Beaumont City Council
June 18, 2024

40 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.5: Police Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities
Value of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (2040)
$ 22,531,336

73.182, 221
$ 95,713,557
Future Service Population (2040) 87,120
Cost per Capita $ 1,099
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 1,099
Cost Allocation per Worker' 341
1 Based on a weighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use police facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of police facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 6.3.

Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned police facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 6.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $41.2 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned police facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned police facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table 6.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
$ 1,099
29,123
Fee Revenue $ 32,006,177
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
73,182, 221
$ (41,176, 044)
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

41 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule
Table 6.7 shows the maximum justified police facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).

The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 6.7: Police Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge' 2
E= C+ D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 1,099 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 341 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 341 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 341 0.88
$ 3,539 $ 35
$ 723 $ 7
1,050 11
300 3
$ 3,574 $ 1.33
$ 730 $ 0.73
1,061 1.06
303 0.30
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.5.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

42 7. Public Facilities
The purpose of the public facilities impact fee is to fund the public facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system plan standard of public facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new public facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional public facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Public facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for public facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.
fWILLDAN
Financial Services

43 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.1: Public Facilities Service Population
A B
Weighting
Persons Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215 0.31
16,753 0.31
22,968
56,070
23,930
80,000
1,927
5,193
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
57,997
29,123
87,120
Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non -w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31)
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's public facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
The City's public facility inventory consists of City Hall and its various auxiliary buildings and the grounds maintenance building. Table 7.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of public land, buildings and vehicles. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $218,600 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous two years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. Unit cost assumptions for the replacement cost of buildings are based on the cost estimate to build a new City Hall from the City's prior impact fee study, which has been adjusted for inflation to 2023 dollars.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

44 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.2: Existing Public Facilities Inventory
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Land (acres)
City Hall - 550 E. Sixth Street
Grounds Maintenance Building - 713 W Fourth Street
Subtotal - Land
Buildings (square feet) 1
City Hall - 550 E. Sixth Street
Grounds Maintenance Building - 713 W Fourth Street
City Hall Building D - 650 Magnolia Avenue
City Hall Building G (Animal Control) - 650 Magnolia Avenue City Hall Building B - 650 Magnolia Avenue
City Hall Building C - 650 Magnolia Avenue
Subtotal - Buildings
Total Value - Existing Facilities

4.22 acres

0.01 acres

4.23 $218,600 $ 922,492
218,600 1,626
$ 924,118
23,283 sq. ft. $ 532 $ 12,386,556
324 sq. ft. 150 48,600
4,241 sq. ft. 532 2,256,212
3,606 sq. ft. 532 1,918,392
1,750 sq. ft. 532 931,000
2,240 sq. ft. 532 1,191,680
35,444 $ 18,732,440
$ 19,656,558
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 7.3 summarizes the planned public facilities needed to serve the City through 2040. The City plans for a new City Hall and Corporate Yard, including land acquisition. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $23.3 million through 2040, net of existing fund balances.

Table 7.3: Planned Public Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New City Hall 25,000 Sq. Ft. $ 532 $ 13,300,000
Land for New City Hall 2 Acres 218,600 437,200
New Corporate Yard Building 20,000 Sq. Ft. 500 10,000,000 Land for Corporate Yard 6 Acres 218,600 1,311,600
Total $ 25,048,800
Less Existing Fund Balance 1,703,433
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 23,345,367
1 Unit cost from 2017 Development lmapct Fee Study, adjusted for inflation using the Engineering News Record's Building Cost Index.

Source: City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study, 2017; Willdan Financial Services.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

45 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 7.4 expresses the City's current public facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only. Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 7.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has adequate facilities to provide public services to the City.

Table 7.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker
$ 19,656,558
57,997
$ 339
$ 339
105
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 7.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in public facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

AN/WILLDAN
Financial Services

46 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.5: Public Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 19,656,558
Value of Planned Facilities 23,345,367
Total System Value (2040) $43,001,925
Future Service Population (2040) 87,120
Cost per Capita $ 494
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 494
Cost Allocation per Worker 153
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use public facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of public facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 7.3.

Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned public facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 7.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $9 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned public facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned public facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table 7.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
$ 494
29,123
Fee Revenue $ 14,386,762
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue to be Identified
23, 345, 367
$ (8,958,605)
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.3 and 7.4.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

47 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule
Table 7.7 shows the maximum justified public facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).

The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 7.7: Public Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 494 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 153 2.12 $ 324 $ 3 $ 327 $ 0.33
Industrial/Business Park 153 3.08 471 5 476 0.48
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 153 0.88 135 1 136 0.14
C=AxB D=CxO.01
Admin
Base Fee' Charge'' 2
$ 1,591 $ 16
E= C+ D F= E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 1,607 $ 0.60
Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.5.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

48 8. Transportation Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for various transportation improvements to accommodate new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new transportation facilities from the projected increase in vehicle trips and the additional transportation facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number trips generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Trip Demand
The need for transportation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of PM peak hour vehicle trips, adjusted for pass -by trips. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of transportation facilities across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips. Pass -by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass -by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work.

Table 8.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the pass - by trip adjustment described above. The data for trip rates, and the pass -by trip assumption all come from the latest data available from the Institute of Traffic Engineers.

Table 8.1: Trip Demand Factors
ITE Category
PM Peak
Pass -by Hour
Trips1 Trips2
Adjusted
Trip Rate
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial
Industrial/Business Park
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Single Family Housing (210)
A 8 C=(1-A)XB
0% 0.99 0.99
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (220) 0% 0.57 0.57
Shopping Center (820)
Business Park (770)
High -Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse
(156)
34% 4.09 2.70
0% 1.22 1.22
0% 0.71 0.71
Percent of total trips. A pass -by trip is made as an intermediate stop on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination w ithout a route diversion. Pass -by trips are not considered to add traffic to the road netw ork. Assumption based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook data.
2 Trips per dw elling unit or per 1,000 building square feet.

Sources: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition; Willdan Financial Services.

Trip Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2040. Table 8.2 lists the 2023 and 2040 land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated in Table 8.1 are multiplied by Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

49 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update the existing and future dwelling units and building square feet to determine the increase in trips caused by new development.

Table 8.2: Land Use Scenario and Total Trips
Land Use
Trip 2023 Growth 2023 to 2040 Total - 2040
Demand Units/ Units / Units/
Factor 1,000 SF Trips 1,000 SF Trips 1,000 SF Trips
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 0.99 16,583 16,417 2,425 2,401 19,008 18,818 Multifamily 0.57 2,136 1,218 4,403 2,509 6,539 3,727
Subtotal 18,719 17,635 6,828 4,910 25,547 22,545
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 2.70 1,792 4,840 4,052 10,939 5,844 15,779
Office 1.22 352 430 376 458 728 888
Industrial 0.71 1,511 1,073 7,962 5,653 9,473 6,726
Subtotal 3,656 6,343 12,389 17,050 16,045 23,393
Total
23,978 21,960 45,938

52.2% 47.8% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.1.

Project Costs
Cost estimates are summarized in Table 8.3 and were sourced from the City's CIP. Any funding that has been identified for these projects is netted out of the total cost. The net costs are allocated to new development proportionally to new development's share of trip demand at the planning horizon as calculated in Table 8.2 (47.8%). Allocating this amount of costs to the impact fee ensures that new development will not fund more than its proportional share of transportation facilities demand.

Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services

50 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 8.3: Planned Facilities
Project No. Project Title
Less Allocation to Cost Allocated to
Total Project Alternative Net Project New New
Cost Funding Cost Development Development
Streets and Bridges
2019-009 2nd Street Extension Feasibility / Design $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 47.8% $ 95,600 R-01 Oak Valley Pkwy Expansion 110 -Desert Lawn Phase 2 600,000 600,000 47.8% 286,800 R-12 2nd Street Extension Construction 4,800,000 - 4,800,000 47.8% 2,294,400 2016-003 Potrero Interchange- Phase 11 72,546,000 54,000,000 18,546,000 47.8% 8,864,988 2017-027 Oak Valley/I-10 Interchange Design 85,000,000 11,660,000 73,340,000 47.8% 35,056,520 2017-001 Pennsylvania Interchange 85,000,000 - 85,000,000 47.8% 40,630,000 R-37 Beaumont Avenue/1-10 Interchange Project 125,000,000 5,869,000 119,131,000 47.8% 56,944,618 Highland Springs (Beaumont Share) 60,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 47.8% 14,340,000 Subtotal $433,146,000 $ 101,529,000 $ 331,617,000 $ 158,512,926 Traffic Signals
R-02 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 1 $ 150,000 $ $ 150,000 47.8% $ 71,700 R-11 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 2 150,000 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R-13 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 3 274,400 274,400 47.8% 131,163 R25-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY25 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R26-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY26 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R27-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY27 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R28-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY28 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R-34 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY24 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 Subtotal $ 1,324,400 $ $ 1,324,400 $ 633,063
Railroad
2017-012 Pennsylvania Ave/UPR Grade Separation
California URP Grade Separation'
Subtotal
$ 73, 700, 000 $ 8,678,556 $ 65, 021, 444
100,000,000 70,000,000 30,000,000
$ 173, 700, 000 $ 78, 678, 556 $ 95, 021, 444

47.8% $ 31,080,250

47.8% 14,340,000
$ 45,420,250
1 Assumes 70% of this project w i l l be funded w ith grants.

Source: City of Beaumont Master CIP, Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
51

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, or the cost of projects that can be funded by a fee, divided by a measure of development. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit (cost per dwelling unit) and employment space (cost per 1,000 building square feet) by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.

Table 8.4 calculates the cost the cost per trip demand unit by dividing the total project costs attributable to new development by transportation fee category summarized in Table 8.3, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 8.2. Note that the traffic signals impact fee fund balances are sufficient to fund the allocated share of project costs. No fee is calculated for this category.

Table 8.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Road and Railroad
Bridge Traffic Signals Crossings
Costs Allocated to New Development $ 158,512,926 $ 633,063 $ 45,420,250 Les Existing Fund Balance 12,090,363 1,371,766 2,809,846 Net Costs Allocated to New Development $ 146,422,563 $ - $ 42,610,404 Growth in Trip Demand (2023 to 2040) 21,960 21,960 21,960 Cost per Trip
$ 6,668 $ - $ 1,940
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 8.5 shows the maximum justified transportation fee schedule, be fee component. The maximum justified fees are based on the costs per trip shown in Table 8.4. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 8.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development.

The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge. 'WILLDAN
Financial Services

52 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 8.5: Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
A 8
Trip
Cost Per Demand
Trip Factor
C=Ax8 D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge' 2
E=C -ED E/1,000
Fee
per Sq.

Total Feel Ft.

Road and Bridge
Residential Dwelling Unit
$ 6,668 0.72
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 6,668 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 6,668 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 6,668 0.71
Railroad Crossings
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 1,940 0.72
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,940 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 1,940 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,940 0.71
$ 4,801 $ 48
$ 18,004 $ 180
8,135 81
4,734 47
$ 1,397 $ 14
$ 5,238 $ 52
2,367 24
1,377 14
$ 4,849 $ 1.80
$ 18,184 $ 18.18
8,216 8.22
4,781 4.78
$ 1,411 $ 0.53
$ 5,290 $ 5.29
2,391 2.39
1,391 1.39
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
° Average trip demand factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

53 9. Sewer Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for sewer facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Beaumont. The projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified in the City's Wastewater Master Plan (2021). The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for sewer facilities from the projected increase sewer flow and the additional sewer facilities needed to meet those convey that flow to the City's wastewater treatment plant. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of wastewater flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Sewer Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased sewer demand provide the basis for calculating the sewer facilities fee. The need for sewer facilities improvements is based on the sewer demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City's system of sewer improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 9.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from the City's Wastewater Master Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the sewer demand generated by each unit of new development.

Table 9.1: Sewer Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation'
Average Flow
Generation per Equivalent
DU or 1,000 Sq. Dwelling Unit
Density2 Ft. (EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial
Industrial/Business Park
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
2,609 17.00
1,175 32.67
1,175 43.56
1,763 32.67
235.00
153.47

35.97 26.97

53.96 1.00

0.65 0.15

0.11 0.23
1 Gallons per acre per day.
2 Units per acre for residential or 1,000 square feet per acre for nonresidential. Residential and nonresidential densities are based on typical densities for each land use from the General Ran. Nonresidential densities are based on floor -area -ratios of 0.75 for commercial, 1.0 for industrial/business park and 0.75 for industrial/w arehouse.

Sources: Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; Willdan Financial Services.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

54 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update EDU Generation by New Development
Table 9.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. The EDU factors from Table 9.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Table 2.1 to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development. New development will generate approximately 7,767 new EDUs through 2040, comprising 29.4% of sewer demand in the City at that time.

Table 9.2: Sewer Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units
Land Use
2023 Growth 2023 to 2040 Total - 2040
EDU Units / Units / Units/
Factor 1,000 SF EDUs 1,000 SF EDUs 1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 16,583 16,583 2,425 2,425 19,008 19,008 Multifamily 0.65 2,136 1,388 4,403 2,862 6,539 4,250
Subtotal 18,719 17,971 6,828 5,287 25,547 23,258
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.15 1,792 269 4,052 608 5,844 877
Office 0.11 352 39 376 41 728 80
Industrial 0.23 1,511 348 7,962 1,831 9,473 2,179
Subtotal 3,656 656 12,389 2,480 16,045 3,136
Total
18,627 7,767 26,394

70.6% 29.4% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 9.1.

Facility Needs and Costs
Table 9.3 identifies the planned sewer facilities to be funded by the fee. The new sewer facilities were all identified in the City's 2021 Wastewater Master Plan. Since sewer facilities projects will benefit both existing development and new development, capacity expanding projects are allocated to new development based on new development's share of sewer demand at the planning horizon. Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee.

W'WILLDAN
Financial Services

55 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Allocation to New Development Type of
Improv. No. Improvement
Lower Oak Valley Lift Station Tributary Area
Future Capacity Increase
Lift Station Replacement
LOV-P 1
LOV-LS
Subtotal
Tukwet Canyon (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
TC-FM1 New Force Main
TC-FM2 New Force Main
TC-LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
Upper Oak Valley Lift Station Tributary Area
UOV-P1 Future Capacity Increase
UOV-P2 Existing Capacity Deficiency
UOV-P3 Future Capacity Increase
UOV-LS Lift Station Replacement
Subtotal
Olivewood Lift Station Tributary Area
O -P1
O -LS
FM -1
Subtotal
Brookside Avenue (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
BR -P1 New Capacity
BR-FM1 New Force Main
BR -LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
Future Capacity Increase
Lift Station Replacement
Oak ValleyBlvd Embankment Stabilization
Existing
Diameter
(in)
15 8
8 12
10 New/
Replace
Replace
Replace
New
New
New
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Capital
Improvement
Cost ($)
$ 202,500
2,003,600
$ 2,206,100
$ 2,578,300
2,578,300
1,404,000
$ 6,560,600
$ 109,200
97,400
898,300
5,449,800
$ 6,554,700
$ 170,300
1,540,800
780,000
New $
New
New
2,491,100
656,400
951,500
1,005,300
$ 2,613,200
Allocation to
Dew
Development
Cost Allocated
to Existing
Development
100% $
0%
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
- $ 202,500
2,003,600
100% $
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
0%
2,003,600 $ 202,500
- $ 2,578,300
2,578,300
1,404,000
- $ 6,560,600
$ - $ 109,200
97,400
5,449,800
898,300
$ 5,547,200 $ 1,007,500
100% $
0%
0%
- $ 170,300
1,540,800
780,000
$ 2,320,800 $ 170,300
100% $
100%
100%
$ 656,400
951,500
1,005,300
- $ 2,613,200
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
56

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Existing
Type of Diameter New/
Improv. No. Improvement (in) Replace
Beaumont Mesa Lift Station Tributary Area
BM -P1 New Capacity
BM -P2 New Capacity
BM -P3 New Capacity
BM-FM1 Force Main Design and Pump Design
BM-FM1 New Force Main
BM -LS Pump Replacement/Addition Construction
BM -WW Wet Well Design
BM -WW New Wet Well
Subtotal
Beaumont Crossroads (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
BC -P1 New Capacity
BC -P2 New Capacity
BC -P3 New Capacity
BC -P4 New Capacity
BC -P5 New Capacity
BC-FM1 New Force Main
BC-FM2 New Force Main
BC -LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
Marshall Creek Lift Station Tributary Area
MC -LS Lift Station Replacement
Industrial Park Lift Station Tributary Area
IP-P1
IP-P2
IP-LS
Subtotal
Future Capacity Increase
Future Capacity Increase
Lift Station Replacement
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
Capital
Improvement
Cost ($)
Allocation to Cost Allocated
Dew to Existing
Development Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
$ 768,200
498,700
844,400
450,000
4,000,000
750,000
400,000
4,000,000
$ 11,711,300
$ 1,122, 900
680,900
134,900
558,800
413,100
5,378,500
3,090,000
7,099,100
$ 18,478,200
Replace $ 3,331,200
8 Replace
8 Replace
Replace
$ 148,100
148,100
1,005,300
$ 1,301,500
100% $
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
- $ 768,200
498,700
844,400
450,000
4,000,000
750,000
400,000
4,000,000
$ 11,711,300
100% $ $ 1,122,900
100% 680,900
100% - 134,900
100% - 558,800
100% - 413,100
100% 5,378,500
100% 3,090,000
100% 7,099,100
$ $ 18,478,200
0% $ 3,331,200 $
100% $ $ 148,100
100% 148,100
0% 1,005,300 -
$ 1,005,300 $ 296,200
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont. wWILLDAN
Financial Services
57

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Existing Capital Allocation to Cost Allocated Cost Allocated Type of Diameter New/ Improvement Dew to Existing to New Improv. No. Improvement (in) Replace Cost ($) Development Development Development Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTP-P1 Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace $ 138,000 100% $ - $ 138,000 WWTP-P2 Existing Capacity Deficiency 12 Replace 206,700 0% 206,700 - WWTP-P3 Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace 138,000 100% - 138,000 WWTP-P4 Future Capacity Increase 24 Replace 924,000 100% 924,000 WWTP-P5 Future Capacity Increase 30 Replace 992,500 100% - 992,500 WWTP-P6 New Capacity - New 1,256,400 100% - 1,256,400
WWTP-P7 Future Capacity Increase - New 467,100 100% 467,100 WWTP-P8 Future Capacity Increase 8 Replace 952,200 100% 952,200 WWTP-P9 Future Capacity Increase 8 Replace 970,100 100% - 970,100 WWTP-P1- Future Capacity Increase 8 Replace 952,200 100% 952,200 WWTP-P11 Future Capacity Increase 8 Replace 961,300 100% - 961,300 WWTP-P12 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace 611,000 100% - 611,000 WWTP-P13 Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace 1,320,500 100% 1,320,500 WWTP-P14 Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace 422,300 100% - 422,300 WWTP-P15 Future Capacity Increase 15 Replace 269,800 100% 269,800 WWTP-P16 Future Capacity Increase 18 Replace 602,100 100% - 602,100 WWTP-P17 Future Capacity Increase 18 Replace 3,120,600 100% - 3,120,600 WWTP-P18 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace 39,000 100% - 39,000 WWTP-P19 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace 54,600 100% - 54,600 WWTP-P2- Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace 916,300 100% 916,300 WWTP-P21 Future Capacity Increase 24 Replace 1,314,100 100% - 1,314,100 WWTP-P22 Future Capacity Increase 30 Replace 2,219,700 100% - 2,219,700 WWTP-P23 Future Capacity Increase 30 Replace 600,600 100% - 600,600 WWTP-P24 Future Capacity Increase 30 Replace 1,149,000 100% - 1,149,000 WWTP-P25 New Capacity - New 1,277,300 100% 1,277,300
Aeration Basin No. 5 Future Capacity Increase New 1,400,000 100% 1,400,000 Fine Screens Basin Facility Future Capacity Increase New 600,000 100% - 600,000 Centrifuge Future Capacity Increase New 1,500,000 100% 1,500,000 Membrane Future Capacity Increase New 1,500,000 100% - 1,500,000 RIO Rack Future Capacity Increase New 1,500,000 100% - 1,500,000 OCSD Capacity Fee Increase New 743,000 100% - 743,000
Future Storage Building New 450,000 29.4% 317,700 132,300 Subtotal $ 29,568,400 $ 524,400 $ 29,044,000
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Plan, 2021; City of Beaumont. wWILLDAN
Financial Services
58

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Existing Capital Allocation to Cost Allocated Cost Allocated Type of Diameter New/ Improvement Dew to Existing to New Improv. No. Improvement (in) Replace Cost ($) Development Development Development Four Seasons Lift Station Tributary Area
FS -P1 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace $ 397,300 100% $ $ 397,300 FS -P2 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace 210,900 100% 210,900 FS -P3 Future Capacity Increase 12 Replace 305,500 100% 305,500 FS -P4 Pipe Slope Reconstruction 12 Replace 32,500 0% 32,500 - FS -P5 Future Capacity Increase 15 Replace 587,600 100% 587,600 FS -P6 Future Capacity Increase 10 Replace 23,400 100% 23,400 FS -LS Lift Station Replacement - Replace 3,941,100 0% 3,941,100 - Subtotal $ 5,498,300 $ 3,973,600 $ 1,524,700
Gravity Portion of Wastewater Collection System
S. Beaumont Ave South Future Gravity Mt 21 New $ 350,000 100% $ - $ 350,000 S. California Ave South Future Gravity Mai 12 New 250,000 100% 250,000 S. Veile Ave Future Gravity Main 12 New 150,000 100% 150,000 S. Olive Ave Future Gravity Main 12 New 75,000 100% 75,000 Oak Valley Parkway Gravity Main Capacit 12 Replace 100,000 100% 100,000 Orange St Future Gravity Main 15 New 140,000 100% 140,000 Brookside Ave Future Gravity Main 15 New 300,000 100% 300,000 Oak Valley Pkwy (11-10 to Desert Lawn) Ft 12 New 150,000 100% 150,000 E. Desert Lawn Future Gravity Main 8 New 50,000 100% 50,000 Subtotal $ 1,565,000 $ - $ 1,565,000
Mobile Equipment
Combination Vacuum Truck with Overhead Boom New $ 750,000 100% $ - $ 750,000 Chase pickup truck outfitted with underground equipmer New 60,000 100% 60,000 Subtotal $ 810,000 $ - $ 810,000
Other Wastewater System Improvements
Lift Station Condition Assessment $ 3,600,000 0% $ 3,600,000 $ - CCTV Program 300,000 0% 300,000 -
On -going Pipeline Replacement Program 4,800,000 0% 4,800,000 - Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements 2,000,000 0% 2,000,000 Future WWTP Energy Cost Reduction Program 1,500,000 0% 1,500,000 - Subtotal $ 12,200,000 $ 12,200,000 $ -
Total $ 104,889,600 $ 30,906,100 $ 73,983,500
Sources: City of Beaumont Wastewater Master Ran, 2021; City of Beaumont. wWILLDAN
Financial Services
59

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development in Table 9.3 is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU. Table 9.4 displays this calculation.

Table 9.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development
Less WWTP Upgrades Needed After 20401
Net Cost Allocated to New Development
Growth in EDUs (2023 to 2040)
Cost per EDU
$ 73, 983, 500
5,125,136
$ 68, 858, 364
7,767
$ 8,866
1 Excludes approximately 17.6% of VVWTPcapacity expansion costs, to conform w ith 2040 planning horizon as opposed to buildout sew er demands.

Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for sewer facilities is shown in Table 9.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 9.1.

The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge. fWILLDAN
Financial Services

60 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
Table 9.5: Maximum Justified Sewer Facilities Fee Schedule A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/Average
Base Admin Fee per
Fee' Charge'' 2 Total Fee' Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit4 $ 8,866 0.77
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 8,866 0.15
Industrial/Business Park 8,866 0.11
Industrial/High-Cube Ware 8,866 0.23
$ 6,827 $ 68
$ 1,330 $ 13
975 10
2,039 20
$ 6,895 $ 2.57
$ 1,343 $ 1.34
985 0.99
2,059 2.06
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
' Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.4.

Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services

61 10. Sewer Capacity
This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a sewer capacity charge to fund sewer facilities that serve new development. It uses a buy -in approach to allocating the cost of excess capacity in the system to new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for wastewater treatment from the projected increase in sewer flow and the excess capacity to process wastewater flow available at the City's wastewater treatment plant. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will buy -in to the excess capacity of the wastewater treatment plant at no more than the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fees are imposed, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Current Demand for Wastewater Treatment
Table 10.1 displays the City's historical wastewater flows treated by the wastewater treatment plan. These flows indicate current demand for wastewater treatment.

Table 10.1: Historical Wastewater Flows
Month
2020 2021 2022 2023
Influent Influent Influent Influent
Flows Flows Flows Flows
(MG) (MG) (MG) (MG)
January 115.48 119.25 115.92 127.55
February 109.10 106.17 104.04 108.70
March 121.41 127.61 115.00 124.02
April 119.38 115.07 108.38 117.48
May 118.31 122.10 112.94 122.31
June 114.27 123.06 111.60 120.06
July 121.43 132.62 113.38 125.56
August 113.80 101.28 116.88 127.45
September 121.26 107.70 95.59 121.02
October 125.89 118.18 98.23 122.64
November 115.72 115.72 107.53 120.43
December 118.24 119.09 119.75 128.18
Total Annual 1,414.27 1,407.84 1,319.25 1,465.40
Average per Day (MG)

3.87 3.86 3.61 4.01
Source: City of Beaumont.

Current Sewer System Asset Valuation
In this case, Replacement New Cost Less Depreciation (RCNLD) is the appropriate method to determine the current value of the sewer systems. RCNLD is a commonly used method, and it is often preferred to alternative methods such as Original Cost Less Depreciation (OCLD), Original Cost (OC), and Replacement Cost (RC) because of its better reflection of the system's value in wWILLDAN
Financial Services

62 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update today dollars. Unless the systems have depreciated significantly due to lack of replacement and repair, RCNLD is more defensible because the replacement cost is inflation -adjusted to recover the cost of replacing that capacity in current dollars. RCNLD also accounts for depreciation and consequently address the fact that the system reflects its current condition.

Table 10.2 summarizes the City's current sewer system asset valuation, consistent with the asset valuation assumptions from its recently adopted 2024 Sewer Rate Study.

Table 10.2: Current Sewer System Asset Valuation
Asset Function Original Cost
Original Cost Less Replacement Cost
Depreciation Replacement Cost Less Depreciation
Treatment $ 254,104,711
Lift Stations 34,241,213
General 28,690,611
Land 2,002,560
Collection and Conveyance 141,085,109
Total $ 460,124,203
$ 225,417,691
17, 840, 374
23,118,124
2,002,560
58,167, 402
$ 326, 546,152
$ 294,170,308
49,299,280
36,007,492
2,278,393
262,543,603
$ 644,299,076
$ 246,207,054
24,539,591
24,906,543
2,278,393
105, 248, 515
$ 403,180, 096
Source: City of Beaumont 2024 Sew er Rate Study.

Adjusted System Valuation
The City's sewer enterprise has over $79 million in outstanding debt principal. This amount represents debt that ratepayers will pay back through monthly service charges on an ongoing basis, so this amount is subtracted from total asset value in calculating the total to be recovered as a buy -in component. Subtracting the outstanding debt principal from the current asset valuation yields the total adjusted system value. This calculation is shown below in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3: Adjusted System Valuation Calculation
Asset Valuation
Outstanding Debt Principal
Net Valuation
$ 403,180,096
79, 060, 000
$ 324,120,096
Sources: City of Beaumont; Table 10.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Fee per Gallon per Day
Every capacity fee consists of a dollar amount, representing the value of facilities, divided by a measure of demand. In this case, buy -in fees are first calculated as the adjusted system value per gallon per day (GPD). Then these amounts are translated into fees per housing unit (fee per unit) and employment space (fee per 1,000 square feet) by multiplying the cost per GPD by the flow generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.

The calculation of the buy -in fee per GPD for sewer facilities is shown in Table 10.4. The City provided the sewer system's production capacity, which is six million gallons per day. The adjusted system value divided by the total capacity of the system yields the sewer capacity fee per gallon per day of $54.02. This amount is multiplied by the assumption of 235 gallons per day per EDU to determine the capacity fee per average sized unit, which is divided by the average square feet per unit to determine the capacity fee per residential square foot.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

63 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 10.4: Fee per GPD
Total Adjusted System Value $ 324,120,096
System Flow Capacity (Gallons per Day) 6,000,000
Fee per GPD $ 54.02
GPD per EDU 235
Capacity Fee per Average Sized Single Family Unit $ 12,695 Average Square Feet per Unit 2,687
Capacity Fee per Residential Square Foot $ 4.72
Sources: City of Beaumont; Table 10.3, Willdan Financial Services.

Nonresidential Fee Schedule
The sewer capacity fee for nonresidential land uses are calculated to reflect the individual flow and strength characteristics of various nonresidential uses relative to the flow characteristics of a typical EDU. Strength characteristics are based on the Revenue Program Guidelines of the State Water Resources Control Board, March 1998 Edition. The effluent values for the various nonresidential land uses are consistent with assumptions from the City's rate study.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

64 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 10.5: Nonresidential Sewer Capacity Fee Schedule
$/EDU Flow (gpd) BOD (Mg/I) TSS (Mg/I)
Capacity Fee per EDU A $ 12,695
Standard EDU Effluent (per SFR)
B 235 gpd 235 gpd 250 Mg/I 250 Mg/I
Commercial Low Strength
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 140 Mg/I 115 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 0.56 0.46
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(Fbw Eou)) F 0.09 0.02 0.01 Total Capacity Fee $1,166 $218 $179
Commercial Medium Strength
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 235 Mg/I 175 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 0.94 0.70
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x DTFiow Eou)) F 0.09 0.03 0.02 Total Capacity Fee $1,166 $365 $272
Commercial High Strenath
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 933 Mg/I 667 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 3.73 2.67
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(Flow Eou)) F 0.09 0.11 0.08 Total Capacity Fee $1,166 $1,450 $1,037
Industrial Low Strength
Effluent Values C 53.96 gpd 106 Mg/I 127 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.23 0.42 0.51
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(Flow Eou)) F 0.14 0.02 0.02 Total Capacity Fee $1,749 $247 $296
Industrial High Strength
Effluent Values C 26.97 gpd 1598 Mg/I 506 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.11 6.39 2.02
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(FIow Eou)) F 0.07 0.15 0.05 Total Capacity Fee $874 $1,863 $590
Fee per 1,000
Sq. Ft.
$1,562
$1,803
$3,653
$2,292
$3,327
Sources: Tables 9.1 and 10.4.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

65 11. Recycled Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for recycled water facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Beaumont. The projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified in various planning document and provided by City staff for use in this analysis. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for recycled water facilities from the projected increase in sewer flow that can be treated to produce recycled water and the additional facilities needed to treat the effluent from the City's wastewater treatment plant. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of wastewater flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Recycled Water Demand
Wastewater treatment plants treat municipal wastewater to standards that protect the beneficial uses of the waters into which the treated wastewater is discharged. Recycled water facilities allow the treatment of wastewater to a level such that it can be used for irrigation and other purposes safely. Consequently, the need for treatment of recycled water is based on the wastewater that is treated at the wastewater treatment plan, so demand is equal to wastewater flows. This chapter uses the EDU factors and estimates of EDUs from Chapter 9 as measure of demand for recycled water facilities. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the demand generated by each unit of new development.

Planned Facilities
Table 11.1 details the City's planned recycled water facilities to be funded by the recycled water facilities impact fee. The identified facilities will cost $29.4 million, net of existing recycled water facilities impact fee fund balances.

Table 11.1: Planned Recycled Water Facilities
Cost (2024)
Recycled Water Storage Basins (Alternative 3) $ 6,483,100 Todd Groundwater Recycled Water 26,338,600
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan study (Phases 2 and 3) 730,000 Total $ 33,551,700
Less Existing Fund Balance 4,119,073
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 29,432,627
Sources: Draft Recycled Water Reuse Strategy Analysis Report, 2021; City of Beaumont — Recycled Water Storage Basin Engineering Feasibility Technical Memorandum, 2020; ENR CCI; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities in Table 11.1 is divided by the total EDUs in 2040 to determine a cost per EDU. Table 11.2 displays this calculation. Total EDUs in 2040 is used for this calculation 'WILLDAN
Financial Services

66 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update because the recycled water facilities will benefit all development in the City, both existing and new. The cost per EDU is multiplied by the projected increase in EDUs to estimate the projected fee revenue.

Table 11.2: Cost per EDU
Total Cost of Recycled Water Projects $ 29,432,627
Total EDUs at Buildout 26,394
Cost per EDU $ 1,115
New Development EDUs 7,767
Projected Fee Revenue $ 8,660,205
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 11.1.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for recycled water facilities is shown in Table 11.3. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 9.1.

The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Afti WILLDAN
Financial Services

67 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 11.3: Recycled Water Facilities Fee Schedule
A B
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Feel Charge1' 2
E=C+D E/Average
Fee per
Total Feet Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,115 0.15 $ 167 $ 2 $ 169 $ 0.17
Industrial/Business Park 1,115 0.11 123 1 124 0.12
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,115 0.23 256 3 259 0.26 $ 1,115 0.77
$ 859 $ 9
$ 868 $ 0.32
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 11.2.

Aft/WILLDAN
Financial Services

68 12. General Plan
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of future general plan updates and related studies. The City will undertake several planning studies through 2040.

These studies will guide future facility planning needed to serve all development within the City. A fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of general plan studies in the City of Beaumont to ensure that new development funds its fair share of those analyses. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for updated planning documents from the projected increase in service population and the additional planning documents needed to meet those demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planning documents needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
General plan updates serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 12.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for general plan updates.

While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

69 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 12.1: General Plan Service Population
A
Persons
B
Weighting
Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215 0.31
16,753 0.31
22,968
56,070
23,930
80,000
1,927
5,193
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
57,997
29,123
87,120
Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non -w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31)
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Costs
Table 12.2 lists the City's anticipated General Plan updates and related study costs within the 2040 planning horizon. Estimated study costs were provided by City staff for use in this analysis.

In total, the City has identified $1.7 million in advanced planning costs, net of the existing general plan impact fee fund balance.
7WILLDAN
Financial Services

70 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 12.2: General Plan Costs
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
General Plan Update' 1 Update $ 989,400 $ 989,400
Zoning Code Update2 1 Update 370,000 370,000
Housing Element Update3 2 Updates 297,000 594,000
Total $ 1,953,400
Less Existing Fund Balance 231,129
Net Cost $ 1,722,271
1 Assumed cost based on cost of General Ran Update completed in 2020, adjusted for inflation using the CPI -U Index to December, 2023.
2 Cost based on City contract aw arded in 2023.
3 Cost based on Housing Element contract from 2022, adjusted for inflation using the CPI -U Index to December, 2023.

Source: City of Beaumont; US BLS CPI -U; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Standard
Table 12.3 shows the calculation of the system plan facilities standard per capita for General Plan updates and related studies. The studies will identify facilities needed to serve both existing and new development, so the costs of the studies are allocated to both existing and new development using this methodology. The cost standard is calculated by dividing the total cost of all studies needed by 2040 by the total service population in 2040. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Table 12.3: Advanced Planning — System Standard
Cost of Planning Studies $ 1,722,271
Future Service Population (2040) 87,120
Cost per Capita $ 20
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 20
Cost Allocation per Worker 6
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 12.1 and 12.2.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use fee revenue to complete the studies identified in Table 12.2. The studies will be used to identify facility needs to serve the City as it grows. Table 12.4 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 12.1. The City should program fee revenue to specific projects annually through its CIP and budget process. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue approximately $1.1 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the studies.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

71 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the studies. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, and grants.

Table 12.4: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
Fee Revenue
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
$ 20
29,123
$ 582,460
1,722,271
$ (1,139,811)
Sources: Tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 12.5 shows the maximum justified advanced General Plan update schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

72 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 12.5: Advanced Planning Maximum Justified Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D F=E/Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Capita Density Base Feel Charge' 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 20 3.22 $ 64 $ 1 $ 65 $ 0.02 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 6 2.12 $ 13 $ - $ 13 $ 0.01
Industrial/Business Park 6 3.08 18 18 0.02
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 6 0.88 5 5 0.01
Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 12.3.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

73 13. Library Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for expanded library facilities to serve new development using the existing facility standard approach. The fees calculated in this chapter could be implemented within the City of Beaumont and within unincorporated areas of the Beaumont Library District (District). The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for libraries within the District from the projected increase in residents and the additional library space and collections needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the District's existing ratio of library facilities to residents, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit.

Service Population
Library facilities in the District primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the District's residential population. Table 13.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for library facilities within the District, both inside the Beaumont City limits and in the surrounding unincorporated area.

Table 13.1: Library Facilities Service Population
City of
Beaumont
Residents
Residents
Outside of City Library District
Limits' Total
Existing (2023) 56,070 9,455 65,525
New Development 23.930 4,035 27,965
Total (2040) 80,000 13,490 93,490
1 Residents outside of City Limits in District in 2023 is the difference between the total Library District population reported by the California State Library and the existing population w ithin Beaumont City Limits. Projection assumes same ratio of residents w ithin City Limits to Districtw ide resident as the City grow s.

Sources: Table 2.1; California State Library; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Library Facilities
The quantity of existing library facilities that the District owns will be used to inform the facility standards in this analysis. The District currently operates one 11,700 square foot library. The District also owns collections and public computer stations. Table 13.2 summarizes the District's existing library facility inventory.
'WILLDAN
Financial Services

74 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 13.2: Existing Library Facilities
Replacement
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Library Building 11,700 Sq. ft. $ 550 $ 6,435,000
Collections 58,460 Items 25 1,461,500
Public Computer Stations 15 Stations 2,000 30,000
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 7,926,500
1 Unit cost includes assumed cost of construction and land acquisition, as reported by Beaumont Library District.

Sources: Beaumont Library District; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 13.3 summarizes the planned library facility needed to serve the City through 2040. The projected increase in service population would require expanded facilities in order to maintain the same level of service as is currently provided. In all, the expanded facilities are estimated to cost approximately $3.4 million.

Table 13.3: Planned Library Facilities
Facilities
Facility Increase Demanded
Standard per in by New
Resident Residents Development Unit Cost Total Cost
Library Building Square Feet 0.1786 27,965 4,993 $ 550 $ 2,746,150 Collections 0.8922 27,965 24,950 25 623,750
Public Computer Stations 0.0002 27,965 4 2,000 8,000
Total $ 3,377,900
Sources: Tables 13.1 and 13.2.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 13.4 expresses the City's current recreation facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita drives the fee calculation. Fees implemented at this level would allow the District to maintain the existing level of service.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

75 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 13.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities $ 7,926,500
Existing Service Population 65,525
Cost per Resident $ 121
Sources: Tables 13.1 and 13.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use library facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and collections that are part of the system of library facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 13.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use recreation and library facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of library facilities that serves new development. The preliminary list of facilities to be funded by the fee is detailed above in Table 13.3. Table 13.5 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 13.1.

Table 13.5: Library Impact Fee Revenue
Projection
Cost per Capita $
Growth in Service Population in District
(2023 to 2040)
121
27,965
Projected Fee Revenue $ 3,383,765
Sources: Tables 13.1, 13.3 and 13.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 13.6 shows the maximum justified library facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

76 City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 13.6: Libra
ry
Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge'' 2
E=C+D
Total Fee'
F = E/Average
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 121 3.22
$ 390 $ 4
$ 394 $ 0.15
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 13.4.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

77 14. Emergency Preparedness
Facilities
The purpose of the emergency preparedness facilities impact fee is to fund the emergency preparedness facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system plan standard of emergency preparedness facilities per capita.

The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new emergency preparedness facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional emergency preparedness facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Emergency preparedness facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 14.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for emergency preparedness facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

78 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 14.1: Emergency Preparedness Facilities Service Population A 8 AxB=C
Weighting Service
Persons Factor Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215
16,753
22,968

0.31 0.31
56,070
23,930
80,000
1,927
5,193
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
57,997
29,123
87,120
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non - w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31)
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities and Standards
Planned Facilities
Table 14.2 summarizes the planned facilities. The emergency operations center will be collocated with the planned police station and will serve both existing and new development. The cost of the emergency operations center is approximately $695,000 net of the existing fund balance.

Table 14.2: Planned Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Emergency Operations Center 1,930 Sq. Ft. $ 778 $ 1,501,540 Total $ 1,501,540
Less Existing Fund Balance 806,387
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 695,153
Source: City of Beaumont.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

79 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost Allocation
Future Level of Service
Table 14.3 shows new development's projected per capita investment in emergency preparedness facilities at the planning horizon. This value is calculated by dividing cost of all planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Table 14.3: Emergency Preparedness Facilities —
System Standard
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 695,153
Total System Value (2040) $ 695,153
Future Service Population (2040) 87,120
Cost per Capita $ 8
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 8
Cost Allocation per Worker 2
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 14.1 and 14.2.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use emergency preparedness facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of emergency preparedness facilities serving new development. The City intends to build a new emergency operations center.

Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned emergency preparedness facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 14.4 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $462,000 in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned emergency preparedness facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned emergency preparedness facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

80 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 14.4: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
Fee Revenue
$ 8
29,123
$ 232,984
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 695,153
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (462,169)
Sources: Tables 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 14.5 shows the maximum justified emergency preparedness facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 14.5: Emergenc
Land Use
y
Preparedness Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D
Cost Per Admin
Capita Density Base Fee' Charge' 2 Total Fee
F = E/ Average
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 8 3.22 $ 26 $ $ 26 $ 0.01
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 2 2.12 $ 4 $ - $ 4 0.004
Industrial/Business Park 2 3.08 6 6 0.006
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 2 0.88 2 - 2 0.002
Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 14.3.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

81 15. Storm Drainage Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Beaumont. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a storm drain fee calculated using the existing facilities standard approach to fund storm drain facilities that serve new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for storm drainage facilities from the projected increase in impervious surface generated by new development and the additional storm drains needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the City's existing ratio of storm drainage facilities to impervious surface, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of impervious surface generated by different types of development.

Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water runoff that must be controlled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. Table 15.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on impervious surface coefficient by land use category. The impervious surface coefficients are based on data from Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual. EDU factors relate demand for storm drain facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the impervious surface generated by each unit of new development.

Table 15.1: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units DU or Impervious Equivalent
KSF per Surface Dwelling Unit
Land Use Type acre Coefficient (EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily

4.00 0.50 1.00

17.00 0.65 0.31
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 32.67 0.90 0.22
Industrial/Business Park 43.56 0.90 0.17
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 32.67 0.90 0.22
1 Units per acre for residential or 1,000 square feet per acre for nonresidential. Residential and nonresidential densities are based on typical densities for each land use from the General Ran.

Nonresidential densities are based on floor -area -ratios of 0.75 for commercial, 1.0 for industrial/business park and 0.75 for industrial/w arehouse.

Sources: Table 3.3, Beaumont General Ran; Rate D-5.6 from the Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual; Willdan Financial Services.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 15.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. New development will generate approximately 6,497 new EDUs, representing 26.5 percent of total storm drain demand in 2040.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services

82 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 15.2: Storm Drain Demand Projections
Land Use
2023
EDU Units /
Factor 1,000 SF EDUs
Growth 2023 to 2040
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
Total - 2040
Units/
1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Subtotal

1.00 16,583 16,583

0.31 2,136 662
18,719 17,245
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.22 1,792 394
Office 0.17 352 60
Industrial 0.22 1,511 333
Subtotal
3,656 787
Total 18,032

73.5%
2,425 2,425
4,403 1,365
6,828 3,790
4,052 892
376 64
7,962 1,751
12,389 2,707
6,497

26.5%
19,008 19,008
6,539 2,027
25,547 21,035
5,844 1,286
728 124
9,473 2,084
16,045 3,494
24,529
100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 15.1.

Existing Inventory
Table 15.3 summarizes the replacement cost of the City's existing storm drain inventory.

Quantities of the various types of facilities were identified from the City's GIS data. The replacement cost of the facilities was estimated using recent bid data from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

Table 15.3: Storm Drain Existing Inventory
Description
Replacement
Cost
Structures $ 1,574,027
Culverts 685,600
Pipes 76, 369, 032
Total $ 78,628,659
Source: Appendix Table A.1.

Planned Facilities
Table 15.4 identify the preliminary planned storm drain facilities from the City's CIP. Note that additional facilities will have to be identified through the planning horizon to maintain the City's existing level of service.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

83 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 15.4: Preliminary Planned Storm Drain Facilities
CIP No. Description
Total Project
Cost
2019-019 Beaumont Master Drainage Plan - Line 2 Stage 1 R-07 Cherry Channel Drainage Project (cougar to OV parkway) R-25 3rd Street to California Ave Storm Drain
R-33 6th Street & Palm Storm Drain
Total
$ 5,000,000
750,000
650,000
113,000
$ 6,513,000
Source: City of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021.

Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
This chapter uses the existing standard approach to calculate the storm drain facilities cost standard. The replacement cost of existing facilities is divided by the existing EDUs to determine a cost standard per EDU. Table 15.5 shows the facility cost standard for storm drain facilities.

Table 15.5: Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Existing Inventory Replacement Cost $ 78,628,659
Existing EDUs 18,032
Cost per EDU $ 4,361
Sources: Tables 15.2 and 15.3.

Projected Fee Revenue
Table 15.6 displays a projection of fee revenue based on the cost per EDU from Table 15.5 and the increase in EDU from Table 15.2. The City will need to identify additional facilities to maintain its existing level of service as new development adds to demand for storm drainage facilities.

Table 15.6: Projected Fee Revenue
Cost per EDU $ 4,361
Projected Growth in EDUs 6,497
Projected Fee Revenue $ 28,333,417
Preliminary Planned Facility Costs $ 6,513,000
Additional Facilities To Be Identified $ 21,820,417
Sources: Tables 15.2 and 15.5.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services

84 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities is shown in Table 15.7. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU from Table 15.5 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 15.1.

The total fee includes a one percent (1.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 15.7: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A 8
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Fee' Charge'' 2
E=C +D E/ Average
Fee per
Total Fee' Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
$ 4,361 0.56
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 4,361 0.22
Industrial/Business Park 4,361 0.17
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 4,361 0.22
$ 2,442 $ 24
$ 959 $ 10
741 7
959 10
$ 2,466 $ 0.92
$ 969 $ 0.97
748 0.75
969 0.97
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building pernyts issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 15.1 and 15.4.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

85 16. Trails
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new trails demanded by new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new trails from the projected increase in residents and the additional trails needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit.

Service Population
Trails in Beaumont primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for these facilities is based on the residential population. Table 16.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for trails.

Table 16.1: Trail Facilities
Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070
23,930
80,000
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Trails Inventory
The City of Beaumont owns several trails. Table 16.2 summarizes the City's existing trails inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the City owns approximately $3.1 million in trails.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services

86 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 16.2: Existing Trails
Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost
Existing Trails
Sundance Bowl Walking Path 3,000 linear feet $ 78 $ 234,000 Highland Springs Walking Path 7,400 linear feet 78 577,200 Noble Creek Walking Path 2,650 linear feet 78 206,700
Marshall Creek Walking Path 6,900 linear feet 78 538,200 Palm Islands Walking Path 6,800 linear feet 78 530,400
Crenshaw Walking Path 2,300 linear feet 78 179,400
Cherry Channel Walking Path 7,500 linear feet 78 585,000 Portero Walking Trail 3,300 linear feet 78 257,400
Total 39,850 linear feet $ 3,108,300
'Cost per linear foot assumes $5.55 per square foot of decomposed granite trail, 14' wide.

Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Trails
The City has one unfunded trail planned to serve the City as it grows. Table 16.3 details the City's planned trail.

Table 16.3: Planned Trails
Quantity Units Unit Cost' Total Cost
Future Trails
Edison Easement Phase 2 4,000 linear feet $ 78 $ 312,000 'Cost per linear foot assumes $5.55 per square foot of decomposed granite trail, 14' wide.

Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 16.4 expresses the City's current trails level of service in terms of an existing cost per resident. This cost per resident is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
7WILLDAN
Financial Services

87 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 16.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Resident
$ 3,108,300
56,070
$ 55
Sources: Tables 16.1 and 16.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 16.5 shows new development's cost per capita needed to fully fund the planned facilities.

The level of service indicated by the planned facility is lower than the existing standard. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing the cost of planned facilities by the increase in population.

Table 16.5: Trails Planned Facilities Standard
Cost of Planned Facilities
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
Cost per Resident
$ 312,000
23,930
$ 13
Sources: Tables 16.1 and 16.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use trails fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are part of the system of trails serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 16.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use trails fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of trails that serves existing and new development. The list of facilities to be funded by the fee is detailed above in Table 16.3. The projected fee revenue is equal to the cost of the planned facilities.

Fee Schedule
Table 16.6 shows the maximum justified trails fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

88 City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 16.6: Trails Fee - System Standard
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Densi
ty
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 13 3.22
$ 42 $
$ 42 $ 0.02
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 16.4.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

89 17. Maintenance Equipment
Facilities
The purpose of the maintenance equipment impact fee is to fund the maintenance equipment needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system plan standard of maintenance equipment per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new maintenance equipment facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional maintenance equipment facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Maintenance equipment serves both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.

Table 17.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for maintenance equipment. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services

90 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 17.1: Maintenance Equipment Service Population
A B
Weighting
Persons Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
56,070 1.00
23,930 1.00
80,000
6,215 0.31
16,753 0.31
22,968
56,070
23,930
80,000
1,927
5,193
7,120
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (2040)
57,997
29,123
87,120
Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non -w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31)
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City's public facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
This study uses the system plan methodology to calculate fees for maintenance equipment.

Table 17.2 summarizes the City's current inventory maintenance vehicles and equipment. These assets are used to maintain the City's existing infrastructure.

WILLDAN
Financial Services

91 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 17.2: Existing Maintenance Equipment Inventory
Replacement
Unit No. Description Cost
1705 2017 FORD F150 $ 45,000
1810 2018 FORD F150 45,000
1919 2020 FORD FUSION 32,007
2002 2020 FORD F150 24,143
1811 2018 FORD F350 52,000
2220 2022 FORD F150 45,476
2221 2022 FORD F250 (Scelzi) 62,597
1812 2018 FREIGHTLINER PATCH TRUCK - M2 ASHPHALT RIG 170,514 2206 2022 FORD F550 - BUCKET TRUCK 137,219
2406 1983 FORD F700 75,000
1914 2018 FREIGHTLINER M2 70,000
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 758,957
Sources: City of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 17.3 summarizes the planned maintenance equipment identified in the City's CIP. New maintenance equipment costs are estimated to total $493,000.

Table 17.3: Planned Maintenance Equipment
Project
No. Description Cost
R-27 Purchase Skid Steer Grader Attachment $ 40,000
R-29 Purchase Tandem Vibratory Roller 58,000
R-30 Purchase Thermoplastic Equipment 195,000
R-31 Purchase 12 -Yard Dump Truck 200,000
Total $ 493,000
Source: City of Beaumont Development Master Capital Improvement Ran.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 17.4 expresses the City's current maintenance equipment level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City's service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 17.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

92 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update adequate facilities to maintain the City's infrastructure. The planned facilities were identified in the City's most recent CIP.

Table 17.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker
$ 758,957
57,997
$ 13
$ 13
4 1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 17.1 and 17.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 17.5 shows new development's projected per capita investment in maintenance equipment at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Table 17.5: Maintenance Equipment System
Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 758,957
Value of Planned Facilities 493,000
Total System Value (2040) $ 1,251,957
Future Service Population (2040) 87,120
Cost per Capita $ 14
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 14
Cost Allocation per Worker 4
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 17.1, 17.2 and 17.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use maintenance equipment fee revenues for the acquisition of vehicles and maintenance equipment that are part of the system of maintenance equipment serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 17.3.

Vbif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

93 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Non -Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Beaumont. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned maintenance equipment and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 17.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $85,000 in non -fee funding will be needed to acquire the planned maintenance equipment.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned maintenance equipment. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table 17.6: Revenue Pro'e� ction - System Standard
Cost per Capita
Growth in Service Population (2023 to 2040)
Fee Revenue
$ 14
29,123
$ 407,722
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 493,000
Non -Fee Revenue to be Identified $ (85,278)
Sources: Tables 17.1, 17.3 and 17.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 17.7 shows the maximum justified maintenance equipment fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan's experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City's current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

94 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 17.7: Maintenance Equipment Fee Schedule
Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 14 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 4 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 4 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 4 0.88
$ 45 $
$ 8 $
12 4
$ 45 $ 0.02
$ 8 $ 0.01
12 0.01
4 0.004
Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 17.5.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

95 18. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. 66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study's compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service

1. For fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. These fee categories are: parks, library, and storm drainage facilities. The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in each corresponding chapter.

2. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that the level of service does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the transportation -related, sewer facilities and trails facility fees.

All projects included in these fees met the City's congestion level of service standards at the time they were added to the impact fee program. Impact fees charged under this program will serve to ensure that the LOS does not fall to unacceptable levels.

3. For the fees calculated under the system standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the facility level of service. The fees calculated under this methodology are the recreation, fire, police, recycled water, general plan, emergency preparedness, road maintenance and public facility fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development's fair share of facilities identified either in the City's most recent CIP, or the City's prior development impact fee studies. New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development's share of the increased level of service through any other funding source. Each chapter for facility fee categories that are increasing the level of service includes a table that shows the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita.
'WILLDAN
Financial Services

96 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 66016.5. (a) (4) - Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Willdan extensively reviewed the City's prior impact fee studies while conducting this fee analysis.

Notable this study differs from the 2017 study in several ways:

1. This study uses planning horizon of 2040 as opposed to General Plan Buildout. City staff felt that the 2040 projection from the General Plan was more realistic than full buildout.

2. Cost assumptions have been updated to current dollars. The costs in the 2017 study were considerably lower than current market costs for construction of new facilities and the acquisition of land.

3. This study made use of the most current project lists and inventories of existing facilities where relevant.

Table 18.1 displays an accounting of annual revenue collected over the last five fiscal years for the impact fees included in this analysis.

Table 18.1: Annual Collected Impact Fee Revenue
FY 2023 FY 2022 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2019
Traffic Signal $ 203,304 $ 179,998 $ 108,731 $ 410,093 $ 458,661 Railroad Crossing 285,267 242,393 118,918 116,231 2,046,624 Fire Facility 559,958 472,975 192,423 212,209 1,666,646 Public Facility 410,685 439,313 155,937 154,245 379,250 Emergency Prepardeness 883,168 831,471 277,521 272,086 1,056,153 General Plan 122,733 87,226 24,048 19,528 172,890
Recycled Water 989,499 1,382,581 278,089 305,184 675,314 Road and Bridge Benefit 2,372,543 2,411,075 994,344 990,955 5,070,240 Sewer Capacity 4,610,065 5,896,211 1,988,400 2,083,699 3,588,099 Recreational Facilities 533,042 847,938 243,318 259,139 459,551 Police Facilities 486,085 514,076 183,599 180,923 447,718 Community Park Development 1,041,296 968,166 480,154 311,733 1,788,402 Neighborhood Park Development 1,259,955 1,171,643 581,180 377,535 2,164,265 Total $ 13, 757, 600 $ 15,445, 066 $5,626,662 $5,693,561 $ 19, 973, 812 Source: City of Beaumont.
66016.5. (a) (5) - Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot for all fee categories and comply with AB 602.
66016.5. (a) (6) - Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City's current adopted CIP, master plans and other relevant documents. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

97 19. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. The impact fee nexus study must first be adopted at a public hearing to comply with AB 602. That public hearing must be noticed at least 30 days in advance.

Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City's legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60 -day waiting period before the fees go into effect.

Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.

Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.

Reporting Requirements
The City complies with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non -fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs.

The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.

The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City's facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.
wWILLDAN
Financial Services

98 20. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.

The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

The Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees- meaning that the amount of the exaction must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government, resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the allocation methods described in the preceding chapters, then to individual units of new development based on the demand characteristics of each unit.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act.

Purpose of Fee
• Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).

Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to serve new development.

Use of Fee Revenues
• Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).

Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City's sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: parkland acquisition, neighborhood and community parks, storm drains, transportation facilities, sewer facilities, trails, recreation facilities, fire protection facilities, police facilities, public facilities, recycled water facilities, general plan updates, emergency preparedness facilities and maintenance equipment.

Benefit Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act). *fWILLDAN
Financial Services

A-99

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.

Burden Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For most facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development.

For transportation related facilities demand standards are based on trip generation by various categories of new development. For storm drainage facilities demand is based on impervious surface generated by development. For sewer and recycled water facilities demand is based on increased wastewater flow generated by new development.

The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter.

Proportionality
• Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).

The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.

See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees.

Afif/WILLDAN
Financial Services

100

Appendix
Table A.1: Beaumont Storm Drain Facilities Inventory
Total
Replacement
Material Quantity Unit Cost Cost
Structures
Inlets 32 $ 7,263 $ 232,425
Outlets 18 4,675 84,157
Catch Basins 240 5,239 1,257,445
Structures Subtotal 290 $ 1,574,027
Culverts by Shape
Arch CMP 2 $ 4,300 $ 8,600
CONC 2 35,100 70,200
Box CONC 15 31,740 476,100
RCP 1 21,100 21,100
Circular CMP 7 1,914 13,400
CONC 4 2,125 8,500
RCP 28 1,814 50,800
Round CONC 2 2,500 5,000
Misc. 6 5,317 31,900
Culverts Subtotal 67 $ 685,600
Pipes by Diameter
4" - 12" 13,495 $ 118 $ 1,592,410
15" 3,114 150 467,100
18" 58,207 209 12,165,263
21" - 24" 58,266 227 13,226,382
27" - 30" 46,899 237 11,115, 063
33" - 36" 58,798 250 14, 699, 500
42" - 48" 47,323 250 11, 830, 750
54" 11,242 250 2,810,500
60" - 66" 14,624 250 3,656,000
72" 5,425 374 2,028,950
>72" 6,326 439 2,777,114
Total 323,719 $ 76,369,032
Sources: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Bids); Willdan Financial Services.

AN/WILLDAN
Financial Services

A-1

Transportation Impact Fee Alternatives
Projects are categorized according to priority in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3: Transportation Project List
Project No. Project Title
Less Allocation to Cost Allocated to
Total Project Alternative Net Project New New
Cost Funding Cost Development Development Priority
Streets and Bridges
2019-009 2nd Street Extension Feasibility / Design $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 47.8% $ 95,600 Near Term R-01 Oak Valley Pkwy Expansion MO -Desert Lawn Phase 2 600,000 - 600,000 47.8% 286,800 Near Term R-12 2nd Street Extension Construction 4,800,000 - 4,800,000 47.8% 2,294,400 Near Term 2016-003 Potrero Interchange- Phase!! 72,546,000 54,000,000 18,546,000 47.8% 8,864,988 Near Term 2017-027 Oak Valley/I-10 Interchange Design 85,000,000 11,660,000 73,340,000 47.8% 35,056,520 Mid Term 2017-001 Pennsylvania Interchange 85,000,000 - 85,000,000 47.8% 40,630,000 Mid Term R-37 Beaumont Avenue/1-10 Interchange Project 125,000,000 5,869,000 119,131,000 47.8% 56,944,618 Long Term Highland Springs (Beaumont Share) 60,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 47.8% 14,340,000 Long Term Subtotal $ 433,146,000 $ 101,529,000 $ 331,617,000 $ 158,512,926 Traffic Signals
R-02 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 1 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 47.8% $ 71,700 R-11 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 2 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R-13 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 3 274,400 - 274,400 47.8% 131,163 R25-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY25 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R26-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY26 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R27-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY27 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R28-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY28 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 R-34 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY24 150,000 - 150,000 47.8% 71,700 Subtotal $ 1,324,400 $ - $ 1,324,400 $ 633,063
Railroad
2017-012 Pennsylvania Ave/UPR Grade Separation
California URP Grade Separation'
Subtotal
$ 73,700,000 $ 8,678,556 $ 65,021,444
100,000,000 70,000,000 30,000,000
$ 173,700,000 $ 78,678,556 $ 95,021,444

47.8% $

47.8%
31, 080, 250
14, 340, 000
$ 45,420,250
Near Term
Long Term
'Assumes 70% of this project w ill be funded w ith grants.

Source: City of Beaumont Master CIP, Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services.

May 31, 2024
11

The table below shows the alternative funding required to fully fund the identified projects within each category.

Additional Funding Required
Near Term
Near + Mid Term All Projects
Project Coati $ 86, 357, 598 $ 232, 607, 235 $ 411, 690, 869 Projected Fee Revenue 28,270,404 103,408,349 189,032,967 Additional Funding Required $ 58,087,194 $ 129,198,886 $ 222,657,902 1 Net of identified alternative funding and existing fund balances.

May 31, 2024
2'Page

Alternative 1: Impact Fee Funding Only Near -Term Projects Table 8.4 calculates the cost per trip for only the near -term projects.

Table 8.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth - Near Term Projects Road and Railroad
Bridge Traffic Signals Crossings
Costs Allocated to New Development
Les Existing Fund Balance
Net Costs Allocated to New Development
$ 11,541,788 $
12, 090, 363
$ - $
633,063 $
1,371,766
31, 080, 250
2,809,846
- $ 28,270,404
Growth in Trip Demand (2023 to 2040) 21,960 21,960 21,960 Cost per Trip
$ - $ - $ 1,287
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

Table 8.5 calculates the fee schedule if the impact fee only funds the near -term projects.

Table 8.5: Maximum Justified Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
A 8
Trip
Cost Per Demand
Trip Factor
C=AxB D=CxO.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge'' 2
E=C+D E/1,000
Fee
per Sq.

Total Feel Ft.

Railroad Crossings
Residential Dwelling Unit
$ 1,287 0.72
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,287 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 1,287 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,287 0.71
$ 927 $ 9
$ 3,475 $ 35
1,570 16
914 9
$ 936 $ 0.35
$ 3,510 $ 3.51
1,586 1.59
923 0.92
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
4 Average trip demand factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4.

May 31, 2024
3IPage

Alternative 2: Impact Fee Funding Near -Term and Mid -Term Projects Table 8.4 calculates the cost per trip for the near -term and mid-term projects.

Table 8.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth - Near and Mid Term Projects Road and Railroad
Bridge Traffic Signals Crossings
Costs Allocated to New Development
Les Existing Fund Balance
Net Costs Allocated to New Development
Growth in Trip Demand (2023 to 2040)
Cost per Trip
$ 87,228,308 $
12, 090, 363
$ 75,137,945 $
21,960 21,960
633,063 $
1,371,766
31, 080, 250
2,809,846
- $ 28, 270, 404
21,960
$ 3,422 $ - $ 1,287
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

Table 8.5 calculates the fee schedule if the impact fee only funds the near -term projects.

Table 8.5: Maximum Justified Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
A B
Trip
Cost Per Demand
Trip Factor
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge1' 2
E=C+D E/1,000
Fee
per Sq.

Total Feel Ft.

Road and Bridge
Residential Dwelling Unit
$ 3,422 0.72
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 3,422 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 3,422 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 3,422 0.71
Railroad Crossings
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 1,287 0.72
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,287 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 1,287 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,287 0.71
$ 2,464 $ 25
$ 9,239 $ 92
4,175 42
2,430 24
$ 927 $ 9
$ 3,475 $ 35
1,570 16
914 9
$ 2,489 $ 0.93
$ 9,331 $ 9.33
4,217 4.22
2,454 2.45
$ 936 $ 0.35
$ 3,510 $ 3.51
1,586 1.59
923 0.92
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
4 Average trip demand factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4.

May 31, 2024
4IPage

Table 1: Residential Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Single Family
Unit)
Current
Equivalent Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)1
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4
(Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule)
Park Land In Lieu (Subdivisions)2 $ 2,175.53 $
Park Land Acquisition (Non Subdivisions)3 2,175.53
Community Park Improvements 2,086.17
Neighborhood Park Improvements 1,606.57
Recreation Facilities 811.17
Fire Protection Facilities 706.18
Police Facilities 609.77
Public Facilities 519.84
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee 2,779.52
Traffic Signal Impact Fee 305.29
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee 328.08
Sewer Facilities4 495.00
Sewer Capacity 6,467.97
Recycled Water 786.64
General Plan 50.00
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities 729.63
Storm Drain
Trails
Maintenance Equipment
Total (Subdivisions) $ 20,457.36 $
Total (Infill) $ 20,457.36 $
1 Assumes 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit.
2 Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act. 3 Fee for parkland acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act. ' Current fee show n is average fee per EDU for Area of Benefit sewer fees.

0.81 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79

0.81 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77

0.78 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53

0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59

0.30 0.51 0.72 0.93 1.12

0.26 0.29 0.32 0.35 0.38

0.23 0.51 0.79 1.07 1.33

0.19 0.29 0.39 0.49 0.60

1.03 1.22 1.41 1.60 1.80

0.11 - - -

0.12 0.22 0.32 0.42 0.53

0.18 0.78 1.38 1.98 2.57

2.41 2.99 3.57 4.15 4.72

0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.32

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
- 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.15

0.27 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
- 0.23 0.46 0.69 0.92
- 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
- 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02

7.60 $ 9.34 $ 11.73 $ 14.12 $ 16.42

7.60 $ 9.32 $ 11.71 $ 14.10 $ 16.40
June 6, 2024
11Page

Table 2: Commercial Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Year 1
Maximum
Justified Fee
Year 2 Year 3 Schedule
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities'
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Commercial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Commercial Medium Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Commercial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Maintenance Equipment
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with Medium Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.26 $

0.14 0.12

3.43 0.38

0.41 0.15

0.24 0.80

0.92 1.86

0.05 0.22

0.31 $

0.29 0.17

7.12 1.63

0.45 0.17

0.99 1.14

2.31 0.01

0.00 0.24

6.20 $

6.32 $

7.26 $

0.35 $ 0.39 $ 0.47

0.40 0.51 0.73

0.21 0.25 0.33

9.89 12.66 18.18

2.55 0.67

0.17 1.13

1.31 2.65

0.01 3.47

0.89 0.17

1.27 1.48

2.99 0.01

0.42 0.60

11.38 $

11.53 $

12.70 $

15.80 $

15.98 $

17.32 $

5.29 1.34

0.17 1.56

1.80 3.65

0.01 0.00

0.97 0.01

20.22 $

20.43 $

21.94 $

29.06 29.30

31.15 1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

June 6, 2024
2IPage

Table 3: Industrial/Business Park Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Year 1
Maximum
Justified Fee
Year 2 Year 3 Schedule
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Maintenance Equipment
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.22 $ 0.34 $ 0.43 $ 0.52 $ 0.68

0.09 0.33 0.51 0.69 1.06

0.08 0.18 0.26 0.34 0.48

2.36 3.83 4.93 6.03 8.22

0.26 - - -

0.28 0.81 1.21 1.61 2.39

0.11 0.33 0.50 0.67 0.99

0.18 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12

1.17 1.45 1.66 1.87 2.29

1.69 2.10 2.41 2.72 3.33

0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

0.22 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
- 0.19 0.33 0.47 0.75
- 0.01

5.02 $ 7.61 $ 9.98 $ 12.35 $ 17.02

5.54 $ 8.26 $ 10.73 $ 13.20 $ 18.06
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 1.0. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 1.0. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

June 6, 2024
31

Table 4: Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Year 1
Industrial/
High -Cube
Year 2 Year 3 Warehouse
Fire Protection Facilities $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 $ 0.19 $ 0.19 Police Facilities 0.05 0.11 0.16 0.21 0.30
Public Facilities 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.14
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee 0.33 1.44 2.28 3.12 4.78
Traffic Signal Impact Fee 0.04 - - -
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee 0.04 0.38 0.63 0.88 1.39
Sewer Facilities 0.15 0.63 0.99 1.35 2.06
Recycled Water2 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3 1.17 1.45 1.66 1.87 2.29 Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3 1.69 2.10 2.41 2.72 3.33 General Plan 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Emergency Preparedness Facilities 0.22 0.00 - - 0.00
Storm Drain - 0.24 0.42 0.60 0.97
Maintenance Equipment - 0.004
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee) $ 2.50 $ 4.75 $ 6.67 $ 8.59 $ 12.40 Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee) $ 3.02 $ 5.40 $ 7.42 $ 9.44 $ 13.44 1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

June 6, 2024
4I

BAUME ONTA -c A L I F O R N I
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Jillian Fountain, Assistant Planner
DATE June 18, 2024
SUBJECT: Specific Plan Amendment (SP2023-0010) a City Initiated Request to Amend the Heartland Specific Plan to be in Conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation
Description A City initiated request to amend the Heartland (Olivewood) Specific Plan to bring it into conformance with the underlying General Plan land use designation.

Background and Analysis:

The Heartland Specific Plan No. 93-1 encompassing 417.2 acres was adopted by the Beaumont City Council on October 10, 1994, by Resolution No. 1994-23. The Heartland Specific Plan includes the developments commonly referred to as the Olivewood Community.

On October 11, 2023, Planning staff brought forward a proposal to amend the Land Use Map identified as Figure 3.5 in the 2040 General Plan to bring the General Plan into conformance with the Land Use and Community Design Implementation Action LUCD1 that requires Specific Plan Consistency. LUCD1 states that following the adoption of the General Plan, review of the existing, adopted Specific Plans and make changes to ensure consistency with the General Plan.

During the public hearings with the Planning Commission and the City Council on October 17, 2023, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Specific Plan Amendment to correct a discrepancy in the Heartland Specific Plan, also known as Olivewood, that shows one of the parcels (414-100-039) is currently designated in the General Plan as open space. The subject area is part of the San Timoteo Creek, and the previous recommendations were based on the underlying Specific Plan land use designations that were designated as industrial.

APN

SPECIFIC
PLAN

PLANNING
AREA
ZONING

GENERAL
PLAN

PROPOSED

SPECIFIC

PLAN LAND
USE
414-
100-039
Heartland
11 Specific Plan
Industrial
Open Space
Open Space
CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED GOALS, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS:

General Plan Consistency
The proposed project will bring the Specific Plan into conformance with the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Implementation Action LUCD1 that requires Specific Plan Consistency. LUCD1 states that following the adoption of the General Plan, review of the existing, adopted Specific Plans and make changes to ensure consistency with the General Plan. Pending the resolution of this application and SP2023-0011, this action item (LUCD1) will be completed.

Zoning Consistency
The update as proposed would bring the General Plan land use designation map into conformity with the land use designations previously established in the Heartland Specific Plan for Planning Area No. 11.

CEQA:

From the standpoint of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 93-1 was prepared and certified in 1994 for the Heartland Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 93-1), assessing the environmental impacts of the overall project and subsequent implementation steps, including subdivision of the site. The EIR and the findings made by the City Council remain pertinent and adequate for use for the project. Execution of this amendment will not have any impact on the project that was not previously analyzed, and the overall project continues to be required to adhere to the mitigation monitoring program established for the project.

Public Communications Received:

A 10 -day public notice was placed in the Press Enterprise on June 7, 2024. At the time of report preparation, the Planning Department has not received any letters of comment

from the public in favor or opposition to the project. Any comments received prior to the time of the scheduled City Council meeting will be provided to the City Council at the time of the public hearing. Proof of publication is included as Attachment F to this staff report.

Planning Commission Authority:

The Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.02.090.E authorizes the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the proposed application. A majority vote of the entire Planning Commission is required to recommend approval or approval with modifications. The Planning Commission's action shall include its recommendation and shall be transmitted to the City Clerk for scheduling the matter for public hearing before the City Council.

The proposed amendments were presented to the Planning Commission on May 8, 2024, and the Planning Commission by a vote of 4-0 forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council.

The Planning Commission is forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to direct staff to initiate a Specific Plan Amendment to the Heartland (Olivewood) Specific Plan to modify the zoning designation of Planning Area No. 11 be revised to reflect open space and be in conformance with the General Plan land use designation.

City Council Authority:

The Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.02.090.F states that upon receipt of a Planning Commission resolution the City Clerk shall set the matter for hearing before the City. At the hearing, the City Council shall review the Commission's recommendation and receive evidence as to how or why the proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the objectives of this Zoning Ordinance, the balance of the General Plan, and development policies of the City.

The Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.02.090.G states that the City Council shall act to approve or deny the application. A majority vote of the entire Council is required to amend the General Plan. The City Council's action to amend the General Plan shall be by formal ordinance (see Attachment D).

The Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.02.090.H states that if the City Council proposes any substantial modification to the application not previously considered by the Planning Commission, the City Council shall refer the matter back to the Commission for consideration. No public hearing shall be required. Failure of the

Planning Commission to act within 40 days of receiving the City Council's request shall provide the City Council with authority to act without the Planning Commission's recommendation.

Findings:

The Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.02.090.1 requires the City Council to make the following findings of fact before approving a General Plan amendment:

1. That the proposed amendment is in the public interest, and that there will be a community benefit resulting from the amendment.

The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan including LUCD1. The proposed amendment will bring the Specific Plan into conformance with the General Plan land use of Open Space that is a part of the San Timoteo Creek.

2. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the other goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan.

The proposed Specific Plan amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties as it will discourage the use of nonconforming uses and structures.

3. That the proposed amendment will not conflict with provisions of the zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations.

The proposed Specific Plan amendment promotes public health, safety, and general welfare and helps serve the goals and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed designation changes will further assist the City in implementing the 2040 General Plan.

4. In the event that the proposed amendment is a change to the land use policy map, that the amendment is a change to the land use policy map, that the amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties.

The proposed Specific Plan amendment changes are to create consistency with its surrounding properties and support the original intention of the 2040 General Plan.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost to prepare this report is approximately $500.

Recommended Action:

Hold a public hearing; and
Waive the full first reading and approve by title only, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Amending the Heartland (Olivewood) Specific Plan" Attachments:

A. Redlined Specific Plan
B. Draft Ordinance
C. General Plan Land Use Map
D. Specific Plan Land Use Map
E. Aerial Photograph
F. Proof of Publication

Heartland Specific Plan
Beaumont, California

HEARTLAND

SPECIFIC PLAN
PREPARED FOR:

HEARTLAND CALIFORNIA BEAUMONT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
4650 Columbia Center
701 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
and

THE CITY OF BEAUMONT
550 East Sixth Street
Beaumont, California 92223
May, 1994

PARTICIPATING CONSULTANTS

PLANNING AND DESIGN
park/Miklich Associates, Architecture and Planning -- Richard Miklich James and Associates, Planning and Development Consultants -- Dave James, REA

ENVIRONMENTAL
Envision, Environmental Services, Primary Consultants -- Chris Terzich Tierra Madre, Consulting Biologist -- Jack Easton
Christopher E. Drover, Ph.D., Archaeology -- Chris Drover Harmsworth Associates, Hazardous Materials Evaluation
Heritage Resources Consultants, Paleontology -- Paul Langenwalter

ENGINEERING
Trans -Pacific Consultants, Civil Engineers -- Jei Kim
Geotechnical and Environmental Engineers Inc., Soils & Geology -- Chris Krall Linscott, Law, Greenspan, Consulting Engineers, Traffic -- Jay Nelson Mestre Greve, Associates, Acoustical Study -- Fred Greve

GRAPHICS
Toadly Graphic -- Roger White and Sara Vandenberg
Park/Miklich Associates, Architecture and Planning -- Richard Miklich

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 9
Location and Overview 9
Document Purpose 9
Authority and Scope 10
Development Plan Process.... 10
Legal Entitlements Provided by the Specific Plan. 11
Environmental Impact Report. 11
Organization of the Report 12
II. Existing Conditions 13
Market Opportunities 13
Existing On -Site and Surrounding Land Uses 13
Topography and Slope 14
Geology and Soils 15
Hydrology 15
Biological Resources 16
Endangered Species 16
Sensitive Species and Habitat Resources 17
Cultural/Historic Resources 17
Public Facilities 18
Police Protection 18
Fire Protection 18
School Service 18
Water Service 18
Sewer Service 18
Dry Utilities 19
20 Summary of the Plan 20
Specific Land Use Components 21
Summary of Residential Uses 21
Industrial Park/Commercial Uses 23
III. Specific Plan

Public Facilities 24
Open Space and Recreation 25
General Land Use Development Standards 26
Circulation Plan 29
Circulation Plan Description 29
Circulation Plan Standards 34
Drainage Plan 37
Drainage Plan Description 37
Drainage Plan Standards 38
Water and Sewer Plan 41
Water Plan Description 41
Conservation Measures 42
Sewer Service Description 43
Water and Sewer Plan Standards 44
Solid Waste Disposal Plan 45
Solid Waste Disposal Plan Description 45
Solid Waste Disposal Plan Standards 45
Project Phasing Plan 46
Phasing Plan Description 46
Phasing Plan Standards 47
Grading Plan 48
Grading Plan Description 48
Grading Plan Standards 48
Recreation Plan 52
Recreation Plan Description 52
Recreation Plan Standards 52
Conservation Plan 54.

Conservation Plan Description 54
Conservation Plan Standards 55
Landscape Plan 58
Landscape Plan Description 58
Entry Themes/Monumentation/Signage 58

Streetscape Themes 61
Paseo Open Space and Sports Park 66
Community Walls and Fences 67
Neighborhood Commercial Landscape Plan 68
Residential Front Yard Landscaping 68
Architectural Guidelines 70
Single Family Residential Design Criteria 72
Neighborhood Commercial Design Criteria 80
Industrial Park Design Criteria 85
IV. Planning and Development Standards 100
Planning Area No. 1 100
Planning Area No. 2 102
Planning Area No. 3 103
Planning Area No. 4 104
Planning Area No. 5 105
Planning Area No. 7 108
Planning Area No. 8 110
Planning Area No. 9 111
Planning Area No. 10 111
Planning Area No. 11 112
Planning Area No. 12 113
V. Development Regulations 115
Residential Categories 115
Neighborhood Commercial 120
Industrial 122
Open Space/Recreation Categories 122
VI. Administration and Implementation 124
Administration 124
Heartland Specific Plan 124
Regulatory Effects 124
Interpretation 124
Types of Approvals and Permits 125

Subdivision Maps 125
Conditional Use Permits 125
Plot Plan Review 125
Public Use Permits 125
Special Circumstances 125
Implementation 126
Environmental Review for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Projects 126 Subdivision Map - Tentative Tract/Parcel Maps 126
Plot Plan Review 127
Conditional Use Permit 127
Public Use Permit 128
Amendments to the Specific Plan 128
Unit Transfer 128
New Information 128
Administrative Changes to the Specific Plan 129
VII. General Plan Analysis 130
Introduction 130
General Plan Elements 130
Land Use Element 130
Circulation Element 135
Housing Element 137
Natural Resources Element 138
Public Safety Element - Seismic Safety and Geologic Hazards 141 Public Safety Element - Fire 142
Public Safety Element - Flood Prone Areas 143
Public Safety Element - Dust/Wind 145
Public Safety Element - Crime Prevention 145
Public Services and Facilities Element 146
Appendix A - Plant Materials Palette 149
VIII. Final Conditions of Approval
IX. City Council Resolution

LIST OF EXHIBITS

1. Regional Location I-1

2. Vicinity Map I-2

3. Environmental Constraints II -1

4. Topographic Map II -2

5. Slope Analysis 1I-3

6. Geology II -4

7. Local Hydrology I1-5

8. Vegetation II -6

9. Specific Land Use Plan III -.1

10. Land Use Summary 11I-2

11. Circulation Plan III -3

12. Roadway Sections - III -4a

13. Roadway Sections III -4b

14. Roadway Sections III -4c

15. General Plan Circulation III -5

16. Drainage Concept 1I1-6

17. Regional Water System 11I-7

18. Proposed Water System 111-8

19. Regional Sewer System III -9

20. Proposed Sewer System III -10

21. Master Phasing Plan III -11

22. Grading Concept III -12

23. Open Space and Recreation Plan I1I-13

24. Conservation Plan I11-14

25. Landscape Concept Plan III -15

26. Major Community Entry 1I1-16

27. Secondary Community Entry 111-17

28. Identity Node III -18

29. Typical Neighborhood Entry III -19

30. Industrial Park Entry. II1-20

31. Paseo Park Activity/Entry Node 1I1-21

32. Streetscape Urban Arterial (Potrero Boulevard) III -22

33. Streetscape Collector Loop Road (South Entry) I11-23

34. Typical Landscape Slope III -24

35. Streetscape Collector Loop Road (North Entry) III -25

36. Streetscape Collector Road 1I1-26

37. Streetscape Collector Loop Road (D -D) III -27

38. Streetscape Collector Loop Road (E3 -E3) III -28

39. Streetscape Short Local Road III -29

40. Streetscape Industrial Spine Road III -30

41. Streetscape Local Industrial Road I11-31

42. Streetscape Industrial Collector Road III -32

43. Illustrative Land Use Linkage Plan III -33

44. Paseo Park Section 11I-34

45. Paseo/Sports Park Section III -35

46. Wall and Fence Elevations 111-36

47. Community Walls and Fence Plan II1-37

48. Neighborhood Commercial Conceptual Landscape Plan III -38

49. Conventional Medium Lot Front Yard Landscaping III -39

50. Conventional Small Lot Front Yard Landscaping III -40

51. Zero Lot Line Front Yard Landscaping III -41

52. Conventional Medium Lot Single Family Elevation III -42

53. Medium Lot Residential Concept Plans II1-43

54. Conventional Small Lot Single Family Elevations II1-44

55. Conventional Small Lot Residential Conceptual Plans 111-45

56. Zero Lot Line Single Family Elevations III -46

57. Zero Lot Line Residential Conceptual Plans 111-47

58. Planning Area No. 1 IV -1

59. Planning Area No. 2 IV -2

60. Planning Area No. 3 IV -3

61. Planning Area No. 4 IV -4

62. Planning Area No. 5 IV -5

63. Planning Area No. 6 IV -6

64. Planning Area No. 7 IV -7

65. Planning Area No. 7a IV -7a

66. Planning Area No. 7b IV -7b

67. Planning Area No. 7c IV -7c

68. Planning Area No. 8 IV -8

69. Planning Area No. 9 IV -9

70. Planning Area No. 10 IV -10

71. Planning Area No. 11 IV -11

LIST OF TABLES

1. Residential Land Use Categories I-1

2. Dwelling Units Per Phase III -1

Introduction
A. Location and Overview
From a regional perspective, the Heartland Specific Plan site is located in north -central Riverside County in the San Gorgonio Pass area between the central Inland Empire, consisting of the metropolitan Riverside/San Bernardino County Area to the west, and Coachella Valley to the east. See Exhibit I-1 Regional Location Map. From a local vicinity perspective, Heartland is located m the southwestern portion of the City of Beaumont north of State Route 60 (SR 60) just west of its point of convergence with Interstate 10 (I-10). San Timoteo Canyon Road defines the subject site's northern boundary with the future extension of Jack Rabbit Trail defining the site's westerly boundary. See Exhibit I-2, Vicinity Map.

The Heartland Specific Plan Site consists of 417.2 acres of undeveloped land that has been historically used for dry land farming activity, which continues to date. As proposed, Heartland will contain a mix of land uses developed through the Specific Plan/Master Planned Community process consisting of single-family residential neighborhoods of varying densities, an industrial park component, a neighborhood commercial center, an elementary school site (K-5) and passive and active open space/recreational amenities.

B. Document Purpose
The purpose of the Specific Plan document is to address in adequate detail the land use issues associated with the development of the Heartland property and to ensure that the subject site develops in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion with adequate consideration for infrastructure and public facilities and services. This approach has been selected over the alternative of developing the subject property in a piecemeal fashion. This effort has been based on substantial studies, including but not limited to, geotechnical, biological, civil engineering, hydrology, archeological, etc., towards establishing a comprehensive assessment of the subject site's development constraints and opportunities. In both text and illustration, this document depicts the character and configuration of the various components comprising the Specific Plan and establishes a foundation document that will govern further entitlements and development activity of the Heartland property. It is in this capacity that the Specific Plan document will serve to refine the City of Beaumont's General Plan designation relative to the subject site in terms of appropriate land uses, density, intensity of use, development standards, etc.

Under separate cover, the Heartland Specific Plan is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and supplemental documents and Introduction I-9

u
I
Regional Location
Er.

Santa
Monica
L
I
I

LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
4405
Los Angeles
91 395
Corona
`1 15
I1

ORANGE,
COUNTY
t__
'15
Victorville

SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY
San Bernardino
Project S jte
Riverside rside __r--
�, n Banning RIVERSIDE
Beaumont ,10 COUNTY
Palm Springs
15 15
Temecula
Escondido
Pacific Ocean
San Diego
Y.1
10 Miles
Heartland Specific _Plan
Beaumont, California
111

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
OF

BAJA CALIFORNIA

HEARTLAND
Exhibit No.: I - 1
Pagc 1190 of 1847

---Lake Penis
iState Rec. Area
/. Lakeview
)
21 Maw
(SAN BERNARDIN�---

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Cherry Valley
Vicinity Map
Gilman Hot Springs s'
JeZ
Heartland _Specifi_c_P _arr_________
Beaumont, California

HEARTLAND
Exhibit No.: I - 2

special studies which address the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project in addition to establishing appropriate levels of mitigation to reduce said impacts to the greatest extent possible. Additionally, a development agreement has been prepared and adopted, in conjunction with the establishment of Community Facilities District 93-1, which defines the contractual relationship between the landowner (Heartland) and the City of Beaumont relative to the security of General Plan -level entitlements and the ability to develop the subject site as approved. Together, these three documents provide the City of l eaumont, planning Staff, elected officials, and Lhe general public with a complete understanding of the project, its associated environmental impacts, and the methodology for mitigating potential impacts associated) with the project.

C. Authority and Scope
Section 65450 of the California Government Code grants local planning agencies the authority to prepare a specific plan of development over a given piece of property. Consistent with this authority, the City of Beaumont has implemented the specific plan process in consideration of past proposed projects. In this context, Section 17.14.015 of the Beaumont Municipal Code states:
`Specific plans, and amendments thereto, shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of this title and of Section 65450 et. seq. of the Government Code, as now written or hereafter amended. All uses established pursuant to an applicable specific plan shall be subject to all of the conditions and restrictions set forth in the Specific Plan regardless of the underlying zone, including, hut not limited to, density and intensity of use, setbacks, heights, area, and open space. -
An environmental assessment of the proposed Heartland Specific Plan has been prepared by the City of Beaumont, resulting in a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR. This effort also included a description of potential adverse impacts which needed to be addressed in greater detail through the EIR process. The NOP was distributed on June 8, 1993, to the State of California Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties. The objective of the NOP process is to identify and determine the full range and scope of environmental issues of concern to others, i.e., individuals, organizations, responsible agencies, etc., so that issues can be fully addressed in the Heartland EIR and supplemental support documents and special studies.

D. Development Plan Process
The I-leartland Specific Plan represents an initial and major component in a multi -step process that will culminate in the development of the Heartland 1-10 Introduction

Community. A summary of the various documents that will contribute to this first major step in the entitlement process follows.

1. LEGAL ENTITLEMENTS PROVIDED BY THE SPECIFIC PLAN.

The Specific Plan is a legal document and planning tool that provides the City of Beaumont and the project proponents (Heartland) or. their successors in interest with guidelines for development based upon the plans and standards set forth therein. The Specific Plan in this context will serve to refine the City of Beaumont's General Plan designation applied to the Heartland property. In this regard the plan establishes a pattern and density of land use as articulated in Section 3 of this Specific Plan document.

The Specific Plan establishes a circulation plan whereby streets and roads are located and sized based on traffic patterns and peak hour demands. A public facilities plan indicating what facilities are needed to accommodate the 1-Ieart.land Community and the• most appropriate arca within the plan to locate said facilities. A landscaping plan for the community is another element of the Specific Plan, prepared in conjunction with a. recreation and conservation plan that designates certain areas as natural/passive open space and active/usable open space.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.

Prior to adoption/approval of the Specific Plan, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) must be certified by the City of Beaumont, acting in the capacity as the lead agency. The final EIR will be prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), towards evaluating potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Heartland property as proposed. This effort will also provide measures by which to mitigate. these impacts to the greatest extent possible. The FEIR document will also discuss potential project alternatives, such as increased scope, decreased scope and the mandatory no -project alternative. Impacts associated with each of these alternatives in turn will also be evaluated in a very summarized format. The FEIR will also identify all remaining unavoidable adverse environmental impacts for which a statement of overriding consideration from the lead agency will be required, if any such unavoidable significant impacts are identified.

The Environmental Impact Report will evaluate the ultimate impacts of the development of the Heartland Specific Plan based upon the most definitive project data available at the time the Final EIR is certified. Pursuant to the State EIR guidelines, subsequent project activities, such as subdivision maps and other discretionary approvals, must be evaluated against the previously certified FEIR through the initial study/environmental assessment process.

The initial study/environmental assessment in turn will lead to either a positive declaration (subsequent EIR) or a negative declaration. If the City of Beaumont can make a finding that no new effects would occur as a result of these subsequent project approvals, the City could approve subsequent proposals with a determination that associated environmental impacts fall Introduction I-11

within the scope of the original and previously certified FElit and as such no new environmental documents would be required. The City of Beaumont also has the authority to incorporate feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives suggested in the Final EIR into the subsequent project approvals. It is the intent of the project proponent to submit an environmental document to the City of Beaumont, as lead agency, containing adequate information towards processing and approval of the proposed Specific Plan, Development Agreement, Change of Zone, Mitigation Monitoring Program and other subsequent and related approvals.

E. Organization of the Report
Including the introduction (Section 1), the Specific Plan is" organized into seven • sections and one appendix, dealing with the landscape plant palette.

Section 2 briefly discusses existing conditions, including the market environment, and describes the characteristics of the land and the public. facilities and infrastructure in terms of constraints and opportunities prescribing project planning and design. Against this background, Section 3 presents the body of the Specific Plan in terms of development plans and policies in the detail appropriate to their incorporation as the governing body of land use regulations for the Heartland Specific Plan. Section 4 focuses the analysis to the individual planning areas in terms of development regulations in order to present a clearer picture of the character of each planning area and their associated land uses. Section 5 then sets forth the regulations governing each land use, while Section 6 discusses the administration and implementation procedures necessary to put the plan into effect. Finally, Section 7 discusses the consistency of the Heartland Specific Plan with the General Plan of the City of Beaumont.
1-12 Introduction

1 Jr..

Chapter II
Existing Conditions

11. Existing Conditions
The Heartland Specific Plan has been designed in response to the subject site's physical and environmental opportunities and constraints. In addition various human imposed factors such as area development trends, market conditions, zoning, general plan designations, etc., have also influenced the design of the Heartland Specific Plan. In compiling these natural and human imposed variables, a multi -disciplined research effort was initiated which produced relevant base line data in terms of market opportunities, existing and adjacent land use patterns, topography, geology, hydrology, biology, paleontology, archaeology and availability of public facilities and services.

This section of the Specific Plan document will provide a brief overview of the above referenced variables and establish the foundation from which the Heartland land use plan has evolved.

A. Market Opportunities
Riverside County in general, and western Riverside County and the Beaumont/Banning area in particular, are expected to capture an increasing share of Southern California's employment growth and concomitant housing demand over the next two decades. This condition is attributed to several factors including, but not limited to, diminished new housing supplies and inaccessibility of existing housing stock in competing markets such as Orange, San Diego and Los Angeles Counties. This condition will be further influenced by the closing of Norton Air Force Base and significant reductions to March Air Force Base and the imminent conversion of these resources to private industry. In addition, the accelerated migration of industry to the Inland Empire and the resulting expansion of local employment to service the rapid population increases in western Riverside County have also had a tremendous influence on the area's residential market.

The Heartland Specific Plan has responded to these market forces by providing a broad spectrum of residential housing opportunities within the "single family" detached product line. The breadth and diversity of the market is an. essential consideration for a large project, if consistent absorption is to take place over a reasonable period of time. As such, the Heartland Specific Plan offers a diverse housing inventory in response to regional market factors which will allow the project sponsor to maintain a viable project through the inevitable market changes.

B. Existing On -Site and Surrounding Land Uses
The subject site is vacant with the exception of a ranch/farm house and appurtenant facilities which are centrally located on the property just below -a-well-defined-east/west oriented-ridge-lire:--Eurther,- it should -he_ nated`that Existing Conditions II -13

the structure lacked any historic significance and represented an attractive nuisance and a physical liability. As such the structure was razed. It should be noted that the ranch house structure was intentionally burned by the Riverside County Fire Department as part of a recent training exercise and as such all that remains of the structure is the foundation. The subject site has been historically used for dry land farming and seasonal grazing. This activity continues to the present and is anticipated to continue up until the Specific Plan is physically implemented. In addition, there are areas exhibiting significant scarring due to off road recreational vehicle activity. A segment of the Southern Pacific Transportation Railroad skirts the subject site's entire northern boundary with State Highway 60 defining the subject site's southern boundary. There is a 12 -inch underground crude oil line and associated easement that bisects the subject site in an east -west orientation.

This line is owned and maintained by Arco and extends from Long Beach Harbor where Alaskan oil is pumped in and distributed to refineries located in Arizona and Texas. In addition, there are two parallel 12 -inch liquid gas lines that skirt the southwesterly corner of the subject site. See Exhibit II -1, Environmental Constraints, contained herein.

Consistent with the Heartland site, surrounding properties are also predominantly vacant and reflect rurallagricultural oriented land uses characterized by cultivated dry land barley fields on alluvial plains and terraces.

Properties in the immediate vicinity of Heartland are under private and/or corporate ownership. However, there are properties further to the southeast that are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (Morongo Indian Reservation lands).

It should be noted that the BLM and BIA lands are located approximately 5 miles to the southeast and have no physical relationship to the Heartland property.

The majority of properties in •proximity to Heartland consist of large consolidated ownerships that are in transition from predominantly rural/agricultural oriented land uses to an urban environment. The majority of this urbanization process will occur in the context of Master Planned Communities through the Specific Plan process.

C. . Topography and Slope
The Heartland property consists of two distinct topographic features: a plateau/escarpment formation and a broad alluvial plain associated with San Timoteo Creek. The plateau formation exhibits relatively gentle sloping topography characterized by alluvial plains and terraces interspersed among low ridges and deeply incised drainages. The line of demarcation between the plateau formation and valley floor is well defined, consisting of an east - west trending ridge line/escarpment overlooking the upper reaches of San II -14 Existing Conditions

Timoteo Canyon. The valley floor falls abruptly below the plateau formation, creating a broad alluvial plain associated with the San Timoteo Creek flood plain, see Exhibit I1-2, Topographic Map.

Elevation on the subject site ranges from 2,300 to 2,484 feet above sea level on the plateau formation to 2,300 to 2,380 feet above sea level on the valley floor. The Heartland property is dominated by relatively gentle terrain with intermediate non -consolidated areas of 25% slope totaling 89.2 acres or 21.4% of the site generally associated with ephemeral drainage. From a topographic perspective, the Heartland property exhibits relatively few constraints and limitations on the subject site's development potential. Exhibit 11-3 illustrates the areas within the subject site which possess the 25% or greater slope condition.

D. Geology and Soils
Heartland is located at the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The site is located in a block configuration bound by the San Andreas fault zone located approximately six miles to the northeast of the property, and the San Jacinto fault zone located approximately six miles southeast of the subject site. The San Jacinto Fault extends along the southern edge of the San Timoteo badlands. The San Jacinto fault is considered active and is contained within a special studies zone per the state's Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act. Other faults of more local significance include the Banning and Cherry Valley fault zones, which are approximately two miles north of the subject site, and are designated as County Fault Hazard Zones. Exhibit I1-4 illustrates the subject site's underlying geologic structure. The most recent geologic investigation prepared in conjunction with the Heartland Specific Plan EIR indicates that conventional earth moving techniques and equipment would be adequate to complete on -site grading of the sedimentary rock formations and the alluvial soils prominent over the subject site.

E. Hydrology
The subject site is located in the San Timoteo subarea of the Santa Ana River Regional Watershed. The subject site's major drainage/hydrology consideration is San Timoteo Creek which transverses the property in -an east -west direction. San Timoteo Creek in turn ultimately converges with the Santa Ana River at a location in San Bernardino County. In addition, there are four minor tributaries to San Timoteo Creek, which transverse the subject site. San Timoteo Creek and the four minor tributaries are ephemeral, that is flowing in direct response to area precipitation. Surface flow for all of the drainage generally occurs only after heavy precipitation and saturated soil conditions cause overland flows. However, it should be noted that Cooper's Creek has been the recipient of discharged effluent from the Existing Conditions II -15

Tirt:c..r•...�.•./Oi::i:?.::vii:_
Heartland Specific Plan
Beaumont, California
1 Environmental Constraints
100 Year Flood Plain
Riparian Vegetation
25% Slopes
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
�������■ Oil Transmission Line
Nom= Natural Gas Transmission Lines
Source: Trans -Pacific Consultants,
TMC, Envision
•

H E A R T L A N D
Exhibit. No.: II.- 1
Prepared by T' �C,+.1.4..

z
Topographic Map
H
•Iz
z
ail i
11 r'� J
J fIr')
!iii );
/
r•:f(
,t� 1�r��il, us, rrr tv�.•iu r�tl
•. lijlj 1111( �j �� � t,\\ '\o:k�',_'�T%�Wlrr/r
%%� "�/ `\ n` "y( )�° (iii;^' 1 %i rr/
\t �f' �„ r „f v )� \, lot fur g3�e, �J� ., ':,
'��1, � rl { \\ � t•I , rrr \ �/
,,..„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,.,3,...
l 1 • :%1AJ i At; \1
d \i, r l i 1,I I ))171111111(%(/'' ' \v ��\ 1
mil`` 1/,}, L; :, \�\ npr • frrr, ==1
rc .� ,G'' Ia

0. /�
1 hl I lr',`,, '\����,1�`��� � 1 r i ern � ,•.�
yy���1t� ,11.""�.\'s"'��'t�\,!. •H ,`�'�'.•'.M!'_'_tt..,..,>,f.1. '11P�%)l' � \ r• ' '�%`jlj : P/1
,lt` \\r11 ' (•l . _%( i`�k(1•.
.0'• •
it
) n 4J
II1/l
Scal e: IN - 600'
am

z
H
W
X
. §1
rA\�• r--4
dJ 1771
C:1.4 C.)
CID
c�3
ail

af - Artificial Fill
1 Qsc - Scream Chann el Deposits
O
•
0 5
Qoa - Older Alluviu m
6444.4,1
Source : Geo cec hn ica l & Enviro nmental Engine ers, Inc. z
1�
:D
W

V) CO N
it)n n CO.

1.4 .-i - C
Drainage Area Bo undary
Q100 (CFS)
n •
N-
Int
Iz
1,n
It'
I�;I o rs
t2.. -�,ti nllnl ry
�"+•1, J//(4.4 ••?, 7.:41 Fr 40,c,
i/1 �� ./_

4. 4
;x ' 5s/
Ii ) -#-7010t.,
_ �,' l flll1l�,l2
1f,f--,r-" `�;( `- Vt �J , \� lam11_;lam/�1
\PrLiti
•Mf Y.11i.

ALL
1/' , 11 �J1111f11111 �.d"° •-
;'` �J „,v it r \) (�\ �'1 `'.�;hid .. a , {,w.; , '
_ \ til
fur/i'.2 (
pry ... I H , ,fl / ..•
u/ . I :• o �et�-:LEI/ �M� -11% .)01&
.. . 1 1ll4rr i ' \� P/4)Ill
f
��\ IJ )x11 ., l/.: � , ''/t
"'`h full, /� I N.
, Ills I/ /: • - • r . l`I --_,-,;inmor/ ��( // ' 5`'.;1. 1e1
I :: *: *'-rf:-... s S' 2"
'''''' 's1
� � � �'I �jr�j(��%f %fill �,� i.n�y �1� ')�a1��`%=''\ �I /_.t.1 1 11� 1 11 1 1�; °7� -1
•
\�I�4illl / •s''kA(--'
��Ib• fir I1 �\Ij)1rl tJ%. �vt/ ,, ,, S-
r 1 17;4• .16�11?%/ 1 1. .�
.•.
w
S cal e: 1" - 600'
Cit
•
U L4
1�+
• O
U "7-4
^^ll Tid
_C/D
ct
C"Ic.;
�LJ
a.

City of Beaumont's waste water treatment plant and as such has exhibited unseasonable flows from an artificial source. Flooding on the subject site has historically resulted from seasonal storms, the nature of which can generally be classified into three categories: general winter storms, local storms and general summer storms. Exhibit II -5 illustrates the 100 -year storm intensity or Q factor, and the associated flood plain for San Timoteo Creek and related tributaries. It should be noted that 100 -year storm events are defined as the land area that is subject to flooding from a flood caused by a storm with a one percent statistical likelihood of occurring each year. The Heartland property drains an on- and off -site area of 15,660 acres. Currently, there are no flood control improvements and/or drainage facilities located on the subject site, and storm flows are confined within the natural streams and channels which traverse the property.

F. Biological Resources
A comprehensive biological resources survey was conducted by the firm of Tierra Madre Consultants, dated March 16, 1993. The results of this report have been summarized in the Environmental Impact Report prepared in conjunction with the Heartland Specific Plan. The following discussion identifies a number of issues that have influenced the design of the Specific Plan relative to biological resources.

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES
The biological resources evaluation identified two federally listed endangered species that could occur on -site: the Least Bell's Vireo and the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat.

Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo belli pusillus): Least Bell's Vireo was not observed during the survey. However, the oak/willow woodland riparian forest habitat, associated with Cooper's Creek located along the project's southern boundary, is extensive enough to support nesting vireos. It should be noted however, that the timing of the survey (January) was not the most conducive to observing Least Bell's Vireo and .as such a conclusive determination as to the species presence or absence has not been made.

The Specific Plan design has been sensitive to the preservation of the oak/willow woodland riparian plant community - and its potential for supporting Least Bell's Vireo by maintaining the area as a riparian corridor.

Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR): An investigation of the project site for SKR was conducted by O'Farrell (1989). This survey.was referred to in a most recent study conducted by Tierra Madre Consultants, dated March 16, 1993. The survey concluded that "the current non-native vegetation on and surrounding the project site suggest that SKR was never present on the site. In addition, there is a lack of existing corridors which would negate the potential of future SKR occupation on the project site. It should II -16 Existing Conditions

be noted that the property is outside the boundaries of the Riverside County SKR. Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Fee area and is apparently outside the known range of the species.

2. SENSITIVE SPECIES AND HABITAT RESOURCES
The biological survey also identified on -site flora and fauna taxa and plant communities that can be characterized as sensiti
ve trice d to
declining
butt
populations, vulnerability to habitat change or
ion.

Sensitive elements include animal movement corridors, raptor foraging habitat, riparian corridors, and areas of coastal sage/alluvial sage scrub habitat. These areas have been considered in the design of the Heartland Specific Plan towards achieving a balance between urban land use and resource preservation. Exhibit II -6 identifies the general areas of concern.

The Specific Plan design has been responsive to these biological concerns.

The retention of San Timoteo Creek in an unchannelized condition will maintain the creek's capacity as an animal movement corridor and preserve the alluvial fan sage scrub, which provides important habitat for a number of sensitive species. In addition, preservation of San Timoteo Creek in a natural open space condition will continue to provide. raptor foraging habitat opportunities; particularly for raptor species having a tolerance for human presence and/or those requiring a relatively small home range area. The Specific Plan design has been sensitive to .preservation of the oak/willow woodland riparian community by the avoidance of human intrusion.

G. Cultural/Historic Resources
At the European contact time, the subject site was within areas occupied by groups known as the 'Cahuilla, who are linguistically related to the Shoshonean language family. A cultural resource impact assessment was. prepared by Christopher E. Drover, Ph.D. (consulting archaeologist) dated February 2, 1993. The results of the study indicated that the subject site lacks any resources. of a significant nature and that no further analysis and/or mitigation is necessary. As such, cultural resources have not had an influence on the design of the Heartland Specific Plan.

From a historic resources perspective, the subject site is vacant with the exception of a ranch/farm house and appurtenant facilities, which are centrally located on the property just below a well defined east/west trending ridge line. As previously discussed, the structures lacked any value as a historic resource and were intentionally burned as part of a recent Riverside County Fire Department training exercise.

Existing Conditions II -17

C
b4
Co astal Sage Scrub

41.1 :i
I
C ultivate d
en
Exhibit N o.: II - 6

SifigMir

H. Public Facilities

1. POLICE PROTECTION
The Heartland Specific Plan is serviced by the City of Beaumont Police Department. The Beaumont 1 llice Department. Service facility is located at. 660 Orange Avenue. The Police Department currently has 16 sworn officers.

The department also has 10 to 15 reserve officers. The current officer/citizen ratio is 1.2 per 1,000.

2. FIRE PROTECTION
The Riverside County Fire Department, in conjunction with the California Division of Forestry (CDF) currently provides service to the project area.

There are currently four fire stations providing complete fire protection including fire, public service and emergency medical aid response. Due to the size and accessibility of the Heartland project, it is anticipated that an on -site substation will not be needed and as such, the Specific Plan has not reserved a planning area for this purpose.

3. SCHOOL SERVICE
The Heartland Specific Plan is located within the jurisdiction of the Beaumont Unified School District. The Specific Plan has incorporated a 9.2 acre K-5 school site to meet the needs of Heartland's elementary aged students.

If

4. WATER SERVICE
The Heartland Specific Plan is located within the boundary of Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water District (BCVWD) and within the boundary of the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA). BCVWD is the water retailer for the project area and SGPWA is the water wholesaler. BCVWD currently relies on extraction of groundwater from the Beaumont Groundwater Basin, Edgar Canyon and Little • San Gorgonio Canyon. SGPWA currently is in the planning stages to construct imported water facilities which will deliver water from the state water in-oject to the service area. The project proponent is participating in CFD 93-1 as a mechanism by which to fund the design and construction of regional domestic water distribution improvements.

5. SEWER SERVICE
The Heartland Specific Plan is located within the sewer service area of the City of Beaumont. I-Iowever, there are no sewer trunk mains extended to the subject site at this t.irne. The City of Beaumont currently operates a 1,000,000 -gallon per day wastewater/sewage treatment -plant -which -will 11-18 Existing Conditions

ultimately service the Heartland development. The treatment plant in its current condition is operating over its design capacity of 826,000 gallons per day, and treated effluent from the plant does not comply with State Regional Water Quality Control Board Title 22 water quality standards. In June, 1993, the City of Beaumont formed Community Facilities District (CF'D) 93- 1, of which Heartland is a participant, and authorized the sale of sewer revenue bonds to expand the wastewater treatment plant and upgrade the treatment process to comply with State Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. Completion of a plant expansion to 1.5 mgd is targeted for March 1995, and the Heartland project has financed and reserved capacity in the upgraded plant for its initial phases of development pursuant to CFD 93-1.

6. DRY UTILITIES
Providers of electrical, telephone and natural gas service will be Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company and Southern California Gas Company, respectively. Transmission lines and connection locations are discussed in more. detail in the Specific Plan section of this document.

Existing Conditions 11-19

Ghapter III
Specfic Plan

III. Specific Plan
This segment of the Specific Plan text will present the overall specific plan concept and provide planning standards that will be applied to the overall development of Heartland. To achieve this end, this section of the text will provide an overview of the land use plan and a brief description of each of the major land use elements. This discussion will be followed by presentation of the Plan and associated standards that will be applied to circulation, drainage, water and sewer, phasing, public facilities, grading, recreational features and amenities, conservation/open space and landscaping components. This discussion will be followed by Section 5, which will provide a more focused and detailed analysis of each of the individual planning areas in terms of land use, density, development standards/regulations and planning area specific features such as landscaping, entry monumentation, buffer treatments, etc.

A. Summary of the Plan
As discussed in the preceding sections of this text, the Heartland Specific Plan has been based on careful consideration of the subject site's existing condition relative to opportunities and constraints in addition to a comprehensive analysis of relevant engineering and planning data. The Heartland Specific Plan will reflect a mixed use master planned community in response to development trends within the Beaumont and Banning areas.

The Specific Plan will provide a diverse, high quality living environment accessible to a broad spectrum of families and individuals with an emphasis on the single family residential market. The Specific Plan will be primarily a residential development. However, in addition to residential land uses, the Specific Plan will provide 50.3 acres of industrial/business park opportunity in addition to a 11.5 acre neighborhood commercial center and a 9.2 acre elementary (K-5) school site.

The Specific Plan will retain natural amenity values within the San Timoteo Creek and related tributaries. The site's natural land forms, i.e., flood plains, riverbed escarpment, plateaus and broad washes, in addition to the areas existing and planned circulation network, have played pivotal roles in the delineation of the proposed land uses, neighborhood enclaves, circulation network and open space areas.

The Heartland Specific Plan will establish project unification and identity through design features such as architecture, signage, landscaping treatments, and entry monumentation. Exhibit III -1 in conjunction with the Land Use Summary, Exhibit III -2 illustrates the overall plan of development for Heartland. As will be discussed in more detail, lands set aside for conservation and preservation are comprised of conservation corridors consisting of wetlands preserves, multi -species animal movement corridors, III - 20 Specific Plan
age

}
San Timoteo Canyon Road
Heartland Specific Plan
Beaumont, California
3 C -
Scale: I" - 600'
0 300 600 900Ft
Open Spa
Specific Land Use Plan
Product Planning Acreage Density Max. Dwelling
Area Range Units
Low Density
Single Family
Medium Density
}
3 4
5 332 3A -5.0 166

49.6 3.1-5.0 248

50.8 50.9

23.1 4.6 :6.5

4.6 - 63

4.6 - 63
330
330
150
Subtotal
207.6 5.9 1,224
Parks and Open Space
Elementary School 6
Pasco Sports Park 7
Respite Park 8
San Timoteo Creek 9
Coopers Creek
Arterials/Collector
Roads, Parkways

9.2 23.9

1.4 61.4
10 27.6

24.3 Subtotal
147.8
Commercial
Industrial Park
Neighborhood
Commercial
11 503
12 11.5
Total
4172 2.9 1,224
H E A
Exhibit No.: III - 1

L A N D
11 u
J
Prepared by Laity G„.ttz,

Land Use Summary
Product
Max. Dwelling
Planning Area Acreage Density Range Units

LOW DENSITY
Single Family 1 33.2 3.1- 5.0 166
2 49.6 3.1-5.0 248

MEDIUM DENSITY
3 50.8 4.6 - 6.5 330
4 50.9 4.6 - 6.5 330
5 23.1 4.6-6.5 150
SUBTOTAL 207.6 5.9 1,224

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Elementary School 6 9.2
Paseo Sports Park 7 23.9
Respite Park 8 1.4
San Timoteo Creek .9 61.4
Coopers Creek 10 27.6
Arterials / Collector Roads, 24.3
Parkways
SUBTOTAL 147.8

COMMERCIAL
Industrial Park
Open Space
Neighborhood Commercial
11 50.3
12 11.5
TOTAL
417.2

2.9 1,224
Heartland Specific Plan
Beaumont, California

HEARTLAND
Exhibit No.: III - 2

and undisturbed open space. Together, these components play a pivotal role in the preservation of the natural resources of the property and the region as a whole.

B. Specific Land Use Components
For the purpose of this discussion, the comprehensive land use plan as illustrated by Exhibit III -1 contained herein, has been divided into five subsections corresponding to the following:
• Residential
• Industrial
• Commercial
• Open Space and Recreation
• Circulation
• Public Facilities

1. SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL USES
Residential land uses within the Heartland Specific Phan will provide a variety of single family housing opportunities in response to -regional market factors. More specifically, the residential component will reflect a combination of low density and medium density residential land uses applied over four major lot size categories: 7,000 square feet, 6,000 square feet, 5,000 square feet and 4,500 square feet. Overall, the residential uses will establish a maximum of 1,224 dwelling units dispersed over the 417.2 acre Specific Plan site and at an overall density inclusive of the commercial and industrial areas of 2.5 dwelling units per acre and a density of 3.4 dwelling. units per acre exclusive of the commercial and industrial components.

Residential land uses will be located within five individual planning areas (see Exhibit III -1, Specific Plan Land Use Summary). Table I below identifies the various density classifications and corresponding dwelling unit counts for each of the residential classifications.

Table I - 1
Percent of
Residential Land Use Dwelling Percent Residential
Category Units of Units Acres Acres
Low Density - 7,000 sf 166 13.5 33.2 16.0
Low Density - 6,000 sf 248 20.3 49.6 23.9
Medium Density - 5,000 sf 660 54.0 101.7 50.0
Medium Density - 4,500 sf 150 12.3 23.1 11.1
Total 1224 100% 207.6 100%

The Heartland Specific Plan residential component will consist of only one product type, single family residential. However, within this category, there will be a wide array of lot sizes and densities which will support varied detached products, each constructed in fee -simple lots with front, rear and side yard setback(s). A density range of 3.1 to 6.5 dwelling units per acre is planned and segregated into four categories. The following provides a brief description of the various single family product types.

Single Family Detached (P.A. 1) 3.1 to 5.0 DU/acre. This residential category includes a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet intended to address the move -up single family market. These lots will accommodate production homes expected to range in size from approximately 2,000. to 3,000 square feet and may include 3 -car garages consistent with this market. This lot size/density category will have relatively large rear yards and as such accommodate pools, gazebos, patios and lawn areas.

Single Family Detached . (P.A. 2) 3.1 to 5.0 DU/acre. This residential category is intended to accommodate conventional detached homes on lots with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. The product type has been planned as a transitional density between the =7,000 square foot and 5,000 square foot lot size categories. The lots within this density category are intended to accommodate medium priced production, one- and two-story detached homes 'anticipated to average approximately 1,800 square feet.

This product type will incorporate conventional 20 foot front yard setbacks, side yards and sufficient rear yard area to accommodate private outdoor uses and activities.

Single Family Detached (P.A. 3) 4.6 to 6.5 DU/acre. This residential category is intended to accommodate conventional detached single family residential products on lots with a minimum area of 5,000 square feet. It should be noted that the 5,000 square foot criteria represents a minimum usable pad and as such the actual lot area may exceed the 5,000 square foot criteria inclusive of side and rear yard slope areas. This design. strategy will insure that the lots, while relatively small, will maintain a viable pad area that will permit the greatest degree of design flexibility in terms of product type, footprint and setback variation. It should be noted that pads of 5,000 square feet permit product types often found on the larger 7,000 square feet lot size category and as such this description should not imply that the. 5,000 square feet category would preclude a larger product type. This residential category -represents the largest single family detached classification in terms of acreage and dwelling units allocated. The lots within this density category are intended to accommodate medium priced production, one- and two-story detached production units anticipated to average approximately 1,800 square feet. This product type will incorporate conventional front and side yard setbacks of 20 feet and 5 feet, respectively, and sufficient rear yard areas to accommodate private outdoor uses and activities.
111 - 22 Specific Plan Page 1214 of 1847

Single Family Detached (P.A. 5) 4.6 to 6.5 DU/acre. This residential category is intended to accommodate conventional detached houses on lots with a minimum area of 4,500 square feet. It should be noted that the 4,500. square foot criteria represents a minimum usable pad and as such the actual lot area may exceed the 4,500 square foot criteria inclusive of unusable side and rear yard slope areas. This design criteria will insure that the lots within this category, while relatively small, will maintain a viable pad area.

In addition this design strategy will enable the project proponent for Planning Area No. 5 to develop a quality product on a viable pad and respond to the entry level market. Lots within this density category are intended to accommodate entry level to median priced one- and two-story detached production units anticipated to range 1,200 and 1,800 square feet. Products in this residential category will be placed on the individual lots utilizing conventional side yard setbacks or may be oriented utilizing the zero lot line concept. The zero lot line approach will allow an opportunity to create a unit with a significant usable side yard/patio condition versus the more conventional approach that maintains two side yards, both of which are relatively unusable. Exhibit I11-47 (Zero Lot Line Residential Concept Plan), located in the architectural guidelines segment of this text, illustrates the relationship of the residential structures=to the property line. By placing one side of the structure on the property line and eliminating one side 'yard, the opposing side yard is significantly increased in terms of openness and usability, and as such the use of the pad is maximized.

2. INDUSTRIAL PARK/COMMERCIAL USES
As previously discussed, one of the objectives of the Heartland Specific Plan is to create a mixed -use balanced community. Towards that end, industrial and commercial land use components have been incorporated. into the Specific Plan. design.. The Tollowing discussion has been divided into two subsections corresponding to each respective land use.

Industrial Park Land Uses. Planning Area No. 9 will provide 49.1 acres of industrial/business park opportunity. As a non -noise sensitive land use, the industrial/business park component has been strategically located adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and segregated from the neighborhood enclaves by the San Timoteo Creek open space corridor. It is anticipated that the industrial park will support varied uses, such as research and development, warehousing activities and limited support commercial uses.

The industrial park area is accessible to San Timoteo Canyon Road and Potrero Boulevard, both having a Primary Highway General Plan classification in addition to planned linkages to the Interstate 10 freeway and State Route 60 Highway. This condition will provide excellent accessibility to and from the industrial park for the efficient access to, and movement of, products, goods and services.

Specific Plan III - 23

Commercial Land Use. An 11.5 acre commercial center is located in Planning Area No. 10 at. the northwest corner of Potrero Boulevard and State Route 60. Given the commercial component's size configuration and location, the center can best be described as a neighborhood commercial center. Neighborhood commercial centers are typically 10 acres or less in size and have a service area/primary market radius of 2.5 miles. The heartland Commercial Center has been located so as to provide goods and services primarily for Heartland residential neighborhoods. However, given the center's proximity to and orientation towards State Route 60, the commercial component will also be easily accessible to commuters utilizing the State Route 60 corridor. The Heartland neighborhood commercial center will consist of approximately 100,000 square feet of building area with a floor area ratio of approximately 3.5 toil, and generally include a variety of retail uses, such as supermarket, drug store, cleaners, video store, barber/salon, and other service and convenience retail opportunities typical of neighborhood level commercial centers.

3. PUBLIC FACILITIES
A comprehensive infrastructure system will be developed to accommodate the on -site drainage and domestic water and sewer requirements of the Heartland community. For the purpose of the Specific Plan, these infrastructure components have. been designed conceptually and are illustrated in Exhibits III -3 through III -9. The infrastructure design will be refined in greater detail as the Heartland Specific Plan proceeds through the tentative map and final engineering phases of the process. Through the Specific Plan process, Heartland anticipates the siting and sizing of storm water, wastewater and domestic water mains and key .infrastructure facilities throughout the community. .The development of the various land use components and phases comprising the Heartland Specific Plan are tied

1.0 infrastructure availability whereby project phasing is not dependent.on a sequential approach, but rather infrastructure availability. In addition, the project proponent is participating in CFD 93-1 towards the design and construction of off -site regional urban level infrastructure improvements. - Designs of these facilities will be evaluated against and meet City, County, Regional and State criteria and standards. In addition to infrastructure considerations, a 9.2 acre elementary (K-5) school facility will be provided for in planning area No. 6 of the Specific Plan. The school facility will be constructed, in accordance with the State Department of Education standards. The timing of the school site's construction will be determined by the Beaumont Unified School District based on their needs assessment, master plan of facilities program and budgetary considerations. 111 - 24 Specific Plan

OPEN SPACE ANI) RECREATION
A significant portion of the Specific Plan site, 152 acres or 36 percent of the project, will be retained in various forms of open space. More specifically, the Heartland Specific Plan will provide open space amenities consisting of the following components: Passive open space, respite park, paseo sports park and expanded parkway treatments. See Open Space and Recreation Exhibits contained in Section 3-7 and Section 4-7 of this text. Of the total 152 acre open space commitment, 23.9 acres are considered active recreational facilities yielding a ratio in excess of 5 acres of active recreation park facilities per 1,000 residents. Below, the various open space components are summarized.

Passive Open Space. The major focus of the passive or
undisturbed open space component is the San Timoteo Creek wash, Planning Area No. 9, which will comprise 6L4 acres and traverses the entire project site in an east -west direction.

Encroachment into the San Timoteo Creek 100 year. flood plain will be discouraged to the greatest extent possible. As such, the Specific Plan will retain San Timoteo Creek in an unchannelized natural condition. This natural drainage corridor design consideration will facilitate natural drainage patterns and ensure the continued preservation of the alluvial fan sage scrub habitat found in the alluvial plain. In addition, San Timoteo Creek's asset as a wildlife movement corridor will also be maintained.

Another important passive open space consideration is the Cooper's Creek drainage and associated riparian habitat. This area .includes 27.6 acres and consists of the actual riparian corridor in addition to an undisturbed buffer/setback area between the riparian corridor and the residential units proposed within planning area No. 4. This design consideration will facilitate natural drainage flows and ensure the continued preservation of a significant stand of high quality cottonwood forest/riparian habitat.

Respite Park. The 1.4 acre respite park (planning area No. 8) is physically linked to the industrial/business park component.of the Specific Plan and, as the name implies, will provide employees within the industrial/business park complex with an outdoor, close at hand opportunity to relax during lunch time activity and/or breaks. As such, the respite park will be semi -active and include picnic tables, trash receptacles; open cabanas, shade areas and other amenities that will enhance and accommodate lunch time and/or break time activity.

Paseo Sports Park. The 23.9 acre paseo sports park (planning area No. 7)- represents- the -centerpiece of the Heartland active

Specific Plan 111 - 25

recreation plan. The paseo park extends the entire length of the Specific Plan in an east -west orientation following the Arco gas line easement. The paseo park reflects a unique recreational amenity in that it provides a continuous multi -purpose trail system linked to a series of active recreational nodes, each providing a varied amenity. The most significant activity area within the paseo is the sports park component located adjacent to the Heartland elementary school. This design consideration will facilitate joint use in order to accommodate both school related activity and community oriented activity, see Exhibit IV -7b.

Another significant. feature of the paseo park is its accessibility.

The paseo sports park is centrally located anct can be accessed from every residential planning area within Heartland by non - vehicular means, such as pedestrian and bicycle. The paseo sports park trail system will also provide non -vehicular (pedestrian) area -to -area links within the Heartland community. The varied amenities provided within the paseo park in combination with the accessibility factor will ensure that quality active recreational opportunities are afforded the Heartland community and that utilization of the recreational resources : are maximized. In addition, the centralized paseo sports park design will play an important role in reducing traffic and air quality related impacts by providing on -site, pedestrian oriented and highly desirable recreation opportunities. This benefit is discussed in more detail in the Environmental Impact Report document prepared in conjunction with the Heartland Specific Plan.

Expanded Roadway. All roadways within Heartland that meet the collector street or greater criteria will incorporate an expanded parkway treatment. The expanded parkway area will be of a variable width but not less than 12 feet. The expanded parkway/open space landscape treatment will provide a visual amenity along Heartland's collector roadways and soften the transition between the .various collector roads and the adjoining residential land. uses. In addition to providing a consistent parkway landscape . treatment along the various collector roadways, this treatment will assist in promoting project unification between the various residential enclaves and planning areas.

C. General Land Use Development Standards
Project -wide development standards shall be applied towards ensuring overall design coordination of the various planning areas within the Heartland Specific Plan. The project -wide development standards will also serve to ensure the orderly development of the land use plan on a community wide basis as outlined below. The discussion - immediately following this 111 - 26 Specific Plan Page 1218 of 1847

section of the Specific Plan text (Chapter 4) will provide a detailed discussion of standards that will apply to each of the individual planning areas.

1. The Heartland Specific Plan shall be developed with a maximum of 1,224 dwelling units over the 417.2 acre Specific Plan area and in a manner consistent with the land use plan as illustrated by Exhibit 1II-1 and Exhibit III -2. The General Land Use categories permitted within Heartland shall include residential, commercial, industrial, recreation and public facilities.

2. Uses and development standards shall be in accordance with building standards as described in the "Development Regulations" section of the plan.

3. When any issue or condition occurs that is not provided for by these regulations, those provisions provided for by the City Code that are most applicable for the most similar issue or condition, and which do not conflict with the policies and provisions of this plan as determined by the Community Planning Director or designee, shall apply.

4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain clearance from the City of Beaumont Planning Department verifying that pertinent conditions of Specific Plan approval relative to the segment of the Specific Plan in process have been satisfied.

5. Development area boundaries shall follow the land use plan. Minor adjustments -to these boundaries resulting from final road alignments and/or technical or .engineering refinements will not require a Specific flan Amendment; and may be modified with the approval of.the Planning Director or designee as an administrative approval. Please refer to the Administration and Implementation Section (Section 6) of this text for limitations.

6. As development occurs, planning areas may be built out at less than the allocated density, creating a remainder of unbuilt dwelling units. During implementation, the City of Beaumont Planning Department shall be responsible for the monitoring and control of these residual dwelling unit entitlements. The developer may, subject to the approval of the Planning Director, draw upon the accumulated pool for use in other planning areas.

Please refer to the Administration and Implementation Section (Section 6) of this text for details and limitations.

7. Any common areas identified in the Specific Plan shall be maintained by an assessment district, community service area, homeowners' association, or similar entity as approved by the City of Beaumont, which shall assume maintenance responsibility for all common recreation and open space areas and public street_rights-of-way.. . _

8. Passive solar heating techniques will be employed whenever reasonably possible within the project. Such techniques include building orientation, landscaping, architectural design, adequate insulation and glazing, and simple heat storage systems.

9. Mitigation measures for environmental resources shall be implemented as identified through the certified Environmental Impact Report/Mitigation Monitoring Report in applicable.planning areas.

10. At a minimum, an environmental assessment (Initial Study) or other required technical analysis shall be conducted for each tract, change of zone, plot plan, specific plan amendment, or any other discretionary permit required to implement the Specific Plan. The environmental assessment shall utilize the evaluation of impacts addressed in the certified EIR prepared for this Specific Plan (see Section 6).

11. A City Change of Zone Application, which would constitute a Specific Plan Amendment., may be required, as determined by the Planning Department, with a subsequent development application if the proposed use varies substantially from .the use(s) provided for by the zoning standards established within the Specific Plan document. Please refer to Section G, Administration and Implementation, of this text for details and limitations.

12. Lots created by subsequent tentative maps shall be in conformance with the development standards set forth in Section 5 of the Specific Plan.

13. If necessary, roadways, infrastructure, parks, open space and any other public facilities may be coordinated with, and paid for through, an assessment district, Community Facilities District, or other appropriate mechanism to facilitate construction, maintenance, and management_

14. Prior to the issuance of building permits, improvement plans for developed common areas within the specific phase of development, including landscape and irrigation plans, shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.

15. For the security and safety of future residents, the:applicant or developer shall incorporate the following design concepts within each individual tract:
• Adequate circulation for pedestrians, vehicles, police patrols and other emergency related vehicles.
• Lighting of streets, walkways, bikeways and park areas. • Appropriate fencing applications in terms of fence location, height and materials.
111 - 2/1 Snnei(ic Pinn

D. SPECIFIC PLAN: Circulation Plan
The ensuing discussion will be divided into two subsections: Circulation Plan Description and Circulation Plan Standards.

1. CIRCULATION PLAN DESCRIP'T'ION
The circulation network within the Heartland Specific Plan will absorb approximately 24.3 acres and utilize existing and master planned right-of- ways to the greatest extent possible. The Circulation Plan as illustrated by Exhibit II1-3 establishes the roadway network - providing direct and convenient access to individual residential enclaves in addition to employment and service related land uses. This concept has been achieved through a carefully designed hierarchy of roadways which includes arterial secondary collectors and local residential streets. The cross -sections of the various roadways are illustrated by Exhibits III -4a through III -4b. In addition, the Circulation Plan incorporates a system of interconnected multipurpose trails, sidewalks and Class II bike paths.

The circulation concept has been developed in conjunction with professional traffic engineering analysis conducted by Linscott, Law and Greenspan.

Primary access to the Heartland Specific Plan will be achieved by way of Potrero Boulevard, also known as the 4th Street extension, which possesses an urban arterial highway designation (142 foot right-of-way), in conjunction with a master planned State Route GO interchange. Secondary access will be achieved by way of a northern extension of Potrero Boulevard from the proposed State Route GO interchange to San Timoteo Canyon Road. San Timoteo Canyon Road, which is also designated as an urban arterial highway, in turn is linked to the Interstate 10 freeway by way of an existing interchange. Ultimately, a third access alternative will be available to the Heartland community by way of the Jack Rabbit Trail. The third access alternative is illustrated conceptually by Exhibit 1II-3. The -precise alignment and timing will be determined by regional circulation related factors and influences. •The Heartland circulation concept and its relationship to the City of Beaumont's larger regional network is illustrated by Exhibit 111-5.

The Potrero Boulevard/State Route GO interchange and overcrossing will be phased, and as such interim improvements are . anticipated which would permit Heartland to move ahead in the development process. In terms of phased interim improvements, it is anticipated that the Potrero Boulevard/State Highway GO bridge will initially be constructed as a two-lane facility as depicted in Exhibit III -4c, Roadway Cross Section; ultimately the bridge design would reflect a four -lane facility within an -80 foot right-of-way and 72 foot curb to curb paved section. The Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) for the above -referenced bridge is currently in process and will ultimately determine the -bridge design -and associated -transition to Potrero

Boulevard. Additionally, it is anticipated that Potrero Boulevard would initially be improved as a two-lane/half width facility until such time that regional traffic related conditions warranted the four -lane ultimate condition or the adjacent property proceeded through the development process and provided the matching half width. Ultimately, Potrero Boulevard at San Timoteo Canyon Road will be improved to reflect a grade separation cl)I1(11tio11. In both of the ill)OVe referenced circumstances, ultimate improvements will occur as regional circulation factors and impacts warrant.

At this juncture, it is expected that the funding for the design of the. State Route GO/Potrero Boulevard interchange and crossing will be accomplished by CFD 93-1. It is anticipated that the construction of these improvements and other regional circulation facilities will be financed by CFD 93-1 or some alternative financing mechanism in conjunction with the city of Beaumont's Comprehensive Public Facilities Financing Program (CPFFP), in which Heartland will.con:tribute on a pro -rata share basis.

I-Ieartland's on -site system is designed as a hierarchy of roadways which will distribute traffic in an efficient manner and organize the project into a series of residential enclaves. The on -site circulation system is comprised of the following components.
• Potrero Boulevard. As previously indicated, Potrero Boulevard will provide the Heartland Community with a primary and secondary source of access.

Potrero Boulevard represents an urban arterial highway, consisting of a • 118 foot right-of-way, incorporating a 102 foot paved section inclusive of a 14 foot raised landscaped median. In addition, the Potrero Boulevard design will include a variable width expanded landscaped parkway treatment (12 foot minimum) with meandering sidewalk. See Exhibit III - 4b, Roadway Cross Section .G -G.

Collector Loop Road. Internal circulation will focus on the Heartland collector loop road which provides access to each of the planning areas within the Heartland community located south of San Timoteo Creek. The collector loop road will intersect with Potrero Boulevard at two locations, providing Heartland's primary and secondary market/community entries.

The collector loop road will actually consist of three separate design criteria/standards to be applied as follows.

Collector Loop Road (Primary Community Entry). At the
primary community entry, the Heartland collector loop -road will consist of a 94 foot right-of-way and a 78 foot paved section inclusive of a 14 foot raised landscaped median. The design will accommodate four travel lanes in addition to left hand turn pocket/lanes where appropriate. See Exhibit 1II-3, Circulation Plan and Exhibit III -4b, Roadway Cross Section F -F. The raised landscaped median design will provide a physical barrier between the east and west bound traffic at the Potrero. Boulevard intersection. - -In -addition,- this -design feature --will provide -a greater degree of amenity and enhance the sense of arrival at the ,,, en,, r'II; I!? PI .AN• (-N.-Plitt' A a 1222 of 1847

project's primary community entry. In addition the collector loop road at this location will include an expanded parkway area of variable width but not less than 12 feet. The expanded parkway treatment will be appropriately landscaped to soften the transition between the collector loop road and the adjoining residential land uses.

Collector Loop ltoad (Secondary Community Entry). At the secondary community entry, the Heartland collector loop road will consist of a 70 foot right-of-way and a 58 foot paved section inclusive of a 14 foot raised landscaped median. See Exhibit III -3, Circulation Plan and Exhibit III -4a, Roadway Cross Section Ei - El. The design will accommodate four travel lanes in addition to left hand turn pocket/lanes where appropriate. The raised median design will provide a physical barrier between the east and west bound traffic at the Potrero Boulevard intersection (north). In addition, this design feature will provide a greater degree of amenity and enhance the sense of arrival at the project's secondary community entry. Additionally, the collector loop road at this location will include an expanded parkway area of variable width but not less than 12 feet, along the south side of the right- of-way where the collector loop road interfaces with planning areas no. 1 and no. 2. It should be noted that for public safety reasons, the collector loop road's northern parkway, interfacing with the San Timoteo Creek, will consist of a five foot landscape strip exclusive of a sidewalk or other pedestrian accommodations.

Collector Loop Road (Northern. Transition). Commencing from the first neighborhood entry into planning area no. 1, Heartland's collector loop road will transition from a 78 foot right-of-way to a GO foot right-of-way incorporating two travel lanes and two parking lanes within a 44 foot paved section. See Exhibit II1-3, Circulation Plan and Exhibit III -4b, Roadway Cross Section E2 - E2. The collector loop road (northern) transition design will eliminate the median and associated left turn pockets. However, the variable width expanded parkway area will .be maintained in order to accommodate a meandering sidewalk and to soften the transition between the collector loop road and the adjacent residential enclaves. As with the preceding cross-section design, the collector loop road transition segment's northern parkway interfaces with San Timoteo Creek for a distance of approximately 2400 feet. As such, for public safety purposes, the collector loop transition road's northern parkway will consist of a five foot landscape strip exclusive of a sidewalk or other pedestrian accommodations.

Collector Loop Road (School Site Interface). For a distance of approximately -1200 feet, the collector -loop road will interfaces with the Heartland elementary school site. See Exhibit III -3,

Circulation Plan and Exhibit I1I-4b, Roadway Cross Section E3 Ea. This segment of the collector loop road will essentially be the same as the preceding example with .the exception that the parkway area will be fitted with an expanded 10 foot sidewalk in order to accommodate the amount of pedestrian traffic anticipated to occur in conjunction with school activities, particularly arrivals and departures.

Collector Loop Road (Southern Transition). Commencing from the first neighborhood entry into planning area no. 1, the 1 leart.land collector loop road will transition from a 94 foot right- of-way to a 60 foot right-of-way, incorporating two travel lanes and two parking lanes within a 44 foot paved section, see Exhibit II1-3, Circulation Plan, and Exhibit III -4a, Roadway Cross Section D -D. The collector loop road (southern) transition design will eliminate the median and associated left turn pockets. However, the variable width expanded landscape parkway area will be maintained in order to accommodate a meandering sidewalk and to soften the transition between the collector loop road and the adjacent residential planning areas.

Collector Street. The primary function of this road segment is to collect and disperse residential trips emanating from planning area no: 1 into I-leartland's collector loop road. The collector street will consist of a 66 foot right-of-way, and accommodate two travel lanes within a 44 foot paved section. In addition, the collector street's eastern parkway will include a 9 foot expanded landscaped condition which will accommodate a meandering style sidewalk. The collector street's western parkway will consist of a more conventional 11 foot parkway inclusive of a six foot curb adjacent sidewalk. See Exhibit 1II-3, Circulation Plan and Exhibit III -4c, Roadway Section 14-14.

Local Collector Street. Local collector street will consist of 60 foot right-of- way and accommodate two lanes of traffic within a 40 foot paved section.

In addition, local collector streets will possess two 10 foot parkways inclusive of a six foot curb adjacent sidewalk. See Exhibit 111-3, Circulation Plan and Exhibit III -4a, Roadway Section C -C. The local collector street design will be applied to relatively long segments of residential streets which collect traffic from and disperse traffic to Heartland's main collector loop system.

Local Streets. Local streets will consist of a 60 foot right-of-way and accommodate two lanes of traffic within a 30 foot paved section. In addition, the local street design will possess two 12 foot parkways inclusive - of a curb adjacent sidewalk. See Exhibit III -3, Circulation Plan and Exhibit 1II-4 a, Street Cross Section B -B. The local street design alternative will be applied to residential streets of an intermittent length which collect traffic from and disperse- traffic -to- either -a local- collector street and/or I-Ieartland's primary collector loop system.

Paige 1224 of 1847
C 11! Qo Pr.:('IRI(' PI .AM- fSr-....1n1:nn n nn

Short Local Streets. Short local streets will consist of a 50 foot right-of-way and accommodate two travel lanes within a 36 foot paved section. In addition, the short local street design will possess two 7 foot parkway ways inclusive of a 6 foot curb adjacent sidewalk. The short local street alternatives will be applied in relatively short cul-de-sac conditions. See Exhibit III -3, Circulation Plan and Exhibit III -4a, Street Cross Section A- A.

Industrial "Spine" Street. The industrial spine street will parallel San Timoteo Canyon Road and provide the primary access to the various industrial park components, terminating in a cul-de-sac at the respite park, planning area no. 8. By paralleling San Timoteo Canyon Road the - industrial "spine" street serves, in effect, as a frontage road whereby future industrial parcels are provided access without impacting San Timoteo Canyon Road in terms of requiring frequent or numerous points of access.

The industrial "spine" street will consist of a GO foot right-of-way, incorporating two travel lanes and two parking lanes within a 44 foot paved section. See Exhibit III -3, Circulation .Plan and Exhibit- III -4c, Roadway Cross Section K -K. The southern parkway interfacing with San Timoteo Creek will be limited to a 5 foot landscape strip. The parkway on the north side interfacing with the industrial park planning area will be 11 fret wide, providing adequate area for a G foot sidewalk and additional streetscaping.

Industrial Collector Street. The industrial collector street will provide a secondary source of ingress/egress for the industrial park planning area, and shunt industrial park generated traffic away from the Potrero Boulevard/San Timoteo Canyon Road intersection. The industrial collector street will consist of a 78 foot right-of-way incorporating two travel lanes and a 12 foot median within a 56 foot paved section. See Exhibit III -3, Circulation Plan and Exhibit III -4c, Roadway Cross Section M -M. In addition, the industrial collector street will possess two 11 foot parkways with adequate area to accommodate a G foot sidewalk and additional street scaping.

Industrial Local Street. The .industrial local street design will be applied to three cul-de-sacs emanating from the industrial "spine" street. These cul- de-sacs will provide access to industrial parcels- .as an alternative to. providing additional points of ingress/egress from San Timoteo Canyon Road. As such, this design will reduce impacts -to San Timoteo Canyon Road associated with additional right hand turn movements into. the Heartland industrial center. The industrial local street will consist of a 66 foot right-of-way with sufficient space to accommodate two lanes of traffic within a 44 foot paved section. See Circulation Plan, Exhibit 11I-3 and Exhibit 11I -4c, Roadway Cross Section L -L. The industrial local street will also incorporate two 11 foot parkways with adequate area to accommodate - a 6 foot sidewalk and additional streetscaping. - - - -

fipEr`InC PLAN! Circulation Plan 111 - 33

Non -vehicular Circulation. An important component to the Circulation Plan is the provision for pedestrian and bicycle oriented modes of travel. These non -vehicular opportunities compliment the overall circulation plan and include on -street bicycle lanes, multi -purpose trails and pedestrian walkways, all of which are linked to Heartland's active open space components. The provision for non -vehicular circulation opportunities will play an important role in reducing traffic and air quality related impacts as discussed in more detail in the Heartland Specific Plan Environmental - Impact Report.

Sidewalks. Sidewalks adjacent in arterial roads and the collector loop roar will feature a 5 loot meandering pathway to provide for safe pedestrian movement from the various residential enclaves to .the open space, commercial and public facility land uses. In -tract designs will provide for non -meandering sidewalks adjacent to curbs in front of residential developments. To prevent unnecessary street crossings or an "attractive nuisance" condition, residential neighborhoods will incorporate sidewalks on both sides of the street.

Multi -Purpose Trails. The 20.9 acre paseo sports park extends nearly the entire length of the Heartland Specific Plan in an east -west orientation . !Mowing the Arco gas line easement. The paseo park provides a continuous multi -purpose trail system linked to a series of active recreational nodes and par -course activities. The paseo park and related trail system can be accessed from every residential enclave without utilizing a vehicle.

Park -and Ride. Park and Ride opportunities could be incorporated into the 11 acre neighborhood commercial center and/or Heartland's industrial park complex. Mass transit will be encouraged as an alternative form of transportation by extending existing transit routes in the City of Beaumont to serve the. I leartland community. In addition it is anticipated that bus turn outs and associated shelters will be provided at key locations along heartland's collector loop system where warranted.

2. CIRCULATION PLAN STANDARDS
The following general standards shall be applied in the implementation of the Heartland Circulation Plan.

1. The Heartland Circulation Plan is based on sound planning principles in the establishment of a hierarchical circulation concept towards the safe and efficient movement of vehicular and pedestrian oriented traffic. In addition, the Heartland Circulation Plan has been further evaluated by the professional traffic engineering firm of Linscott, Law and Greenspan.

On -site roadway improvements will be developed as illustrated by Exhibit - 111-3, CircuIation Plan and -Exhibits III -4a through III -4c, - Roadway 1226 of 1847
111- 34 SPECIFIC PLAN: Circulation)Ng

•41011.0111
Circulation Plan
1MEINK
A A Short Local (50' ROW)
B- B Local (60' ROW)
C - C Local Collector (60' ROW)
D - D Collector Loop (60' ROW)
1i f IMI' E1 - E1 Collector "Loop" Street
(North Entry- 70' ROW)
•••••
•+k+•
E2 - E2 Collector "Loop" Street
(60' ROW)
E3 - E3 Collector "Loop" Street
(60' ROW)
F - F Major Entrance (94' ROW)
I• G - G Urban Arterial (118' ROW)
oboo
H - H Collector Street (66' ROW)
K - K Industrial "Spine" Street
(60' ROW)
L - L Industrial Local Street
(66' ROW)
M - M Industrial Collector Street
(78' ROW)
o O o o P1 -P1 Potrero Street Bridge and
Highway 60 (80')
P2 - P2 Potrero Street Bridge and
Highway 60 (40')

HE A R T L A N D
Exhibit No.: III -3
J
Prepared by io.uCLj

A -A Short Local
50'
36'
r
Jo.
10'
B'
6' Sidewalk
D - D Collector Loop
R/W
112' Min_
1 Varies
RAV
,12' Min
Varies
F � t 12'
q.
12 10' r
Open Space
ILot (TYP•)
5' Meandering
ISidewalk
B - B Local
RPW
Heartland Specific Plan
Beaumont, California
12' Min.
1 Varies
5'Meandering
Sidewalk
C - C Local Collector
E1 - El Collector "Loop" Street
(North Entry)
11'
70'
g.
sad
Planted
Median
Median
Lane
5,

Sidewalk (Typ.)
Not to Scale
(
Roadway Sections

HE AR T L A, N D
Exhibit No.: III - 4a
J
Prepared hy, T0J1y

l
- E, Collector "Loop" Street
ww
I.
r12' Mini
!Varies
Open Space Lot (ryR)-
Variable Slope '
5' Meandering
Sidewalk
60'
11'
44'
10' 12' 12' 10' s'
i

4. F - F Major Entrance
R!W
)2' Min.
1 Varies
78'
12' 1
T
f 10'
12'
"-Median
Lane
• I Planted
Median
12'
RAW
Varies
i
60' Pipeline
Easement
Heartland Specific Plan
Beaumont, California
- E3 Collector "Loop`` Street
11'
10' 12'
12' 10'
s'
10'
10' Sidewalk
G - G Urban Arterial
RJW
12' Min.
118'
102'.
12'
12'•
12'
12'
12`
IT 8'
R/W
12' Min,
Vanes 1�
4' i10'
I —Median
q.

Lane
Planted
Median
•
—t—Open Space
Not to Scale
Lot (ryp.)
1 5'Meandcring
Sidewalk gyp-)
Roadway Sections

H E A R TL A
Exhibit No.: III - 4b
N D
19'dge 1229 of 1847
Prepared by T .ati q,Af t:c

H - H Collector Street
66'
"
5' 12' 12' 10' 6', 10'
s
6' Sidewalk
44' r
T
11'
9 t.
`-1-Open Space
j Lot (TYp)
5' Meandering
Sidewalk (Typj
M - M Industrial Collector Street
R/W
78'
56'
11' , 28'
5' 6'
1 28'
10' IT 12' IT 10'
r=�
r•
11'
'6' S
6' Sidewalk
Painted Median
2'
I'
Cone. Barrier
Curb —
K - K Industrial "Spine" Street
P1 P1 Potrero Street
Bridge & Hwy 60
72'
38' 34'
T 12' 12'
10' 12'
IT
T
5'
i
Sl
2%
sic.
2v.

Heartland Specific Plan
Beaumont, California
--5' Sidewalk
—Cone. Barrier
L - L Industrial Local Street
66'
R/W
IP
5' 6'
44'
•
10'
•
12' i 1?
Q
6' Sidewalk
•
1'
Cone. Barrier
Curb
•
10' 11'
6' 5'
P2 - P2 Potrero Street
Bridge & Hwy 60
40'
38'
7' 12' 5' 12'
—Si
2%
Not to Scale
2'
Removable
Metal Railing
Roadway Sections

HE A R TL A N D
Exhibit No.: III - 4c
age
J
Prepared by Tc ty Cf'"A1t:Z

r
0 V
i
z
Exhibit No.: III - 5

Cross -sections. Dual left turn lanes and right turn lanes will be provided as required. Potrero Boulevard and associated State Route 60 bridge may receive half width improvements until such time that regional traffic influences warrant the development of Potrero Boulevard and associated bridge be improved to their ultimate configuration. It should be noted that the traffic study prepared in conjunction with the Heartland Specific Plan FIR has concluded that the aforementioned interim improvements are satisfactory to accommodate the build -out of the entire Heartland Specific Plan.

2. 1f necessary, additional traffic; analysis may be required at. the City of Beaumont's discretion for the phase of the development in process and as more detailed development plans are available by which to identify specific design parameters, phasing details; and additional mitigation strategies.

3. Roadways that are designed to accommodate high traffic volumes shall incorporate adequate provisions for safe and convenient pedestrian crossings. This is particularly critical in close proximity to the proposed Heartland elementary school and ,the Heartland paseo sports park complex. The collector loop system shall have adequately timed signal lights and median strips or islands at intersections to allow safe pedestrian movements. Pedestrian walkways shall be clearly delineated from traffic areas and set apart where practical. Separation techniques may include landscaping and other barriers. Walkways that cross streets shall have prominent markings and good sight distances for motorists and pedestrians.

4. All subdivisions shall comply with the. street improvement recommendations outlined in the Heartland traffic study.

5. 1-leavy through traffic- volumes shall be eliminated from residential neighborhoods. Major roadways will be designed as non-access/unloaded collectors, with residential neighborhoods served by local roads.

6. All landscaping treatments associated with the Heartland circulation network shall be consistent with the Heartland landscape plan, based on the street cross-section in accordance with Roadway Landscape Treatments illustrated by Exhibits III -22 through III -32 located in the Landscape Plan section of this document.

7. The design and construction of Heartland's circulation network including off -site improvements may be funded through a Community Facilities District (CFD), Assessment District (AD), Comprehensive Public Facilities Financing Program (CPFFP) or a similar mechanism initiated by -the project proponent or the City of Beaumont. For in -tract improvements, the funding mechanism will be on a pro -rata share basis whereby the costs--a-re-equii:ably dispersed : to -and -absorbed-11y_ the_ various land _use_ components comprising the Heartland development. For off -site

improvements that. are of a regional nature, the funding mechanism will be on a pro -rata share basis whereby the Heartland development funds an equitable share of the design and improvement cost, based on regional development related factors and influences.

8. The Heartland roadway network shall be constructed in compliance with the City of Beaumont standards as a requirement of subdivision implementation and subject to approval by the City Engineer.

J. Landscaped medians are proposed for incorporation into the Heartland Loop road system and Potrero Boulevard as illustrated in Exhibit 1I1 -4b of the Circulation Plan and Exhibit 11I-16 of the Landscape Plan contained herein.

10. All streets delineated on the Heartland Circulation Plan will be dedicated as public right-of-way and maintained as such. Therefore, it is anticipated that said streets will not be private or gate guarded.

11. Mass transit accommodations, such as bus turnout lanes, bus shelters and park and ride reserves will be provided. Ride -sharing pools for on - site employment opportunities and off -site commuters should be encouraged.

12. A Transportation Management Association (TMA) for the. commercial and industrial areas will include an employee transportation coordinator.

Ride pool data will be established and should be made available to individuals working within Heartland's commercial and industrial centers.

13. Traffic signal synchronization will be provided where feasible.

14. Vehicle trips generated by the buildout of the Heartland community should be further reduced through implementing the following traffic management techniques..
• Encourage the establishment of a program within the industrial park complex whereby work schedules are alternated in such a manner as to stagger the peak hour volumes, if warranted.
• Encourage the est.ablishment, of a telecommut:ing program for the Heartland community or participation in an existing program sponsored through the County of Riverside and/or the Riverside Transit Au thority.
• -Providing dedicated turn lanes as appropriate.
• Limiting on -street parking, particularly along Heartland's collector roads.
1233 of 1847
111 - :36 SPECIFIC PLAN: Circulate P g�

E SPECIFIC PLAN: Drainage Plan
The ensuing discussion will be divided into two (2) subsections: Improvement Description and Improvement Standards.

1. DRAINAGE PLAN DESCRIPTION
The drainage improvement concept proposed for the Heartland Specific Plan reflects a commitment to the retention of natural drainage patterns, drainage corridors, and the aesthetic quality inherent therein. The major drainage consideration in this regard is San Timotea Creek and its associated 100 -year flood plain: In those areas of the Heartland development where minor natural drainage courses are interrupted, a storm drain system is planned to collect and convey storm water as illustrated by Exhibit III -6, Drainage Plan.

Towards this end, the drainage plan concept has been designed to contain ten-year storm flows within the street curb area and a 100 -year storm will be contained within the street right-of-way. Storm drains will be provided where either condition is exceeded.

The development of the subject site will increase on -site storm runoff by 2 to 3 percent clue to an increase in impervious surfaces. This increase in quantity and velocity of flows will be accommodated by the incorporation of retention basins in combination with various energy dissipation techniques such as rip -rap. These design techniques in combination with perpetuating natural drainage areas will result in a no -net increase in quantity and velocity of flows emanating from the developed areas.

Recent requirements precipitated by the 1987 Clean Water Act relative to NPDES permits. prohibit many of the storm drain design practices employed in the past in order to improve the water quality associated. with urban runoff. The implementation of this permit process shall require that specific Best Management Practices (BMP's) be incorporated into the storm drain system design and during the various phases in the development process, i.e., grading, construction, etc.

For those planning areas adjacent to San Timot o Creek, the "first flush" runoff will be conveyed to water quality control inlets designed to comply with BMP's criteria for the control of urban pollutants associated with storm drain runoff. These types of facilities will protect the natural drainage courses and related ground water basins .from increases in the velocity of runoff and decreases in water quality.

Drainage facilities used to control decreases in water quality and/or increases in runoff velocity,will be incorporated throughout the project. Said facilities will consist of but, are not limited to the following techniques: detention

Heartland Specific Plan
Beaumont, California
Southern Pacific Railroad

Drainage Concept
-•-•-•-• 18" Storm Drain
24" Storm Drain
30" Storm Drain
36" Storm Drain
O O O O 42" Storm Drain
• •••• 54" to 78" Storm Drain
• Catchment Basin
Drainage Outlet
Source: Trans -Pacific Consultants

H E A R T L A N D
Exhibit No.: III - 6
Prepared by Lai, Gu�:c

basins, vegetated swales, water quality control inlets, energy dissipaters, infiltration trenches and porous pavement applications.

2. DRAINAGE PLAN. STANDARDS
In order to ensure the orderly development of Heartland's storm drain system, the drainage plans as described above will be subject to the following general standards and principles.

1. The storm drain sewer lines and associated catch basin location and site are illustrated in Exhibit 1I1-6. The precise system layout and sizing will be determined during the final engineering phase of the tract map recordation process.
2: The ultimate storm drain design will be subject to the requirements and standards of the City of Beaumont Flood Control Standards including the following design parameters.
• All building pads will be free from flood hazards associated with the 100 -year frequency storm event by elevating finished floor elevations one foot above said 100 -year level flood event; and
• Depth of flows conveyed by Heartland's internal street system will not exceed top of curb elevations for the 100 -year storm frequency.

3. Drainage improvements located within the 100 -year flood plain will be designed to ensure the conveyance of the 100 -year design flows which may include potential bulked flow rates to account for large off -site areas that are currently undeveloped but have the potential for urbanization.

4. Water courses that are delineated on the existing drainage exhibit and the associated 100 -year flood plain will be kept free of all buildings and obstructions unless drainage improvements are constructed.

5. In conjunction with future development proposals, i.e., plot plans, tentative tracts, etc., the proposed interior street infrastructure and grading design will be coordinated to ensure that there are no major diversions between drainage areas.

6. The design of all interior storm drain conveyance systems will be in accordance with criteria established by City of Beaumont guidelines. • Flood flows to be used for the design of waterways, channels and closed conduits shall have minimum acreage recurrence intervals as follows:
• Storm drain systems will be designed and based on a minimum 10 - year frequency.
�� �„i;i•ii; ti' PLAN- 1),-„i,,,i,.iPtu e 1236 of 1847

• When sump conditions are encountered, a 25 -year frequency criteria will be applied and a connected system will be designed to completely convey 100 -year runoff, with a secondary outlet to assure the water surface is one foot below the proposed pad elevations.

7. On -site public drainage facilities located outside of the road right-of-way will be contained in drainage easements.

8. Streets will be oriented to maximum potential conveyance of regional flooding during significant storms to expedite the flow through the development.

9. The project will be phased so that 100 -year flood protection is ensured in all areas of the development. Interim improvements will be required as phasing of the development progresses.

10. The project proponent/applicant shall be required to retain any increased drainage on site until such time as a viable drainage master plan is implemented. Development proposed following implementation of such a drainage master plan must be done in accordance with the approved drainage master plan.

11. Best Management Practices (BMP) will be implemented to enhance pollutant removal during storms, and to improve the quality of storm water runoff. BMP refers to structural or non-structural pollution control measures which reduce the amount of non -point source pollution entering the Walters of the United States, and may be either non-structural or structural. The farmer group includes those BMP's in which pollutants are kept from ever coming in contact with the storm water; the latter group consists of' various methods of treating storm water.

12. The following non=structural BMP's are recommended:
• Routine inspection of catch basins, before and after the storm seasons, including their cleaning to remove sediment and debris with absorbed pollutants.
• Guidelines for fertilizer and pesticide control usage, including proper application rates for the local area and soil type, will be defined and adhered t,o.
• Erosion control measures, to mitigate the effects of erosion on open slopes adjacent to the development, will be defined and adhered to, and will be part of all required grading permit approvals.

13. Non-structural BMP's shall be the responsibility of the development's homeowner's maintenance associations, or as approved by the City Engineer.

14. If structural BMP's are required, the following mitigation measures will be used depending upon site conditions and ultimate discharge requirements:
• Vegetated swales and biofilters.
• Infiltration trenches.
• Water quality ponds or detention basins for "first -flush" runoff. • Water quality inlets.
• Porous pavement.

15. Prior to development of upstream areas, the potential for the conveyance of debris by the off -site watershed will be accounted for in design of on - site .drainage facilities in order to avoid abrasive erosion in certain drainage facilities and maintenance problems for facilities located within the floodplain.
1(3. Watercourses and 100 -year floodplains shall be kept free of all structures and obstructions unless drainage improvements are. constructed.

Watercourses that remain natural .shall be mapped as a 100 -year floodplain and an additional setback from the watercourse shall be provided for any potential embankment erosion. The watercourses adjacent to development will be designed to include grade stabilization structures to stabilize the watercourse and help prevent embankment erosion. The design of the watercourse shall allow for three (3) feet of freeboard within the watercourse.

17. Inspection and maintenance of public storm drain systems . shall be • performed by the Director of Public Works. The project proponent shall participate in the formation of a Community. Service Area (CSA) or similar mechanism to fund the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the public storm drain system.

18. Monitoring of groundwater levels, surface flows and water quality conduit should occur for no less than twelve months in order to provide an accurate determination of groundwater levels and seasonal fluctuations.

Pe 1238 of 1847
N ,.: An aDV011i'l0 PI a • ne-n;.,000 PLAT'

F. SPECIFIC PLAN: Water and Sewer Plan
The following discussion will be presented in two sections corresponding to improvement description and improvement standards.
1_ WATER PLAN DESCRIPTION
The Heartland Specific Plan is located within the boundary of the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District (BCVWD) and within the boundary of the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA). BCVWD is the water retailer for the project area, while SGPWA functions as the water wholesaler. BCVWD currently relies on extraction of groundwater from the Beaumont Groundwater Basin, Edgar Canyon and Little San Gorgonio Canyon.

SGPWA currently is in the planning stages to construct imported water facilities which will deliver additional water from the state water project to the service area.

Currently, the subject: site lacks an urban level source of domestic water and as such the Heartland Specific Plan will require both off -site regional improvements and on -site improvements to accommodate the proposed development.

E'rom a regional perspective, a 24 -inch distribution main is proposed within the Potrero Boulevard right-of-way which will be fed by an existing distribution main located within Brookside Avenue or 14th Street as illustrated by Exhibit 111-7, Regional Water System. The 24 -inch Potrero Boulevard distribution main will in turn be extended to a proposed 5 million gallon reservoir to be located south easterly of the subject site at elevation 2,000±. It should be noted that the project proponent is participating in CFD 93-1 as a mechanism by which to fund the design and construction of regional domestic water distribution improvements. The 5 million gallon reservoir is necessary in order to provide adequate storage and pressure to service the Heartland project and other properties in the vicinity located in Heartland's pressure zone.

In addition to the Potrero Boulevard 24 -inch distribution main, Heartland's on -site design will reflect a loop system consisting of a 12 -inch distribution main within Heartland's collector street and industrial complex with the remaining residential streets serviced by 8 -inch lines extending off the 12 - inch collector street distribution main. See Exhibit 1II-8, Proposed Water System.

v oli
5 I
A
•
Pro po sed 24" Distribu tion Ma
i
Proposed 5 Mg. Reservoir
•
v
0'
U
•
'Q
ca
N
Exhibit No.: III - 7
•
•4'

0.9 •
L..
r
al
•
•
• / �
0 z
u
cg O
J
ti
4-
0 N
a)
co
(3
0 l
._A
San Timoteo Canyon Road
San Timoteo Creek
Heartland Specific Plan
Beaumont, California

Scale: I" — 600'
0 300 600 900Ft
Proposed Water System
mama 24" Water Line
i um _ 12' Water Line
.�.� 8" Water Line

H E A R T L A N D
Exhibit No.: III - 8
J
Prepared by 7oau7 Crs :e

2. CONSERVATION MEASURES
Interior
• Supply line pressure: Water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) to be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure -reducing valve.
• Drinking fountains: Drinking fountains will be equipped with self - closing valves.
• Laundry facilities: Water -conserving models of washers to be used. • Restaurants: Water -conserving models of dishwashers to be used or spray emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water to be served upon request only.
• Ultra -low -flush toilets: 1 -I/2 -gallon per flush toilets to be installed in all new construction.

Exterior
• Landscape with low -water -using plants wherever feasible. • Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn -dependent uses, such as playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses. • Group plants of similar water use to reduce over -irrigation of low -water - using plants.
• Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low -water -using landscaping and sources of additional assistance.
• Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water -holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction.
• Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency.
• Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and to aid in ground water recharge.
• Grade slopes so that the runoff of surface water is minimized.

• Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed wastewater, stored rainwater, or gray water for irrigation.
• Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water recharge.
• To aid in ground water recharge, preserve floodplains and aquifer recharge areas as open space.

SEWER SERVICE DESCRIPTION
The Heartland Specific Plan is located within the sewer service area of the City of Beaumont. The City .of Beaumont currently operates a 1,000,000 gallon per day wastewater/sewage treatment plant which will ultimately service the Heartland developrnent. The treatment plant in its current condition is operating over its design capacity of 826,000 gallons per day, and treated effluent. from the plant does not comply with State Regional Water Quality Control Board Title 22 water quality standards. In June, 1993, the City of Beaumont formed Community Facilities District (CFD) 93-1, of which Heartland is a participant. CFD 93-1 in combination with sewer revenue bonds applied to existing users provides the funding source for the expansion of the wastewater treatment: plant and upgrade of the treatment process to comply with State Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements.

Completion of a plant upgrade and expansion to 1.5 mgd is targeted for March 1994, and the Heartland project has financed and reserved capacity. for204 connections in the upgraded plant for its initial phases of development.

Currently there are no sewer trunk mains extended to the subject site and as such the Heartland Specific Plan will require both off -site regional improvements and on -site localized improvements to accommodate the proposed development.

From a regional perspective, Heartland is located "downstream" from the City of Beaumont's sewer treatment plant and therefore a 1.5 million gallon (mg) lift station and associated 6 -inch forced main is • proposed to convey effluence produced at Heartland to the City of Beaumont's ewer treatment plant. See Exhibit 111-9, Regional Sewer Facilities.

In addition to the aforementioned 1.5 million gallon lift station and 6 -inch force main, Heartland's on -site sewer system will consist of 12, 10, and 8 -inch gravity sewer lines that extend from the various residential and industrial enclaves, culminating at the lift station as illustrated by Exhibit II1-10, Proposed Sewer System.

E
Regional Sewer Facilities
Imorl
■
i
Hea rtland Project Boundary
z
C'
Exhibit N o.: III
J
a.
4 l
Proposed Sewer System
11111111 12" Gravity Sewer Line
mg mum 10" Gravity Sewer Line
�.� 8" Gravity Sewer Line
••••• 6" Force Main
Lift Station

H E A R T
Exhibit No.: III - 10
N D
J

Prepared by Tac.L(7 G :a

4. WATER AND SEWER PLAN STANDARDS
Water and sewer plan general principles and standards listed below will be adhered to:

1. All domestic water distribution mains and related storage facilities will be designed to meet BCVWD requirements m addition to Riverside County Fire Department criteria relative to fireflows.

2. All water and sewer lines shall be underground facilities.

3. All sewer service improvements shall be constructed in _accordance with the City of Beaumont's design requirements.

4. All sewer service improvements shall be maintained by the City of Beaumont.

5. Allwater and sewer lines will be sized to adequately service potential future growth.

6. The cost associated with the construction of any over -sized lines if necessary to accommodate off -site developments shall be the responsibility of those being served, consistent with the rates and regulations of the City of Beaumont and BCVWD.

7. Assurances for the provision of adequate water service and sewer capacity will be required prior to the recordation of a final tract map in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act. In conjunction with the final record map process, the City of Beaumont will review water and sewer demands for conformance with design requirements and for the ability to serve.

III - 44 SPECIFIC PLAN: Water an wer P

G. SPECIFIC PLAN: Solid Waste Disposal Plan
The ensuing discussion will be divided into two sections corresponding to Solid Waste Disposal Plan Description and Standards.

1. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN DESCRIPTION
Solid waste pick-up and disposal will be by private contractor as approved by the City of Beaumont with disposal targeted for the Lamb Canyon Landfill.

Green waste, cuttings and clippings will be disposed of separately when the City of Beaumont's composting plant becomes operational, providing that private or municipal pick-up service has been authorized. Solid waste trash enclosures will be provided for all commercial and industrial land uses. 2_ SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN STANDARDS
The solid waste standards to be followed in the implementation of the Heartland Specific Plan are as follows:

1. The refuse hauler serving the Heartland community shall be advised of the efforts the developers will be pursuing relating to recycling and waste reduction (i.e., curbside recycling, buy-back centers, etc.). The use of such facilities will be encouraged by the developer through information dissemination, i.e., locations, materials accepted, etc.

2. The developer shall pursue and implement any available source reduction programs for the disposal of construction materials to the satisfaction of the City of Beaumont Planning Department.

3. The City of Beaumont shall review the number, size and location of solid waste bin enclosures for commercial and industrial land uses through the plot plan and. use permit process.

4. The developer shall participate in any established city-wide program to reduce solid waste generation.

SPECIFIC PLAN: Solid Waste Disposal Plan III - 45
Page l Z4rof 1847

H. SPECIFIC PLAN: Project Phasing Plan
The following phasing plan discussion will be divided into two subsections corresponding to Phasing Plan Description and Phasing Standards.

1. PHASING PLAN DESCRIPTION
Specific plan phasing will guide the timing and sequencing of development in accordance with grading, infrastructure requirements and infrastructure availability. Table III identifies the targeted dwelling units for each of the three phases.

The thrust of the phasing program is to provide flexibility in order to deal effectively with dynamic market trends and conditions. The four master phases identified by Exhibit III -11 , Phasing Plan, incorporates, in total or in part, several individual planning areas. Said phases correspond to areas which can individually stand alone in terms of providing adequate infrastructure and active open .space amenities. In that development within each phase is infrastructure dependent, development within phases can occur concurrently or non -sequentially providing adequate consideration for infrastructure has been given.

As illustrated by Exhibit III -11, Phase 3 incorporates residential and commercial land use and Phase 4 incorporates land uses in -combination of residential and industrial. However, given that phasing can occur non - sequentially, the inclusion of commercial and industrial land use in Phase 3 and Phase 4 respectively, is considered conceptual, whereby allowing the commercial and industrial planning areas to develop independently of any particular phase in response to market conditions.

To ensure that each phase of development is provided with adequate active park and recreation amenities, the phases have been configured so as to incorporate a segment of the elongated paseo sports park into each phase. In addition, to ensure that the cost of developing the paseo sports park is distributed equitably among the various phases, it is anticipated that a funding mechanism will be established whereby the projectedtotal cost of improving the paseo sports park will be absorbed on a pro -rata basis through a fee structure applied to each dwelling unit at the issuance of building permit or issuance of occupancy permit. This mechanism is elaborated on in more detail in the Recreation Plan discussion.

The Heartland elementary school site has been intentionally omitted from the phasing scheme in that its development timetable will be dictated by the Beaumont Unified School District in response to student generation factors and availability of funding.

III- 46 SPECIFIC PLAN: Project Phasing Plan
age

z
Master Phasing Plan
y
rel
M er
5 0
Cd
W
Exhibit No.: III - 11
J
l�Lx...�.. .ii
•

TABLE III - 1

HEARTLAND
Dwelli_ne Units Per Phase
•
. ..... .. . .

Phase I
166

33.2 1
Phase II
248

49.6 2
Phase III
430

73.51 3, 4, 12
Phase IV
380
108.90
3, 5, 11

2. PHASING PLAN STANDARDS

1. Grading, drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities and roads shall be provided at adequate levels to accommodate development in each phase in accordance with the City of Beaumont requirements as implemented through the Condition of Approval for Tentative Subdivision Maps, plot plans and conditional use permits.

2. Phases should develop in accordance with market conditions and infrastructure timing considerations.

3. Phases may develop concurrently or non -sequentially, providing adequate consideration for infrastructure, both on -site and regional, has been given.

4. Commercial and industrial planning areas can be phased independently of the respective residential phase as market conditions warrant.

5. Active open space amenities, bike lanes, entry statements and landscape buffer treatments shall be _phased .concurrently with individual planning areas which include those amenities and design features.

6. Each increment or phase of development shall contain appropriate levels of urban infrastructure and parks and recreation facilities to support the needs of the respective phase.

SPECIFIC PLAN: Project Phasing Plan III- 47

I. SPECIFIC PLAN: Grading Plan
The ensuing discussion will be presented in two subsections corresponding to Grading Plan Description and Grading Plan Standards.

1. GRADING PLAN DESCRIPTION
Mass grading and remedial earthwork will be required for all residential, commercial, industrial, park and public facility planning areas. Limited grading will occur in the paseo sports park planning area in order to accommodate the various activities and improvements anticipated within this planning area and existing oil pipelines. In terms of earthwork quantities, it is anticipated that approximately 6,250,000 cubic yards of soil will be moved (cut and fill) to accommodate project development (see Exhibit 111-12, Grading Concept). The earthwork quantities will be balanced in logical areas on site in order to reduce or eliminate the need to import or export soil to the greatest extent possible. Fill material will be applied to the industrial park planning area in order to elevate the proposed industrial lots/pads above the San Timoteo Creek 100 year flood plain.

2. GRADING PLAN STANDARDS
The following Grading Standards shall apply to all graded areas within the Heartland Specific Plan.

1. All grading activity shall conform to the recommendations of the preliminary soils report and subsequent reports prepared in conjunction with the grading plans.

2. All grading activity shall conform to the City of Beaumont's grading standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

3. Grading shall conform to the following hillside development standards:
• All cut and/or fill slopes or individual combinations thereof which exceed ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benching) plan, increased slope ratio (e.g., 3:1), retaining walls and/or slope planting combined with irrigation.
• A slope stability report shall be submitted with all subdivisions creating slopes in excess of ten (10) feet in vertical height. • All driveways shall not . exceed an average grade of 15% unless otherwise approved by the Building and Safety Department.

III- 48 SPECIFIC PLAN: Grading P

r
Grading Conce pt
U
Scho ol & Park
z
Exhibit N o.: III - 12
J
Ti
ritcgr
1 .011 i+:.+......+0.+..
1111... I
'r, •1t {
1 `

1.,UII
Wry e
‘11.) );I
yl Ala // I ��r ij� +1111 +�\l 1j 1 .r
I ti� 1L1 �;7L/�u/.4e,„,(,)\e11�\a,lll ..ta+� .t
I/
-rrlrurrrrimoo lrr/
Ili/. ,.
•
zo
:.1
U �
0 (1 .) 7;41
cup)
CID
ImC
7-2)( E
a.) 1.)

4. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan or tentative subdivision map illustrating proposed grading shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan or map shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans of individual phases of development and shall include the following:
• Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process.
• Identification techniques which will be utilized in areas which may be graded during the rainy months.
• Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.

5. All manufactured slopes exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be graded incorporating the following techniques:
• The angle of the graded slope interfacing a natural slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. • Angular forms along exterior view areas shall be discouraged. The graded form of exterior view slopes shall create the appearance of rounded terrain whenever feasible.
• Where the toe of the slope exceeds 100 feet in straight horizontal length, the toe of the slope shall be curved m an undulating fashion.

6. Graded, but undeveloped, land shall be maintained in a weed -free condition and shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.

7. All graded slopes shall be planted in a timely manner, . meeting the approval of the Planning Director, with plant materials that will stabilize the slopes and minimize erosion.

8. All development areas and lots shall be .designed so that surface drainage is directed to street frontages or approved natural or improved drainage courses.

9. Grading plans for all projects shall comply with the City of Beaumont Grading Code, and with this plan.

10. Grading will be _permitted outside of the area of immediate development when it is consistent with an approved grading plan. Borrow sites may be permitted within the areas scheduled for future development, subject to an approved grading plan. Any excess cut from a particular phase will be placed as engineered fill in a future development area or adjacent P U. X263 of II47 SPECIFIC PLAN: Grading Plan III - 49

consenting property owner as shown on an approved grading plan referencing any disposal site. Grading permits shall be authorized for issuance following the approval process of a subdivision map, or conditional use permit.

11. The developer must provide a report prepared by a licensed engineering geologist and soils engineer as the basis for the grading plan. The report is to document methods for providing a safe and stable development.

12. No site preparation shall be permitted prior to the approval of a grading plan and issuance of grading permit.

13. Haul roads which need to cross major drainage areas shall do so at an angle of ninety degrees, and at future improved crossings wherever possible. Haul road routes outside of the area of immediate development shall be incorporated into an approved grading plan.

14. Dust control plans will be incorporated with the erosion control plans which will be submitted concurrently with the grading plans. All applicable regulations relative to fugitive dust control will be adhered to.

15. Site construction may be phased which will require the interim use of temporary toes, ditches, sandbags, ground cover, silt fences, and gravel access roadways at construction areas. Interim graded areas shall be designed to drain within the graded boundary, trapping construction sediments in depressed areas of desilting basins.

16. All requirements of the RCFCD & WCD regarding erosion control for grading operations shall be implemented to reduce wind blown or water transported sediments.

17. Energy dissipation devices .will be provided downstream of storm drain outlets to protect watercourses from increases in flow velocity.

18. Soil on graded slopes will be strengthened by planting to reduce the potential of erosion. During the interim period before the ground cover develops, straw, wood chips, or jute will be used as stabilizing agents.

19. Overland flow will be prevented from running uncontrolled over slopes.

This will include the use of gravel bag dams perpendicular to the flow, or the diversion of water to temporary protected channels.

20. Structural protection adjacent to road embankments or creek banks, whether it be retaining walls or rip -rap protection, will be toed -down to below the existing ground elevation to protect against future scour.

III- 50 SPECIFIC PLAN: GradingGracling[Pinfe 1254 of 1 Rd7

21. Prior to any grading activities, a soil report and additional geotechnical studies will be performed to further analyze on -site soil conditions, slope stability, seismic design, shrinkage factor, bulking, overexcavation, foundation design, lateral pressures, etc.

22. In conjunction with any grading activity that discharges fill within waters of the United States or may cause sedimentation to accrue, a NPDES permit pursuant to the 1987 Clean Water Act shall be processed prior to the issuance of the grading permit.

SPECIFIC PLAN: Grading Plan III - 51

J. SPECIFIC PLAN: Recreation Plan
The ensuing discussion will be presented in the subsections corresponding to Recreation Plan Description and Recreation Plan Standards.

1. RECREATION PLAN DESCRIPTION
Recreation amenities are an important component to the Heartland Specific Plan. The Recreation Plan is designed to provide a functional system of recreational activities for the Heartland community that protects conservation areas and compliments area -wide recreational opportunities that are afforded by the County of Riverside and the City of Beaumont.

The 23.9 acre paseo sports park represents the centerpiece of the Heartland active recreation plan (Planning Area No. 7). The paseo park extends the entire length of the Specific Plan in an east -west orientation following generally the Arco gas line easement. The paseo park reflects a unique recreational amenity in that it provides a continuous multi -purpose trail system linked to a series of active recreational nodes, each providing a varied amenity package. The most significant activity area within the paseo is the sports park component located adjacent to the proposed Heartland elementary school site (Planning Area No. 6). Exhibit III -13 illustrates the various active and passive recreational components. It should be noted that the activity nodes illustrated on Exhibit III -7 (Planning Area No. 7) are at this time conceptual, and that deviations from the conceptual plan can occur with the concurrence of the City of Beaumont. The ultimate improvement package for each of these nodes will be submitted in more detail as a condition of tentative tract map approval process. The 23.9 acre paseo sports park facilities will yield a ratio in excess of 5 acres of active recreational park facilities per 1,000 residents, meeting the City of Beaumont's active recreation commitment standards.

Another recreation amenity that can be characterized as semi -active is the

1.4 acre respite park (Planning Area No. 8). The respite park is physically linked to the industrial/business park component of the Specific Plan and as the name implies, will provide employees within the industrial/business park complex with an outdoor close -at -hand opportunity to relax during lunch time activity and/or breaks.

2. RECREATION PLAN STANDARDS

1. Active park lands of not less than 23.9 acres shall be dedicated to the City of Beaumont in conformance with the Park and Recreation Plan.

III- 52 SPECIFIC PLAN: Recreation Plan
Pdyt 1256 of 184

2. Park land dedication and improvement shall occur in accordance with the Project Phasing Plan.

3. Detailed park improvement plans shall be submitted and processed concurrently with the first phase of a final map for each of the master phases of the Heartland development. Said improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Beaumont's Planning Director prior to the recordation of said tract map.

4. Park improvement plans shall contain the following information and shall be approved through an administrative process.
• Site Plan
• Grading Plan
• Landscape and Irrigation Plan
• Architectural Plans and Details (if applicable)

5. Construction of park improvements shall be the sole responsibility of the builder implementing a particular phase of the Heartland development as follows.
• Park improvements shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the Park and Recreation Improvement Plan.
• Specific improvements to be incorporated into each of the activity nodes can deviate from the conceptual plan providing the overall spirit of the Recreation Plan is achieved.
• Final Park and Recreation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or his/her assignees through an administrative approval process.

6. Maintenance of all common active recreation areas and public . street rights -of -way will be the responsibility of a community service district (CSD), master homeowners association, assessment district or as approved by the City of Beaumont.

7. The various phases of the paseo sports park shall be offered for dedication and improved prior to the fifty percent occupancy of the dwelling units in the final tract map of the master phase which incorporates a given segment of the paseo sports park.

8. A Community Facilities District (CFD) has already been formed which could be expanded to provide a funding mechanism by which to improve the paseo sports park. Alternatively, a similar mechanism shall be approved by the City of Beaumont prior to the recordation of the first implementing subdivision within the Heartland Specific Plan. This approach will provide a means by which to distribute the cost "of improving the paseo sports park on an equitable/pro-rata basis for each of Heartland's master phases.
11 PECIFIC PLAN: Recreation Plan III- 53

Open Space and
Recreation Plan
17,
Open Space
Passive "Respite" Park_
Paseo Sports Park
Primary Paseo Path
•••••• Class II Bike Lanes

H E A R T
Exhibit No.: III - 13
A N D
Prepared by %a.lL %�tL

K.

SPECIFIC PLAN: Conservation Plan
The ensuing discussion will be presented in two subsections corresponding to Conservation Plan Description and Conservation Plan Standards.

1. CONSERVATION PLAN DESCRIPTION
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in conjunction with the Heartland Specific Plan provides an in-depth discussion relative to the impacts on vegetation and wildlife resulting in the removal and/or alteration of the subject site's sensitive habitat areas. The Heartland Specific Plan concept has been responsive to the presence of these resource areas and as such a conservation plan has been incorporated into the Specific Plan text and EIR process. For more detailed information, please refer to the EIR text as it relates to impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Heartland Specific Plan development.

The Heartland Specific Plan property provides a connecting link to habitat areas located to the west of the subject site involved in the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The primary objective of the MSHCP is to protect and promote biodiversity as essential in preserving the ecology of the region in a comprehensive manner as opposed to the piecemeal approaches of the past. The Heartland Conservation Plan is consistent with the intent of the MSHCP by providing a functional system of wildlife and sensitive resources preservation. Every effort will be made to mitigate the effects of development and create a community in which the. significant characteristics of the Heartland property will be maintained.

Towards this end; Heartland's drainage plans, as previously discussed, will emphasize the preservation of existing significant natural drainage corridors to allow storm water runoff to be conveyed through the site in accordance with natural topographic and drainage patterns. There are three major components to the Heartland Conservation Plan which are described in detail below, and illustrated by Exhibit 1II-14.

San Timoteo Creek Conservation Corridor
Encroachment into the San Timoteo Creek 100 year flood plain will be prohibited to the greatest extent possible. As such, the Specific Plan will retain San Timoteo Creek in a natural condition. The retention of San Timoteo Creek in an unchannelized condition will maintain the creek's capacity and function as an animal movement corridor and preserve the alluvial fan sage scrub which provides important habitat for a number of sensitive wildlife species. In addition, preservation of San Timoteo Creek in a natural open space condition will continue to provide raptor foraging habitat opportunities particularly for raptor species having a tolerance for human presence and/or those species requiring a relatively limited home range area.

III- 54 SPECIFIC PLAN: Conservati
°�S6861259 f 1847 --

q¢11 a,1
el
.- .-9999-9-.-.- •• . /-•-•-1-.-.-•-•-.-.-.-. •-•,' •-
-• ..,...9.99.... ........., ......i.0199....... ...=”99... 11119•.... 9..01.9-... .. 111•01.9....-......i.9.. tt III ='0 N liq_Tgx 3
-1
z
cn
b
Crl
C)
� r
n'
• 0
O CD
a • co 0
a.

O
B•
• d.

O
C
CD

6.3 Acre Riparian Enhancement Area
As previously indicated, encroachment into San Timoteo Creek will be prohibited to the greatest extent possible. However, in those instances where development and associated grading will impact areas of alluvial fan sage scrub habitat, a 6.3 acre enhancement area has been established in conjunction with the Conservation Plan. The enhancement area will provide an opportunity to replace lost/impacted alluvial fan sage scrub habitat at an appropriate replacement ratio. The appropriate replacement ratio will be determined at the development stage through the 404 permit and/or 1601- 1603 permit process as it relates to loss of wetlands habitat and impacts to waters of the United States, respectively.

Cooper's Creek Conservation Corridor
Another important component of the Heartland Conservation Plan is the retention of 5 acres of high quality oak/willow woodlands associated with Cooper's Creek drainage, which traverses the southwesterly edge of the subject site. The Cooper's Creek conservation area will include an additional

22.6 acres in an undisturbed condition in order to provide an additional buffer/setback area between the Cooper's . Creek riparian corridor and the residential units proposed within the adjoining planning area. The oak/willow woodland habitat is of high enough quality to support the federally listed Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo belli pusillus). Least Bell's Vireo was not observed during the March 16, 1993 biological resource survey. It should be noted, however, that the timing of the survey (January) was not the optimal time of the year for observing Least Bell's Vireo and as such a conclusive determination as to the specie's presence or absence has not been rendered to date. Additionally, the riparian corridor is located adjacent to State Route 60 and as such the habitat area, in spite of its relatively high quality, may be precluded from supporting Least Bell's Vireo due to disturbances emanating from the highway. However, should Least Bell's Vireo occupy the oak/willow woodland habitat in •spite of the highway influences, the Cooper's Creek Conservation Corridor will ensure the preservation of the oak/willow woodland riparian plant community and its potential for supporting Least Bell's Vireo will be protected by maintaining the area as a viable riparian and animal movement corridor.

2. CONSERVATION PLAN STANDARDS
The Conservation Plan as described above will be subject to the following standards.

1. Development areas shall be set back from areas designated as riparian, woodland and/or wetlands through the incorporation of such design SPECIFIC PLAN: Conservation Plan III - 55
Nage 1261 of 1847

features as open space buffers and roadways creating an effective buffer/transition zone.

2. It is anticipated that the areas slated for conservation be dedicated to a conservation entity or homeowner's association as custodian for permanent open space and conservation use. Towards this end, said entity will be determined by joint consultation with the affected agencies, including the City of Beaumont, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California- Department of Fish and Game, and the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency.

3. Optional berming and re -vegetation may be employed to increase animal cover within the animal movement corridor areas.

4. Site planning of development areas adjacent to riparian woodland/wetlands conservation areas shall take place in a manner that discourages vehicle access and parking light impacts.

5. Lighting standards shall be incorporated into the neighborhood CC&R programs of those planning areas adjacent to conservation areas which will ensure mitigation of potential impacts associated with urban influences.

6. Roads shall incorporate highly visible signs on either side of the corridor, notifying motorists of the potential for wildlife (e.g., "Warning -- Wildlife Crossing").

7. Corridors should be screened from the direct view of adjacent homes, roads, etc., by trees and shrubs. Vegetative screening is recommended for the edge of developed areas adjacent to corridors utilizing native plant species to the greatest extent possible.

8. Nighttime activity shall be prohibited in the corridor conservation areas.

Day use is acceptable on established trails along the edge of the corridor adjacent to development. Bicycles and motorized vehicles shall not be allowed within the corridor except for maintenance activity.

9. If lighting is necessary in the areas within the corridor, any directional lighting pointed away from the corridor shall be permitted.

10. Conservation corridors should be crossed at a minimum number of locations necessary to ensure primary emergency and security vehicle access.

If'

11. In conjunction with development activities that encroach upon the alluvial fan sage scrub habitats, the California Department of Fish and Game will be notified and consulted pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1603, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in III_ 56 SPECIFIC PLAN: Conservati Plan
�'ag� 12ffZ �f 1

conjunction with their 404 permit process, with input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

12. Dogs should be kept on leashes and leash laws strictly enforced.

13. Public access to all undisturbed open space areas shall not be facilitated.

14. Signage and/or fencing shall be employed to preserve the integrity of those areas determined to be of a sensitive biological resource.

SPECIFIC PLAN: Conservation Plan III - 57

L. SPECIFIC PLAN: Landscape Plan
The ensuing discussion will be presented in two subsections corresponding to Landscape Plan Description and Landscape Plan Standards.

1. LANDSCAPE PLAN DESCRIPTION
Landscape treatments will play a pivotal role in establishing a distinctive character for the Heartland Specific Plan, providing unification and continuity among the various land uses and residential enclaves. In addition, the landscape components such as streetscapes and slope plantings in combination with monumentation create a sense of richness, arrival and prominence.

The intent of the Landscape Plan is to describe and illustrate how this community unification and identity can be achieved. Towards this end the plan has been divided into six major categories as listed below. Within these categories represent the entire vocabulary of landscape- elements within the Heartland Specific Plan. Used in conjunction with the design guidelines for planning and architecture, a high quality community with long term viability is assured.

The categories are further divided into subcategories within which descriptions, plans, and elevation illustrations convey design "intent." The Landscape Concept Plan (Exhibit III -15) provides a key map that identifies the locations of the various subcategories. The Landscape Concept Plan includes call -outs for all .exhibits within the text (Le., primary and secondary community entries, buffer treatments, slope treatments, etc.). • Entry Themes/Monumentation/Signage
• Streetscape Themes
• Paseo Open Space and Sports Park
• Community Walls/Fences
• Neighborhood Commercial Landscape
Typical Front Yard Landscaping
a) ENTRY THEMES/MONUMENTATION/SIGNAGE
Entry themes, monumentation and signage will play an important role in creating an impressive and inviting atmosphere for the Heartland community. The initial impression of a community is often formulated by the quality and character established at the project entries. Within the Heartland Specific Plan, a varied and hierarchical arrangement of entries have been developed. These range from the "major community entries" located at the intersections of Potrero Boulevard and the Heartland Collector Loop Road to "neighborhood entries" located at numerous points within the III- 58 SPECIFIC PLAN: Landscape Plan