire hydrants. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.5.5.
Goal 9.6: A City that protects human life, land, and property from the effects of wildland fire hazards.
Policy 9.6.3: Ensure that development in
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
minimizes the risks of wildfire through
planning and design of structures in
accordance with the California Building
Code Chapter 7A. Ensure adequate
provisions for vegetation management,
emergency access, and firefighting.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.20, Wildfire, the Project site is designated within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within an SRA by the Riverside County General Plan and CalFire. The Project would implement on -site defensible space (fuel modification area [FMA] and fuel maintenance zone), which would consist of asphalt roadways, parking stalls, loading zones, irrigated landscaping, and irrigated slope protecting landscaping to preclude wildfire impacts. Building materials will comply with any state building code requirements for buildings located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Additionally, the Project would be required by the CBC and Beaumont Building Code to comply with the recommendations identified in the Project's Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.6.3.
Policy 9.6.4: Require new development in
the High and Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones to develop a fire protection
and evacuation plan and ensure that the plan
includes adequate fire access to new
development.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.20, Wildfire, the Project Fire Protection Plan was prepared that includes evacuation routes. The Project will provide a proactive educational component disclosing the potential wildfire risk and the requirements identified in the Project's Fire Protection Plan for Project businesses and occupants. This educational information must include maintaining the landscape and structural
component according to the appropriate standards and
embracing a "Ready, Set, Go!" stance on evacuation.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.6.4.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Policy 9.6.6: Require property owners to
clear brush and high fuel vegetation and
maintain fire -safe zones (a minimum
distance of 30 feet from the structure of to
the property line, whichever is closer) to
reduce the risk of fires. For structures
located within the Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone, the required brush distance
is up to 200 feet from structures up to their
property line.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.20, Wildfire, the Project would provide a fuel maintenance zone with 20 feet of irrigated vegetation around the perimeter of the Project site and a 100 - foot FMA of paved surface and/or irrigated landscape.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.6.6.
Policy 9.6.7: Continue to enforce the weed
abatement ordinance to mitigate potential
fire hazard risks.
No Conflict. The Project would be required to comply with the weed abatement ordinance to reduce wildfire impacts.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.6.7.
Policy 9.6.8: Require that developments
located in wildland interface areas
incorporate and enforce standards for
construction, including a fuel modification
program (i.e., brush clearance, planting of
fire -retardant vegetation) to reduce the
threat of wildfires.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.20, Wildfire, the Project would incorporate FMA and fuel maintenance zone, which
would consist of asphalt roadways, parking stalls, loading zones, irrigated landscaping, and irrigated slope protecting landscaping. Vegetation management would also be
implemented as interim fuel management area throughout the construction phases for each structure as there may be a period if one or more years where developing phases are exposed on multiple sides to wildland fuels. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.6.8.
Goal 9.7: A City that protects safety of human life, land, and property from the effects of earthquakes and geotechnical hazards.
Policy 9.7.1: As new versions of the
California Building Code (CCR Title 24,
published triennially) are released, adopt
and enforce the most recent codes that
contain the most recent seismic
requirements for structural design of new
development and redevelopment to
minimize damage from earthquakes and
other geologic activity.
No Conflict. As required in Regulatory Requirement RR 7-1, the Project shall comply with CBSC (Chapter 18) (adopted by the City of Beaumont as Municipal Code Section Chapter
15.04.010) and Municipal Code Section 17.11.040, which
requires development projects to evaluate and identify site - specific geologic and seismic conditions, and seismic
requirements for structural design. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.7.1.
Policy 9.7.5: Ensure that Building and
Safety agencies include thorough plan
checks and inspections of structures
vulnerable to seismic activity, fire risk, and
flood hazards. Additionally, recommend
the periodic observation of construction by
design professionals.
No Conflict. According to RCIT and FEMA, the Project site is within an area of minimal flooding (RCIT, 2021; FEMA,
2014). As further discussed under Threshold c of EIR Section
4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would maintain a similar drainage pattern as compared to existing conditions.
It should be noted that the overall development pad would be elevated by the proposed design grading to be situated above local drainage courses. As such, the risk of flooding is low. As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, grading plan review is required to verify that the geotechnical requirements are updated specific to the detailed rough grading plans. Future development accommodated by the Specific Plan would be
General Plan Policy
Applicability
required to have site -specific geotechnical investigation reports prepared by the Project applicant's/developer's geotechnical consultant, in accordance with the CBC and Beaumont
Municipal Code Section 17.1.040. The geotechnical
investigations would determine seismic design parameters for the site and the proposed building type per CBC requirements. mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the Project site's Geotechnical Report (as required by the CBSC, Beaumont Building Code, and conditions of
approval) would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to minimize seismic activity, fire risk, and flood hazards. Moreover, all structures would be protected by an automatic, internal fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with RCFD and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13. Fire sprinkler plans for each structure would be submitted and reviewed by RCFD for
compliance with the applicable fire and life safety regulations, codes, and ordinances as well as the RCFD Fire Prevention Standards for fire protection systems. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.7.5.
Goal 9.9: A City that promotes preparedness related to the adverse effects of high winds common in the Pass area.
Policy 9.9.2: Require implementation of
best practices for dust control at all
excavation and grading projects.
No Conffict. The Project would be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which requires the implementation of best available dust control measures.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.9.2.
Goal 9.10: A City that is prepared for the potential impacts of climate change.
Policy 9.10.2: Encourage new development
and redesign of existing buildings to take
steps to reduce the impacts of extreme heat
events, including:
• Design buildings to use less
mechanical heating and cooling
through use of passive solar
techniques.
• Support and incentivize, as
feasible, energy efficiency and
weatherization programs.
• Protect and expand the City's
urban tree canopy to provide
shade, increase carbon
sequestration, and purify the air.
• Provide shade structures in public
parks, outdoor playgrounds, and
bus shelters.
No Conffict. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the Project shall implement the County of
Riverside's 2019 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Screening Table Measures which include cool roofs, enhanced insulation, and energy efficient heating/cooling equipment, and on -site solar to provide 20% of the Projects energy requirements.
Additionally, as shown on Figure 3-14, Master Landscape Plan, streetscape landscaping presents a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, low shrubs, and masses of groundcovers. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.10.2.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Policy 9.10.3: Require enhanced water
No Conflict. As disused in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would construct an on -site recycled water system. The Project would connect a proposed 14 -inch
recycled water line that would connect to the existing 14 -inch recycled water line within the adjacent Hidden Canyon
development at 4th Street. The Project will comply with CAP points for increased efficient use of water both inside the building and for landscaping irrigation. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with Chapter 17.06 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.10.3.
conservation measures in new development
and redesign of existing buildings to
address the possibility of constrained future
water supplies, including:
• Compliance with existing
landscape water conservation
ordinance (Chapter 17.06 of the
Municipal Code).
• Use of water conservation
measures in new development
beyond current requirements.
• Installation of recycled water use
and graywater systems.
Goal 9.11: A City with minimized risk associated with hazardous materials.
Policy 9.11.2: Require an assessment of
hazardous materials use as part of
environmental review and/or include
approval of the development of a hazardous
management and disposal as a condition of
a project, subject to review by the County
Environmental Health Department.
No Conflict. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Project by McAlister GeoScience
(GeoScience), which identified the Project site's potential to contain hazardous materials. The results of the Phase I ESA are provided in EIR Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials. Additionally, heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated on the Project site during construction. This heavy equipment likely would be fueled and maintained by petroleum -based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. These materials would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard to on -site construction workers or the general public
Based on the facilities and uses that would be allowed at the Project site, hazardous materials (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, solvents, corrosives, toxic substances hazardous materials, etc.) could be used during the course of daily operations at the Project site. As concluded in Section 4.9, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, with mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.11.2.
Policy 9.11.5: Prohibit placement of
proposed new facilities that will be
involved in the production, use, storage,
No Conflict. As concluded in Section 4.9, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, with mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to
General Plan Policy
Applicability
transport, or disposal of hazardous
materials near existing sensitive land uses
(such as homes, schools, child-care centers,
nursing homes, senior housing, etc.), that
may be adversely affected by such
activities.
the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 9.11.5.
Noise (Chapter 10)
Goal 10.1: A City where noise exposure is minimized for those living and working in the community.
Policy 10.1.4: Incorporate noise
considerations into land use planning
decisions. Require the inclusion of noise
mitigation measures, as may be necessary
to meet standards, in the design of new
development projects in the City.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.13, Noise, Project traffic noise would exceed the City's applicable significance threshold. The Project would result in a significant impact from traffic noise during Existing (2020) plus Project conditions, Opening Year (2023 and 2027) plus Project Conditions, and Horizon Year (2045) Plus Project Conditions for three roadway segments (#4, #5, and #6). Under Opening Year (2025) plus Project Conditions, the Project would result in a significant impact for one roadway segment (segment #6). Therefore, the Project -related off -site traffic noise level increases at adjacent noise -sensitive land uses are considered a significant impact.
Segments #4, #5, and #6 are located in industrial areas and are not located immediately adjacent to any noise sensitive land uses. This is consistent with the City's General Plan EIR that determined that buildout of the City's General Plan could result in new vehicular traffic which could exceed the FHWA
thresholds, and could substantially increase the ambient noise levels in the City and its SOI. The City's General Plan recognizes that an increase in noise levels will occur in industrial areas due to truck traffic. The City's General Plan goals and policies, therefore, are focused on protecting noise sensitive receptors from road noise, while encouraging timely and efficient goods movement that does not significantly contribute to noise in the City.
The Project's construction and operational (stationary) noise impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 10.1.4.
Policy 10.1.5: Require project involving
new development or modifications to
existing development to implement
measures, where necessary, to reduce noise
levels to at least the normally compatible
range. Design measures should focus on
architectural features and building design
and construction, rather than site design
features, such as excessive setbacks, berms,
and sound walls, to maintain compatibility
with adjacent and surrounding uses.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.13, Noise, the Project's construction and operational (stationary) noise impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 10.1.5.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Policy 10.1.6: Encourage reduction of
stationary noise impacts from commercial
and industrial land uses, activities, events,
and businesses on noise -sensitive land uses.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.13, Noise, the Project's operational (stationary) noise impacts would be less than significant. Project stationary noise would not expose nearby receivers to unacceptable daytime or nighttime noise levels during Project buildout. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 10.1.6.
Goal 10.2: A City with minimal mobile source -generated noise levels.
Policy 10.2.3: Prohibit truck routes through
neighborhoods with sensitive receptors,
where feasible.
No Conflict. See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 3.10.4. Due to the Project site's proximity to SR -60, trucks accessing the Project site would efficiently reach the State highway system to facilitate the movement of goods throughout the region. The Project does not propose any truck routes in proximity to sensitive receptors. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 10.2.3.
Land Use (Chapter 11)
Goal 11.12: Encourage development to be efficient in the use of non-renewable resources, including water, energy, and air quality.
Policy 11.12.1: Promote the use of energy
and water conservation technologies and
practices.
Policy 11.12.3: Consider sustainable
development practices that reduce energy
and water demand.
No Conflict. The Project proposes conventional industrial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. Energy efficiency/energy conservation attributes of the Project would be complemented by increasingly stringent State and federal regulatory actions addressing vehicle fuel economies and vehicle emissions standards; and enhanced building/utilities energy efficiencies mandated under California building codes (e.g., Title 24, California Green Building Standards Code). The Project would comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and proposes conventional industrial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. Uses proposed by the Project are not inherently energy intensive, and the Project energy demands in total would be comparable to, or less than, other industrial projects of similar scale and configuration.
As disused in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would construct an on -site recycled water system. The Project would connect a proposed 14 -inch recycled water line that would connect to the existing 14 -inch recycled water line within the adjacent Hidden Canyon development at 4th Street.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policies 1.12.1 and 11.12.3.
Policy 11.12.4: Ensure that new
development does not result in wind and
solar access impacts.
No Conflict. As shown in Table 4.8-6, 20% of the Project's energy consumption would be from solar consistent with the CAP requirement. Furthermore, the Project's architecture would include skylights and clerestory windows to allow for increased use of passive solar design and day -lighted in new structures. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 11.12.4.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Policy 11.12.6: Improve air quality through
No Conflict. The Project includes installation of sidewalks improved walkability, reduced vehicular
along the Project site's frontage with Jack Rabbit Trail and 4th use and enhanced non- vehicular travel.
Street and along Industrial Way, a proposed private road located along the north side of the proposed industrial buildings. The Project Applicant proposes curb adjacent sidewalks and pedestrian paths to encourage and enhance pedestrian activity throughout the Project site. Additionally, the Project would include the installation of bicycle racks and lockers at each of the proposed light industrial buildings.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 11.12.6.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BEAUMONT POINTE
PROJECT, INCLUDING THE BEAUMONT POINTE SPECIFIC PLAN,
AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT; PRE -ZONING AND
ANNEXATION; ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;
AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Beaumont Pointe project ("Project") has been proposed to the City of Beaumont on approximately 539.9 acres of land (the "Property") located in the unincorporated area of the County of Riverside and in the Sphere of Influence (as such term is defined in Govt. Code Section 56076) of the City of Beaumont, including the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan (the "BPSP"), General Plan Amendment, Parcel Map and Development Agreement and Final Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City desires to annex the Property into the City of Beaumont pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code and WHEREAS, the City, by resolution adopted concurrently herewith has requested the Riverside County Formation Commission accept Owner's application for annexation of the Property into the City and to take proceedings required for the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Project includes 4,995,000 square feet of industrial and warehouse uses on approximately 232.6 acres to be developed with industrial uses to accommodate users such as industrial incubators, light manufacturing, parcel hub, warehouse/storage, fulfillment center, high cube warehouse, cold storage warehouse and 246,000 square feet of general commercial, community recreation, commercial, retail, restaurant and hospitality land uses, together with a 125- room hotel (approximately 90,000 square feet), and related amenities; and approximately 277.1 acres of open space; -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 6, 2020 and circulated the NOP until October 6, 2020; 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 December 22, 2022, the City initiated a 48 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 "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 December 22, 2022. The Notice of Completion was also mailed to all residents and property owners within three hundred (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, on the City's website at: https://www.beaumontca.gov/1143/Beaumont-Pointe- Specific-Plan, and at the City's 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 regulatory agencies, and others during the 48 day comment period; and WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final EIR SCH No. 2020099007, including the Draft EIR, response to comments and revisions the Draft EIR (collectively, the "FEIR") as and, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of the FEIR to all commenting agencies and persons requesting copies of the responses; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Project on November 29, 2023 and continued the item to the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission agenda to consider the following entitlements: General Plan Amendment (PLAN2019- 0284), Pre -Zoning the Property to specific plan (PLAN2019-0283); Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan (SP2019-0003); Beaumont Pointe Sign Program (PLAN2022-0856); Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 38161 (PM2022-0014); Minor Amendment to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and certification of the FEIR and annexation of the Property into the City (collectively the "Entitlements") and approval of a Development Agreement ("DA"); and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on the Project, the Entitlements and the DA on January 10, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City supplemented the FEIR with the following: (1) Supplemental
CEQA Memorandum dated March 4, 2024 to address the Planning Commission's recommendations which were incorporated into the Project, and (2) additional memoranda dated March 7, 2024 and March 18, 2024 to address late comments to the FEIR (collectively, "Supplemental CEQA Memoranda"), each prepared by T&B Planning, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Beaumont (the "City Council"), at its regularly scheduled public meeting on March 19, 2024, held a public hearing on the Project, the Entitlements and the DA and continued the item to the April 16, 2024 City Council agenda; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project and the Entitlements; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the FEIR as supplemented by the Supplemental CEQA Memoranda, which are sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the FEIR prepared in connection with the Project as supplemented by the Supplemental CEQA Memoranda sufficiently analyze 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 while feasibly attaining most of the basic objectives of the Project 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 and in the accompanying staff report, and the facts, analysis and conclusions in the FEIR as supplemented, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference, are based upon these documents and 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 which the City finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in the FEIR and Supplemental CEQA Memoranda; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts that are potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the imposition of feasible Mitigation Measures are identified in the FEIR and the Supplemental CEQA Memoranda; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts that are 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 are identified in the FEIR and the Supplemental CEQA Memoranda; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in the FEIR; 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 FEIR, the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Supplemental CEQA Memoranda, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the FEIR, the Supplemental CEQA Memoranda, the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflect the independent judgment of the City Council and are deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or any additional information submitted to the City following publication of the FEIR have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 and do not change the findings and conclusions in the Final EIR, the Supplemental CEQA Memoranda, the Findings or the Statement of Overriding Considerations; 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 FEIR as supplemented by the Supplemental CEQA Memoranda and adopts the Finding of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation and Monitoring Report for the Project as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and which are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and adopts the General Plan Amendment, pre -zoning to specific plan, the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan and the Sign Program, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 38161, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference.
1. The proposed amendment is in the public interest, and there will be a community benefit resulting from the amendment: The proposed amendment serves the public interest and provides a community benefit by (i) allowing for economic diversification of the City; and (ii) providing an opportunity for additional jobs, goods and services not currently available to the City's residents.
2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan: (i) a plan of services for the Project has been prepared for
the General Plan Amendment and provides operation and maintenance of community activities and events, public safety, transit, maintenance of public works, sanitary sewers and trash collections to insure that adequate public services and facilities are provided in a timely manner for the Property; (ii) the Project will provide a mix of jobs and services opportunities to the City's labor force and residents; (iii) the Project will accommodate travel demand with traffic mitigation measures meeting the City's General Plan adopted Level of Service D; and (iv) the Project is compatible with surrounding land uses and is consistent with the existing industrial character of the area.
Further detailed findings of consistency between the Project and the General Plan are set forth in the FEIR which findings and supporting evidence has been previously considered by the City Council in connection with the project and are attached as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. That the proposed amendment will not conflict with provisions of the zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations, in that the Project: (i) provides for the design and development of a quality development project with long-term value; (ii) provides for diversification of the City's economy by establishing a variety of commercial and industrial uses; (iii) will assist with the development of a circulation system that serves the needs of the City through traffic mitigation measures meeting the City's General Plan adopted Level of Service D; and (iv) is compatible with surrounding land uses, consistent with the existing industrial character of the area.
4. In the event that the proposed amendment is a change to the land use policy map, the amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties: The amendment provides for orderly expansion of the City boundary as the subject site is located within the City's sphere of influence.
Zone Change/Pre-Zone & Annexation (Specific Plan)
1. That the proposed change of zone or zoning ordinance text amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan: (i) a plan of services for the Project has been prepared for the General Plan Amendment and provides operation and maintenance of community activities and events, public safety, transit, maintenance of public works, sanitary sewers and trash collections to insure that adequate public services and facilities are provided in a timely manner for the Property; (ii) the Project will provide a mix of jobs and services opportunities to the City's labor force and residents; (iii) the Project will accommodate travel demand with traffic mitigation measures meeting the City's General Plan adopted Level of Service D; and (iv) is the Project is compatible with surrounding land uses and is consistent with the existing industrial character of the area. Further detailed findings of consistency between the Project and the General Plan are set forth in the FEIR which findings and supporting evidence has been previously considered by the City Council in connection with the project and are attached as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. That the proposed change of zone or zoning ordinance text amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties in that the Project: (i) provides for the design and development of a quality development project with long- term value; (ii) provides for diversification of the City's economy by establishing a variety of commercial and industrial uses; (iii) will assist with the development of a circulation system that serves the needs of the City through traffic mitigation measures meeting the City's General Plan adopted Level of Service D; and (iv) is compatible with surrounding land uses, consistent with the existing industrial character of the area
3. That the proposed change of zone or zoning ordinance text amendment promotes public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of this Zoning Ordinance: The proposed amendment serves the public interest and provides a community benefit by (i) allowing for economic diversification of the City; (ii) providing an opportunity for additional jobs, goods and services not currently available to the City's residents; and (iii) allowing for orderly expansion and development of the City through infrastructure improvements consistent with the adopted General Plan Circulation Element.
SECTION 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes staff to negotiate and execute the Minor Amendment to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan required to conform the plan to the Project. SECTION 4. 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 21st day of May, 2024, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY OF BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL
David Fenn, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nicole Wheelwright, City Clerk
Exhibit "A"
[see attached]
Exhibit "B"
[see attached]
Exhibit "C"
General Plan Applicability Analysis
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Land Use and Community Design (Chapter 3)
Goal 3.1: A City structure that enhances the quality of life of residents, meets the community's vision for the future, and connects new growth areas together with established Beaumont neighborhoods.
Policy 3.1.12: Establish buffers between
open space areas and urban development
by encouraging less intensive rural
development within proximity to the open
space areas.
No Conflict. The Project site is bordered to the west and to the south by open space and conservation land uses. The Specific Plan designates PA 9 for Open Space, which accommodates landscaped, manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, project signage, as well as the natural slopes which form a buffer between the Specific Plan's developed areas and the Open Space — Conservation in PA 10. These areas would not be developed with the Project's proposed structures. Some disturbance would occur within the areas designated as Open Space; however, the disturbance would be limited to grading and landscaping. Therefore, the Project would establish a buffer between open space areas and urban development and would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.1.12.
Policy 3.4.8: Where industrial uses are
near existing and planned residential
development, require that industrial
projects be designed to limit the impact of
truck traffic, air and noise pollution on
sensitive receptors, especially in El
Barrio.
No Conflict. Existing residential land uses near the Project site are those that abut the Project site on the south and to the north beyond the SR -60 Freeway. As concluded in Section 4.3, Air Quality, Section 4.13, Noise, and Section 4.17, Transportation, the Project would result in unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, and transportation, but these effects are significant due to their effect on the region. However, all mitigation measures have been implemented to reduce impacts to the extent feasible.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.4.8.
Policy 3.5.2: Continue to work towards
the implementation of streetscape and sign
standards.
No Conflict. The Project would develop the Project site in accordance with the Development Standards from Chapter 3 and Design Guidelines from Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan, which establish comprehensive streetscape design standards for interior streets. The Development Standards and the Design Guidelines that define the Project's design theme are intended to create a welcoming visual environment.
Additionally, a Sign Program for the Project is being processed concurrently with the Specific Plan. The Sign Program
provides adequate and appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.5.2.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Policy 3.5.3: Promote quality design in
the review of commercial and residential
projects.
No Conflict. The Project would include "Activities Park" within the General Commercial land uses that would consist of landscaping, seating, video screen walls, and programming for wellness activities such as yoga, movies on the lawn,
"biergarten" games, and a large climbing wall. In addition, to encourage social interaction, the Industrial and General Commercial building sites within Project site may include outdoor employee break areas with tables affixed to the ground to provide employees with a location to eat, gather, and enjoy being outside. The Project Applicant would develop the site in accordance with the Development Standards established in Chapter 3 and the Design Guidelines established in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan, which includes comprehensive
architectural and landscape standards and development criteria that provide for an attractive, contemporary industrial/business park. Additionally, the development standards provide
regulations for building placement and orientation, floor area ratio, height, setbacks, open space, landscaping, signage, walls and fencing, roadways, and utilities and service areas. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.5.3.
Goal 3.7: A City with a high -quality pedestrian environment for people, fostering interaction, activity,and safety.
Policy 3.7.2: Create pedestrian -oriented
streetscapes by establishing unified street
tree planting, sidewalk dimensions and
maintenance, pedestrian amenities, and
high -quality building frontages in all new
development
No Conflict. Passive recreational opportunities are provided to employees and visitors of Project site through curb -adjacent sidewalks and pedestrian paths. These amenities encourage and enhance pedestrian activity throughout the Project. Provisions for sidewalks and pedestrian walkways, bicycle storage
facilities, and employee and visitor gathering areas interior to the planning areas are set forth in Chapter 4, Design
Guidelines, of the Specific Plan.
The Project includes installation of sidewalks along the Project site's frontage with Jack Rabbit Trail and 4th Street and along Industrial Way. The Project provides a plant palette for three categories: Entrance Planting, Native California Planting, and Industrial Screen Planting. Landscaping is selected to
complement and enhance the setting of the site, while ensuring the conservation of the site's natural vegetation and habitats.
Therefore, the Project would create pedestrian -oriented streetscapes by establishing unified street tree planting, sidewalks, and high -quality building frontages. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.7.2.
Goal 3.8: A City that encourages a healthy lifestyle for people of all ages, income levels, and cultural backgrounds.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Policy 3.8.3 Ensure the design of context-
specific streetscaping that promotes safe
travel for all users, including signs, curbs,
trees and landscaping to provide a more
pleasant environment for drivers, cyclists,
and pedestrians.
No Conflict. The Project Applicant proposes curb adjacent sidewalks and pedestrian paths to encourage and enhance pedestrian activity throughout the Project site. In addition, all driveways and intersections to and from the Project site would be stop -controlled to ensure safety for all transportation users.
Based on the Project's roadway improvements, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.8.3
Policy 3.9.1: Use Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design strategies
(CPTED) in new and existing
development to improve public safety,
including the following:
• Active public space
• Building design to promote "eyes
on the street"
• Clean delineation between private
and public space
• Natural access control between
public and private space
• Maintenance of public places
• Removal or repair of vandalism or
broken property.
No Conflict. The Project site is within the northwestern SOI for the City of Beaumont, which is characterized as
undeveloped and vacant. Under exiting conditions, there are no sidewalks or pedestrian facilities along the perimeter of the Project site.
The implementation of the Project would result in the
development of the Project site with Industrial and General Commercial uses. The implementation of the Project would provide a clean delineation between public and private space through signage, walls, and fencing. The Project's proposed buildings would feature security lighting to enhance security on site. Additionally, building facades would face public roadways including SR -60 Freeway, Jack Rabbit Trail, Entertainment Way, and 4th Street.
The implementation of the Project would not interfere with the City's ability to maintain public places or remove or repair vandalism or broken property. As such, the Project As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.9.1.
Goal 3.10: A City designed to improve the quality of the built and natural environments to reduce disparate health and environmental impacts
Policy 3.10.2: Reduce particulate
emissions from paved and unpaved roads,
construction activities, and agricultural
operations.
No Conflict. During the Project's construction phase, water would be sprayed throughout the site to abate dust particulate emissions as required by South Coast AQMD Rule 403.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 shall ensure that all 75 -horsepower or greater diesel -powered equipment is powered with California Air Resources Board (CARB)-
certified Tier 4 Final engines, except where the project applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Beaumont that Tier 4 Final equipment is not available. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.10.2.
Policy 3.10.4: Designate truck routes to
avoid sensitive land uses, where feasible.
No Conflict. This is not a Project specific policy; however, the Project does not propose truck routes in proximity to sensitive land uses. Located along the south side of the SR -60 Freeway, access to the regional transportation system from the Project site is provided via 4th Street at the Potrero interchange,
General Plan Policy
Applicability
approximately 1.25 miles to the east. Due to the Project site's proximity to SR -60, trucks accessing the Project site would efficiently reach the State highway system to facilitate the movement of goods throughout the region. In addition, Jack Rabbit Trail will only provide gated, emergency access to the SR -60 Freeway. No access to the SR -60 Freeway is proposed, except during an emergency in order to restrict truck traffic along Jack Rabbit Trail, which would be one of the main roadways that connects to the proposed commercial
development. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.10.4.
Policy 3.10.7: Support practices that
promote low impact development,
including water resilient communities,
prevention of urban runoff, and mitigation
of industrial pollution.
No Conflict. In accordance with the Project's WQMP, the Project would install LID BMPs (e.g., bioretention and
biotreatment) to detain stormwater on site for runoff mitigation.
The Project proposes to install four detention basins within drainage management areas. The detention basins would
remove pollutants from runoff and filter the water, thereby providing first -flush capture, detention, and filtration of stormwater runoff before it is discharged from the Project site.
Additionally, the Project proposes structural and non-structural source control BMPs (see Table 4.10-4 of this EIR) to mitigate industrial pollution. Furthermore, the Project would slightly reduce peak stormwater flows by approximately 98 cfs and would not cause adverse hydrologic or biologic impacts to downstream receiving waters, including groundwater. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.10.7.
Policy 3.11.5: Preserve watercourses and
washes necessary for regional flood
control, ground water recharge areas and
drainage for open space and recreational
purposes. These include San Timoteo
Creek, Little San Gorgonio Creek and
Noble Creek, among others.
No Conflict. As further discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, the Project site is not within the recharge area for Little San Gorgonio Creek. The Project Applicant proposes to preserve 124.7 acres on site as Open Space and 152.4 acres as Open Space — Conservation. The Project would result in a 98 cfs reduction in peak stormwater runoff rates, and drainage from the development areas would continue to flow to San Timoteo Creek.
The implementation of the Project would not interfere with the City's ability to preserve watercourses and washes necessary for regional flood control, groundwater recharge areas and drainage for open space and recreational purposes. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.11.5.
Policy 3.11.7: Preserve permanent open
space edges or greenbelts that provide a
buffer for separation between adjoining
developments.
No Conflict. See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 3.1.12. The Project Applicant proposes to preserve 124.7 acres on site as Open Space and 152.4 acres as Open Space — Conservation. The Project's on -site Open Space designated areas would provide a buffer between the proposed Industrial and Commercial uses from the existing open space to the west and south. Additionally, the SR -60 Freeway would provide a buffer from the proposed development and existing
General Plan Policy
Applicability
single-family residences to the north and northeast.
Furthermore, the proposed Industrial and Commercial uses would be compatible with the proposed Hidden Canyon
industrial development to the east. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.11.7.
Policy 3.11.8: Work with Riverside
County and adjacent cities, landowners,
and conservation organizations to
preserve, protect, and enhance open space
and natural resources consistent with the
MSHCP.
No Conflict. The Project would provide 124.7 acres of open space to accommodate landscaped manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, and natural open space as a buffer to adjacent conservation area and 152.4 acres of open space — conservation. The Open Space — Conservation area would be preserved as natural habitat and dedicated to the RCA as required by the MSHCP. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.11.8.
Policy 3.11.9: Continue to maintain the
Badlands and Potrero area as primarily a
functioning wildlife habitat.
No Conflict. As described in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, of this EIR, the Project site is located within Criteria Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125 of Subunit 1 (Potrero/Badlands) of The Pass Area Plan, and with "offsite" proposed conservation located within Cell Group A' of Subunit 3 (Badlands North) of the Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan.
The MSHCP defines a "Core" as a "block of Habitat of
appropriate size, configuration, and vegetation characteristics to generally support the life history requirements of one or more Covered Species." The Project proposes a Criteria Refinement that will support the assembly of Proposed Core 3 in a manner consistent with the existing Cell Criteria. The intent of conserved lands at the Project site is to expand the edge of Core
3. The Project will impact 112.45 acres of lands described for conservation by the MSHCP Cell Criteria. The Project will offset those impacts with 122.81 acres of replacement lands that are not described by the Cell Criteria, including 41.21 acres on site and 78.40 acres off -site. In addition, the Project will conserve the remaining 93.42 acres of on -site lands described by the Cell Criteria, for a combined conservation area of 213.03 acres, compared with a total of 205.87 acres described by the MSHCP.
The Project's on -site conservation includes 133.27 acres within the Criteria Area (Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125) and
1.36 acres on site that are not part of a Criteria Cell (but adjacent to Cells). Of the offsite lands, approximately 37.89 acres are in Cell 1125 of Cell Group A', and 40.51 acres are not a part of a Criteria Cell but are adjacent to Cell Group A'.
Although the Project does not achieve minimum described acreage for some of the individual Cells, the Project proposes an overall greater amount of conservation than is described, including the expansion of conservation to the northwest and the southeast into undescribed lands that will extend the Policy 3.11.10: Require the provision of
open space linkages and conservation
between development projects, consistent
with the conservation efforts targeted in
the MSHCP.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
conserved edge. The conservation of undescribed lands in the northwestern portion of Ce11 933 will extend conservation to SR -60 to link up with the undercrossing constructed as part of the freeway improvements.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policies 3.11.9 and 3.11.10.
Goal 3.12: A City that minimizes the extent of urban development in the hillsides, and mitigates any significant adverse consequences associated with urbanization.
Policy 3.12.1: Develop policies for
hillside development in order to protect
the natural environment and views.
No Conflict. Under existing conditions, the Project site is characterized by rugged steep ridges and hillsides with narrow canyons that are generally situated on the southwest portion of the site. Relatively gentle ridges, broad canyons, and valleys are located on the northwest and southeast
portions of the site. The existing topography of the site consists of low rolling hills and canyons, ranging in
elevation between the 2,300 and 2,450- foot contours msl.
The Project would entail extensive grading activities to allow for the development of the proposed Industrial and Commercial uses. However, the proposed development is in proximity to developing areas to the east that are designated for Industrial uses. Additionally, the southern portion of the Project site and the areas surrounding the proposed
structures will be designated as Open Space and Open Space - Conservation, which will also help preserve the scenic views within this area. As discussed above, although
landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, the Project would preserve foreground
landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline views. Therefore, the Project would preserve the scenic views within the area and would not result in an impact on scenic vistas. The Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy 3.12.1.
Policy 3.12.2: Limit the extent and
intensity of uses and development in areas
of unstable terrain, steep terrain, scenic
vistas, and other critical environmental
areas.
No Conflict. The Project site is adjacent to and in part within the San Timoteo Badlands, which is characterized with
mountainous terrain. The Project site contains hillsides, ridges, canyons, and valleys in the northwestern and southeastern portions of the site. These areas include PAs 9 and 10 which are designated as Open Space and Open Space - Conservation, respectively. Areas designated as Open Space - Conservation would serve to protect the natural resources on site and no development would occur in this area. As previously discussed, grading would occur on PAs 1 through 9.
Landform modifications would occur under the Project in PAs 1-8 and remedial grading would occur in PA 9, along with landscaped, manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas,
General Plan Policy
Applicability
project signage, as well as the natural slopes which form a buffer between the Specific Plan's developed areas and PA 10.
Although landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, no grading would occur within PA 10 or between the north-northeast property line and SR -60 Freeway, which would preserve foreground landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline views. The boundary between PA 9 and PA 10 is designated as the "Limits of Disturbance" on the Land Use Plan. This designation means that all
development activity will take place inside of the limits of disturbance (i.e., within PA 9 or within PAs 1-8) and not on PA
10. PA 9 would include natural slopes which form a buffer between the developed areas and PA 10, which would be
dedicated to the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), pursuant to the MSHCP. Therefore, this area would preserve deeply incised hillsides and watercourse along with the habitats associated with these landforms.
As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, a Geotechnical Report was prepared to evaluate geological conditions on the Project site and feasibility of development. As discussed, the Project's proposed 2:1 cut and fill slopes are considered grossly stable and surficially stable; and, impacts relating to unstable soils and geologic units, including landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction would be less than significant.
Furthermore, mandatory adherence to the recommendations contained in the site -specific geotechnical report during Project construction would ensure impacts associated with geological hazards are less than significant.
Moreover, as discussed in Threshold b above, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. As such, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy 3.12.2.
Policy 3.12.3: Control the grading of land,
pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, to
No Conflict. The Project would require extensive grading in order to develop the site with the proposed Industrial and minimize the potential for erosion,
landslides, and other forms of land failure,
as well as to limit the potential negative
aesthetic impact of excessive modification
General Commercial land uses. However, the Project's grading plan would be in accordance with the standards identified in the City's Municipal Code, to minimize the potential for erosion, landslides, and other forms of land failure. The Project's of natural landforms.
grading would occur within the central portion of the Project site where the proposed buildings would be located. Although landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, the Project Applicant does not propose to grade the northwestern or southern portions of the Project site within PA 10 or between the north-northeast property line and SR -60 Freeway, which would preserve foreground landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline views. Future
development would be subjected to the recommendations
contained in the Geotechnical Report (see Section 5 of
Technical Appendix F1, of this EIR), in accordance with the CBC and Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.1.040. The
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Geotechnical Report includes requirements for: supplemental subsurface exploration, general earthwork and grading, fill placement and compaction, remedial grading, manufactured slopes, surface drainage, subdrainage, oversized rock materials, deep fill areas/settlement monitoring, preliminary foundation recommendations, retaining walls, sulfate potential, corrosion potential, preliminary pavement design, and temporary
excavations. Mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the Project site's Geotechnical Report (as required by the CBSC, Beaumont Building Code, and
conditions of approval) would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on -site and abutting off -site areas. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.12.3; see also discussion under Policy 3.12.2.
Policy 3.12.4: Recognize the value of
ridgelines and hillsides as significant
natural and visual resources and
strengthen their role as features which
define the character of the City and its
individual neighborhood.
No Conflict. The Project designates 152.4 acres (PA 10) as Open Space — Conservation, which is intended to be dedicated to the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), pursuant to the Western Riverside County MSHCP, for preservation to
augment existing, adjacent conserved lands in this part of Riverside County. This area consists of deeply incised hillsides and watercourses along with the habitats associated with these landforms. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the EIR, although landforms in mid -ground views would be altered for the development, the Project would not allow grading within PA 10, which would preserve foreground landforms along the SR -60 Freeway and distant ridgeline views. No development would occur in this area. The Specific Plan would implement measures to ensure that Project design elements visually enhance and do not degrade the surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 3.12.4.
Policy 3.12.12: Establish buffers between
open space areas and urban development
by encouraging less intensive rural
development within proximity to the open
space areas.
No Conflict. The Project site is bordered to the north by SR -60 and to the east by new industrial development. The Project site is bordered to the west and to the south by open space and conservation land uses which are buffered under the Beaumont Specific Plan by PA 9 and PA 10 which abut the open space areas and are designated as Open Space and Open Space — Conservation, respectively. PA 9 will be developed with landscaped, manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, as well as the natural slopes which form a buffer between the Specific Plan's developed areas and the Open Space —
Conservation in PA 10. PA 10 will remain ungraded and
undeveloped. These areas would not be developed with the Project's proposed structures. PA 9 will also be developed with project signage along the SR -60 frontage only. As further described in Section 3.0. of this EIR, the Project's on -site Open Space designated areas would provide a buffer between the proposed development and adjoining natural open space. As
General Plan Policy
Applicability
such, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy
3.12.4. Mobility (Chapter 4)
Goal 4.1: Promote smooth traffic flows and balance operational efficiency, technological, and economic feasibility.
Policy 4.1.1: Reduce vehicular congestion
on auto -priority streets to the greatest
extent possible.
No Conflict. The Project Applicant would be required to pay TUMF fees, DIF fees, and fair share improvement fees that the City would use to ensure the implementation of roadway
improvements in the area in order to minimize traffic
congestion. Additionally, the Project would include the following improvements to accommodate site access and
maintain acceptable peak hour operations: install a traffic signal, and construct southbound left turn lane with a minimum of 200 -feet of storage and a right turn lane, an eastbound left turn lane with a minimum of 100 -feet of storage and a through lane, and westbound through lane and a right turn lane with a minimum of 100 -feet of storage at the intersection of Jack Rabbit Trail & 4th Street; construct an eastbound shared left - through lane and stripe the southbound right turn lane at the intersection of Potrero Boulevard and 4th Street; construct 4th Street at its ultimate full -width as a Collector (66 -foot right-of- way) from the western Project boundary to Jack Rabbit Trail and with a minimum of one lane of travel in each direction from Jack Rabbit Trail to Potrero Boulevard. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.1.1.
Policy 4.1.5: Require residential and
commercial development standards that
strengthen connections to transit and
promote walking to neighborhood
services.
No Conflict. The Project Applicant proposes curb adjacent sidewalks and pedestrian paths to encourage and enhance pedestrian activity throughout the Project site. Additionally, the Project would provide pedestrian and bicycle network
improvements within the development connecting to existing off -site facilities to the east along 4th Street. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.1.5.
Policy 4.1.6: Review and coordinate
circulation requirements with Caltrans, as
it pertains to freeways and state highways.
No Conflict. The TIA has been prepared in accordance with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The TIA analyzed freeway mainline and ramp junction impacts to the State Highway System, including the I-10 and SR -60. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.1.6.
Goal 4.2: Support the development of a comprehensive network of complete streets throughout the City that provides safe, efficient, and accessible connectivity for users of all ages and abilities.
Policy 4.2.2: Maintain standards that align
with SB 743 and multi -modal level of
No conflict. Consistent with SB 743, the City of Beaumont adopted thresholds based on VMT. The VMT assessment
General Plan Policy
Applicability
service (MMLOS) methodologies.
Incorporate these into impact assessments
when appropriate.
(Technical Appendix K2) prepared for the Project included analysis of VMT impacts resulting from implementation of the Project. The VMT assessment for the Project has been
reviewed and approved by the City.
The City has not adopted MMLOS methodologies, however,
the TIA (Technical Appendix Kl) analyzes LOS and multi - modal transportation. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.2.2.
Policy 4.2.5: Ensure that existing and
future roadway improvements balance the
needs of all users, including pedestrians
and bicyclists.
No Conflict. As discussed in Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan, the Project includes installation of sidewalks along the Project site's frontage with Jack Rabbit Trail and 4th Street and along Industrial Way, a proposed private road located along the north side of the proposed industrial buildings. Access to the Project's proposed industrial and commercial uses would be separated to allow for safe access for visitors to the Project's commercial uses. Jack Rabbit Trail provides access to PAs 1 and 2 while primary access to the Industrial PAs 3 through 8 is provided by 4th Street along the south, with Industrial Way providing secondary access along the north. Additionally, the Project would include the
installation of bicycle racks and lockers at each of the proposed light industrial buildings and the Project proposes curb adjacent sidewalks and pedestrian paths to encourage and enhance pedestrian activity throughout the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict be consistent with General Plan Policy 4.2.5.
Goal 4.3: A healthy transportation system that promotes and improves pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety in Beaumont.
Policy 4.3.1: Reduce the potential for car
collisions through design improvements,
speed limit enforcement, and education
efforts, prioritizing areas with a high level
of collision incidence
No Conflict. The Project site is currently undeveloped and therefore is not in an area with a high level of collision incidences. Roadways would be constructed consistent with the Specific Plan (see Figure 3-8, Conceptual Circulation Plan) and designed in accordance with City standards. Roadway
alignments, designations, and widths provided at the
subdivision stage are subject to detailed engineering review and approval by the City Engineer. Traffic control measures shall be installed consistent with the TIA (Technical Appendix K1) and as determined by the City Engineer. Additionally, as discussed above, the Project Applicant would be required to pay TUMF, DIF, and fair share fees; and the Project would include roadways improvements consistent with City
Requirements to accommodate site access and maintain
acceptable peak hour operations. Driveways and access points shall conform to the City's standard intersection spacing and access spacing. Additionally, sight distances would be
reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure that setbacks allow for clear, unobstructed sight distances at intersections. Based on
General Plan Policy
Applicability
the Project's required design improvements, the Project would reduce the potential for car collisions and the Project would not conflict be consistent with General Plan Policy 4.3.1.
Policy 4.3.5: Integrate land use and
transportation infrastructure to support
higher -density development, a balanced
mix of residential and commercial uses,
and a connected system of sidewalks,
bikeways, greenways, and transit.
No Conflict. The Project involves a mixed development of 232.6 acres of light industrial use, 30.2 acres of commercial use (i.e., hotel, restaurants, recreation -based retail uses), 124.7 acres of open space, and 152.4 acres of open space -
conservation use. The Project also includes a detailed
circulation plan, which is organized to ensure efficient access to individual tenant areas, as well as to public places. Because the Project would integrate land use and transportation
infrastructure to support a balanced mix of land uses, the Project would not conflict with Policy 4.3.5.
Goal 4.4: A balanced transportation system that provides adequate facilities for people in the City to bicycle, walk, or take transit to their destinations.
Policy 4.4.3: Improve safety for all active
transportation users.
No Conflict. The Project Applicant proposes curb adjacent sidewalks and pedestrian paths to encourage and enhance pedestrian activity throughout the Project site. In addition, all driveways and intersections to and from the Project site would be stop -controlled to ensure safety for all transportation users.
Based on the Project's roadway improvements, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.4.3.
Goal 4.6: An efficient goods movement system that ensures timely deliveries without compromising quality of life, safety, or smooth traffic flow for Beaumont residents.
Policy 4.6.1: Prioritize goods movement
along specific routes in the City,
consistent with the adopted layered
network, to foster efficient freight
logistics.
No Conflict. The Project site is situated in close proximity to the regional transportation network which connects the site to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, both major gateways for international trade, the Inland Empire and the Western United States. Located along the south side of the SR -60 and I- 10 Freeway, access to the regional transportation system from the site is provided via 4th Street, and access to the SR -60 and I-10 Freeway from 4th Street through an industrial area to the east. Interim regional access to the Project site is available from the SR -60 Freeway via Western Knolls and Veile Avenue/6th Street interchanges and the I-10 Freeway via the Oak Valley Parkway and Beaumont Avenue interchanges. Once the Potrero Boulevard interchange is constructed, regional access to the Project site would be available from the SR -60
Freeway/Potrero Boulevard and I-10 Freeway/Oak Valley
Parkway interchanges. Due to the Project site's proximity to SR -60, trucks accessing the Project site would efficiently reach the State highway system to facilitate the movement of goods throughout the region. In addition, the Project would be consistent with SCAG's Connect SoCal goals, which are
described in detail in EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Planning. Based on the foregoing, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.6.1.
Policy 4.6.2: Minimize or restrict heavy
vehicle traffic near sensitive areas such as
schools, parks, and neighborhoods.
No Conflict. The closest sensitive area to the Project site is an existing single-family residence located approximately 483 feet south of the Project site's southernmost boundary. Other residential uses are located north across Frontage Road (1,253 feet) and beyond SR -60. However, the Project would not restrict access to or from the existing residence; the Project would provide private residential access on site to the existing residence; cars and trucks will not pass by this residence under the proposed roadway plan. truck trips would be routed through an industrial area to Potrero Boulevard and would not pass by sensitive areas. Based on these restrictions, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 4.6.2.
Health and Environmental Justice (Chapter 6)
Goal 6.7: A City that safely and systemically addresses toxics, legacy pollutants, and hazardous materials.
Policy 6.7.1: Prohibit new non-residential
uses that are known to release or emit
toxic waste at levels that are harmful to
human health while continuing to allow
R&D uses, medical uses, and other
necessary services such as dry cleaners.
No Conflict. The Project Applicant proposes to develop the Project site with industrial and commercial uses. However, the building occupants within the industrial land use will include warehousing, manufacturing, fulfillment, parcel hub and/or similar uses. Manufacturing uses may include manufacturing on -site and shipment of goods and/or shipment/transport of goods to the Project site for manufacturing on -site. Building occupants within the commercial land uses will include
restaurants, recreation, and entertainment (e.g., athletic fields, batting cages, miniature golf courses, health clubs, etc.). The full list of permitted, conditionally permitted, and ancillary uses allowed within the Project site are listed on Table 3-1 of the Specific Plan. Based on the facilities and uses that would be allowed at the Project site, hazardous materials (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, solvents, corrosives, hazardous materials, etc.) could be used during the course of daily operations at the Project site, subject to mandatory regulatory compliance to insure safe use and disposal. It is possible that other hazardous materials also could be used during the course of daily operations at the Project site. In the event that hazardous materials, other than those common materials described above, are associated with future operations, the hazardous materials would only be stored and transported to and from the Project site subject to applicable safety regulations. General cleaning activities on site that contain toxic substances are usually low in concentration and small in amount; therefore, there is no significant risk to humans or the environment from the use of such cleaning products.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
As concluded in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, of this EIR, with mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 6.7.1.
Policy 6.7.2: Continue to work with State,
federal, regional, and local agencies to
eliminate and reduce concentrations of
regulated legacy pollutants.
No Conflict. There are no existing pollutants on site as the Project site is vacant and undeveloped. The Project would comply with State and federal Community -Right -to -Know laws, which allow the public to access information regarding the information about the amounts and types of chemicals that may be used by businesses on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 6.7.2.
Policy 6.7.5: Reduce particulate emissions
from paved and unpaved roads,
construction activities, and agricultural
operations.
No Conflict. During the Project's construction phase, water would be sprayed throughout the site to abate dust particulate emissions. Additionally, Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 shall ensure that all 75 -horsepower or greater diesel -powered equipment is powered with California Air Resources Board (CARB)-certified Tier 4 Final engines, except where the project applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Beaumont that Tier 4 Final equipment is not available.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 6.7.5.
Policy 6.7.6: Designate truck routes to
avoid sensitive land uses, where feasible.
No Conflict. See Project Consistency response to General Plan Policy 3.10.4. The Project does not propose any truck routes in proximity to sensitive land uses. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 6.7.6.
Community Facilities and Infrastructure (Chapter 7)
Goal 7.3: Buildings and landscapes promote water conservation, efficiency, and the increased use of recycled water.
Policy 7.3.6: Encourage innovative water
recycling techniques, such as rainwater
capture, use of cisterns, and installation of
greywater systems.
No Conflict. As disused in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, and Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would commit to using graywater (purple pipe)
irrigation Recycled water will be utilized and used for construction dewatering, irrigation of manufactured and replanted slopes within PA 9, as well as for irrigation of parkway landscaping and irrigation of landscaping within the General Commercial and Industrial land uses (PAs 1-8). The Project would connect a proposed 14 -inch recycled water line that would connect to the existing 14 -inch recycled water line within the adjacent Hidden Canyon development at 4th Street
General Plan Policy
Applicability
(350 feet east of the Project site in the existing right of way).
As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.3.6.
Goal 7.4: Incorporate sustainable and improved stormwater management practices.
Policy 7.4.1: Incorporate low -impact
development (LID) techniques to improve
stormwater quality and reduce run-off
quantity.
No Conflict. In accordance with the Project's WQMP, the Project would install LID BMPs (e.g., bioretention and
biotreatment) to detain stormwater on site for runoff mitigation.
The Project proposes to install four detention basins within drainage management areas. The detention basins would
remove pollutants from runoff and filter the water, thereby providing first -flush capture, detention, and filtration of stormwater runoff before it is discharged from the Project site.
Additionally, the Project proposes non-structural BMPs to mitigate industrial pollution. Furthermore, the Project would slightly reduce peak stormwater flows by approximately 98 cfs and would not cause adverse hydrologic or biologic impacts to downstream receiving waters, including groundwater. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.4.1.
Policy 7.4.3: Require new development
and redevelopment projects to reuse
stormwater on site to the maximum extent
practical and provide adequate stormwater
infrastructure for flood control.
No Conflict. The Project's proposed stormwater drainage system is designed to capture and convey the Project's
stormwater flows into the Project's proposed on -site
stormwater detention basins that would gradually release stormwater into the downstream public storm drain system.
Additionally, flood protection facilities will be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) and with adequate access easements and facilities provided. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy
7.4.3. Goal 7.5: Manage and effectively treat stormwater to minimize risk to downstream resources.
Policy 7.5.1: Ensure compliance with the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) MS4 permit
requirements.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the implementation of the Project would involve grading of more than one acre. Therefore, the Project developer would be required to obtain a NPDES General Construction Permit and comply with permit requirements effective at the time of construction. Additionally, as stated in Regulatory Requirement RR 10-5, prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall provide evidence to the City that the Project comply with the requirements of the RWQCB Municipal Permit General MS4
Permit. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.5.1.
Policy 7.5.3: Minimize pollutant
discharges into storm drainage system,
No Conflict. In accordance with the Project's WQMP, the Project would install LID BMPs (e.g., bioretention and
General Plan Policy
Applicability
natural drainages, and groundwater.
Design the necessary stormwater
detention basins, recharge basins, water
quality basins, or similar water capture
facilities to protect water quality by
capturing and/or treating water before it
enters a watercourse.
biotreatment) to detain stormwater on site for runoff mitigation.
The Project proposes to install four detention basins within four DMAs. Additionally, the Project proposes non-structural BMPs to mitigate industrial pollution. Additionally, as further discussed in EIR Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project's proposed storm drain system is designed to capture 100 -year storm event peak flows. The Project's proposed storm drain system has sufficient capacity to hold and treat peak stormwater flows. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.5.3.
Policy 7.5.5: Require hydrological/
hydraulic studies and WQMPs to ensure
that new developments and
redevelopment projects will not cause
adverse hydrologic or biologic impacts to
downstream receiving waters, including
groundwater.
No Conflict. As further discussed in EIR Section 4.10,
Hydrology and Water Quality, a Project -specific WQMP and a Project -specific Hydrology Study was prepared by Proactive Engineering Consultants West, Inc. (PECW). The WMQP
identified BMPs that would be installed to mitigate water quality impacts and the Hydrology Study identified that the implementation of the Project would not result in substantial flooding on or off site. The detention basins to be installed on site would remove pollutants from runoff and filter the water, thereby providing first -flush capture, detention, and filtration of stormwater runoff before it is discharged from the Project site.
Furthermore, the Project would slightly reduce peak stormwater flows by approximately 98 cfs and would not cause adverse hydrologic or biologic impacts to downstream receiving waters, including groundwater. As such, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.5.5.
Goal 7.6: A zero -waste program that increases recycling and reduces waste sent to the landfill.
Policy 7.6.1: Encourage new construction
and additions to avoid "Red List"
materials and chemicals.1
No Conflict. Refer to General Plan Policy 6.7.1. As concluded in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous
construction -related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA and DTSC. With mandatory compliance of applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. The Project Applicant proposes to develop the Project site with industrial and commercial uses. Based on the facilities and uses that would be allowed at the Project site, hazardous materials (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, solvents, corrosives, toxic substances hazardous materials, etc.) could be used during the course of daily operations at the Project site. As concluded in Section 4.9, ' The "Red List" includes the worst types of materials and chemicals used in the building industry that are harmful to humans and the environment. For a list of material included on the "Red List," see: https://living- future.org/declare/declare-about/red-list/
General Plan Policy
Applicability
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, with
mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.6.1.
Goal 7.7: Provide for a clean and healthy community through an effective solid waste collection and disposal system.
Policy 7.7.3: Require businesses
(including public entities) that generate
four cubic yards or more of commercial
solid waste per week, or a multifamily
residential dwelling of five units or more,
to arrange for recycling services.
No Conflict. The Project would be required to coordinate with Waste Management, Inc. to develop a collection program for recyclables, such as paper, plastics, glass, and aluminum, in accordance with local and State programs, including AB 341, Mandatory Commercial Recycling, and the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.7.3.
Goal 7.8: City-wide access to high -quality energy utility and telecommunication services.
Policy 7.8.1: Ensure that adequate utility
and telecommunication infrastructure
support future development.
No Conflict. As disused in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project's proposed connections to existing utility infrastructure including electricity, natural gas, and
telecommunications, as well as installation of on- and off -site stormwater management, water, and wastewater infrastructure would be adequate to support future development of the
Project. Therefore, the Project not conflict with General Plan Policy 7.8.1.
Conservation and Open Space (Chapter 8)
Goal 8.1: A City with green buildings and developments that promote energy efficiency.
Policy 8.1.5: Encourage new development
to reduce building energy use by adopting
passive solar techniques and heat island
reduction strategies:
• Maximizing interior daylighting
• Using cool exterior siding, cool
roofing, and paving materials with
relatively high solar reflectivity to
reduce solar heat gain
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the Project shall implement the County of
Riverside's 2019 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Screening Table Measures which include 20% project energy generated from solar, cool roofs, and water efficient landscaping. The Project would achieve a minimum of 201 Screening Table Points.
Additionally, the Project would include skylights and clearstory windows to maximize day lighting. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.1.5.
General Plan Policy
Applicability
• Planting shade trees on south- and
west facing sides of new buildings
to reduce energy load
• Installing water efficient
vegetative cover and planting,
substantial tree canopy coverage
Policy 8.1.7: Encourage new buildings
and buildings undergoing major retrofits
to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency
standards.
No Conflict. Energy efficiency/energy conservation attributes of the Project would be complemented by increasingly stringent State and federal regulatory actions addressing vehicle fuel economies and vehicle emissions standards; and enhanced building/utilities energy efficiencies mandated under California building codes (e.g., Title 24, California Green Building Standards Code). The Project proposes conventional industrial and commercial uses reflecting contemporary energy
efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs.
Uses proposed by the Project are not inherently energy
intensive, and the Project energy demands in total would comply with current Title 24 energy efficiency standards and due to the continued upgrades to Title 24 standards new construction would be comparable to, or less than, other industrial projects of similar scale and configuration in terms of energy use. Compliance with the Riverside County CAP
provides additional energy efficiencies that exceed Title 24.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.1.7.
Goal 8.2: A City which encourages energy from renewable sources Policy 8.2.1: Promote the incorporation of
alternative energy generation (e.g., solar,
wind, biomass) in public and private
development.
No Conflict. Approximately 20% of the power needs of each building within the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan shall be provided by Solar Photovoltaic panels or wind, installed on buildings or in collective arrangements. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.2.1.
Goal 8.4: A City that improves awareness and mitigation of negative air quality impacts.
Policy 8.4.3: Avoid the siting of new
project and land uses that would produce
localized air pollution (e.g., Interstate 10,
SR -60, high traffic roads, certain
industrial facilities) in a way that would
adversely impact existing air quality-
sensitive receptors including schools,
childcare center, senior housing, and
subsidized affordable housing. The
recommended minimum distance
separating these uses should be 500 feet.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the closest sensitive area to the Project site is an existing single - family residence located approximately 483 feet south of the Project site's southernmost boundary. Other residential uses are located north across Frontage Road (1,253 feet) and beyond SR -60. The Project would not result in localized exceedances of federal or state ambient air quality standard under
construction or operation of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.4.3.
General Plan Policy
I Applicability
Goal 8.5: A City that preserves and enhances its natural resources.
Policy 8.5.1: Minimize the loss of
sensitive species and critical habitat in
areas planned for future development.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, the Project would result in permanent impacts to vegetation communities described for conservation by the MSHCP associated with Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125 totaling 109.69 acres and would impact the following
communities: chaparral (0.21 acre), Riversidean sage scrub (24.40 acres), non-native grassland (82.13 acres), and southern riparian scrub (0.03 acre). To offset these impacts, the Project would conserve 133.62 acres of replacement lands, including
0.32 acre of chaparral, 45.85 acres of Riversidean sage scrub,
86.03 acres of non-native grassland, and 0.22 acre of southern riparian scrub consistent with the MSHCP (PDF 4-1).
Additionally, no special -status plants were detected at the Study Area during focused plant surveys; therefore, no impact to special -status plants would occur. The Project would result in potential impacts to crotch bumble bee, coastal California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl during construction activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 through MM 4.4- 3 would reduce impacts to special -status animals to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.5.1.
Policy 8.5.2: Require new developments
adjacent to identified plant and wildlife
habitat areas to maintain a protective
buffer, minimize impervious surface,
minimize light pollution, and emphasize
native landscaping.
No Conflict. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, the Project would erect wildlife fencing along the southern and western limits of the development footprint, connecting with SR -60 wildlife fencing, to provide a barrier between the edge of the development footprint and the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project would provide 124.7 acres of open space to accommodate landscaped manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, and natural open space as a buffer to adjacent conservation area and 152.4 acres of open space — conservation. The Open Space — Conservation area would be preserved as natural habitat and dedicated to the RCA as required by the MSHCP. The Project through its design would also address edge effects relative to adjacent conserved lands. The Project's night lighting would be designed to prevent spillage into the MSHCP conserved lands along the western and southern development boundary. See Project
Consistency response to General Plan Policy 8.5.3 for a discussion on native landscaping. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with General Plan Policy 8.5.2.
Policy 8.5.3: Encourage new development
to support a diversity of native species and
manage invasive species.
No Conflict. As shown on Figure 3-14, Master Landscape
Plan, the Project provides a plant palette for three categories:
Entrance Planting, Native California Planting, and Industrial Screen Planting; and selected to complement and enhance the setting of the site, while ensuring the conservation of the site's