Beaumont City Council
June 17, 2025

sceit CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
New Ability to No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Changefrom
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Biological Resources.

4.4.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR includes the following applicable mitigation measures for biological resources.
► MM-BIO-1: For impacts identified to Species Not Covered by the MSHCP, potential direct and indirect impacts to Federal Species of Concern, California Species of Special Concern, California Species Animals or plants on lists one through four of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory will require habitat assessments prepared by a qualified biologist for future implementing projects. The habitat assessment report identifying potential impacts to the Not Covered MSHCP species shall be provided in a report and submitted to the City City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 703 of 2775 31 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
Planning Department prior to issuance of grading permits. The following determinations shall be made by the City based on the habitat assessment:
• If the findings of the habitat assessment show no suitable habitat or sensitive species Not Covered by the MSHCP occur on site, then no additional surveys or mitigation measures are required. • If the potential for sensitive species exit or suitable habitat exists on site, focused surveys shall be completed within one year of the submittal to the City for review. Focused surveys conducted in the appropriate season for each species, as identified in the habitat assessment report, shall be conducted to determine presence/absence status.
■ If no sensitive species are identified through focused surveys, then no additional surveys or mitigation measures are required.
■ If sensitive species Not Covered by the MSHCP are found on site and are not avoided by project design, coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies) i.e., USFWS and/or CDFW) would be required to obtain necessary take permits and implement project -specific mitigation prior to any ground disturbing activities.
► MM-BIO-2: If future implementing project activities are planned during the bird nesting (February 15 to August 31) season and there are trees or vegetation on site, nesting bird survey(s) consisting of up to three (3) site visits within 7 days prior to ground disturbance, clearing and/or demolition activities shall be conducted to ensure birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) are not disturbed by on -site activities. Any such survey(s) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are found, no additional measures are required.

If active nests are found, the nest locations shall be mapped by the biologist. The nesting bird species shall be documented and, to the degree feasible, the nesting stage (e.g., incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging) determined. Based on the species present and surrounding habitat, a no -disturbance buffer shall be established around each active nest. The buffer shall be identified by a qualified biologist and confirmed by the City. No construction or ground disturbance activities shall be conducted within the buffer until the biologist has determined the nest is no longer active and has informed the City and construction supervisor that activities may resume. ► MM-BIO-3: The City shall require the following for all future implementing projects in order to mitigate for impacts to riparian/riverine or sensitive habitats associated with waters of the US and State:
• Preparation of a Jurisdictional Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and wetlands pursuant to the RCA as well as CWA and ACOE protocol where drainages are located on site. If avoidance of the drainages is infeasible, then applicants must obtain a CWA Section 404 permit from the ACOE prior to project grading. These permits must include measures or other equivalent requirements necessary to reduce impacts to riparian and wetlands resources and ensure no net loss of wetlands.
■ Preparation of a Jurisdictional Delineation of streams and vegetation within drainages and native vegetation of use to wildlife pursuant to CDFW and California Fish and Game Code Sect 1600 et seq. Where necessary, applicants are required to obtain a Section 1601 or 1603 permit and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. These permits must include measures or other equivalent requirements that reduce impacts to riparian and wetlands resources ensure no net loss of wetlands. • Riparian/Riverine evaluation pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Applicants must avoid impacts to riparian areas to preserve the function and value of such habitats. Avoided areas shall be protected in perpetuity through a legal instrument such as a conservation easement or deed restriction. Where avoidance is infeasible, a DBESP will be required to be reviewed and approved by the RCA and/or US Fish and Wildlife Services and California Department of Fish and Game.
32 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance
2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR included the following mitigation measures for Biological Resources:
► MM -4.2-1: The removal of potential nesting vegetation (i.e., trees, shrubs, ground cover, etc.) supporting migratory birds/raptors shall be avoided during the nesting season (if feasible), recognized from March 1 through September 15. If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a migratory nesting bird survey to ensure that vegetation removal would not impact any active nests. Surveys must be conducted no more than three days prior to tree/large shrub removal. If active nests are identified during nesting bird surveys, then the nesting vegetation would be avoided until the nesting event has completed and the juveniles can survive independently from the nest. The biologist shall flag the nesting vegetation and would establish an adequate buffer (e.g., construction fencing) around the nesting vegetation. The size of the buffer would be based on the type of bird nesting (i.e., raptors shall be afforded larger buffers). Clearing/grading shall not occur within the buffer until the nesting event has completed. ► MM -4.2-2: Impacts to the San Diego horned lizard and San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit shall be mitigated by compliance with the MSHCP and the payment of MSHCP impact fees, which will contribute to overall conservation within the Plan area.
► MM -4.2-3: In order to minimize potential impacts to BUOW and to comply with the MSHCP, focused preconstruction clearance surveys for the BUOW shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the initiation of grading activities. If active burrows are found during the March 1 -August 31 breeding season, grading activities shall be postponed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest has successfully fledged young. If active burrows are found outside the breeding season, relocation of the owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with requirements outlined in the MSHCP. Grading and associated activities shall commence only at such time that the biologist has determined that the burrows are no longer active. If three or more pairs of burrowing owl are found within the project site as a result of the focused surveys and at least 90 percent of the area with long-term conservation value of the occupied area cannot be avoided, then the applicant must submit a plan for a Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation alternative to the City.

Prior to approval of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation alternative by the City pursuant to the MSHCP, the FWS and CDFG shall be notified of such determinations and be provided a 60 -day review and response period. If focused surveys have indicated that three or more pairs of burrowing owl are found within the project site, a grading permit shall not be issued until the applicant has fulfilled its obligations regarding the approval of a Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation alternative pursuant to the MSHCP. If grading has not begun by March 1, 2007, the start of the BUOW breeding season as identified in the MSHCP, BUOW surveys may be repeated to conform to County BUOW Survey Instructions that require pre -construction surveys be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance.
► MM -4.2-4: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit a landscape plan to the City. The landscaping palette shall not contain any of the invasive plant species listed on Table 6.2 of the MSHCP (Vol. I, Pages 6-44 through 6-46: Plants That Shall Be Excluded From Landscape Adjacent To Conservation Area). None of the MSHCP Table 6-2 prohibited plant species are included in the planting palette of the landscape plan. In addition, consistent with the MSHCP, the project landscape plan shall utilize fire-resistant plants. ► MM -4.2-5: All construction operations should be staged as far away from the onsite Conservation Area as feasibly possible. Implementation of the water quality management plan and the general permit would reduce impacts to any onsite, or adjacent Conservation Area to a level of less than significant. ► MM -4.2-6: Onsite light pollution onsite and in the adjacent Conservation Cell must be minimized. The City shall review and approve the project's lighting plan to insure consistency with the MSHCP. ► MM -4.2-7: The effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources during and after construction must be minimized. The City shall review and approve the project's noise mitigation measures to insure consistency with the MSHCP.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 705 of 2775 33 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
► MM -4.2-8: With regards to the adjacent off -site Conservation Area, fencing shall be included into project design that will restrict access by humans and domestic animals into the adjacent Conservation Area. ► MM -4.2-9: With regards to the offsite Conservation Area, all project grading adjacent to the off -site Conservation Area shall be conducted within the boundaries of the development footprint and will not encroach into the MSHCP Conservation Area.
► MM -4.2-10: Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with the MSHCP will provide full mitigation under CEQA for impacts to the species and habitats covered by the MSHCP. Such measures mitigate the indirect project impacts, such as increased run-off, facility lighting, increased noise levels, influx of non-native invasive plant and pet species and human related disturbances, which are also mitigated by the above measures. These measures also mitigate loss of RAFSS.

Level of Significance with Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR: Less Than Significant Impact.
2007 Project EIR: Less Than Significant Impact.

4.4.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would not result in significant direct impacts to existing biological resources; however, it could lead to potential impacts as a result of future development. There are special -status plant and animal species known to occur within the regional vicinity of the Planning Area. Implementation of the MSHCP as part of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative biological impacts at a project -specific level. Impacts to certain species not covered by the MSHCP would be addressed and minimized to a less -than -significant impact with mitigation incorporated by MM-BIO-1. In addition, impacts to nesting birds were considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated with the implementation of MM-BIO-2.

Regarding riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities, the Planning Area contains riparian habitats and sensitive habitats such as the Riverside an Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub and impacts to these natural habitats could result from future development. It was determined that compliance with MSHCP Section 6.1.2 and the implementation of MM-BIO-3 would ensure impacts to riparian/riverine and sensitive habitats would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Regarding state or federally protected wetlands, development proposed within wetland areas would be subject to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 permitting process, the California Wetlands Conservation Policy, and the MSHCP, in addition to the implementation of MM-BIO-3. The 2020 GPU EIR concluded that this would ensure development of future projects approved under the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands that would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The 2020 GPU EIR concluded that future development approved under the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have the potential to result in direct and indirect impacts to migratory species; however, compliance with the MSHCP and MM- BIO-2 would ensure that protections are in place for migratory species such that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. In addition, impacts to local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant with conformance to federal, state, and local policies protecting biological resources discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources. Similarly, the Beaumont 2040 Plan would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan with adherence to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and the MSHCP. 2007 PROJECT EIR
The 2007 Project EIR concluded that the project would result in the removal of 37.4 acres of non-native grassland (NNG) and 3.2 acres of Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSC), but that these acres were not identified as 34 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance
sensitive habitats. Nevertheless, due to the presence of certain trees and shrubs, nesting habitats for birds existed and required the implementation of MM -4.2-1. No plant or animal species listed as threatened or endangered were identified on -site. Three special status wildlife species were identified: LAPM, the San Diego horned lizard, and the black tailed jackrabbit. In response to this, the project was to preserve at least 90 percent of the land suitable for LAPM, consistent with MSHCP policy; however, development of the project would result in a loss of the San Diego horned lizard and black tailed jackrabbit and required MM -4.2-2 and MM -4.2-3. Potential burrows of BUOW individuals were identified and required mitigation of potential impacts.

The 2007 Project EIR concluded that a less -than -significant impact would occur on -site due to the fact that construction of the project would not impact USACE jurisdictional waters, and no impacts were anticipated within Noble Creek, located in the southern portion of the project site. Construction of the project would impact 0.24 acres of non jurisdictional USACE waters, but these waters do not exhibit wetland characteristics, and no significant impacts are anticipated. The California Department of Fish and Game (now the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or CDFW) had 8.89 acres of jurisdiction over the project site, 0.13 acres of which consisted of vegetated riparian habitat.

However, it was found that construction of the project would not impact CDFW jurisdiction and no impacts to Noble Creek or vegetated riparian habitat would occur.

Regarding migratory fish and wildlife species, no MSHCP wildlife movement corridors or linkages were identified within the boundaries of the project site; although there is a linkage located west of the project site, it is separated from the project site by the I-10 freeway ("constrained by I-10 to the east" — MSHCP, Vol. I, Page 3-93), and existing wildlife movement along Noble Creek is constrained by the presence of the I-10 freeway as well. As such, it was concluded that the project would not interfere with existing or proposed wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites and impacts would be less than significant.

In terms of significantly impacting locals plans or ordinances in place to protect biological resources, no oak trees were present on the project site and therefore the project would not conflict with, and therefore not significantly impact, the County's Oak Tree Management Guidelines, and impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Regarding habitat conservation plans, construction of the project was found to have a less than significant impact by meeting the required objectives and policies in the MSHCP.

Indirect impacts from project construction and operation (e.g., increased runoff and pollutants, lighting affecting wildlife, increased noise levels, introduction of non-native plant and pet species, human -related disturbances and habitat degrading behavior [i.e., hiking, pet walking, illegal dumping of trash and landscape clippings]) were determined to be significant with implementation of MM -4.2-4 through MM -4.2-9. Cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant with MM -4.2-10.

4.4.3 Project -Specific Analysis
The current project site remains located on vacant, undeveloped land in proximity to existing low -density residential to the north, commercial land uses to the north, and bordered by Oak Valley Parkway to the north, the I-10 freeway to the west, and more vacant, undeveloped land to the east and south. Although modified in size and updated, the project site is located within the original project site from the 2007 Project EIR. The current project site is currently

28.95 acres which is 70% of the 2007 project approved in the 2007 Project EIR, is subject to the mitigation measures detailed in both the 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 Project EIR regarding biological resources. Therefore, project impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and wildlife species would be mitigated by implementing MM-B1O-1, MM-B1O-2, MM -4.2-1, MM -4.2-2, and MM4.2-3. Impacts were found to be less than significant regarding riparian habitats and federally protected wetlands in the 2007 Project EIR. Because the current project site is 70%of the approved 2007 project site in size (approximately 28.95 acres instead of approximately 41.3 acres), the current project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on riparian habitats and federally protected wetlands. Similarly, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on migratory species, as the project would not interfere with an existing or proposed wildlife corridor or use of a wildlife nursery site. The project would not interfere with a habitat conservation plan and would implement applicable objectives of the MSHCP to ensure compliance of City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 707 of 2775 35 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
measures adopted for the protection of biological resources. Indirect impacts to the current project would be addressed by implementing MM -4.2-4 through MM -4.2-9, and MM -4.2-10 would address the payment fee and compliance with the MSHCP. Project implementation would ensure that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR.

A Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Joint Project Review (JPR) was completed in December 2007 for the proposed project. The JPR (07-03-12- 02) was approved by the RCA and required the conservation of 23.1 acres of sensitive habitat associated with Noble Creek in the southern portion of the project site. 6.0 acres of the conservation area are within Criteria Cell 940 and

17.1 acres of conservation are outside of conservation cells. The currently proposed project is substantially the same as the 2007 project and the RCA concluded that "the project is consistent with both the criteria and other plan requirements. On July 28, 2024, the RCA issued a clerical amendment to the approved JPR which corrected the actual impact and mitigation/conservation acreages that are required for the proposed project. The currently proposed project is consistent with the JPR clerical amendment and no additional MSHCP compliance is required as long as the formal conservation of the 23.1 acres of sensitive habitat is conveyed to the RCA. 36 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
New Ability to No Substantial
MoreSevere Substantially Changefrom
Impacts ReduceSignificant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Cultural Resources.

4.5.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Cultural Resources:
2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR included the following mitigation measures for Cultural Resources:
► MM -4.3-1: Construction clearing trenching and all grading activities shall require monitoring by a qualified archaeologist. Should buried cultural resources be encountered during construction activities, work in that area shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the resource and/or preservation easements can be established. ► MM -4.3-2: If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Adherence to Section 7050.5 is required as a matter of course.
► MM -4.3-3: A qualified vertebrate paleontologist must be retained in order to develop a program to mitigate impacts during excavation activities to paleontological resources located in Pleistocene older Alluvium, or any disturbed surface or subsurface sediments of Alluvium. Excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources, shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. The qualified project Paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading meeting to explain the monitoring program to grading contractors prior to initiation of any earth disturbing construction excavation (grading) activities.

During substantial grading (at depth of more than 5 feet or 1.5 meters), which can potentially encounter significant vertebrate fossils, a supervised paleontological field monitor must be present during earth disturbing construction excavation (grading) activities 100 percent of the time during the grading (SVP 1991). Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially-fossiliferous units described are documented as not present by the project specific geotechnical report, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by the qualified project paleontologist supervising the project -specific mitigation plan, to have low potential to contain fossil resources.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 709 of 2775 37 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
Paleontological monitoring shall occur only for those undisturbed sediments wherein fossil plant or animal remains are found with no associated evidence of human activity or any archaeological context. Therefore, any substantial excavations in the project area, should be monitored closely to detect and professionally collect any fossil remains without impending development.

Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens.

All recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.

Specimens shall be identified, curated to a point of identification, and deposited into a permanent and accredited institution maintaining fossil collections, such as the SBCM or the Geology Department at the University of California in Riverside. The paleontologist shall have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.

Monitoring and salvage of significant paleontological resources shall be consistent with any regulations required by the City of Beaumont, California and the proposed guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology's Measures for Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Non -Renewable Paleontological Resources:

Standard Procedures (SVP 1991).

Upon completion of the construction excavations the Project Paleontologist shall submit a monitoring report of findings and significance for review and approval by the City. The report shall include at least the following elements: dates of paleontological resource surveillance (monitoring), a summary of field and laboratory methodologies, a description of the onsite geology, and a description of the onsite stratigraphy. The report will be a short letter report if no fossils are found. If fossils are found, the report will be longer to include the following items: a catalogue and analysis of any fossils observed and/or salvaged, a brief statement of significance of any salvaged fossils, and the repository where the salvaged fossils were deposited. Submission of the final report of findings to the City of Beaumont signifies the completion of the program to mitigate any development impacts to encountered significant paleontological resources (fossils) to a less than significant level.

Level of Significance with Mitigation Measures
2007 Project EIR: Less Than Significant Impact.

4.5.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would result in a less than significant impact regarding the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as goals, objectives, and policies within the Beaumont 2040 Plan would enact protection measures on identified historic resources and may require cultural resources assessments on a project - specific level to address recommendations and mitigation measures for impacted historic resources. It was determined that the Beaumont 2040 Plan would also have less than significant impacts on archaeological resources and human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, with the incorporation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan's goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to the protection of archaeological resources and regulatory compliance regarding procedures implemented when human remains are discovered, as outlined in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. No mitigation measures were necessary, as all impacts were determined to be less than significant. 38 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance
2007 PROJECT EIR
Once a review of historical imagery and a field survey were completed, the 2007 Project EIR concluded that development of the project would have no impact on historical resources. No buildings, structures, objects, sites, features, or artifacts more than 50 years in age were encountered. Although it was determined that the discovery of archaeological resources and human remains were unlikely, the inadvertent discovery of previously unknown archaeological resources and human remains were concluded to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (MM -4.3-1 and MM -4.3-2, respectively). Paleontological resources, although unlikely as well, were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (MM -4.3-3). Cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of all mitigation measures related to cultural resources.

4.5.3 Project -Specific Analysis
As the current project would be consistent with the underlying zoning and general plan land use designations on - site, the current project as proposed would be consistent with the 2040 Beaumont Plan. The project site is located within the same geographic area of the original 2007 project site, and much of the original findings and impact conclusions are still applicable. A previous Cultural Resources Report was completed as part of the 2007 EIR. This included a California Historic Resources Information System records search with a 0.5 -mile radius of the project site location, conducted by the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) to identify any previously recorded built environment and archaeological resources known to exist within or adjacent to the project site. Ascent also requested a Sacred Lands File be conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to identify any areas of Native American heritage significance. No sensitive cultural resources were identified.

Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-O059 711 of 2775 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent

4.6 ENERGY
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
New Ability to No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Change from
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project
construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Energy.

4.6.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Energy. 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Energy.

4.6.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact with respect to short-term construction impacts of individual projects developed under the Beaumont 2040 Plan, as well as less than significant long-term operational impacts. This is primarily due to short-term construction impacts being temporary in duration and that long-term operational impacts would reflect more sustainably sourced electricity over time, as well as requiring a negligible percentage of existing energy and natural gas consumption which would not significantly adversely affect regional supplies. The 2020 GPU EIR also concluded that the Beaumont 2040 Plan would be consistent with applicable goals, policies, and objectives with respect to energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the use of increasingly more renewable energy sources. Thus, it was determined that impacts would be less than significant. The 2020 GPU EIR also determined that buildout in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, as buildout in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would be subject to the Renewables Portfolio Standard and Sustainable Beaumont Plan, both of which include policies to provide a comprehensive plan to increase the utilization of renewable resources and energy efficient practices during both construction and operation. These impacts were determined to be less than significant or have no impact, respectively. 2007 PROJECT EIR
The 2007 Project EIR did not analyze impacts relating to energy or energy efficiency. This is because in 2007 the Appendix G Checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines used to determine potential environmental impacts from proposed projects did not include a section analyzing energy or energy resources. Therefore, an impact determination was not made.
40 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.6.3 Project -Specific Analysis
The current project would involve the construction of 279,941 square feet of general commercial land uses (retail and restaurant) on a project site of approximately 28.95 acres, whereas the 2007 Project EIR anticipated the project site to be built with 441,709 square -feet on a 41.3 acre site. Because the current project would result in reduced commercial density compared to the assumptions of the 2007 Project EIR, it can be concluded that the current project would result in less demand for energy resources as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed in the 2007 Project EIR, for both construction and operation. In addition, the 2020 GPU EIR assumed that 70 percent of the GC designated areas, such as the project site, would be developed. The current project proposes to develop 279,941 square feet of general commercial land uses, which would result in a Floor Area Ratio of 0.22, which is consistent with the 2020 GPU EIR impact analysis. Therefore, the current project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. As noted in the 2020 GPU EIR, individual projects consistent and approved under the Beaumont 2040 Plan, such as the current project, would have less than significant impacts during both construction and operation. This is because short-term construction impacts being temporary in duration and that long-term operational impacts would reflect more sustainably sourced electricity over time, as well as full buildout of the Beaumont 2040 Plan (including development of the project site) requiring a negligible percentage of existing energy and natural gas consumption, which would not significantly adversely affect regional supplies. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 713 of 2775

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
NewAbilityto No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Change from
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
4) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Geology and Soils.

4.7.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Geology and Soils. 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Geology and Soils. 42 City of Beaumont

S,c_erit
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.7.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact on the environment regarding rupture of a known earthquake and strong seismic ground shaking, as projects proposed under the Beaumont 2040 Plan would be subject to the California Building Code seismic safety standards and requirements which are designed to withstand seismic events typical of the southern California region. The 2020 GPU EIR concluded that impacts involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, would also be less than significant, as projects proposed under the 2020 GPU EIR which are located in liquefaction -prone areas would be required to complete a geotechnical report by a qualified geotechnical engineering professional and incorporate into the project the report's specifications, recommendations, and necessary mitigation measures in order to ensure that the project is geotechnically safe. Impacts involving landslides were determined to be less than significant, as projects would be required to comply with the City's municipal code provisions regarding grading and development on or near landslides. Soil erosion and the loss of topsoil impacts were determined to be less than significant, as projects proposed in the City and County would be required to comply with the Riverside County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit enacted by the Santa Ana River Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This permit places stormwater pollution prevention requirements on development projects to help minimize and prevent soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area would result in a less than significant impact with respect to projects being located on an unstable geologic unit or unstable soil, as projects proposed in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would be subject to completing geotechnical reports, as necessary, and subject to current building code standards and engineering practices. Similarly, it was determined that impacts regarding expansive soils would be less than significant, as individual projects would be required to comply with the CBC design standards as well as complete any required geotechnical reports to determine the extent, if any, of expansive soils. Impacts regarding septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems were found to be less than significant as all septic - using development would comply with provisions of the CBC Chapters 16, 17, and 18, the RWQCB Basin Plan, and the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health's Technical Guidance Manual to ensure project design would be suitable for septic.
2007 PROJECT EIR
The 2007 Project EIR determined that the project would not result in significant impacts to geologic resources or soils, as no known active faults are located on -site, project structures would have been subject to the Uniform Building Code Zone 4 for resistance to seismic shaking and other applicable regulations. It was determined that the potential for the project to result in landslides, liquefaction, expansive soils would be less than significant, as outlined in the geotechnical report conducted by Kleinfelder. Although the project site has a high potential for soil erosion, it was concluded that standard regulations for the issuance of grading permits include erosion control measures during construction and operation and that short-term erosion protection would be required. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

4.7.3 Project Specific Analysis
Geologic conditions analyzed in the 2007 certified EIR have not changed. Based on the findings of the 2007 Project EIR, there are no known faults that pass through the project site, which is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone for fault -rupture hazard as designated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

Although there is no potential for fault rupture to occur on the project site, given its location in southern California and the common occurrence of earthquake faults in the region, and given that the southerly portion of the project site is located within the Beaumont Plain Fault Zone for Riverside County, the project site may experience strong seismic ground shaking from local or regional faults. However, the current project would be subject to CBC Chapter City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 715 of 2775 43 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
16, Structural Design, which identifies design features required to be implemented to minimize the effects of seismic ground shaking. Soils on -site consist of loamy sand, coarse sandy loam, and riverwash, likely from Noble Creek (USDA 2025). According to the geotechnical report completed by Kleinfelder in 2007, due to the relative density content of the soils taken and the depth to groundwater (51.5 feet below ground surface), the project site has a low liquefaction potential. Similarly, the geotechnical report concluded that the project site has a minimal landslide potential since the topography of the project site contains generally flat land with some gentle slopes.

Construction of the current project would involve earth movement and the exposure of soil in order to develop the proposed general commercial land uses, which would temporarily increase erosion susceptibility; however, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ) contains water quality standards and stormwater discharge requirements that apply to construction projects of one acre or more. Since the project would involve the disturbance of approximately 28.95 acres, the project would be subject to the Construction General Permit, which includes the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies sources of pollution that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges and describes and ensures the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants, including silt and soil, in stormwater discharges. Along with following SWPPP BMPs, the proposed project would also be required to implement a dust control plan for construction activities in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, which requires implementation of best available dust control measures (BACM) during active operations capable of generating fugitive dust (SCAQMD 2005). Operation and maintenance of the proposed project would not require additional soil disturbance and would not result in erosion or loss of topsoil. After the proposed project is constructed, there would be a reduction in the area of exposed soil compared to existing conditions, thus limiting the potential for soil erosion to occur.

The soils on the project site were determined to have a low expansion potential, and therefore the current project is not anticipated to encounter expansive soils during project construction activities (2020 General Plan EIR, Section 5.6).

Like the 2007 Project EIR, the current project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The current project would connect to existing sewer facilities and existing treatment facilities.

Although the 2007 Project EIR concluded that paleontological resources were unlikely to occur on -site, the current project would still incorporate MM -4.3-3 to retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist and prepare a program to mitigate potential impacts during excavation activities in case of inadvertent discovery. This mitigation measure would effectively minimize any potential for the current project construction activities involving earth disturbance to a less than significant level. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR. 44 City of Beaumont

S,c_erit
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
New Ability to No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Change from
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The 2020 GPU EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to greenhouse gas. The 2007 EIR did not evaluate the project for greenhouse gas.

4.8.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR includes the following applicable mitigation measures for Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
► MM-GHG-1: In order to address effects of GHG emissions from future development, the City of Beaumont shall evaluate the feasibility of the potential GHG reduction strategies in Table 5.7-F and update the Sustainable Beaumont Plan or similar document every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan's progress toward achieving the City's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving the specified level. The updates shall identify targets for years 2030, 2040, and 2050 and subsequent applicable statewide legislative targets that may be in effect at the time of the update. 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Level of Significance with Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.

4.8.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would reduce the potential for GHG-related impacts from development of individual projects by increasing energy and water efficiency, energy conservation, and use of renewable energy, promoting alternative forms of transportation and investing in infrastructure for public and active transportation, and reducing solid waste, thus reducing GHG emissions. However, MM-GHG-1 was implemented to implement feasible mitigation strategies and monitor progress towards achieving GHG reduction targets. It was concluded that although the Beaumont 2040 General Plan policies and implementation actions would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible, GHG calculations predict emissions in exceedance of the thresholds. Thus, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 717 of 2775 45 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
2007 PROJECT EIR
The 2007 Project EIR did not analyze impacts relating to greenhouse gas emissions. This is because in 2007 the Appendix G Checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines used to determine potential environmental impacts from proposed projects did not include a section analyzing greenhouse gases. The 2007 Project EIR discussed GHG in the context of global warming that neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines mention or provide methodology for analysis of GHG, nor do they provide thresholds, and that evaluation of global warming effects from the project would be entirely speculative as no modeling protocol or significance criteria have been established. Therefore, an impact determination was not made.

4.8.3 Project Specific Analysis
The 2007 Project EIR did not make a significance determination. However, the current project would be approximately a 35 percent reduction in square footage compared to the 2007 project (i.e., the 2007 project proposed commercial uses on approximately 441,709 square feet/41.3 acres of land, whereas the current project proposes 279,941 square feet of commercial uses on approximately 28.95 acres of land, which represents a 37 percent reduction in square footage. Therefore, it can be assumed that the current project would have 35 percent fewer GHG emissions compared to the 2007 project. The 2020 GPU EIR concluded that implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would lead to GHG emissions in exceedance of thresholds, which would lead to a significant and unavoidable impact. The project does not include buildout of the entire Beaumont 2040 Plan; however, the construction and operation of the current project is accounted for within the buildout emissions of the Beaumont 2040 Plan as an individual project. This is because the Beaumont 2040 Plan designated the project site as General Commercial, with an allowable FAR of up to 0.75. The current project would maintain its designation of General Commercial and involve the construction and operation of commercial retail and restaurant uses, with a FAR of 0.22, well within the allowable FAR designation on -site. Therefore, although the 2007 Project EIR did not make a significance determination, GHG emissions from the current project were accounted for in the analysis of the 2020 GPU EIR. In addition, there would be a 37 percent reduction in GHG emissions compared to the 2007 Project EIR.

Further, mitigation measure MM-GHG-1 described above would be implemented to the maximum extent feasible, further reducing GHG emissions from the current project. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR. 46 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
NewAbilityto No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Change from
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
g.

The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Hazard and Hazardous Materials.

4.9.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 20pgag 719 of 2775 47

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent

4.9.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would result in increased transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials in the Planning Area, such as the development of light industrial uses, gas stations, automotive repair shops, and dry cleaners. The transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials are extensively regulated by federal, state and local policies discussed in Section 5.8.2 of the 2020 GPU EIR. It was determined that compliance with these safety regulations would ensure that projects developed and approved under the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The 2020 GPU EIR concluded that development of the Planning Area under the Beaumont 2040 Plan would lead to an increase in the potential for release of hazardous materials into the environment, and that the public could also be exposed to hazardous materials if new development or redevelopment were to be located on a current or historic hazardous site. Similarly, the 2020 GPU EIR determined that with compliance with, and enforcement of, existing safety regulations would ensure that the general public and existing environment would not be exposed to substantial risks related to accidental upset or release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Future land uses developed under the Beaumont 2040 Plan could include commercial uses that emit or handle hazardous materials within 0.25 -miles of an existing or proposed school; however, the 2020 GPU EIR determined that compliance with state statutory and regulatory requirements addressing safety from hazards and adhering to the Beaumont 2040 Plan, which prohibits the siting of commercial and industrial facilities involved in the production, use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials near existing sensitive land uses such as schools, would not result in a significant impact. Through compliance with Health and Safety Code and the Beaumont 2040 Plan, impacts regarding potential risk of exposure to hazardous materials and a consequence of development on a site on a Cortese list would be less than significant. No airports exist within the Planning Area, and as a result the 2020 GPU EIR concluded that an impact regarding exposure to excessive noise proximate to airports would have a less than significant impact.

Adherence to the Beaumont 2040 Plan goals and policies regarding emergency response and evacuation and individual project review would ensure that project developed under the Beaumont 2040 Plan would not conflict with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Similarly, the 2020 GPU EIR concluded that compliance with federal, state, and local regulations related to wildland fire hazards and implementation of the goals, policies, and objectives of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact on the potential to expose people or structures directly or indirectly to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. 2007 PROJECT EIR
The 2007 Project EIR determined that the project would be required to comply with state law and City municipal code restrictions regarding hazards and hazardous materials. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was completed to determine the project site's historical uses and the potential for on -site contamination. The results of the Phase I ESA found that the project site was not located on a hazardous materials site, and a database search which revealed no sites of concern listed at or adjacent to the project site. The Phase I ESA disclosed that the existence of past agricultural activities on -site and in adjacent areas indicated a potential for pesticide and/or heavy metal (associated with dusting powders) contamination, but without specific evidence of pesticides storage or past documentation of mismanagement on the project site, collection and analysis of soil samples was unwarranted. It was concluded that no significant hazard to the public or environment was expected to result from the construction and operation of the project, and as a result, implementation of the project would have a less than significant impact to hazards and hazardous materials.
48 City of Beaumont

Asceni CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.9.3 Project Specific Analysis
Construction of the current project's proposed development of 279,941 square feet of general commercial land uses may involve temporary hazards related to the use and transport of hazardous materials, including those used for typical construction activities (i.e., diesel fuel, motor oil, basic or acidic chemicals, etc.). Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous construction -related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the SCAQMD, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials (County EHHM). The County EHHM serves as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), which is charged with the responsibility of conducting compliance inspections for regulated facilities in the County that handle hazardous materials above certain quantities (e.g., a retail use that sells cleaning supplies). Use of any hazardous materials during operation of the project would be regulated by the CUPA through a Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory. Compliance with state and local regulations and the CUPA would ensure that project construction and operation would not create a hazard related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials beyond what was analyzed in the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR. This impact would be less than significant.

As determined by the 2007 Phase I ESA, the DTSC EnviroStor Database, and the SWRCB GeoTracker database, the project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site (DTSC 2025; SWRCB 2025). No evidence of the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or materials was identified at the project site, which was undeveloped land at the time and remains as undeveloped land under existing conditions. No new development on -site has occurred since the completion of the 2007 Phase I ESA that might otherwise have introduced new land uses requiring the handling, storage, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. No schools are located within 0.25 -miles of the project site. The nearest school, Three Rings Ranch Elementary School, is located 0.65 -miles southeast of the project site, and project construction and operation would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 -miles of Three Rings Ranch Elementary School. As discussed in the 2020 GPU EIR, there are no airports within the Planning Area, which includes the project site. The nearest airport is Banning Municipal Airport located 8 miles southeast of the project site. As a result, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area as a result of operations from the Banning Municipal Airport.

The current project would result in construction activities that could temporarily affect roadways as a result of partial lane closures. This could affect emergency response times or evacuation routes. Additionally, the current project would increase the number of people who may need to evacuate the project area in the event of an emergency.

However, all roadway improvements proposed by the project would be constructed based on industry and City design standards, rules, and regulations. The project would also comply with the Fire Department requirements pertaining to access/egress to ensure adequate emergency access. The project would also be subject to the goals and policies of the Beaumont 2040 Plan that govern adequate emergency vehicle response and evacuations.

Therefore, the current project square footage is 63% of the 2007 project, would generate less traffic, and would not conflict with or impair the implementation of or interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. The project site is not located within a fire hazard severity zone, as established by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) (CAL FIRE 2024). Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the current project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 72 i of 2775 49 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
NewAbilityto No Substantial
MoreSevere Substantially Changefrom
Impacts ReduceSignificant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of stream or river or through the
addition of impervious services, in a manner
which would:

1. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site?

2. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite?

3. Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?

4. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality.

4.10.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Hydrology and Water Quality.
2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Hydrology and Water Quality.
50 City of Beaumont

S,c_erit
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.10.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have the potential to result in discharges from soil disturbance that could violate water quality standards if not adequately addressed. Consistent with the goals and policies of the Beaumont 2040 Plan, construction of individual projects consistent with and approved under the Beaumont 2040 Plan that are greater than one acre in size would be subject to the SWRCB NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires the preparation of a SWPPP to describe targeted erosion and sediment BMPs in order to prevent stormwater pollution during construction. Individual projects regardless of size would be subject to Title 13 of the City's municipal code, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, to minimize the potential for erosion. Through compliance with the goals and policies of the Beaumont 2040 Plan, construction of individual projects consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would not violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. In terms of operation, pursuant to the Riverside County MS4 Permit, qualifying new development and large redevelopment projects are required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) or similar demonstration of post - construction methods to mitigate downstream impacts to flooding and water quality. Further, the 2020 GPU EIR determined that projects developed in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would be required to incorporate sustainable stormwater management practices, including Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to improve stormwater quality and reduce runoff quantity during operation. It was concluded that implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact on water quality standards and waste discharge requirements and would not result in a significant impact on groundwater quality.

The Beaumont -Cherry Valley Water District (BCVWD) supplies water to the City of Beaumont and anticipated that significant growth within the City would be met through maximizing local groundwater production, purchasing more imported water, and increasing recycled water distribution. Because groundwater supplies comprise the bulk of the City's water demand, it was concluded that expanding water supplies and reducing water demand through conservation, while also setting aside land for active and passive recharge would be necessary by both the City and BCVWD. Compliance with the goals, policies, and objectives of Section 5.9.2 and 5.9.3 of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would allow for more recharge opportunities, ensure adequate funding for water facilities, and ensure planning for water infrastructure and testing of water quality. Therefore, it was determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact on decreasing groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be impeded.

The 2020 GPU EIR concluded that implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan goals policies, and implementation actions in Section 5.9.2 and existing regulations discussed in Section 5.9.2 of the Plan, erosion and siltation impacts from changes to existing drainage patterns and increased imperviousness from further buildout and development consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would be less than significant. Similarly, the 2020 GPU EIR concluded that implementation of Beaumont 2040 Plan goals, policies, and implementation actions in Section 5.9.3 and existing regulations discussed in Section 5.9.2, flooding impacts from changes to the existing drainage patterns and increasing imperviousness from further buildout and development consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would be less than significant. Future projects consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan were also determined to have a less than significant impact regarding redirecting or impeding flood flows, with compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of Section 5.9.2 and 5.9.3 of the Beaumont 2040 Plan.

With compliance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan Chapter 15.24, Flood Management, the 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact on substantially affecting existing risk of flood hazard. The City is located approximately 52 miles from the nearest ocean, the Pacific Ocean, and therefore no impacts were anticipated regarding tsunami. Future projects developed consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan might propose community lakes or ponds, although likely not large enough to create seiche; nevertheless, these particular projects would be required to comply with the Beaumont 2040 Plan City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 723 of 2775 51 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
goals and policies to mitigate potential flooding discussed in Sections 5.9.2 and 5.9.3. Thus, these impacts were determined to be less than significant.

As discussed above, which describes measures put in place in order to ensure future development consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan has a less than significant impact on surface and groundwater quality, these same measures would also ensure that future development does not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the Beaumont Basin Watermaster Committee, specifically Section 5.9.3 of the Beaumont 2040 Plan consisting of policies to support the monitoring, protection, and development of groundwater resources consistent with the tasks of the Watermaster.

Impacts were determined to be less than significant.
2007 PROJECT EIR
The 2007 Project EIR determined that the project would alter the natural drainage pattern of the existing undeveloped project site. Approximately 87 percent of the existing project site, once constructed, would be impervious to water, which would increase surface water flow. In order to address the potential impacts to existing surface runoff conditions of Noble Creek, a hydraulics analysis was completed. This analysis concluded that a detention basin would need to be constructed as part of the project in order to avoid a significant impact to the existing natural surface runoff rates. The detention basin was designed to accommodate flows from a 100 -year storm event, which was concluded to be able to minimize drainage pattern impacts associated with an increase in surface runoff from the project to a less than significant level. The 2007 Project EIR also concluded that development of the project with the proposed detention basin would be sufficient to avoid a significant impact to the hydraulics of Noble Creek during a 100 -year storm event and would not result in a significant impact with respect to flood flows. It was determined that there was no substantial risk or potential for tsunami, as the project site was over 50 miles from the nearest ocean, the Pacific Ocean. All impacts were determined to be less than significant.

4.10.3 Project Specific Analysis
Consistent with the findings of the 2007 Project EIR, the current project's construction activities may impact existing water quality and discharges during construction. As noted in the 2020 GPU EIR, both state and local regulations would effectively reduce construction stormwater runoff impacts from new development, such as the current project.

As construction activities would disturb one or more acres of land, the current project would be subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements, which describes the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that includes erosion controls, sediment controls, waste and materials management, non-stormwater management, training and education, and inspections, maintenance, monitoring, and sampling. Implementation of the SWPPP and compliance with Title 14 of the City's municipal code, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, would ensure the current project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. In addition, a Preliminary WQMP was completed to address the current project's post - construction (i.e., operational) runoff characteristics and expected pollutant loads once fully built. The Preliminary WQMP would be prepared and approved prior to the issuance of grading permits for the construction of the project and would specify LID practices and post -construction BMPs which would be incorporated into the current project's design to capture and treat stormwater runoff; this would reduce pollutants of concern before conveying stormwater runoff into the City's storm drain system and ultimately to the Santa Ana River. Further, the 2020 GPU EIR determined that projects developed in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan, such as the current project, would be required to incorporate sustainable stormwater management practices, including LID techniques to improve stormwater quality and reduce runoff quantity during operation. Adherence to regulatory compliance requirements regarding the Construction General Permit, SWPPP, Title 13 of the City's municipal code, and the WQMP enforced by the Santa Ana RWQCB, would ensure that water quality and waste discharge requirements are not violated.

The BCVWD maintains an Urban Water Management Plan that forecasts water supply and demand under normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry year conditions, assesses supply reliability, and describes methods of reducing demands under potential water shortages. The 2020 UWMP adopted in 2021 is based in part on the land uses planned as part of the Beaumont 2040 Plan adopted in 2020. Therefore, projects consistent with the land use designations and 52 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance
zoning of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would be accounted for in the water supply and demand estimations of the 2020 UWMP. The project site's land use designation is General Commercial, or GC, with a maximum FAR of 0.75. The current project would maintain the existing GC land use designation and include 279,941 square feet of general commercial land uses (including commercial retail and restaurant), which would result in a FAR of 0.22. Therefore, the current project would be consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan. Because of this, the current project's water demand would also be accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. The 2020 UWMP concluded that during any normal year conditions, the BCVWD would expect a surplus of water supply; during drought conditions (single- and multiple -dry years), the BCVWD would expect to benefit from utilizing groundwater stored in the Beaumont Basin to augment any shortfalls in supply from surface water and would also implement various reduction actions to conserve water of up to 40 percent of normal demands during extreme water supply shortages. Because the 2020 UWMP demonstrates that the BCVWD would have sufficient water supplies, including groundwater, to meet water demands within the district through 2045, it can therefore be concluded that the current project's demand for potable water would not result in the significant depletion of groundwater supplies.

In addition, based on the 2007 Project EIR, the 2007project proposed 441,709 square feet of commercial uses on 41.3 acres of land; however, the proposed commercial uses of the current project would now be developed on only 28.95 acres of land. Due to this reduction in on -site intensity as compared to the 2007 Project EIR, the current project would result in a decrease in the amount of water demand generated and a reduction in the amount of impervious surfaces (and thus greater infiltration for groundwater recharge) compared to what was originally analyzed under the 2007 Project EIR. Because the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, impacts would be less than significant.

Regarding substantially altering existing drainage patterns such that substantial erosion or siltation would occur, substantially increase surface runoff that would result in flooding, create or contribute runoff that would exceed existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or impede or redirect flood flows, under existing conditions the project site is vacant and undeveloped. During construction, the current project would increase erosion susceptibility by introducing impervious surfaces, such as asphalt for proposed parking areas and building structures. As previously discussed, the project would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit, including a SWPPP and Preliminary WQMP. The SWPPP and Preliminary WQMP must identify and implement an effective combination of erosion and sediment control measures to reduce or eliminate stormwater discharge, including erosion and siltation. Therefore, runoff flows exiting the project site would be minimized through regulatory compliance to ensure that drainage and erosion impacts would be less than significant.

As shown in General Plan EIR Figure 5.9.3, Flood Hazard Zones, the project site is not located within a flood zone or flood plain. Nevertheless, the current project would install a detention/water quality basin on -site to minimize the volume and velocity of runoff. Consistent with the 2007 Project EIR, the proposed detention basin would still be constructed to accommodate flows from a 100 -year storm event from Noble Creek, located to the south. This would be consistent with the 2020 GPU EIR by complying with City's municipal code Chapter 16.44, Flood Control and Tract Drainage and complying with the Beaumont 2040 Plan Policies 3.11.5, Policy 7.4.3, and 9.8.4. This detention/water quality basin would ensure that flood flows would not be significantly impeded, and a less -than -significant impact would occur.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 725 of 2775 53 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
NewAbilityto No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Change from
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Land Use.

4.11.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Land Use and Planning.
2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Land Use and Planning.

4.11.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR concluded that no physical division of an established community would result from the implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan. There would be no new large-scale changes to land use, especially to open space, that would physically divide an established community, and the policies of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would serve to connect and enhance new growth areas together with established City neighborhoods. This impact was determined to be less than significant. Regarding conflicting with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact, the 2020 GPU EIR concluded that implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact; this was due to: (1) the Beaumont 2040 Plan is intended to clarify existing policies, correct errors and oversights, and provide additional guidance to further the physical growth of the City and would enhance (rather than conflict with) existing land use plans, policies, and regulations; (2) as part of meeting state requirements, the City's Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map would be required to conform to the proposed land uses of the Beaumont 2040 Plan to eliminate and conflict and inconsistencies between documents; (3) goals and implementation measures in the Beaumont 2040 Plan would address the City's cooperation with other cross -border agencies to develop and implement regional plans for groundwater, drainage, and solid waste, and would be consistent with other applicable plans such as the MSHCP, greenhouse gas reduction plans, mineral resources, and the 2016-2040 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). For these reasons, the 2020 GPU EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant. 2007 PROJECT E I R
The 2007 Project EIR concluded that the project's proposed commercial uses within an area designated for commercial uses, surrounded by recreational, residential, and proposed commercial land uses to the north, the I-10 freeway and proposed commercial uses to the west, and proposed residential uses to the south and east, would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur. The project would be consistent with the City of Beaumont
54 Page 726 Of° ey Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 2024-0059

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance
General Plan and Zoning Code by establishing commercial uses on commercially designated land and therefore would be consistent with the governing land use plan. The 2007 Project EIR also concluded that the project would not conflict with the MSHCP, as discussed under Section 4.2, "Biological Resources," of the 2007 Project EIR. This impact was determined to have a less than significant impact.

4.11.3 Project Specific Analysis
Under existing conditions, the project site is vacant and undeveloped land. Oak Valley Parkway is located to the north and commercial, open space, and low -density residential is located further north. Noble Creek and undeveloped land is located to the east and south, and further south are low -density residential homes. The I-10 freeway is located west of the project site, along with undeveloped land and low -density residential further west. The current project would not affect physically divide an established community. The current project would remain consistent with the findings of the 2007 Project EIR and the 2020 GPU EIR analysis of the Beaumont 2040 Plan. The current project proposes general commercial development (commercial retail and restaurant) on land designated by the Beaumont 2040 Plan as general commercial with a maximum FAR of 0.75. The proposed FAR would be 0.22, consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan. As discussed in Section 4.4, "Biological Resources," the current project would not conflict with other governing land use plan, policy, or regulation, such as the MSHCP. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 727 of 2775 5 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
NewAbilityto No Substantial
MoreSevere Substantially Changefrom
Impacts ReduceSignificant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Mineral Resources.

4.12.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Mineral Resources. 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Mineral Resources.

4.12.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have no impact on mineral resources because the City has no known or identified mineral resources of regional or statewide importance, as shown in General Plan EIR Figure 5.11-1, Mineral Resources, in the 2020 GPU EIR. The City is located in Mineral Resource Zone 3, where the significance of mineral resources is undetermined. Development of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would not restrict access to mineral resources outside of the Planning Area; therefore, it was determined that the Beaumont 2040 Plan and its Revised Zoning Map would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource and that this impact was less than significant. Although the previous Zoning Ordinance had a Mineral Resources Overlay Zone (Section 17.03.160 of the City's municipal code) neither the City's 2006 General Plan, Zoning Map, or any specific plan within the Planning Area identified a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, it was determined that this impact was less than significant. 2007 PROJECT E I R
The 2007 Project EIR concluded that no significant amount of mineral deposits had been found in the City and there are no potentially significant mineral resources within the project site. It was determined that development of the project would result in a less than significant impact.

4.12.3 Project Specific Analysis
The current project proposes similar general commercial land uses as the 2007 Project EIR. However, there would be an overall reduction in size, from the original 441,709 square feet/41.3 acres proposed in 2007 to 279,941 square feet/28.95 acres for the current project. In addition, the 2007 Project EIR found that no significant amounts of mineral 56 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance
deposits have been found in the City, and General Plan EIR Figure 5.11 of the 2040 GPU EIR showed that there were no locally important mineral resource recovery sites. Therefore, the current project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource and would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 729 of 2775

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent

4.13 NOISE
Would the project result in:

New
Significant
Impact
New Ability to No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Change from
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Noise.

4.13.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU did not include mitigation measures for Noise. 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Noise.

Level of Significance with Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR: No feasible mitigation existed at a programmatic level regarding the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. As a result, this impact was concluded as a Significant and Unavoidable Impact.

4.13.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to generating a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Specifically, it was concluded that buildout of the Beaumont 2040 Plan could lead to a potential exceedance of future noise levels along major roadways and for sensitive receptors (see Table 5.12-H in the 2020 GPU EIR). Since existing conditions already exceed the City and state noise standards, as well as exceeding acceptable noise increase standards from the Federal Transit Administration, impacts from permanent noise were considered significant and unavoidable. The 2020 GPU EIR determined that compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 9.02 of the City's municipal code and the Beaumont 2040 Plan policies and implementation actions would limit construction hours, identify appropriate project -specific mitigation, and reduce construction -related vibration 58 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance
impacts, resulting in a less than significant regarding generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Due to the fact that the nearest airport, Banning Municipal Airport, located approximately five miles east of the City, the 2020 GPU EIR concluded that buildout of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would result in a less than significant impact regarding whether buildout would expose people residing or working in the City to excessive airport noise levels.
2007 PROJECT E I R
The 2007 Project EIR determined that the project would have a less than significant impact regarding construction noise impacts, with compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and restricting the hours of construction from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Similarly, operational noise impacts were found to be less than significant due to noise attenuation loss created by the separation of the project site and its distance to sensitive receptors, along with the proximity of the I-10 freeway east and adjacent to the project site, which created an elevated ambient noise environment at and near the project site. Traffic noise impacts would also be less than significant, as it was calculated that construction and operation of the project would not increase traffic noise levels by more than one decibel. Vibration impacts and impacts related to exposure to excessive airport noise were also determined to be less than significant.

4.13.3 Project Specific Analysis
The 2007 project originally proposed 441,709 square feet of general commercial uses on approximately 41.3 acres of the 60.5 acres project site. The current project would develop 279,941 square feet of general commercial retail and restaurant uses on approximately 28.95 acres on -site, reducing the projectsquare footage by 37 percent in size.

Because the current project would result in reduced commercial density compared to the assumptions of the 2007 Project EIR, it can be concluded that the current project would result in reduced impacts regarding noise as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed in the 2007 Project EIR, for both construction and operation.

Therefore, consistent with the 2007 Project EIR findings, the current project would not have a significant impact regarding noise impacts. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 731 of 2775

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
New Ability to No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Change from
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Population and Housing.

4.14.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Population and Housing.
2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Population and Housing.

4.14.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would allow for new residential and nonresidential development leading to an estimated 18 percent growth rate at buildout.

The Beaumont 2040 Plan was developed to accommodate projected population increases and make sure that the City made efficient and appropriate use of its land. It was concluded that the implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would not result in a substantial increase in population growth due to the fact that the City planned for the growth forecasts in the Beaumont 2040 Plan. Implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan focused future growth development of the downtown area, industrial and commercial development, and residential, and it was concluded that new development and infill development would not result in displacement of a substantial number of people or housing units. There are no existing developed land uses onsite. These impacts were determined to be less than significant.
2007 PROJECT EIR
The 2007 Project EIR concluded that the project was consistent with the Beaumont General Plan, which intended to meet the needs of the City, including the demand for more commercial development. No displacement of housing would occur as a result of the project. For these reasons, these impacts were determined to be less than significant. It can be assumed that the currently proposed project will generate approximately 63% of the employees generated by the 2007 project.
60 City of Beaumont

Ascc CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.14.3 Project Specific Analysis
The current project would involve the development of 279,941 square feet of general commercial land uses, specifically 247,868 square feet of commercial retail and 32,073 square feet of commercial restaurant, generating approximately 200 employees. These proposed land uses would be consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan, which designates the project site as General Commercial with a maximum allowable FAR of 0.75. The current project would develop general commercial land uses on the project site and would result in a FAR of 0.22. Further, the Beaumont 2040 Plan estimates that total future employment for the City will increase by 38,224 employees by 2040. General Plan EIR Table 5.13-K, Employment Forecasts, of the 2020 GPU EIR specifically shows that the Retail/Service land use designation would introduce approximately 9.5 million square feet of new development and generate approximately 8,170 new jobs.

Therefore, the current project's proposed square footage and employment generation would be well within the estimated forecasts and growth projections of the 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 Project EIR. Additionally, the current project would not extend any roadways or utilities in a manner that would indirectly induce substantial unplanned growth in the immediate vicinity of the project site or elsewhere. The current project would introduce development in an area that has existing infrastructure systems designed and sized to accommodate development of the project site.

No people or housing would be displaced as a result of the current project's implementation. Under existing conditions, the project site is vacant, undeveloped land, and as such, the current project's proposed general commercial land uses do not have the potential to result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 733 of 2775

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
New Ability to No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Change from
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Public Services.

4.15.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Public Services. 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Public Services.

4.15.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would generate the need for approximately 30 new fire stations. The City has access to 23 fire stations and would therefore need to build seven new fire stations with the proposed buildout of the Beaumont 2040 Plan. Each project applicant would be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) for fire protection services pursuant to Beaumont 2040 Plan implementation measures LUSD-6 and S11 to offset each project's related demand on existing fire protection services. These DIF would help fund the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and identify improvements and new fire station sites in response to City growth proposed in, and consistent with, the Beaumont 2040 Plan. The 2020 GPU EIR concluded that the implementation of DIF would ensure that as each future project is developed, adequate fire protection and emergency and medical services would be provided. All future development would be constructed in compliance with the California Fire Code as adopted by the City's municipal code Section 15.20.

Additionally, prior to any new development, all project plans would be required to be submitted to the fire marshal for review. Impacts to fire protection services were concluded to be less than significant. 62 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance
Buildout of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a significant impact on police services, which did not meet the City's standards and ratio of one police officer per 1,000 persons. Continued buildout of the City under the Beaumont 2040 Plan would result in increased demand on existing services at that time, which were already impacted. The 2020 GPU EIR concluded that in order to fund police protection services, the City would annex new residential developments into the City so as to help fund public safety and municipal services provided, such as police protection, which aligns with the Beaumont 2040 Plan Policy 5.9.1. Through the implementation of applicable policies of the Beaumont 2040 Plan, including the annexation of certain areas, it was concluded that the City would be able to meet the ratio of one police officer per 1,000 persons, and it was determined that this impact was less than significant.

Based on the buildout of the Beaumont 2040 Plan and Beaumont Unified School District (BUSD) growth projections, the City would require one new elementary, middle, and high school, for a total of three new schools, in order to accommodate future development in the City. As projects proposed under the Beaumont 2040 Plan are proposed, project applicants would be required to pay Alternative School Fees to reduce the impact of development on existing school facilities. It was determined that through the implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan Policy 7.10.1 and compliance with AB 2926 and SB 50, impacts to schools would be less than significant.

At the time of the 2020 GPU EIR, the Beaumont Library District (BLD) provided 0.17 square foot per capita (per person), and the generally accepted ratio is 0.5 to 1 square foot of space per capita. A continuation of development under the Beaumont 2040 Plan was expected to continue to impact this ratio until adequate facilities were provided.

It was concluded that implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would result in the development of vacant properties which would increase property tax revenue for the BLD to utilize and appropriate for new and improved library facilities. For this reason, it was determined that impacts to other public facilities, such as libraries, would be less than significant.
2007 PROJECT EIR
The 2007 Project EIR concluded that the project would not have significant impacts on response times or fire protection due to the implementation of the project. Fire Station 66 was closest to the project site, located at 628 Maple Street, approximately 3 miles southeast of the project site. Fire Station 66 would likely have around a four to five-minute response time, due to its proximity to the project site. Design of the project would be required to comply with the RCFD safety standards to ensure that adequate fire protection improvements (e.g., hydrants, water flow, fuel modification zones, street design, and access) were appropriately provided. It was determined that compliance with the RCFD would result in a less than significant impact on fire protection services.

The 2007 Project EIR concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on police protection services due to implementation of the project. The closest BPD station is located at 660 Orange Avenue, approximately 3 miles southeast of the project site; however, implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would result in the need for an additional three police officers. To offset the costs of increased demand on police services, project applicants would be required to existing funding mechanisms via property taxes to offset additional police protection services needed for the City, as a result of General Plan buildout. It was determined that through the payment of DIF and property taxes and compliance with BPD requirements reduced impacts to police protection services to less -than -significant.

It was determined that the project could indirectly add students to the BUSD since the project would generate employees; however, with the payment of DIF to the BUSD, impacts would be less than significant. Regarding other public facilities, such as libraries, it was determined that the project would have a less than significant impact on existing demand on libraries with the payment of DIF.

4.15.3 Project Specific Analysis
As previously established, the current project's proposed general commercial (retail and restaurant) uses would be consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan land use designation of General Commercial on the project site. The previous 2007 Project EIR proposed 441,709 square feet of commercial land uses on approximately 41.3 acres; however, the current project proposes 279,941 square feet of general commercial land uses on approximately 28.95 City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 735 of 2775 63 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
acres, resulting in a reduction of development compared to what was previously analyzed. It is anticipated that the current project would generate approximately 200 employees, which is lower than the assumptions made based on the 2007 Project EIR. Therefore, the current project's employee generation would not exceed what was assumed for the project site by the 2007 Project EIR. The proposed project does not include any residential land uses which would directly result in an increase in demand for public services including parks, schools, and libraries.

With the payment of mandatory property taxes and DIF pursuant to the Beaumont 2040 Plan, which established policies to provide funding for fire protection, police protection, schools, and public libraries, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR. 64 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.16 RECREATION
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
NewAbilityto No Substantial
MoreSevere Substantially Changefrom
Impacts ReduceSignificant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Recreation.

4.16.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Recreation. 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Recreation.

4.16.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would increase demand on recreation facilities from development of new residential uses. However, the Beaumont 2040 Plan contains Policies 3.6.3, 3.11.1, 5.8.3, and 6.3.1, as well as Implementation Measure CF124, all of which required new development to maintain, improve, and/or pay DIF to reduce and offset the increased demand of parks from projects proposed consistent with the Beaumont 2040 Plan. It was determined that this impact would be less than significant.

The 2020 GPU EIR concluded that a total of 415 new acres of parkland would be needed to comply with the City's park standard of five acres per 1,000 persons; based on the number of open space and parks, implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan goals, policies, and the Revised Zoning Ordinance would not have a significant impact on maintaining acceptable standards for parks and recreational facilities. It was concluded that this impact was less than significant.
2007 PROJECT E I R
The 2007 Project EIR concluded that the project would not include residential, which might otherwise directly increase demand on parks and recreational facilities, but that the project might indirectly increase population through the generation of new jobs and employees, which could lead to an increased burden on neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities. At the time, the City's General Plan required that the ratio of five acres per 1,000 persons be maintained and paid through DIF for projects that propose residential. The project proposed commercial uses and therefore the project was not required to provide DIF for parklands. This impact was determined to be less than significant.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 20paga9 737 of 2775 65

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent

4.16.3 Project Specific Analysis
As with the 2007 project, the current project does not propose residential uses. The current project involves the development of an approximately 28.95 -acre project site with general commercial land uses (retail and restaurant) and provides on -site parking. All new projects proposing residential under the Beaumont 2040 Plan are required to maintain the City's standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. However, since the current project would not directly generate residents, it is not required to pay DIF. The previous 2007 Project EIR proposed 441,709 square feet of commercial land uses on approximately41.3 acres; however, the current project proposes 279,941 square feet of general commercial land uses on approximately 28.95 acres, resulting in a reduction of development compared to what was previously analyzed. As a result, more land adjacent to the project site would remain undeveloped and available to the City and future developers for park space or open space compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2007 Project EIR. Therefore, implementation of the current project would have a less than significant impact on parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR. 66 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
NewAbilityto No Substantial
MoreSevere Substantially Changefrom
Impacts ReduceSignificant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Transportation.

4.17.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Transportation. 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR included the following mitigation measures for Transportation:
► MM -4.6-1: Complete half -section street improvements for Oak Valley Parkway where adjacent to the project site. ► MM -4.6-2: Participate in the funding of installing the traffic signals at all study area intersections (Oak Valley Parkway at the following streets: I-10 southbound ramps, I-10 northbound ramps, Golf Club Drive, and Elm Avenue). The proposed project's fair -share contribution is shown in Table 4.6-11. This contribution was based upon a comparison of the project's traffic to the total Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project traffic. The fair - share analysis shown in Table 4.6-12 is based upon a comparison of the project's traffic to the total Year 2030 With Project traffic.
► MM -4.6-3: Participate in a pro -rata share of off -site roadway improvements (including those to the Oak Valley Parkway bridge) based upon the fair -share analysis or participate in any City of Beaumont adopted Roadway Fee Program. The proposed project's pro -rata share is shown in Tables 4.6-11 and 4.6-12. ► MM -4.6-4: Stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends shall be provided at all right-in/right-out project site access points. "Right Turn Only" signage shall also be installed at these locations. ► MM -4.6-5: In conjunction with the preparation of precise grading and landscape plans, sight distance shall be reviewed at all project access points per City of Beaumont standards.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 20pgag 739 of 2775 67

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance
Ascent
General Plan EIR Table 4.6-11 Project Fair -Share Intersection Contribution for Project Buildout (Year 2009) Conditions Existing Traffic
Project Buildout
(Year 2009)
With Project
Growth In
Traffic
Project Time
Project % of
Buildout (2009)
In
Traffic
Intersection
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Desert Lawn Drive (NS) at
Oak Valley Parkway (EW)
441
361
1,906
2,398
1,465
2,037
38 130

2.6%

6.4%
1 10 Southbound Ramps (NS)
at Oak Valley Parkway (EW)
648
756
2,892
4,167
2,244
3,411
114
393

5.1%

11.5%
1 10 Northbound Ramps (NS)
at Oak Valley Parkway (EW)
1,038
1,002
3,661
5,232
2,623
4,230
196
652

7.5%

15.4 Golf Club Drive (NS) at Oak
Valley Parkway (EW)
953
887
3,405
5,032
2,452
4,145
362
1,193

14.8%

28.8%
Oak View Drive (NS) at Oak
Valley Parkway (EW)
1,208
964
3,334
4,454
2,054
3,490
329
1,102

16.0%

31.6%
Elm Avenue (NS) at Oak
Valley Parkway (EW)
963
847
2,539
3,351
1,576
2,504
156
521

9.9%

20.8%
Beaumont Avenue (NS) at
Oak Valley Parkway (EW)
1,871
2,169
3,592
4,315
1,721
2,146
117
390

6.8%

18.2%
General Plan EIR Table 4.6-12 Project Fair -Share Intersection Contribution for Year 2030 Conditions Existing Traffic
Project Buildout
(Year 2009)
With Project
Growth
In
Traffic
Project Time
Project % of
Buildout (2009)
Growth In
Traffic
Intersection
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Desert Lawn Drive (NS) at
Oak Valley Parkway (EW)
441
361
3,140
3,964
2,669
3,603
38 130

1.4%

3.6%
110 Southbound Ramps (NS)
at Oak Valley Parkway (EW)
648
756
4,202
5,353
3,554
4,597
114
393

3.2%

8.5%
1 10 Northbound Ramps (NS)
at Oak Valley Parkway (EW)
1,038
1,002
4,830
5,861
3,792
4,859
196
652

5.2%

13.4%
Golf Club Drive (NS) at Oak
Valley Parkway (EW)
953
887
4,275
4,785
3,322
3,898
362
1,193

10.9%

30.6%
Oak View Drive (NS) at Oak
Valley Parkway (EW)
1,208
964
3,710
4,559
2,430
3,595
329
1,102

13.5%

30.7%
Elm Avenue (NS) at Oak
Valley Parkway (EW)
963
847
2,721
3,433
1,758
2,586
156
521

8.9%

20.1%
Beaumont Avenue (NS) at
Oak Valley Parkway (EW)
1,871
2,169
4,742
5,129
2,871
2,960
117
390

4.1%

13.2%
Level of Significance with Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR: No feasible mitigation existed at a programmatic level regarding whether the project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, subdivision (b). As a result, this impact was concluded as a Significant and Unavoidable Impact. All other impacts were deemed Less Than Significant Impact. 2007 Project EIR: Less Than Significant Impact.
68 City of Beaumont

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.17.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would provide a comprehensive circulation system that would accommodate increased demand in public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; it was found that the Beaumont 2040 Plan did not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, roadway, bicycle, golf cart, or pedestrian facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities. The Beaumont 2040 Plan included policies supporting complete streets (streets that are accessible to all users of all ages and abilities), and would have a less than significant impact. Regarding whether the Beaumont 2040 Plan would conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), the 2020 GPU EIR concluded that significant and unavoidable impacts would occur because thresholds would be exceeded and no feasible mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce this impact. In terms of substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), the 2020 GPU EIR concluded that the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact with adherence to existing law and implementation of the proposed Policies 3.7.1, 3.8.3, 4.2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.3,

6.6.1, 6.6.2, and 6.6.3. The 2020 GPU EIR concluded that implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact on emergency access.
2007 PROJECT EIR
The traffic analysis in the 2007 EIR was based upon intersection capacity utilization (ICU) / Level of Service (LOS) metrics that were required at the time. Since 2018. CEQA traffic impact analysis is based upon Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) which is the total number of generated trips multiplied by the average trip length. For this reason, it is difficult to compare the traffic impacts associated with the 2007 project and the currently proposed project. The 2007 Project EIR concluded that the project would have significant impacts related to LOS at studied intersections. 14,458 average daily trips (ADT) would occur at buildout of the 2007 project. No impacts were anticipated regarding air traffic, as the nearest airport, Banning Municipal Airport, is located approximately eight miles east of the project site. Regarding hazards and incompatible uses, implementation of the project design would have had a less than significant impact on existing street configuration and proposed commercial land uses were determined not to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. The 2007 Project EIR concluded that the project would have a significant impact on emergency access, since all study intersections with the exception of Oak Valley Drive at Oak Valley Parkway and Elm Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway were expected to operate at unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hour conditions. The project proposed an adequate number of parking stalls for the proposed commercial retail land uses and was found to have no impact regarding providing on -site parking. The 2007 Project EIR concluded that implementation of the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation and transit opportunities and that impacts were less than significant.

4.17.3 Project Specific Analysis
The current project would be developed on existing vacant, undeveloped land and would not conflict with roadway classifications. The current project would implement accessible improvements consistent with the roadway prioritizations and in accordance with the City's municipal code. Primary vehicular access would be provided by Oak Valley Parkway to provide access to internal parking lots. The I-10 freeway offramp connecting to Oak Valley Parkway would also provide access to the project site. Pedestrian circulation would be provided internally within the project site from parking areas to storefronts, as well as externally along sidewalks on Oak Valley Parkway. An internal roadway is proposed between the northern half of the project site, which would be developed predominantly with parking spaces and several street -facing stores along Oak Valley Parkway, and the southern half of the project site, which would be developed predominantly with commercial retail and restaurant buildings and some parking areas.

This proposed roadway would effectively bisect the project site and allow for greater circulation of automobiles City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 741 of 2775 69 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
throughout the project site. This design would conform to the City's Circulation Element and the City's municipal code requirements regarding vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation.

The proposed project is consistent with the land use assumptions contain within the 2020 General Plan EIR traffic analysis, and as a result, is within the trip generation and VMT analysis in the 2020 General Plan EIR. A focused traffic impact assessment has been prepared for the proposed project and indicates that the proposed project would generate 10,436 ADT. The proposed project trip generation 4,022 trips less than the project evaluated in the 2007 EIR and as such, is covered by the 2007 EIR traffic analysis.

Construction of the current project would require the development of new internal roadway circulation to provide access to on -site parking. However, these improvements would not increase hazards as proposed roadway improvements would conform to the City's municipal code requirements regarding vehicular access and circulation pursuant to the City's Planning Department. Impacts related to sharp curves or dangerous intersections would not occur, nor would there be an increase in any hazards due to a design feature. The current project would be compatible with existing land uses in the surrounding area and would not substantially increase safety hazards due to incompatible uses. Construction -related traffic would be associated with the delivery of building materials, construction equipment, the removal of construction debris, and construction workers commuting to and from the project site. Construction staging and worker parking would occur onsite. Trucks would be used to haul soil, equipment, and building materials to and from the project site and would likely use Oak Valley Parkway as a truck route onto the I-10 freeway west of the project site. In conformance with City standards, construction work in the public right-of-way would be conducted in compliance with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Encroachment Permit, specifically for Noble Creek which travels along the southern border of the project site. Compliance with these City and District requirements would ensure that obstruction of city streets and Noble Creek during construction activities are minimized. As a result, construction activities would not substantially increase on -site hazards. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to transportation beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR. 70 City of Beaumont

S,c_erit
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
New Ability to No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Change from
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined
in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) established a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on tribal cultural resources with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code Section 21084.2). AB 52 consultation requirements went into effect on July 1, 2015, for all projects that had not already published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or published a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report prior to that date (Section 11 [c]). Specifically, AB 52 requires that "prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, the lead agency shall begin consultation" (21808.3.1 [a]), and that "the lead agency may certify an environmental impact report or adopt a mitigated negative declaration for a project with a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource only if" consultation is formally concluded (21082.3[d]).

However, in the case of the current project, the lead agency has prepared this CEQA Guidelines §15183 Compliance Memorandum to the previously certified 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR, in accordance with Section 15183(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. This analysis was determined to be the most appropriate document because the current project addresses minor technical changes or additions and does not result in any impacts beyond what was evaluated and disclosed as part of the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR. For these reasons, the analysis will not result in an additional certification; therefore, no tribal consultation under AB 52 is required at this time.

The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 743 of 2775 71 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent

4.18.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Tribal Cultural Resources.
2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR included the following mitigation measures specific to Tribal Cultural Resources (also covered in Section 4.5, "Cultural Resources," of this document):
► MM -4.3-1: Construction clearing trenching and all grading activities shall require monitoring by a qualified archaeologist. Should buried cultural resources be encountered during construction activities, work in that area shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the resource and/or preservation easements can be established.
► MM -4.3-2: If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Adherence to Section 7050.5 is required as a matter of course.

4.18.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
The 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources, with compliance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan Policy

8.11.1, which requires avoidance of sites with significant tribal cultural resources when feasible, Policy 8.11.2, which requires compliance with provisions of AB 52 and SB 18, and Policy 8.11.4, which requires compliance with the provisions of the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws. 2007 PROJECT EIR
Following the Notice of Preparation that an Environmental Impact Report was being prepared for the 2007 project, a response comment letter from NAHC stated that a records search was conducted and the NAHC did not identify the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project vicinity; the response letter recommended actions required to comply with CEQA and to avoid unanticipated discoveries once the project was underway, including tribal consultation. The Cultural Resources Report for the project site did not identify any cultural resources, but it was determined that inadvertent discovery was still possible, and the impact was significant. To avoid a significant impact, the above Mitigation Measures MM -4.3-1 and MM -4.3-2) were incorporated into the project. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, this impact was determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.18.3 Project Specific Analysis
The project site is located within the geographic area of the 2007 project site; however, the 2007 project proposed to develop 41.3 acres for commercial uses, and the current project proposes to develop approximately 28.95 acres for commercial uses. As a result, there has been a reduction in size to the project site. Therefore, although it is not 72 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance
anticipated that the current project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, the current project does involve earthwork activities during construction, and therefore there is a potential for the inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures MM -4.3-1 and MM -4.3-2 of the 2007 Project EIR would be applied to the current project, which would require that a qualified archaeologist monitor construction activities during any earthwork phases and that proper procedures would be followed if human remains are identified during construction, respectively. The project would have a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources with the incorporation of these mitigation measures. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 745 of 2775

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project
New
Significant
Impact
NewAbilityto No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Change from
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
d Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Utilities and Service Systems.

4.19.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Utilities and Service Systems.
2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Utilities and Service Systems.

4.19.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
BCVWD supplies the City with water, and potable water supplied to the City comes predominantly from groundwater.

Based on the 2015 UWMP, it was concluded in the 2020 GPU EIR that the BCVWD would require additional water supply projects to meet future demand; however, since no physical development was proposed as part of the 2020 GPU EIR, the environmental effects from constructing or expanding facilities were unknown at that time. The Beaumont 2040 Plan Goal 7.2 identified the City's need to prioritize coordination with the BCVWD and develop 74 City of Beaumont

Ascent CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance
groundwater recharge sites and other projects to increase groundwater supply. In addition, Goal 7.3 described how recycled water would be expanded to offset potable water used for irrigation, and policies under Goal 3.2 would ensure that there would be adequate water and wastewater system capacity to meet projected demand. Through the implementation of existing regulations listed in Section 5.18.2 and the Beaumont 2040 Plan policies listed in Section

5.18.3, both located in the 2020 GPU EIR, the environmental impacts to water supplies during normal, single-, and multiple -dry years would be less than significant.

In terms of wastewater, as the project didn't include specific physical development, the environmental effects of future wastewater systems were unknown at that time. The Beaumont 2040 Plan policies under Goal 3.2 would ensure that adequate water and wastewater system capacity are met for projected demand, and the City would continue to implement water and wastewater management programs to ensure that future developments pay their fair share for any infrastructure improvements needed. Goal 7.5 of the Beaumont 2040 Plan ensured that the City would monitor influent rates of wastewater treatment plants as new development would be proposed and coordinate treatment capacity expansion as needed. Through the implementation of existing regulations listed in Section 5.18.2 and the Beaumont 2040 Plan policies listed in Section 5.18.3, both located in the 2020 GPU EIR, impacts regarding wastewater treatment provider services and adequate capacity to serve the project's demand was determined to be less than significant.

Regarding stormwater drainage, the environmental effects of future wastewater systems were unknown since the project didn't include specific physical development. The Beaumont 2040 Plan policies under Goal 3.2 described how the City would continue to oversee the development of adequate and dependable public facilities, such as stormwater drainage, to support existing and future development Goal 3.11 also included preservation of watercourses and washes necessary for regional flood control, groundwater recharge, and drainage for open space and recreational purposes. Goal 7.4 required that new development and redevelopment reuse stormwater on -site to the maximum extent practical and provide adequate stormwater infrastructure for flood control.

Regarding electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication services, the Planning Area is located within the service areas of SCE, SoCalGas, and various telecommunication providers. The effects of future development on these utility providers would be evaluated on a project -specific, case -by -case basis with each development proposal. These future development projects would be required to comply with the Beaumont 2040 Plan policies under Goal 7.8, which aim to provide City-wide access to high -quality energy utility and telecommunication services by ensuring that there is adequate infrastructure in place to support such future development; policies would further place new utilities underground to reduce risk.

Regarding solid waste, the City is serviced by the Lamb Canyon Landfill, which was 50 percent full in 2015. Future development approved under the Beaumont 2040 Plan would be required to comply with AB 341, which states certain commercial and multi -family recycling requirements. In addition, the AB 939 requires that each city and county implement a source reduction and recycling element into their General Plans to demonstrate how each jurisdiction will meet AB 939 recycling requirements. These and other solid waste goals in the Beaumont 2040 Plan, including Goal 7.7, Policies 7.7.1 through 7.7.5, and Implementation Actions CF125 through CFI30 to reduce the demand for solid waste disposal. Because there was adequate capacity at existing landfills to serve future development, and future development would be required to meet County and state recycling requirements to further reduce demands on area landfills, this impact was determined to be less than significant. 2007 PROJECT E I R
The 2007 Project EIR concluded that there would be a less than significant impact on the BCVWD water supply, per the annexation letter from BCVWD which stated that they could provide adequate water service to meet projected water demands for the project. A wastewater letter was also received from the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plan No. 1, which stated that the treatment plant had adequate capacity to meet the projected wastewater produced by the project. No new or expanded water and wastewater services would be necessary to serve the project. The project applicant would be required to pay for connection fees to the BCVWD and Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. For these reasons, the 2007 Project EIR determined that impacts to existing water and wastewater systems were less than significant.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 747 of 2775 75 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
Solid waste generated from the project would have gone to the Lamb Canyon Landfill, which had a permitted capacity of 34 million cubic yards and a proposed closing date of 2023. The project was also subject to the City's existing recycling program requiring the reduction in solid waste through the recycling of certain items during construction and operation, in conformance with AB 939. Waste Management of Inland Empire (WMIE), which is the waste collection and disposal contractor that services the City, would provide the project with dumpster recycling containers for a fee, and the project applicant would be required to recycle construction and demolition materials produced during construction of the project. With the payment of connection fees to the BCVWD system for water service and the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 for wastewater service, as well as compliance with the City recycling program, impacts to utilities and service systems were determined to be less than significant. Impacts to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications systems were not analyzed. This is because in 2007 the Appendix G Checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines used to determine potential impacts from proposed projects did not include impact questions analyzing utilities such as electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications systems. Therefore, an impact determination was not made.

4.19.3 Project Specific Analysis
Utility services necessary to serve the project (both the retail and restaurant components) are currently available adjacent to the project site along rights -of -way such as Oak Valley Parkway. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, and utility demand generated from the project was analyzed and anticipated in the 2020 General Plan EIR. On -site utility infrastructure necessary to serve the project would include water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications systems. These connections would be installed within the proposed development. Lamb Canyon Landfill has a remaining capacity of 14.5 million tons and an anticipated close date of 2032. The current project would be a reduction in size compared to what was analyzed in the 2007 Project EIR. Therefore, it is anticipated that the BCVWD and Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 would be able to accommodate the current project's proposed water and wastewater demand, respectively. It is also anticipated that SCE, SoCalGas, and telecommunications systems that service the City would have adequate capacity for the current project. The installation of water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would result in physical impacts to the surface and subsurface of infrastructure alignments. These impacts are considered to be part of the current project's construction phase and are evaluated throughout this CEQA Guidelines §15183 Compliance Memorandum accordingly. As demonstrated in the Memorandum, impacts associated with the current project's infrastructure improvements would be less than significant. There are no impacts to the environment associated with the current project's infrastructure improvements that have not already been addressed by the 2020 GPU EIR or the 2007 Project EIR. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR or 2007 Project EIR. 76 City of Beaumont

S,c_erit
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance

4.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project
New
Significant
Impact
New Ability to No Substantial
More Severe Substantially Change from
Impacts Reduce Significant Previous
Impact Analysis
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
The 2020 GPU EIR and the 2007 project EIR evaluated the project site for impacts to Wildfire.

4.20.1 Applicable 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures
Wildfire did not become a required stand-alone topic until 2018 and as a result was not included in the 2007 project EIR. 2020 GPU EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2020 GPU EIR did not include mitigation measures for Wildfire. 2007 Project EIR Mitigation Measures: The 2007 project EIR did not include mitigation measures for Wildfire.

4.20.2 Previous Significance Determinations
2020 GPU EIR
As shown in General Plan EIR Figure 5.20-1, the City limits are located within a Locally Responsible Area of the CAL FIRE's fire hazard map. A few pockets of the City (including the western portion of the project site) are located within a very high fire hazard zone, and a majority of the sphere of influence of the City is located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. The balance of the site is included in the high fire hazard zone. The City is required to comply with the County's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which manages emergency responses to a wide variety of natural and man-made hazards and contains additional policies related to wildfire management and prevention in the City's Safety Element. The Circulation Element ensures appropriate access and circulation throughout the City, including rapid response for emergency vehicles and evacuation. Goals 9.3, through 9.6 provide for updates for emergency services, support, and responses. The implementation of the Beaumont 2040 Plan would incorporate Goal 9.6 and Policies 3.1.13, 3.11.5 through 3.11.7, and 9.3.3 to reduce potential impacts of individual projects on existing wildfires due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors that exacerbate risk.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-0059 749 of 2775 77 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
Beaumont 2040 Plan Goal 9.5 and supporting Policies along with General Plan Policies 3.1.9, 7.1.8, 7.1.9, 7.2.2, 7.4.3,

9.4.4 all further the planning for infrastructure in terms of protection against wildfires. Implementation Plans S12, S13, S14 and S16 also address the need to plan for and consider wildfire risk related to important infrastructure plans.

Beamont 2040 Plan Goal 8.5 and its supporting Policies, and General Plan Policies 3.1.6, 3.1.9, 3.1.12, 3.12.2, 3.12.3,

7.4.1, 7.4.3, all help to address and maintain open areas, preserve or discourage development in hillside areas, or drainages that can lead to flooding or downstream risk after fire events. For these reasons, it was determined that with regulatory compliance, the 2020 GPU EIR determined that buildout of the Planning Area in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan would have a less than significant impact. 2007 PROJECT EIR
The 2007 Project EIR concluded that development of commercial uses on the project site would not expose people or structures to significant risks involving wildland fires. The most recent maps published by the County and CAL FIRE in 2000, the project site did not fall into an area prone to wildland fires and was not located in a fire hazard severity zone. Impacts regarding wildland fires were determined to be less than significant.

4.20.3 Project Specific Analysis
According to the most updated CAL FIRE wildfire maps, (March 24, 2025) the project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). for wildland fire hazards. 95% of the project site is located within a high fire hazard severity area and 5% (western portion) is located within a very high wildfire hazard severity area. As a result, the proposed project must comply with design and construction material requirements for those severity zones. Onsite topography is generally flat sloping towards Noble Creek and onsite vegetation is primarily non-native grassland.

Consistent with the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR, development of the current project would result in construction activities that could temporarily affect existing roadways, such as Oak Valley Parkway and the I-10 freeway. This could affect emergency response times or evacuation routes, as Oak Valley Parkway is identified as an evacuation route in Figure 5.8-3 of the 2020 GPU EIR. However, construction activities associated with the current project would be implemented in accordance with the Beaumont 2040 Plan Policy 9.4.5, which requires that new development provide access roads that allow both safe and efficient access of emergency equipment and community evacuation; and Implementation Measure S13, which requires new development provide emergency access (i.e., two viable points of ingress and egress) for emergency vehicles and evacuation in the event of a fire. Additionally, the proposed project would increase the number of people who may need to evacuate the project area in the event of an emergency. However, all roadway improvements proposed by the project would be constructed based on industry and City design standards, rules, and regulations. The project would also comply with the Fire Department requirements pertaining to access/egress to ensure adequate emergency access. The project would also be subject to the policies of the Beaumont 2040 Plan that govern adequate emergency vehicle response and evacuations.

Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively -considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the 2020 GPU EIR and 2007 Project EIR.
78 City of Beaumont

5 REFERENCES
CAL Fire. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

California Department of Conservation. 2025a. California Important Farmland Finder. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/app/ . Accessed January 17, 2025. . 2025b. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/ Accessed January 17, 2025.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2024 (April). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. Available: https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008.

Accessed January 22, 2025.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2025. EnviroStor Database. Available:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?basic=True . Accessed January 22, 2025.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

SCAQMD. See South Coast Air Quality Management District.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2005. Rule 403 Fugitive Dust. Available:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf . Accessed February 3, 2025.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2025. GeoTracker Database. Available: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ .

Accessed January 22, 2025.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2025. Web Soil Survey. Available: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ Accessed February 3, 2025.

USDA. See United States Department of Agriculture.

City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village General Commercial Project Plot Plan 202.4-O059 '751 of 2775

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Ascent
This page is intentionally left blank.
80 City of Beaumont

Appendix A
July 28, 2024 MSHCP JPR Amendment

4 :,..,,i
Project Information
Permittee:

Case Information:

Site Acreage:

Portion of Site Proposed for
MSHCP Conservation Area:

RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07 03 12 02
Date: 12/10/07; clerical amendment 07/28/24
City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village

66.1 acres (43.0 acres proposed for development)

23.1 acres (approximately 6.0 acres inside Criteria Area and

17.1 acres outside Criteria Area)
Criteria Consistency Review
Consistency Conclusion:

Data:

Applicable Core/Linkage:

Area Plan: The Pass
The project is consistent with both the Criteria and other Plan requirements. This amendment is clerical to reflect true acreages of proposed development and conservation. The original JPR did not include proposed conservation acreage outside of that suitable for Los Angeles Pocket Mouse. At the time of the original JPR Findings, coarse -level mapping and acreage were used. This amendment provides accurate acreage and placed what was deemed "Not A Part" or "Proposed Development" in the original mapping (Attachment 1: Exhibit C and Regional Map) into Proposed MSHCP Conservation, as originally planned. Red text denotes changes from original JPR, dated December 10, 2007 (Attachment 1).

Proposed Constrained Linkage 22
APN
Sub -Unit
CeII Group
CeII
414-070-008
414-080-001
414-080-002
414-080-003
414-080-004
414-080-005
414-080-006
414-090-019
SU2 — Badlands/San Bernardino
National Forest
Independent
940
Comments:
a. Only approximately 12.5 acres of the 66 -acre site are located in Ce11 940. Conservation in Cell 940 will contribute to Proposed Constrained Linkage 22. Proposed Constrained Linkage 22 is comprised of the 1 of 5

RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07 03 12 02
Date: 12/10/07; clerical amendment 07/28/24
portion of San Timoteo Creek extending west from I-10 to De Anza Cycle Park. This Linkage provides Habitat for certain species and a connection to Proposed Core Area 3 in the Badlands. This Linkage is constrained by I-10 to the east, San Timoteo Canyon Road and railroad tracks to the north, SR 60 to the south, and existing agricultural land uses within the City of Beaumont. b. The dimensional data provided for Proposed Constrained Linkage 22 indicate a width ranging from 1,200 to 1,500 feet.
c. Approximately 18.4 acres of the 66 -acre site are located in Cell 940. Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 22. Conservation within this Cell will focus on grassland, chaparral, and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to grassland, chaparral, and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub Habitat proposed for conservation to the west in Cell #935. Conservation within this Cell will range from 30% to 40%, focusing on the southern portion of the Cell.
d. The project consists of the Oak Valley Village Commercial Development, which proposes to construct approximately 43.0 acres of a regional shopping center. The regional location of the project is illustrated in Exhibit A, MSHCP schematic cores and linkage are illustrated in Exhibit B, 1994 MSHCP baseline vegetation mapping is presented in Exhibit C, soil mapping is illustrated in Exhibit D, and Exhibit E provides the revised project details addressed in this clerical amendment. The Applicant has provided for approximately 6.0 acres of Conservation within the MSHCP Conservation Area; in addition, approximately 17.1 acres within Noble Creek associated with Los Angeles pocket mouse occupied habitat has been set aside outside of the Criteria Area. The Permittee will dedicate in fee title or as a conservation easement the 6.0 acres in Cell 940 and the 17.1 acres within Noble Creek but directly adjacent to Cell 940 to the Regional Conservation Authority, prior to receiving a grading permit. The project would not conflict with Reserve Assembly in this area.

Other Plan Requirements
Data:

Section 6.1.2 — Was Riparian/Riverine/Vernal Pool Mapping or Information Provided? Yes. Riparian/riverine features were found on site (Noble Creek and Tributary A), but both areas are to be avoided by the proposed project. No areas supporting vernal pools or fairy shrimp were identified on site.

Section 6.1.3 — Was Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Information Provided? 2 of 5

RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07 03 12 02
Date: 12/10/07; clerical amendment 07/28/24
Yes. The project site is located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for Marvin's (Yucaipa) onion and many -stemmed dudleya; however, neither clay soils nor either of these two species were found on site during focused surveys.

Section 6.3.2 — Was Additional Species Survey Information Provided? Yes. The project site is located within the burrowing owl and Los Angeles pocket mouse survey area.

Section 6.1.4 — Was Information Pertaining to Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines Provided? Yes. The project site is located near Conservation Areas.

Comments:
a. Section 6.1.2: Glenn Lukos Associates prepared an MSHCP Assessment of Riparian/Riverine Areas report dated November 9, 2007. The project site is described by GLA as having two features which meet the definition of riverine/riparian: Noble Creek and the lower portion of Tributary A. Two other features, described as Area A and Area B, do not meet the definition of riverine/riparian. No impacts to Noble Creek are proposed by the project. GLA explains, "The lower portion of Tributary A consists of a well-defined channel (1 to 6 feet wide) that exhibits a mostly unvegetated sandy bottom. Portions of the drainage does support several stands of southern willow scrub dominated by arroyo willow...and mule fat... scrub. Approximately 0.13 acre of streambed and associated riparian habitat is associated with the lower portion of Tributary A. Tributary A will not be disturbed if the Project is developed." Exhibit 3 of the November 2007 GLA report shows the locations of Noble Creek and the area defined as Tributary A. Area A is an area that GLA describes as "poorly defined...that does not support any riparian vegetation. This area consists of a topographic swale and does not contain a well-defined bed, bank, and channel, and does not exhibit any prominent physical indicators of flow." Area A is reported by GLA to be indistinguishable from the surrounding upland areas of the site and it conveys sheet flow, as do the surrounding upland areas. Area B is also described by GLA as being a topographic swale that is poorly defined and does not have a bed, bank, or channel. Because Area B is reported to convey sheet flow like the surrounding uplands and is indistinguishable from the surrounding area, GLA determined it was not a riverine resource. Habitat assessments for least Bell's vireo, southwestern flycatcher, and western yellow -billed cuckoo determined there were none of these species in the mapped willow/mulefat areas.

No areas supporting vernal pools or fairy shrimp Habitat were identified on the sandy loam soils mapped on site. Based on the materials submitted, the project demonstrates compliance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
b. Section 6.L3: The project site is located in a NEPSSA survey area for Marvin's (Yucaipa) onion and many -stemmed dudleya. No mapped clay soils were identified on site and neither of these plant species 3 of 5

RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07 03 12 02
Date: 12/10/07; clerical amendment 07/28/24
were identified on site during focused surveys. Based on the materials submitted, the project demonstrates compliance with Section 6A.3 of the MSHCP. c. Section 6.3.2: The site is located in a burrowing owl and Los Angeles pocket mouse (LAPM) survey area. Thomas Leslie Corporation determined that the site supported suitable habitat for the burrowing owl, and, therefore, conducted breeding season surveys in May 2006. No burrowing owls, sign, or burrows were identified during these focused surveys. Trapping surveys for LAPM were conducted in July and November 2005. Live specimens were trapped during those surveys. Approximately 18 acres of occupied habitat were identified. Based on this, the project was redesigned to avoid 90% (impacting approximately 2 acres) of the occupied habitat with long-term conservation value. The remaining approximately 16 acres of LAPM habitat is being Conserved. The project demonstrates compliance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
d. Section 6.1.4: To preserve the integrity of areas dedicated as MSHCP Conservation Areas that are proposed to occur adjacent to development, the guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 related to controlling adverse effects for development adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area should be considered by the Permittee in their actions relative to the project. Specifically, the Permittee should include as project conditions of approval the following measures:

Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is to riparian Habitats north of the project site. ii. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff.
iii. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased. In this instance, focused Habitat occurs in close proximity to the west, south, and southeast; shielding should focus on these areas.
iv. Proposed noise -generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. v. Consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP in approving landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas, species considered in the 4 of 5

RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07 03 12 02
Date: 12/10/07; clerical amendment 07/28/24
planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features.
vi. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate, in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into the MSHCP Conservation Areas. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms.
vii. Manufactured slopes associated with the proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.

SNS/TC
5 of 5

JPR Proposed Project Boundary ® MSHCP Conserved ARL (Land) Proposed Development MSHCP Conserved Public/Quasi-Public Land [ 1 Proposed Public Project MSHCP Covered Road
® Proposed MSHCP Conservation I: Rough Step Unit
Avoidance Area Q Cell Group
n Criteria Cell
L L.. : City Boundary
�.

Highway
Centerline
wry
RC14010092
Permittee: City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village
0 1,000
2,000
Feet
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2024; County of Riverside 2024; Esri Basemap 2024. Map created on 7/16/2024.

EXHIBIT A
JPR Log No. 07-03-12-02- Regional

Proposed Linkages
Constrained Linkage
Linkage
Existing Channel
Existing Cores & Linkages
Constrained Linkage
Core
Linkage
Noncontiguous Habitat Block
Proposed Cores & Habitat Blocks
Core
Proposed Extension of Existing Cores
Noncontiguous Habitat Block
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRC-RCA). Map created on 7/16/2024 ilke".11
RC14010092
Permittee: City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village
e
0 2 4
Miles

EXHIBIT B
JPR Log No. 07-03-12-02 - Vicinity Map with MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages G:IRCA IJOINT_PROJECT_REVIEWIJPR_FILES_20071JPR070313021JPR07031302_CLERICAL_EXHIBITS.aprx

QJPR Proposed Project Boundary
Vegetation Types
Agricultural Land
Chaparral
Developed or Disturbed Land
Grassland
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
Q Criteria Cell
Highway
Centerline
*Vegetation type that occur within the JPR Proposed Project Boundary SOURCE: WRC-RCA MSHCP Baseline Vegetation (1994). Map created on 7/16/2024.

RC14010092
Permittee: City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village
e
0 500
1,000
Feet

EXHIBIT C
JPR Log No. 07-03-12-02- MSHCP 1994 Baseline Vegetation JI
CO
N

1 JPR Proposed Project Boundary
Soil Types
Gorgonio loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes*
▪ Gorgonio loamy sand, channeled, 2 to 15 percent slopes* Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
▪ Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded ▪ Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes*
*Soil type that occur within the JPR Proposed Project Boundary ▪ Hanford coarse sandy loam, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded* ▪ Hanford loamy fine sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes
Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
▪ Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes
l= Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded* Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded*
▪ Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
▪ Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
▪ Riverwash*
® Terrace escarpments*
Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes
ID Criteria Cell
ti Highway
'/ Centerline
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2024; County of Riverside 2024; USDA/NRCS Soils 2022 RC14010092
Permittee: City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village
® 0
500
1,000
Feet

CALUMET AVE

OAK VALLEY PKWY

FLORENCE ST

EXHIBIT D
JPR Log No. 07-03-12-02- Soil

LANA WAY

IJOINT PROJECT
cr

a JPR Proposed Project Boundary MSHCP Conserved Public/Quasi-Public Land : J Area Not Within Criteria Cell MSHCP Covered Road
Development Impact Criteria Cell
On -Site Permanent Parcel Boundary
MO Proposed MSHCP Conservation iN,/ Centerline
SOURCE: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2024; County of Riverside 2024; Esri Basemap 2024. Map created on 7/16/2024.

RC140 10092
Permittee: City of Beaumont
Oak Valley Village
/ •
,'/'I'I'I'♦,////I///♦II/
'I'I'I// I ICI I' 4, /'//I/
�'III'I'/II / / I 4, 'VIII
♦ I I /
/ /
/ /f
e
0 500
1,000
Feet

MET AVE
f j
VALLEY

EXHIBIT E
JPR Log No. 07-03-12-02- Project Detail
U
CO
O
CL
N
M
O
7 C -
W
J
LL
w

ATTACHMENT 1: ORIGINAL JPR

RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07 03 12 02
Date: 12/10/07
Project Information
Permittee: City of Beaumont
Case Information: Oak Valley Village
Site Acreage: 40 acres
Portion of Site Proposed for 3 acres (approximately 16 acres also proposed outside Criteria MSHCP Conservation Area: Area)
Criteria Consistency Review
Consistency Conclusion: The project is consistent with both the Criteria and other Plan requirements.

Data:

Applicable Core/Linkage:

Area Plan: The Pass
Proposed Constrained Linkage 22
APN
Sub -Unit
CeII Group
CeII
414-070-008
414-080-001
414-080-002
414-080-003
414-080-004
414-080-005
414-080-006
414-090-019
SU2 — Badlands/San Bernardino
National Forest
Independent
940
Comments:
a. Only approximately 18 acres of the 40 -acre site are located in Cell 940. Conservation in Cell 940 will contribute to Proposed Constrained Linkage 22. Proposed Constrained Linkage 22 is comprised of the portion of San Timoteo Creek extending west from I-10 to De Anza Cycle Park. This Linkage provides Habitat for certain species and a connection to Proposed Core Area 3 in the Badlands. This Linkage is constrained by I-10 to the east, San Timoteo Canyon Road and railroad tracks to the north, SR 60 to the south, and existing agricultural land uses within the City of Beaumont. b. The dimensional data provided for Proposed Constrained Linkage 22 indicate a width ranging from 1,200 to 1,500 feet.
c. Approximately 18 acres of the 40 -acre site are located in Cell 940. Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 22. Conservation within this Cell will focus on grassland, chaparral, and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Areas conserved within this Cell will be 1 of 4

RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07 03 12 02
Date: 12/10/07
connected to grassland, chaparral, and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub Habitat proposed for conservation to the west in Cell #935. Conservation within this Cell will range from 30% to 40%, focusing on the southern portion of the Cell.
d. The project consists of the Oak Valley Village Commercial Development, which proposes to construct approximately 40 acres of a regional shopping center. The Applicant has provided for approximately 3 acres of Conservation within the MSHCP Conservation Area; in addition, approximately 16 acres within Noble Creek associated with Los Angeles pocket mouse occupied habitat has been set aside outside of the Criteria Area. The Permittee indicates the portion of the site conserved outside of the Criteria Area will either be recorded as a Conservation easement, or will be dedicated to a resource Conservation district. The project would not conflict with Reserve Assembly in this area, as it is located in the far eastern portion of Cell, away from areas in the southern portion of the Ce11 that are identified for Conservation.

Other Plan Requirements
Data:

Section 6.1.2 — Was Riparian/Riverine/Vernal Pool Mapping or Information Provided? Yes. Riparian/riverine features were found on site (Noble Creek and Tributary A), but both areas are to be avoided by the proposed project. No areas supporting vernal pools or fairy shrimp were identified on site.

Section 6.1.3 — Was Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Information Provided? Yes. The project site is located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for Marvin's (Yucaipa) onion and many -stemmed dudleya; however, neither clay soils nor either of these two species were found on site during focused surveys.

Section 6.3.2 — Was Additional Species Survey Information Provided? Yes. The project site is located within the burrowing owl and Los Angeles pocket mouse survey area.

Section 6.1.4 — Was Information Pertaining to Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines Provided? Yes. The project site is located near Conservation Areas. 2 of 4

RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
Comments:

JPR #: 07 03 12 02
Date: 12/10/07
a. Section 6.1.2: Glenn Lukos Associates prepared an MSHCP Assessment of Riparian/Riverine Areas report dated November 9, 2007. The project site is described by GLA as having two features which meet the definition of riverine/riparian: Noble Creek and the lower portion of Tributary A. Two other features, described as Area A and Area B, do not meet the definition of riverine/riparian. No impacts to Noble Creek are proposed by the project. GLA explains, "The lower portion of Tributary A consists of a well-defined channel (1 to 6 feet wide) that exhibits a mostly unvegetated sandy bottom. Portions of the drainage does support several stands of southern willow scrub dominated by arroyo willow... and mule fat...scrub. Approximately 0.13 acre of streambed and associated riparian habitat is associated with the lower portion of Tributary A. Tributary A will not be disturbed if the Project is developed." Exhibit 3 of the November 2007 GLA report shows the locations of Noble Creek and the area defined as Tributary A. Area A is an area that GLA describes as "poorly defined...that does not support any riparian vegetation. This area consists of a topographic swale and does not contain a well-defined bed, bank, and channel, and does not exhibit any prominent physical indicators of flow." Area A is reported by GLA to be indistinguishable from the surrounding upland areas of the site and it conveys sheet flow, as do the surrounding upland areas. Area B is also described by GLA as being a topographic swale that is poorly defined and does not have a bed, bank, or channel. Because Area B is reported to convey sheet flow like the surrounding uplands and is indistinguishable from the surrounding area, GLA determined it was not a riverine resource. Habitat assessments for least Bell's vireo, southwestern flycatcher, and western yellow -billed cuckoo determined there were none of these species in the mapped willow/mulefat areas.

No areas supporting vernal pools or fairy shrimp Habitat were identified on the sandy loam soils mapped on site. Based on the materials submitted, the project demonstrates compliance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
b. Section 6.1.3: The project site is located in a NEPSSA survey area for Marvin's (Yucaipa) onion and many -stemmed dudleya. No mapped clay soils were identified on site and neither of these plant species were identified on site during focused surveys. Based on the materials submitted, the project demonstrates compliance with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. c. Section 6.3.2: The site is located in a burrowing owl and Los Angeles pocket mouse (LAPM) survey area. Thomas Leslie Corporation determined that the site supported suitable habitat for the burrowing owl, and, therefore, conducted breeding season surveys in May 2006. No burrowing owls, sign, or burrows were identified during these focused surveys. Trapping surveys for LAPM were conducted in July and November 2005. Live specimens were trapped during those surveys. Approximately 18 acres of occupied habitat were identified. Based on this, the project was redesigned to avoid 90% (impacting approximately 2 acres) of the occupied habitat with long-term conservation value. The remaining approximately 16 acres of LAPM habitat is being Conserved. The project demonstrates compliance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
d. Section 6.1.4: To preserve the integrity of areas dedicated as MSHCP Conservation Areas that are proposed to occur adjacent to development, the guidelines contained in Section 6.1.4 related to 3 of 4

RCA Joint Project Review (JPR)
JPR #: 07 03 12 02
Date: 12/10/07
controlling adverse effects for development adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area should be considered by the Permittee in their actions relative to the project. Specifically, the Permittee should include as project conditions of approval the following measures:

Incorporate measures to control the quantity and quality of runoff from the site entering the MSHCP Conservation Area. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is to riparian Habitats north of the project site. ii. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts, such as manure, that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilization overspray and runoff.
iii. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased. In this instance, focused Habitat occurs in close proximity to the west, south, and southeast; shielding should focus on these areas.
iv. Proposed noise -generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. v. Consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP in approving landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of the project that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography, and other features.
vi. Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate, in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping into the MSHCP Conservation Areas. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms.
vii. Manufactured slopes associated with the proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.

SNS
4 of 4

JFRLog I\b 07031202
Vanity Map with MSHCP SchemEt i c Cores and Linkages

EXHIBIT
A

1015
3851
A
rAv
roo.AA
Cell with Unique ID
Cell Group with Identifier
JPR Project Site
American Indian Lands (Not a Part)
Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands
Preexisting Conservation Agreements
San Jacinto Wildlife Area Additional Acquisition
Feet
0 1,500
Vegetation Communities:

Montane Coniferous Forest
i Woodlands and Forests
Coastal Sage Scrub
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
Desert Scrubs
Chaparral
Playas and Vernal Pools
Grassland
Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest
Meadows and Marshes
Cismontane Alkali Marsh
Water
Developed, Disturbed Land
Agricultural Land
JFRLog I\b. 07031202
Criteria Area Gel I s with MSHCP Veget at ion and Project Location

EXHIBIT
6

wi 4 6/
Soil Types:

Gorgonio loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes
Gorgonio loamy sand, channeled, 2 to 15 percent slopes
Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Hanford coarse sandy loam, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded Ramona sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely er oded Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
Riverwash
Terrace escarpments
3851
A
Nravirava
WOES 4
Cell with Unique ID
Cell Group with Identifier
American Indian Lands (Not a Part)
Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands
Preexisting Conservation Agreements
San Jacinto Wildlife Area Additional Acquisition
Feet
1,500
JFRLcg I\b 07031202
CYi t eri a Area Cel I s with MSHCP Soi Is and Project Locat i on

EXHIBIT
D

American Indian Lands (Not a Part)
Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands
Preexisting Conservation Agreements
San Jacinto Wildlife Area Additional Acquisition
JFRLog I\b. 07031202
Criteria Area Cel I s with Aerial Photograph and Proposed Project Impacts

EXHIBIT
C

uuuIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIuIIIIIIIIIHNC
��II.....'...

Ills MU C: umnuuun

Appendix B
Focused Traffic Circulation Analysis

LLB
March 19, 2025
Mr. Chris Sanchez
Regency Centers
420 Stevens Avenue, Suite 320
Solana Beach, CA 92075
LLG Reference: 2.25.4911.1
Subject: Focused Traffic Circulation Analysis for the Proposed Oak Valley Village Project
Beaumont, California
Dear Mr. Sanchez:

Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Focused Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Oak Valley Village Project (herein referred to as "Project"), generally located on the southeast corner of the I-10 Freeway and Oak Valley Parkway in the City of Beaumont, California. Figure 1 presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project site and depicts the surrounding street system, and Figure 2 presents an existing site aerial. As presented in Figure 2, the site is currently vacant.

The Project site was previously entitled and analyzed in the Oak Valley Village Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated January 23, 2007. This Focused Traffic Impact Analysis will determine if the proposed Project is consistent with the fmdings of the previous traffic impact study. Furthermore, this analysis satisfy the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for the City of Beaumont (July 2024) and will focus to eight (8) study intersections along Oak Valley Parkway consistent with the study area analyzed in the RK traffic impact study.

Appendix A contains the relevant excerpts from the approved RK traffic impact study that are referenced in this report.

Included in this focused traffic impact analysis are the following:
1) Existing traffic counts,
2) Estimated Project traffic generation/distribution/assignment, 3) AM and PM peak hour analyses for existing traffic conditions, 2 Eaocuhun Cclo
Sake ZO
1evnc. CA12674
I4#112S1i ti
9411125 '5
5 earth ervp nrcrscom
Pasadena
'�IYn4
San Diego
Dr,M SW6Kr. F
Jck. I dc,wean,. R1E
N cloud E 'Pwent PE.

Karl D. Maw" PE
KC Ikea pa, PE.

Dint Fkrtubrikt, PE
3haMkrP.st ikrishnai PE
Bawl A. Kkors., PE

Mr. Chris Sanchez
March 19, 2025

4) AM and PM peak hour analyses for existing with ambient growth to the Year 2030 without and with Project traffic conditions,
5) Recommended Improvements (if any), and
6) Site access and internal circulation evaluation
Our method of analysis, findings, and recommendations are detailed in the following sections of this letter report.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Entitled Project
The Project site has a currently entitled land use of 273,001 square -foot (SF) of shopping center, as analyzed in the previous traffic impact study. It should be noted that the previous entitlement technically includes an additional 168,708 SF associated with a proposed home improvement superstore, but was excluded from this traffic analysis since the currently proposed Project excludes this portion of the entitled Project site.

Proposed Project
Figure 3 presents the proposed site plan, prepared by Nadel. As shown in Figure 3, the proposed Project will consist of a 279,941 SF shopping center.

Access for the Project site will be provided via two (2) full -access signalized driveways, at the existing intersections of Golf Club Drive at Oak Valley Parkway and Oak Valley Plaza at Oak Valley Parkway. In addition, a right -in only unsignalized driveway will be located along the south side of Oak Valley Parkway between the I-10 Westbound Ramps and Golf Club Drive.

EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Existing Lane Geometries
Figure 4 presents an inventory of the existing roadway conditions for the eight (8) key study intersections. This figure identifies the number of travel lanes for key arterials, as well as intersection configurations and controls for the key area study intersections.

Existing Public Transit
The City of Beaumont Transit System provides public transit services in the vicinity of the proposed Project. A description of the transit services within the Project vicinity is described below:

Route 7-1:

LLG

Mr. Chris Sanchez
March 19, 2025

LLG
• Route 7-1 provides service to Tournament Hills, Fairway Canyon, Cherry Valley, Beaumont High School, Mountain View Middle School, San Gorgonio Middle School, Oak Valley shopping center, and connecting routes.
• During the weekday, Route 7-1 operates during the AM and PM peak hours only.

The current bus stop nearest to the Project site is located east of the intersection of Golf Club Drive at Oak Valley Parkway.

Existing Traffic Volumes
AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic counts were collected by Counts Unlimited on February 6, 2025 at the eight (8) key study intersections. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study intersections, respectively.

Appendix B contains the detailed peak hour traffic count sheets for the eight (8) key study intersections.

LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY
In conformance with City of Beaumont requirements, AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the signalized and unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition (HCM 7) methodology.

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 7) Method of Analysis (Signalized Intersections) AM peak hour and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key study intersections were evaluated using the HCM operations method of analysis. Based on the HCM operations method of analysis, level of service for signalized intersections and approaches is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of the increase in travel time due to traffic signal control, driver discomfort, and fuel consumption.

Control delay includes the delay associated with vehicles slowing in advance of an intersection, the time spent stopped on an intersection approach, the time spent as vehicles move up in the queue, and the time needed for vehicles to accelerate to their desired speed. LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the control delay in seconds per vehicle. The LOS thresholds established for the automobile mode at a signalized intersection are shown in Table 1.

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 7) Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections) The HCM 7 unsignalized methodology for stop -controlled intersections was utilized for the analysis of the unsignalized intersections. This methodology estimates the

Mr. Chris Sanchez
March 19, 2025

LLG
average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the level of service for each movement. For all -way stop controlled intersections, the overall average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle, and level of service is then calculated for the entire intersection. For one-way and two-way stop -controlled (minor street stop -controlled) intersections, this methodology estimates the worst side street delay, measured in seconds per vehicle and determines the level of service for that approach. The HCM control delay value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range, as shown in Table 2.

LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND IMPACT CRITERIA
The relative impact of the proposed Project during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key study intersections with the proposed Project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the future delay and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential impacts of the Project at each key intersection was then evaluated using the following traffic impact criteria.

Signalized Intersection Operating Requirements
• Any signalized study intersection operating at an acceptable LOS without project traffic in which the addition of project traffic causes the intersection to degrade to an unacceptable LOS shall identify improvements to improve operations back to acceptable.
• Any signalized study intersection that is operating unacceptably without project traffic where the project increases delay by 5.0 or more seconds shall identify improvements to offset the increase in delay.

The City defines acceptable LOS as noted below:
• LOS C for any study facility located on or west of Pennsylvania Avenue AND south of I-10 (e.g. LOS C for the southwest portion of the City) • LOS D at all other locations in the City.

Unsignalized Intersection Operating Requirements
An operation improvement would be required if the study determines that either section A) or both sections B) and C) occur:

Mr. Chris Sanchez
March 19, 2025

OR
LLG
A) The addition of project related traffic causes the intersection to degrade from an acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS (see definition above related to what the City defines as acceptable).

B) The Project adds 5.0 seconds or more of delay to an intersection that is already projected to operate without project traffic at an unacceptable LOS, AND
C) The intersection meets the peak hour traffic signal warrant after the addition of project traffic.

If the conditions above are satisfied, improvements should be identified that achieve the following:
• An acceptable LOS for case A) or to pre -project LOS and delay for case B) above.

PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Project Trip Generation
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are typically found in the 1 Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2021]. It should be noted that the entitled trip generation forecast is based on the Trip Generation table (Table 3) contained in the approved RK Traffic Impact Study.

Table 3, attached, summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated for the entitled land use and the proposed Project and also presents the forecast peak hour and daily traffic volumes. As shown in the upper portion of Table 3, the trip generation potential of the proposed Project was estimated using the using ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Plaza Greater than 150k trip generation equations.

Review of the middle portion of Table 3 indicates that the entitled land use was forecast to generate 10,436 net daily trips, with 229 net trips (139 inbound, 90 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 972 net trips (466 inbound, 506 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a "typical" weekday (Based on Table 3 of the approved RK Traffic Impact Study). It should be noted that the aforementioned

Mr. Chris Sanchez
March 19, 2025

LLG
overall entitled land use trip generation includes adjustments for pass -by to account for trips that are already in the everyday traffic stream on the adjoining streets (i.e.

Oak Valley Parkway) and will stop as they pass by the Project site as a matter of convenience on their path to another destination.

Review of the lower portion of Table 3 indicates that the proposed Project is forecast to generate 10,538 net daily trips, with 239 net trips (148 inbound, 91 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 947 net trips (454 inbound, 493 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a "typical" weekday. It should be noted that these proposed Project trips also include adjustments for pass -by consistent with the approved RK Traffic Impact Study. The potential impact of these proposed Project trips are assessed in this traffic study.

As shown at the bottom of Table 3, comparison of the trips generated by the existing entitled land use as shown in the previous traffic impact study to the trips generated by the proposed Project shows that the proposed Project will generate 102 greater net daily trips, 10 greater net AM peak hour trips, and 25 fewer net PM peak hour trips.

Trip Distribution and Assignment
Figure 7 presents the traffic distribution pattern for the proposed Project. Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations:
• the site's proximity to major traffic carriers and regional access routes, • the site's proximity to residential development in the area, • expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent street channelization, and presence of traffic signals,
• the previously approved traffic impact study, and
• ingress/egress availability at the Project site.

Figures 8 and 9 present the anticipated AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes associated with the proposed Project, respectively. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures 8 and 9 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 7 and the traffic generation forecast presented in Table 3.

Mr. Chris Sanchez
March 19, 2025

LLG
FUTURE YEAR 2030 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Year 2030 Ambient Traffic Growth
In order to develop Horizon Year 2030 traffic volume data consistent with the RK Traffic Impact Study, background traffic growth estimates have been calculated using an ambient growth factor. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown and future cumulative projects in the study area, as well as account for regular growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. The future growth in traffic volumes has been calculated at two percent (2.0%) compounded per year. Applied to existing Year 2025 traffic volumes results in five years compounded growth from existing volumes to horizon Year 2030.

Year 2030 Traffic Volumes
Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the Year 2030 Without Project AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the eight (8) key study intersections and proposed Project driveway, respectively.

Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the Year 2030 AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes, with the inclusion of the trips generated by the proposed Project at the eight (8) key study intersections and proposed Project driveway, respectively.

YEAR 2030 WITH PROJECT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Table 4 summarizes the peak hour level of service results at the eight (8) key study intersections for Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions in comparison to the results of the RK Traffic Impact Study. Review of column (1) of Table 4 indicates that two (2) of the key study intersections currently operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM or PM peak hour. The remaining key study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Review of column (2) of Table 4 indicates that two (2) of the key study intersections are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM and/or PM peak hours under Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions. The remaining key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better in Year 2030 Without Project traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours.

Review of columns (3) and (4) of Table 4 indicates that traffic associated with proposed Project will cause operational deficiencies at four (4) key study intersections when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this letter report. The remaining key study intersections are forecast to

Mr. Chris Sanchez
March 19, 2025

LLG
continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better in Year 2030 during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project traffic. However, as shown in column (5) of Table 4, the implementation of recommended improvements at the deficient locations improves these intersections to acceptable service levels.

As shown in column (6), the deficient locations are generally consistent with those identified in the RK Traffic Impact Study.

Appendix C contains the HCM/LOS calculation worksheets for the eight (8) key study intersections.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
The level of service analyses at the key unsignalized impacted study intersections that are recommended to be signalized are supplemented with an assessment of the need for signalization of the intersections. This assessment is made on the basis of signal warrant criteria. For this study, the need for signalization is assessed on the basis of the peak -hour traffic signal warrant; Warrant #3 described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Warrant #3 has two parts: 1) Part A evaluates peak hour vehicle delay for traffic on the minor street approach with the highest delay and 2) Part B evaluates peak -hour traffic volumes on the major and minor streets. This method provides an indication of whether peak -hour traffic conditions or peak -hour traffic volume levels are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. Other traffic signal warrants are available; however, they cannot be checked under future conditions because they rely on data for which forecasts are not available (such as accidents, pedestrian volume, and four- or eight - hour vehicle volumes).

The decision to install a traffic signal should not be based purely on the warrants alone. Instead, the installation of a signal should be considered and further analysis performed when one or more of the warrants are satisfied. Additionally, engineering judgment is exercised on a case -by -case basis to evaluate the effect a traffic signal will have on certain types of accidents and traffic conditions at the subject intersection as well as at adjacent intersections.

The results of the peak -hour traffic signal warrant analysis for Year 2030 traffic conditions are summarized in Table 5. The results indicate that the following two (2) key unsignalized deficient intersections have future traffic conditions that would exceed the volume thresholds of Warrant #3, Part A and Part B for the AM and PM peak hours:

Mr. Chris Sanchez
March 19, 2025

LLG
• 1. Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway
• 7. Elm Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway
The analysis and the recommended improvements show that the above -mentioned intersections in Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions recommended to be signalized. With signalization of these intersections, which are warranted, these intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable service levels during the AM and PM peak hours. Thus, it is concluded from Table 5 that a traffic signal is justified at these locations.

The Year 2030 With Project Signal Warrant Analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix D.

PROJECT -SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS
The following project -specific improvements are to be constructed by the proposed Project along Oak Valley Parkway:
■ Intersection 4. Golf Club Drive at Oak Valley Parkway: Construct the south leg of the intersection and provide dual exclusive northbound left - turn lanes, a shared northbound through/right-turn lane, and two inbound lanes. Restripe the north leg of the intersection to provide a southbound through lane. Widen and restripe the west leg of the intersection to provide two additional eastbound through lanes and an exclusive eastbound right - turn lane. Widen and restripe the east leg of the intersection to provide an exclusive westbound left -turn lane and two additional eastbound departure lanes. Modify the existing traffic signal for eight -phase operation. Stripe crosswalks on the south and east legs.
■ Intersection 5. Oak Valley Plaza at Oak Valley Parkway: Construct the south leg of the intersection and provide an exclusive northbound left -turn lane, a shared northbound through/right-turn lane, and one inbound lane.

Restripe the north leg of the intersection to provide convert the exclusive southbound right -turn lane to a shared southbound through/right-turn lane.

Widen and restripe the west leg of the intersection to provide one additional eastbound through lane and a shared eastbound through/right- turn lane. Widen and restripe the east leg of the intersection to provide an exclusive westbound left -turn lane and two additional eastbound departure lanes. Modify the existing traffic signal for eight -phase operation. Stripe crosswalks on the south and east legs.

Mr. Chris Sanchez
March 19, 2025

LLG
• Intersection 6. Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway: Widen and restripe the west leg of the intersection to provide two additional eastbound through lanes. Widen and restripe the east leg of the intersection to provide two additional eastbound departure lanes. Modify the existing traffic signal. Stripe a crosswalk on the east leg. • A. Project Driveway 1 at Oak Valley Parkway: Construct the south leg of the intersection and one inbound lane. Widen and restripe the west leg of the intersection to provide one additional eastbound through lane and one exclusive eastbound right -turn lane. Widen and restripe the east leg of the intersection to provide two additional eastbound departure lanes.

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The results of Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions indicate that four (4) of the eight (8) key study intersections are forecast to operate at an adverse level of service when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this focused traffic circulation analysis report. The remaining key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours.

The improvements listed below have been identified at the deficient locations to improve these intersections to acceptable service levels:
• Intersection 1. Desert Lawn Drive at Oak Valley Parkway: Install a traffic signal and design for three-phase operation.
• Intersection 2. I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway: Widen and restripe the north leg of the intersection to provide an exclusive southbound left - turn lane. Widen and restripe the west leg of the intersection to provide an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal. • Intersection 3. I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway: Widen and restripe the south leg of the intersection to provide an exclusive northbound left -turn lane. Modify the existing traffic signal. • Intersection 7. Elm Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway: Install a traffic signal and design for five -phase operation. Stripe crosswalks on all legs.

It should be noted that these recommended improvements are consistent with those included in the RK Traffic Impact Study. Therefore, the proposed Project will have no new traffic impacts compared to the traffic impacts identified in the approved RK Traffic Impact Study for the entitled development and fair share contributions remain appropriate consistent with the findings for the entitled Project. Figure 14 presents

Mr. Chris Sanchez
March 19, 2025

LLG
the Project -specific and recommended improvements and intersection controls at the key study intersections.

SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION EVALUATION
As shown previously on Figure 3, vehicular access for the Project site will be provided via two (2) full -access signalized driveways, at the existing intersections of Golf Club Drive at Oak Valley Parkway and Oak Valley Plaza at Oak Valley Parkway. In addition, a right -in only unsignalized driveway will be located along the south side of Oak Valley Parkway between the I-10 Westbound Ramps and Golf Club Drive.

Table 6 summarizes the intersection operations at the proposed Project driveways for Year 2030 traffic conditions at completion and full occupancy of the proposed Project. Review of Table65 shows that the proposed Project driveways are forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours for the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. As such, Project access will be adequate.

Appendix E contains the Delay/LOS calculation worksheets for the proposed Project driveways for the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions.

The on -site circulation layout of the proposed Project as illustrated in Figure 3 on an overall basis is adequate. Curb return radii appear adequate for passenger cars, service/delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, and trash trucks.

INTERSECTION QUEUEING EVALUATION
A queuing evaluation was prepared for the inbound and outbound movements at the two (2) Project access locations at Golf Club Drive and Oak Valley Plaza.

Table 7 presents the 95th percentile queuing analysis results for the Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions. Review of Table 7 indicates that adequate storage is proposed to accommodate the forecast 95th percentile queues for both intersections.

CONCLUSION
The results of the Focused Traffic Circulation Analysis indicate that the proposed Project is generally consistent with the entitled land use analyzed in the previous traffic impact study and no new impacts were identified compared to the traffic impacts identified in the approved RK Traffic Impact Study for the entitled development. Under Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions, four (4) of the eight

Mr. Chris Sanchez
March 19, 2025

(8) key study intersections are forecast to operate at an adverse LOS when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified in this letter report. The recommended improvements are consistent with those included in the approved RK Traffic Impact Study and the implementation of these recommended improvements at the deficient locations improves these intersections to acceptable service levels. Fair share contributions remain appropriate consistent with the findings for the entitled Project.

The proposed Project driveways are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour in the Year 2030 With Project traffic condition. As such, Project access will be adequate. In addition, adequate storage is proposed to accommodate the forecast 95th percentile queues for the two (2) Project access locations at Golf Club Drive and Oak Valley Plaza.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this Focused Traffic Circulation Analysis.

Should you have any questions, please call us at (949) 825-6175.

Sincerely,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Keil D. Maberry, P.E.

Principal
California Registration: TR 1802
Attachments
LLG

u r

CPO SCALE
KEY
® = STUDY INTERSECTION
C J = PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 1

VICINITY MAP

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT

K _
u r
,,Ad�ll��hi�.
©NO SCALE
SOURCE: NEAR MAPS
KEY
E ] = PROJECT SITE
,
FIGURE 2

EXISTING SITE AERIAL

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
ago 788 o- 277

SOURCE: NADEL
FIGURE 3
u r
©NO SCALE

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
age 789 o- 277

/ \
T I
-
STOP
�_--

DESERT LAWN DR

OAK VALLEY PKWY
3 PHASE
SIGNAL
1-10 EB RAMPS

OAK VALLEY PKWY
I
3 PHASE
SIGNAL
1-10 WB RAMPS

OAK VALLEY PKWY
3 PHASE
SIGNAL

GOLF CLUB DR

OAK VALLEY PKWY
4D
(45)
J
3 PHASE
SIGNAL

OAK VALLEY PLAZA

OAK VALLEY PKWY

PKWY NP
NP
/ \
/ t
I .1-.=
\
3 PHASE
SIGNAL

OAK VIEW DR

OAK VALLEY PKWY
0 \\ f
4D
(45)

TWO-WAY
STOP
NP
NP

ELM AVE

OAK VALLEY PKWY

BEAUMONT AVE

OAK VALLEY PKWY
8 PHASE
SIGNAL
Z
0 O
INOW(1d88
Z
N
D
4D NP
(35) NP
O
0 03-19-2025
\4900\2254911 — oak valley village, beaumont\dwg\4911 f-4.dwg ,,Adllll�l4,.
©NO SCALE
KEY
•
P
= STUDY INTERSECTION

APPROACH LANE ASSIGNMENT
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL,-.- = STOP SIGN
= PARKING, NP = NO PARKING
U = UNDIVIDED, D = DIVIDED
2 = NUMBER OF TRAVEL LANES
(XX)= POSTED SPEED LIMIT (MPH)
OL = OVERLAP
C = PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 4

EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS

AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
age 79 0- 2775

u r

CPO SCALE
KEY
® = STUDY INTERSECTION
C J = PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 5

EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT

u r

CPO SCALE
KEY
® = STUDY INTERSECTION
C J = PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 6

EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT

KEY
u r
,,AdMON
©NO SCALE
4-
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= INBOUND PERCENTAGE
- OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE
E = PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 7

PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PATTERN

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
age 793 o" 2775

u r

CPO SCALE
KEY
® = STUDY INTERSECTION
E J = PROJECT SITE
(XX) = PASS -BY TRIPS
FIGURE 8

AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
age 79/ o- 2775

u r
©NO SCALE
GOLF CLUB DR ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
KEY
® = STUDY INTERSECTION
E J = PROJECT SITE
(XX) = PASS -BY TRIPS
FIGURE 9

PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
age 795 o- 2775

u r

CPO SCALE
KEY
0 = STUDY INTERSECTION
C J = PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 10
YEAR 2030 WITHOUT PROJECT

AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT

u r

CPO SCALE
KEY
® = STUDY INTERSECTION
C J = PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 11
YEAR 2030 WITHOUT PROJECT

PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT

0 239
- 374
DESERT LAWN DR ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
5`La
� -5ti6
1-10 EB RAMPS ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
/
t
\ /
1-10 WB RAMPS ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY

GOLF CLUB DR

OAK VALLEY PKWY
O
/ 41 \
/ NocNo f 915
jr.)
r 46
\ 13-)
\ 7044-
")V /
/
OAK VALLEY PLAZA ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
204 4 \I
OAK VIEW DR ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
2\
f 852 \
r 81
ELM AVE ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
93\
- 490 \
r- 115
BEAUMONT AVE © PROJECT DWY NO. 1 ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VALLEY PKWY
0 0
03-19-2025
00 10
O
0 \4900\2254911 — oak valley village, beaumont\dwg\4911 f-12.dwg I
,,Adlll��l4�.
©NO SCALE
KEY
® = STUDY INTERSECTION
C J = PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 12
YEAR 2030 WITH PROJECT

AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT

0 0 -
r.")
43 -1I J�.
43-'
\ 457-
363
- 494
DESERT LAWN DR ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
-50
ti�1^
/
/
1-10 EB RAMPS ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
1-10 WB RAMPS ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
GOLF CLUB DR ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
coC37\
r N\
(
\
/ '-. 50\
7 cJ� n --750 � -142
\ i.38'51.--::5, ( /
\ 967 o, /
Tj
i
OAK VALLEY PLAZA ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
128
- 758
\ //
OAK VIEW DR ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
ELM AVE ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY
////42/
N N,-
I J
498-
\ 119Th
BEAUMONT AVE © PROJECT DWY NO. 1 ©

OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VALLEY PKWY
0 0
03-19-2025
\4900\2254911 — oak valley village, beaumont\dwg\4911 f-13.dwg I
,,Adlll��l4�.
©NO SCALE
KEY
® = STUDY INTERSECTION
C J = PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 13
YEAR 2030 WITH PROJECT

PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT

O O, 0/
3 PHA`, 3 PHASE 3 PHASE 3 PHASE \ 8 PHASI 3 PHASE \ 77f 5 PHAS � 8 PHASE SIGNAL \ SIGNAL \ SIGNAL \ SIGNAL SIGNAL \ SIGNAL \ SIGNAL \ SIGNAL OAK VALLEY PLAZA ® OAK VIEW DR (4 ELM AVE © BEAUMONT AVE © PROJECT DWY NO. 1

DESERT LAWN DR

OAK VALLEY PKWY
1-10 EB RAMPS CD

OAK VALLEY PKWY
I-10 WB RAMPS

OAK VALLEY PKWY

GOLF CLUB DR

OAK VALLEY PKWY

OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VALLEY PKWY
i

RIGHT -IN
ONLY

OAK VALLEY PKWY OAK VALLEY PKWY
0 0
03-19-2025
M
0 0
0 0_
0)
J
\4900\2254911 — oak valley village, beaumont\dwg\4911 f-14.dwg I
©NO SCALE
KEY
# = STUDY INTERSECTION
= APPROACH LANE ASSIGNMENT
= PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
= RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
• = TRAFFIC SIGNAL, -r = STOP SIGN
P = PARKING, NP = NO PARKING
OL = OVERLAP
C = PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 14

PLANNED AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
age 8 0'2775

LLG
TABLE 1
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM 7 METHODOLOGY)1

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
Level of Service
(LOS)
Control Delay Per Vehicle
(seconds/vehicle)
Level of Service Description
A

10.0 and 20.0 and 35.0 and 55.0 and < 80.0
Very long traffic delays This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long
cycle lengths and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

F
≥ 80.0
Severe congestion This level, considered to be
unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over
saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major
contributing factors to such delay levels.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 7, Chapter 19: Signalized Intersections.

LLG
TABLE 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM 7 METHODOLOGY)2,3

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
Level of Service
(LOS)
Highway Capacity Manual
Delay Value (sec/veh)
Level of Service Description
A
≤ 10.0
Little or no delay
B
> 10.0 and ≤ 15.0
Short traffic delays
C
> 15.0 and ≤ 25.0
Average traffic delays
D
> 25.0 and ≤ 35.0
Long traffic delays
E
> 35.0 and ≤ 50.0
Very long traffic delays
F
> 50.0
Severe congestion
2 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 7, Chapter 20: Two -Way Stop -Controlled Intersections. The LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on the minor street. LOS is not calculated for major -street approaches or for the intersection as a whole. 3 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 7, Chapter 21: All -Way Stop -Controlled Intersections. For approaches and intersection -wide assessment, LOS is defined solely by control delay.

LLG
TABLE 3
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES AND FORECAST4

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
ITE Land Use Code /
Project Description
Daily
2 -Way
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Enter
Exit
Total
Enter
Exit
Total
Trip Generation Factors:

47.20 62%
3O" ,,

1.07 48%
52'i.

4.24 • 820: Shopping Plaza greater than 150k (TE/TSF)
Entitled Trip Generation Forecast (Approved TIA): 5
13,045
-2,609
174
-35
1 1')
-22
286
-57
583
-117
632
-126
1,215
-243
Oak Valley Village (273,001 SF)
Pass -by Trips (20%/20%/20%)
Entitled Trip Generation IA]
10,436
139
90 229
466
506
972
Proposed Project Trip Generation Forecast:
13,173
-2,635
185
-37
114
-23
299
-60
568
-114
616
-123
1,184
-237
820: Oak Valley Village (279,941 SF)
Pass -by Trips (20%/20%/20%)
Project Trip Generation [Bj
10,538
148
91 239
454
493
947 I
Net Project Trip Generation Forecast [B1 — IA]
+102
+9
+1
+10
-12
-13
-25
Notes:
■ TE/TSF = Trip End per 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area 4 Source: Trip rates based on Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2021). Trip Generation rates based on the following equations:
• Daily: T = 26.11(X) + 5863.73
• AM Peak Hour: T = 0.59(X) + 133.55
• PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.72Ln(X) + 3.02
5 Source: Oak Valley Village Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated January 23, 2007. (Table 3)

LLG
TABLE 4
YEAR 2030 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
Minimum
(1)
Existing
Traffic Conditions
(2)
Year 2030
Without Project
Traffic Conditions
(3)
Year 2030
With Project
Traffic Conditions
(4)
Deficiency
(5)
Year 2030
With Project
With Improvements6
(6)
Oak Valley Village
Traffic Impact Study
Year 2030
With Entitled Project
Traffic Conditions'
Time
Acceptable
Delay
Delay
Delay
Delay
Delay
Key Intersection
Period
LOS
(s/v)
LOS
(s/v)
LOS
(s/v)
LOS
Increase
Yes/No
(s/v)
LOS
(s/v)
LOS
Desert Lawn Drive at
I .

AM
LOS D

59.4 F

75.9 F

79.8 F

3.9 No

22.8 C
--
--
Oak Valley Parkway
PM

20.7 C

28.5 D

35.8 E

7.3 Yes

11.2 B
--
--
I-10 EB Ramps at
AM

54.3 D

72.7 E

84.9 F

12.2 Yes

23.8 C
OVRFL
F

2. LOSD
Oak Valley Parkway
PM

63.4 E

71.6 E
116.7
F

45.1 Yes

39.4 D
OVRFL
F
I-10 WB Ramps at
AM

21.9 C

24.9 C

27.4 C

2.5 No

20.0 C
12,325.9
F

3. LOS D
Oak Valley Parkway
PM

32.4 C

38.6 D

75.0 E

36.4 Yes

29.2 C
42,067.5
F
Golf Club Drive at
AM
7M
A

7.2 A

13.1 B

5.9 No
--
--
OVRFL
F

4. LOS D
Oak Valley Parkway8
PM

10.3 B

10.6 B

23.7 C

13.1 No
--
--
OVRFL
F
Oak Valley Plaza at
AM

3.2 A

3.4 A

36.2 D

32.8 No
--
--
--
--

5. LOS D
Oak Valley Parkway8
PM

6.2 A

6.4 A

35.6 D

29.2 No
--
--
--
--
Oak View Drive at
AM

20.4 C

21.1 C

20.6 C
-0.5
No
--
--

85.2 F

6. LOS D
Oak Valley Parkway8
PM

17.3 B

17.9 B

17.2 B
-0.7
No
--
--
327.7
F
Elm Avenue at
AM

27.0 D

32.3 D

35.7 E

3.4 Yes

10.1 B
3,838.9
F

7. LOS D
Oak Valley Parkway
PM

23.5 C

27.6 D

40.4 E

12.8 Yes

9.7 A
17,272.9
F
Beaumont Avenue at
AM

35.6 D

36.5 D

36.6 D

0.1 No
--
--
142.1
F

8. LOS D
Oak Valley Parkway
PM

33.6 C

37.3 D

38.4 D

1.1 No
--
--
159.9
F
Notes:
■ LOS = Level of Service, please refer to Tables 1 and 2 for the LOS definitions • s/v = seconds per vehicle
■ Bold Delay/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on the LOS standards defined in this traffic study. • OVRFL = Delay high, intersection unstable. Level of Service F. a Recommended improvements are consistent with those included in the entitled Oak Valley Village Traffic Impact Study. ' Source: Oak Valley Village Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated January 23, 2007. (Table 9) $ Includes Project -specific improvements.

LLG
TABLE 5

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
Key Intersection
Time
Period
Year 2030
With Project
Traffic Conditions
Part A of
Warrant 3
Satisfied?
Part B of
Warrant 3
Satisfied?
Desert Lawn Drive at

1. Oak Valley Parkway
AM
PM
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Elm Avenue at

7. Oak Valley Parkway
AM
PM
No
No
Yes
Yes
Notes:
• Signal Warrant checks based on Warrant 3, Part A - Peak -Hour Delay Warrant and Part B - Peak -Hour Volume Warrant contained in the California MUTCD.

LLG
TABLE 6

INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
Key Intersection
Time
Period
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
Year 2030
With Project
Traffic Conditions
Delay
(s/v)
LOS
Golf Club Drive at
AM

13.1 B

4. D
Oak Valley Parkway
PM

23.7 C
Oak Valley Plaza at

5. AM
D

36.2 D
Oak Valley Parkway
PM

35.6 D
Project Driveway 1 at
A.

AM
D

0.09 A
Oak Valley Parkway
PM

0.09 A
Notes:
■ s/v = seconds per vehicle (delay)
■ LOS = Level of Service
9 Uncontrolled intersection results in 0.0 s/v delay.

LLG
TABLE 7
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR QUEUING ANALYSIS1°

OAK VALLEY VILLAGE, BEAUMONT
Key Intersection
Existing
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Year 2030 With Project
Traffic Conditions
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Max.

Queue
(feet)
Adequate
Storage
(Yes / No)
Max.

Queue
(feet)
Adequate
Storage
(Yes / No)
Golf Club Drive at

4. Oak Valley Parkway
Northbound Dual Left -Turn
Northbound Through/Right-Turn
Eastbound Right -Turn
Westbound Left -Turn
Oak Valley Plaza at
5' Oak Valley Parkway
Northbound Left -Turn
Northbound Through/Right Turn
Westbound Left -Turn
95'
95'
185'
185'
90'
90'
230'
25'
33'
25'
44'
25'
25'
51'
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
121'
213'
54'
144'
137'
97'
167'
Yes [a]
Yes [a]
Yes
Yes
Yes [a]
Yes [a]
Yes
Notes:
■ [a] = Additional queue length may be accommodated within the Project site's drive aisles. to Queue is based on the 95,h Percentile Queue and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane for signalized intersections.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

BEAUMONT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: May 28, 2025
CITY COUNCIL DATE:

PROJECT NAME: Beaumont Village
PROJECT NO.: PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177
DESCRIPTION: A request for approval of a Plot Plan, Sign Program, variances for parking and open space, and development agreement to construct a commercial center on a 28.95 -acre vacant site comprised of multi -tenant buildings and commercial pad sites totaling approximately 279,941 square feet of retail and restaurant floor area. The proposed applications are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Article 12, Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning
APPLICANT: Regency Centers, LP
LOCATION: The project site is located east of Interstate 10 (I-10) and south of Oak Valley Parkway within the Community Commercial (CC) zone.

APN: 414-070-008, 414-080-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, -006 and 414-090-019

PROJECT
Note: Any conditions revised at a hearing will be noted by stri teout (for deletions) and/or underline (for additions), and any newly added conditions will be added at the end of all conditions regardless of the Department originating the condition.

STANDARD CONDITIONS

1. The permit for the above referenced Plot Plan (PP2024-0059), Sign Program (PLAN2024-0157), Variance (V2024-0019 and V2025-0031), and Development Agreement (PLAN2025-0177) and CEQA Section 15183 exemption, and property consists of all Conditions of Approval herein.

2. The use hereby permitted is the construction of a commercial center with two (2) major tenant buildings, two (2) multi -tenant buildings (including one with a major tenant) and four commercial pad sites for future drive -through restaurants located on Assessor Parcel Numbers 414-070-008, 414-080-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, - 006 and 414-090-019.

3. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Beaumont, the Beaumont Redevelopment Agency, its agents, officers, consultants, and

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 2
employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Beaumont or its agents, officers, consultants, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Beaumont, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan (PP2024-0059), Sign Program (PLAN2024- 0157), Variance (V2024-0019 and V2025-0031), and Development Agreement (PLAN2025-0177) and CEQA Section 15183 exemption. The City of Beaumont will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Beaumont and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Beaumont.

4. This approval is subject to the City of Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.02.070 Plot Plans are subject to timing specified in Sections (I) Plot Plan Time Limits, and (J) Plot Plan Lapse in Time.

5. This approval is subject to the City of Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.02.110 Variances are subject to timing specified in Sections (K) Variance Time Limits, and (L) Variance Lapse in Time.

6. The project applicant shall submit conditional use permit for the commercial pad sites that have been identified as drive-throughs pursuant to Section 17.02.100 Conditional Use Permits of the Beaumont Municipal Code once tenants have been identified.

7. The development and uses entitled pursuant to the permit shall comply with the Beaumont Municipal Code and all other applicable City of Beaumont ordinances and state and federal codes. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on the approved site plan, unless otherwise amended by these conditions of approval.

8. A business license application review and approval are required prior to building permit final.

9. Final inspections will be required prior to the start of operations by City of Beaumont Departments including, but not limited to, the office of the Fire Marshal and the Riverside County Flood Control District. All inspections shall be performed and approved before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.

10. If any of the conditions of approval are violated, or if the use otherwise becomes a public nuisance as set forth in the Beaumont Municipal Code, the Plot Plan permit may be revoked as prescribed in the Municipal Code.

11.A valid business license shall be maintained in force at all times.

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 3

12. The Community Development Director shall monitor the subject use to ensure that the scale of the use does not exceed the limitations of the existing site improvements. In the event the Community Development Director determines that the scale of the use has exceeded site limitations, a hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to review the permit and consider modification or revocation thereof.

13. After 12 months of operation, the subject matter may, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, be scheduled for review by the Planning Commission. The Commission shall retain the authority to amend these conditions of approval at such time, or to modify the use or revoke the permit if nuisance conditions result from the operation.

14. The project shall comply with the outdoor lighting (night sky) requirements of Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 8.50.

15.Outdoor storage of motor vehicles is prohibited and is not consistent with the standard operation of the business.

16. No vehicles may be parked on sidewalks, parkways, driveways, or alleys.

17. The applicant shall be responsible for securing clearance, permits and approvals from all relevant agencies, including, but not limited to, the Building Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, and any other necessary departments or agencies.

18.A sign program has been included as part of this project but will require separate Planning and Building sign permits prior to installation. All signage shall be developed in conformance with the zoning ordinance of the Beaumont Municipal Code, Chapter 17.07 or the Oak Valley Village sign program.

19. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, disease, vermin, and debris during the life of this project.

20. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, or Certificate of Occupancy (whichever occurs first), landscape plans shall be prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect and submitted in conjunction with Building plan and this project shall be subject to all the requirements listed in Chapter 17.06. The plans shall indicate species, sizes and spacing of all shrubs, groundcover, and trees.

21. Project shall comply with the landscaping provisions of Chapter 17.06 of the Beaumont Municipal Code.

22. Pursuant to Beaumont Municipal Code, Section 17.06.040.A & B landscaping is required as follows per Section 17.06.060.B:

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 4
A. Landscape Requirements.

1. Landscape Depths Required:
a. Property Lines Adjacent to Residential Districts: Five feet. b. Required Setback Adjacent to Public Rights -of -Way: Ten feet.

2.This area shall be landscaped with plant materials.

3. Landscaping in these areas shall consist of an effective combination of street trees, trees, ground cover and shrubbery and may include such items as sidewalks, access driveways, flagpoles, fountains, and other similar appurtenances.

4. Landscaping shall be developed as usable landscaped open space and outdoor living and recreation area with an adequate irrigation system.

5. Area shall be landscaped with plant materials designed to provide beautification and screening.

6. The planting of shade trees on the south and west -facing sides of new buildings is encouraged.

B. Landscape Provisions.

1.AII non -paved areas shall be landscaped and maintained to control dust.

2. Wherever off-street parking areas are situated across the street from property in a residential zone, a masonry wall or berm three feet in height shall be erected within the required landscape area, outside of the public right-of-way to adequately screen the residential properties.

3. An automatic irrigation system shall be provided for all landscaped areas.

4. Landscaping within required setback adjacent to the public right-of-way shall be provided and maintained in perpetuity subject to the following conditions:
a. A distinct demarcation between asphalt paving and landscaped area shall be provided.
b. No other usage or storage is permitted within the required landscaped area.

23. Pursuant to Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.06.050.A parking lot dividers, islands, planters, and planting areas shall be a minimum of five feet wide and ten feet long except for that all new or retrofitted tree planter shall be a minimum of nine feet by seven feet, measured to the inside perimeter of the planter, and shall have no less than 48 square feet of permeable soil planting area. Subject to approval of Variance V2025-0031, some planters may have reduced dimensions.

24. Pursuant to Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.06.050.B Parking lot tree irrigation requirements. Automatic irrigation systems within parking lots shall be installed. Trees shall be irrigated with drip emitters, bubbler heads, or subterranean low -volume drip system. Trees shall be irrigated separately from shrubs and ground covers.

25. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all street frontage landscaping

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 5
shall be installed, and irrigation shall be operational for the entire street frontages for the shopping center. Street frontage landscaping shall consist of on and off -site areas from the street frontage to the edge of proposed buildings or drive-thru lanes, as shown on the conceptual landscape plan dated April 28, 2025.

26. The landscape plans shall include at a minimum size, 24" box trees consistent with the conceptual landscape plan dated April 28, 2025.

27. Off -site landscaping within the right-of-way shall be enhanced subject to approval by the Public Works Department.

28. Prior to the issuance of the final permit or certificate of occupancy, the landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved and installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.

29. Pursuant to Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.06.050.C Parking lot tree maintenance and installation requirements. All plants and irrigation systems shall be installed according to approved plans. The owner shall guarantee the quality of work, health, and condition of plants and installation of materials including but not limited to plant types, size, spacing, and irrigation systems. Prior to final acceptance of the project, the City shall inspect and verify that the installation is in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. All corrections, adjustments, and/or replacement of landscape elements shall be done prior to final approval by the City.

30. Barbed wire, concertina and razor are strictly prohibited. Alternative toppers may be considered on a case -by -case basis, subject to approval by the Community Development Director.

31. An anti -graffiti coating shall be provided on all block walls, and written verification from the developer shall be provided to the City of Beaumont Planning Department. However, the applicant may request to have the condition modified for consideration by the Planning Commission.

32. Block walls within public view shall be of decorative materials.

33. Pursuant to Beaumont Municipal Code, Section 17.11.160.D.3, all structures, appurtenances, parking, and drive aisles shall be paved with asphalt or concrete.

34. Pursuant to Beaumont Municipal Code, Section 17.11.160.D.4, all outdoor facilities shall be in compliance with Chapter 8.50 Outdoor Lighting of the Beaumont Municipal Code.

35. All rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view and shall be demonstrated on the building plans.

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 6

36.Outdoor lighting systems in the Commercial/Industrial zone shall be reduced in lighting by at least 50 percent beginning at 10:00 pm. or close of business, whichever is later, until dawn or the start of business, whichever is sooner. When possible, the lighting system shall be turned off rather than reduced in lighting level.

Lighting shall be equipped with controls for photocell on and time off.

37. No outdoor activities are permitted within the parking area without an approved Temporary Use Permit or Special Event Permit.

38. No vehicles may be parked on the premises for the purpose of offer for sale.

39.Occupancy inspections will be required prior to the start of operations by the Building & Safety, Planning, Police, and Fire Departments. All inspections shall be performed and approved before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued by the Building and Safety Department.

40. Exterior signage/advertisements promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited. Exterior signage indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to the name of the business.

41. Exposed neon signage is strictly prohibited along the exterior windows. This includes "open/closed" sign for business.

42. The project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15183 of the CEQA guidelines (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning). The project shall comply with the applicable mitigation measures of the 2020 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report.

43. Pursuant to the RCA MSHCP Joint Powers Review (JPR) determination, the project applicant shall convey to RCA the required approximate 23.1 acres for conservation of sensitive habitat and open space.

44. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the will serve letter issued by the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, including annexing into the water district.

45. The project shall comply with Chapter 8.50 Outdoor Lighting of the Beaumont Municipal Code.

46. The project shall comply with Chapter 9.02, Noise Control of the Beaumont Municipal Code.

47. The project shall comply with Chapter 17.04 Performance Standards of the Beaumont Municipal Code.

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 7

48. The project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases. Any modifications to the phasing will require a modification to the Plot Plan and conditions of approval.

49. The applicant may contact the Department of Transportation for further information regarding the requirements of a Safety Analysis.

50. Riverside County Flood Control: If this project proposes channels, storm drains larger than 36 inches in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility, the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety.

51. Riverside County Flood Control: An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, Noble Creek Channel. If a proposed storm drain connection exceeds the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities, mitigation will be required.

For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266 (If applicable).

52. Riverside County Flood Control: This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely Noble Creek Channel. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. All regulatory permits (and all documents pertaining thereto, e.g., Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, Conservation Plans/Easements) that are to be secured by the Applicant for both facility construction and maintenance shall be submitted to the District for review. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. (If applicable).

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 8

BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS

53. A legal address assigned by the Building Division will be required prior to submittal of any plan check documents to the Building Division. Please coordinate directly with Building for required application, fees, and documentation required. This address must be posted on the site at all times.

54. Address shall be posted in a manner approved by the Fire Chief of Riverside County or the Fire Chief's designee.

55. The proposed use requires construction drawings to be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan review, building permits and building inspections.

56. Provide note on plans that "Dig Alert (811) shall be contacted prior to any excavation in accordance with government code section 4216".

57. All new structures shall be designed in conformance to the latest design standards adopted by the State of California in the California Building Standards Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations (CBC, CRC, CEC, CMC, CPC and Green Building Standards) and City of Beaumont Ordinances including requirements for allowable area, occupancy separations, fire suppression systems, etc.

58. The proposed shopping center and associated construction requires construction drawings to be submitted to the Building Department for plan review, building permits and inspections.

59. Access, sanitary facilities, and parking shall comply with Title 24 Accessibility Requirements with the currently adopted California Building Code for Common Use Areas.

60. At least 1 accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible parking loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve. If more than 1 route is provided, all routes must be accessible.

61. All on -site water and sewer utilities, up to the property line, shall be shown only on the building department submittal. The building department will inspect on -site utilities.

62. Electronic plan submittals are required and shall be submitted to [email protected]

63. Sites subject to parcel line adjustments shall reflect the existing parcel lines and the proposed parcel lines and the distances to the structure accordingly. Recordation of such lot line adjustments must be received by the City of Beaumont prior to permit final or first occupancy, whichever comes first.

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 9

64. Provide a Preliminary Geotechnical Report which addresses the feasibility of your proposed project. Address any known potential seismic hazards from known mapped faults, earthquake induced landslides, liquefaction zones or any other geologic concerns that might affect the development.

65. Upon plan check submittal and after review of the submitted plans, specifications and documents, additional requirements may be required.

66. The proposed new development is subject to the payment of School Fees as required by law. The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Compliance from the school district(s) to obtain building permits from the City.

67. Permit fees shall be paid in accordance to the City's adopted fee schedule at the time of building permit issuance).

68. The proposed new development is subject to the payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF).

69. The proposed new development may be subject to the payment of Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

70. Plans submitted for plan review shall indicate the scope of work proposed. This shall include any walls to be removed, added or spaces created, any proposed lighting, electrical, mechanical, or pluming work, etc.

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
With respect to the planning conditions for the referenced project, the fire department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances, the current edition of California Fire Code (CFC) as adopted and amended by the County of Riverside and/or recognized fire protection standards:

71. Fire Protection Water Supplies/Fire Flow - Minimum fire flow for the construction of all buildings is required per CFC Appendix B. Prior to building permit issuance for new construction, the applicant shall provide documentation to show there exists a water system capable of delivering the required fire flow. Specific design features may increase or decrease the required fire flow.
a) Will Serve Letters from the responsible water purveyor are required prior to a map recordation.

72. Fire Protection Water Supplies/Hydrants - The minimum number of fire hydrants required, as well as the location and spacing of fire hydrants, shall comply with CFC Appendix C and NFPA 24. Fire hydrants shall be located no more than 400 feet from all portions of the exterior of the building along an approved route on a fire

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 10
apparatus access road, unless otherwise approved by the fire department. In areas where new water mains are extended along streets and hydrants are not needed for protection of structures, standard fire hydrants shall be provided at spacing not to exceed 1,000 feet along streets for transportation hazards. Fire hydrants shall be at least 40 feet from the building it is serving. A fire hydrant shall be located within 20 to 100 feet of the fire department connection for buildings protected with a fire sprinkler system. The size and number of outlets required for the approved fire hydrants are 4" x 2 1/2" x 2 1/2" (super hydrant). Reference CFC as amended and NFPA 24.

73. Fire Department Access - Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided within 150 feet of all exterior portions of buildings, unless otherwise approved by the fire department. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of no less than 24 feet. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads exceeding 150 feet in length shall provide an approved turn around. For developments within the LRA VHFHSZ, the minimum required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road is 74 feet outside radius and 50 feet inside radius. See California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section1273.04. The construction of the fire apparatus access roads shall be all weather and capable of sustaining 80,000 lbs. Unless otherwise approved, the grade of a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed 16 percent, and the cross slope shall not exceed 2.5 percent. The angles of approach and departure for fire apparatus access roads shall be a maximum of 6 percent grade change for 25 feet of approach/departure. Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.
a) Fire Lane marking: Identification and marking of fire lanes, including curb details and signage, shall comply with all Riverside County Fire Department Standards.

74. Fire Department Access Turn Around — On -parcel dead-end fire apparatus access roads exceeding 150 feet in length shall provide a bulb turnaround at the terminus measuring a minimum of 45 feet outside radius and 24 feet inside radius. For development within the LRA VHFHSZ, the bulb turnaround at the terminus shall be 45ft. Parallel parking around the perimeter of the bulb is acceptable provided the bulb outside turning radius is increased by 8 feet. In -lieu of a bulb, a hammer -head type turnaround is acceptable where the top of the "T" dimension is 120 feet with the stem in the center. Additional turnaround designs may be acceptable as approved by the Fire Department. Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

75. Addressing- All commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the address side and additional locations as required. Reference CFC as amended. Ref. CFC 505.1 and County of Riverside Office of the Fire Marshal Standard #07-01.

76. Secondary Access — Unless otherwise approved by the Fire Department, dead

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 11
end fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 600 feet for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and High Fire Hazard Severity Zone areas. Secondary egress/access fire apparatus access roads shall provide independent egress/access from/to the area or as otherwise approved by the Fire Department. Secondary egress/access fire apparatus access roads shall be as remote as possible from the primary fire apparatus access road to reduce the possibility that both routes will be obstructed by a single emergency. Additional fire apparatus access roads based on the potential for impairment by vehicle. congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, anticipated magnitude of a potential incident, or other factors that could limit access may be required by the Fire Department. Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

77. Fire Department Building Construction Plan Review - Submittal of construction plans to the Fire Department will be required. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Department reviews the plans. These conditions will be based on California Fire Code, California Building Code (CBC), and related codes/standards adopted at the time of construction plan submittal. Reference CFC as amended.

78. Fire Sprinkler System - All new commercial buildings and structures 3,600 square feet or larger will be required to install a fire sprinkler system. Reference CFC as amended.

79. Fire Alarm and Detection System - A water flow monitoring system and/or fire alarm system may be required as determined at time of building construction plan review.

Reference CFC as amended.

80. This project is subject to the updated state -mandated Fire Hazard Severity Zones and will fall into the Very High and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones once locally adopted by ordinance. This project is subject to the adopted building code requirements and fire protection plan and/ or fuel modification plan requirements for the applicable zone at the time of building permit application.

81. Hazardous Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan - Projects in the Local Responsibility Area, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and the State Responsibility Area Very High, High, and Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall provide a Hazardous Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. A preliminary plan shall be provided to and approved by the Fire Department prior to any new parcel map recordation. A final plan shall be provided prior to grading permit clearances. Reference CFC as amended.

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 12

82. Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure - Projects in the Local Responsibility Area, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and the State Responsibility Area Very High, High, and Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code and California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Fire Safety Regulations. Reference CFC as amended.

83. Traffic Calming Devices - Requests for installation of traffic calming designs/devices on fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Code Official. Reference CFC as amended.

84. Gate Access - All electronically operated gates shall be provided with Knox key switches and automatic sensors for access. These gates shall be provided with access to gate equipment or another method to open the gate if there is a power failure. (Manual gates shall not be locked unless a Knox padlock or Knox Box containing the key to the lock is installed in an approved location on the approach side of the gate). A pedestrian gate, if used to provide access, shall be a minimum 3 feet wide and provided with a Knox Box/Padlock if locked. Reference CFC as amended.

85. Fire Department Access Doors — If high piled storage will be utilized in the building, Fire Department Access Doors may be required every 150 feet along all portions of the interior of the building that are along the fire apparatus access road. Reference CFC as amended.

86. Water Plans - If fire hydrants are required to be installed, applicant/developer shall furnish the water system fire hydrant plans to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow.

Once plans are signed and approved by the local water authority, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for review and approval. Reference CFC as amended.

87. Emergency Responder Communication Coverage Systems - Projects that do not meet the exceptions set forth by the Riverside County Office of the Fire Marshal shall provide plans for an emergency responder radio coverage system. Reference CFC as amended and Riverside County Fire Department Policies and Standards.

Prior to Grading

88. Water Plans -Fire
The applicant or developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 13
water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.

89. Hazardous Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan -Fire Projects in the Local Responsibility Area Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and the State Responsibility Area Very High, High, and Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones shall provide a FINAL Hazardous Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. Contact our office for submittal instructions.

90. Fire Access Road Improvements -Fire
The applicant shall submit Precise Grading Plans identifying on -parcel Fire Access Road improvements to all structures in compliance with Fire Department Standards.

Prior to Permit

91. Phased Construction Access and Water Supply -Fire
If construction is phased, an approved phasing plan shall be approved by the Fire Department. Each phase shall provide approved access and water supply for fire protection prior to any construction. Contact our office for submittal instructions.

92. No Build Prior to Access Road Improvements
No construction permits for any of the parcels exceeding 5 -acres shall be approved prior to improvements to the off -site Access Road (dedicated/non-dedicated) to be utilized for Fire Access, as detailed on the recorded map, to the minimum standards outlined in Riverside County Ordinance 460 and 461. The responsibility to complete the design and construction improvements of the Access Road(s) leading to the parcel proposed for construction, shall be the responsibility of the parcel owner/developer seeking building construction permits.

93. Hazardous Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan Inspection Verify if an inspection of the requirements of the final Hazardous Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan is required before permit issuance, in accordance with the report document. Contact our office for instructions regarding this inspection.

94. Fire Department Plan Review -Fire
Submittal of construction plans to the Fire Department will be required. This will require a separate permit application submitted directly to the Fire Department. This shall include a full site plan including all fire apparatus access roads. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Department reviews these plans. These conditions will be based on California Fire Code, California Building Code (CBC), and related codes/standards adopted at the time of construction plan submittal. Contact our office for submittal instructions.

95. Bulk Storage/Use of Hazardous Materials and H Occupancies -Fire

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 14
A Hazardous Materials Technical Report shall be provided to and approved by the Fire Department. Contact our office for submittal instructions.

Prior to Final

96. Hazardous Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan Inspection -Fire Inspection of the requirements of the FINAL Hazardous Vegetation and Fuel Management Plan is required before final Inspection. Contact our office for instructions regarding this inspection.

97. Emergency Responder Radio Communication Compliance -Fire Inspection of and function testing of the site -specific impacts to the regional Emergency Responder Radio Communication System without repeater installations, is required at a time in the development that all walls, floors, roofs, and un-stocked fixtures are installed.

The results of the testing shall determine if there are critical impacts to the regional radio system and the need for any mitigations within a specified timeline of the development completion.

POLICE DEPARTMENT

98. The applicant shall comply with all applicable local, county, state and federal regulations.

99.AII exterior lighting on the site shall remain fully functional and be kept on during all hours of darkness. Exterior lighting shall be sufficient to illuminate the property during all hours of darkness.

Any proposed outside lighting shall be in compliance with the City's Lighting Ordinance, Chapter 8.50, of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code.
100. There shall be no loitering permitted on the premises. It is the responsibility of the applicant to enforce no loitering. 101. The applicant has the option to have security cameras operating at all times. Security cameras should be located in key areas in and around the development, including the parking lot area. All images must be recorded and retained for at least 30 days.
102. The address of each individual building/suite shall be clearly visible from the front of the building and shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness. It shall be clear to first responders the building address/unit.
103. Graffiti shall be removed immediately. It is recommended to use materials that are less desirable for graffiti. Where permitted by the

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 15
Planning Department, it is recommended to cover appropriate fencing/walls (block wall, etc.) with vines to discourage graffiti. 104. Landscaping on the premises shall be trimmed below three feet (bushes, ground cover, etc.) and above six feet (tree canopies). All bushes located in front of a window need to be trimmed below the bottom of the window. A "V" pattern to the bushes allows for visibility. These requirements are to provide clear visibility throughout the property.
105. The applicant shall ensure that all gates are installed with an approved means of emergency operation and said gates shall be maintained operational.

All locked gates require a Knox Key Switch or Knox Pad -lock. Contact the Beaumont Police Department to obtain the Knox Box application. 106. Trash enclosures shall be locked and secured.
107. The applicant has the option for License Plate Reader (LPR) cameras to be installed and maintained by the applicant, at each entrance/exit driveway and/or roadway leading into the development to assist law enforcement with detouring and apprehension of subjects involved in criminal activity. Contact the Beaumont Police Department to obtain additional information at the time of construction.
108. At Applicant's discretion, set aside office space within the development for Beaumont Police Department to utilize. The office space would allow police officers the ability to complete paperwork/reports, respond quickly to calls for service, and detour criminal activity within the retail development.

PUBLIC WORKS - PP2024-0059

GENERAL

1. The following is a non -inclusive list of items that may be required by the Public Works Department:

A. Plans:
a. Street Improvement Plan
b. Sewer Improvement Plan
c. Storm Drain Improvement Plan
d. Landscape Plan (Offsite)
e. Rough Grading Plan
f. Precise Grading Plan
g. Retaining Wall Plan (for line and grade only)

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 16
h. Erosion Control Plan
i. Traffic Control Plan
B. Reports and Studies:
a. Geotechnical Report
b. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
c. Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Report
d. Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
e. Offsite Improvement Engineer's Cost Estimate (ECE)
f. Grading & Pad Certification
g. Compaction Report
C. Permits and Agreements:
a. Permission to Grade and Construction Agreements
b. WQMP Covenant and Agreement
c. City Grading Permit
d. City Dirt Haul Permit
e. City Encroachment Permit
f. Performance Bond
g. Labor and Material Bond
h. Maintenance Bond
D. Survey Documents
a. Easement Dedications
b. Corner Record
c. Record of Survey
E. Fees: Prior to obtaining a building permit the Applicant shall pay all applicable development fees as indicated on the fee schedule, current at the time of permit, available from the City.

2. The design of public infrastructure elements shall conform to the requirements of the City of Beaumont General Plan, Water Quality Management Plan, Master Plans, City of Beaumont Municipal Code and Standards, Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTD) Road Standards & Specification, Riverside County Flood Control Standards, RCTD Map Preparation Manual, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Caltrans Standard Specifications, and the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, current edition, as required by the Public Works Department.

3. All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer, Registered Professional Geologist, or Registered Professional Surveyor in the State of California, and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.

4. The Applicant shall coordinate with affected utility companies and obtain any permits

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 17
as necessary for the development of this project.

5. The Applicant is responsible for resolving any conflicts with existing or proposed easements. All easement(s) of record and proposed easements shall be shown on the grading plan and improvement plans, where applicable.

6. The Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit, as required, for all work within the public right-of-way.

7. The Applicant, at its sole expense, shall obtain all right-of-way or easement acquisitions necessary to implement any portion or condition of this project, including public improvements, off -site grading & construction, offsite street requirements, offsite sewer requirements, storm drain improvements, or any other requirement or condition.

8. All water quality basin facilities shall be private and maintained by the property owner(s).

9. All storm drains shall be private and maintained by the property owner(s).

10. Concrete slope protection and scour wall improvements along Noble Creek shall be located on -site and maintained by the property owner(s).

SURVEYING AND MAPPING

11. PRIOR ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: The Applicant shall obtain City approval of Lot Line Adjustments (LLA) to modify the property parcel lines as shown on the approved grading plans. The LLA shall be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder's Office, and proof of recordation shall be obtained by the Public Works Department.

12. PRIOR ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: The Applicant shall provide all right-of-way dedications necessary for the construction of all streets, per separate instrument, including but not limited to:

A. Oak Valley Parkway is classified as a Modified Urban Arterial Highway (139 -feet ultimate right-of-way), per the City of Beaumont General Plan (2040) Mobility Element. The Applicant shall dedicate all additional right-of-way necessary to achieve 64 -feet half -width right-of-way, as measured perpendicular to the centerline of the record.

B. Oak Valley Parkway half -width right-of-way dedication shall accommodate a 14 - foot -wide raised median, three eastbound through lanes, a 6 -foot curb adjacent sidewalk, a 3 -foot parkway, and a Class 2 bike lane, as indicated in RCTD Standard No. 91.

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 18
C. Oak Valley Parkway half -width right-of-way dedication shall extend beyond the project boundary to approximately 700 -feet east of Oak View Drive centerline, also being the east property line of parcel identified as APN 414-070-008.

13. PRIOR ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: The Applicant shall dedicate an easement for public road purposes along the frontage of the project site, as necessary to ensure continuous, unobstructed public pedestrian access. The easement shall include the full width of any proposed public sidewalk that extends into the property.

14. PRIOR ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: The Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way at the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection of Oak Valley Parkway and Golf Club Drive to accommodate property line corner cutbacks per RCTD Standard No. 805.

15. PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION: Where survey monuments exist, such monuments shall be protected or shall be referenced and reset, pursuant to the Business and Professions Code, Sections 8700 to 8805 (Land Surveyors Act).

16. PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION: The Applicant shall have the property corners identified and clearly flagged. Any missing or obliterated corners shall be reestablished and set in accordance with the Land Surveyors Act and Professional Land Surveying Practices. All right-of-way dedications shall be monumented. As necessary, a Corner Record or Record of Survey shall be filed with the County of Riverside.

17. PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION: The Applicant shall provide an easement over, across, and which provides ingress and egress to all private water quality, stormwater, and drainage basins, to be dedicated to the City, for ingress, egress, and right to inspect unless otherwise directed by the Public Works Department.

18. PRIOR ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO): Monuments shall be provided per Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. Crossties shall be set on top of curbs and tie sheets shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.

STREET IMPROVEMENTS

19. PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION: All public improvement plans associated with the project and necessary for the complete construction of off -site facilities shall be approved.

20. PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION: The Applicant shall provide securities guaranteeing the payment of the cost for all public improvements. The securities shall include Faithful Performance and labor and materials for 100% of the approved Engineer's Cost Estimate (ECE). Streets (including striping, signing, lights, and landscaping), sewer, and storm drain improvements shall have individual and separate

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 19
security.

21. PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION: The Applicant shall prepare and fully execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) or other agreement acceptable to the City. A SIA shall be on the City approved form.

22. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENT OR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO): The Applicant shall underground all existing utilities located on, extending across, or coincident with the project boundary and as necessary to transition to existing facilities per Beaumont Municipal Code Section 12.18.030. Should any overhead utility be exempt from underground, the Applicant shall relocate the utility and appurtenances as needed for the safe and equitable operation of other improvements.

23. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENT OR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO): The Applicant shall complete all half -width improvements along Oak Valley Parkway, coincident with the project boundary and as necessary to safely transition to the existing improvements. All transitions to existing improvement shall occur outside the project boundary. The improvements shall conform to modified RCTD Standard No. 91 and shall include:

A. 8" curb and gutter
B. 6' wide curb adjacent sidewalk
C. 14' wide raised median
D. All half -width improvements shall extend beyond the project boundary to approximately 700 -feet east of Oak View Drive centerline, also being the east property line of parcel identified as APN 414-070-008.

E. Street sections shall accommodate three eastbound through lanes and a Class 2 bike lane along Oak Valley Parkway.

F. Street structural sections shall be designed with a Traffic Index per the soil engineer's recommendations (10.0 minimum). Preliminary soil investigations shall be used by the Engineer to determine an appropriate R -value, and the pavement and base thickness based on the established Traffic Index. In no case shall the minimum pavement section be less than the requirements of Riverside County Road Standard Specifications Section 8.05.

G. All saw cuts and joining of existing AC paving shall be per the city's pavement restoration details.

24. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENT OR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO): The Applicant shall perform a minimum 0.17' mill and overlay along Oak Valley Parkway from street centerline and/or edge of raised median to edge of existing pavement, coincident with the project boundary and extending beyond the project boundary to the end of the lane reduction, approximately 700 -feet east of Oak View Drive centerline and also being the east property line of parcel identified as APN 414-070-008. Prior to overlay, the Applicant

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 20
shall provide a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer verifying that the existing Aggregate Base (AB) and subgrade meet the minimum requirements of Riverside County Road Standard Specifications Section 8.05. The Applicant shall be responsible for meeting the Specifications requirement in the event of non-compliance. The overlay is to be applied after all other construction has occurred.

25. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENT OR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO): Lane reduction transition markings shall be provided along Oak Valley Parkway between Oak View Drive and 700 -feet east Oak View Drive, also being the east property line of parcel APN 414-070- 008. The transition taper length for the lane reduction shall be in conformance with CA MUTCD requirements. Along the taper, install delineators per CA MUTCD. Diagonal crosshatch markings shall be provided from edge of tapered lane to edge of new gutter.

26. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENT OR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO): Construct an AC berm starting at the easterly end of the new 8" curb and tying into the existing curb along Oak Valley Parkway.

27. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENT OR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO): The Applicant shall replace any sidewalk, curb, and gutter, drive approach, AC pavement, or other improvement damaged during construction as determined necessary by the Public Works Department.

28. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENT OR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO): The Applicant shall satisfy all improvements and mitigation measures identified in the approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), including but not limited to:

A. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Desert Lawn Drive and Oak Valley Parkway.

B. Pay Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) to satisfy the requirement to widen and restripe the north leg of the intersection of I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway to provide an exclusive southbound left -turn lane and modify the existing traffic signal.

C. Pay TUMF to satisfy the requirement to widen and restripe the west leg of the intersection of I-10 EB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway to provide an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane and modify the existing traffic signal.

D. Pay TUMF to satisfy the requirement to widen and restripe the south leg of the intersection of I-10 WB Ramps at Oak Valley Parkway to provide an exclusive northbound left -turn lane and modify the existing traffic signal.

E. Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Elm Avenue at Oak Valley Parkway. Intersection improvements shall include striping crosswalks on all legs.

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 21
F. At intersection of Golf Club Drive at Oak Valley Parkway, the following improvements shall be completed:

1. Construct the south leg of the intersection and provide dual exclusive northbound left -turn lanes, a shared northbound through/right-turn lane, and two inbound lanes.

2. Restripe the north leg of the intersection to provide a southbound through lane.

3. Widen and restripe the west leg of the intersection to provide two additional eastbound through lanes and an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane.

4. Widen and restripe the east leg of the intersection to provide an exclusive westbound left -turn lane and two additional eastbound departure lanes.

5. Modify the existing traffic signal for eight -phase operation.

6. Stripe crosswalks on the south and east legs.

G. At intersection of Oak Valley Plaza at Oak Valley Parkway, the following improvements shall be completed:

1. Construct the south leg of the intersection and provide an exclusive northbound left -turn lane, a shared northbound through/right-turn lane, and one inbound lane.

2. Restripe the north leg of the intersection to provide convert the exclusive southbound right -turn lane to a shared southbound through/right-turn lane.

3. Widen and restripe the west leg of the intersection to provide one additional eastbound through lane and a shared eastbound through/right-turn lane.

4. Widen and restripe the east leg of the intersection to provide an exclusive westbound left -turn lane and two additional eastbound departure lanes.

5. Modify the existing traffic signal for eight -phase operation.

6. Stripe crosswalks on the south and east legs.

H. At intersection of Oak View Drive at Oak Valley Parkway, widen and restripe the west leg of the intersection to provide two additional eastbound through lanes.

Widen and restripe the east leg of the intersection to provide two additional eastbound departure lanes. Modify the existing traffic signal. Stripe a crosswalk on the east leg.

I. At Project Driveway 1 at Oak Valley Parkway, construct the south leg of the intersection and one inbound lane. Widen and restripe the west leg of the intersection to provide one additional eastbound through lane and one exclusive eastbound right -turn lane. Widen and restripe the east leg of the intersection to provide two additional eastbound departure lanes.

29. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENT OR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO): The Applicant shall install public streetlights along the project frontage of perimeter streets, per City of Beaumont approved Street Lighting Specifications. The Applicant shall obtain Specifications from the Public Works Department prior to submitting street light plans. Solar powered streetlights shall not be allowed.

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 22

30. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENT OR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO): The Applicant shall design and install offsite landscaping and supporting irrigation system. All irrigation and landscaping associated with this project will be privately maintained. The landscape within the public right-of-way shall occur on a separate plan set from the on -site landscaping.

GRADING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

31. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: The Applicant shall design the drainage facilities to capture and convey the 100 -year storm event.

32. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: The Applicant shall design the drainage facilities to collect and convey all on -site drainage flows in a manner consistent with the historic drainage pattern and discharge in a manner that will not increase damage, hazard, or liability to adjacent or downstream properties.

33. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: The Applicant shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities as required by the California Water Resources Control Board.

34. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: a WQMP covenant and Agreement shall be fully executed and recorded.

35. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and submitted to the California Water Resources Control Board. The developer shall be responsible for implementation, monitoring, operation, and maintenance of the SWPPP until all improvements have been accepted by Public Works Department or construction is complete, whichever is later.

36. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: A copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number from the State Water Resources Control Board shall be provided to the Public Works Department.

37. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT: The Applicant shall adhere to all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations and requirements if existing drainage patterns are affected by this development. The Applicant shall submit to the City and any governing Federal agency for review and approval of all necessary calculations.

38. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: The Applicant shall design all storm drains, catch basins, and stormwater structures with trash capture devices per City of

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 23
Beaumont Standard.

39. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: The Applicant shall design temporary drainage facilities and erosion control measures to minimize erosion and silt deposition during the grading operation.

40. CONCURRENT WITH GRADING OPERATIONS: Any grading and/or utility excavations and backfilling, both on and off -site, shall be done under the continuous direction of a licensed geotechnical/civil engineer who shall obtain all required permits and submit reports on progress and test results to the Public Works Department for review and approval as determined by the City. Upon completion of all soil -related work, the geotechnical engineer shall submit a final report to the Public Works Department for review and approval, which may require additional tests at the expense of the Applicant.

STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS

41. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET OR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT OR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO):

The Applicant shall design and construct off -site drainage facilities along Oak Valley Parkway near the northwest corner of the project boundary. The facilities shall include:

A. A headwall at the existing corrugated metal storm drain. The headwall shall be surrounded by riprap. Applicant shall verify with Caltrans that the easterly storm drain pipe is no longer is use and shall be cutback with no headwall necessary.

B. Riprap to convey surface flows from Oak Valley Parkway to the existing Caltrans streamline. Riprap shall surround the open concrete channel along Oak Valley Parkway and shall cover the drainage area bound by the west property line.

C. Protect in place the concrete curb surrounding the existing SCE equipment adjacent to the riprap.

D. All riprap shall be 1/4 ton minimum size and partially grouted.

E. Design of storm drain improvements shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department.

F. Design shall be subject to Caltrans review. Applicant shall provide a copy of Caltrans comments and/or approval.

42. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET OR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT OR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO):

All storm drain manhole rims shall be set flush with the finished surface Per the City of Beaumont's paving and manhole cover detail.

PP2024-0059, PLAN2024-0157, V2024-0019, V2025-0031 and PLAN2025-0177 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 24

SEWER IMPROVEMENTS

43. PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION FOR ANY PUBLIC SEWER IMPROVEMENT: The Applicant shall submit and obtain City approval of grading, utility, and site wall plans that show all onsite improvements including sewer mains, manholes, interceptors, and vehicle access improvements meeting applicable codes & standards to preserve continued vehicle access from Oak Valley Parkway to the Noble Creek Lift Station located at 1899 W. Oak Valley Parkway. Said vehicle access shall include, without limitation, an access road capable of being driven on by fire engine trucks, combo vacuum trucks, cement trucks, crane trucks, and tractor trucks with flatbed trailers capable of carrying 20 ft sections of pipe. Said vehicle access improvements shall be located on the Applicant's site and no portion of these improvements shall be located on the City's existing easement without City approval. Regarding vehicle access improvements, Applicant shall design improvements that satisfy all the relevant geometric parameters including minimum turning radius and corner site distance of the aforementioned vehicles. Further, if access improvements are to be ramped or sloped to the existing elevation of the Noble Creek Lift Station, Applicant shall design improvements that satisfy the maximum slope, maximum approach angle, and maximum departure angle of each of the aforementioned vehicles in accordance with AASHTO design standards.

Said improvements including vehicle access improvements shall be designed in accordance with applicable codes and standards including AASHTO design standards and the improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the City.

44. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT AND ISSUANCE OF

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND COMMENCING ANY GRADING OR
SITEWORK: The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan acceptable to the City that preserves at all times vehicle access from Oak Valley Parkway to the Noble Creek Lift Station located at 1899 W. Oak Valley Parkway. Said vehicle access shall include, without limitation, an access road capable of being driven on by fire engine trucks, combo vacuum trucks, cement trucks, crane trucks, and tractor trucks with flatbed trailers. Applicant shall also provide a minimum 55 -feet wide truck turnaround easement area such that the aforementioned vehicles can drive forward to enter and exit the existing easement.

45. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (CCO) FOR THE FIRST BUILDING IN THE PROJECT: Applicant shall construct improvements including vehicle access improvements in accordance with City approved plans and at all times thereafter maintain onsite vehicle access improvements to and from the easement where the Noble Creek Lift Station is located.

46. PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PUBLIC STREET OR SEWER IMPROVEMENT AND PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMIT (COO): The Applicant shall dedicate: a minimum 20 -feet wide (or larger if required by the City, Fire Marshal or other AHJ ) vehicle access easement to and from the existing Noble Creek Lift