HomeMy Public PortalAboutNov 2, 2021 CC Agenda Packet
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED & REGULAR SESSION
550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA
Tuesday, November 02, 2021
Closed Session: 4:30 PM | Regular Meeting: 6:00 PM
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packets
are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at 550 E. 6th Street during normal business hours.
AGENDA
MEETING PARTICIPATION NOTICE
This meeting will be conducted utilizing teleconference communications and will be recorded for live
streaming as well as open to public attendance subject to social distancing and applicable health
orders. All City of Beaumont public meetings will be available via live streaming and made available
on the City's official YouTube webpage. Please use the following link during the meeting for live
stream access.
beaumontca.gov/livestream
Public comments will be accepted using the following options.
1. Written comments will be accepted via email and will be read aloud during the corresponding
item of the meeting. Public comments shall not exceed three (3) minutes unless otherwise
authorized by City Council. Comments can be submitted anytime prior to the meeting as well
as during the meeting up until the end of the corresponding item. Please submit your
comments to: nicolew@beaumontca.gov
2. Phone-in comments will be accepted by joining a conference line prior to the corresponding
item of the meeting. Public comments shall not exceed three (3) minutes unless otherwise
authorized by City Council. Please use the following phone number to join the call
(951) 922 - 4845.
3. In person comments subject to the adherence of the applicable health orders and social
distancing requirements.
In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, if you require special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office using the above email or call (951) 572 - 3196.
Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will ensure the best reasonable accommodation
arrangements.
1
CLOSED SESSION - 4:30 PM
A Closed Session of the City Council / Beaumont Financing Authority / Beaumont Utility Auth ority / Beaumont Successor
Agency (formerly RDA)/Beaumont Parking Authority / Beaumont Public Improvement Authority may be held in accordance
with state law which may include, but is not limited to, the following types of items: personnel matters, labor ne gotiations,
security matters, providing instructions to real property negotiators and conference with legal counsel regarding pending
litigation. Any public comment on Closed Session items will be taken prior to the Closed Session. Any required
announcements or discussion of Closed Session items or actions following the Closed Session with be made in the City
Council Chambers.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Lara, Mayor Pro Tem White, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Fenn, Council
Member Santos
Public Comments Regarding Closed Session
1. Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant
to Government Code 54956.9(d)(2) and/or (3): One Potential Case Relating to Threat of
Litigation by Noble Creek Meadows, LLC
2. Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existing Litigation-Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. City of
Beaumont, Riv. Co. Sup. Case No. CVRI2000635
3. Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Potential Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4): One Potential Case
4. Conference with Labor Negotiators - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
City Designated Representatives City Manager Todd Parton and Administrati ve Services
Director Kari Mendoza. Employee Organizations: Beaumont Police Officers Association
and SEIU
5. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation--U.S.D.C. Case No. 1:17-CV-2804
Adjourn to Regular Session
REGULAR SESSION - 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Lara, Mayor Pro Tem White, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Fenn, Council
Member Santos
Report out from Closed Session
Action on any Closed Session Items
Action of any Requests for Excused Absence
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
Adjustments to the Agenda
2
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ RECOGNITION / PROCLAMATIONS / CORRESPONDENCE
1. Beaumont Library 110th Anniversary Proclamation
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
Any one person may address the City Council on any matter not on this agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out a
“Public Comment Form” provided at the back table and give it to the City Clerk. There is a three (3) minute t ime limit on
public comments. There will be no sharing or passing of time to another person. State Law prohibits the City Council from
discussing or taking actions brought up by your comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are taken as one action item unless an item is pulled for further discussion here or at the
end of action items. Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only.
2. Approval of Minutes
Recommended Action:
Approve Minutes dated October 19, 2021.
3. Ratification of Warrants
Recommended Action:
Ratify Warrants dated:
October 18, 2021
October 22, 2021
4. Accept Street Improvements for Tract Map No. 37045, Authorize the Mayor to Sign the
Certificate of Acceptance, and Authorize City Staff to Issue a Bond Exoneration Letter
for Performance and Payment Bond No. 4417666
Recommended Action:
Accept the street improvements for Tract Map No. 37045,
Authorize the Mayor to sign the Certificate of Acceptance, and
Authorize City staff to issue a Bond Exoneration Letter for Performance and
Payment Bond No. 4417666.
5. Authorize City Staff to Issue a Bond Exoneration Letter for Performance and Payment
Bond No. 107174939 for Improvements Associated with Parcel Map No. 36426 and
Accept Maintenance Bond No. 107506777
Recommended Action:
Authorize City staff to issue a Bond Exoneration Letter for Performance and
Payment Bond No. 107174939 for improvements associated with Parcel Map No.
36426 and accept Maintenance Bond No. 107506777.
6. Re-Ratification of Local Emergency and Re-Authorizing the Use of Teleconferencing to
Conduct Public Meetings
Recommended Action:
3
Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Beaumont Proclaiming a Local Emergency Persists, Re-Ratifying the
Proclamation of a State of Emergency by Executive Order N-09-21, and Re-
Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the
City of Beaumont for the Period of November 6, 2021, through December 6,
2021, Pursuant to Provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act.”
7. Notice of Upcoming Vacancies on City Commissions and Committees
Recommended Action:
Receive and file.
8. Letter of Support for the Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service
Project
Recommended Action:
City staff recommends that City Council authorize Mayor Lara to execute the
letter of support for the Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor
Service Project.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only.
9. Continued Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution Denying Certification of
Final Partially Recirculated EIR for the Legacy Highlands Specific Plan Project
Recommended Action:
Hold the continued public hearing, and
Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Beaumont, California, Denying the Certification of the Final Partially
Recirculated Environmental Impact Report.”
10. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending and Restating Chapter 8.12
(Solid Waste Management) of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code
Recommended Action:
Hold a public hearing, and
Waive the full reading and approve by title only, “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Amending and Restating Chapter
8.12 (Solid Waste Management) of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code.”
11. Hold a Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Updating the Fee Schedule for the
City-owned Electric Vehicle Charging Station
Recommended Action:
Hold a public hearing, and
Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City of
Beaumont, California, Approving Electric Vehicle Charging Station Fees Update.”
4
12. Public Hearing and Consideration of Termination of a Moratorium Prohibiting Tire Sales
and Tire Repair Establishments
Recommended Action:
Hold a public hearing, and
Waive the first full reading and approve by title only, “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Beaumont Terminating Urgency Ordinance 1121 Imposing
a Temporary Moratorium Prohibiting Tire Sales and Tire Repair Facilities
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 as Extended by Urgency
Ordinance 1123.”
13. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Resolution Vacating Tenth Street Between
Orange Avenue and Maple Avenue
Recommended Action:
Hold a public hearing, and
Waive the full reading, and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Beaumont, California, Vacating Tenth Street Between Orange Avenue
and Maple Avenue.”
ACTION ITEMS
Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by tit le only.
14. Consider a Request by YES on Measure H to Approve a Resolution to Support the San
Gorgonio Hospital District Measure H to Renew a Local Parcel Tax to Fund Emergency
Room Operations and Emergency Medical Services
Recommended Action:
This is a policy decision of the City Council and City staff does not have a
recommendation at this time.
15. Consider Adopting a Resolution Waiving the Monthly Facility Use and Staff Fees at the
Albert A. Chatigny Sr. Community Recreation Center (CRC) for Carol’s Kitchen Through
December 31, 2022
Recommended Action:
Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City of
Beaumont Authorizing the Waiver of Monthly Facility Use and Staff Fees at the
Albert A. Sr. Chatigny Community Recreation Center (CRC) for Carol’s Kitchen
through December 31, 2022.”
16. Discussion and Direction to City Staff on Facility Use Rentals and Fees for Non-
Profit/Tax Exempt Organizations
Recommended Action:
Discussion and direction to City staff.
17. Update of Park Capital Improvement Projects
Recommended Action:
Discuss and provide direction to City staff.
5
18. Purchase of Mobile Data Computers for Six Police Vehicles, Mobile Command Unit and
Detective Bureau
Recommended Action:
Approve the purchase of eight (8) Panasonic Toughbooks, Cradlepoint IBR900
first net routers with Wi-Fi, low profile shark fin 2G/3G/4G LTE Antennas and
cables for a cost of $68,919.10 from CDCE Mobile;
Approve the purchase of 14 SIM cards (8 from Verizon and 6 from AT&T) to be
used in the MDCs for connectivity at a yearly price of $6,720; and
Also approve the purchase of Net Motion to enhance the connectivity of the
entire patrol fleet for at a yearly cost of $4,000.
19. Discussion and Position Direction on Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 (ACA 7)
and Initiative 21-0016
Recommended Action:
Hold discussion and provide direction on taking a position on ACA 7.
20. Consider Establishing a Formal Position of the City Council Regarding the Riverside
County Supervisory Redistricting Plan and Authorize Mayor Lara to Submit a Position
Letter to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
Recommended Action:
City staff recommends that the City Council take a position to oppose redistricting
scenarios that would split the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, and Calimesa into
multiple supervisory districts and authorize Mayor Lara to execute and submit the
draft letter included in Attachment G of this memorandum.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES AND DISCUSSION
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
Economic Development Committee Report Out and City Council Direction
CITY TREASURER REPORT
Finance and Audit Committee Report Out and City Council Direction
CITY CLERK REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
21. Pending Litigation Status List
CITY MANAGER REPORT
6
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL REPORTS
- Santos
- Fenn
- Martinez
- White
- Lara
CLOSED SESSION
1. Annual Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957. Title: City Manager
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Beaumont City Council, Beaumont Financing Authority, the Beaumont
Successor Agency (formerly RDA), the Beaumont Utility Authority, the Beaumont Parking Authority and
the Beaumont Public Improvement Agency is scheduled for Tuesday, November 16, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.,
unless otherwise posted.
Beaumont City Hall – Online www.BeaumontCa.gov
7
8
Item 3.
9
Item 3.
10
Item 3.
11
Item 3.
12
Item 3.
13
Item 3.
14
Item 3.
15
Item 3.
16
Item 3.
17
Item 3.
18
Item 3.
19
Item 3.
20
Item 3.
21
Item 3.
22
Item 3.
23
Item 3.
24
Item 3.
25
Item 3.
26
Item 3.
27
Item 3.
28
Item 3.
29
Item 3.
30
Item 3.
31
Item 3.
32
Item 3.
33
Item 3.
34
Item 3.
35
Item 3.
36
Item 3.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Robert L. Vestal, Assistant Public Works Director
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Accept Street Improvements for Tract Map No. 37045, Authorize the
Mayor to Sign the Certificate of Acceptance, and Authorize City Staff
to Issue a Bond Exoneration Letter for Performance and Payment
Bond No. 4417666
Background and Analysis:
The City requires all developers to provide construction security for public
improvements consisting of, but not limited to, street improvements, sewer
improvements, storm drain improvements, and survey monumentation. After the
improvements are constructed, City staff verifies that no liens have been filed and that
the improvements are completed in accordance with the project’s conditions of
approval, design standards, and City requirements. Once verified, City Council may
exonerate the construction security and accept a one-year maintenance security.
During the one-year maintenance period, the developer maintains all associated
improvements. After the one-year term has elapsed, the developer petitions the City to
accept the improvements into the publicly maintained system and exonerate the
maintenance security.
After the petition is received by the Public Works Department, City staff verifies that the
previously constructed improvements have been maintained in accordance with City
standards. Maintenance includes replacing defective materials, repairing defective
craftsmanship, replacing missing components, repairing or replacing damaged finishes
and surfaces, and repairing any other deficiencies.
Beaumont Highland Springs LLC, Tract Map No. 37045
The developer, Beaumont Highland Springs, LLC has constructed and maintained all
work associated with the following improvements:
37
Item 4.
1. Public Works File No. 2020-0560 and as shown on City File No. 3152, under
performance and payment bond No. 4417666. Improvements generally consist of
curb and gutter, ac paving, sidewalk, striping, signing, and street lighting; along
First Street, Highland Springs Avenue, and Second Street.
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Beaumont Highland Springs, LLC applied to the City to accept the identified
improvements and exonerate the respective performance and payment security.
Beaumont Highland Springs, LLC elected to retain the performance and payment
security in lieu of a maintenance bonds for the one -year maintenance period. City staff
has verified that the previously constructed improvements were maintained in
accordance with the City standards and are ready to be accepted and included into the
publicly maintained system.
38
Item 4.
The following table is a summary of the bonds.
Table 1 – Tract Map No. 37045 Bond Summary
# Improvement PW No. Performance
Bond Number
Maintenance
Bond Number
1 Street 2020-0560 4417666 N/A
Therefore, City staff recommends that City Council accept the improvements and
authorize City staff to issue a bond exoneration letter for the performance and payment
bond.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost of preparing the staff report is estimated to be $350.
Recommended Action:
Accept the street improvements for Tract Map No. 37045,
Authorize the Mayor to sign the Certificate of Acceptance, and
Authorize City staff to issue a Bond Exoneration Letter for Performance and
Payment Bond No. 4417666.
Attachments:
A. Certificate of Acceptance
B. PW2020-0560 Bond Exoneration Application
39
Item 4.
When Recorded Return
Original To:
City of Beaumont
550 East 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
NO RECORDING FEE REQUIRED PER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
NOTICE is hereby given that the CITY OF BEAUMONT, 550 East 6th Street, Beaumont,
California, 92223, a municipal corporation, is owner in fee of easements in the properties
hereinafter described. Said owner hereby ACCEPTS the maintenance of following
improvements:
Street Improvements for Tract Map No. 37045, Public Works file No. 17-4299, and City
file No. 3152 on the property hereinafter described and that was COMPLETED prior to
November 02, 2020 by Beaumont Highland Springs, LLC, owner.
The property on which said work of improvement was completed in the City of
Beaumont, County of Riverside, and State of California lying in Section 11, Township 3
South, Range 1 West.
___________________ ______________________________
Date Mike Lara,
Mayor of the City of Beaumont, CA
VERIFICATION:
I the undersigned am the Mayor of the City of Beaumont, the declaring of the foregoing
Notice of Completion. I have read the said Notice of Completion and know the contents
thereof: The same is true of my knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
___________________ ______________________________
Date Mike Lara,
Mayor of the City of Beaumont, CA
40
Item 4.
41
Item 4.
42
Item 4.
43
Item 4.
44
Item 4.
45
Item 4.
46
Item 4.
47
Item 4.
48
Item 4.
49
Item 4.
50
Item 4.
51
Item 4.
52
Item 4.
53
Item 4.
54
Item 4.
55
Item 4.
56
Item 4.
57Item 4.
58Item 4.
59Item 4.
60Item 4.
61Item 4.
62Item 4.
From:christopher sorensen
To:Suzanne Foxworth
Subject:RE: PW2020-0560
Date:Wednesday, March 24, 2021 6:44:20 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Sue,
The punch list items on this bond are now complete and ready to move forward.
CHRIS SORENSEN
Public Works Inspector
City of Beaumont
550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, Ca 92223
Desk (951) 769-8520 Ext. 381
BeaumontCa.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube
#ACITYELEVATED
From: Cosbey Watson Jr <cwatson@richdevelopment.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:14 AM
To: christopher sorensen <csorensen@beaumontca.gov>
Cc: Suzanne Foxworth <SFoxworth@beaumontca.gov>
Subject: RE: PW2020-0560
Thanks Chris, will you release it through Suzanne?
From: christopher sorensen <csorensen@beaumontca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 7:29 AM
To: Cosbey Watson Jr <cwatson@richdevelopment.com>
Subject: RE: PW2020-0560
Cosbey,
Looks good. Thank you.
CHRIS SORENSEN
Public Works Inspector
City of Beaumont
63
Item 4.
550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, Ca 92223
Desk (951) 769-8520 Ext. 381
BeaumontCa.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube
#ACITYELEVATED
From: Cosbey Watson Jr <cwatson@richdevelopment.com>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 1:27 PM
To: christopher sorensen <csorensen@beaumontca.gov>
Subject: FW: PW2020-0560
Good afternoon Chris,
I have attached two photos of the completed concrete work in Beaumont. Can you confirm that this will
release our bond.
Thank you for all of your help!
Cosbey
64
Item 4.
65
Item 4.
Cosbey
Sent from my iPhone
66
Item 4.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Robert L. Vestal, Assistant Public Works Director
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Authorize City Staff to Issue a Bond Exoneration Letter for
Performance and Payment Bond No. 107174939 for Improvements
Associated with Parcel Map No. 36426 and Accept Maintenance Bond
No. 107506777
Background and Analysis:
The City requires all developers to provide construction security for public
improvements consisting of, but not limited to, street improvements, sewer
improvements, storm drain improvements, and survey monumentation. After the
improvements are constructed, City staff verifies that the improvements are completed
in accordance with the project’s conditions of approval, design standards, and City
requirements. Once verified, City Council may exonerate the construction security and
accept a one-year maintenance security.
During the one-year maintenance period, the developer maintains all associated
improvements. After the one-year term has elapsed, the developer petitions the City to
accept the improvements into the publicly maintained system and exonerate the
maintenance security.
MPLD II Inland Empire, LLC
The developer, MPLD II Inland Empire, LLC has constructed all work associated with
the following improvements:
Public Works File No. 2020-0734, as shown on City File No. 3328, under
Performance and Payment Bond No. 107174939 for Parcel Map No. 36426.
Improvements generally consist of sewer force main and appurtenances, along
Fourth Street, west of Potrero Boulevard.
67
Item 5.
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
City staff has verified that the improvements were constructed in accordance with the
project’s conditions of approval, design standards, and City requirements . Additionally,
City staff has received and reviewed the following maintenance bonds:
1. 107506777, provided by MPLD II Inland Empire, LLC
The following table is a summary of the bonds.
Table 1 – Parcel Map No. 36426 Bond Summary
# Improvement PW No. Performance
Bond Number
Maintenance
Bond Number
1 Force Main PW2021-0734 107174939 107506777
Therefore, City staff recommends that City Council accept the maintenance bonds and
authorize City staff to issue a bond exoneration letter for the performance and payment
bonds.
68
Item 5.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost of preparing the staff report is estimated to be $350.
Recommended Action:
Authorize City staff to issue a Bond Exoneration Letter for Performance and
Payment Bond No. 107174939 for improvements associated with Parcel Map
No. 36426 and accept Maintenance Bond No. 107506777.
Attachments:
A. PW2021-0734 Bond Exoneration App. and Maintenance bond 107506777
69
Item 5.
70
Item 5.
71
Item 5.
1140 N. Coast Hwy, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 | P 949-655-8227 | mcdonaldpropertygroup.com
June 30, 2021
City of Beaumont
Attn: Jeff Hart
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Re: Request for Bond Exoneration for 4th Street Sewer Improvements
Dear Jeff,
Please see attached Bond Exoneration Application and all required documents for the work
that we have completed to release Performance Bond #107174939 for our completed 4th Street
Sewer Improvements.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding these
documents.
Sincerely,
Bruce McDonald
McDonald Property Group, Inc.
72
Item 5.
City of Beaumont
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
(951) 769-8518
www.ci.beaumont.ca.us
BOND EXONERATION APPLICATION
(PLEASE READ ALL INFORMATION CAREFULLY BEFORE FILLING OUT THE
APPLICATION)
Please completely fill out the attached Bond Exoneration application and return it to the City of
Beaumont along with the following items:
For Performance Bond release:
1. Maps of areas covered by the bonds.
2. Application Fee the amount of $484.43 per bond.
3. Inspection Deposit in the amount $3,000 per bond.
For Maintenance Bond release:
1. Maps of areas covered by the bonds
2. Application Fee the amount of $484.43 per bond for Maintenance Bond.
3. Inspection Deposit in the amount $3,000 per bond.
4. Application Fee for Monument Inspection Fees (If applicable) in the amount of $1,032.90
(first 4 parcels/lots) plus $25.82 each additional parcel/lot.
a. If any centerline monuments were set submit Swing Tie Plats, these plats should be on
8.5 x 11, with Company Title Block and be Wet Signed and Stamped.
b. All submittals must include a full size recorded copy of the Map.
c. Boundary monuments need to be set and flagged up. This also includes monuments
destroyed by construction and reset pursuant to the standards described in Section
8771 of the Business and Professions code.
For Replacement Bond:
1. Maps of areas covered by the bonds.
2. Application Fee the amount of $288.18 per bond.
Once your completed application has been submitted and the necessary fees have been paid, the
application will be reviewed and the applicant will be contacted regarding the date of the City
Council hearing regarding the application.
73
Item 5.
74
Item 5.
LEGAL DESCTIPTION:BYMARKAPPR.DATEENGINEERCITYDESCRIPTIONDATEREINHARD STENZELR.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-20SEALDESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE:JOB NUMBER:FILE NO:OF SHEETSCOMPANY NAMEJ.P.J.P.R.S.BASIS OF BEARINGS:BENCHMARK:PER PLAN4/15/20203080i7/21/20207/21/20207/23/20207/23/2020332875Item 5.
STA. 8+39.77 TO STA. 20+00.00BYMARKAPPR.DATEENGINEERCITYDESCRIPTIONDATEREINHARD STENZELR.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-20SEALDESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE:JOB NUMBER:FILE NO:OF SHEETSCOMPANY NAMEJ.P.J.P.R.S.BASIS OF BEARINGS:BENCHMARK:PER PLAN4/15/20203080i7/21/20207/23/20207/23/2020332876Item 5.
STA. 20+00.00 TO STA. 29+47.04BYMARKAPPR.DATEENGINEERCITYDESCRIPTIONDATEREINHARD STENZELR.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-20SEALDESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE:JOB NUMBER:FILE NO:OF SHEETSCOMPANY NAMEJ.P.J.P.R.S.BASIS OF BEARINGS:BENCHMARK:PER PLAN4/15/20203080i7/21/20207/23/20207/23/2020332877Item 5.
LEGAL DESCTIPTION:BYMARKAPPR.DATEENGINEERCITYDESCRIPTIONDATEREINHARD STENZELR.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-20SEALDESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE:JOB NUMBER:FILE NO:OF SHEETSCOMPANY NAMEJ.P.J.P.R.S.BASIS OF BEARINGS:BENCHMARK:33166/23/20206/23/20207/23/20207/23/202078Item 5.
TO STA. 19+00.00BYMARKAPPR.DATEENGINEERCITYDESCRIPTIONDATEREINHARD STENZELR.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-20SEALDESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE:JOB NUMBER:FILE NO:OF SHEETSCOMPANY NAMEJ.P.J.P.R.S.BASIS OF BEARINGS:BENCHMARK:33166/23/2020STA. 9+74.007/23/20207/23/202079Item 5.
STA. 19+00.00 TO STA. 28+00.00BYMARKAPPR.DATEENGINEERCITYDESCRIPTIONDATEREINHARD STENZELR.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-20SEALDESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE:JOB NUMBER:FILE NO:OF SHEETSCOMPANY NAMEJ.P.J.P.R.S.BASIS OF BEARINGS:BENCHMARK:33166/23/20207/23/20207/23/202080Item 5.
STA. 28+00.00 TO STA. 39+00.00BYMARKAPPR.DATEENGINEERCITYDESCRIPTIONDATEREINHARD STENZELR.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-20SEALDESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE:JOB NUMBER:FILE NO:OF SHEETSCOMPANY NAMEJ.P.J.P.R.S.BASIS OF BEARINGS:BENCHMARK:33166/23/20207/23/20207/23/202081Item 5.
STA. 39+00.00 TO STA. 50+00.00BYMARKAPPR.DATEENGINEERCITYDESCRIPTIONDATEREINHARD STENZELR.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-20SEALDESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE:JOB NUMBER:FILE NO:OF SHEETSCOMPANY NAMEJ.P.J.P.R.S.BASIS OF BEARINGS:BENCHMARK:33166/23/20207/23/20207/23/202082Item 5.
STA. 50+00.00 TO STA. 60+97.10BYMARKAPPR.DATEENGINEERCITYDESCRIPTIONDATEREINHARD STENZELR.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-20SEALDESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE:JOB NUMBER:FILE NO:OF SHEETSCOMPANY NAMEJ.P.J.P.R.S.BASIS OF BEARINGS:BENCHMARK:33166/23/20207/23/20207/23/202083Item 5.
STA. 39+00.00 TO STA. 50+00.00BYMARKAPPR.DATEENGINEERCITYDESCRIPTIONDATEREINHARD STENZELR.C.E. 56155 EXPIRE 12-31-20SEALDESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE:JOB NUMBER:FILE NO:OF SHEETSCOMPANY NAMEJ.P.J.P.R.S.BASIS OF BEARINGS:BENCHMARK:33166/23/20207/23/20207/23/202084Item 5.
85
Item 5.
86
Item 5.
87
Item 5.
88
Item 5.
89
Item 5.
90
Item 5.
91
Item 5.
92
Item 5.
93
Item 5.
94
Item 5.
95
Item 5.
96
Item 5.
97
Item 5.
98
Item 5.
99
Item 5.
100
Item 5.
101
Item 5.
102
Item 5.
103
Item 5.
104
Item 5.
105
Item 5.
106
Item 5.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Wheelwright, Deputy City Clerk
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Re-Ratification of Local Emergency and Re-Authorizing the Use of
Teleconferencing to Conduct Public Meetings
Background and Analysis:
On October 5, 2021, City Council adopted a resolution finding that certain conditions
exist that necessitate the need to implement the Ralph M. Brown Act provisions
provided by Government Code Section 54953. The recent amendment to Section 54953
allows the use of teleconferencing to conduct meetings of Beaumont’s legislative bodies
with exemptions to the process and procedure. These provisions are listed in full detail
in the table below.
Assembly Bill 361 (AB361) was signed by Governor Newsom with an effective date of
October 1, 2021, which provides exemptions to the procedures of conducting public
meetings with the use of teleconferencing. Prior to AB361, the City of Beaumont
conducted teleconferenced and hybrid public meetings in accordance with Executive
Order N-08-21. That order held an expiration date of September 30, 2021.
AB361 amends Government Code Section 54953 to provide provisions to facilitate
teleconferenced meetings during a declared state of emergency. These provisions can
only be used in an active gubernatorial state of emergency. The provisions from this
amendment are listed in the table below:
Brown Act Requirements Provisions in AB361 Amendment
If the legislative body of a local agency
elects to use teleconferencing, it shall
post agendas at all teleconference
locations and conduct teleconference
meetings in a manner that protects the
statutory and constitutional rights of the
Agendas not required to be posted at all
teleconference locations.
Meeting must still be conducted in a
manner that protects the statutory and
constitutional rights of the parties or the
107
Item 6.
parties or the public appearing before
the legislative body of a local agency.
public appearing before the legislative
body of a local agency.
If the legislative body of a local agency
elects to use teleconferencing, each
teleconference location shall be identified
in the notice and agenda of the meeting
or proceeding, and each teleconference
location shall be accessible to the public.
Agendas are not required to identify each
teleconference location in the meeting
notice/agenda.
Local agencies are not required to make
each teleconference location accessible
to the public.
If the legislative body of a local agency
elects to use teleconferencing, during the
teleconferenced meeting, at least a
quorum of the members of the legislative
body shall participate from locations
within the boundaries of the territory over
which the local agency exercises
jurisdiction.
No requirement to have a quorum of
board members participate from within
the territorial bounds of the local agency’s
jurisdiction.
If the legislative body of a local agency
elects to use teleconferencing, the
agenda shall provide an opportunity for
members of the public to address the
legislative body directly at each
teleconference location.
In each instance in which notice of the
time of the teleconferenced meeting is
given or the agenda for the meeting is
posted, the legislative body shall also
give notice of the manner by which
members of the public may access the
meeting and offer public comment.
The agenda shall identify and include an
opportunity for all persons to attend via a
call-in option or an internet-based service
option.
The legislative body shall allow members
of the public to access the meeting, and
the agenda shall include an opportunity
for members of the public to address the
legislative body directly.
In the event of a disruption which
prevents the local agency from
broadcasting the meeting to members of
the public using the call-in option or
108
Item 6.
internet-based service option, or in the
event of a disruption within the local
agency’s control which prevents
members of the public from offering
public comments using the call-in option
or internet-based service option, the
legislative body shall take no further
action on items appearing on the meeting
agenda until public access to the meeting
via the call-in option or internet-based
service option is restored.
Written/remote public comment must be
accepted until the point at which the
public comment period is formally closed;
registration/sign-up to provide/be
recognized to provide public comment
can only be closed when the public
comment period is formally closed.
A member of the public shall not be
required, as a condition to attendance at
a meeting of a legislative body of a local
agency, to register his or her name, to
provide other information, to complete a
questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any
condition precedent to his or her
attendance. If an attendance list, register,
questionnaire, or other similar document
is posted at or near the entrance to the
room where the meeting is to be held or
is circulated to the persons present during
the meeting, it shall state clearly that the
signing, registering, or completion of the
document is voluntary, and that all
persons may attend the meeting
regardless of whether a person signs,
registers, or completes the document.
An individual desiring to provide public
comment through the use of an internet
website, or other online platform, not
under the control of the local legislative
body that requires registration to log in to
a teleconference, may be required to
register as required by the third-party
internet website or online platform to
participate.
In order for a local agency to use the provisions provided by AB361, the agency must
determine by majority vote that meeting in-person would present imminent risks to
109
Item 6.
health or safety of attendees and adopt a resolution stating such with a maximum period
of thirty days. Thereafter, on a thirty-day basis, the City Council could then consider the
continuance of teleconferenced public meetings by way of resolution after a re-
evaluation of the state of emergency circumstances. In order to continue to facilitate
meetings of the City’s legislative bodies, City Council would affirm the following findings:
(A) The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B) Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to
meet safely in person.
(ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote
social distancing.
Fiscal Impact:
City staff estimates the cost to prepare this staff report to be $1,040.
Recommended Action:
Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Beaumont Proclaiming a Local Emergency Persists, Re-Ratifying the
Proclamation of a State of Emergency by Executive Order N-09-21, and Re-
Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the
City of Beaumont for the Period of November 6, 2021, through December 6,
2021, Pursuant to Provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act.”
Attachments:
A. Resolution
110
Item 6.
RESOLUTION 2021-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT,
CALIFORNIA, PROCLAIMING A LOCAL EMERGENCY PERSISTS, RE-RATIFYING
THE PROCLAMATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER N-
09-21, AND RE-AUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE
CITY OF BEAUMONT FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 6, 2021 – DECEMBER 6, 2021,
PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT
WHEREAS, the City of Beaumont (the “City”) is committed to preserving and nurturing
public access and participation in meetings of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required
by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 54950 – 54963) (the “Brown Act”), so that any
member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their
business; and
WHEREAS, the Brown Act, Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for
remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without
compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to the
existence of certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, a required condition is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor
pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or
of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions as
described in Government Code section 8558; and
WHEREAS, a proclamation is made when there is an actual incident, threat of disaster,
or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the jurisdictions that are within the
City’s boundaries, caused by natural, technological, or human-caused disasters; and
WHEREAS, it is further required that state or local officials have imposed or
recommended measures to promote social distancing, or, the legislative body meeting in person
would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution 2021-53 on October 5, 2021,
finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City to conduct remote
teleconference meetings without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3); and
WHEREAS, as a condition of extending the use of the provisions found in Government
Code section 54953(e), the City Council must reconsider the circumstances of the state of
emergency that exists in the City, and the City Council has done so; and
WHEREAS, emergency conditions persist in the City, specifically, on March 4, 2020, the
Governor of the State of California proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in California as a
111
Item 6.
result of the threat of COVID-19; despite sustained efforts the virus continues to spread and is
impacting nearly all sectors of California; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2021, the California Department of Public Health issued updated
public health directives related to physical distancing and face coverings effective June 15, 2021,
based on guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
WHEREAS, on or about July 28, 2021, Riverside County Public Health stated that “in
light of the recent increase in local COVID-19 cases, Riverside County Public Health recommends
residents follow the new state and federal guidance for face coverings. The current state and federal
masking guidance recommend that vaccinated individuals wear face masks in public indoor
settings. The state still requires unvaccinated individuals to wear masks indoors;” this remains the
guidance of Riverside County Public Health; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find that the ongoing risk posed by the highly
transmissible COVID-19 virus will continue to cause conditions of peril to the safety of persons
within the City which are likely to be beyond the control of services, personnel, equipment, and
facilities of the City, and the City Council desires to proclaim a local emergency and ratify the
proclamation of state of emergency by the Governor of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, as a consequence of the local emergency persisting, the City Council does
hereby find that the legislative bodies of the City shall continue to conduct their meetings without
compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3), as authorized by Government Code
section 54953(e), and that such legislative bodies shall continue to comply with the requirements
to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in Government Code section
54953(e)(2); and
WHEREAS, all meeting agendas stating meeting dates, times and the manner in which
the public may attend and offer public comment by call-in option or internet-based service option
shall be posted, at a minimum, on the City’s website and at the City’s main office.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals.
The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution
by this reference.
Section 2. Affirmation that Local Emergency Persists.
The City Council hereby considers the conditions of the state of emergency in the City and
proclaims that a local emergency persists throughout the City, and the ongoing risk posed by the
highly transmissible COVID-19 virus has caused, and will continue to cause, conditions of peril
to the safety of persons within the City; furthermore, the guidance of Riverside County Public
Health recommends physical distancing and face coverings.
112
Item 6.
Section 3. Re-ratification of Governor’s Proclamation of a State of Emergency.
The City Council hereby ratifies the Governor of the State of California’s Proclamation of
State of Emergency, effective as of its issuance date of March 4, 2020.
Section 4. Remote Teleconference Meetings.
The Mayor, the City Manager, and legislative bodies of the City are hereby authorized and
directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including
conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and
other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until
the earlier of (i) December 6, 2021, or such time the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution
in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the
legislative bodies of the City may continue to teleconference without compliance with Government
Code section 54953(b)(3).
Section 6. Certification.
The Clerk of the City Council shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall
cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED, this 2nd day of November 2021, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Mike Lara, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Nicole Wheelwright, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________________
John O. Pinkney, City Attorney
113
Item 6.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Wheelwright, Deputy City Clerk
DATE November 17, 2021
SUBJECT: Notice of Upcoming Vacancies on City Commissions and
Committees
Background and Analysis:
In accordance with Government Code Section 54970, also known as the "Maddy Act,"
the following notice of upcoming vacancies of City committees shall be posted for the
fair and equal opportunity of citizens to be able to apply for the consideration of
appointment. Per code, this list will be posted at the Beaumont Library for public view.
As an added measure, not required by code, the City will also utilize social media
outlets to advertise the vacancies with details on how to apply.
Fiscal Impact:
City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $75.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file.
Attachments:
A. List of current seats and upcoming vacancies
B. Public Notice
114
Item 7.
Appointee Title Date of
Appointment
Date of Re-
Appointment
Current Term
Expires
Paul St. Martin Commissioner January 6, 2015 January 15, 2019 December 2022
Nathan Smith Commissioner December 21, 2010 January 15, 2019 December 2022
Patrick Stephens Commissioner January 15, 2019 December 15, 2020 December 2024
Anthony Colindres Commissioner November 5, 2019 December 15, 2020 December 2024
Jessica Black Commissioner December 15, 2020 December 2024
Appointee Title Date of
Appointment
Date of Re-
Appointment
Current Term
Expires
Jennifer Ustation CM or Highest Ranking
Financial Staff Member n/a n/a
Julio Martinez City Council Member December 2020 December 2021
David Fenn City Council Member December 2020 December 2021
Baron Ginnetti City Treasurer January 15, 2019 n/a
Steve Cooley Resident Member June 2017 December 2020 December 2022
Thomas LeMasters Resident Member December 2020 December 2022
Vacant Resident Member December 2022
David Vanderpool Resident Member September 2021 December 2021
Vacant
Resident/Business Owner
Member December 2021
Dameon Butler Alternate Member December 2020
Vacant Alternate Member
Appointee Title Date of
Appointment
Date of Re-
Appointment
Current Term
Expires
David Fenn City Council Member December 2020 December 2021
Rey Santos City Council Member December 2020 December 2021
Ebon Brown
BUSD/Secondary Education
Representative December 2019 December 2020 December 2022
Municipal Code Section 2.35.050 - Term shall be two (2) years (adopted September 2015). Term expiration dates were established at
Council Meeting of Aug 1, 2017
City of Beaumont Planning Commission
Municipal Code Section 2.24.040 - Term shall be four (4) years
Qualifications: Beaumont resident, 18 years of age and a registered voter
Meets: Second Tuesday of each month
City of Beaumont Finance and Audit Committee
Qualifications: Beaumont resident or Beaumont business owner and 18 years of age
Meets: First Monday of each month
City of Beaumont Economic Development Committee
Term expiration dates were established at Council Meeting August 1, 2017 - 2 year terms
Qualifications: Local developer/economic representative, business community members, BUSD education representative, non-business
community member or a industry expert
Meets: Second Wednesday of each month excluding July
115
Item 7.
Von Lawson
Post Secondary Education
Representative September 2019 January 2019 December 2021
Beaumont Chamber
Beaumont Chamber
Representative November 9, 2016 January 2020 n/a
Carl Vince Beaumont Business
Community Member December 2020 December 2022
Monir Ahmed
Beaumont Business
Community Member January 2019 December 2020 December 2022
Allen Koblin
Beaumont Business
Community Member January 2019 December 2020 December 2022
Richard Bennecke
Community Member/Non
Business Member December 2020 December 2022
David Getka
Community Member/Non
Business Member December 2020 December 2022
Rob Moran
Local Developer/Economic
Development
Representative January 2019 December 2020 December 2022
Angelina Segovia
Beaumont High School
Student December 2019 December 2020 December 2021
Casshandra Samuel Alternate Member December 2020
Trina Fregozo Alternate Member December 2020
Appointee Title Date of
Appointment
Date of Re-
Appointment
Current Term
Expires
Elaine Morgan Appeals Officer December 2020 December 2022
Mandy Stephens Appeals Officer December 2020 December 2022
Dameon Butler Appeals Officer December 2020 December 2022
Jeena Cirivello Appeals Officer December 2020 December 2022
Allen McNabb Appeals Officer December 2020 December 2022
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Board of Administrative Appeals
Term expiration dates were established by Ordinance 988 (2 years)
Qualifications: 18 years of age, Beaumont resident or owners or employees of a Beaumont business
Meets: on an as-needed basis
116
Item 7.
Notice of Vacancies for City of Beaumont Boards and Commissions
Beaumont, CA—Notice is hereby given that the Beaumont City Council is seeking to fill several
vacancies on the Economic Development Committee, Finance and Audit Committee and Board of
Administrative Appeals.
Planning Commission: No vacancies. Current terms expire December 2022 and December 2024.
Finance and Audit Committee: Seeking applications to fill three (3) vacancies for a term of two (2)
years consisting of the following positions:
· Resident Member – 1 seat available
· Resident/Business Owner – 1 seat available
· Alternate Member – 1 seat available
The Committee meets regularly on the 2nd Monday of each month at 6:00 p.m. to review financial reports
and be the oversight of finance related items as directed by Council. This is a non-compensated position.
Economic Development Committee: Seeking applications to fill one (1) vacancy for a term of two (2)
years consisting of the following positions:
· Post Secondary Education Representative – 1 seat available
The Committee meets regularly on the 2nd Wednesday of each month at 4:00 p.m. to discuss and act in
an advisory capacity to develop an Economic Development Strategic Plan for growth and recommend a
vision for the future of Beaumont. This is a non-compensated position.
Board of Administrative Appeals: Seeking applications to fill four (4) vacancies for the Beaumont
Board of Administrative Appeals for a term of two years. Board Members meet on an as-needed basis to
conduct administrative hearings on written appeals made pursuant to the Beaumont Municipal Code.
This is a non-compensated position.
Applications are available online at www.BeaumontCa.gov under Committees and Commission. The
Beaumont City Council will conduct its first review of applicants at the regularly scheduled meeting of
Tuesday, December 7, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. Completed applications received by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 30, 2021, will be considered. Questions regarding the application process may be directed to
the Deputy City Clerk at (951)572-3196.
117
Item 7.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Letter of Support for the Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail
Corridor Service Project
Background and Analysis:
The Riverside County County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has been
coordinating with the US Federal Railroad Administration and the California Department
of Transportation (CalTrans) to develop a passenger rail system that would connect the
desert and Inland Empire communities to Los Angeles and Orange County.
This project is known as the “Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Service” and
spans 144 miles. The preferred route extends from Los Angeles Union Station to
Coachella and includes stops in Fullerton, Riverside, and Palm Springs. Additional
stations need to be planned in Loma Linda, the Pass Area, and Mid Valley Area.
Efforts for this rail project are now in the “Program Environmental Document and
Service Development Plan” phase. This is the third of five phases. Thu s far feasibility
studies and an analysis of alternative routes have been completed. A copy of the rail
corridor planning study, the Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study –
May 2013, is included as Attachment C to this memorandum.
118
Item 8.
Under the current project phase, the Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report was completed in May 2021 and circulated for
public comment. It is expected to be approved by RCTC in early 2022. The executive
summary of this report is included as Attachment D to this memorandum. This is a
broad-level study that evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the various
routing options. It accounts for engineering and environmental constraints as well as
having provided an opportunity for public input.
On October 25, 2021, the RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee received a
report on the rail corridor project. A copy of the staff report is included in Attachment E
to this memorandum and includes information on the project’s background, progress,
and public comments submitted via the Tier 1 report process.
The next environmental assessment will be the Tier 2/Project -Level Analysis. This will
include a more detailed evaluation of specific improvements, including station locations,
funding, commencement of construction, and start of service. It is projected that the Tier
2 study will cost $60,000,000.
RCTC and CalTrans are planning to jointly submit a grant application to the US Federal
Railroad Administration to fund a Tier 2 study. Consequently, RCTC is requesting that
cities submit letters of support for the project and the grant application. A letter template
is included as Attachment B to this memorandum.
Fiscal Impact:
City staff estimates that it cost approximately $185 to prepare this report.
Recommended Action:
City staff recommends that City Council authorize Mayor Lara to execute the
letter of support for the Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor
Service Project.
Attachments:
A. Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Service Fact Sheet
B. Letter of Support Template to the US Federal Railroad Administration
C. Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning S tudy – May 2013
D. Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental May 2021
E. RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting Report – October 25,
2021
119
Item 8.
Project Highlights
Connecting Coachella Valley and Los Angeles:
Approximately 144 miles on an existing rail corridor,
mostly parallel to I-5, Route 91, and I-10
Serving the Counties of: Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside and San Bernardino
Eastern Endpoint: Cities of Indio or Coachella in
Riverside County
Western Endpoint: Los Angeles Union Station in
Los Angeles County
Approximate trip time: 3 hours and 15 minutes
People traveling through San Gorgonio Pass:
Approximately 160,000 per day
Proposed Service: Two daily round-trips
Stations: Enhance access to four existing stations
and potential to add ve new passenger rail stations
over time
Adding: Tracks at selected locations to enhance train
travel speeds, minimize delays, and maintain safety
Program Overview
The proposed Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio
Pass Rail Corridor (Coachella Valley Rail) extends
approximately 144 miles between downtown
Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. The
Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC), in coordination with the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is working
to bring passenger rail service as an alternate
mode of travel across Southern California,
connecting desert communities and attractions
with Los Angeles, Orange County, and the
Inland Empire.
The program proposes operating two daily
round-trips between Los Angeles Union Station
and Indio or Coachella, with morning and
evening departures from each end. Passenger
service is expected to take about 3 hours and
15 minutes, which is comparable to trips made
by cars on congested highways connecting these
communities, such as I-5, Route 91, and I-10.
Spring 2021
Environmental Milestones
Agency Partners
Milestones
Prepare Tier 1/Program Level Draft EIS/EIR
Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion
Release of Tier 1/Program Level Draft EIS/EIR
Prepare Tier 1/Program Level Final EIS/EIR
Record of Decision/Notice of Determination
Timeline
Winter 2020/21
Spring 2021
Spring 2021
Fall 2021
December 2021
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Coachella Valley–San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service
Program Environmental Document
and Service Development Plan
120
Item 8.
Project-Level
Environmental
Document &
Preliminary
Engineering
Phased Final
Design &
Construction
We Are Here
Alternatives
Analysis
Program
Environmental
Document &
Service
Development
Plan
Environmental Process
The environmental analysis currently being
conducted is a Tier 1/Program Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(EIS/EIR), in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR is anticipated
to be released for public review in spring 2021
for 45 days with virtual public hearings. Future
Tier 2/Project NEPA/CEQA documents will be
prepared when funding is identied. RCTC is
actively seeking funding opportunities to
advance the program.
The Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR identies
potential impacts caused by operating the
service and constructing infrastructure (primarily
tracks and stations). Specic station locations
and track designs will not be identied at this
stage of the program. The Tier 1/Program will
address broad questions and environmental
effects of the overall program; however, it will
not address location-specic details or
authorize construction.
The Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR analyzes 18
environmental resource topics and reects
comments received during the 2016 public
scoping process. Concurrently, a Service
Development Plan (SDP) is being nalized to
provide a high-level conceptual operations
plan. Modeling is being conducted so that
passenger and freight rail operations can
perform efciently.
Project Milestones
Project History
1991
Initial Feasibility Studies: Evaluated one
or two daily long-distance rail round-trips
between Los Angeles and Indio
2010-2013
Additional Feasibility Studies
2013-2016
Market Assessment/Alternatives Analysis:
Evaluated ve alternatives to determine
the preferred alignment
July 2016
Finalized Alternatives Analysis/Preferred
Route Advances for Environmental
Studies: Proceeded with preferred route
through Fullerton and Riverside to be
carried forward for analysis in the Service
Development Plan and Tier 1/Program
EIS/EIR
Fall 2016 – Spring 2021
Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR: Held public
scoping meetings and completed
studies for Draft EIS/EIR for public review
2013-2016 2016 -2021 TBD TBD
Feasibility
Studies
1990-2013
Coachella Valley–San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service
121
Item 8.
Coachella Valley–San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service
Topics Being Evaluated
Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological
Resources (including mineral resources)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Public Utilities and Energy
Cultural Resources
Parklands and Community Services
Safety and Security
Socioeconomics and Communities Aected
Cumulative Eects
Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources
The Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR evaluates the impacts and benets of the program including:
Land Use and Planning (including agricultural and
forestry resources)
Transportation
Visual Quality and Aesthetics
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Noise and Vibration
Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources
Biological Resources
Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality (including
watersheds)
Environmental Justice Eects
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Corridor at a Glance
Western End Eastern End
The western end of the corridor will connect riders to
Los Angeles Union Station, the largest railroad passenger
terminal in the western United States. Passengers can
also access revitalized Downtown Fullerton and other
attractions and concert venues in Orange County as well as
Riverside’s bustling downtown area that oers museums,
theaters and the historic Mission Inn Hotel & Spa.
The eastern end of the corridor will give access to the
growing communities of Banning and Beaumont and
the vibrant city of Palm Springs. Travelers will also be
connected to the heart of the Coachella Valley, home to
premier golf courses and dining as well as the cities of
Indio and Coachella near world-renowned music festivals
and events.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
122
Item 8.
Coachella Valley–San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service
How to Participate
RCTC, Caltrans, and the FRA encourage your
participation in the environmental review process.
The Tier 1 Program/Draft EIS/EIR for the Coachella
Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service is
anticipated for release in spring 2021.
Contact Us
Please contact us to stay informed and share your
thoughts on this proposed project.
951-787-7141
CVRail@rctc.org
CVRailProject
RCTC.org/cvrail
Virtual public hearings will be held to solicit
comments about the Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR.
Please watch for dates of these public hearings
and how to submit comments during the 45-day
public review period.
123
Item 8.
Logo Here
October 22, 2021
Mr. Amit Bose
Acting Administrator
Federal Railroad Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
Subject: Support for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project Application
for Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Grant Funding
Dear Administrator Bose:
On behalf of [name organization], I am pleased to support the California Department of Transportation
Division of Rail and Mass Transit’s (CalTrans) application for Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
Improvements (CRISI) Grant funding for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service
Tier II Project Approval and Environmental Documentation Project (Project).
If funded, the award would advance the project closer to construction and implementation of daily
intercity rail service between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. With the Service Development Plan
(SDP) and National Environmental Policy Act/California Environmental Quality Act (NEPA/CEQA) Tier I
environmental clearance for the corridor expected to be approved in early 2022, the NEPA/CEQA Tier II
environmental study estimated at $60,000,000 is the next step toward fulfilling the transformative
vision in partnership with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
As a joint project between CalTrans and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), the local
implementing agency, the project will provide for the following:
Preliminary engineering along the 76-mile eastern section of track to the 30% level; and
Project-level environmental clearance for up to six stations, a new third main track, and
associated grade crossing and signal improvements on the eastern section of the corridor.
The State of California and RCTC have a vested interest in fostering equitable investments in
transportation infrastructure and transit mobility, as well as in sustainable freight and goods movement,
and are committed to matching funds for this game-changing economic opportunity with environmental
benefit from Los Angeles to Coachella Valley and disadvantaged communities along the route.
I am proud to support this application and urge its award. The Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail
Corridor Service Project aligns with the goals of the CRISI program and will provide vital connections for
a growing region. For questions regarding this letter of support, please contact [Name] at [phone
number].
Sincerely,
Name
Title
124
Item 8.
MAY 2013
Coachella Valley
Intercity Rail Corridor
PLANNING STUDY
125
Item 8.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the
data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of
California or the Federal Railroad Administration. This publication does not constitute a standard,
specification or regulation.
126
Item 8.
FINAL SUBMITTAL
May 2013
PLANNING STUDY
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor
Prepared for Prepared by
California Department of Transportation AECOM
1120 N Street 2101 Webster Street #1900
P.O. Box 942874 Oakland, CA 94612
Sacramento, CA 95814 with Cambridge Systematics
& Arellano Associates
127
Item 8.
[This page intentionally blank]
128
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page i
Contents
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Background .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Corridor Description ............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.2 Corridor Rail Services ............................................................................................................ 1-2
1.1.3 Federal Railroad Administration Study Guidelines ................................................................ 1-4
2.0 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Need ........................................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.1 Corridor Transportation Market Challenges ........................................................................... 2-3
2.2.2 Corridor Transportation Market Opportunities ....................................................................... 2-4
2.2.3 Current and Forecasted Demand ........................................................................................... 2-6
2.2.4 Corridor Capacity Constraints ................................................................................................ 2-7
2.3 Scope and Objective of the Plan ................................................................................................ 2-9
2.3.1 Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 2-9
2.3.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 2-11
3.0 Rationale ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Capacity Benefits ....................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Multi-Modal System Benefits ...................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Operational Benefits ................................................................................................................... 3-2
4.0 Identification of Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Previous Corridor Planning Studies ........................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Regional and Local Plans .......................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3 Corridor Service Plans ............................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3.1 Corridor Rail Service Plans ................................................................................................ 4-4
4.3.2 Corridor Rail Service Improvements .................................................................................. 4-4
4.4 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.5 Build Alternatives........................................................................................................................ 4-6
4.6 Next Steps………………………………………………………………………………………………4-6
129
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page ii
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Coachella Valley Corridor Population and Density Forecasts (2011 to 2040) ......................... 2-3
Table 2.2: Coachella Valley Corridor Population Forecasts by County (2011 to 2040) ............................ 2-4
Table 2.3: Coachella Valley Corridor Employment Forecasts (2011 to 2040) ........................................... 2-4
Table 2.4: Coachella Valley Corridor Employment Forecasts by County (2011 to 2040) ......................... 2-4
Table 2.5: Existing and Forecast Coachella Valley Corridor Trip Purpose (2000 to 2030) ....................... 2-5
Table 2.6: Projected 2030 Coachella Valley Corridor Total Annual Two-Way Person Trips (All Modes)
between Counties (Millions) ....................................................................................................................... 2-6
Table 2.7: Coachella Valley Corridor: Percent Increase in Total Annual Two-Way Person ...................... 2-7
Trips (All Modes) between Counties (2000 to 2030) ................................................................................. 2-7
Table 2.8: Coachella Valley Corridor: Amtrak Thruway Bus Ridership (Route 39) ................................... 2-7
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1.1: Coachella Valley Corridor ....................................................................................................... 1-2
130
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page iii
List of Acronyms
AA – Alternatives Analysis
AARA – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Amtrak – National Passenger Railroad Corporation
BNSF – BNSF Railway
Caltrans – California Department of Transportation
CETAP – Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process
CO – Carbon Monoxide
Corridor – Coachella Valley Corridor
CSRP – California State Rail Plan
CVAG – Coachella Valley Association of Governments
DOR – Division of Rail
EIR – Environmental Impact Report
EIS – Environmental Impact Statement
FRA – Federal Railroad Administration
GHG – Greenhouse gas
HSR – High-Speed Rail
I-10 – Interstate 10
I-15 – Interstate 15
I-215 – Interstate 215
LACMTA – Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
LAEDC – Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation
LAUS – Los Angeles Union Station
LRTPs – Long Range Transportation Plans
Metrolink – Southern California Regional Rail Authority
MOU – Memorandum of Understanding
MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
NO2 – Nitrogen Dioxide
131
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page iv
PM10 – Respirable Particulate Matter
PM2.5 – Fine Particulate Matter
PS – Planning Study
RCIP – Riverside County Integrated Project
RCTC – Riverside County Transportation Commission
ROW – right-of-way
RTIPs – Regional Transportation Improvement Plans
RTP – Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG – Southern California Association of Governments
SCRRA – Southern California Regional Rail Authority
SCS – Sustainable Communities Strategies
SDP – Service Development Plan
SR-60 – State Route 60
STIP – State Transportation Plan
TCI – Transit Capital Improvement funds
TDA – Transportation Development Act funds
TCIF – Trade Corridor Improvement Fund
TOD – transit-oriented development
UPRR – Union Pacific Railroad
VMT – Vehicle Miles Traveled
WRCOG – Western Riverside Council of Governments
132
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 1-1
1.0 Introduction
A Planning Study (PS) has been prepared for the Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor following the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Alternatives Analysis (AA) guidelines published in the Federal
Register (Volume 75, No. 126; July 1, 2010). This study effort will support the future implementation of
Coachella Valley Corridor intercity passenger rail service. The study provides an overview of the
proposed intercity rail service corridor and documents the Purpose and Need for the proposed rail
service, which defines the framework for identification of the proposed service alternatives and related
improvements. The planning study provides the first four sections included in the development of a
corridor Service Development Plan (SDP); a complete SDP would be prepared in the future based on
further planning studies, and will be supported by an environmental review effort.
The following discussion provides a description of the Corridor’s setting, current and future passenger
and freight rail services operating in the Corridor, and an overview of related study efforts.
1.1 Project Background
The proposed Coachella Valley Rail Corridor (Corridor) runs from Los Angeles to Indio through four
Southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and a southern segment of San
Bernardino County. The proposed intercity passenger rail service would provide conveniently scheduled,
one-seat rail service for the communities in the fast-growing Coachella Valley and Banning Pass Area,
and convenient visitor access to Coachella Valley destinations.
1.1.1 Corridor Description
The Corridor refers to the approximately 200-mile long rail corridor between Los Angeles Union Station
(LAUS) and the city of Indio as illustrated in Exhibit 1.1. The proposed rail service corridor consists of two
segments: the western 59-mile long segment between LAUS and Riverside, and the eastern
approximately 140-mile segment between Riverside and Indio. Leaving LAUS, the intercity rail service
would operate over tracks along the west bank of the Los Angeles River owned by the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or Metro) and operated by the Southern
California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA or Metrolink). At West Redondo Junction, the service would
operate on BNSF Railway (BNSF) trackage south to Fullerton, east through Riverside, and north to the
Colton Crossing1 where the passenger service would continue east on Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
right-of-way (ROW) from the Colton Crossing to Indio. Coachella Valley Corridor service would operate
between LAUS and Indio with service to three existing shared Amtrak/Metrolink stations (LAUS, Fullerton,
and Riverside-Downtown), and five existing or new stations between Riverside and Indio (Redlands/Loma
Linda, Banning/Beaumont, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, and Indio) along with a possible future station
in Cabazon.
The Coachella Valley intercity passenger rail service would operate through a wide variety of settings
from the heavily-urbanized areas of Los Angeles and Orange counties to the less-populated areas of
northern and eastern Riverside County. The western section of the Corridor (Los Angeles to Riverside) is
1 Colton Crossing is an at-grade intersection of the BNSF and UPRR tracks located in San Bernardino County. The
UPRR tracks generally run east-west and are used by the Sunset Limited and UPRR freight trains, while the north-
south BNSF tracks are used by the Southwest Chief, Metrolink, and BNSF freight trains.
133
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 1-2
densely developed with many residential communities and employment centers including downtown Los
Angeles, Fullerton, and Riverside. The Riverside to Indio section operates through urban, suburban, and
rural areas. This portion of the Corridor is one of the fastest-growing areas of the Southern California
region due to increasing residential development, which has resulted in a doubling of population between
1990 and 2010. In addition, the Coachella Valley has a large number of tourist destinations that attract
regional trips from Los Angeles and Orange counties, as well as national and international visitors,
including Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, and Joshua Tree National Park.
Exhibit 1.1: Coachella Valley Corridor
1.1.2 Corridor Rail Services
While there are numerous rail travel options in the western portion of the Corridor offering daily intercity
and commuter rail service, the only current passenger rail option in the eastern portion is long-distance
Sunset Limited service, which provides tri-weekly and inconveniently scheduled service for Coachella
Valley residents and visitors. The following passenger rail services are currently operated in the Corridor
by Amtrak and the SCRRA:
The Sunset Limited, three round trips per week operated by Amtrak between Los Angeles and
New Orleans via Pomona, Ontario, and Riverside, serves the Coachella Valley portion of the
proposed corridor with one station (Palm Springs).
The Southwest Chief, operated daily by Amtrak between Los Angeles and Chicago, serves the
proposed corridor between LAUS and the Riverside-Downtown Station with three stations (LAUS,
Fullerton, and Riverside). This long-haul service turns north east of Riverside to operate through
the Cajon Pass and does not serve the Coachella Valley portion of the Corridor.
134
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 1-3
Metrolink’s Riverside Line, six weekday round trips operated by SCRRA between Los Angeles
and Riverside via a northern alignment on UPRR’s Los Angeles Subdivision through Pomona and
Ontario, serves the proposed Corridor with two stations (LAUS and Riverside-Downtown).
Metrolink’s 91 Line, four and one-half weekday round trips operated by SCRRA between Los
Angeles and Riverside via a southern alignment primarily on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision
through Orange and Riverside counties, serves the Corridor with three stations (LAUS, Fullerton,
and Riverside-Downtown).
Currently, there is no daily intercity passenger rail service east of the Riverside-Downtown Station.
Amtrak Thruway Bus service (Route 39) connects to the Pacific Surfliner route at Fullerton and provides
one daily round trip between Fullerton and Palm Springs, and a second trip from Fullerton to Indio.
(Amtrak Thruway bus service must be connected with a trip on the Pacific Surfliner route.)
While not directly serving the proposed Corridor, state and regional rail system connections to and from
the Coachella Valley Corridor would be provided to the following services:
The Pacific Surfliner daily intercity service between LAUS and San Diego, operated by Amtrak
and jointly funded by Amtrak and Caltrans, would connect with the proposed passenger rail
corridor at the Fullerton Station;
Metrolink’s Inland Empire-Orange County Line, daily weekday and weekend commuter service
operated by SCRRA between San Bernardino and Oceanside, connects with the proposed
corridor at the Riverside-Downtown Station; and
Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line, daily weekday and weekend commuter service operated by
SCRRA between LAUS and San Bernardino, connections with the proposed corridor at the
Riverside-Downtown Station could be made with certain rail or bus transfers.
There are no SCRRA plans to operate commuter rail service east of the Riverside-Downtown Station,
though the Perris Valley Line is scheduled to begin operations in 2014 with weekday commuter rail
service between Riverside and Perris in southern Riverside County.
Longer term plans include the introduction of the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) service with the first of
two HSR phases providing service between the San Francisco Bay Area and LAUS and Anaheim. The
second HSR segment would operate south to San Diego and north to Sacramento. The HSR program
environmental analysis effort identified the preferred alignment to San Diego as running east through San
Bernardino and Riverside counties to the Ontario International Airport in San Bernardino County. It would
then follow one of two potential alignments, either south along Interstate 15 (I-15) through Corona, or
along the Interstate 215 (I-215) corridor south to March Air Reserve Base and on to the cities of Murrieta
and San Diego. Service in the Coachella Valley Corridor would provide a connection to and from the
statewide HSR system for Coachella Valley residents and visitors at LAUS.
Corridor freight rail services are operated by the BNSF and UPRR. The BNSF operates freight rail
service in the western portion of the Corridor generally from LAUS south to Fullerton, east to Riverside,
north to Colton Crossing, and then north through San Bernardino and the Cajon Pass. In the Corridor,
the UPRR freight service roughly parallels the Interstate 10 (I-10) east from Colton to Indio and on to New
Orleans. The UPRR also operates freight service along another UPRR line that roughly parallels State
Route 60 (SR-60) from Los Angeles to Riverside, and then the trains share the BNSF tracks north to
Colton. The UPRR’s line between Colton and Indio is part of the carrier’s Yuma Subdivision, which
constitutes the west end of the UPRR’s Sunset Route, linking the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
east with Phoenix, AZ, El Paso, TX, Houston, TX, and New Orleans, LA. The UPRR route extends west
through Pomona and Ontario (Alameda Corridor East), along the east side of the Los Angeles River in
135
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 1-4
the vicinity of LAUS to enter the Alameda Corridor running south to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach. In this corridor, the UPRR carries marine containers stacked two high on “double-stack trains”
carrying the following from the Southern California ports east to New Orleans: automobiles and
automobile parts; construction materials, including lumber, plywood, steel, and cement; and package
express business. On the return trip, Midwest grain is shipped west to the livestock feedlots in Southern
California.
The following three rail segments comprise the proposed intercity rail service corridor:
Metro owned and Metrolink operated “River Subdivision” (LAUS to West Redondo Junction).
BNSF owned and operated “San Bernardino Subdivision” (West Redondo Junction to Colton
Crossing).
UPRR owned and operated “Yuma Subdivision” (Colton Crossing to Indio).
1.1.3 Federal Railroad Administration Study Guidelines
The Coachella Valley PS is being prepared following FRA guidelines. The study-specific objectives
include:
Clearly demonstrate the purpose and need for new intercity passenger rail service.
Identify alternatives for providing the new passenger rail service, and provide the basis for future
identification of the alternative that best addresses the purpose and need.
A PS comprises the initial portion of a SDP. A complete SDP would demonstrate the financial and
operational feasibility of the proposed Coachella Valley Corridor intercity rail service, and identify any
infrastructure and operational improvements required to support the new service. The SDP discussion of
any required system improvements would identify costs, funding sources, and implementation phasing.
This PS is intended to identify and evaluate the need for passenger rail service to help relieve the growing
capacity and congestion constraints for intercity travel in the Coachella Valley Corridor. Within a multi-
modal strategy, providing intercity rail service in this Corridor would provide the following benefits:
Address increasing Corridor travel needs.
Alleviate demand on the constrained highway system.
Reduce travel times.
Increase reliability and safety for Corridor trips.
Increase travel capacity with minimal impacts to the Corridor’s natural resources and
communities, and provide potential benefits to air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
136
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 2-1
2.0 Purpose and Need
This Purpose and Need Statement is intended to provide the basis for the Coachella Valley Rail Corridor
planning efforts, including the identification of service development alternatives. This study effort will
identify and evaluate the need for conventional passenger rail service and related system improvements
to help relieve the growing capacity and congestion constraints on intercity travel using existing air,
highway, and passenger rail service in the Corridor between Los Angeles and Indio. The overall goal of
the proposed service improvements is to improve mobility and reliability in this part of the State’s rail
system by expanding service in a cost-effective and environmentally sensitive manner.
The Los Angeles-Coachella Valley Rail Corridor refers to the approximately 200-mile long corridor
between LAUS and the city of Indio as previously illustrated in Exhibit 1.1. The Corridor intercity rail
service would operate through a wide variety of settings from the heavily-urbanized areas of Los Angeles
and Orange counties to the less-populated, but rapidly growing areas of eastern Riverside County. In the
western section of the Corridor (LAUS to Riverside), the intercity rail service would operate through the
densely-developed urban setting on the Metro and BNSF owned alignment through the cities of Los
Angeles, Fullerton, and Riverside. At Riverside, the alignment would turn north to Colton Crossing where
it would then follow the UPRR owned trackage east to Indio. The Riverside to Indio section operates
through a varied setting including urban, suburban, and rural areas. This portion of the Corridor is one of
the fastest-growing areas of the Southern California region due to increasing residential development,
and has experienced a doubling of population between 1990 and 2010. In addition, the Coachella Valley
has a large number of tourist destinations that attract regional trips from Los Angeles and Orange
counties, as well as national and international visitors.
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of the proposed rail service improvements to the Corridor is to provide new intercity rail
service, and develop a reliable passenger and freight rail system that provides added capacity in
response to increased passenger travel demand between Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and
Riverside counties. The existing range and capacity of travel options is insufficient to meet the projected
future travel demand. Currently, a majority of the intercity travel in the Corridor is made by automobile on
an increasingly congested highway system. While there are numerous rail travel options in the western
portion of the Corridor, including Amtrak Pacific Surfliner service and multiple Metrolink commuter lines,
the only current rail option operating in the eastern portion is the tri-weekly, long-distance Sunset Limited.
There is no current rail service that provides the proposed Los Angeles to Indio intercity service.
The purpose of the Corridor planning efforts is to identify possible rail service improvements to relieve the
growing capacity and congestion constraints on intercity travel. New rail service and related system
improvements are required to address the following Corridor challenges:
Increase in travel demand due to growing Corridor population and employment, along with
increased visitor trips to the Corridor’s tourist destinations.
Constrained travel options due to the Corridor’s physical setting.
Need for improved travel time, reliability, and safety to serve projected rail passenger needs and
freight rail activity.
Need to increase Corridor transportation system capacity with minimal impacts to local
communities, natural resources, and air quality.
137
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 2-2
Corridor rail service and system improvements would contribute to the viability of the Pacific Surfliner
route, support future statewide HSR system operations, support regional Metrolink commuter rail
operations, and provide connectivity with local transit systems.
The project purpose for improved intercity Corridor rail service improvements has been established and
documented in: the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP);
county transportation commission plans; Corridor rail service feasibility studies; and the adopted
California State Rail Plan (CSRP) (2008).
Increase in Travel Demand
Between 2010 and 2040, the Los Angeles-Coachella Valley Corridor is projected to experience an
approximately 34 percent increase in population to a total of 23.2 million residents, along with a 30
percent increase in employment with a resulting total of 8.2 million jobs. While a majority of the Corridor’s
population and employment growth will occur in the Los Angeles and Orange county portions of the
Corridor, the Riverside County portion is forecasted to experience significant increases in population and
employment, 52 percent and 49 percent respectively.
A majority of the future travel demand is still anticipated to be met by automobile travel, but an increasing
portion of the projected trip growth could be accommodated by expanded intercity rail service. As a
response to limited highway capacity in this congested corridor, travelers will seek more reliable and
attractive alternate modes of transportation. Currently, there is no intercity rail service serving the
Corridor. The ridership potential is demonstrated regionally by the rapid growth in Metrolink ridership,
and locally by the increase in Amtrak Thruway Bus Route 39 ridership between Fullerton, Palm Springs,
and Indio.
Protection of Communities, Natural Resources, and Air Quality
Implementing Corridor transportation system capacity improvements are required to accommodate the
forecasted travel demand growth. More than 304 million additional annual trips to and from the Coachella
Valley from other Corridor origins are projected to occur by 2030. Expanded highway construction,
automobile usage, and congestion could result in pressures on local communities, natural resources, and
air quality conditions. This is especially true in the environmentally-sensitive setting of the Coachella
Valley portion of the Corridor where the alignment operates through desert areas with a wide range of
protected and endangered species, and a national park. In addition, the Corridor runs through residential
and downtown commercial areas of the cities and communities that it would serve. Expansion of the
highway system would negatively impact the quality of life and economic well-being of Corridor residents
and businesses. Rail service improvements would minimize impacts to natural resources and local
communities with service operation and construction of any required system improvements occurring
primarily within existing rail ROWs.
Travelers on the Corridor’s highway system experience increasing congestion with corresponding air
quality impacts. The Corridor is particularly sensitive to air quality impacts as portions are currently
designated as either Non-Attainment or Attainment-Maintenance for ozone, Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) under state
and federal air quality conformity guidelines. Expansion of the highway system beyond current plans
would have significant air quality impacts as meeting the increasingly stringent federal and state air
quality standards will likely require reductions in the total vehicle miles traveled by automobiles.
Accommodating future travel demand on intercity rail service would produce significantly less pollution
per passenger mile traveled compared to typical automobile use, and would aid in reducing emissions
throughout the Corridor and region. In addition, expanded rail service would lessen GHG emissions
compared to increasing automobile use.
138
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 2-3
2.2 Need
The need for new rail service and related system improvements in the Corridor was established based
on: future Corridor population and employment growth, and the corresponding increase in travel demand;
constrained Corridor travel options; constrained rail service options; and the need for improved travel
times, reliability, and safety.
2.2.1 Corridor Transportation Market Challenges
The proposed service corridor operates through four Southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, and a southern portion of San Bernardino. The western portion of the Corridor is a densely
developed with many residential communities and employment centers, including downtown Los Angeles,
Fullerton, and Riverside. The eastern portion of the Corridor is one of the fastest-growing areas of the
Southern California region due to increasing residential development and the growing influx of
“snowbirds” who live in the area from October through April. Corridor employment has not grown at the
same rate as the area’s population, which has resulted in a significant imbalance of jobs and housing that
poses a serious transportation and related air quality challenge. The projected continuing imbalance of
housing and jobs demonstrates the need for expanded travel choices. In addition, the Coachella Valley
contains visitor destinations that attract a high number of regional trips from Los Angeles and Orange
counties, as well as national and international visitors.
Corridor Population Growth
By 2040, the Los Angeles-Coachella Valley Corridor’s population is projected to increase by 33.7 percent
with more than 5.8 million new residents for a total of 23.2 million residents as shown in Table 2.1. Along
with the forecasted population growth, the Corridor’s population density will increase by approximately 34
percent between 2011 and 2040 to an average of 724 residents per square mile. It should be noted that
the average population density reflects the Corridor-wide average, not the urbanized average. The
urbanized Corridor population density, which would indicate strong support for passenger rail system
usages, would in fact be much higher due to the significant amount of mountainous topography and
national park and protected species land, particularly in Riverside County.
Table 2.1: Coachella Valley Corridor Population and Density Forecasts (2011 to 2040)
2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Percent
Change
Total Population
(Thousands) 17,379 18,080 19,073 20,095 21,105 22,171 23,240 33.7%
Population Density
(Pop/sq. mile) 541 563 594 626 657 690 724 33.8%
Source: Moody’s Economy.com, 2011.
Among the Corridor counties, Los Angeles will have the largest population increase (3.3 million) by 2040,
followed by Riverside (1.2 million) and Orange (1.1 million) as shown in Table 2.2. In a continuation of
current population growth trends, Riverside County is projected to experience the largest growth rate
(52.4 percent) followed by Orange County (34.2 percent), and Los Angeles County (32.5 percent).
139
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 2-4
Table 2.2: Coachella Valley Corridor Population Forecasts by County (2011 to 2040)
County 2011 2040 Percent Growth
Los Angeles 10,048,450 13,317,360 32.5%
Orange 3,101,101 4,160,218 34.2%
Riverside 2,198,632 3,350,870 52.4%
San Bernardino 2,030,501 2,411,909 18.8%
Source: Moody’s Economy.com, 2011.
Corridor Employment Growth
Over the next 30 years, employment in the Coachella Valley Corridor is projected to grow by 1.9 million
jobs to a total of 8.2 million jobs (30 percent) by 2040 as shown in Table 2.3. The future projections show
that Los Angeles County will remain the major employment center in the Corridor:
Los Angeles County – 1.1 new jobs (60 percent).
Orange County – 411,400 new jobs (22 percent).
Riverside County – 269,000 new jobs (10 percent).
San Bernardino County – 92,300 new jobs (8 percent).
Table 2.3: Coachella Valley Corridor Employment Forecasts (2011 to 2040)
2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Percent
Change
Total Employment
(Thousands) 6,295 6,855 7,090 7,320 7,580 7,880 8,180 30.0%
Source: Moody’s Economy.com, 2011.
While a majority of the Corridor’s future total employment growth will occur in Los Angeles County, when
evaluating the percentage of employment growth on a county basis as shown in Table 2.4, Riverside
County is projected to have a 67 percent higher growth rate than that of Los Angeles County.
Table 2.4: Coachella Valley Corridor Employment Forecasts by County (2011 to 2040)
County 2011 2040 Percent Growth
Los Angeles 3,808,200 4,924,370 29.3%
Orange 1,369,000 1,780,380 30.0%
Riverside 546,820 815,400 49.1%
San Bernardino 569,050 661,350 16.2%
Source: Moody’s Economy.com, 2011.
2.2.2 Corridor Transportation Market Opportunities
Cities to be served by the Los Angeles-Coachella Valley Corridor intercity rail service include Los
Angeles, Fullerton, Riverside, Palm Springs, and Indio, as well as other communities that also serve as
local and regional destinations. Key land uses in the Corridor include commercial and employment
centers, civic centers, medical facilities, public and private colleges, cultural and entertainment venues,
and parks and recreational resources. The Corridor’s destinations and activity centers result in a diverse
set of local and regional travel markets:
140
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 2-5
Commuters and business travelers accessing employment centers located in downtown Los
Angeles, Fullerton, Riverside, Palm Springs, and Indio. Other key employment destinations
include: Loma Linda hospitals and medical facilities; the University of California, Riverside and
University of Redlands; and March Air Reserve Base.
Visitors traveling to the Corridor’s many destinations including, downtown Riverside, Redlands,
Palm Springs, and Indio; hot springs such as those in Desert Hot Springs; art, history, and natural
history museums; shopping destinations such as those in Cabazon; casinos and related
entertainment venues; and special event generators, such as the annual Palm Springs Film
Festival and the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival held in Indio.
Residents and visitors traveling to the Corridor’s unique recreational facilities, including Joshua
Tree National Park, the San Bernardino National Forest, Mount San Jacinto State Park, Lake
Perris, and many public and private golf courses.
Corridor destinations and activity centers will include existing and planned transit oriented development
(TOD) in existing and proposed station areas where possible. TOD in station areas furthers the Caltrans
policy to promote integrated land use and transportation. This policy depends on, as well as supports,
the efforts of local jurisdictions to maintain and redevelop their station area districts, and increase housing
and employment opportunities for their residents. Two of the existing stations (LAUS and Fullerton) have
existing station area development that includes housing, office, and commercial uses. There are
employment destinations within walking distance of the Riverside-Downtown Station, along with some
vacant property offering future development opportunities. Of the five stations proposed to serve the
eastern portion of the Corridor, only the Indio Station would be within walking distance of a downtown
commercial district with mixed land uses. The Palm Springs Station is separated from the downtown area
by a large distance, but could be served by a shuttle connection. The site is currently surrounded by
vacant land, but there are proposals to locate a satellite campus of the College of the Desert close to the
station property. However, extensive housing and related TOD efforts directly adjacent to the station are
not likely. The Rancho Mirage Station is proposed to be located on a 17 acre Coachella Valley
Association of Governments-owned parcel adjacent to a casino and hotel, and would offer convenient
access for visitors and employees. Siting options are being assessed for the Loma Linda/Redlands and
Banning/Beaumont station areas. A more detailed assessment of TOD opportunities would be provided
as part of a future SDP for the Coachella Valley Corridor.
Corridor Trip Purpose
Table 2.5 presents a comparison of the Coachella Valley Corridor trip purpose from 2000 to 2030. In
2000, 73 percent of the annual trips along the Corridor were made for recreational or other purposes,
while 27 percent were business or commute trips. In 2030, business trips are projected to increase to 30
percent reflecting more intercity business trips, and a corresponding minor decrease in recreation and
other travel. The same information is presented for the southern portion of the Pacific Surfliner Corridor,
from LAUS to San Diego, as a comparison and to show the similarities between the two travel corridors.
Table 2.5: Existing and Forecast Coachella Valley Corridor Trip Purpose (2000 to 2030)
Trip Purpose
Coachella Valley Pacific Surfliner South
2000 2030 2000 2030
Business/Commute 27% 30% 30% 31%
Recreation/Other 73% 70% 70% 69%
Source: CSRP Market Analysis, March 19, 2012.
141
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 2-6
2.2.3 Current and Forecasted Demand
The Corridor’s existing travel market is substantial with 1.5 billion total annual two-way person trips (all
modes) in 2000, and projections for more than 300 million additional trips by 2030, and another 100
million trips by 2040 (1.82 billion total). Table 2.6 identifies the total annual two-way county-to-county
person trips for all travel modes to the Coachella Valley Corridor. The 2030 two-way person trip
projections for the four key Coachella Valley travel pairs are as follows:
Los Angeles County (south) to Coachella Valley – 29.0 million.
Orange County to Coachella Valley – 14.7 million.
San Bernardino County to Coachella Valley – 35.4 million.
Riverside County (western portion) to Coachella Valley – 50.7 million.
Table 2.6: Projected 2030 Coachella Valley Corridor Total Annual Two-Way Person Trips (All
Modes) between Counties (Millions)
Los
Angeles
(South Co.)
Orange
County
San
Bernardino
County
Riverside
(West Co.)
Annual
Trips
(Millions)
Orange 707.3 707.3
San Bernardino 344.3 103.5 447.8
Riverside (West County) 146.6 125.3 258.6 530.5
Riverside (Coachella Valley) 29.0 14.7 35.4 50.7 129.8
Total 1,227.2 243.5 294.0 50.7 1,815.4
Source: CSRP Market Analysis, March 19, 2012.
Table 2.7 presents the projected rate of increase in the number of annual two-way person trips between
the four counties between 2000 and 2030. The growth in travel clearly demonstrates the increasing need
for the proposed Corridor intercity rail service connecting Los Angeles, Orange, southern San Bernardino,
and western Riverside counties with the Coachella Valley:
Los Angeles (South County) to Coachella Valley – 753 percent growth in travel.
Orange County to Coachella Valley – 407 percent growth in travel.
Riverside (West County) to Coachella Valley – 112 percent growth in travel.
The large and growing travel demand along the proposed service corridor indicates the potential
opportunity for rail service to attract a share of this travel, particularly given the large number of
recreational trips currently made between Los Angeles and Orange county origins and Coachella Valley
visitor destinations.
The significant growth in the Amtrak Thruway Bus service ridership between Fullerton and the cities of
Palm Springs and Indio indicates the potential viability of the proposed Coachella Valley intercity rail
service. Ridership for this service began in December, 2011 and Table 2.8 shows the increase in the
route’s ridership during the first ten months of operation.
142
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 2-7
Table 2.7: Coachella Valley Corridor: Percent Increase in Total Annual Two-Way Person
Trips (All Modes) between Counties (2000 to 2030)
Los
Angeles
(South Co.)
Orange San
Bernardino
Riverside
(West Co.)
Orange 3%
San Bernardino 38% 12%
Riverside (West County) 47% 27% 14%
Riverside (Coachella Valley) 753% 407% 53% 112%
Source: CSRP Market Analysis, March 19, 2012.
Table 2.8: Coachella Valley Corridor: Amtrak Thruway Bus Ridership (Route 39)
Month Ridership Percent Change
(over previous month)
Percent Change
(since service initiation)
December 2011 593 NA(1) NA
January 2012 684 15% 15%
February 804 18% 36%
March 1,263 57% 113%
April 1,616 28% 173%
May 1,417 (12%) 139%
June 1,531 8% 158%
July 1,595 4% 169%
August 1,511 (5%) 155%
September 1,390 (8%) 134%
Note:
(1) Service was initiated on December 5, 2011.
2.2.4 Corridor Capacity Constraints
As previously discussed, between 2010 and 2040, the Coachella Valley Corridor is projected to
experience an approximately 34 percent increase in population and a 30 percent growth in employment.
Travel would increase from the other Corridor counties to the Coachella Valley by an average of 143
percent between 2000 and 2030. Travel activity from Orange County to the Coachella Valley would
increase by 407 percent translating to 11.8 million additional trips, while travel from Los Angeles County
would grow by 753 percent or 25.6 million new trips. While a majority of the future travel demand is
anticipated to be met by automobile travel, the large and growing travel demand in this proposed Corridor
indicates a potential opportunity for rail service to attract a share of this travel.
Constrained Travel Options
The four counties of the Corridor are served by a transportation system that includes air, highway, and
limited rail service. The existing travel options are constrained by the Corridor’s physical setting and there
are limited opportunities for highway and air system expansion to meet future travel demand needs. The
western portion of the Corridor runs through a densely developed urban setting where highway system
widening is no longer feasible without major property acquisition and community disruption. In the
eastern portion of the Corridor, the relatively flat Coachella Valley is surrounded to the north and south by
143
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 2-8
mountains with the San Jacinto Peak rising to 10,834 feet. This portion of the Corridor is served by a
single major east-west highway, the I-10, which also accommodates a high level of truck traffic
particularly traveling east to Arizona. Current travel demand generated by residents and the area’s
growing tourism activities results in frequent Corridor highway congestion and travel delays. There is a
high level of visitor travel to Coachella Valley destinations, such as Palm Springs, especially on Friday
evenings and Sunday afternoons. There have been recent examples of two to four hour travel delays on
the I-10 between Palm Springs and I-15, which have seriously impacted travelers.
Limited mixed-flow highway improvements are planned in this region primarily due to environmental
constraints. The western portion of the Corridor is located in the South Coast Air Quality Basin, which is
identified as non-attainment for ozone, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NO2 under state and federal air quality
conformity guidelines. The Coachella Valley was included in the list of non-attainment and maintenance
areas for ozone and PM10 in the region’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared in 2012. In
addition, the eastern portion of the Corridor is home to a wide range of endangered and protected species
and Joshua Tree National Park.
In the eastern portion of the Corridor, limited commercial air travel access is available with only the Palm
Springs International Airport providing connections to other U.S. cities and Canada. The other smaller
municipal and private airports located in the Corridor offer access for personal and business aircraft.
There are limited rail travel options serving the proposed Coachella Valley Corridor. While there are
numerous rail travel options in the western portion of the Corridor with daily Amtrak Southwest Chief and
Pacific Surfliner service and multiple Metrolink lines offering weekday service, the only current rail option
operating in the eastern portion is the tri-weekly Sunset Limited. A single connection to the future HSR
system would be located in the Los Angeles County portion of the Corridor at LAUS.
The large and growing travel demand in the proposed service corridor indicates a potential opportunity for
a new rail travel option offering improved mobility and additional travel capacity with minimal impacts to
local communities, natural resources, and air quality. As the proposed Corridor intercity rail operations
would occur within existing rail ROWs, operation of additional daily passenger rail service would have
minimal environmental impacts.
Constrained Rail Service Options
Expansion of the Corridor’s intercity rail system has not kept pace with travel demand resulting from
current growth in population and employment. Current rail service provided in the Corridor by Amtrak and
Metrolink is insufficient to serve the projected growth in Corridor travel demand between other portions of
the Corridor and the Coachella Valley. Today, extensive rail service is operated in the western portion of
the Corridor, but there is limited rail service in the eastern portion. No rail service currently provides the
proposed end-to-end Corridor intercity service.
Amtrak operates the Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited through portions of the Coachella Valley
Corridor providing long-distance service that does not meet intra-corridor needs. The Southwest Chief
serves only the western portion of the Corridor, while the Sunset Limited operates only through the
eastern portion. The daily Southwest Chief service, connecting Los Angeles and Chicago, serves the
three stations located in the western portion of the Corridor (LAUS, Fullerton, and Riverside), but turns
north at Riverside to operate through the Cajon Pass. The tri-weekly Sunset Limited, which connects Los
Angeles and New Orleans, uses the UPRR Alhambra Subdivision from LAUS east through Pomona and
Ontario and then south to Colton Crossing, and continues east on the UPRR Yuma Subdivision serving
only one Corridor station (Palm Springs). The western portion of the Sunset Limited does not connect the
strong Los Angeles and Orange County markets with Coachella Valley, and it is inconveniently scheduled
144
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 2-9
for Corridor visitors. Per the latest (November 2012) schedule, the eastbound train arrives at the Palm
Springs Station at 12:36 a.m., while the westbound train arrives at 2:02 a.m. The existing tri-weekly
Sunset Limited service provides insufficient service frequency and capacity to meet future intercity travel
demand. A high level of weekday Metrolink commuter rail service is provided between LAUS and the
Riverside-Downtown Station, but there are no operations east of Riverside to the Coachella Valley.
The proposed Corridor intercity rail service would provide convenient access for Los Angeles and Orange
County trips to Coachella Valley destinations. It would originate and terminate in the Coachella Valley,
provide multiple Corridor stations, and be scheduled to provide convenient intercity service for the
communities between Los Angeles and Indio. The significant growth in the Amtrak Thruway Bus service
ridership (with an average ridership increase of 109 percent over the previous month in the first 10
months of operation) between Fullerton and the cities of Palm Springs and Indio indicates the potential
viability of the proposed intercity service.
Need for Improved Travel Times, Reliability, and Safety
Among the critical factors that impact the public’s choice of transportation are travel time, reliability, and
safety. Travel time and reliability are critical for all travelers, but particularly for work and business-related
trips which require a more time-certain arrival. As highway congestion intensifies, travel delays increase
and travel reliability worsens, and non-automobile modes such as rail become more attractive options for
travel. The Corridor’s highway system currently experiences significant congestion during both weekday
and weekend peak periods, and there have been recent examples of major travel delays on the I-10
between Palm Springs and Interstate 15 (I-15). In addition, the reliability of the Corridor’s highway
system is impacted by a high level of truck activity and frequent high winds which cause vehicular travel
delays and accidents.
With the significant projected annual trip growth – 304.2 million additional annual trips to and from the
Coachella Valley by 2030 – automobile travelers will experience increasing highway congestion and
resulting travel delays. The existing capacity of the Corridor’s highway and limited rail system is
insufficient to meet future demand, and current and projected future system congestion will continue to
result in slower travel speeds, increased travel times, reduced reliability, and a higher potential for
accidents. There are limited opportunities to expand the Corridor’s highway system due to the potential
for significant local community, natural resource, and air quality impacts. Corridor intercity rail service has
the potential to serve future travel demand with faster and more reliable service. Currently, intercity rail
travelers in the Corridor have one travel choice – the tri-weekly Sunset Limited which serves only one
Corridor city with inconveniently scheduled service. Expansion of rail service east from Riverside to Indio
on existing railroad ROWs, with related system improvements, will ensure the reliable functioning of both
passenger and freight rail service.
2.3 Scope and Objective of the Plan
2.3.1 Scope
The Corridor faces significant mobility challenges as continued growth in population, employment, and
tourism activity is projected to generate increased travel demand straining the existing transportation
network. Development of an effective and convenient passenger rail system is necessary to meet the
future mobility needs of residents, businesses, and visitors. The Corridor has future transportation
challenges as evidenced by the following:
Increasing Travel Demand. By 2040, the Corridor’s population is projected to grow by more than
33 percent to a total of 23.2 million residents, along with a 30 percent increase in employment
145
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 2-10
with a resulting total of 8.2 million jobs. While a majority of the Corridor’s population and job
growth will occur in the Los Angeles and Orange county portions of the Corridor, the Riverside
County portion is forecasted to experience significant increases in population and employment,
52 percent and 49 percent respectively. Travel activity from Orange County to the Coachella
Valley will increase by 407 percent translating to 11.8 million additional trips, while travel from Los
Angeles County will grow by 753 percent resulting in 25.6 million new trips. The large and
growing county-to-county travel demand along the proposed Corridor indicates a potential
opportunity for rail service to attract a share of this travel, particularly given the large number of
recreational trips currently made between Los Angeles, Orange, and western Riverside counties
and the tourist destinations of the Coachella Valley. The frequently severe congestion of the
freeways serving this corridor would make rail an attractive alternative to automobile travel
particularly for visitors.
Constrained Travel Options. While the Corridor is served by a transportation system that
includes air, highway, and rail service, system capacity is insufficient to meet the future travel
demand. Corridor airport access is limited to one facility. The Coachella Valley portion of the
Corridor is served by a single major highway, the I-10, which also accommodates a high level of
truck traffic. Limited Corridor highway improvements are planned primarily due to air quality and
natural resource impacts. The Coachella Valley is surrounded to the north and south by high
mountain ranges limiting the space available for the expansion of the highway system or the
construction of new highway alternatives without major community disruption. There are limited
rail services serving the Corridor, with no intercity rail service providing end-to-end service from
Los Angeles through Riverside to Indio.
Significant Highway Congestion. Current travel demand generated by residents and visitors
results in frequent weekday and weekend congestion and corresponding travel delays. There is
a high level of weekend visitor travel to Coachella Valley destinations, and there have been
recent examples of extended travel delays which have caused emergency conditions. With the
projected population and employment growth, a majority of the future travel demand is anticipated
to be met by automobile travel, which will result in increased highway congestion. There is
limited space and funding available for highway system expansion. As highway congestion
intensifies, travel delays will increase and reliability will decline. Rail travel could become an
increasingly attractive option for personal, business, and visitor trips.
Constrained Rail Service. Expanded Corridor rail service could accommodate an increasing
portion of the projected travel demand growth, but it would need to be an entirely new service.
The Amtrak Southwest Chief serves only the western portion of the Corridor between LAUS and
Riverside, while the Sunset Limited operates only through eastern portion from Colton to Indio.
There is no Metrolink commuter rail service east of Riverside to Indio. Current long-distance
Amtrak and SCRRA commuter rail service operating in the Corridor is not sufficient to serve the
projected Corridor travel demand growth, nor are the existing services designed to do so. Rail
travel has the potential to serve future Corridor travel demand if new rail service connecting LAUS
and Indio through Fullerton and Riverside is implemented.
Need for Increased Travel Capacity Without Impacting Local Communities, Air Quality, and
Natural Resources. More than 304 million additional annual trips are projected to occur to and
from the Coachella Valley by 2030. Growing travel demand will require increased transportation
system capacity, which could have negative impacts on local communities, regional and local air
quality, and natural resources. Widening of the highway system is no longer feasible without
major property acquisition and community disruption, while rail system capacity could be
expanded within existing rail ROWs. In addition, highway system improvements are constrained
146
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 2-11
in the eastern portion of the Corridor due to a wide range of endangered and protected species,
and a national park. Improvements in the Coachella Valley Corridor are particularly sensitive in
the air quality impact area as portions of the Corridor are identified as non-attainment or
maintenance areas for ozone, PM2.5, PM10, CO, and NO2 based on federal and state air quality
conformity requirements. Meeting federal and state air quality standards over the next 20 to 40
years will likely require reductions in the total miles traveled by vehicles. Rail system capacity
could be increased with air quality benefits, including reductions of GHG emissions, and with
minimal impacts to local communities and natural resources.
Expansion of the Corridor’s intercity rail system has not kept pace with the significant increase in
population, employment, travel, and tourism, and will require new service and related system
improvements to meet existing demand and future growth. The proposed Corridor intercity rail
service would provide a faster, safer, and more convenient intercity travel option that provides added
capacity in response to increased travel demand. New rail service and improvements would provide
additional capacity that would relieve some of the projected near-term and long-term demand on the
highway system, potentially slowing the need to further expand highways and airports, or reduce the
scale of those expansions, reducing their associated cost along with community and environmental
impacts. The Coachella Valley Corridor intercity rail service and related improvements would
augment the highway and airport system, thereby creating an interconnected, multimodal system,
allowing for better mobility throughout the Corridor. In addition, Corridor rail service and system
improvements would contribute to the viability of the Pacific Surfliner Corridor, support future
statewide HSR system operations, support regional Metrolink commuter rail operations, and provide
connectivity with local transit systems.
2.3.2 Objectives
In the adopted CSRP (2008), Caltrans has described the overall objectives and policies for intercity rail
service improvements as:
Increase the cost-effectiveness of state-supported intercity passenger rail systems.
Increase capacity on existing routes.
Reduce running times to attract additional riders and to provide a more attractive service.
Improve the safety of state-supported intercity rail service.
The PS-specific objectives include:
Clearly demonstrate the purpose and need for new intercity passenger rail service.
Identify alternatives for providing the new intercity passenger rail service, and provide the basis
for future identification of the alternative that best addresses the purpose and need.
Within a multi-modal strategy, improving rail service in this Corridor would provide the following benefits:
Address increasing Corridor travel needs.
Alleviate demand on the constrained highway system.
Reduce travel times.
Increase reliability and safety for Corridor trips.
Increase travel capacity with minimal impacts to the Corridor’s natural resources and
communities, and provide potential benefits to air quality and GHG emissions.
147
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 3-1
3.0 Rationale
Provision of intercity passenger rail service between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley would serve
the vital function of providing intercity service between the cities of Los Angeles, Fullerton, Riverside,
Loma Linda/Redlands, Banning and Beaumont in the Banning Pass Area, Palm Springs, and Indio, along
with the intermediate cities in the Coachella Valley. Improvements in the Corridor are required to develop
a faster, safer, and more reliable transportation system to serve this fast-growing area in Southern
California. New intercity passenger rail service would expand the travel options and provide added travel
capacity in address increasing travel demand from Corridor population and employment growth. The
existing transportation system is experiencing increasing congestion constraints due to heavy automobile
and truck travel, which are projected to worsen in the future. Coachella Valley Corridor intercity rail
service would provide the following benefits:
Provide increased travel capacity to serve Corridor growth in a cost-effective manner with minimal
impacts to local communities, natural resources, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Provide a new travel option as part of a multi-modal strategy identified in regional and county
goals and plans.
Implementation of Coachella Valley Corridor rail service would benefit other existing and planned
passenger rail services:
Support Pacific Surfliner Corridor operations. Expanded intercity passenger rail service to and
from the Coachella Valley would interface with the Pacific Surfliner South Corridor at the Fullerton
Station, and would support increased Pacific Surfliner ridership.
Support operations of the future HSR system. The future Coachella Valley service would provide
important rail feeder for Corridor residents and visitors at LAUS, and, with a transfer, at the future
Anaheim and San Bernardino (two options under study) HSR stations.
Provide connectivity with local transit systems. Coachella Valley Corridor rail service would
support a higher utilization of transit services operating to and from the Corridor’s existing and
future passenger rail stations.
3.1 Capacity Benefits
Coachella Valley Corridor intercity passenger rail service would accommodate an increasing portion of
the Corridor’s projected travel demand growth, and reduce the need for an expanded highway system.
New Corridor intercity rail service would provide additional travel capacity to serve the forecasted Corridor
residential, employment, and visitor growth in a cost-effective manner with minimal impacts to local
communities, natural resources, and air quality. Providing additional highway system capacity could have
negative impacts on regional and local air quality, local communities, and natural resources. The western
portion of the Corridor is located in the South Coast Air Quality Basin which is identified as non-
attainment for ozone, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NO2; and the Coachella Valley section was included in the list
of non-attainment and maintenance areas for ozone and PM10 in the region’s 2012 RTP. Meeting federal
and state air quality standards over the next 20 to 40 years will likely require reductions in the total
distance traveled by vehicles. The Corridor passes through residential neighborhoods and the
commercial centers of many communities, and operates through environmentally sensitive desert
settings. Passenger rail system operations could be provided within existing rights-of-way with air quality
and greenhouse gas emission benefits and minimal impacts to local communities and natural resources.
148
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 3-2
Service improvements and related infrastructure projects identified in the previous Coachella Valley
Corridor studies (identified below in Section 4.1) for the Build/Improved Passenger Service Alternative
would provide a reliable travel option in this congested travel corridor that would reduce travel time and
enhance safety. Service improvements would improve the cost-effectiveness of intercity passenger rail
service currently provided in the western portion of the Corridor, while supporting improved passenger
and freight rail operations in the Coachella Valley. The improvements have independent utility and are not
dependent on the completion of other Corridor programs to be successful.
3.2 Multi-Modal System Benefits
Developing alternative transportation choices is a key component of the multi-modal strategies identified
in the Corridor’s regional and county goals and plans. While the Corridor is served by a transportation
system that includes air, highway, and passenger rail service, existing system capacity and options are
insufficient to meet the projected future travel demand. The Corridor is served by an extensive network of
regional and state highways, all of which operate with extended periods of automobile and truck
congestion during weekday and weekend peak travel periods.
Limited Corridor passenger rail service is provided by the long-distance Sunset Limited which operates
inconveniently-scheduled, tri-weekly service for Corridor travelers. In addition, the Sunset Limited does
not connect the large southern Los Angeles, Orange, and western Riverside county markets with
Coachella Valley destinations. Regional and county multi-modal transportation plans have been
developed in recognition of future growth, which identify expansion of passenger rail service as a key
mobility element. Provision of expanded intercity rail service in the Corridor would support regional and
county goals and plans related to growth, smart growth, economic development, air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions, sustainability, and provision of a balanced transportation system. Providing
reliable and convenient passenger rail service would enhance rail travel as an increasingly viable and
attractive option for personal and business trips, and would reduce the pressure to expand the Corridor’s
highway system.
3.3 Operational Benefits
Improvements to the Corridor’s transportation system have not kept pace with the growth in travel
demand, and the highway system is currently operating beyond capacity during peak travel periods with
resulting travel time, reliability, and safety impacts. There are limited transportation choices available with
the automobile being the primary travel mode. Limited rail service is provided in the Corridor by Amtrak
and Metrolink. The existing Amtrak long-haul Sunset Limited service operating through the Corridor is not
scheduled to serve the needs of intra-state travelers between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley with
the tri-weekly service arriving at inconvenient times for Corridor travelers. Daily Metrolink commuter rail
service is provided between LAUS and the Riverside-Downtown Station, but does not continue east
through the Coachella Valley to Indio.
In the Corridor, travel demand is projected to continue to increase as population and employment are
forecasted to rise resulting in 304.2 million additional annual trips to and from the Coachella Valley by
2030. As a response to limited highway capacity in this congested corridor, travelers will continue to seek
more reliable and attractive alternate modes of transportation. The large and growing travel demand in
the Corridor indicates a potential opportunity for rail service to attract a share of this travel, particularly
given the high number of recreational trips currently made between Los Angeles and Orange county
origins and Coachella Valley visitor destinations. The periodically severe congestion of the freeways
serving this area would make rail an attractive alternative to automobile travel particularly for visitors.
149
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 3-3
The proposed intercity service between LAUS and Indio would offer a key mobility choice with
conveniently scheduled, daily one-seat service between key destinations in the Corridor.
150
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 4-1
4.0 Identification of Alternatives
This section describes the three alternatives identified in this planning study effort: the No-Build
Alternative, which provides a baseline option representing the continued operation of the current Corridor
transportation system with no new intercity passenger rail service; and two Build alternatives, which
provide new intercity passenger rail service in the Corridor between LAUS and Indio to accommodate
increased Corridor travel demand.
4.1 Previous Corridor Planning Studies
Corridor intercity rail service has been studied since 1991 when the Riverside County Transportation
Commission (RCTC) completed the first in a series of studies evaluating the feasibility of operating daily
intercity rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio through Los Angeles and Orange
counties. An overview of the five previous planning studies prepared by and/or with the participation of
the RCTC, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), the Caltrans Division of Rail
(DOR), and Amtrak is presented below. All of the studies considered the same alignment for future
passenger rail service: south on the Metro owned and SCRRA operated ROW from LAUS to the West
Redondo Junction, along the BNSF owned and operated San Bernardino Subdivision from West
Redondo Junction through Fullerton and Riverside to Colton Crossing, and then east onto the UPRR
owned and operated Yuma Subdivision through the Coachella Valley to Indio.
Los Angeles-Coachella Valley-Imperial County Intercity Rail Feasibility Study (1991)
This initial study provided an assessment of the technical, operational, financial, and institutional issues
associated with operating State-sponsored Amtrak intercity rail service in the Corridor. The proposed
routing was similar to that of the Corridor considered in this PS between LAUS and the Coachella Valley,
with an extension to the international U.S./Mexico border also considered. The study was prepared by
the RCTC with the participation of the CVAG, and was then forwarded to the Caltrans DOR for review and
action.
Nine preliminary rail station sites were identified which included four existing stations (LAUS, Fullerton,
Corona, and Riverside) and five new Coachella Valley stations (Loma Linda, Beaumont, and three other
stations to be determined). Capital and operating budgets were prepared based on three daily round trips
between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. Capital costs included provision of rolling stock (two
train sets) and construction of new stations and track improvements (a new connecting track identified as
required at Colton Crossing to permit movement between the BNSF and UPRR tracks). The total capital
cost for the Los Angeles-Coachella Valley portion of the proposed service corridor, including rolling stock
and locomotives, construction of five stations, and provision of track improvements and a layover facility,
was identified as $41.0 million (1991 dollars).
After completion of the study, additional travel data was developed to better assess the Corridor’s intercity
rail ridership potential through a Caltrans-commissioned license plate survey. The survey results showed
a low level of potential ridership (the survey was performed prior to the doubling of Riverside County
population between 1990 and 2010), which was seen as a barrier to implementation of daily intercity rail
service at that time.
Los Angeles-Coachella Valley Weekend Demonstration Passenger Rail Service (1993)
While the previous study was under review by the Caltrans DOR, the RCTC developed an alternative
service concept for a two year demonstration project building on the existing Metrolink commuter rail
services operating within Riverside County. The study proposed weekend-only service during the peak
151
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 4-2
visitor season of November through May, operating as an extension of existing Metrolink commuter rail
service. Ten one-way trips running from Friday afternoon through Monday morning were to be operated
by contracted Metrolink crews using Metrolink equipment. Alternate railroad alignments between LAUS
and Riverside were considered, but the preliminary revenue and ridership estimates identified that the
LAUS-Riverside alignment through the cities of Fullerton and Corona to Riverside would be the most
productive due to the service linkage with the strong Los Angeles, Orange, and western Riverside county
travel markets.
Coachella Valley Passenger Rail Service Feasibility Study (1999)
This study was led by the CVAG and focused on providing a framework for further operational and
funding discussions related to operating passenger rail service in the Coachella Valley Corridor. The
study focused on developing revised plans in recognition of three key issues: 1) the need for increased
local participation at the policy and financial levels; 2) the assumption that the proposed service would be
operated by Amtrak as negotiations with the UPRR could be completed more efficiently with Amtrak as a
partner; and 3) changing station needs. From a station perspective, while Indio had been the only
Coachella Valley passenger rail station in operation when the previous two studies were complete, a
second station had been constructed with State Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) funds in the city of
Palm Springs. The resulting recommendation from the study was for the proposed service to be operated
with five existing stations (LAUS, Fullerton, Riverside-Downtown, Palm Springs, and Indio) and one new
station to be located in the mid-Coachella Valley in the vicinity of the city of Palm Desert.
Three service options calling for either one or two daily round trips with an overnight layover at both ends
(LAUS and Indio) were developed, as well as alternative funding plans which included a local participation
element. Amtrak preferred the two round trip option as offering the level of flexibility desired by the
traveling public based on their experience, and improvement plans were developed reflecting this service
scenario. Capital costs were identified for: rolling stock (two five-car trainsets plus locomotives); an Indio
layover facility, including a power switch for the maintenance tracks; possible host railroad (UPRR) track
and signal improvements; and construction of one new station. The total capital cost identified in this
study was $37.9 million (1999 dollars), a slightly lower cost than that identified in the 1991 study due to
the UPRR’s construction of the interconnect track improvements at Colton Crossing which had been
included in the previously identified improvements. The study results were shared with the UPRR who
expressed strong opposition to the operation of passenger rail service on the Yuma Subdivision.
Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (2005)
In 2005, the RCTC evaluated the potential of future commuter and intra-county commuter rail in Riverside
County with a county-wide study of reasonably possible home-to-work commuter rail corridors. The
Coachella Valley Corridor commuter rail option proposed six peak period direction trains during the
morning and evening peak periods, and two off-peak trains in each direction. Due to the significant level
of baseline UPRR freight train activity in this Corridor, and to accommodate the proposed addition of a
high number of commuter rail trains during both peak periods with resulting impacts on freight rail
operations, construction of a third main track adjacent to the existing UPRR main tracks was identified. A
total capital cost of $528.2 million (2005 dollars) was identified to provide for system improvements
including the third track, turnouts, related signal work, minor and major bridge widenings, upgraded at-
grade highway-rail crossings, station construction (seven new commuter rail stations and an upgraded
Palm Springs Station), new layover yard, and ROW purchase and easements. The Coachella Valley
commuter rail option performed poorly when compared to the other commuter rail options, primarily due
to the high capital cost of adding a third track, and the lack of a shared use agreement or right to operate
Metrolink service. Intercity rail service operated by Amtrak was identified as the most viable option for
passenger rail service in this Corridor.
152
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 4-3
Coachella Valley Rail Study Update (2010)
This study effort, prepared for the RCTC, updated the status of corridor rail service planning efforts as the
Coachella Valley Corridor passenger service had been included in the approved CSRP (2008), though no
funding was identified to support implementation. The study confirmed that the proposed intercity service
would be operated by Amtrak running on the previously identified alignment from LAUS to Fullerton and
Riverside, and then north to Colton and continuing east on the UPRR’s Yuma Subdivision through the
Coachella Valley. The updated list of stations included three existing stations (LAUS, Fullerton, and
Riverside-Downtown) in the western portion of the Corridor, and five existing and/or new stations in the
Coachella Valley section (Loma Linda, Banning/Beaumont, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, and Indio),
with a future possible station identified in Cabazon.
Schedules were developed for two daily round trips with one train originating in Los Angeles and a
second in Indio. The identified capital cost totaled $155 million (2010 dollars) for rolling stock (two eight
car trainsets), a layover facility in Indio, and station construction (five new stations along with
improvements to the Palm Springs Station). The study noted that grade-separated pedestrian track
crossings may be required by the UPRR at the Coachella Valley stations, but the cost of those possible
pedestrian improvements was not included in the estimate.
4.2 Regional and Local Plans
The CVAG and RCTC have joint responsibility for the planning and implementation of the future
Coachella Valley passenger rail service. Under their direction, provision of daily rail service between
Downtown Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley was included in the Riverside County list of projects
presented in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2040 RTP/Sustainable
Communities Strategies (SCS) adopted in 2012.
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
The CVAG serves as the regional planning agency leading development and implementation of the
Coachella Valley regional transportation program, which includes the proposed Coachella Valley Corridor
passenger rail service. While no funding is currently identified for this future service, the CVAG Executive
Committee recently (April 29, 2013) directed staff to establish a 90 percent bus transit/10 percent
passenger rail service funding allocation split for Coachella Valley Transportation Development Act (TDA)
funds to be phased in over a three to four year period. In addition, a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), will be established between RCTC and CVAG to develop a Coachella Valley Rail Fund that will
use both the TDA funds and additional state and local funds to conduct station development studies and
provide initial capital funding for station development.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
One of RCTC’s primary responsibilities is to administer the voter-approved Measure A ½ cent sales tax
program for transportation projects. The sales tax was first approved by voters in 1988 and was later
extended in 2002 and will remain in place until 2039. Measure A is used to fund highway, regional
arterial, street and road, new corridors, economic development, and transit projects throughout Riverside
County. RCTC prepares periodic updates of short-term project priorities for the use of Measure A funds.
The 2010 version of the Framework for a Journey – 2009-2019 Delivery Plan includes the Perris Valley
Line project that extends Metrolink commuter rail service 24 miles further into southern Riverside County,
but does not include funding for the Coachella Valley Corridor intercity rail project at this time. In
recognition of the heavy freight rail activities occurring in the County, the RCTC has secured $162 million
in State Proposition 1B bond funding to construct 12 grade separations in the future Corridor as identified
153
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 4-4
in the RCTC-prepared Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside
County) completed in February 2012.
As part of a five-county effort, RCTC has participated in the development of the following Southern
California strategic planning efforts that will benefit Corridor passenger and freight rail capacity:
Metrolink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment. A 30-year commuter rail strategic plan for
expanding current service.
Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan. A 30-year plan that reflects regional agreement of a
phased strategy to maintain mobility for freight movement to, from, and within Southern
California, and minimize the impacts of freight movements by truck, train, and air on local
communities, the existing transportation system, and the environment.
Five-County Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) Joint Venture. A joint
advocacy effort with BNSF and UPRR to develop new short-term federal funding and long-term
public-private mechanisms for port-generated rail and truck capacity improvements in the five-
county SCAG region. The Riverside County network includes proposed rail capacity
improvements on the BNSF and UPRR main lines that parallel the SR-91 and I-10 freeways.
In a related effort, Riverside County launched a collaborative approach to its future growth management
efforts through the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), which integrates consideration of natural
conservation, transportation, and land use issues in its future planning efforts. As part of the RCIP, the
County has developed the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP)
to address congestion challenges and future travel demand in a process that identifies multi-modal
options. Through these efforts, the CETAP has identified four priority corridors within the western
Riverside County area for further study and potential improvement project implementation. The
Coachella Valley Corridor was one of the corridors identified as experiencing increasing congestion.
Land use studies, such as the Western Riverside Council of Governments’ (WRCOG) Smart Growth
Case Study, also identified the growing imbalance of population and employment and its effects on
transportation in the region. Using indicators to measure various elements of “Smart Growth,” such as
land use patterns and transportation amenities, as well as housing and job balance, the region as a whole
scored low. In particular, several indicators such as “Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) growth compared to
population increase” and “transit availability” scored significantly lower and were seen as indicators of
increasing future congestion and the need for new transportation solutions.
4.3 Corridor Service Plans
4.3.1 Corridor Rail Service Plans
Future Coachella Valley Corridor service plans have been developed and evaluated through a series of
Corridor rail service feasibility studies prepared by the RCTC, CVAG, and Caltrans DOR with Amtrak’s
participation. Previous studies have identified service schedules focusing on providing either one or two
daily round trips with the most recent Corridor study, the Coachella Valley Rail Study Update (2010),
identifying a preferred start up schedule of two daily round trips.
4.3.2 Corridor Rail Service Improvements
Rail service infrastructure improvements in the western portion of the Coachella Valley Corridor have
been addressed through the development of two plans: for the LAUS-Fullerton segment, through the
updated Pacific Surfliner South Corridor Service Development Plan currently being prepared; and for the
Fullerton-Riverside section, through the Metrolink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment prepared by the
154
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 4-5
SCRRA with RCTC’s participation. Potential infrastructure improvements required in support of provision
of intercity passenger rail service in the eastern portion of the Corridor (Riverside to Indio) have been
identified through the previous Corridor studies summarized above. Along with the identification of rolling
stock, the previous Corridor study efforts identified the following possible infrastructure needs:
Track, siding, and signal improvements.
Layover facility in Indio.
Station projects.
As Corridor service plans more forward, Metro and the SCRRA, BNSF, and UPRR as the host railroad
owners and operators may require improvements to ensure that implementation of new passenger
service does not impact operations in this heavily-utilized passenger and freight rail corridor.
Previous studies have identified possible improvements in the UPRR portion of the Corridor. It should be
noted that the UPRR has consistently stated, and recently confirmed (March 6, 2013), their opposition to
the introduction of passenger rail service in this Corridor. Further more detailed coordination and work for
all portions of the Corridor would be performed in future planning work.
In the UPRR portion of the Corridor, more than 100 miles of new main line double-track have been built
on the Sunset Route (Los Angeles–New Orleans), including the Yuma Subdivision, but many single-track
segments remain east of Indio which constrain rail activity. Continuing strong growth in freight rail
demand has resulted in capacity challenges in recent years. These capacity problems are anticipated to
continue and increase in the future with the projected doubling of trade between the U.S. and Asia, which
primarily enters through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and travels east through this Corridor.
Current and future UPRR freight service operations in the Coachella Valley portion of the Corridor are
impacted by two operational constraints:
West Colton Yard. This large and relatively new rail yard serves as a hub for UPRR activity
moving to and from the greater Los Angeles Basin. It currently experiences a high level of train
activity which constrains operations on connecting trackage.
San Gorgonio Pass. The Beaumont to Banning portion of the alignment travels through the San
Gorgonio or Banning Pass, which cuts between the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and
the San Jacinto Mountains to the south. Beaumont is located at the peak of the Pass at a 2,612
foot elevation, and Banning is located at a 2,350 foot elevation. On the west, the alignment
elevation increases by approximately 1,750 feet between Riverside and Beaumont, while on the
east the alignment elevation changes by approximately 2,365 feet between Banning and Indio (at
a -13 foot elevation). These significant elevation changes impact rail operations in two ways.
First, the gradient change causes most eastbound and westbound trains to operate at a reduced
speed. Second, the gradient is steep enough so as to require the UPRR to add locomotives to its
heavily loaded westbound trains at Indio to assist them in moving over the hill. This rail
movement requires trains to come to a complete standstill to link up with their “helper units” and
then regain speed in a manner that constrains operational capacity.
While the fleet requirements to operate one to two daily round trips in this Corridor are anticipated to be
minor, additional rolling stock would be required. Layover space for the overnight storage of the required
passenger rail vehicles would be provided at the Indio Station where former railroad land has been
acquired for this purpose, or at the Amtrak facilities near or at LAUS. Heavy vehicle maintenance and
repair are assumed to be accommodated at the existing Amtrak facility near LAUS, while cleaning and
light maintenance needs would be handled at the Indio overnight storage facility.
The proposed Coachella Valley Corridor intercity service would operate between LAUS and Indio with
service to three existing shared Amtrak/Metrolink stations (LAUS, Fullerton, and Riverside-Downtown),
155
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 4-6
and five existing or new stations between Riverside and Indio. The stations in the eastern portion of the
Corridor would include: Redlands/Loma Linda (new station), Banning/Beaumont (new station), Palm
Springs (existing Amtrak station), Rancho Mirage (new station), and Indio (existing bus station and
planned intermodal station). A possible future sixth station is proposed in the Cabazon area. The Palm
Springs Station has a permanent station structure and parking with room to expand if needed. In Indio,
current Amtrak Thruway Bus and Greyhound passenger activities are accommodated in a temporary
building structure. Land has been purchased and plans developed for a permanent multi-modal facility
with train platforms and overnight rail vehicle storage area. For the three new stations, site options have
been identified, but land has not been purchased; the CVAG does own land in the proposed Rancho
Mirage station area.
4.4 No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative provides a baseline discussion of the continuation of the current Corridor system
with no improvements beyond those rail projects that have approved local, county, state, and federal
funding. These projects are identified in documents including: county Long Range Transportation Plans
(LRTPs), Regional Transportation Improvement Plans (RTIPs), and the State Transportation Plan (STIP).
The RCTC has secured $162 million in Proposition 1B bond funding to construct 12 grade separation
projects in Riverside County – ten of which will facilitate future Coachella Valley Corridor service. Three of
the Corridor grade separation projects have been completed, and the remaining seven projects are
anticipated to be completed by the end of 2013.
4.5 Build Alternatives
Two Build/Improved Passenger Service alternatives have been identified that are consistent with past
planning studies. The first alternative would provide one daily round trip with future expansion based on
ridership growth potential. A second alternative would provide two daily round trips with future expansion
based on ridership growth potential. These alternatives would be studied through the preparation of a
complete SDP, which would determine the more feasible and cost effective alternative, and the
implementation timing of the recommended Build Alternative. As part of the SDP process, ridership
modeling would be performed to test when there would be market demand for additional round trips
beyond the initial one or two round trip(s). Based on the ridership modeling results, the SDP would test
the feasibility and cost effectiveness of additional round trips.
Because the proposed rail service operations would occur within an existing railroad ROW, minimal
environmental impacts are anticipated. A program level environmental statement (EIS) would be required
for any federal funding, and state level environmental impact review (EIR) documentation would also
need to be completed. Construction of the four new stations would primarily occur within existing
developed areas or on former railroad property. Coachella Valley was included in the list of non-
attainment and maintenance areas for ozone and PM10 in the 2012 RTP. Introduction of rail service
travel alternatives in this congested area would reduce mobile source emissions, and have air quality and
climate change benefits.
An overview of the possible capital projects and costs, as identified in the previous Coachella Valley
Corridor planning studies, is summarized in Table 4.1. The previously identified costs do not include
capital upgrade costs that might be included in operating agreements negotiated with Metro and
Metrolink, or the BNSF and UPRR, The identified projects could be further divided into: immediate
projects which are required to implement passenger service; and longer-term projects, such as station
construction (except for Indio) which could be implemented as funding became available.
156
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 4-7
4.6 Next Steps
This Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor planning study demonstrates the viability of the provision of
intercity passenger rail service between Los Angeles and Indio. The expected increase in population and
employment in the Corridor coupled with the significant growth in the Amtrak Thruway Bus service
ridership between Fullerton and the cities of Palm Springs and Indio – 170 percent in the first 10 months
in operation – indicates the strong potential for providing a rail service travel option in this proposed
service corridor. The next steps in moving forward to intercity rail service implementation include:
Evaluate the alternatives identified in this initial planning study conducted by Caltrans through
preparation of a SDP. The SDP would develop ridership and revenue data for the two build
alternatives, identify capital improvements necessary for the service alternatives based on
capacity modeling and prior studies, and identify operating costs. Based on this data, the SDP
would determine which service option is more feasible and cost effective, and it would identify a
projected date for the start of service.
Table 4.1: “Build/Improved Passenger Service” Alternatives – Proposed Rail Improvement
Projects
Improvement Description Los Angeles-
Coachella Valley-
Imperial County
Intercity Rail
Feasibility Study
(1991 dollars)
Coachella Valley
Passenger Rail
Service
Feasibility Study
(1999 dollars)
Coachella Valley
Rail Study
Update
(2010 dollars)
Track and Signal Improvements $ 1.4(1) $ 5.0(2) NA
Layover Facility (Indio) 0.4(3) 1.0 $ 15.0(3)
Power Switch for Maintenance Track NA 0.3 NA
Contingency Factor (30%) 0.5 NA NA
Engineering Contingency (15%) 0.4 NA NA
Station Construction 9.9(4) 3.0(5) 60.0(6)
Rolling Stock (two trainsets) 28.4(7) 28.6(8) 80.0(9)
Total $41.0 $37.9 $155.0
Notes:
(1) Cost for Colton Crossing track work connecting BNSF and UPRR tracks.
(2) Cost for host railroad (UPRR) improvements, if needed.
(3) Cost includes power switch for maintenance track.
(4) Cost for five new stations each with 100 parking spaces.
(5) Cost for new Palm Desert Station with 300 parking spaces.
(6) Cost for five new stations ($11.0 million each) and upgraded Palm Springs Station ($5.0 million).
(7) Cost reflects two six-car train sets: locomotive, food service car, four coach cars, and one passenger coach with a
control cab.
(8) Cost reflects two five-car train sets.
(9) Cost reflects two eight-car train sets: locomotive, cab car, food service car, and five coach cars.
- “NA” indicates not applicable.
Complete a programmatic EIR/EIS for the Coachella Valley intercity rail route to support selection
and implementation of the preferred Build alternative.
157
Item 8.
Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study May 2013
Page 4-8
Resolve operational and capital improvement issues, including system projects necessary for
implementation of passenger service, through focused discussions with: Metro and SCRRA
(LAUS to West Redondo Junction); the BNSF (West Redondo Junction to Colton Crossing); and
the UPRR (Colton Crossing to Indio).
Continue discussions with local jurisdictions and the UPRR regarding development of the four
proposed stations to be located in Redlands/Loma Linda, Banning/Beaumont, Rancho Mirage
(possible use of the CVAG-owned site), and Indio.
Identify potential sources of funding for capital and operational costs.
Review and recommend the appropriate organizational options for implementing and managing
the service.
158
Item 8.
PREPARED FOR:
California Department of Transportation
1120 N Street
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 95814
PREPARED BY:
AECOM
2101 Webster Street #1900
Oakland, CA 94612
with Cambridge Systematics
& Arellano Associates 159
Item 8.
160
Item 8.
161
Item 8.
162
Item 8.
163
Item 8.
164
Item 8.
165
Item 8.
166
Item 8.
167
Item 8.
168
Item 8.
169
Item 8.
170
Item 8.
171
Item 8.
172
Item 8.
173
Item 8.
174
Item 8.
175
Item 8.
176
Item 8.
177
Item 8.
178
Item 8.
179
Item 8.
180
Item 8.
181
Item 8.
182
Item 8.
183
Item 8.
184
Item 8.
185
Item 8.
186
Item 8.
187
Item 8.
188
Item 8.
189
Item 8.
190
Item 8.
191
Item 8.
192
Item 8.
193
Item 8.
194
Item 8.
195
Item 8.
196
Item 8.
197
Item 8.
198
Item 8.
199
Item 8.
200
Item 8.
201
Item 8.
202
Item 8.
203
Item 8.
204
Item 8.
205
Item 8.
206
Item 8.
207
Item 8.
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: October 25, 2021
TO: Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager
THROUGH: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director
SUBJECT: Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Planning Study Update and
Amendment to HDR Engineering Agreement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 14-25-072-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement
No. 14-25-072-00, with HDR Engineering (HDR) related to the Coachella Valley-San
Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Planning Study for an additional amount of $259,000,
and a total amount not to exceed $7,175,748;
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Approve the allocation of $259,000 in State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds from Western
Riverside County’s Commuter Rail Program for the Coachella Valley Rail Program
(Program);
4) Approve adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget in the amounts of $259,000 each
to increase STA Fund−Western County Rail transfers out and Coachella Valley Rail Fund
transfers in and professional services expenditures;
5) Amend the Commission’s FY 2021/22 Coachella Valley Rail Short-Range Transit Plan
(SRTP);
6) Adopt Resolution No. 21-018, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission Approving the Allocation of State Transportation Improvement
Program/Interregional Transportation Improvement Program Funding to Support the
Coachella Valley San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor”; and
7) Forward to the Commission for final action.
COACHELLA VALLEY – SAN GORGONIO PASS RAIL CORRIDOR SERVICE BACKGROUND
In October 2013, the Commission approved Resolution No. 13-042, “Resolution of Support to
Establish Daily Intercity Rail Service from Los Angeles to the Coachella Valley Via the Pass Area,”
in which the Commission committed to overseeing preparation of a Service Development Plan
(SDP) in coordination with the Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transit and the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) as the next step toward establishing daily rail service between Los Angeles
and the Coachella Valley.
19 208
Item 8.
Agenda Item 8
In May 2014, following a competitive procurement process, the Commission awarded a contract
to HDR to prepare a full SDP starting with an Alternatives Analysis (AA), followed by a SDP and
program-level Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
In July 2016, the AA was completed and accepted by the Commission and FRA with the
recommendation of a preferred route to be carried forward for analysis in a SDP and Tier 1
EIS/EIR. The preferred route, as shown in Figure 1 below, would run from Los Angeles Union
Station, through Fullerton, Riverside, and the San Gorgonio Pass, to Indio or Coachella (Corridor),
operating primarily over tracks owned by the BNSF Railway (BNSF) from Los Angeles to Colton,
and tracks owned by the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) between Colton and Indio or Coachella.
Included in the AA was a market analysis that identified a projected 47 percent increase in travel
over the next 20 years between Los Angeles and Coachella Valley and a projected 23 percent
population increase by 2035 for the four counties comprising the Corridor (Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, and San Bernardino). Additionally, the analysis found that Coachella Valley is expected
to double its population and the San Gorgonio Pass Area is projected to increase 134 percent by
2035.
Since the commencement of the EIS/EIR and SDP, public project scoping has been completed, a
comprehensive operational model of the rail corridor has been developed, conceptual
engineering and service operations plan have been completed, technical studies have been
prepared to evaluate the impacts of implementing the service, the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR
has been prepared and circulated for public review and comment, and the Draft SDP has been
prepared. To date, the Commission has authorized a total of about $6.9 million to conduct the
study.
Figure 1: Proposed Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor
Project Status
Since the last project update to the Commission in May 2021, the Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR
was circulated for public review and comment from May 19, 2021 through July 6, 2021, and an
extensive outreach program was undertaken to solicit input on the environmental document.
The outreach effort included:
20 209
Item 8.
Agenda Item 8
• Development of a 4-minute video which described how the Program could make it easier
to travel through the congested traffic conditions in the Corridor;
• Development of a media toolkit that included resources for media outlets and other
organizations to share information about the Program on their social media or websites;
the toolkit included the Program video, Program Fact Sheets (in English and Spanish),
Program Frequently Asked Questions (in English and Spanish), and the Program Logo;
• A press release on May 19 that provided background information on the Program,
information about the methods for submitting comments, and a link to the media toolkit;
• Social media and website posts by stakeholder organizations and the news media
included 25 social media posts and 14 newspaper articles and TV segments;
• Twelve display advertisements placed in print and online publications, featuring
announcements about the availability of the Program EIS/EIR along with information
about when the public hearings would be held;
• Email notifications were sent to an extensive database of project stakeholders, interested
agencies and organizations;
• Social media postings that were developed and shared by the project outreach team from
early May through July 6 to provide information about the EIS/EIR release and review, the
project video, the public hearings, and the available methods for providing comments;
• Geographically focused digital advertising campaigns that were implemented to notify
the public about the public comment period and the public hearings; these digital
advertisements were viewed online 999,994 times on electronic devices;
• Briefings and presentations about the EIS/EIR and public comment opportunity that were
made to the Program’s Technical Advisory Committee, elected officials, and nine
stakeholder groups and agencies; and
• Virtual public meetings held on June 22 (Tuesday) and June 26 (Saturday).
A total of 294 comment letters were received during the 45-day public comment period, of which
nine letters were received from public agencies, 15 letters were received from organizations, and
273 letters were received from individuals. Additionally, ten comment letters were received from
individuals after the close of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR public comment period (i.e., after
July 6, 2021) for a grand total of 304, as shown in Table 1 below. Although FRA, Caltrans, and
RCTC are not obligated to respond to comment letters received after the close of the formal
comment review period, responses were developed for these late arriving comment letters as a
courtesy. The number of comments received from agencies, organizations, and individuals
indicates significant public interest and effective outreach efforts.
Table 1. Summary of Commenters and Affiliations on the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR
Agencies Organizations Individuals Total
Number of Comment Letters 9 15 280 304
Number of Comments Contained within
Comment Letters
62 42 ~400 ~504
21 210
Item 8.
Agenda Item 8
Percentage of Comment Letters that
Expressed General Support for the Program
78% 73% 82% 82%
Notes: Some comment letters received did not state a preference associated with support or opposition towards
the Program.
According to the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies are required to identify and
formally respond to all substantive public comments. A substantive comment does one or more
of the following:
• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information and/or analysis in the
Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR;
• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the information and/or analysis in
the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR;
• Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the Draft Tier 1/Program
EIS/EIR that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and addresses significant
issues;
• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the merits of an alternative or alternatives;
• Causes changes in or revisions to the proposed action; and
• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the planning process itself.
Many of the comment letters included multiple comments, thus, within the 304 comment letters,
a total of 504 comments were tallied requiring written responses. Many of the comments
received were on the same topic or expressed similar concerns. Rather than repeat the same
response to each of those comments, twelve “Master Responses” were prepared, each of which
addresses broad topic areas and/or comment themes, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of Master Responses
Master Response Number Topic
1 Proposed Station Locations
2 Conceptual Nature of Build Alternative Option Components
3 Freight Train Volume Assumptions
4 Noise Quiet Zones
5 Wildlife Corridors
6 Train Trip Frequency
7 Train Trip Duration
8 Program Funding
9 Program Timing
10 Transit Connections
11 Locomotive Technology
12 Environmental Justice
22 211
Item 8.
Agenda Item 8
The comments and responses have reached 315 pages are currently being reviewed by FRA and
Caltrans. Upon completion of this review, the final environmental documents will be updated to
include any necessary changes based on public comments. These final documents will then be
provided to FRA and Caltrans for additional review and comments prior to the ultimate Record
of Decision. The SDP draft has also been completed and is currently being reviewed by the FRA
and Caltrans prior to being finalized.
To prepare for the Program’s next steps, staff is actively pursuing several state and federal grant
opportunities to secure funding for the Tier 2 environmental phase.
DISCUSSION
In order to complete this phase of the Program, an additional contract amendment with HDR is
needed. The significant number of comments required a substantially greater amount of time
and effort by the HDR team to prepare responses than is expected for a typical Tier 1/Program
environmental document of this sort, and the process required several weeks to prepare
responses and to review and refine the responses with RCTC and its legal team. In addition, the
sheer volume of comments and responses is expected to require the HDR team to expend
additional time and effort to respond to FRA comments and questions after it completes its
review of the draft responses to comments.
Therefore, staff recommends the Commission approve Agreement No. 14-25-072-07 with HDR
(Attachment 1) for additional services in the amount of $259,000, which increases the total
agreement authorization to $7,175,748. Staff also recommends the Commission authorize the
Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and execute the agreement on
behalf of the Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT:
To fund the additional work to provide final responses to comments in the Tier 1 environmental
document, staff recommends an allocation of $259,000 in STA Funds from Western Riverside
County’s Commuter Rail Program as part of its contribution to the Program. With proposed stops
in Riverside and the San Gorgonio Pass area, it is appropriate for Western Riverside County to
contribute to the Program. In connection with this allocation, staff also recommends an
amendment to the Commission’s FY 2021/22 Coachella Valley Rail SRTP.
This additional work was not anticipated in the FY 2021/22 budget; therefore, staff recommends
the Commission approve FY 2021/22 budget adjustments of $259,000 each to increase State
Transit Assistance Fund−Western County Rail transfers out and Coachella Valley Rail Fund
transfers in and professional services expenditures.
In addition, it is requested that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 21-018 approving the
allocation of State Transportation Improvement Program/Interregional Transportation
Improvement Program funding to support the Coachella Valley San Gorgonio Pass Corridor. This
23 212
Item 8.
Agenda Item 8
resolution is required to secure funding needed for the next phase of the Program moving into
the Tier 2 environmental effort.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2021/22 Amount: $259,000
Source of Funds: State Transit Assistance Budget
Adjustment: Yes
GL/Project Accounting No.:
State Transit Assistance Fund−Western County Rail
002204 97001 00000 0000 241 62 97001 $259,000 (Transfers out)
Coachella Valley Rail Fund
004202 XXX 59001 0000 245 25 59001 $259,000 (Transfers in)
004202 65520 00000 0000 245 25 65520 $259,000 (Expenditures)
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/15/2021
Attachments:
1) Draft Amendment 14-25-072-07
2) FY 2021/22 SRTP Table 4 Amendment
3) Resolution No. 21-018
24 213
Item 8.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Todd Parton City Manager
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution Denying
Certification of Final Partially Recirculated EIR for the Legacy
Highlands Specific Plan Project
Background and Analysis:
2008 Approval of Project, and Certification of the Final EIR
On January 15, 2008, the City Council certified the Legacy Highlands Specific Plan
Project Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2005031155 (the “2008 EIR”), and
approved the Legacy Highlands Specific Plan Project (“Project”). Specifically, the City
Council adopted the following resolutions and ordinances for the Project:
Resolution No. 2008-05 certifying the 2008 EIR for the Project,
Resolution No. 2008-06 adopting Specific Plan No. 07-02,
Resolution No. 2008-07 requesting initiation of annexation proceedings,
Ordinance No. 924 adopting a zone change to pre-zone the Project area from
County of Riverside W-2 (Controlled Development) to City of Beaumont SP-A
(Specific Plan Area) and R-R (Rural Residential), and
Ordinance No. 925 adopting the Development Agreement between the City of
Beaumont and The Preserve LLC.
CEQA Lawsuit and Judgment
Following a final action by the City, a lawsuit was filed under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in February 2008, challenging the City’s actions. A
hearing on the writ petition was conducted in February 2009. The Court found the 2008
EIR deficient with respect to water supply impacts and alternatives analysis. Further, the
court held that the Statement of Overriding Consideration did not comply with CEQA.
The remaining challenges to the 2008 EIR were found to be without merit. A Statement
of Decision, Judgment and Peremptory Writ of Mandate (“Writ”) were issued on March
30, 2009, that directed the City to set aside and vacate its certification of the 2008 EIR
214
Item 9.
for the Project. In addition, the court directed the City to set aside and vacate the land
use approvals related to the Project.
Bankruptcy Proceeding
The Preserve, LLC, the Project’s applicant, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in the
United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California during the CEQA litigation,
which was subsequently converted to a Chapter 7 filing. In December 2008, the United
States Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting relief from the automatic stay to
permit the CEQA action to proceed.
Enacting Resolution No. 2009-24
On June 30, 2009, the City complied with the judgment and the Writ by enacting
Resolution No. 2009-24, which rescinded all prior approvals for the Project. Specifically,
the City Council set aside and vacated its adoption of Resolution No. 2008-05 (i.e.,
certification of the 2008 EIR); and approvals of the Legacy Highlands Project, including
the Legacy Highlands Specific Plan and the Development Agreement.
Stipulation Voiding Resolution No. 2009-24
In 2017, The Preserve, LLC asserted that the City of Beaumont violated the automatic
stay of the Bankruptcy Court by enacting Resolution 2009 -24. The City disputed such
assertion. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the parties stipulated tha t
Resolution 2009-24 was enacted in violation of the automatic stay and thus was void,
withdrawn and cancelled. In December 2017, the stipulation was approved by the
United States Bankruptcy Court.
Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report
The City prepared and distributed the December 2020 Partially Recirculated
Environmental Impact Report (“PREIR”). The PREIR addressed the issues identified in
the CEQA Judgment. The PREIR was circulated for a 45-day review period from
December 14, 2020, through January 28, 2021. A final PREIR was prepared and
submitted to the City on or about February 23, 2021, and was ready for review and
approval or disapproval by the City. However, in light of the stipulation, the City could
not take any action related to the final PREIR until the automatic stay was lifted. To do
otherwise would not only be in direct violation of the stipulation, but also in violation of
the judgment and the Writ. The purchaser of the Project disagreed with the City’s
position that it needed to comply with the judgment and Writ in the CEQA action.
Motion for Relief from the Automatic Bankruptcy Stay
On May 21, 2021, the City filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for Relief from the
automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 in the United States Bankruptcy Court. After
reviewing the pleadings submitted by the parties, and after conducting a hearing, the
215
Item 9.
United States Bankruptcy Court granted the City’s motion for relief from automatic stay
on June 29, 2021. The court ordered, among other things, that the City may comply with
the Statement of Decision, the judgment and the Writ in the Riverside County Superior
Court CEQA action, and review and act upon the currently proposed final PREIR.
City of Beaumont Adopted Ordinance Complying with Court Orders
On August 17, 2021, City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance decertifying
the final environmental impact report and rescinding adoption of findings statement
overriding considerations, mitigation monitoring and reporting program, Specific Plan
No. 07-02, pre-zoning Ordinance No 924, development agreement Ordinance No. 925,
and request for the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to initiate annexation
proceedings as to the Legacy Highlands Specific Plan, Site Plan, Land Division,
Annexation, Pre-Zoning and Zoning. In a previous item on the current agenda, the City
Council will have considered the second reading and adoption of such ordinance.
Upon adoption, the City will have complied with the Statement of Decision, the judgment
and the Writ in the Riverside County Superior Court CEQA action, and the United
States Bankruptcy Court.
Project Case History
Project Location
The Project site is located southerly of SR-60 and westerly of SR-79 in unincorporated
Riverside County, adjacent to the boundary of the City of Beaumont. The Project site
lies within the City of Beaumont Sphere of Influence (SOI) and would be annexed to the
City as one of the Project’s requested discretionary actions.
Project Summary
The Project would provide for a total of up to 2,868 dwelling units (1,107 single family
residential units + 1,761 active adult, low density residential units), 100 acres
(approximately 1.20 million square feet) of commercial/industrial uses, a 20-acre school
site, various neighborhood parks, undeveloped open space, and all supporting
infrastructure and utilities. In addition to approval of the specific plan, the Project
required approval by the City Council of a zone change to pre-zone 1,616.89 acres of
land from County of Riverside W -2 (Controlled Development) to City of Beaumont SP-A
(Specific Plan Area) and R-R (Rural Residential). The Project also required the City
Council to request LAFCO to initiate proceedings for the annexation of the Project area
to the City and concurrent detachment from the Riverside County Waste Management
Resources District, and annexation to the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District. The
Project applicant also requested approval of a 25-year Development Agreement
between the City of Beaumont and The Preserve, LLC, which would have given The
216
Item 9.
Preserve, LLC a vested right to develop and construct the Project in accordance with
the entitlements received from the City pursuant to its discretionary approvals as well as
all existing land use regulations and development standards in existence at the time the
development agreement was approved.
Since the 2008 EIR has been vacated, the final PREIR is incomplete and must be
denied.
As noted above, on September 21, 2021, the City Council passed, approved, and
adopted an Ordinance rescinding all prior approvals for the Project, including the
certification of the 2008 EIR. The Ordinance was enacted in compliance with the CEQA
Judgment and Writ from the Riverside County Superior Court, and the Order from the
United States Bankruptcy Court.
The final EIR consists of the draft EIR, among other things. (CEQA Guidelines, §
15132(a).) Before approving the project, the lead agency must certif y that its decision-
making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, that the
EIR reflects the agency's independent judgment and analysis, and that the EIR was
completed in compliance with CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.1, sub d. (c);
CEQA Guidelines, § 15090.)
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council must review and consider the
information in the 2008 EIR when reviewing and approving or disapproving the
certification of the final PREIR. However, since the 2008 EIR and entitlements have
been rescinded, there is no longer an EIR for the Project. Therefore, the City Council
should deny the certification of the final PREIR.
If City Council concurs, the appropriate action would be a motion to adopt a resolution
denying the certification of the final PREIR.
Fiscal Impact:
City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $9,750.
Recommended Action:
Hold the continued public hearing, and
Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Beaumont, California, Denying the Certification of the Final Partially
Recirculated Environmental Impact Report.”
217
Item 9.
Attachments:
A. Resolution
218
Item 9.
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE
CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL PARTIALLY
RECIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
WHEREAS, The Preserve LLC applied for the approval of the Legacy Highlands
Specific Plan for property located south of State Route 60 and west of State Route 79,
within the City of Beaumont's sphere of influence, for the development of approximately
1,600 acres, including more than 700 acres of undeveloped open space, up to 2,868
residential units, 100 acres of commercial development, and supporting school, park, and
recreation uses (the "Project").
WHEREAS, in addition to approval of the specific plan, the Project required
approval by the City Council of a zone change to pre-zone 1,616.89 acres of land from
County of Riverside W-2 (Controlled Development) to City of Beaumont SP-A (Specific
Plan Area) and R-R (Rural Residential). The Project also required the City Council to
request the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County to initiate
proceedings for the annexation of the Project area to the City of Beaumont and concurrent
detachment from the Riverside County Waste Management Resources District, and
annexation to the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District. The Project applicant also
requested approval of a 25 year Development Agreement between the City of Beaumont
and The Preserve LLC which would have given The Preserve LLC a vested right to develop
and construct the Project in accordance with the entitlements received from the City
pursuant to its discretionary approvals as well as all existing land use regulations and
development standards in existence at the time the Development Agreement was approved.
WHEREAS, the City of Beaumont conducted an extensive environmental review
for this Project which included an Environmental Impact Report ("2008 EIR") prepared by
the independent firm of Applied Planning, Inc., with technical reports concerning
biological resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, and noise.
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2008, the City Council held a duly noticed and
advertised hearing on the matter. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council took
the following actions:
1. Approved Resolution No. 2008-05 certifying the Final 2008 EIR for the
Project;
2. Approved Resolution No. 2008-06 adopting Specific Plan No. 07-02;
3. Approved Resolution No. 2008-07 requesting initiation of annexation
proceedings;
4. Approved Ordinance No. 924 adopting a zone change to pre-zone the
Project area from County of Riverside W-2 (Controlled Development) to
219
Item 9.
2
City of Beaumont SP-A (Specific Plan Area) and R-R (Rural Residential);
and
5. Approved Ordinance No. 925 adopting the Development Agreement
between the City of Beaumont and The Preserve LLC.
WHEREAS, on or about February 14, 2008, Cherry Valley Pass Acres and
Neighbors ("CVPAN'') and Cherry Valley Environmental Planning Group ("CVEPG")
filed a petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in an action
entitled Cherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors, et al. v. City of Beaumont, et al., Case
No. RIC492830 in the Riverside County Superior Court based, in part, on the following
alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"):
1. Failure to adequately analyze the Project's water impacts;
2. Failure to properly analyze cumulative impacts;
3. Failure to properly analyze growth inducing effects;
4. Failure to properly analyze Project alternatives; and
5. Failure to adopt an adequate statement of Overriding Considerations.
WHEREAS, The Preserve LLC filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy case in the United
States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California (Case No. 2:10-bk-18429-BB) on
September 25, 2008, which was subsequently converted to one under chapter 7. On
December 16, 2008, United States Bankruptcy Judge Sheri Bluebond entered an order
granting relief from the automatic stay to permit the CEQA action to proceed.
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2009, after reviewing the pleadings submitted by the
parties, and after conducting a trial on the petition and complaint filed by CVPAN and
CVEPG, Judge Mac Fisher of the Riverside County Superior Court issued a Statement of
Decision in the CEQA action, finding the 2008 EIR deficient with respect to water supply
impacts and alternatives analysis. Further, the Court held that the statement of Overriding
Consideration did not comply with CEQA. The remaining challenges to the 2008 EIR were
found to be without merit.
WHEREAS, on March 30, 2009, in accordance with the Statement of Decision, on
March 30, 2009, Judge Fisher issued a Judgment and Writ of Mandate (“Writ”) in the
CEQA action directing the City to set aside and vacate its certification of the 2008 EIR for
the Project. In addition, the court directed the City to set aside and vacate the land use
approvals related to the Project.
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2009, the City of Beaumont complied with the Judgment
and the Writ by enacting Resolution No. 2009-24, which rescinded all prior approvals for
the Project. Specifically, the City Council set aside and vacated its (a) adoption of
Resolution No. 2008-05; and (b) approvals of the Legacy Highlands Project, including the
Legacy Highlands Specific Plan and the Development Agreement.
220
Item 9.
3
WHEREAS, in the fall of 2017, The Preserve LLC asserted that the City of
Beaumont violated the automatic stay by enacting Resolution No. 2009-24. The City
disputed such assertion. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the parties stipulated
that Resolution No. 2009-24 was enacted in violation of the automatic stay and thus was
void, withdrawn and cancelled. On December 20, 2017, the Stipulation was approved by
the United States Bankruptcy Court.
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact
Report (“PREIR”) based on the Statement of Decision. The following is a summary of the
City’s environmental review for the PREIR:
1. The City issued a Notice of Availability advising the public that it was
circulating the PREIR for a 45-day review period: December 14, 2020
through January 28, 2021.
2. A Final PREIR was prepared and submitted to the City Council on or about
February 23, 2021 and was ready for review and approval or disapproval by
the City. However, in light of the 2017 Stipulation, the City could not take
any action related to the Final PREIR until the automatic stay was lifted. To
do otherwise would not only be in direct violation of the Stipulation, but
also in violation of the Judgment and the Writ. The purchaser of the Project
disagreed with the City’s position that it needed to comply with the
Judgment and Writ in the CEQA action.
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2021, the City of Beaumont filed a Notice of Motion and
Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 in the United States
Bankruptcy Court. After reviewing the pleadings submitted by the parties, and after
conducting a hearing, Judge Bluebond of the United States Bankruptcy Court granted the
City’s motion for relief from automatic stay on June 29, 2021. The Court ordered, among
other things, that:
1. The City may take the PREIR Actions1 as required or permitted by local
and state law including, but not limited to complying with the Statement of
Decision, the Judgment and the Writ in the Riverside County Superior Court
CEQA action, and reviewing and acting upon the currently proposed Final
PREIR; and
1 The PREIR Actions is defined in the United States Bankruptcy Order to include, but are not limited to,
reviewing and acting upon the Final PRIER, complying with the judgment and the writ in the Riverside
County Superior Court, the related entitlements, the Legacy Highlands development agreement, specific
plan, site plan, land division, annexation, pre-zoning and zoning, mitigation monitoring and reporting
program, Findings of Facts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Resolution No. 2008-05,
Resolution No. 2008-06, Resolution No. 2008-07, Ordinance No. 924 and Ordinance No. 925.
221
Item 9.
4
2. The City Council and the Planning Commission shall retain any and all
discretion and authority under CEQA, other state law as well as local law
with regards to the PREIR Actions.
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2021, the City complied with the CEQA Judgment and
Writ from the Riverside County Superior Court, and the Order from the United States
Bankruptcy Court. Specifically, the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California
introduced and waived full reading for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting
“An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Decertifying the
Final Environmental Impact Report; Rescinding Adoption of Findings, Statement of
Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Specific Plan
No. 07-02, Pre-Zoning Ordinance No. 924, Development Agreement Ordinance No. 925,
and Request for the Local Agency Formation Commission to Initiate Annexation
Proceedings as to the Legacy Highlands Specific Plan, Site Plan, Land Division,
Annexation, Pre-Zoning and Zoning” (“the Ordinance”).
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2021, the Ordinance was passed, approved and
adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California.
WHEREAS, the City Council must complete and certify the Final PREIR within
one year following its acceptance of the application as complete. (14 Cal. Code Reg. §
15108; Pub. Res. Code § § 21100.2, 21151.5(a).) Therefore, the Final PREIR must be
reviewed and approved or disapproved for certification no later than December 8, 2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Beaumont, California makes the following findings, determinations and recommendations
with respect to the Final PREIR for the proposed Project:
SECTION 1: Denial of Final PREIR
1. That the above recitations are true and correct, and material to this
Resolution.
2. The Riverside County Superior Court issued a Judgment and Writ in the
CEQA litigation ordering the City Council to set aside and vacate its (a)
adoption of Resolution No. 2008-05 (certifying the 2008 EIR); and (b)
approvals of the Legacy Highlands Project, including the Legacy Highlands
Specific Plan and the Development Agreement.
3. The United States Bankruptcy Court issued an Order that the City may take
the PREIR Actions as required or permitted by local and state law including,
but not limited to complying with the Statement of Decision, the Judgment
and the Writ in the Riverside County Superior Court CEQA action, and
reviewing and acting upon the currently proposed Final PREIR.
222
Item 9.
5
4. Based on the CEQA Judgment and Writ from the Riverside County
Superior Court, and the Order from the United States Bankruptcy Court, the
City Council passed, approved, and adopted an Ordinance rescinding all
prior approvals for the Project, including the certification of the 2008 EIR
on September 21, 2021.
5. The City Council must review and consider the information in the 2008 EIR
when considering and certifying the Final PREIR. However, since the 2008
EIR and entitlements have been rescinded, there is no longer an EIR for the
Project. Therefore, the City Council hereby denies the certification of the
Final PREIR.
SECTION 6: Effective Date
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
MOVED, PASSED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Lloyd White, Mayor Pro Tem
Attest:
______________________________
Steven Mehlman, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
John Pinkney, City Attorney
223
Item 9.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Sue Foxworth, Solid Waste and Recycling Manager
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending and
Restating Chapter 8.12 (Solid Waste Management) of the City of
Beaumont Municipal Code
Background and Analysis:
The legislature of the State of California, by enactment of the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989, (AB 939 or the “Act” codified at Public Resources
Code §§ 4000 et seq.) established a solid waste management process which requires
cities and other local jurisdictions to implement plans for source reduction, reuse, and
recycling as integrated waste management practices for solid waste attributed to
sources within their respective jurisdictions.
The Act provides that aspects of solid waste handling of local concern include, but are
not limited to frequency of collection, means of collection and transportation, level of
services, charges and fees, and nature, location and extent of providing solid waste
services. The Act encompasses mandates including Assembly Bill (AB) 341 and AB
1826, as well as the newly adopted Short-Lived Climate Pollutants mandate, Senate Bill
(SB) 1383.
SB 1383 builds on existing legislation, AB 341 and AB 1826. The stated purpose of SB
1383 is to reduce organic waste disposal, recover edible food waste from the waste
stream, and reduce methane emissions. The goal of SB 1383 is to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by year 2030. To achieve this, the target is to
reduce organic waste that ends up in the landfill 50% by year 2020, and 70% by year
2025. In addition to reducing landfilled organics by 75% the State will also be required
to recover edible food that is currently thrown away by 20% through programs such as
establishing edible food recovery programs. In order to achieve the reduction of
landfilled waste, and to increase recovery, the State has mandated the following:
224
Item 10.
1. Provide organics collection services to all residents, multi-family complexes and
businesses;
2. Establish edible food recovery programs;
3. Conduct education and outreach to the community;
4. Procure recyclable and recovered organics products; and
5. Monitor compliance and conduct enforcement.
The proposed ordinance maintains the same structure as the existing code, but adds
and addresses the required elements of SB 1383, including:
Collection Services: Trash, recyclable and organic collection services for all
commercial, multi-family and residential accounts are required unless a commercial
waiver is granted;
Commercial Edible Food Generator: These generators are required to recover the
maximum amount of edible food that would otherwise be disposed in the waste
stream and implement related programs. These generators shall maintain and
provide record access to City staff;
Food Recovery Organizations: Shall maintain and provide record access to City
staff;
Inspections and Investigations: City representatives are authorized to conduct
inspections and investigations to conform compliance. Regulated entities shall
provide access and cooperate with City staff during the process ; and
Enforcement: Violation of any provision of the provisions of the ordinance shall be a
misdemeanor that may be enforced by the City in any manner authorized by law,
including but not limited to an administrative citation, criminal citation, nuisance
abatement action, or civil action.
On May 7, 2017, the City Council unanimously approved a Collection Services
Agreement for the Provision of Residential and Commercial Garbage, Recyclable
Materials and Organics Waste Collection Services between the City and USA Waste of
California, Inc., d.b.a. Waste Management of the Inland Empire. The agreement went
into effect of July 1, 2019. The proposed ordinance contains the necessary provisions
and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that residents and property owners, as well as
the City’s franchisee, Waste Manage of the Inland Empire, comply with the state law
requirements concerning solid waste including SB 1383, Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
mandate.
225
Item 10.
Fiscal Impact:
It is estimated that the cost to prepare this report is approximately $500 and the cost to
prepare the ordinance is approximately $2,500.
Recommended Action:
Hold a Public Hearing, and
Waive the full reading and approve by title only, “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Amending and Restating Chapter
8.12 (Solid Waste Management) of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code.”
Attachments:
A. Ordinance
B. Exhibit A to Ordinance
226
Item 10.
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. __
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA AMENDING AND RESTATING
CHAPTER 8.12 (SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT) OF THE
CITY OF BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, State recycling law, Assembly Bill 939 of 1989, the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989 (California Public Resources Code Section 40000, et seq., as
amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), requires cities and counties
to reduce, reuse, and recycle (including composting) Solid Waste generated in their jurisdictions
to the maximum extent feasible before any incineration or landfill disposal of waste, to conserve
water, energy, and other natural resources, and to protect the environment; and
WHEREAS, State recycling law, Assembly Bill 341 of 2011 (approved by the Governor
of the State of California on October 5, 2011, which amended Sections 41730, 41731, 41734,
41735, 41736, 41800, 42926, 44004, and 50001 of, and added Sections 40004, 41734.5, and
41780.01 and Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 42649) to Part 3 of Division 30 of, and
added and repealed Section 41780.02 of, the Public Resources Code, as amended, supplemented,
superseded and replaced from time to time), places requirements on businesses and Multi-Family
property owners that generate a specified threshold amount of Solid Waste to arrange for recycling
services and requires the City to implement a Mandatory Commercial Recycling program; and
WHEREAS, State organics recycling law, Assembly Bill 1826 of 2014 (approved by the
Governor of the State of California on September 28, 2014, which added Chapter 12.9
(commencing with Section 42649.8) to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, relating
to Solid Waste, as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), requires
businesses and Multi-Family property owners that generate a specified threshold amount of Solid
Waste, Recycling, and Organic Waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that waste,
requires the City to implement a recycling program to divert Organic Waste from businesses
subject to the law, and requires the City to implement a Mandatory Commercial Organics
Recycling program; and
WHEREAS, SB 1383, the Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires
CalRecycle to develop regulations to reduce organics in landfills as a source of methane. The
regulations place requirements on multiple entities including the City, residential households,
Commercial Businesses and business owners, Commercial Edible Food Generators, haulers, Food
Recovery Organizations, and Food Recovery Services to support achievement of Statewide
Organic Waste disposal reduction targets; and
WHEREAS, SB 1383, the Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires
the City to adopt and enforce an ordinance or enforceable mechanism to implement relevant
provisions of SB 1383 Regulations. This ordinance will also help reduce food insecurity by
requiring Commercial Edible Food Generators to arrange to have the maximum amount of their
Edible Food, that would otherwise be disposed, be recovered for human consumption.
227
Item 10.
-2-
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT HEREBY DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
The City Council exercises its independent judgment and finds that this ordinance is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the State CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15308, which exempts
"actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the environment." This Ordinance is consistent
with the goals of California State Assembly Bills 939, 341, and 1826, and Senate Bill 1383.
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 8.12, “SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT.”
Chapter 8.12, Solid Waste Management, is hereby amended in restated in its entirety as set
forth in Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9.03.155, “SPECIAL EVENTS
RECYCLING.”
Section 9.03.155 of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code
“9.03.155 - Special events recycling.
All applicants will be required to comply with the recyclable material and organic waste
requirements that apply to commercial premises under Chapter 8.12 of the Municipal Code.
Large events, as defined in Municipal Code Section 8.12.020, must meet the organic waste
generator requirements set forth in Sections 8.12.160 and 8.12.170 and commercial edible food
generator requirements set forth in Section 8.12.440.”
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY
If any Chapter, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each
Chapter, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more Sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or
portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.”
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall take on January 1, 2022.
228
Item 10.
-3-
SECTION 6. CITY CLERK ACTION
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause this Ordinance to be published within
fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation and circulated within the
City in accordance with Government Code Chapter 36933(a) or, to cause this Ordinance to be
published in the manner required by law using the alternative summary and posting procedure
authorized under Government Code Chapter 39633(c).
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
INTRODUCED FOR FIRST READING this ____ day of _____, 2021.
_____________________
Mike Lara
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
____________________________ ___________________________
Steven Mehlman
City Attorney City Clerk
229
Item 10.
-4-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF BEAUMONT )
I, _______________, City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance No. ___ was duly introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Beaumont, California, on ____________, 2021, and adopted at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, on ______________, 2021, by the City Council
of the City of Beaumont, California, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Steven Mehlman, City Clerk
City of Beaumont
230
Item 10.
TITLE 8 - HEALTH AND SAFETY
Chapter 8.12 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Beaumont, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 1 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
Chapter 8.12 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT1
ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
8.12.010 Purpose; findings.
A. Purpose. The management and proper disposal of solid waste is a matter of great importance to the City, its
citizens, visitors, property owners and businesses. The City finds that the public health, safety, and well -being
require the generation, accumulation, handling, collection, transportation, conversion and disposal of solid
waste be controlled and regulated by the City through the comprehensive system provided in this Chapter.
This Chapter is intended to ensure solid waste handling services are readily available, adhere to uniform
standards, and are reliable, clean, and efficient. The City has a strong interest in reducing the harboring and
breeding of rodents and insects, reducing the spread of disease, and preventing pollution and other unsightly
degradation of the environment, which can occur with the improper handling of solid waste and the excess
accumulation of solid waste.
B. Findings. The City finds and declares:
1. Article XI, § 7 of the California Constitution authorizes cities to make and enforce within their limits all
local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.
2. The Legislature of the State of California, by enactment of the California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989, ("AB 939" or the "Act") (codified at Public Resources Code §§ 4000 et seq.)
established a solid waste management process that requires cities and other local jurisdictions to
adopt and implement plans to reduce the amount of solid waste generated within their jurisdiction and
to maximize reuse and recycling.
3. AB 939 states that the frequency of solid waste collection, the means of solid waste collection and
transportation, levels of services, charges and fees for services, and the nature, location and extent of
providing solid waste services, are matters of local concern.
4. AB 939 expressly allows cities to provide solid waste services to its residents by its own forces or by
authorizing a private entity to provide those services.
5. The State of California adopted legislation (AB 341) (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 [Chesbro, AB 341])
that requires any business that generates four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week
or is a multifamily residential dwelling with five or more units to arrange for recycling collection
services.
6. Assembly Bill 1826 of 2014 requires businesses and certain multi-family property owners that generate
a specified threshold amount of solid waste per week including garbage, recycling, and organic waste
to arrange for recyclable material and organic waste collection services for that waste and requires the
1Editor's note(s)—Ord. No. 1109, § 2, adopted June 18, 2019 , repealed the former Ch. 8.12, §§ 8.12.010 —
8.12.090, and enacted a new Ch. 8.12 as set out herein. The former Ch. 8.12 pertained to mandatory solid
waste collection and disposal and derived from Ord. No. 921, § 1, adopted Nov. 20, 2007; Ord. No. 934, § 1,
adopted April 1, 2008; Ord. No. 994, adopted April 19, 2011.
231
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 2 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
City to implement a mandatory commercial organics recycling program for designated commercial
property owners.
7. Senate Bill 1383 of 2016, The Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires CalRecycle
to develop regulations to reduce organic waste in landfills as a source of methane. These regulations,
which were adopted in 2020 (the “SB 1383 Regulations”), place requirements on multiple entities
including the City, residential households, commercial businesses, commercial edible food generators,
haulers, self-haulers, food recovery organizations, and food recovery services to support achievement
of statewide organic waste disposal reduction targets. The SB 1383 Regulations require the City to
adopt and enforce an ordinance or other enforceable mechanism to implement relevant provisions of
the SB 1383 Regulations.
8. This Chapter implements Article XI, § 7 of the California Constitution and AB 939 in the City of
Beaumont and protects public health and safety by authorizing the City Council to provide solid waste
handling service itself or to award one or more franchises to private entities.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively
ascribed to them by this section. Words and phrases not defined in this Chapter shall have the meaning ascribed
by Section 1.04.010 of this Code, and if not defined therein, then as applicable, as in: Division 30, Part 1, Chapter 2
of the Public Resources Code, Sections 40100 et seq.; the regulations of the California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901, et seq. and the
regulations implementing RCRA, as they may be amended.
"AB 939" or "Act" means the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, codified in part at Public
Resources Code, §§ 40000 et seq. as it may be amended, including but not limited to, the Jobs and Recycling Act of
2011 (AB 341), SB 1016 (Chapter 343, Statutes of 2008 [Wiggins, SB 1016]), the Mandatory Commercial Organics
Recycling Act of 2014 (AB 1826), and the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Bill of 2016 (SB 1383), and as implemented
by the regulations of CalRecycle or its successor agency.
"Account holder" means the persons or entities whose name(s) are on a solid waste franchisee's account for
a premises.
"Bin" means a container, typically between one and eight cubic yards, provided by a solid waste franchisee
for the collection of solid waste, recyclable material and organic waste.
"Bulky waste" means solid waste that would not typically fit within a container, including, but not limited to,
large and small household appliances, furniture, carpets, mattresses, automobile tires, and oversized green waste
such as tree trunks and large branches if no larger than two feet in diameter and four feet in length, and similar
large items discarded from a residential premises. "Bulky waste" does not include consumer electronics, such as
televisions, radios, computers, monitors, and the like, which are regarded as universal waste, the disposal of which
is governed by regulation of the Department of Toxic Sub stances Control.
"CalRecycle" means the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
"Cart" means a container, typically between 64 and 96 gallons, provided by a solid waste franchisee for the
collection of solid waste, recyclable material, and organic waste.
“CCR” means the California Code of Regulations. CCR references in this Chapter are pr eceded with a number
that refers to the relevant Title of the CCR (e.g., “14 CCR” refers to Title 14 of CCR).
232
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 3 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
"City" means the City of Beaumont, California, a municipal corporation, and all of the territory lying within
the municipal boundaries of the City as presently existing and all geographic areas which may be added or annexed
to the City.
"City Manager" means a person having that title in the employ of the City of Beaumont, or the City
Manager's designated representative.
"City Premises" means City-owned or operated premises where solid waste is generated or accumulated.
“Commercial edible food generator” means a tier one or a tier two commercial edible food generator as
defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) and (a)(74). Food recovery organizations and food recovery services are not
commercial edible food generators.
"Commercial premises" means all premises in the City, other than single family residential premises, , and
City premises, where solid waste is generated or accumulated. The term "commercial premises" includes, but is
not limited to, stores; offices; restaurants; boarding houses; hotels; motels; industrial and manufacturing,
processing, or assembly shops or plants; hospitals, clinics, convalescent centers and nursing homes. A multi-family
dwelling that consists of five (5) or more dwelling units is “Commercial”, for the purposes of this Chapter.
"Construction and demolition material" or "C&D Material" means discarded building materials, "inert
wastes" as defined in Public Resources Code § 41821.3(a)(1) (e.g. rock, concrete, brick, sand, soil ceramics and
cured asphalt), recyclable construction and demolition materials, packaging, plaster, drywall, rubble resulting from
construction, remodeling, repair and demolition operations, but does not include asbestos-containing materials or
hazardous waste.
"Container" means any cart, bin or debris box.
"Debris box" means a container, typically ten to 40 cubic yards, provided by a solid waste Franchisee for the
collection of solid waste that is normally tipped loaded onto a motor vehicle and transported to an appropriate
facility.
“Edible food” means food intended for human consumption, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section
18982(a)(18). For the purposes of this ordinance or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(18), “Edible
Food” is not solid waste if it is recovered and not discarded. Nothing in this chapter or in 14 CCR, Division 7,
Chapter 12 requires or authorizes the recovery of edible food that does not meet the food safety requ irements of
the California Retail Food Code.
“Food recovery organization” means an entity that engages in the collection or receipt of edible food from
commercial edible food generators and distributes that edible food to the public for food recovery either directly
or through other entities or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(25), including, but not limited to: A
food bank as defined in Section 113783 of the Health and Safety Code; A nonprofit charitable organization as
defined in Section 113841 of the Health and Safety code; and, A nonprofit charitable temporary food facility as
defined in Section 113842 of the Health and Safety Code.
“Food recovery service” means a person or entity that collects and transports edible food from a commercial
edible food generator to a food recovery organization or other entities for food recovery, or as otherwise defined
in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(26). A food recovery service is not a commercial edible food generator for the purposes
of this Chapter and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7).
“Garbage” means all non-recyclable packaging and other waste attributed to normal activities of a service
unit. Garbage must be generated by and at the service unit wherein the garbage is collected. Garbage does not
include recyclable materials, organic waste, debris from construction and demolition, large items, e-waste,
universal waste, hazardous waste, household hazardous waste or exempt waste.
233
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 4 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
“Generator,” for the purpose of this Chapter, means a person or entity, including commercial generators and
residential generators, that is responsible for the initial creation of organic waste, or as otherwise defined as
“organic waste generator” in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(48).
"Green waste" means leaves, grass clippings, brush, branches and other forms of organic material s generated
from maintenance or alteration of landscapes or gardens including, but not limited to, tree trimmings, prunings,
brush and weeds and incidental pieces of scrap lumber. "Green waste" includes unadorned holiday trees (except
such trees which are frosted, flocked or which contain tinsel or metal), but does not include stumps or branches
exceeding four inches in diameter or four feet in length, or palm fronds, or yucca, which are not suitable for
composting. "Green waste" is not a "recyclable material". "Green waste" is solid waste if it is not segregated from
solid waste and is discarded into the solid waste stream.
"Hazardous waste" means any waste materials or mixture of wastes defined as a "hazardous substance" or
"hazardous waste" pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.,
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et
seq., the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act ("HSAA"), codified at California Health &
Safety Code §§ 25300 et seq.; the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003, codified at California Health & Safety
Code §§ 25214.9 et seq. and California Public Resources Code §§ 41516 et seq., laws governing Universal Waste, all
future amendments to any of them, or as defined by CalRecycle or the Department of Toxic Substances Control, or
by their respective successor agencies. If there is a conflict in the definitions employed by two or more agencies
having jurisdiction over hazardous or solid waste, the term "hazardous waste" shall be construed to have the
broader, more encompassing definition.
"Household hazardous waste" means dry cell household batteries; cell phones and PDAs; used motor oil;
used oil filters when contained in a sealed plastic bag; cooking oil; compact fluorescent light bulbs contained in a
sealed plastic bag; cleaning products; pesticides; herbicides; insecticides; painting supplies; automotive products;
solvents; stripes; and adhesives; auto batteries; and universal waste generated at a single-family or multifamily
residential premises.
“Inspection” means a site visit where a jurisdiction or its designee or designated entity, reviews records,
containers, and an entity’s collection, handling, recycling, or disposal of solid waste or edible food handling to
determine if the entity is complying with requirements set forth in this ordinance, or as otherwise defined in 14
CCR Section 18982(a)(35).
"Multifamily residential premises" means a multi-family residential building with five or more units, including
but not limited to mobile home parks, apartments, condominiums and town homes, which utilize bins for the
temporary accumulation and collection of solid waste. The City will have sole authority to resolve any ambiguity as
to whether a particular premise is a single family residential premises or a multifamily residential premises.
"Organic waste" means solid wastes containing material originated from living organisms and their metabolic
waste products, including but not limited to food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, organic
textiles and carpets, lumber, wood, paper products, printing and writing paper, manure, biosolids, digestate, and
sludges or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(46).
"Overfill" or "overfilled" means to fill a container in a manner such that the lid of the container is unable to
fully close and exceeds a 45-degree angle.
"Owner" means the persons or entities listed on the last equalized assessment roll as the owner of a lot or
parcel of real property within the City.
"Person in charge" means an owner, account holder, tenant, occupant or other person or persons
responsible for the day to day operation of a premises.
"Premises" means place where any person resides, or any business is carried on or conducted, or any other
place upon which solid waste is generated or accumulated.
234
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 5 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
“Prohibited container contaminants” means (1) discarded materials placed in the designated recyclables
container that are not identified as acceptable source separated recyclables for the city’s designated recyclables
collection container; (2) discarded materials placed in the designated organic waste container that are not
identified as acceptable source separated organic waste for the city’s designated organic waste collection
container; and (3) discarded materials placed in the garbage container that are acceptable source separated
recyclables and/or source separated organic waste to be placed in city’s designated organic waste collection
container and/or designated recyclables collection container, and (4) exempt waste placed in any container.
"Recyclable material" means materials that can be reused or processed into a form suitable for reuse
through reprocessing or remanufacture, consistent with the requirements of AB 939, including but not limited to
the following:
1. Aluminum cans;
2. Glass jars and bottles;
3. Steel, bi-metal and tin cans, and empty aerosol containers;
4. Recyclable plastics;
5. PVC pipe;
6. Juice boxes and milk cartons (aseptic packaging, Tetra Pak®, and waxed cardboard);
7. Detergent containers;
8. Scrap metal, coat hangers and metal foil;
9. Newspapers and telephone books;
10. Mixed paper (e.g., ledger, computer, junk mail, magazines, paperback books, cereal boxes, envelopes,
paper shopping bags and non-metallic wrapping paper);
11. Corrugated cardboard and chipboard;
12. Chlorofluorocarbons (contained in bulky waste set out for collection under Section 8.12.230);
13. Tires (if set out for collection as bulky waste to be collected under Section 8.12.230.); and
14. Wood (incidental scrap pieces if set out for collection with green waste, and larger quantities if set out
for collection with bulky waste).
"Self-haul" means the transportation of solid waste, recyclable materials or organic waste directly to a
licensed or permitted landfill or other licensed or permitted disposal facility by a person who has received a self-
haul permit. Self-haul also includes a person who back-hauls waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section
18982(a)(66). “Back-haul” means generating and transporting organic waste to a destination owned and operated
by the generator using the generator’s own employees and equipment, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section
189881(a)(66)(A).
"Self-haul permit" means a permit issued by the City to self-haul under this Chapter.
"Single-family residential premises" means any residential premises with fewer than five (5) units,, which
utilizes one or more carts, or a bin, for the temporary accumulation and collection of solid waste. The City Manager
will have sole authority to resolve any ambiguity as to whether a part icular premise is a single family residential
premises or a multifamily residential premises.
"Solid waste" means and includes any materials defined as "solid waste" by section 40191 of the California
Public Resources Code, and specifically includes, without limitation, recyclable materials and organic waste that
has been disposed into the solid waste stream, bulky waste, construction and demolition materials, and all other
235
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 6 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
materials, excluding universal waste and hazardous waste, that are discarded into t he solid waste stream, or
collected in exchange for a fee or any other consideration, regardless of form or amount.
"Solid waste enterprise" means any individual, partnership, joint venture, unincorporated private
organization, or private corporation, which is regularly engaged in the business of providing solid waste handling
services.
"Solid waste franchisee" means a solid waste enterprise that has been granted the right and privilege by the
City, or by operation of law, to perform one or more solid waste handling services within the City or a portion
thereof.
"Solid waste handling services" means the collection, transportation, processing, recycling, composting,
conversion, retention and disposal of solid waste, organic waste, recyclable materials, con struction and demolition
materials, bulky waste, and/or universal waste.
“Source separate” means the process of removing recyclable materials and organic waste from solid waste at
the place of generation, prior to collection, and placing such materials in to separate containers designated for
recyclable materials and organic waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 17402.5(b)(4).
"Spilled" means deposited, released, spilled, leaked, pumped, poured, emitted, emptied, discharged,
injected, dumped or disposed into the environment, or which otherwise has come to be located outside an
authorized container. The term "disposed into the environment" shall include, but is not limited to, the
abandonment or discarding of barrels, bags, cans and other closed re ceptacles containing solid waste, recyclable
materials or organic waste.
“Tier one commercial edible food generator” means a commercial edible food generator that is one of the
following as defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a):
a. Supermarkets with gross annual sales of $2,000,000 or more
b. Grocery store with a total facility size equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet.
c. Food service provider, which means an entity primarily engaged in providing food services to institutional,
governmental, commercial, or industrial locations of others based on contractual arrangements with
these types of organizations.
d. Wholesale food vendor, which means a business or establishment engaged in the merchant wholesale
distribution of food, where food (including fruits and vegetables) is received, shipped, stored, prepared
for distribution to a retailer, warehouse, distributor, or other destination.
e. Food distributor, which means a company that distributes food to entities including, but not limited to,
supermarkets and grocery stores.
“Tier two commercial edible food generator” means a commercial edible food generator that is one of the
following as defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a):
a. Restaurant with 250 or more seats, or a total facility size equal to or great er than 5,000 square feet.
b. Hotel with an on-site food facility and 200 or more rooms.
c. Health facility with an on-site food facility and 100 or more beds.
d. Large venue, which means a permanent venue facility that annually seats or serves an average of more
than 2,000 individuals within the grounds of the facility per day of operation of the venue facility. For
purposes of this ordinance and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, a venue facility
includes, but is not limited to, a public, n onprofit, or privately owned or operated stadium, amphitheater,
arena, hall, amusement park, conference or civic center, zoo, aquarium, airport, racetrack, horse track,
performing arts center, fairground, museum, theater, or other public attraction facility. For purposes of
236
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 7 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
this ordinance and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, a site under common ownership or
control that includes more than one large venue that is contiguous with other large venues in the site, is a
single large venue.
e. Large event, which means an event, including, but not limited to, a sporting event or a flea market, that
charges an admission price, or is operated by a local agency, and serves an average of more than 2,000
individuals per day of operation of the event, at a location that includes, but is not limited to, a public,
nonprofit, or privately owned park, parking lot, golf course, street system, or other open space when
being used for an event.
f. A state agency with a cafeteria with 250 or more seats or total cafeteria facility size equal to or greater
than 5,000 square feet.
g. A local education agency facility with an on-site food facility. Local education agency means a school
district, charter school, or county office of education that is not subject to the control of city or county
regulations related to Solid Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(40).
"Universal waste" means and includes, but is not limited to, "universal waste electronic devices" or
"UWEDs," (i.e., electronic devices subject to the regulation of the Department of Toxic Substances Control, 23 CCR
§§ 66273.1, et seq.), and other universal wastes, including, but not limited to non-empty aerosol cans, fluorescent
tubes, high intensity discharge lamps, sodium vapor lamps, and any other lamp exhibiting a characteristic of a
hazardous waste, batteries (rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries, silver button batteries, mercury batteries,
small sealed lead acid batteries [burglar alarm and emergency light batteries] alkaline batterie s, carbon-zinc
batteries and any other batteries which exhibit the characteristic of a hazardous waste), mercury thermometers,
and mercury-containing switches.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
ARTICLE II. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
8.12.100 Disposal of solid waste required.
In order to protect the public health, safety and wellbeing, and to prevent the spread of vectors, the owner
or other person in charge of a premises shall make arrangements with the City or the City's solid waste franchisee
for solid waste handling services.
All premises in the City must have the applicable solid waste handling services required under this Chapter.
Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit generators from regularly disposing of garbage, recyclable material, or
organic waste at a solid waste facility, by self-hauling or through the uncompensated services of another in a
manner conforming to this Chapter.
A violation of this Section is a misdemeanor and punishable as provided in Article VII of this Chapter. The City
may cite violations as infractions where an appropriate downgrade is approved by the City Prosecutor or City
Attorney.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.110 Containers—Use, placement for collection, storage.
A. Use. Every person in charge of a premises shall:
237
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 8 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
1. Keep on the premises a sufficient number of containers that will hold all solid waste, recyclable
materials, and organic waste that accumulates on the premises each week without spilling, leaking, or
emitting odors.
2. Deposit or cause to be deposited all solid waste, recyclable materials and organic waste generated or
accumulated on the premises into containers meeting the requirements of th is Chapter.
3. Use those containers:
a. Provided by the appropriate solid waste franchisee; or
b. Approved by the City under a valid self-haul permit for the premises.
B. Placement for Collection. To minimize interference with public rights-of-way, no person shall place a
container in a public right-of-way for collection by the appropriate solid waste franchisee more than 24 hours
prior to the normal collection time. Containers placed in a public right-of-way for collection shall be removed
from the right-of-way within 24 hours after collection.
C. Storage. Except during the time a cart or bin is placed for collection, no cart or bin shall be visible from the
public right-of-way. A debris box may be placed in a location that is visible from the public r ight-of-way at a
single-family residential premises for up to 30 consecutive days and for no more than 60 total days during
any 12-month period.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.120 Clean-up.
A. Until solid waste, recyclable materials or organic waste has been picked up by the appropriate solid waste
franchisee, or is self-hauled in accordance with a valid self-haul permit, each person in charge of a premises
shall be responsible for the cleanup of any and all solid waste, recyclable material, or organic waste
generated or accumulated on the premises that is spilled on, at, or in the premis es. This cleanup
responsibility includes the cleanup of solid waste, recyclable materials and organic waste spilled for any
reason, including but not limited to human or animal interference with a container, wind or other natural
forces, at any time during storage, collection, removal, or transfer of the materials.
B. The City's solid waste franchisee(s) shall clean up any solid waste, recyclable material, or organic waste
spilled during its collection, removal, or transfer, as soon as the spill occurs.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.130 Disposal frequency.
All solid waste accumulating upon a premises must be disposed of as frequently as required to avoid an
accumulation of solid waste, but in no case shall disposal occur less frequently than one time per week, except that
less than weekly disposal is permitted during any period of time the premises is temporarily unoccupied and solid
waste is not accumulating on the premises due to out-of-town travel or other similar situations.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.140 AB 939 Fees.
Pursuant to Division 30, Part 2, Chapter 8 of the Public Resources Code, Section 41900 et seq., the City may
impose fees on premises in amounts sufficient to pay the costs of preparing, adopting, and implementing a
238
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 9 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
countywide integrated waste management plan, including the costs of preparing, adopting and implementing the
City's required source reduction and recycling element, household hazardous waste element, and nondisposal
facility element, and the costs of setting and collecting the fees.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.150 Recycling requirements.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish requirements for the recycling of recyclable materials
generated from commercial premises, single family residential premises, multifamily residential premises,
and City premises. These requirements are intended to increase the diversion of recyclable materials from
landfills, conserve capacity and extend the useful life of landfills utilized by the City, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and avoid the potential financial and other consequences to the City of failing to meet State law
diversion requirements.
B. Requirements.
1. Owners, landlords, tenants and occupants of commercial premises, single family residential premises,
multifamily residential premises, and City premises, jointly or severally, shall recycle recyclable
materials by depositing the same in recycling containers provided by the City's solid waste franchisee.
2. Occupants or landlords of commercial premises and multifamily residential premises shall designate,
for the convenience and use of occupants' employees and independent contractors, recycling
collection and storage areas and shall place appropriate signs in and around the proximity of such
areas.
3. Occupants or landlords of commercial premises and multifamily residential premises shall ensure that
their employees, occupants, and independent contractors are educated about recycling services
available at the site. Information, including the types of recyclable materials accepted, the location of
recycling containers, and the employees' and occupants responsibility to recycle shall be distributed
periodically, and all new occupants, employees when hired, and independent contractors when
retained, shall also be given such information and instruction. All occupants, employees and
independent contractors shall also be given appropriate information and instructions concerning any
change in recycling services to the commercial premises and multifamily residential premises.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.160 Organic Waste: Single-Family Premises Requirements.
Every single family premise shall make arrangements with the City or the City's solid waste franchisee for
organic waste recycling services in compliance with SB 1383 (14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 and amended portions
of regulations of 14 CCR and 27 CCR), as it may be amended from time to time.
A. Generators shall arrange for a size, quantity and collection frequency of collection containers to adequately
store all solid waste generated in connection with the premise between the times designated for collection
service. The City shall have the right to review the number and size of such collection containers to evaluate
the adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service and to review the separation and
containment of materials. Generators shall adjust service levels for their collection services as requested by
the City in order to meet the standards set forth in this chapter.
B. Generators shall place source separated organic waste, including food waste, in the organic waste collection
container; place source separated recyclable materials in the recyclable material collection container; and
239
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 10 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
place garbage in the approved garbage collection container. Generators shall not place prohibited cont ainer
contaminants into containers.
C. Nothing in this chapter limits the right of any person to donate, sell, or otherwise remove their recyclable
materials so long as the removal otherwise complies with this Chapter.
D. Organic waste may be fed to animals on the premises where such organic waste is produced, provided that
the premises are always kept in a sanitary condition and does not result in a public nuisance; and provided
further that the keeping and feeding of such animals shall at all times conform to the applicable regulations
of those entities governing the same now in force or which thereafter may be enacted or promulgated.
E. Organic waste may be used in on-site composting or community composting, pursuant to 14 CCR Section
18984.9(c), provided that such operation conforms to the applicable regulations of those entities governing
the same now in force or which thereafter may be enacted or promulgated.
F. Generators shall provide or arrange for access during all inspections and investigations (with the
exception of a private residential dwelling unit) and cooperate with the City or the City’s solid waste
franchisee during such inspections and investigations as described in Section 8.12.700.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.170 Organic Waste: Commercial Premises Requirements.
Commercial generators shall comply with the following requirements.
A. Each commercial generator, including all multifamily residential premises that consist of five or more
dwelling units, City premises, large events and large venues shall be responsible for compliance with the
requirements of this Section.
B. Each commercial generator shall subscribe to a level of solid waste handling service with the City's solid
waste franchisee that is sufficient to handle the volume of garbage, recyclable materials and organic
waste generated or accumulated on the premises. Additionally, each commercial generator shall ensure
the proper separation of solid waste, as established by the City and the City's solid waste franchisee, by
placing each type of material in designated collection containers, and ensure that employees, contractors,
volunteers, customers, visitors, and other persons on -site conduct proper source separation of solid
waste.
C. Supply and allow access to adequate number, size, and location of collection containers with sufficient
labels or colors, conforming with requirements of this section, for employees, contractors, tenants, and
customers, consistent with the solid waste collection service.
D. Annually provide information to employees, contractors, tenants, and customers about organic waste
recovery requirements and about proper sorting of solid waste.
E. Provide educational information before, or within, fourteen (14) days of occupation of the premises to
new tenants that describes requirements to keep source separated organic waste and source separated
recyclable materials separate from garbage (when applicable) and the location of containers and the rules
governing their use at each property.
F. Accommodate and cooperate with the City and City's solid waste franchisee’s monitoring program for
inspection of the contents of containers for prohibited container contaminants, to evaluate generator’s
compliance.
G. Commercial businesses that are landscapers, shall meet the requirements of Section 8.12.410 of this
Chapter.
240
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 11 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
H. If a commercial generator back-hauls, the commercial generator shall meet the back-haul requirements in
Section 8.12.430 of this Chapter.
Commercial generators, excluding multifamily residential premises consisting of five (5) or more dwelling units,
shall comply with the following requirements.
I. Provide containers for the collection of source separated organic waste and source separated recyclable
materials in all indoor and outdoor areas where garbage disposal containers are provided for customers,
for materials generated onsite. Such containers do not need to be provided in restrooms. If a commercial
generator does not generate any of the materials that would be collected in one type of collection
container, then it is not required to provide that type of collection container in all areas where disposal
collection containers are provided for customers. Pursuant to 1 4 CCR Section 18984.9(b), the collection
containers shall have either:
1. A body or lid that is gray or black for collection of garbage, blue for collection of recycling, and
green for collection of organic waste. A commercial generator is not required to replace
functional containers, including containers purchased prior to January 1, 2022, that do not
comply with the requirements of the subsection prior to the end of the useful life of those
containers, or prior to January 1, 2036, whichever comes first.
2. Container labels that include language or graphic images, or both, indicating the primary material
accepted and the primary materials prohibited in that container, or containers with imprinted
text or graphic images that indicate the primary materials accep ted and primary materials
prohibited in the container. Pursuant 14 CCR Section 18984.8, the container labeling
requirements are required on new containers commencing January 1, 2022.
J. To the extent practical through education, training, inspection, and/or o ther measures, prohibit
employees from placing materials in a container not designated for those materials per the solid waste
collection service.
K. Periodically inspect organic waste, recyclable materials, and garbage containers for prohibited container
contaminants and inform employees if containers are contaminated and of the requirements to keep
contaminants out of those containers pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b)(3).
L. Commercial generators that are commercial edible food generators, as defined in Section 8.12.020, shall
comply with commercial edible food generator requirements, pursuant to Section 8.12.440.
8.12.180 Waivers.
A. Pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.11, the City may grant waivers to commercial business for physical
space limitations and/or de minimis volumes. Commercial businesses seeking a waiver shall submit their
request on a form as specified by the City Manager. After reviewing the waiver request, and after an on-
site review, if applicable, the City Manager may either approve or deny the following waiver requests.
Any waiver granted pursuant to this section shall
The applicant shall pay a waiver fee as authorized by resolution of the City Council. The fee shall reflect the
City's reasonable costs of issuing and monitoring compliance with the waiver requirements set forth
herein. Waivers issued between January 1 and March 31 shall pay 100 percent of the waiver fee; waivers
issued between April 1 and June 30 shall pay 75 percent of the waiver fee; waivers issued between July 1
and September 30 shall pay 50 percent of the waiver fee; waivers issued between October 1 and
December 31 shall pay 25 percent of the waiver fee.
1. De Minimis Waivers: The City may waive a commercial business’ obligation to comply with some or all
the requirements of Section 8.12.170 if the commercial business meets the following requirements:
241
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 12 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
a. Submit an application specifying the type of waiver requested and provide documentation as
described below.
b. Provide documentation that either:
i. The commercial business receives two or more cubic yards of weekly solid
waste handling service (including garbage, recyclable material and organic
waste) and disposed organic waste comprises less than 20 gallons per week of
the business’ total weekly solid waste volume; or
ii. The commercial business receives less than two cubic yards of weekly solid
waste handling service (including garbage, recyclable material and organic
waste) and disposed organic waste comprises less than 10 gallons per week of
the business’ total weekly solid waste volume.
iii. For the purposes of subsections (i) and (ii) above, weekly solid waste handling
service shall be the sum of a commercial business’ weekly garbage container
volume, recyclable material container volume and organic waste container
volume, measured in cubic yards.
c. Notify the City if circumstances change such that volume of commercial business’ disposed
organic waste placed in containers exceeds threshold required for waiver, in which case
waiver will be rescinded.
d. Provide written verification of eligibility for de minimis waiver every five years if the City has
approved de minimis waiver.
2. Physical Space Waivers: The City may waive a commercial business’ obligations to comply with some
or all of the recyclable materials and/or organic waste solid waste handling service requirements if
the City has evidence from its own staff, the City’s solid waste franchisee, licensed architect, or
licensed engineer demonstrating that the premises lacks adequate space for the collection containers
required for compliance with solid waste handling service requirements. A commercial business or
property owner may request a physical space waiver through the following process:
a. Submit an application form specifying the type(s) of collection services for which they are
requesting a waiver from mandatory collection service.
b. Provide documentation that the premises lacks adequate space for the recyclable materials
containers and/or organic waste containers including documentation from the City’s solid
waste franchisee, licensed architect, or licensed engineer.
c. Provide written verification to the City that it is still eligible for physical space waiver every
five years if the City has approved application for a physical space waiver.
ARTICLE III. FRANCHISES
8.12.200 Findings.
A. California Constitution Articles XIII(C) and XIII(D), commonly known as "Proposition 218," regulates a public
agency's imposition of certain fees for property-related services provided by the public agency. Proposition
218 does not restrict or regulate what a private profit-making entity may charge for property-related services
provided by a private entity.
242
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 13 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
B. The rates and fees established by a solid waste franchisee pursuant to this Article are not subject to
Proposition 218 because, among other reasons, the solid waste franchisee independently establishes,
charges and collects the fees and rates for its service; owners of single-family residential premises may avoid
the imposition of such fees and rates by obtaining a self-haul permit; and owners of any property in the City
may avoid the imposition of such fees and rates by leaving their property undeveloped o r unoccupied.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.210 Provision of solid waste handling service.
A. The City Council may grant franchises to one or more solid waste enterprises to make arrangements with the
persons in charge of premises within the City for solid waste handling services, in accordance with this
Chapter.
B. The City Council may determine solid waste collection categories, (e.g., single-family residential, multifamily
residential, commercial, construction & demolition materials, household hazardous waste, universal waste,
recyclable materials, organic waste and others) and may make or impose franchise, license, contract or
permit requirements which may vary for such categories.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.220 Solid waste franchises.
A. The City Council may award exclusive, partially exclusive, or non -exclusive franchises for one or more types
of solid waste handling services for all or a portion of the premises in the City. Any such franchise shall be in
the form of a written agreement, approved by the City Council by written resolution, and shall be subject to
all of the continuation rights, if any, held by any other solid waste enterprise pursuant to Public Resources
Code § 49520 et seq. Where a franchise agreement is silent on an issue, the provisions of this Chapter shall
govern. Where a franchise agreement predates the effective date of this Chapter, the provisions of the
franchise agreement shall govern over any inconsistent provisions contained in this Chapter.
B. Any franchise granted pursuant to paragraph A of this section shall be granted on such terms and conditions
as the City Council shall establish in its sole discretion. At a minimum, the franchise shall provide:
1. The solid waste franchisee shall comply with the provisions of this Chapter; and
2. The solid waste franchisee shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from such acts,
omissions, liabilities and damages related to the agreement as the City Attorney and City Manager
determine to be reasonable n ecessary to adequately protect the City; and
3. The solid waste franchisee shall be required to cooperate with City in solid waste disposal
characterization studies and the preparation of waste stream audits, and to submit information
required by the City to meet the reporting requirements of AB 939, or any other law or regulation, and
to implement measures consistent with the City's source reduction and recycling element to reach the
solid waste and recycling goals mandated by the California Integrated Wa ste Management Act of 1989,
as it may be amended from time to time.
4. The solid waste franchisee shall provide commercial recycling service in a manner to exceed
compliance with AB 341, as it may be amended from time to time. Solid waste franchisee will notify all
commercial premises of the requirements to comply with the law and must provide the necessary
volume of collection services in order for all commercial premises to be in full compliance with the law.
243
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 14 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
The solid waste franchisee will conduct in-person outreach to all non-participating commercial
premises a minimum of once per calendar year.
5. The solid waste franchisee shall provide organic waste recycling services in a manner to exceed
compliance with AB 1826 and SB 1383, as they may be amended from time to time. The solid waste
franchisee will notify all commercial premises, multifamily residential premises, and City premises of
the requirements to comply with the law and must provide the necessary volume of collection services
in order to be in full compliance with the law. The solid waste Franchisee will conduct in-person
outreach to all non-participating commercial premises, multifamily residential premises, and City
premises a minimum of once per calendar year.
6. The solid waste franchisee shall provide services to ensure the City is in compliance with State law
diversion requirements and AB 1594.
C. The City’s solid waste franchisee providing organic waste recycling services to generators within the City’s
boundaries shall meet the following requirements and standards as a condition of approval of a contract,
agreement, or other authorization with the City to collect organic waste:
1. Through written notice to the City annually on or before January 1, 2022, identify the facilities to which
they will transport organic waste including facilities for source separated recyclable materials and
source separated organic waste.
2. Transport source separated recyclable materials and source separated organic waste to a facility,
operation, activity, or property that recovers organic waste as defined in 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter
12, Article 2.
3. Obtain approval from the City to haul organic waste, unless it is transporting source separated organic
waste to a community composting site or lawfully transporting C&D in a manner that complies with 14
CCR Section 18989.1.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.230 Manner, time and frequency of collection.
A. Regular Collection. The City's solid waste franchisee(s) shall make arrangements with its account holders
specifying the manner in which solid waste handling services are to be regularly provided, subject to the
terms of its franchise.
B. Special Collections. The City's solid waste franchisee(s) shall provide on-call collection of bulky waste to its
account holders, and shall provide its account holders with debris boxes when requested and collect the
debris box when the account holder no longer requires the debris box. The terms and conditions upon which
such special collections are provided to account holders shall be arranged between the solid waste
franchisee and the account holder, subject to the terms of the solid waste franchisee's franchise from the
City.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.240 Liability for solid waste collection fees.
A. Joint and Several Liability. The owner of a premises and the account holder for a premises are jointly and
severally liable for solid waste handling services provided to the premises by a solid waste franchisee.
244
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 15 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
B. Delinquencies—All Premises. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 5470 et seq., the City may collect
delinquent fees or charges for commercial, single family residential, and multifamily residential solid waste
handling services on the property tax roll for those premises. If the City decides to collect delinquent solid
waste handling fees or charges on the property tax roll, it shall adhere to the following procedures:
1. City will fix a time, date and place for hearing the report of delinquencies submitted by the solid waste
franchisee and any objections and protests to the report. The solid waste franchisee shall publish and
provide notice of the hearing on the report in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 5470 et
seq. At the hearing, City shall hear any objections or protests of owners lia ble to be assessed for
delinquent fees. The City may make revisions or corrections to the report as it deems just, after which,
by resolution, the report shall be confirmed.
2. The delinquent fees set forth in the report as confirmed shall constitute spec ial assessments against
the premises listed in the report and are a lien on the premises for the amount of the delinquent fees.
A certified copy of the confirmed report shall be filed with the Riverside County Auditor for the
amounts of the respective assessments against the respective premises as they appear on the current
assessment roll. The lien created attaches upon recordation, in the office of the Riverside County
Recorder, of a certified copy of the resolution of confirmation. The assessment may be collected at the
same time and in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected and shall be
subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for
those taxes.
3. City shall remit to its solid waste franchisee(s) amounts collected pursuant to this process within 30
days of receipt from the Riverside County Assessor. Solid waste franchisee(s) shall notify the City in the
event any delinquency on the report for which a lien has been created is paid or otherwise resolved.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 ; Ord. No. 1117 , § 2(Exh. A), 12-3-2019)
ARTICLE IV. SELF-HAULING
8.12.300 Applicability.
Because it is more difficult to transport larger volumes of solid waste, recyclables and organic waste in a
manner that is safe and sanitary, self-haul permits are available only to single family residential premises. The
difficultly posed by self-hauling larger volumes of solid waste, recyclables and organic waste pose an unwarranted
threat to the public health, safety and welfare, as it could lead to increased illegal dumping and burning, failure to
segregate recyclables and organic waste, unauthorized deposit of solid waste in the containers of another, and the
accumulation of solid waste at a premises for more than one week.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.310 Self-haul permit.
A. Permit Required. The person in charge of a single-family residential premises may apply for and obtain a
permit to self-haul, and shall not self-haul without a valid self-haul permit issued pursuant to this section.
Every person in charge of a single-family residential premises who desires to self-haul in addition to making
arrangements with the appropriate solid waste franchisee for subscription to solid waste handling services
shall obtain a self-haul permit from the City's public works director or his or her designee prior to
commencing self-hauling.
245
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 16 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
B. Term. A permit to self-haul shall be good for one calendar year, or such part of the calendar y ear that is
remaining after the issuance of the permit. All self-haul permits shall expire on December 31, and may be
renewed annually. Application for a renewal permit must be filed at least 60 days prior to the expiration date
of the permit to allow adequate time for processing, inspection and verifications required to issue the
permit.
C. Issuance of Permit. An applicant for a self-haul permit shall submit a completed application, on a form
approved by the City's public works director, to the public works department. The public works director or
his or her designee shall determine whether the application is complete within five working days of the
receipt of the application. If the director or his or her designee finds the application incomplete, the
applicant shall be given a list of further information needed to complete the application.
After it is determined that an application for a self-haul permit is complete, the applicant shall produce the
items listed in numbers C.1. through 8. below. The director of public works or his or her designee shall issue a self-
haul permit within five working days of the production of all of the required items.
1. The applicant produces for inspection the vehicle the applicant intends to use for self -hauling, and the
vehicle meets the following standards:
a. The vehicle is capable of safely hauling a minimum of 32 gallons (4.3 cubic feet) of solid waste,
recyclable materials and organic waste in a safe and sanitary manner so that such matter will not
spill; and
b. If the vehicle is not fully enclosed, the applicant produces a tarp or other material that is
demonstrated to completely secure the materials being self-hauled.
2. The applicant produces evidence that he or she owns or leases the vehicle produced for inspection or
has a written agreement to use the vehicle for self-hauling with the vehicle's owner or lessor;
3. The applicant produces evidence that he or she has a valid California driver's license to operate the
vehicle produced for inspection and that the vehicle is registered in the State of California;
4. The applicant provides the City with a certificate of automobile insurance for the vehicle;
5. The vehicle is operational and meets all applicable Vehicle Code standards;
6. The applicant provides the City with proof that the applicant has containers for the storage of solid
waste, recyclable materials and organic waste on the applicant's premises before the materials are
hauled to a disposal facility; and
7. The applicant provides proof that he/she is has no outstanding charges due to the City's solid waste
franchisee for solid waste handling services previously received at the premises for which the self -
hauling permit application is being submitted; and
8. The applicant pays the fee for a self-haul permit authorized by resolution of the City Council. The fee
shall reflect the City's reasonable costs of issuing and monitoring compliance with the permit. Permits
issued between January 1 and March 31 shall pay 100 percent of the permit fee; permits issu ed
between April 1 and June 30 shall pay 75 percent of the permit fee; permits issued between July 1 and
September 30 shall pay 50 percent of the permit fee; permits issued between October 1 and December
31 shall pay 25 percent of the permit fee.
D. Appeal of Denial. An applicant whose application for a self-haul permit has been denied may appeal that
decision. An appeal may be filed within five days of the date the applicant was notified of the denial. Appeals
shall be heard by the City Manager. The decision of the City Manager is final.
E. Operational Standards.
246
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 17 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
1. Permittees must dispose of solid waste weekly at a licensed or permitted landfill or disposal facility and
shall procure and retain weekly receipts from such landfill or other disposal facility. Receipts shall be
submitted to the City upon request. Failure to show proof of solid waste disposal for each week that a
person is permitted to self-haul shall constitute a public health and safety nuisance sufficient to permit
City to revoke the permittees' self-haul permit.
2. Permittees must notify the City of any change in the vehicle being used to haul solid waste by the
permittee. Permittees must bring the new vehicle in for an inspection and demonstrate compliance
with items 1. through 5. of paragraph B. of this section before the new vehicle is used to haul any solid
waste under the permit.
3. Permittee must keep on file with the City copies of the current automobile insurance and registration
for the vehicle used to self-haul and the permittee's current California driver's license. Permittee must
provide proof to City of renewed automobile insurance, vehicle registration, and California driver's
license within five days of expiration of respective document.
4. Permittees must source separate and bag solid waste, recyclable materials and organic waste.
Recyclable materials shall be disposed of at a licensed or permitted recycling center. Organic Waste
shall be disposed of at a licensed or permitted composting center that recycles source separated
organic waste or shall be composted on the premises covered by the self -haul permit.
5. Permittees are liable for any damages and clean-up costs resulting from any solid waste, recyclable
materials or organic waste spills during the course of the permittees' self-hauling activity.
F. Revocation of Permit. The self-haul permit shall be subject to revocation if the permittee violates any
provision of this chapter. A notice of revocation shall be mailed to the permittee informing them that their
self-haul permit is being revoked, identifying the violations of this chapter that have occurred, and informing
the permittee that he or she has the right to dispute the revocation by an appeal to the City Manager. An
appeal of a revocation must be filed within five calendar days of the mailing of notice of the revocation. A
revocation appeal hearing will be scheduled within five days of the date the City receives the request for an
appeal. The City Manager will issue a decision on the appeal within five days of th e hearing and provide the
permittee written notice of the decision. The decision of the City Manager on the appeal shall be final. A
person whose self-haul permit has been revoked pursuant to this paragraph F may not obtain another self-
haul permit for one year from the date of the revocation.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.320 AB 939 Fees.
Pursuant to Division 30, Part 2, Chapter 8 of the Public Resources Code, Section 41900 et seq., the City may
impose fees on persons with a self-haul permit in amounts sufficient to pay the costs of preparing, adopting, and
implementing a countywide integrated waste management plan, including the costs of preparing, adopting and
implementing the City's required source reduction and recycling element, household hazardous waste element,
and nondisposal facility element, and the costs of setting and collecting the fees.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
ARTICLE V. RECYCLABLE MATERIALS, GREEN WASTE, C&D MATERIALS AND
EDIBLE FOOD RECOVERY
247
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 18 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
8.12.40. Recyclable materials—Ownership, right to dispose.
A. Upon placement by the owner of recyclable material at a designated recycling co llection location, or
placement of recyclable materials in a container provided by the appropriate solid waste franchisee, the
recyclable material becomes the property of the recycler or solid waste franchisee, by operation of state law.
B. Nothing in this Chapter shall limit the right of any person, organization or other entity to donate, sell or
otherwise dispose of any recyclable material source separated from the solid waste stream owned by that
person, organization or other entity, provided that the person, organization or other entity does not pay the
buyer or donee any consideration for collecting, processing or transporting such recyclable material, or a
consulting or broker's fee for recycling services.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.410 Landscapers—Disposal of green waste.
Landscapers may collect, transport and compost or dispose of green waste without obtaining a self -haul
permit, provided that any such green waste is generated by their own specific work site and transported to a site
permitted by CalRecycle or exempt from permitting..
Landscapers shall not contract with a solid waste enterprise to collect, transport and compost or dispose of
green waste unless that solid waste enterprise has a franchise from the City to perform said services.
Landscapers shall keep a record of the amount of organic waste delivered to each solid waste facility,
operation, activity, or property that processes or recovers organic waste; this record shall be subject to inspection
by the City. The records shall include the following information:
1. Delivery receipts and weight tickets from the entity accepting the waste. If the material is
transported to an entity that does not have scales on -site or employs scales incapable of
weighing the landscaper’s vehicle in a manner that allows it to determine the weight of materials
received, the landscaper is not required to record the weight of material but shall keep a record
of the entities that received the organic waste.
2. The amount of material in cubic yards or tons transported by the landscaper to each entity.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.420 Licensed contractors—Disposal of C&D materials.
Licensed contractors performing work within the scope of their licenses within the City may collect, transport
and dispose or recycle self-generated construction and demolition materials without obtaining a self-haul permit,
provided that the licensed contractor adheres to the standards for disposal of construction and demolition
material provided in the California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11).
Construction and demolition materials must be transported to a landfill or recycling facility permitted by
CalRecycle or exempt from permitting.
Licensed contractors shall not contract with a solid waste enterprise to collect, transport and dispose or
recycle of construction and demolition materials unless that solid waste enterprise has a franchise from the City to
perform said services.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
248
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 19 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
8.12.430 Back-haul requirements.
Back-haulers shall haul their source separated recyclable materials to a facility that recovers those materials;
and haul their source separated organic waste to a solid waste facility, operation, activity, or property that
processes or recovers source separated organic waste.
Back-haulers shall keep a record of the amount of organic waste delivered to each solid waste facility,
operation, activity, or property that processes or recovers organic waste; this record shall be subject to inspection
by the City. The records shall include the following information:
1. Delivery receipts and weight tickets from the entity accepting the waste. If the material is
transported to an entity that does not have scales on -site or employs scales incapable of
weighing the back-hauler’s vehicle in a manner that allows it to determine the weight of
materials received, the back-hauler is not required to record the weight of material but shall
keep a record of the entities that received the organic waste.
2. The amount of material in cubic yards or tons transported by the back-hauler to each entity.
8.12.440 Commercial edible food generator requirements.
A. Tier one commercial edible food generators must comply with the requirements of this section January 1,
2022, and tier two commercial food generators must comply commencing January 1, 2024, pursuant to 14
CCR Section 18991.3.
B. Large venue or large event operators not providing food services, but allowing for food to be provided by
others, shall require food facilities operating at the large venue or large event to comply with the
requirements of this section, commencing January 1, 2024.
C. Commercial edible food generators shall comply with the following requirements:
1. Arrange to recover the maximum amount of edible food that would otherwise be dispo sed.
2. Contract with or enter into a written agreement with food recovery organizations or food
recovery services for: (a) the collection of edible food for food recovery; or (b) acceptance of the
edible food that the commercial edible food generator self-hauls to the food recovery
organization for food recovery.
3. Shall not intentionally spoil edible food that is capable of being recovered by a food recovery
organization or a food recovery service.
4. Allow the City’s designated enforcement entity or designated third party enforcement entity to
access the premises and review records pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.4.
5. Keep records that include the following information, or as otherwise specified in 14 CCR Section
18991.4:
a. A list of each food recovery service or organization that collects or receives its
edible food pursuant to a contract or written agreement established under 14
CCR Section 18991.3(b).
b. A copy of all contracts or written agreements established under 14 CCR Section
18991.3(b).
c. A record of the following information for each of those food recovery services or
food recovery organizations:
249
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 20 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
i. The name, address and contact information of the food recovery service or
food recovery organization.
ii. The types of food that will be collected by or self-hauled to the food recovery
service or food recovery organization.
iii. The established frequency that food will be collected or self -hauled.
iv. The quantity of food, measured in pounds recovered per month, collected or
self-hauled to a food recovery service or food recovery organization for food
recovery.
6. Commencing no later than January 1, 2022, for Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generators
and January 1, 2024, for Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators, Commercial Edible
Food Generators shall provide a quarterly Food Recovery report to the City which includes
the information required in 14 CCR Section 18991.4 “Record Keeping Requirements for
Commercial Edible Food Generators.”
D. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to limit or conflict with the protections provide d by the
California Good Samaritan Food Donation Act of 2017, the Federal Good Samaritan Act, or share table and
school food donation guidance pursuant to Senate Bill 557 of 2017 (approved by the Governor of the
State of California on September 25, 2017, which added Article 13 [commencing with Section 49580] to
Chapter 9 of Part 27 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, and to amend Section 114079 of the
Health and Safety Code, relating to food safety, as amended, supplemented, superseded and repla ced
from time to time).
8.12.450 Food recovery organization and food recovery services requirements.
A. Food recovery services collecting or receiving edible food directly from commercial edible food
generators, via a contract or written agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b), shall
maintain the following records, or as otherwise specified by 14 CCR Section 18991.5(a)(1):
1. The name, address, and contact information for each commercial edible food generator from
which the service collects edible food.
2. The quantity in pounds of edible food collected from each commercial edible food generator per
month.
3. The quantity in pounds of edible food transported to each food recovery organization per month.
4. The name, address, and contact information for each food recovery organization that the food
recovery service transports edible food to for food recovery.
B. Food recovery organizations collecting or receiving edible food directly from commercial edible food
generators, via a contract or written agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b), shall
maintain the following records, or as otherwise specified by 14 CCR Section 18991.5(a)(2):
1. The name, address, and contact information for each commercial edible food generator from
which the organization receives edible food.
2. The quantity in pounds of edible food received from each commercial edible food generator per
month.
3. The name, address, and contact information for each food recovery service that the organization
receives edible food from for food recovery.
250
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 21 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
C. Food recovery organizations and food recovery services that have their primary address physically located
in the Jurisdiction and contract with or have written agreements with one or more commercial edible
food generators pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b) shall annually report to the City it is located in the
total pounds of edible food recovered in the previous calendar year from the tier one and tier two
commercial edible food generators they have established a contract or written agreement with pur suant
to 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b) no later than April 1.
D. In order to support edible food recovery capacity planning assessments or other studies conducted by the
county and City, or its designated entity, food recovery services and food recovery organiza tions
operating in the City shall provide information and consultation to the City, upon request, regarding
existing, or proposed new or expanded, food recovery capacity that could be accessed by the City and its
commercial edible food generators. A food recovery service or food recovery organization contacted by
the City shall respond to such request for information within 60 days unless a shorter timeframe is
otherwise specified by the City.
E. Commencing no later than January 1, 2022, Food Recovery Services and Organization shall provide a
quarterly report to the City which includes the information required in 14 CCR Section 18991.5 “Food
Recovery Services and Organizations.”
ARTICLE VI. PROHIBITED ACTS
8.12.500 Use of containers.
A. Recyclable Materials and Organic Waste Contamination is Prohibited. No person in charge of a premises shall
keep solid waste, recyclable materials or organic waste in any container other than a container provided by
the appropriate solid waste franchisee or approved by the City pursuant to an approved self-haul permit.
Recyclable materials must be separated by the person in charge of a premises from solid waste and organic
waste, and organic waste must be separated by the person in charge of a premises from solid waste and
recyclable materials.
B. Any container not provided by the appropriate solid waste franchisee or approved by the City pursuant to an
approved self-haul permit is prima facie evidence that the owner of the container is engaging in solid waste
disposal in violation of this Chapter. Any such unauthorized container may be abated as a public nuisance
and impounded as provided in Section 8.12.740.
C. Notwithstanding subsections (A) and (B) of this section, composting organic waste at a single -family
residential premise in a container other than one provided by a so lid waste franchisee or approved by the
City pursuant to an approved self-haul permit shall not be a violation of this section.
D. No person in charge of a premises may place an overfilled container out for collection by a solid waste
franchisee.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.510 Removal of solid waste.
No person other than the person in charge of any premises or a City solid waste franchisee shall:
1. Remove any container from the location where the container was placed for storage or collection by
the person in charge of the premises; or
251
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 22 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
2. Remove any solid waste, recyclable materials or organic waste from any container; or
3. Move a container from the location in which it was placed for storage or collection without the prior
written approval of the person in charge of the premises.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.520 Bulky waste.
No person shall place bulky waste adjacent to or in a street or public right -of-way for collection or removal
purposes without first making arrangements with the appropriate solid waste franchisee for the collection or
removal of such bulky waste.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.530 Hazardous waste.
No person shall place or deposit hazardous waste, household hazardous waste, or universal waste in any
container provided by a solid waste franchisee, or deposit, release, spill, leak, pump, pour, emit, empty, discharge,
inject, dump or dispose into the environment any hazardous waste, household hazardous waste or universal
waste.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.540 Solid waste burning.
No person shall burn any solid waste within the City, except in an approved incinerator or transformation
facility or other device for which a permit has been issued, and which complies with all applicable permit and other
regulations of air pollution control authorities, and provided any such act of burning in all respects complies with
all other laws, rules and regulations.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.550 Franchise required.
No person, except a solid waste franchisee, a person with a self-haul permit, a landscaper, or a licensed
contractor performing work within the scope of that license, shall collect or remove any solid waste, recyclable
materials or organic waste from any premises within the City.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.560 Public nuisance.
It is unlawful and a public nuisance if one of the following conditions exists at a Premises:
1. The person in charge of the premises has not made arrangements with the appropriate solid waste
franchisee for solid waste handling services, and the person in charge of the premises does not have a
valid self-haul permit;
252
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 23 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
2. The person in charge of the premises has made arrangements with the appropriate solid waste
franchisee for solid waste handling services, but the solid waste franchisee has terminated services to
the premises due to the account holder's failure to pay for such services; and
3. The person in charge of the premises has obtained a self-haul permit from the City, but the permittee
has violated one or more of the operational standards contained in Section 8.12.310(E).
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.570 Unauthorized disposal.
No person shall place anything in another person's containers without the permission of such other person.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.580. Spills.
It is unlawful for any person transporting solid waste, recyclable materials or organic waste not to clean up,
or arrange for the cleanup, of any solid waste, recyclable materials or organic waste spilled during removal or
transport within the City by such person. If any person transporting solid waste, recyclable materials or organic
waste spills any such materials and does not clean up or arrange for the cleanup of the spill, the City may clean up
the spill and charge the person responsible for the spill 100 percent of the costs the City incurred in cleaning up the
spill.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.590 Unlawful dumping.
It is unlawful for any person to negligently or intentionally spill upon any property within the City any solid
waste, recyclable materials or organic waste, or to cause, suffer, or permit solid waste, recyclable materials or
organic waste to be located upon any property in the City, except as authorized by law.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.600 Solid waste facilities.
No person shall construct or operate a solid waste management facility, including but not limited to a
materials recovery facility, solid waste transfer or processing sta tion, composting facility, a buy-back or drop-off
center, disposal facility or a recycling center without first satisfying all City requirements for land use,
environmental and other approvals.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
ARTICLE VII. INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
8.12.700 Inspections and investigations.
A. The City Manager, the City’s solid waste franchisee, or designee is authorized to conduct any inspections,
remote monitoring, or other investigations as reasonably necessary to further the goals of this chapter,
253
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 24 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
subject to applicable laws. This may include inspections and investigations, at random or otherwise, of
any container, collection vehicle load, or transfer, processing, or disposal facility to confirm compliance
with this chapter, subject to applicable laws. This section does not allow entry in a private residential
dwelling unit for inspection. For the purposes of inspecting collection containers for compliance, the City
Manager or the City’s solid waste franchisee may conduct container inspections for prohibited container
contaminants using remote monitoring, and generators shall accommodate and cooperate with the
remote monitoring.
B. A person subject to the requirements of this chapter shall provide or arrange for access during all
inspections (with the exception of a private residential dwelling unit) and shall cooperate with the City
Manager or the City’s solid waste franchisee during such inspections and investigations. Such inspections
and investigations may include confirmation of proper placement of materials in containers, inspection of
edible food recovery activities, review of required records, or other verification or inspection to confirm
compliance with any other requirement of this chapter. Failure to provide or arrange for: (i) access to the
premises; (ii) installation and operation of remote monitoring equipment, if a remote monitoring program
is adopted; or (iii) access to records for any inspection or investigation is a violation of this chapter and
may result in penalties.
C. Any records obtained by the City Manager, the City’s solid waste franchisee, or designee, during
inspections, investigations, remote monitoring and other reviews shall be subject to the requirements and
applicable disclosure exemptions of the California Public Records Act as set forth in Government Code
Section 6250 et seq.
D. The City, the City’s solid waste franchisee or designee shall accept written complaints from persons
regarding an entity that may be potentially non-compliant with this chapter.
8.12.710 Enforcement.
A. Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 836.5, any City code enforcement officer is authorized to enforce
the provisions of this Chapter and as well as those of California Penal Code Sections 374, 374a, 374.2, 374.3,
374.4, 374d, 374.7, and 375; California Government Code Section 68055 et seq.; and California Vehicle Code
Sections 23111 and 23112.
B. Any violation of this Chapter may be enforced in any manner authorized by law, including but not limited to,
any enforcement mechanism set forth in the Act, a criminal citation, a civil citation , and/or administrative
citation, or nuisance abatement action as authorized by the City's Municipal Code. The City may
simultaneously pursue more than one method of enforcement for any violation of this Chapter.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.720 Violation.
Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, violations of this Chapter are punishable as set out in Chapter
1-17 of this Code.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.730 Fines and penalties.
The City Council may, by resolution, establish fines and penalties for the violation of this Chapter and the Act.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
254
Item 10.
Created: 2021-09-28 08:11:40 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 4)
Page 25 of 25
IRV #4838-4306-9438 v1
8.12.740 Misdemeanor.
Violation of this Chapter shall be a misdemeanor. The City may cite violations as infractions where an
appropriate downgrade is approved by the City Prosecutor or City Attorney.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.750 Attorney's fees.
In any action or proceeding brought to enforce a violation of this Chapter, including but not limited to a
nuisance abatement action and an action to foreclose on a special assessment, the prevailing party shall recover its
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
8.12.760 Impounding containers.
A. Containers Subject to Impounding. Any container within the City that is not provided by the appropriate solid
waste franchisee or approved by the City pursuant to an approved self-haul permit may be impounded in
accordance with this Section. Containers used for compo sting at single-family residential premises, as
allowed by Section 8.12.500(C) of this Code, shall not be subject to impounding pursuant to this section.
B. Notice to Remove. The public works director may cause a notice to remove to be posted on the illeg al
container. The notice to remove shall state that the Container must be removed from the premises within
three calendar days from the date the notice is posted on the container or it will be removed and stored by
the City and the contents disposed of at the expense of the owner of the container. The posting of the notice
to remove constitutes constructive notice to the owner of the container and the person in charge of the
premises that the container must be removed from the premises.
C. Removal of Containers. If the container is not removed within three calendar days of the notice to remove,
the public works director may direct the removal and storage of the container and the disposal of its
contents. The City may employ the services of its solid waste franchisee(s) or any other contractor to remove
said containers. Any person whose duty it is to remove and store containers may enter upon private property
with the consent of the owner or other person in charge of the premises, or by authority of a warrant , or
without consent or a warrant if exigent circumstances exist.
D. Storage of Containers. After a container is removed and placed in storage, the director shall mail to the
owner of the container a notice to claim the stored container, if the identity o f the owner of the container is
known. The director shall make reasonable efforts to identify the owner of a stored container. If the
container is not claimed within 30 calendar days after notice to the owner is mailed, or 30 days after the
container is removed if the owner is not known, the Container shall be deemed abandoned property and
may be disposed of accordingly.
E. Release of Container. No container shall be released to its owner unless the owner has paid the City for the
actual costs of the removal, storage and disposal of contents, plus any administrative and ancillary fees, fines
or penalties established by resolution of City Council. All amounts due to the City shall constitute a civil debt
owed to the City by the owner of the container.
( Ord. No. 1109, § 2(Exh. A), 6-18-2019 )
255
Item 10.
City of Beaumont
City Council Meeting
November 2, 2021
Chad Herrington
Special Council
256
Item 10.
City’s Current Solid Waste Provisions
Chapter 8.12: Solid Waste Management
New provisions adopted in June 2019, and last updated in
December 2019.
2019 updates functioned to:
Updated to reflect changes in the law (AB 1826; AB 1594; AB
341)
Coordinate with new franchise agreement
Reorganize and make the Code more user friendly
257
Item 10.
Senate Bill 1383 (2015-2016)
•CalRecycle Regulations finalized in November
2020
•Local governments have until January 1, 2022, to
implement the SB 1383 Regulations
258
Item 10.
Senate Bill 1383 (2015-2016)
•Stated Purpose: to reduce organic waste disposal,
recover edible food waste from the waste stream,
and reduce methane emissions.
•Organic Waste: solid wastes containing material
originating from living organisms
•To Be Achieved by:
Expanding organic waste collection and recycling services
New requirements on commercial edible food generators
New requirements on food recovery organizations
Inspections and enforcement
259
Item 10.
Updated Definitions
The CalRecycle SB 1383 Regulations included a
variety of new defined terms to support the new
requirements.
New defined terms are being added to Chapter 8.12.
Existing defined terms in Chapter 8.12 are being
amended to reflect changes caused by the SB 1383
Regulations.
260
Item 10.
Expansion of Organic Waste Collection
and Recycling Services
Currently: Only commercial premises, multi-family,
and city premises generating two or more cubic yards
of solid waste per week must recycle organic waste.
New provisions: All premises, including, single-family
residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and
city premises will be required to have organic waste
recycling services.
What will it look like?
All premises will have three containers: organic waste, non-
organic recyclable materials, and garbage. 261
Item 10.
Waivers for commercial businesses
The City may grant waivers to the organic waste
recycling requirements in certain instances.
Commercial businesses may qualify if:
They generate a de minimis amount of organic waste.
They do not have the physical space for the necessary
collection containers.
Commercial businesses will have to apply with the
City for a waiver, and will be subject to inspection.
Future Action: Staff will be coming back to the
Council to set a fee for the waiver application based
on anticipated staff time to process and monitor.
262
Item 10.
Commercial Edible Food Generators
•Tier one (compliance by 1/1/22): supermarkets,
grocery stores, food services providers, food
vendors and distributors.
•Tier two (compliance by 1/1/24): restaurants,
hotels, large venues or events, state agency or
education facility with food facility.
263
Item 10.
Commercial Edible Food Generators
•Requirements:
Arrange to recover max amount of food that would
otherwise be disposed
Contract with food recovery organizations
Shall not intentionally spoil edible food
Allow inspection of premises
Keep records
Provide quarterly reports to the City
264
Item 10.
Food Recovery Organization / Services
•Food recovery organization: an entity that collects/receives
edible food from commercial edible food generators and
distributes that edible food to the public for food recovery.
•Food recovery services: person or entity that collects and
transports edible food from an edible food generator to a
recovery organization.
•Requirements:
Must maintain specified records of their dealings with
commercial edible food generators.
Provide quarterly reports to the City.
265
Item 10.
Inspection and Enforcement
•Authorizes inspections to ensure all premises and impacted
persons and entities are complying with the organic waste
provisions.
•Inspections could be of containers, collection vehicles,
processing facilities, etc.
•Does NOT authorize entry into private residential dwelling unit
for inspection.
•Enforcement provisions remain the same:
Violations can be enforced through criminal citation, civil
citation, administrative citation, nuisance abatement.
266
Item 10.
2019 Franchise Agreement was drafted to
require the franchisee to comply with SB
1383 and implementing regulations.
No changes to the franchise agreement
are necessary at this time.
No change in collection rates at this time.
267
Item 10.
268
Item 10.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Doug Story, Assistant Community Services Director
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Hold a Public Hearing and Consider a Resolution Updating the Fee
Schedule for the City-owned Electric Vehicle Charging Station
Background and Analysis:
The City of Beaumont operates a ChargePoint DC fast charging (DCFC) electronic
vehicle charging station with three terminals. A DCFC is a fast -charging station that can
charge an electric vehicle battery within one hour providing a charge allowing the
vehicle to travel up to 250 miles.
On July 7, 2020, City Council held a public hearing approving a five -year subscription
agreement with ChargePoint and established a fee schedule for the electric vehicle
charging stations. At that time, rates were proposed and established based on kilowatt
hour (kWh) rates imposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). In addition to these
SCE fees, a survey of local charging stations was conducted. This internal analysis
showed that the proposed fee at that time was similar to other local charging stations.
The three (3) electric vehicle charging stations subsequently went on-line in September
2020.
City staff recently analyzed the rates charged and the usage of the charging station over
the past year and discovered that most vehicle charging occurs during peak and mid -
peak hours, as described by SCE. Peak and mid -peak hours is considered the electric
usage within the hours of 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm, 7 days a week including holidays and is
the highest rates for energy consumption.
The City of Beaumont currently charges $0.35 per kWh regardless of the time of day or
day of the week. An additional $2.00 an hour, after the first hour, was also approved as
a deterrent for drivers to not park at the station longer than necessary. These fees were
established in 2020 based on an average of charges for energy by SCE and an analysis
of fees charged by nearby charging stations. The fees currently collected from vehicle
269
Item 11.
charging users do not subsidize the increased SCE rates during peak and mid-peak
hours, especially during summer Flex power alerts.
City staff proposes an update to the City fee schedule for usage fees of the electric
vehicle charging station. Immediate action is needed to bring the user f ees in line with
the increased SCE rates and to bring the City’s rates in line with other local electric
vehicle charging station rates. The stations analyzed during the initial fee establishment
have since increased their rates, which leaves the City’s station under the median rate
of the market when compared to the surrounding area.
City staff proposes an initial rate adjustment of $0.55 per kWh for use of the charging
station any day between the hours of 4:00 pm and 9:00 pm, and $0.35 per kWh for all
times outside of that timeframe, with a $2.00 deterrent parking fee charged after the first
hour of charging. Furthermore, ongoing quarterly analysis is necessary to ensure that
usage fees are in line with current market trends.
Fiscal Impact:
The City of Beaumont will not incur additional operating costs until the expiration of the
current five-year subscription and warranty in September 2025. City staff estimates the
cost to prepare this report is $95.
Recommended Action:
Hold a public hearing, and
Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City of
Beaumont, California, Approving Electric Vehicle Charging Station Fees Update.”
Attachments:
A. Proposed Rate Schedule
B. Resolution
270
Item 11.
Attachment A
Proposed EV Charger Rate Schedule
Summer
On Peak Hours Weekdays 4-9 pm $0.55 kWh
Mid Peak Hours Weekends & Holidays 4-9 pm $0.55 kWh
Off Peak Hours All hours outside of 4-9 pm $0.35 kWh
Winter
Mid Peak Hours Weekdays & Weekends 4-9 pm $0.55 kWh
Off Peak Hours All other hours $0.35 kWh
Super Off Peak Hours Weekdays & Weekends 8-4 pm $0.35 kWh
Parking All Hours $2.00 hour after the first
hour
271
Item 11.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION FEES
UPDATE
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Beaumont hereby finds, determines, and declares
as follows:
WHEREAS, City Council approved the establishment of electric vehicle charging
station fees on July 7, 2020; and
WHEREAS, City Council approved a five-year subscription agreement with Charge
Point for required master services agreement which provides warranty and payment
collection as outlined by grant funding guidelines used to build the station; and
WHEREAS, City of Beaumont provides electric vehicle charging station accessible
to the public all days and times of the year; and
WHEREAS, ChargePoint will provide all the net revenue collected less (10%) of
the session fee to the City on a quarterly basis; and
WHEREAS, increased electricity rates and associated charges from Southern
California Edison, along with analysis of market and other surrounding charging station
fees, require quarterly analysis to ensure usage fees are in line with actual costs associated
with providing the charging station.
Section 2. The City Council hereby establishes the following pricing structure for the
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations installed throughout the City:
Rate Per Kilowatt Hour – Determined by
Quarterly Analysis of Actual Cost to
Provide Charging Station for Public Use
Parking Rate -$2.00 per hour or part thereof
after first hour
Section 3. Without further action of the City Council, the above-referenced fees established
by this Resolution shall be incorporated into the City's Fee Schedule.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City
Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this
Resolution.
MOVED, PASSED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 2021, by the following
vote:
AYES:
272
Item 11.
2
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
__________________________
Mike Lara, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Nicole Wheelwright, Deputy City Clerk
273
Item 11.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Christina Taylor, Community Development Director
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Consideration of Termination of a Moratorium
Prohibiting Tire Sales and Tire Repair Establishments
Background and Analysis:
On March 3, 2020, the City Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance for a
moratorium on tire sales and tire repair establishments. On April 7, 2020, the City
Council adopted a ten (10) month, 15-day extension to the interim urgency ordinance.
On February 16, 2021, Ordinance No. 1121 which provided for a final one (1) year
extension was adopted by Council in order to allow City staff to develop appropriate
zoning and development standards for tire sales and tire repair establishments for
consistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
The final extension allowed City staff to determine the appropriate zoning and
development standards for tire sales and tire repair facilities. In September and
October 2021, the City Council held a series of public hearings and adopted
development standards related to tire sales and tire repair facilities. On October 5,
2021, the second reading of Chapter 17.04.041 was approved by Council and will take
effect on November 5, 2021. The permitted use table and definitions section of the
Beaumont Municipal Code were also amended to reflect the Chapter 17.04.041. Each
of these items has played a role in preparing to lift the moratorium. The final step in this
process is a formal action by City Council adopting an ordinance lifting the moratorium.
If adopted by City Council at this meeting, a second reading will take place on
November 16, 2021, and the moratorium will be lifted 30 days after.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost to prepare this item is approximately $750.
274
Item 12.
Recommended Action:
Hold a public hearing, and
Waive the first full reading and approve by title only, “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Beaumont Terminating Urgency Ordinance 1121 Imposing
a Temporary Moratorium Prohibiting Tire Sales and Tire Repair Facilities
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 as Extended by Urgency
Ordinance 1123.”
Attachments:
A. Ordinance
275
Item 12.
1
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT,
CALIFORNIA, TERMINATING URGENCY ORDINANCE 1121 IMPOSING A
TEMPORARY MORATORIUM PROHIBITING TIRE SALES AND TIRE REPAIR
FACILITIES, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 AS
EXTENDED BY URGENCY ORDINANCE 1123.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. CEQA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by this Ordinance are
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to 15061(b)(3), CEQA
review is not required because there is no possibility that this Ordinance may have a si gnificant
effect upon the environment and the proposed text amendments constitute a minor alteration in a
land use limitation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, and such a land use limitation is a
permissible exercise of the City's zoning powers.
SECTION 2. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section,
paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or
unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any
preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs,
sentences, or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the
invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed,
and the balance of the Ordinance enforced.
SECTION 3. Prosecution of Prior Ordinances. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the
repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution of any
violation of any City ordinance or provision of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code, committed
prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal
provisions applicable to any violation thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby terminated Urgency Ordinance 1121 as extended by
Urgency Ordinance 1123.
SECTION 5. Effective Date and Publication. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same or a summary thereof to be published
within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This
Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section
36937.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont,
California, approves an amendment to the City Code.
276
Item 12.
2
INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the __2nd___ day of November , 2021,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Beaumont, California, held on the ______ day of ________________, 2021.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_______________________
Mike Lara, Mayor
Attest: _______________________________
Nicole Wheelwright, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
_________________________
John O. Pinkney, City Attorney
277
Item 12.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Jeff Hart, Public Works Director
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Resolution Vacating Tenth
Street Between Orange Avenue and Maple Avenue
Background and Analysis:
On October 5, 2021, City Council accepted the Notice of Intent (NOI) to vacate Tenth
Street, between Orange Avenue and Maple Avenue. The street vacation is in
conjunction with the current conceptual plan for Stewart Park (Attachment A).
In compliance with the California Streets and Highways Code (SHC), City staff
published a Notice of Hearing in the Press-Enterprise on October 12, 2021, and posted
notices along Tenth Street where the vacation is proposed.
City staff has determined that existing public utility easements shall be reserved . By
reserving existing easements, utility purveyors will have the ability to maintain their
respective utilities within the area formerly maintained as Tenth Street.
Section 8324 of the SHC allows the legislative body to adopt a resolution to vacate the
proposed street if the City Council finds from the evidence submitted that the street
described in the notice of hearing is unnecessary for present or prospective public use .
City staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution vacating Tenth Street
Between Orange Avenue and Maple Avenue .
Fiscal Impact:
The cost of preparing the staff report and posting the notices is estimated to be $950.
Recommended Action:
Hold a public hearing, and
278
Item 13.
Waive the full reading, and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council
of the City of Beaumont, California, Vacating Tenth Street Between Orange
Avenue and Maple Avenue.”
Attachments:
A. Conceptual Plan for Stewart Park
B. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Vacating Tenth
Street Between Orange Avenue and Maple Avenue
C. Legal Description and Plat for Tenth Street Vacation
D. Notice of Hearing – Proof of Publication
E. Notice of Street Vacation
F. California Streets and Highway Code for Street Vacation
279
Item 13.
280Item 13.
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BEAUMONT VACATING THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
EASEMENT FROM TENTH STREET, BETWEEN ORANGE
AVENUE AND MAPLE AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a proceeding to vacate the existing street right-of-
way within Tenth Street, between Orange Avenue and Maple Avenue on October 5, 2021 and at
least fifteen days has elapsed since the initiation of such proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has set a hearing on this date by fixing the date, hour, and place
of the hearing and causing the publishing and posting of the notices required by the California
Streets and Highway Code (SHC) 8340 et. seq.;
WHEREAS, City wishes to vacate the street right-of-way only if the street vacation
conforms to the provisions of the (SHC); and
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on the proposed street vacation was published for at
least two successive weeks prior to the hearing in a daily, semiweekly, or weekly newspaper
published and circulated in the City;
WHEREAS, at least two weeks before the day set for the hearing, the City posted three
conspicuous notices of vacation along the line of Tenth Street not more than 300 feet apart;
WHEREAS, SHC Section 8340 requires that the legislative body determine if reservation
of existing utility easements are required in the right of way that is to be vacated and in this case
reservation of such existing utility easement is required; and
WHEREAS, SHC Section 8320 requires the legislative body to schedule and hold a public
hearing on the street is to be vacated and to hear evidence presented by anyone who has opposition
to the street vacation; and
WHEREAS, SHC Section 8324 allows the legislative body to determine based on the
evidence whether the street is unnecessary for present or prospective public use and if such a
finding is made the street may be vacated by adopting a resolution to vacate the street; and
WHEREAS, Staff recommends the street vacation of Tenth Street to proceed if the City
Council makes the required findings.
281
Item 13.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Beaumont does authorize the vacation
of Tenth Street per the following provisions:
Provision 1. All existing public utility easements are hereby reserved within area of Tenth Street
being vacated.
Provision 2. This resolution along with the legal description and plat for the vacation of Tenth
Street, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made a part hereof by this reference, shall be
recorded with the Riverside County Clerk Recorder’s Office by the City Clerk.
MOVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of November 2021.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
By: __________
Mike Lara, Mayor, City of Beaumont
ATTEST:
By: _____________
Steven Mehlman, City Clerk
EXHIBIT “A’
(attach legal description and plat)
282
Item 13.
10TH STREET VACATION
227521-0001074.00
EXHIBIT ‘A’
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT
CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH,
RANGE 1 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF TENTH STREET (80.00 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN BY THE AMENDED
MAP OF THE TOWN OF BEAUMONT FILED FOR RECORD FERUARY 27, 1888 IN BOOK
6 OF MAPS, PAGES 16 AND 17, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RECORDER,
ADJACENT TO BLOCKS 31 AND 40 OF SAID AMENDED MAP, AND BOUNDED BY THE
PROLONGATION OF THE EAST AND WEST LINES OF SAID BLOCKS 31 AND 40, SAID
EAST AND WEST LINES ALSO BEING THE WEST LINE OF MAPLE AVENUE EXTENDED
AND THE EAST LINE OF ORANGE AVENUE EXTENDED.
CONTAINING 0.624 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
SUBJECT TO ALL COVENTS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
PREPARED BY
NV5 INC.
_______________________________________
JAY S. FAHRION DATE
P.L.S. 8207
283
Item 13.
STREET
ORANGE AVENUEMAPLE AVENUEBLOCK
40
BLOCK
31
TENTH
PREPARED FOR:DATE:MAR. 2021CITY OF BEAUMONT
CITY OF BEAUMONT, CA
TENTH STREET VACATION
EXHIBIT 'B'
42-829 COOK STREET, SUITE 104
760.341.3101 TEL 760.341.5999 FAX
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
WWW.NV5.COM
1
284
Item 13.
1825 Chicago Ave, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92507
951-684-1200
951-368-9018 FAX
BEAUMONT, CITY OF / LEGAL
550 E SIXTH ST
BEAUMONT, CA 92223
10/12/2021
I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years
and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am an
authorized representative of THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE, a newspaper in
general circulation, printed and published daily in the County of Riverside,
and which newspaper has been adjudicated a newspaper of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of
California, under date of April 25, 1952, Case Number 54446, under date
of March 29, 1957, Case Number 65673, under date of August 25, 1995,
Case Number 267864, and under date of September 16, 2013, Case
Number RIC 1309013; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed
copy, has been published in said newspaper in accordance with the
instructions of the person(s) requesting publication, and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit:
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
Ad Desc.: NOPH Tenth Street Vacation /
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Date: October 12, 2021
At: Riverside, California
Ad Number: 0011493749-01
P.O. Number:
Publication(s): The Press-Enterprise
Ad Copy:
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010, 2015.5 C.C.P)
Legal Advertising Representative, The Press-Enterprise
285
Item 13.
The public street, Tenth Street, is to be vacated by the City of
Beaumont, between Orange Avenue and Maple Avenue. Tenth
street was recorded as shown on the Amended Map of the Town
of Beaumont, filed for record February 27, 1888 in book 6 of
Maps, pages 16 and 17, records of San Bernardino County
Recorder. The vacation of Tenth Street shall be in accordance
with California Streets and Highway Code Chapter 3, Section
8320 -8325.
The public hearing for the proposed vacation is scheduled on
November 2, 2021 at the Beaumont City Hall starting at 6:00 PM.
286
Item 13.
Tenth Street – Looking East Tenth Street – Looking West
287
Item 13.
Code:Select Code Section:1 or 2 or 1001 Search
8320.
8321.
Up^Add To My Favorites
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE - SHC
DIVISION 9. CHANGE OF GRADE AND VACATION [8000 - 8363] ( Division 9 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 79. )
PART 3. PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS, AND SERVICE EASEMENTS VACATION LAW [8300 - 8363] ( Part 3 repealed
and added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1050, Sec. 29. )
CHAPTER 3. General Vacation Procedure [8320 - 8325] ( Chapter 3 added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1050, Sec. 29. )
(a) The legislative body of a local agency may initiate a proceeding under this chapter in either of the
following ways:
(1) On its own initiative, where the clerk of the legislative body shall administratively set a hearing by fixing the
date, hour, and place of the hearing and cause the publishing and posting of the notices required by this chapter.
(2) Upon a petition or request of an interested person, at the discretion of the legislative body, except as provided
in subdivision (e) of Section 8321, where the clerk of the legislative body shall administratively set a hearing by
fixing the date, hour, and place of the hearing and cause the publishing and posting of the notices required by this
chapter.
(b) The notices required by this chapter shall contain both of the following:
(1) A description of the street, highway, or public service easement proposed to be vacated and a reference to a
map or plan, that shows the portion or area to be vacated and includes a statement that the vacation proceeding is
conducted under this chapter. In the case of a street or highway, the description shall include its general location,
its lawful or official name or the name by which it is commonly known, and the extent to which it is to be vacated.
In the case of a public service easement, the description shall identify it with common certainty. The map or plan
showing the location of the street, highway, or public easement proposed to be vacated is sufficient compliance with
this paragraph.
(2) The date, hour, and place for hearing all persons interested in the proposed vacation. The date shall not be less
than 15 days after the initiation of proceedings.
(Amended by Stats. 1998, Ch. 876, Sec. 20. Effective January 1, 1999.)
(a) Ten or more freeholders may petition the board of supervisors to vacate a street or highway under this
chapter. At least two of the petitioners shall be residents of the road district in which some part of the street or
highway proposed to be vacated is situated and shall be taxable therein for street or highway purposes.
(b) Five or more freeholders may petition the board of supervisors to vacate a public service easement under this
chapter. At least one of the petitioners shall be a resident of the township in which the public service easement
proposed to be vacated is situated.
(c) The residence address of each petitioner shall be set forth in the petition.
(d) The board of supervisors may require the payment of a fee for filing a petition to defray the expenses of
investigations, mailings, publications, and postings under this chapter.
(e) Upon the filing of a petition and the making of the deposit, if any, required under this section, the board of
supervisors, by order, shall fix the date, hour, and place of the hearing on the petition. At least two weeks before
the day set for the hearing, the clerk of the board shall mail a notice of the date, hour, and place of the hearing to
each of the petitioners at the address set forth in the petition.
(f ) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of a legislative body to initiate a proceeding under this chapter upon
its own initiative, or upon petition or request of an interested person, or prevent the board of supervisors from
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
288
Item 13.
8322.
8323.
8324.
8325.
vacating a street, highway, or public service easement without charging costs if the board determines it is in the
public interest to do so.
(Amended by Stats. 1981, Ch. 64, Sec. 1.)
(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), notice of the hearing on the proposed vacation shall be
published for at least two successive weeks prior to the hearing in a daily, semiweekly, or weekly newspaper
published and circulated in the local agency conducting the proceeding and which is selected by the legislative body
for that purpose or by the clerk or other officer responsible for the publication where the legislative body has not
selected any newspaper for that purpose.
(b) If the proceeding is conducted by a city and there is no daily, semiweekly, or weekly newspaper published and
circulated in the city, the notice shall be published in some newspaper published in the county in which the city is
located.
(c) Notice need not be published under this section where there is no daily, semiweekly, or weekly newspaper
published and circulating in the county in which the local agency conducting the proceeding is located.
(Amended by Stats. 1998, Ch. 876, Sec. 21. Effective January 1, 1999.)
At least two weeks before the day set for the hearing, the legislative body shall post conspicuously notices of
vacation along the line of the street, highway, or public service easement proposed to be vacated. The notices shall
be posted not more than 300 feet apart, but at least three notices shall be posted. If the line of the street, highway,
or public service easement proposed to be vacated exceeds one mile in length, the legislative body may, in lieu of
posting not more than 300 feet apart, post notices at each intersection of another street or highway with the street,
highway, or public service easement to be vacated and at one point approximately midway between each
intersection, but at least three notices shall be posted.
(Amended by Stats. 1998, Ch. 876, Sec. 22. Effective January 1, 1999.)
(a) At the hearing, the legislative body shall hear the evidence offered by persons interested.
(b) If the legislative body finds, from all the evidence submitted, that the street, highway, or public service
easement described in the notice of hearing or petition is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, the
legislative body may adopt a resolution vacating the street, highway, or public service easement. The resolution of
vacation may provide that the vacation occurs only after conditions required by the legislative body have been
satisfied and may instruct the clerk that the resolution of vacation not be recorded until the conditions have been
satisfied.
(Amended by Stats. 1998, Ch. 876, Sec. 23. Effective January 1, 1999.)
(a) The clerk shall cause a certified copy of the resolution of vacation, attested by the clerk under seal, to be
recorded without acknowledgment, certificate of acknowledgment, or further proof in the office of the recorder of
the county in which the property is located. No fee shall be charged for recordation.
(b) Upon such recordation, the vacation is complete.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1050, Sec. 29.)
289
Item 13.
Code:Select Code Section:1 or 2 or 1001 Search
8340.
8341.
Up^Add To My Favorites
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE - SHC
DIVISION 9. CHANGE OF GRADE AND VACATION [8000 - 8363] ( Division 9 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 79. )
PART 3. PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS, AND SERVICE EASEMENTS VACATION LAW [8300 - 8363] ( Part 3 repealed
and added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1050, Sec. 29. )
CHAPTER 5. Reservation and Preservation of Easements [8340 - 8349] ( Chapter 5 added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1050,
Sec. 29. )
ARTICLE 1. Reservation of Easements [8340 - 8341] ( Article 1 added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1050, Sec. 29. )
In a proceeding to vacate a street or highway:
(a) A public entity may reserve and except from the vacation the easement and right at any time, or from time to
time, to construct, maintain, operate, replace, remove, and renew sanitary sewers and storm drains and
appurtenant structures in, upon, over, and across a street or highway proposed to be vacated and, pursuant to any
existing franchise or renewals thereof, or otherwise, to construct, maintain, operate, replace, remove, renew, and
enlarge lines of pipe, conduits, cables, wires, poles, and other convenient structures, equipment, and fixtures for
the operation of gas pipelines, telegraphic and telephone lines, railroad lines, and for the transportation or
distribution of electric energy, petroleum and its products, ammonia, and water, and for incidental purposes,
including access to protect these works from all hazards in, upon, and over the street or highway proposed to be
vacated.
(b) A local agency may reserve and except from vacation an easement for a future street or highway, unless the
local agency finds that the street or highway is unnecessary for prospective public use.
(c) If there are in-place public utility facilities that are in use, a public entity shall, unless the legislative body
determines the public convenience and necessity otherwise require, reserve, and except from the vacation any
easement and right necessary to maintain, operate, replace, remove, or renew the public utility facilities.
(d) A public entity may reserve and except from the vacation, or may grant to another state or local public agency,
an easement and right, at any time or from time to time, to construct, maintain, operate, replace, remove, and
renew vehicular or nonvehicular trails for use by the public in, upon, over, and across a street or highway proposed
to be vacated.
(Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 248, Sec. 1.)
(a) In a proceeding to vacate a street or highway, if the legislative body determines that the public
convenience and necessity require the reservation and exception of easements and rights-of-way for works
enumerated in Section 8340, such reservations and exceptions shall be recited in the resolution of vacation, in
addition to any other matter required to be recited therein. The recital may describe the reservations and
exceptions by reference to a precise map which is recorded or to which reference is made in the resolution and
which is permanently maintained by the public entity.
(b) Subsequent proceedings of the public entity in relation to the vacation, including a deed or conveyance of title
to or an interest in the property, are subject to, and governed by, the reservations and exceptions recited in the
resolution of vacation and the deed or conveyance shall contain a recital to that effect.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1050, Sec. 29.)
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
290
Item 13.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Consider a Request by YES on Measure H to Approve a Resolution
to Support the San Gorgonio Hospital District Measure H to Renew a
Local Parcel Tax to Fund Emergency Room Operations and
Emergency Medical Services
Background and Analysis:
Members of YES on Measure H, a political action group created to support the voter
approval of the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital District Measure H (Measure H), have
requested that the Beaumont City Council approve a resolution of support. A copy of the
draft resolution is included in Attachment A of this memorandum.
The Measure H vote will be conducted entirely via mail ballot election. Voters will begin
to receive ballots in the mail the week of November 15, 2021, and must be postmarked
by December 14, 2021. Measure H will require a voter approval rate of 2/3 of qualifie d
ballots postmarked by the deadline.
Information provided by the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital District is included in
multiple exhibits to this memorandum. This includes the Fact Sheet (Attachment B),
Frequently Asked Questions (Attachment C), District Resolution No. 2021-03
authorizing Measure H and calling the election (Attachment D), District audit report for
year ended June 30, 2020 (Attachment E), and District unaudited financial statement for
the period ending August 31, 2021 (Attachment F).
Fiscal Impact:
City staff estimates that it cost approximately $390 to prepare this report.
Recommended Action:
This is a policy decision of the City Council and City staff does not have a
recommendation at this time.
291
Item 14.
Attachments:
A. Drafted Resolution in Support of Measure H
B. San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital District - Fact Sheet
C. San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital District - Frequently Asked Questions
D. San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital District - Resolution No. 2021-03
E. San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital District - Financial Audit Report Year Ended
June 30, 2020
F. San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital District - Unaudited Financial Statements for
Period Ending August 31, 2021
292
Item 14.
RESOLUTION NO. 2021
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF BEAUMONT IN SUPPORT OF LOCAL MEASURE H BENEFITTING
SAN GORGONIO HOSPITAL
WHEREAS a cornerstone of a community’s quality of life is its local access to quality hospital
services, including emergency room (ER) rapid-response, lifesaving medical care with qualified, well-
trained physicians and nurses, and advanced medical technology and treatments, and San Gorgonio
Memorial Hospital provides these critically important emergency medical services to our community; and
WHEREAS, particularly in a life-threatening medical emergency when every second
counts, access to local emergency medical care is essential to saving lives; and
WHEREAS, San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital operates the only ER in the Pass Area (the next
closest ER is 30 - 45 minutes away depending on traffic); and
WHEREAS, inadequate staffing of qualified physicians and nurses and insufficient
advanced medical technology and treatments for emergency medical services may pose a risk to
the health, safety, and general welfare of local residents and members of the public; and
WHEREAS, to keep our community’s only ER open and fully operational 24/7, local
voters overwhelmingly approved a modest parcel tax in 2002 and once again exceeding super -
majority voter support reauthorized that funding in 2012, understanding then that every second
counts in an emergency and quick access to medical help when you need it most, saves lives; and
WHEREAS, the current local funding approved by voters twice before by overwhelming
majorities expires on July 1, 2022, and Measure H is now on the ballot to reauthorize local funding
that supports these critically important emergency medical services at San Gorgonio Memorial
Hospital and keeps our local ER open and fully operational 24/7; and
WHEREAS, without Measure H, our healthcare future will suffer, with fewer doctors and
nurses, longer patient wait times, and overcrowded ERs further away; and
WHEREAS, Measure H will not raise local tax rates; at its current rate of $60.52 per parcel
per year, generating $2,600,000 annually to support locally controlled emergency medical services
at San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, the cost of Measure H is modest - about $5/month; and
Measure H is capped at the current tax rate, so Measure H funding will stay flat going forward –
it cannot be increased without a new vote of the people and super-majority voter approval (66.7%
voter support); and
WHEREAS, mandatory taxpayer protections, including public disclosure of spending, all
funds locally controlled, and no tax rate increase; these protections continue with Measure H until
ended by voters; and all funds stay local for San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital ER services only;
and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021, the locally elected Board of Directors of the San
Gorgonio Memorial Health Care District held a public hearing after due notice to consider calling
293
Item 14.
a special election for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the District a ballot
measure proposing the continuance of its expiring Emergency Healthcare Services Tax without
increasing the existing tax rate, commencing July 1, 2022, and continuing until ended by voters,
to provide for the continued operation and maintenance by the District of an Emergency
Department and its associated services on a twenty-four hour basis for locally controlled
emergency medical services at San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the San Gorgonio Memorial Health Care District
also on September 14, 2021, did in fact take action to call for an all-mail ballot election of the
voters on December 14, 2021, a ballot measure now taking place by mail ballot to authorize
continuing this critically important local funding; with ballots for Measure H expected to be mailed
to voters on or about the week of November 15, 2021; and all eligible voters in the jurisdiction of
the San Gorgonio Memorial Health Care District who are registered to vote by November 29,
2021, including all registered voters within the City of Beaumont will be eligible to vote on
Measure H; and
WHEREAS, for 70 years, local victims of accidents, heart attacks, strokes and other
medical emergencies have relied on San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital for lifesaving emergency
medical care; no one knows when a life-threatening medical emergency or local disaster will strike,
and Measure H ensures that emergency medical care will be accessible close to home, in our
community when we need it most.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby resolves that the City of Beaumont City
Council formally endorses Measure H, benefitting San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital Emergency
Room services.
MOVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Beaumont at a
regularly-scheduled meeting of the City Council held on November 2, 2021, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______________________________________
Mayor, Mike Lara
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk, Steven Mehlman
294
Item 14.
295
Item 14.
296
Item 14.
297
Item 14.
298
Item 14.
299
Item 14.
300
Item 14.
301
Item 14.
302
Item 14.
303
Item 14.
304
Item 14.
305
Item 14.
306
Item 14.
307
Item 14.
308
Item 14.
309
Item 14.
310
Item 14.
311
Item 14.
312
Item 14.
313
Item 14.
314
Item 14.
315
Item 14.
316
Item 14.
317
Item 14.
318
Item 14.
319
Item 14.
320
Item 14.
321
Item 14.
322
Item 14.
323
Item 14.
324
Item 14.
325
Item 14.
326
Item 14.
327
Item 14.
328
Item 14.
329
Item 14.
330
Item 14.
331
Item 14.
332
Item 14.
333
Item 14.
334
Item 14.
335
Item 14.
336
Item 14.
337
Item 14.
338
Item 14.
339
Item 14.
340
Item 14.
341
Item 14.
342
Item 14.
343
Item 14.
344
Item 14.
345
Item 14.
346
Item 14.
347
Item 14.
348
Item 14.
349
Item 14.
350
Item 14.
351
Item 14.
352
Item 14.
353
Item 14.
354
Item 14.
355
Item 14.
356
Item 14.
357
Item 14.
358
Item 14.
359
Item 14.
360
Item 14.
361
Item 14.
362
Item 14.
363
Item 14.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Doug Story, Asst. Director of Community Services
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Consider Adopting a Resolution Waiving the Monthly Facility Use
and Staff Fees at the Albert A. Chatigny Sr. Community Recreation
Center (CRC) for Carol’s Kitchen Through December 31, 2022
Background and Analysis:
Carol’s Kitchen is a local non-profit organization whose mission statement is, “To
strengthen the San Gorgonio Pass of Southern California by ensuring the men, women
and children of our communities do not go hungry-regardless of their age, religion,
cultural background, employment or economic status, and physical and mental abilities.”
The organization operates multiple food kitchens in the Pass area, including one in
Beaumont on Mondays and Thursdays at Saint Kateri Tekakwitha Catholic Church.
Staffed by volunteers, Carol’s Kitchen feeds approximately 400 people every week at
the Beaumont location. In addition to hot meals, guests can also choose to take home
extra food to help cover other meals. While on site, tables of slightly used clothing are
available at no charge to anyone that needs clothing item s. Their organization operates
solely on donations and monies raised through local charity events.
For many years, Carol’s Kitchen has held their monthly board meetings at the Albert A.
Chatigny Sr. Community Recreation Center (CRC) every second Wednesday of the
month from 1:30pm to 4:00pm. Approximately 20 members attend and is usually held
in one of the meeting rooms. The current fee schedule for meeting room rentals include
a refundable deposit of $45, a rental rate of $50 for the first two hours and $15 for every
hour after the first two hours. There is also a $20.00 per hour fee for City staff time.
The cost to Carol’s Kitchen for the meeting room rental would be $107.50 per month.
Carol’s Kitchen is requesting a fee waiver to continue to hold board meetings at the
CRC each month through December 2022.
364
Item 15.
Fiscal Impact:
The total amount requested to be waived on an annual basis is $1,335 of which $45 is
for the deposit and $1,290 is for rental fees and City staff time.
Recommended Action:
Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City of
Beaumont Authorizing the W aiver of Monthly Facility Use and Staff Fees at the
Albert A. Sr. Chatigny Community Recreation Center (CRC) for Carol’s Kitchen
through December 31, 2022.”
Attachments:
A. Resolution
B. Facility Use Application
C. Fee Waiver Request
365
Item 15.
1
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AUTHORIZING
THE WAIVER OF MONTHLY FACILITY USE AND STAFF FEES
AT THE CHATIGNY COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
(CRC) FOR CAROL’S KITCHEN THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2022
WHEREAS, Carol’s Kitchen is a non-profit organization whose mission statement is “To
strengthen the San Gorgonio Pass of Southern California by ensuring the men, women and children
of our communities do not go hungry-regardless of their age, religion, cultural background,
employment or economic status, and physical and mental abilities;” and
WHEREAS, Carol’s Kitchen operates a food kitchen in the city of Beaumont based solely
on donations and fundraisers. That food kitchen feeds approximately 400 people every week and
staffed by volunteers; and
WHEREAS, Carol’s Kitchen needs a space within the Chatigny Community Recreation
Center (CRC) to hold their monthly board meetings and has requested a fee waiver for the facility
use and staff fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to waive facility use and staff fees for Carol’s
Kitchen as it serves a public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Beaumont does authorize a fee
waiver of facility use and staff fees for Carol’s Kitchen’s monthly use of the Chatigny Community
Recreation Center until December 31, 2022, and finds that the fee waiver serves a valid public purpose
in that the fee waiver will support the critical life sustaining services that Carol’s Kitchen provides to
support the health, safety and welfare of residents within the Beaumont community.
MOVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of November 2021.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
By: ____ __________
Mike Lara, Mayor, City of Beaumont
366
Item 15.
2
ATTEST:
Steven Mehlman
CITY CLERK
By: _____________
367
Item 15.
368
Item 15.
369
Item 15.
370
Item 15.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, Community Services Director
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Discussion and direction to City Staff on Facility Use Rentals and
Fees for Non-Profit/Tax Exempt Organizations
Background and Analysis:
Government Code Section 66014 empowers the City to impose user fees covering up to
100 percent of the actual costs of providing services to applicants. From time to time,
certain fees are adjusted to recoup part, or all of the actual costs incurred by the City in
providing these services. Likewise, Chapter 3.32 of the Beaumont Municipal Code
provides that the City may set fees to recoup costs reasonably borne by the City by
means of adopting a resolution of the City Council, after compliance with the
requirements of state law. Government Code Section 66014 et al. allows local agencies
to charge fees for various activities as long as those fees do not exceed the estimated
reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is intended.
On November 7, 2017, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-48 adopting a
comprehensive user fee study and adopting a comprehensive fee schedule establishing
user fees for certain specified services, including Community Services Department’s
facility use fees for facility rentals and park rentals (Attachment A). Rental rates were
divided into two tiers:
Tier 1 - includes civic groups, non-profits, clubs/associations, and other
government agencies; and
Tier 2 - includes private parties and commercial events.
Additionally, the fee schedule includes a note that any fees not included in the fee
schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
371
Item 16.
Pre-COVID 19 Procedures
In April 2020, in accordance with the COVID-19 stay-at-home order, the Albert A.
Chatigny, Sr. Community Recreation Center (CRC) was closed to the public. Prior to
COVID-19, several non-profit/tax exempt agencies used the CRC for various reasons,
including board meetings, support groups, youth sports, and special events. At that
time, fee waivers were granted administratively for rental fees (only staff time was
charged) and therefore, none of the non-profit/tax exempt agencies were charged for
their usage in accordance with Council’s adopted resolution.
Types of Tax Exemptions
For purposes of discussion, the Internal Revenue Service defines the types of
organizations that may be exempt, such as non -profits and charities, more commonly
referred to as 501(c)(3) organizations. These include:
Charitable Organizations
Organizations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific,
testing for public safety, literary, educational, or other specified purposes and that meet
certain other requirements are tax exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section
501(c)(3).
Churches and Religious Organizations
Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, may
qualify for exemption from federal income tax under Section 501(c )(3).
Private Foundations
Every organization that qualifies for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) is
classified as a private foundation unless it meets one of the exceptions listed in Section
509(a). Private foundations typically have a single major source of funding (usually gifts
from one family or corporation rather than funding from many sources) and most have
as their primary activity the making of grants to other charitable organizations and to
individuals, rather than the direct operation of charitable programs.
Political Organizations
A political organization subject to Section 527 is a party, committee, association, fund or
other organization (whether or not incorporated) organized and operated primarily for
the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or
both, for an exempt function.
372
Item 16.
Other Nonprofits
Organizations that meet specified requirements may qualify for exemption under
subsections other than 501(c)(3). These include social welfare organizations, civic
leagues, social clubs, labor organizations and business leagues.
At the time of this writing, there are approximately 173 tax exempt organizations
registered in Beaumont, not including unincorporated Cherry Valley.
Post COVID-19 Procedures
When the CRC re-opened to the public in March 2021, a few of the groups requested to
be scheduled back to resume their normal events and activities. It was then that City
staff presented the requestors with the 2017 adopted fee schedule. Since that time,
City Council has granted some fee waivers to those groups that have requested waivers
for various reasons.
Costs to Operate the Facility on an Average Monthly Basis
In order to quantify the monthly costs associated with operating the facility, staff is
providing the following information taken from the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2021:
Personnel Costs
$30,000 average per month.
Maintenance and Operations
(including custodial, utilities, and janitorial supplies such as toilet paper, etc.)
$15,000 average per month.
Cost Allocation Plan and Comprehensive User Fee Study – In Progress
A Request for Proposal for a full cost allocation plan and comprehensive user fee study
was issued by City staff on September 28, 2021, with a due date for responses on
October 29, 2021. It is anticipated that a contract award will be recommended to City
Council on December 7, 2021.
Proposed Temporary Solutions
To simplify the fee waiver process while the study is underway, City staff is
recommending that City Council discuss a uniform approach to fee waivers in the
interim and provide direction to City staff.
373
Item 16.
Attached is a list of non-profits that used the CRC prior to the COVID 19 pandemic
(Attachment B). It should be noted that not all groups have contacted the CRC inquiring
the request to return to the facility.
Option 1
Direct City staff to present City Council with all requested fee waivers individually as
they are requested by the applicant.
Option 2
Direct City staff to waive rental fees only (not including staff time) for one-time special
events for local non-profit service clubs, such as Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, Boy Scouts,
Girls Scouts, etc.
Option 3
Direct City staff to waive rental fees only (not including staff time) to local non-profit
entities on an annual basis for monthly board meetings that are a maximum of one time
per month for no more than 3 hours. This option would include Carol’s Kitchen, AYSO,
and Beaumont Cougars JAAF. All waivers would be brought back to City Council for an
annual review and direction.
Option 4
Consider an allocation in the annual budget to be used by non-profits in lieu of facility
use payments. These funds would be used like a grant program in which non-profits
would formally request that the “grant” funds pay for their facility use. When the funding
is exhausted, future use would be paid for per the adopted fee resolution.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost to prepare this staff report is approximately $500.
Recommended Action:
Discussion and direction to City staff.
Attachments:
A. Resolution No. 2017-48
B. List of Non-profits that use City facilities
374
Item 16.
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-48
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BEAUMONT ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE
STUDY AND ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE FEE
SCHEDULE ESTABLISHING USER FEES FOR CERTAIN
SPECIFIED SERVICES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Beaumont ("City Council") hereby finds,
determines and declares that:
A. The City Council has conducted an extensive analysis of its services, the costs
reasonably borne by the City in provided those services, the beneficiaries of those
services, and the revenues produced by those paying fees and charges for special
services;
B. The City Council has determined that City staff provides many types of services
Services") involving requests by City customers ("Applicants"); and
C. The City currently imposes user fees ("User Fees") upon Applicants to recover the
costs of staff time, copying costs, and other expenses related to providing these
Services; and
D. Current User Fees charged for the City's Services do not adequately recoup the
City's costs of providing certain Services and thus, a significant amount of these
costs are currently paid out of the City's general fund and, therefore, borne by the
general public; and
E. The City Council finds that providing these Services are of special benefit to
Applicants both separate and apart from the general benefit to the public, and
therefore, in the interests of fairness to the general public, the City desires to better
recover the costs of providing these Services from Applicants who have sought the
City's Services by revising its schedule of User Fees; and
F. The proposed User Fees are initially based upon the information contained in a
document by City staff and Consultant ("Consultant") entitled "Cost Recovery
Study Report of Findings " ("Fee Study"), dated October 2017, and updated by
staff to reflect current costs of the City to provide the Services; and
375
Item 16.
G. Pursuant to state law, the City may impose User Fees for certain services.
H. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66014, the City is empowered to impose User
Fees covering up to 100 percent of the actual costs of providing Services to
Applicants; and
I. The City desires to adjust certain fees to recoup part or all of the actual costs incurred
by the City in providing these Services; and
J. Chapter 3.32 of the Beaumont Municipal Code provides that the City may set fees
to recoup costs reasonably borne by the City by means of adopting a resolution of
the City Council, after compliance with the requirements of state law; and
K. Government Code Section 66014 et al. allows local agencies to charge fees for
various activities as long as those fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable costs
of provided the service for which the fee is intended; and
L. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66014, 66015,66017 and 66018 and the
Beaumont Municipal Code, the specific fees to be charged for certain regulations,
services and products must be adopted by resolution or ordinance, following
notice and public hearing; and
M. written notice has been provided to interested parties who filed written requests for
mailed notice of meetings on new or increased development -related fees or service
charges as required by Section 66016(a); and
N. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on October 3, 2017, at
which time the public was invited to make oral and written presentations as part of
the regularly scheduled meeting prior to the adoption of this Resolution; and
O. At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing referenced above, the City made
available for public inspection the Fee Study as required under Government Code
Section 66016; and
P. The City published notice of the public hearing as described above in accordance
with Government Code Sections 66018 and 6062a (10 days in a newspaper regularly
published once a week or oftener. Two publications, with at least five days
intervening between the dates of first and last publication not counting such
publication dates, are sufficient); and
Q. The establishment and increase of User Fees is statutorily and categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act because setting
User Fees and Development Fees fits within the statutory exemptions for local
agency decisions involving rates, tolls or other charges pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and Section 15273 of the California
376
Item 16.
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines this Resolution is not "an essential step
culminating in action which may affect the environment".
Section 2. Adoption of the Report and Methodology. The City Council hereby approves
City of Beaumont User Fee Study Report", dated October 2017, and updated by staff to
reflect current costs of the City to provide the Services and adopts the methodology for
calculating and collecting the fees and charges established therein.
Section 3. Adoption of Fees and Charges. The City Council hereby adopts the "City of
Beaumont User Fee Schedule" as set forth in attached Exhibit "A" and incorporated by
this reference. Unless otherwise stated in the Fee Schedule, all User Fees shall be paid to
the City by the Applicant prior to the City's performance of the requested Services.
Section 4. Repeal of Conflicting Resolutions. It is the desire of the City Council that
all fees and charges for services, programs or products be set forth in one document for
ease of reference. Accordingly, any and all provisions of prior Resolutions of the City
Council establishing or modifying fees for the services, programs or products set forth in
Exhibit "A," are hereby repealed and replaced as of the effective date of this Resolution
in the manner set forth in Exhibit "A;" provided, however, that such repeal shall not
excuse or affect the failure of any person or entity to pay any fee heretofore imposed upon
such person or entity. The City Council desires to clarify that in adopting this Resolution,
it is taking action only on those fees for the services, programs or products set forth in
Exhibit A which have been modified from prior resolutions of the City Council. The
remaining fees that have not been modified from prior resolutions shall remain in fall force
and effect and are hereby restated in Exhibit "B" for convenience so that all fees are set
forth in one document.
Section 5. Building Valuation Based Fees. The building construction fees calculated
by value for Building and Safety fees for new and additional square foot construction shall
be based on International Code Council (ICC) Building Valuation Data Square Foot
Construction Costs published on August 2017.
Section 6. Deposit Based Fees. The City Council herby authorizes the stop work of
applications which fall below ten percent (10%) balance on all deposit based applications.
The application is automatically deemed incomplete due to lack of funds and additional
fess shall be deposited, as requested by staff, with the City of Beaumont for estimated
completion of the application.
Section 7. Environmental Exemption. The adoption of this Resolution is exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA," Public Resources Code Sections
21000 et seq.), because it approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the
purpose of meeting the operating expenses of City departments, as set forth in Public
Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8)(A) and Section 15273 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
377
Item 16.
Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,
clause or phrase of this Resolution or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
Resolution or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed
each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution and all fees and rates herein shall continue
and/or take effect sixty (60) days following adoption of this Resolution.
ADOPTED this 7t' day of November 2017.
AYES: Santos, Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White
NOES: none
ABSTAIN: none
ABSENT: none
BY #
itMayor, Lloyv A. V City of Beaumont
ATTEST:
Andreanna Pfeiffer
CITY CLERK
B. c
378
Item 16.
EXHIBIT "A"
City of Beaumont User Fee Schedule
Attached]
379
Item 16.
RUUMONT City of Beaumont
Fee Schedule
Reproduction of Audio/Video/Electronic Documents to
ADMINISTRATION
Service Name Fee Description
Black and White Copies up to 11 X 17 Per Page
Color Copies Up to 11 X 17 Per Page
Black and White Copies Larger Than 11 X 17 Per Page
Photographs From Development Center Actual Cost
Reproduction of Audio/Video/Electronic Documents to
DVD/CD
Per Disc
Scan of Documents to Disc Per Page
Scan of Document Larger than 11 x 17 to Disc Per Page
Electronically Transmitted Documents Per Image
Postage Actual Cost
Over -sized Load Transportation Fee (Per Trip) Fixed Fee Set by State
Over -sized Load Transportation Fee (Annually) Fixed Fee Set by State
Yard Sales Permit Fixed Fee
Passport Book/Card - Admin Fee Fixed Fee
Express Mail Postage for Passport Book/Card Actual Cost
Notary Fees Per Signature
Business License, New Fixed Fee
Business License, New - Online Fixed Fee
Business License, Renewal Fixed Fee
Business License, Renewal - Online Fixed Fee
Release of Lien Fixed Fee
PLANNING
Service Name Fee Description
Annexations Deposit
Plan of Services Deposit
Annexations (LAFCO) Actual Cost LAFCO fee
Appeals to the Planning Commission Fixed Fee
Appeals to the City Council Fixed Fee
Automobile For Hire Application Fixed Fee
Conditional Use Permit, Stand Alone - Not charged if
processed as part of a deposit -based application
CUP Time Extension
CUP Large Family Daycare/Group home
Condominium Conversion
Density Bonus Application Agreement
Development Agreement
Development Agreement Annual Review
Development Agreement Amendment
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Deposit
Fixed Fee
Deposit
Fixed Fee
Deposit
Adopted Fee
0.35
0.45
10.00
Actual Cost
7.00
0.25
7.00
0.20
Actual Cost
16.00
90.00
5.00
25.00
Actual Cost
10.00
31.00
15.00
15.00
5.00
51.00
Adopted Fee
48,235.00
3,584.00
Paid to LAFCO
622.00
1,884.00
400.00
1,974.00
803.00
1,082.00
10,548.00
2,899.00
42,426.00
2,931.00
41,231.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
1of14
380
Item 16.
City of Beaumont
Fee Schedule
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Estoppel Certificate/Assignment of Development
Fixed Fee 3,409.00
Agreement
Environ. Assessment/Notice of Exemption City Cost + Admin 20% City Cost + Admin 20%
Negative Declaration/EIR/Addendum City Cost + Admin 20% City Cost + Admin 20%
Environmental Filing Fee Actual Cost Paid to Riverside County
Clerk
Environmental Fish and Game Fee Actual Cost Paid to Riverside County
Clerk
Facility Fee Credit Agreement Deposit 9,797.00
General Plan Amendments (Under 50 Acres) Deposit 3,368.00
General Plan Amendments (51 Acres and Over) Deposit 5,563.00
Home Occupation Permit Fixed Fee 75.00
Landscape Plan Review Fixed Fee 720.00
Landscape Plan Review Inspection Fee Per Lot 79.00
Landscape Plan Review Amendment Fee Fixed Fee 595.00
Letters - Responses requested of City, e.g„ zoning information, etc.
Fixed Fee 55.00
Miscellaneous Application - All other requests not otherwise
Deposit 1,195.00
specified
Ordinance Text Change Deposit 4,324.00
Plot Plans Deposit 3,778.00
Plot Plan Amendment Deposit 2,148.00
Plot Plan Time Extension Fixed Fee 547.00
Administrative Plot Plan Fixed Fee 500.40
Minor Plot Plan Fixed Fee 1,181.00
Pre -Application Meeting Fixed Fee 879.00
Pick -A -Lot Site Plan Review Per Lot 100.00
Planning Commission Hearing Required by Any Action Fixed Fee 761.00
Sign Permit Panel Change Fixed Fee 80.00
Sign Permit Fixed Fee 200.00
Sign Program Fixed Fee 1,600.00
Sign Program Amendment Fixed Fee 939.00
Specific Plan Deposit 11,081.00
Specific Plan Amendment Deposit 2,686.00
Substantial Conformity Determination - Specific Plan Deposit 2,354.00
Substantial Conformity Determination - Map/Plot Plan Deposit 984.00
Teamtrack Permit Fixed Fee 55.00
Teamtrack Regulatory Fee
Per Railroad Cars Per
19.00
Year
Teamtrack Annual Permit Fee
Per Railroad Cars Per
2.00
Year
Temporary Use Permit Fixed Fee 75.00
Tentative Parcel Map Deposit 1,723.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
2of14
381
Item 16.
A- %
City of BeaumontEAUMONT
Fee schedule
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Tentative Parcel Map/Tentative Tract Map Time
Fixed Fee 60.00
Extension
Fixed Fee 820.00
Tentative Tract Map Deposit 4,390.00
Variance Fixed Fee 1,482.00
Minor Variance/Modifications of Standards Fixed Fee 150.00
Zone Change/Pre-zoning Deposit 4,324.00
Planning Miscellaneous Per Hour Actual Cost
Any fees not included in this fee schedule will be Per Hour Actual Cost
calculated based on actual cost to provide service
Fixed Fee 139.00
Technology Surcharge Percentage Fee 3.29%
BUILDING & SAFETY
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Building Permit Contractor/Building Change Fixed Fee 60.00
Demolition Fixed Fee 50.00
Building Investigation Fee: In Field Fixed Fee 210.00
Manufactured Home Foundation Fixed Fee Set by State 1,500.00
Manufactured Home Setup fee Fixed Fee Set by State 125.00
Mobile Home Double Setup Fixed Fee Set by State 237.00
Mobile Home Single Setup Fixed Fee Set by State 140.00
Mobile Home Triple Setup Fixed Fee Set by State 278.00
Re -inspection Fee Fixed Fee 139.00
Water Heater Change Out Existing S/F Dwelling Fixed Fee 125.00
Forced Heating System Change Out Existing S/F Dwelling
Fixed Fee 150.00
Special Inspection Hourly Rate 210.00
After Hours or Weekend Inspections (4 HR. Minimum)*If
OT Hourly Rate 237.00
staff is available only
Plan Check 4th and Subsequent Review City Cost + Admin 20% Actual Cost
Residential Photovoltaic Plan Check Fixed Fee Set by State 200.00
Residential Photovoltaic Permit (15 kW or less):
Inspection/Permit Fixed Fee Set by State 300.00
Residential Photovoltaic Permit ( More than 15 kW):
Fixed Fee Set by State 300 plus $15 per KW
Inspection/Permit
Commercials Photovoltaic Permit 50 kW or less:
Inspection/Permit Fixed Fee Set by State 500.00
Commercials Photovoltaic Plan Check 250 kW or less:
Plan Check Fixed Fee Set by State 500.00
Commercials Photovoltaic -50-250 kW:
Fixed Fee Set by State 500 Plus $7 per KW
Inspection/Permit
Commercials Photovoltaic Plan Check More than 250 kW:
Plan Check Fixed Fee Set by State 1,200.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
3of14
382
Item 16.
B FA UMO , N T city of Beaumont
Q, Fee Schedule
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Commercials Photovoltaic More than 250 kW:
Fixed Fee Set by State 1,200 Plus $5 per KWInspection/Permit
Property Permit History Search: Office or Field Per Hourly Rate 161.00
Board of Appeals Fixed Fee 681.00
1 or 2 Family Dwelling (Single Family Home) Fixed Fee 2,292.00
Permit/Application Revision Fee (Residential Tracts
Only)
Per Lot Fee 231.00
Construction Fee Valuation See Chart
Plan Check Fee Percentage Fee 65% of the Permit Fee
Plan Check Revisions and/or Deferred submittals Per Hourly Rate City Cost + Admin 20%
Technology Surcharge Percentage Fee 3.29%
SMIP Fixed Fee Set by State Fixed Fee Set by State
Building Standards Fee Fixed Fee Set by State Fixed Fee Set by State
Any fees not included in this fee schedule will be
Per Hourly Rate Actual Costs
calculated based on actual cost to provide service
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FEES CALCULATED BY VALUE.
Valuation Base Fee Rate Per Unit
0 to $1500.00 190
1501-$20,000 190 21.08 per $1,000
20,001450,000 580 17.83 per $1,000
50,001475,000 1,115 11.68 per $1,000
75,0014100,000 1,407 11.84 per $1,000
100,001 to 500,000 1,703 9.08 per $1,000
500,001 to $1,000,000 5,333 6.97 per $1,000
1,000,001 and up 8,018 4.00 per $1,000
ELECTRICAL
Electrical Permit Fee Fixed Fee 156.00
Private Pool (Electrical only) Fixed Fee 68.00
Distribution Pole Fixed Fee 41.00
Temp Power/Construction Pole Fixed Fee 41.00
Electrical Sign (Not Including Value) Fixed Fee 41.00
Motor 1HP or Less Fixed Fee 15.00
Motor 1HP < 10 HP Fixed Fee 41.00
Motor 10HP <50 HP Fixed Fee 55.00
Motor 50 HP <100 HP Fixed Fee 98.00
Motor 100 HP and Up Fixed Fee 98.00
Fixtures Per Fixture 3.00
Outlets Per Outlet 3.00
Subpanel Fixed Fee 55.00
Misc. Apparatus Fixed Fee 26.00
Residential Appliance Fixed Fee 15.00
Non -Residential Appliance Fixed Fee 15.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
4of14
383
Item 16.
City of BeaumontBEAUMONTFeeSchedule
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Service Entrance - 600V or <200A Fixed Fee $55.00
Service Entrance - 600V or <1000A Fixed Fee $81.00
Service Entrance - 600V or>1000A Fixed Fee $134.00
New SF Residence per sq. ft Per Sq. Ft $0.17
New Multi -family Residence per sq. ft Per Sq. Ft $0.17
Energy Inspection Fixed Fee $199.00
PLUMBING
Plumbing Permit Fee Fixed Fee $156.00
Leach System Fixed Fee $58.00
Lateral Connection Fixed Fee $137.00
House Sewer Fixed Fee $41.00
Drainage Piping Fixed Fee $18.00
Drinking Fountain Fixed Fee $18.00
Urinal Fixed Fee $18.00
Water Piping Fixed Fee $18.00
Floor Drain Fixed Fee $18.00
Washer (Auto) Fixed Fee $18.00
Laundry Tray Fixed Fee $18.00
Kitchen Sink Fixed Fee $18.00
Water Closet Fixed Fee $18.00
Grease Interceptor Fixed Fee $137.00
Lavatory Fixed Fee $18.00
Shower Fixed Fee $18.00
Bath Tub Fixed Fee $18.00
Water Heater Fixed Fee $81.00
Sewage Disposal Fixed Fee $98.00
Gas Piping Fixed Fee $41.00
MECHANICAL
Mechanical Permit Fee Fixed Fee $156.00
Vent System- Hood Each $41.00
Fan Each $15.00
Furnace - Wall Fixed Fee $41.00
Furnace - Floor Fixed Fee $41.00
Ductwork Fixed Fee $41.00
Air Handling Unit Fixed Fee $28.00
Natural Gas Pipe Fixed Fee $15.00
Appliance Vent Fixed Fee $28.00
Forced Heating System Fixed Fee $41.00
Fireplace Fixed Fee $28.00
Misc. Equipment Fixed Fee $28.00
Energy Inspection Fee Fixed Fee $160.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
5of14
384
Item 16.
BEAUMONTgU
City of Beaumont
Fee Schedule
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
FIRE SERVICES
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Plan Check - 4th and Subsequent Review Actual Cost Actual Cost
NFPA 13D Sprinkler System: One or Two Family Dwelling
Custom Home) - Inspection
Per Unit 439.00
NFPA 13D Sprinkler System: One or Two Family Dwelling
Custom Home) - Inspection
Per Unit 253.00
NFPA 13D Sprinkler System: One or Two Family Dwelling
New Tract Developments) - Plan Review
Per Plan Type 439.00
NFPA 13D Sprinkler System: One or Two Family Dwelling
Inspection Per a lot.
Per Lot 169.00
NFPA 13R Sprinkler System: Multi -family Dwellings
3 to 16 Units) - Plan Review
per Plan 502.00
NFPA 13R Sprinkler System: Multi -family Dwellings
3 to 16 Units) - Inspection
Per Plan 316.00
NFPA 13R Sprinkler System > 16 units - Plan Review Per Plan 818.00
NFPA 13R Sprinkler System > 16 units - Inspection Per Plan 506.00
New NFPA 13 Sprinkler System Riser - Plan Review Per Riser 629.00
New NFPA 13 Sprinkler System Riser - Inspection Per Riser 295.00
NFPA 13,1311 Sprinkler System: T.I. (0-10,000 sq. ft.) -
Plan Review
Per Plan 186.00
NFPA 13,1311 Sprinkler System: T.I. (0-10,000 sq. ft.) -
Inspection
per Plan 126.00
NFPA 13,1311 Sprinkler System: T.I. (10,000 - UP) - Plan
Review
per Plan 313.00
NFPA 13,1311 Sprinkler System T.I. (10,000 - UP) -
Inspection
Per Plan 253.00
Pre -action Fire Sprinkler System - Plan Review Per Plan 186.00
Pre -action Fire Sprinkler System - Inspection Per Plan 126.00
NFPA 13 In -Rack Sprinkler Systems - Plan Review Per Plan 186.00
New or TI to NFPA 13 In -Rack Sprinkler Systems -
Inspection
Per Plan 126.00
NFPA 13 Small Hose Stations - Plan Review Per Plan 186.00
NFPA 13 Small Hose Stations - Inspection Per Plan 63.00
NFPA 14 Class 1, II or III Standpipes - Plan Review Per Plan 186.00
NFPA 14 Standpipes - Inspection Per Plan 126.00
Fire Pump Installation - Plan Review Per Pump 186.00
Fire Pump Installation - Inspection Per Pump 253.00
Underground Fire Protection System (Single Hydrant OR
Single Riser Connection) - Plan Review
Fixed Fee 186.00
Underground Fire Protection System (Single Hydrant OR
Single Riser Connection) - Inspection
Fixed Fee 379.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
6of14
385
Item 16.
BEAUMON4A64,Tf'W LN
T City of Beaumont
Fee Schedule
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Underground Fire Protection (Each Additional
Connection) - Plan Review Per Building 126.00
Underground Fire Protection System - Inspection Per Building 126.00
Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Monitoring System - Plan
Review Per Building 186.00
Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Monitoring System -
Inspection Per Building 126.00
Fire Alarm System - Plan Review Per Building 439.00
Fire Alarm System - Inspection Per Building 253.00
Fire Alarm Residential Care Facility Manual Alarm - Plan
Review Per Facility 186.00
Fire Alarm Residential Care Facility Manual Alarm -
Inspection Per Facility 126.00
Fire Master Plan Public School - Plan Review Per School 250.00
Vehicle or Pedestrian Gates Across Emergency Access
Roads - Plan Review
Per Gate 186.00
Vehicle or Pedestrian Gates Across Emergency Access
Roads - Inspection
per Gate 126.00
Outdoor Fire Place/Fire Pit in Special Fire Areas -
Inspection
Per Fire Pit 126.00
Speed Hump - Plan Review Per Plan 123.00
Speed Hump (Drive Test) - Inspection Per Plan 63.00
Above -Ground Storage Tank - Plan Review Per Tank 186.00
Above -Ground Storage Tank - Inspection Per Tank 126.00
High -Piled Storage Code/Commodity Compliance - Plan
Review
per Plan 313.00
High -Piled Storage (Up to 500,000 sq.ft) - Inspection Fixed Fee 316.00
Commercial Cooking Hood and Duct System
Per System) - Plan Review
Per System 186.00
Commercial Cooking Hood and Duct System
Per System) - Inspection
Per System 126.00
Refrigeration Unit and System (More Than 220 Pounds of
Fixed Fee 186.00
Group Al or 30 Pounds) - Plan Review
Refrigeration Unit and System - Inspection Fixed Fee 126.00
Spray Booth Spraying Area - Plan Review Per Booth 313.00
Spray Booth Spraying Area - Inspection Per Booth 190.00
Gas Systems: Medical Gas, Industrial Gas - Plan Review
Per System $250.00
Gas Systems: Medical Gas, Industrial Gas - Inspection Per System $126.00
Special Equipment: Industrial Ovens, Vapor Recovery, Per Hour $146.00
Dust Collection - Plan Review
Special Equipment: Industrial Ovens, Vapor Recovery, Per Hour $126.00
Dust Collection - Inspection (1 HR. Minimum)
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
7of14
386
Item 16.
City of Beaumont
Fee Schedule
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Special Extinguishing System: Dry Chemical, CO2, FM 200, per Hour 146.00
Foam Liquid Systems, Inert Gas - Plan Review
Special Extinguishing System - Inspection (1 HR.
Minimum)
Per Hour 126.00
Battery Systems, Stationary Storage and Cell Sites - Plan
Review
Per Hour 146.00
Battery Systems - Inspection (1 HR. Minimum) Per Hour 126.00
Smoke Control Systems - Plan Review Per Hour 146.00
Smoke Control Systems - Design/Testing Inspection
1 HR. Minimum)
Per Hour 126.00
Temporary Above -Ground Storage Tank - Plan Review &
Inspection
Per Tank 186.00
Alternate Method and Material Request - Plan Review Fee: Per Hour 186.00
Plan Review time and materials fee: Charged for
miscellaneous applications such as unusual time Actual Cost Actual Cost
intensive projects, research, travel time, etc.
Reinspection Fee (1 HR. Minimum) Per Hour 126.00
Inspection time and materials fee: Charged for
miscellaneous applications such as time intensive Per Hour 126.00
projects, research, travel time, etc.
Overtime Inspection Request Per OT Hourly Rate 147.00
Special Event/Stand-by Fee Per Hour 126.00
Special Event/Stand-by Fee Overtime Per OT Hourly Rate 147.00
Tent Inspection - Plan Review Fixed Fee 186.00
Tent Inspection - Inspection Per Tent 126.00
Landscape Plan Review - Fuel Modification Zones Fixed Fee 374.00
Landscape Plan Review Amendment - Fuel Modification
Zones
Fixed Fee 247.00
Family Day Care - Pre -Inspection Per Day Care Facility 126.00
Family Day Care - Inspection Per Day Care Facility 126.00
Inspections Occupancy: Assembly Group: A-1 Annual Fixed Fee 253.00
Inspections Occupancy: Assembly Group: A-2, A-3,
A-4, A-5
Annual Fixed Fee 126.00
Inspections Occupancy: Educational Group E Annual Fixed Fee 190.00
Inspections Occupancy: Factory Industrial: F-1, F -2,H-1 Annual Fixed Fee 126.00
Inspections Occupancy: High -Hazard Group: H-2, H-3, H -
Annual
4, H-5
Fixed Fee 253.00
Inspections Occupancy: Institutional Group: I-4 Annual Fixed Fee 126.00
Inspections Occupancy: Institutional Group: 1-2,1-2.1, I-3
Annual Fixed Fee $253.00
Inspections Occupancy: Mercantile Group: M Annual Fixed Fee $126.00
Inspections Occupancy: Residential Group: R-2.1, R-
Annual Fixed Fee $126.00
3, R-3.1, R-4
Inspections Occupancy: Residential Group: R-1 & R-2 Annual Fixed Fee $190.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
8of14
387
Item 16.
City of Beaumont
Fee Schedule
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Inspections Occupancy: Storage Group: S-1, S-2 Annual Fixed Fee 253.00
Inspections Occupancy: Business Group: B Annual Fixed Fee 21.00
Inspections Occupancy: Miscellaneous Group: U Annual Fixed Fee 21.00
Any fees not included in this fee schedule will be
calculated based on actual cost to provide service
Actual Cost Actual Cost
Technology Surcharge Percentage Fee 3.29%
PUBLIC WORKS
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Final Parcel Map Deposit 2,500.00
Final Tract Map Deposit 4,000.00
Public Works Permit Issuance (within one year of plan check
Fixed Fee 73.00
approval)
Public Works Permit Issuance (After one year from plan check
Deposit 500.00
approval)
Street Light Plan Review Fixed Fee 604.00
Street Light Inspection Per Light 76.00
Traffic Study Preparation City Cost + Admin 20% City Cost + Admin 20%
Traffic Study Review City Cost + Admin 20% City Cost + Admin 20x/0
Clear and Grub Inspection (non grading): 0-10 acres base
fee
Deposit 5,000.00
Clear and Grub Inspection (non grading): over 10 Acres - Base + $500 per acre
Per Acre
Deposit
over 10 acres
Plan Check: 4th and Subsequent Review City Cost + Admin 20% City Cost + Admin 20%
Improvement Construction Plan Check (on and off site) -
Includes First 3 Reviews
per Sheet 665.00
Improvement Construction Plan Checking Amendment Deposit 2,500.00
Improvement Construction Inspection Deposit Minimum $750
Water Quality Management Preliminary Plan Review 0-
10 acres
Fixed Fee 4,077.00
Water Quality Management Plan Review Preliminary
Above 10 acres
Fixed Fee 5,357.00
Water Quality Management Plan Review Final
Post Construction)
Fixed Fee 427.00
SWPPP - Plan Check 0-10 acres Fixed Fee 4,077.00
SWPPP - Plan Check above 10 acres Fixed Fee 5,357.00
SWPPP - Inspection (Construction) Deposit 5,000.00
Hydrology/Hydraulic Study 0-10 acres Fixed Fee 2,797.00
Hydrology/Hydraulic Study 11-50 acres Fixed Fee 4,077.00
Hydrology/Hydraulic Study 51-100 acres Fixed Fee 5,357.00
Hydrology/Hydraulic Study above 100 acres Fixed Fee 7,917.00
Landscape Plans Plan Check - Includes First 3 Reviews Per Sheet 398.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
9of14
388
Item 16.
1JP- 'WONAUMMENmm, No City of BeaumontEAUMONT
W4"" Fee Schedule
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Inspections of Landscaping for Public or Private Common
50% of Engineers
Areas
Deposit Estimate ($500
minimum
Wall and Fence Plan Check - Includes First 3 Reviews Per Sheet 265.00
Parking Lot Plan Check and Inspection Fixed Fee 250.00
Encroachment Permit Application Fixed Fee 50.00
ROW Improvement) - Includes Application Fee, Plan
Fixed Fee 211.00
Check, and Inspection
Encroachment Plan Check (Non -Standard) Actual cost Actual Cost
Encroachment Inspection Deposit 500.00
Erosion Control Plan Check Deposit 1,000.00
Certificate of Compliance/Certificate of Correction Deposit
1,000.00 City
Cost + Admin 20%
Lot Line Adjustment or Parcel Merger Deposit
200.00 City1,
Cost Admin 20%
Street Vacation/Offer of Dedication Deposit
200.00 City1,
Cost Admin 20%
Tentative Reversion to Acreage Deposit 1,000.00
Appeals Suspension of Improvement Required Deposit 1,000.00
Subdivision/Improvement Agreement (Bonds) Fixed Fee 279.00
Performance Bond Release Application Fixed Fee 469.00
Bond Release Inspection Deposit Deposit 3,000.00
Maintenance Bond Release Application Fixed Fee 469.00
Maintenance Bond Inspection Deposit 3,000.00
Suspension of Improvement Agreement Deposit 1,000.00
Industrial Waste Water Permit Application Fixed Fee 25.00
First (4) parcels/lots
Final Monument Setting Fee Fixed Fee 2,500 plus $250 each
additional parcel/lot
First (4) parcels/lots
Final Monument Inspection Fee Fixed Fee 1,000 plus $25 each
additional parcel/lot
Improvement Guarantee (100% Performance & 100%
100% of the approved
Labor and Material)
Percentage Fee Engineer's estimated of
construction cost
Any fees not included in this fee schedule will be
calculated based on actual cost to provide service
Actual Cost Actual Cost
Technology Surcharge Percentage Fee 3.29%
GRADING (RESIDENTIAL)
Grading or Stockpile Plan Check - First 3 Reviews Per Sheet 601.00
Grading or Stockpile Plan Check Amendment (Residential
or Commercial)
Deposit 2,500.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
10 of 14
389
Item 16.
EAUM01
crqmn"-
Service Name
City of Beaumont
Grading or Stockpile Inspection: 2,000 CY
Grading or Stockpile Inspection: 10,000 CY
Fee Schedule
Grading or Stockpile Inspection: 100,000 CY
Fee Description
Base + each additional
1,000 CY or fraction
thereof
Base + each additional
1,000 CY or fraction
thereof
Base + each additional
1,000 CY or fraction
thereof
Grading or Stockpile Inspection: Over 200,001 CY Deposit
Grading or Stockpile Inspection: Infill Less Than 1 Acre Fixed Fee
Grading Plan Check: 4th and Subsequent Review City Cost + Admin 20%
GRADING (COMMERCIAL)
Grading Plan Check - Includes First 3 Reviews Per Sheet
Grading Plan Check: 4th and Subsequent Review City Cost + Admin 20%
Engineer's Estimate
0-10,000 Min. $750.00
10K -50K 7.50%
50K -100K 6.50%
10OK-200K 5.00%
20OK-500K 4.00%
Over 500K 3.00%
Service Name
Police Reports, Black and White
Police Reports, Color
Stored Vehicles Release
Vin Verification
Fingerprinting - Non Resident of City
Fingerprinting - Beaumont City Resident
Immigration Letter/Visa/Records Check
Traffic Citation Sign Offs
Reproduction of Audio/Video/DVD/CD
Peddler Solicitor Permit - Per Person, Annually
Bingo Permit
Stored Vehicles Release - DUI
RV Parking Permit - 72 hours
POLICE
Fee Description
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Set by Vehicle Code
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Set by Penal Code
Fixed Fee
Adopted Fee
1,680 Base + $420 each
additional 1,000 CY or
fraction thereof up to
10,000
3,780 Base + $61 each
additional 1,000 CY or
fraction thereof up to
100,000
10,500 Base + $105
each additional 1,000 CY
or fraction thereof up to
200.000
25,000.00
420.00
City Cost + Admin 20%
787.00
City Cost + Admin 20%
Adopted Fee
0.35
0.45
75.00
15.00
25.00
15.00
10.00
15.00
7.00
50.00
50.00
150.00
5.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
11 of 14
390
Item 16.
vCity of BeaumontFAUMONTFeeschedule
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Alarm License Fixed Fee 21.00
Tow Yard Inspection Fee Fixed Fee 143.00
Second hand dealers license Fixed Fee 107.00
Concealed Weapon Carry Permit Fixed Fee 100.00
Fortune Teller Permit, Annually Fixed Fee 240.00
Masseur permit with background, Annual Fixed Fee 100.00
Massage Establishment Permit, Annually Fixed Fee 101.00
Adult Oriented Establishment Permit, Annually Fixed Fee 424.00
Tobacco Retailer Permit Fixed Fee 250.00
Golf Cart - Annual Fixed Fee 50.00
Unlicensed Group Home Fixed Fee 800.00
Graffiti Implementation Sales Fixed Fee 25.00
Abandoned House Registration Fixed Fee 200.00
Weed Abatement, City Admin Fixed Fee 125.00
Weed Abatement Actual Cost Actual Cost
Subscription Program, City Admin Fixed Fee 75.00
ANIMAL CARE
Beaumont
Owner Turn In - Picking Up Fixed Admin Fee 20.00
Owner Turn In - Bringing In Fixed Admin Fee 10.00
Owner Turn In - Shelter Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost
Return to Owner/Impounded Animal Fixed Fee 50.00
Deceased on Arrival Fixed Fee 40.00
1 Year License Altered Fixed Fee 25.00
2 Year License Altered Fixed Fee 40.00
3 Year License Altered Fixed Fee 55.00
1 Year Unaltered Fixed Fee 100.00
Late License Fee Fixed Fee 25.00
Replacement Tag Fixed Fee 25.00
Quarantine Actual Cost Actual Cost
Dangerous Animal Registration Fixed Fee 208.00
Trap Fee Rental - 5 Day Fixed Fee 25.00
Trap Fee Rental - Per Day After 5 Fixed Fee 10.00
Small Trap Replacement Fixed Fee 149.00
Large Trap Replacement Fixed Fee 299.00
Dog Silencer Replacement Fixed Fee 154.00
Dog Silencer Rental - 5 Day Fixed Fee 20.00
Kennel License - 1 Year Fixed Fee 291.00
Kennel License - 2 Year Fixed Fee 377.00
Sentry Kennel License - 1 Year Fixed Fee 338.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
12 of 14
391
Item 16.
EAUMONT pity of Beaumont
Fee Schedule
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Sentry Kennel License - 2 Year Fixed Fee 572.00
Late Kennel License Fee Penalty Percentage Fee 50% of License Fee
Microchip Identification Device Fixed Fee 28.00
Per Call Fee Fixed Fee 59.00
Banning
Owner Turn In - Picking Up Fixed Fee 20.00
Owner Turn In - Bringing In Fixed Fee 10.00
Owner Turn In - Shelter Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost
Return to Owner/Impounded Animal Fixed Fee 99.00
Deceased on Arrival Fixed Fee 119.00
1 Year License Altered Fixed Fee 25.00
2 Year License Altered Fixed Fee 40.00
3 Year License Altered Fixed Fee 55.00
1 Year Unaltered Fixed Fee 100.00
Late License Fee Fixed Fee 25.00
Replacement Tag Fixed Fee 25.00
Quarantine Actual Cost Actual Cost
Dangerous Animal Registration Fixed Fee 206.00
Trap Fee Rental - 5 Day Fixed Fee 81.00
Trap Fee Rental - Per Day After 5 Fixed Fee 12.00
Small Trap Replacement Fixed Fee 157.00
Large Trap Replacement Fixed Fee 307.00
Dog Silencer Replacement Fixed Fee 162.00
Dog Silencer Rental - 5 Day Fixed Fee 60.00
Microchip Identification Device Fixed Fee 28.00
Per Call Fee Fixed Fee 89.00
Calimesa
Owner Turn In - Picking Up Fixed Fee 20.00
Owner Turn In - Bringing In Fixed Fee 10.00
Owner Turn In - Shelter Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost
Return to Owner/Impounded Animal Fixed Fee 80.00
Deceased on Arrival (DOA) Fixed Fee 132.00
1 Year License Altered Fixed Fee 25.00
2 Year License Altered Fixed Fee 40.00
3 Year License Altered Fixed Fee 55.00
1 Year Unaltered Fixed Fee 100.00
Late License Fee Fixed Fee 25.00
Replacement Tag Fixed Fee 25.00
Quarantine Actual Cost Actual Cost
Dangerous Animal Registration Fixed Fee 263.00
Trap Fee Rental - 5 Day Fixed Fee 97.00
Trap Fee Rental - Per Day After 5 Fixed Fee 12.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
13 of 14
392
Item 16.
EAUMON
califev"
Service Name
Small Trap Replacement
Large Trap Replacement
Dog Silencer Replacement
Dog Silencer Rental - 5 Day
Microchip Identification Device
Per Call Fee
City of Beaumont
Fee Schedule
Fee Description Adopted Fee
Fixed Fee 157.00
Fixed Fee 307.00
Fixed Fee 162.00
Fixed Fee 73.00
Fixed Fee 28.00
Fixed Fee 94.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service.
All Non -Deposit Plan Check Fees cover 3 Plan Checks. All Deposit Based Fees are charged in 30 minute increments.
14 of 14
393
Item 16.
EXHIBIT "B"
City of Beaumont Recreation Fee Schedule
Attached]
394
Item 16.
FJ UMONT
City of Beaumont
Fee Schedule
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Service Name Fee Description Adopted Fee
Pavillion/Park Rental
Pavillion Deposit (Refundable) Deposit 40.00
Rental Rate (Civic Groups, Non -Profits, Clubs/Associations, Other Gov't
Agencies)
Fixed Fee 25.00
Rental Rate (Private Parties, Commercial Events) Fixed Fee 50.00
Extra Hours (Civic Groups, Non -Profits, Clubs/Associations, Other Gov't.
Agencies)
Per Hour 10.00
Extra Hours (Private Parties, Commercial Events) Per Hour 15.00
Gym/Auditorium Rental
Gym/Auditorium Deposit (Refundable) Deposit 500.00
Rental Rate (Civic Groups, Non -Profits, Clubs/Associations, Other Gov't
Agencies)
Fixed Fee 120.00
Rental Rate (Private Parties, Commercial Events) Fixed Fee 220.00
Extra Hours (Civic Groups, Non -Profits, Clubs/Associations, Other Gov't.
Agencies)
Per Hour 40.00
Extra Hours (Private Parties, Commercial Events) Per Hour 100.00
Ball Field Rental
Ball Field Deposit (Refundable) Deposit 40.00
Rental Rate (Private Parties, Commercial Events) Fixed Fee 40.00
Lights (Civic Groups, Non -Profits, Clubs/Associations, Other Gov't
Agencies)
Per Hour 30.00
Extra Hours (Private Parties, Commercial Events) Per Hour 15.00
Lights (Private Parties, Commercial Events) Per Hour 60.00
Meeting Room Rental
Meeting Room Deposit (Refundable) Deposit 45.00
Rental Rate (Civic Groups, Non -Profits, Clubs/Associations, Other Gov't.
Agencies)
Fixed Fee 50.00
Rental Rate (Private Parties, Commercial Events) Fixed Fee 100.00
Extra Hours (Civic Groups, Non -Profits, Clubs/Associations, Other Gov't
Agencies)
Per Hour 15.00
Extra Hours (Private Parties, Commercial Events) Per Hour 40.00
Prior Day Set Up Fixed Fee 100.00
Misc. Rentals
Kitchen Rental Fixed Fee 150.00
Staff Per Hour 20.00
Overtime Staff Per Hour Actual Cost
Cancellation Fixed Fee 100.00
Use of City Power Per Hour 20.00
Park Restroom Key Deposit (Refundable) Deposit 40.00
City sponsored events and local schools are exempt from fees unless otherwise noted
All Rentals Are 2 HR Minimum
Pool
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service
1 of 2
395
Item 16.
EAUMO'
Service Name
Rental Rate - 1- 50 Guests
2 Guards (First 2 Hours)
Extra Hours
Rental Rate - 51- 75 Guests
3 Guards (First 2 Hours)
Extra Hours
Rental Rate - 76 - 100 Guests
4 Guards (First 2 Hours)
Extra Hours
Baby Pool
1 Guard (Minimum 2 Hours)
Daily Pool Entry
0-11 Years
12 Years and Up
Family Pass (Up to 6 Family Members)
Single Pass_
0-11 Years
12 Years and Up
Swim Lessons
City of Beaumont
Fee Schedule
Day Camp / Teen Center
Cost per Child/Teen - After School (School Year)
Cost per Child/Teen - Summer and School Breaks
Fee Description Adopted Fee
Fixed Fee $80.00
Per Hour $30.00
Fixed Fee $100.00
Per Hour $50.00
Fixed Fee $120.00
Per Hour $70.00
Per Hour $20.00
Fixed Fee 1.50
Fixed Fee 2.00
Annual 130.00
Annual 50.00
Annual 65.00
Per Session 50.00
Weekly $15.00
Daily $15.00
Any fees not included in this Fee Schedule will be calculated based on actual costs to provide the service
2of2
396
Item 16.
Organization: Purpose of mtg: Facility: Rooms: Period of use: Hours: Attendance:MonthlyCarol's Kitchen Board meeting CRC 1 once a month 3 hrs 20Kin Care Support Group meetings CRC 1 once a month 2 hrs 5Caregivers support group Support group CRC 1 once a month 1.5 hrs 5San Gorgonio Garden Club meetings City Hall 1 once a month 3 hrs 40Pass Artist Association meetings City Hall 1 once a month 4 hrs 20Pass Patchers Quilt Guild meetings City Hall Gym once a month 4 hrs 30Bi‐WeeklyGirl Scout troops meetings CRC 1 twice a month 2 hrs 10Chapman Hospice Support group CRC 1 twice a month 1 hr 5Beaumont Cougars JAAF board meetings Board meeting CRC 1 twice a month 1.5 hrs 15WeeklyCo‐dependents anonymous 12 step support group CRC 1 once a week 1hr 5Bridge Clubmeet/play bridge CRC 1 once a week 4 hrs 10East Valley Board of Realtors Board meeting City Hall 1 once a week 2 hrs 20Pass Patchers Quilt Guild meetings City Hall 1 once a week 2hrs 30OccasionallyBoy Scout troops meetings/events CRC 1 randomly 10AYSO board meetings Board meeting CRC 1 randomly 15Rotary Clubevents CRC Gym randomly 2‐10 hrs 50‐100SeasonallyBeaumont Community Youth Basketball League games/tournaments/meetings CRC Gym Fall and Winter season30 hrs per week100‐150397Item 16.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, Community Services Director
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Update of Park Capital Improvement Projects
Background and Analysis:
At the request of City Council, a detailed update of capital improvement projects in City
parks is provided below.
Stewart Park – Capital Improvement Projects P-01 and P-10
On January 19, 2021, City Council approved the draft conceptual plan and directed City
staff to proceed with improving Stewart Park in accordance with Public Works Contract
Code and the Beaumont Municipal Code (Attachment A). The total project funding for
Stewart Park is $3,395,000, of which $2,964,740.06 is available. Park amenities current
and proposed consist of a full basketball court, a pool facility, a restroom/concession
stand, a pavilion with a concrete pad for live entertainment, a skate park, two
playgrounds, a baseball diamond, and a small parking lot.
398
Item 17.
Immediately following the January meeting, City staff began the demolition of the pool.
In March, the City retained GeoTek, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $3,500 to perform
asbestos and lead based paint testing of the pool and pavilion facility in anticipation of
awarding a contract for the complete demolition of both facilities. Neither material was
found in the buildings at the site.
In April, City staff retained the services of Sladden Engineering in an amount not to
exceed $5,500 to provide geotechnical engineering services at two separate locations
within the park, namely the area of the future splash pad and the area of the future
bandshell. Additionally, California Waters, LLC (CA Waters) was retained that month in
an amount not to exceed $24,999 to provide a splash pad design and engineering
services for the proposed splash pad. CA Waters is a local representative for Water
Odyssey, a vendor for splash pad products. CA Waters required a preliminary site plan,
which was provided by the City’s in-house engineering team on July 13.
On May 4, City Council awarded a public works agreement with Weaver Grading, Inc.,
in an amount not-to-exceed $60,200 with the authorization for the City Manager to allow
up to 10% in change orders to complete the pool and pavilion demolition project. The
park was officially closed to the public and appropriate signage is displayed along the
perimeter of the park. The demolition project was completed in time for the annual
Freedom Festival on July 4.
On August 5, City staff entered into an agreement with RHA Landscape Architects-
Planners, Inc., (RHA) in an amount not-to-exceed $24,915 to provide landscape
architectural and engineering drawings for improvements to the south end of the park
that includes the installation of the bandshell and concrete walk from the street. The
other areas of the park were not included in RHA’s scope of work. On August 23, City
staff met with RHA’s president and walked the site of the proposed bandshell. On
August 31, City staff received an initial design development plan for the proposed
bandshell and stage, including a cost estimate in the amount of $1,312,564. Due to the
extremely high cost of steel in the current market, City staff requested additional options
at lower costs in the range of $200,000 to $600,000. Those proposals are currently
under consideration and review by City staff.
399
Item 17.
On September 28, 2021, the City received the first draft set of design drawings from CA
Waters that included mechanical, electrical, and structural plans and specifications for
the proposed splash pad. Those plans are currently under review by City staff. Below is
a close replica of the splash pad proposed in Stewart Park.
400
Item 17.
401
Item 17.
Within the past month, demolition of the ballfield has been completed by City staff.
The street vacation of Tenth Street is underway, and the resolution is included in the
current agenda for City Council action.
Discussion
Since the initial approval of the conceptual plan, commodity prices have increased
tenfold. Steel prices alone have increased well over 30% since April 2021. The original
budget set by City staff called for $350,000 to be allocated to the bandshell. After
working with the landscape architect, it has been determined that the City would need
three times that amount to purchase and install an adequate bandshell. Another option
that could be considered in lieu of the original concept, includes renting a bandshell
when needed, such as the Cherry Festival and the Freedom Festival.
Rangel Park – Capital Improvements Projects P-02 and P-11
In April 2018, City staff retained the services of Malcolm Matthews in an amount not to
exceed $2,520 to provide a conceptual plan and scoping notes of proposed
improvements to Rangel Park. On March 19, 2019, City Council approved the
conceptual plan and scoping notes as presented.
In October 2019, City Council awarded a contract to TSR Construction and Inspection in
an amount not to exceed $261,470 to furnish all materials, equipment, tools, labor and
incidentals for the purchase and installation of a precast restroom. A notice of
completion was recorded on October 9, 2020.
402
Item 17.
Sladden Engineering was engaged on December 15, 2020, in an amount not to exceed
$5,500 to perform geotechnical engineering services for the project. The report was
received on March 10, 2021.
City Council awarded contracts to a pool of electrical engineering firms in June 2021. As
part of that contract award, KEWO Engineering Corporation (KEWO) submitted a cost
proposal in July for Rangel Park in an amount not to exceed $24,955 to provide
electrical engineering services to upgrade the electrical system, including new ballfield
lighting, new basketball lighting, new park lighting, future splash pad mechanical
building, existing restroom building, and existing scoreboard. KEWO would also
communicate with Southern California Edison (SCE) as part of their project scope.
Around the end of August, KEWO provided a rough cost estimate to the City in the
amount of $110,200, which was well above the anticipated amount program med for this
portion of the project. The cost estimate included two separate options for moving
forward with SCE and the City is reviewing those options currently.
City staff determined that a landscape architect firm was needed to assist in developing
the park and Architerra Design Group, Inc., was hired on August 10, 2021, in an amount
not to exceed $14,725 to provide services including the preparation of scalable
conceptual designs and coordination with all designers to provide all pre bid documents
for the redesign of Rangel Park. However, a topography map was required prior to the
start of the contract.
On September 15, 2021, Madole & Associates was hired in an amount not to exceed
$18,110 to provide a topography map and civil engineering services. The map was
provided to the City and subsequently to Architerra , Inc., on September 21, 2021.
403
Item 17.
On September 10, 2021, the City entered into an agreement with California Waters,
LLC in an amount not to exceed $24,999 to provide schematic design, design
development, electrical design, structural design, construction documentation, agency
approvals, and construction administration for the splash pad portion of the park project.
Architerra, Inc., notified the City in early October that the initial conceptual design, which
included a half basketball court, a splash pad, and a playground may not be accurate in
that there may not be enough room for all three amenities. Discussions took place on
which amenity to remove from design development. Based on that in formation, City staff
met with residents who reside in the area of the park and discussed potentially
removing the splash pad, since it was the most expensive amenity of the three. The
residents agreed that the City could forego designing and building a splash pad.
Architerra, Inc., has also provided a draft conceptual plan of the ballfield, with the new
design including moving home plate forward to allow for right-of-way access, new
dugouts, and new fencing. That draft was also shared with the residents.
404
Item 17.
Discussion
With the information provided by Architerra Inc., and KEWO, as well as the limited
budget available to complete the park, removing the splash pad from the draft
conceptual is the most economical and feasible.
Playground Shade Structures – Capital Improvement Projects P-09
City Council authorized two phases of playground shade structures, each phase
allocating $250,000. The priority park for the initial phase is Mountain View Park (Mt.
View), located in the South Sundance community.
City staff contacted multiple steel fabricated shade manufacturers and found a design
that best met the size needed for the large playground at Mt. View. A request for bids
was issued on July 2, 2021, and four bids were received on July 22, 2021. The bids
ranged from $167,800 to $200,000. The scope included purchasing and installation of a
48’ by 48’ steel fabricated shade structure with a 13’ clearance to be installed over the
large playground at Mt. View.
Discussion
City staff has been following the commodity market pricing on steel and has seen an
enormous increase in pricing since July. A second option may be to install fabric shade
sails that are more cost effective overall. Based on verbal quotes from one supplier, the
405
Item 17.
City could target four different playgrounds throughout the City and stay within the
allocated amount of $500,000 for both phases.
Fiscal Impact:
City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $1,950.
Recommended Action:
Discuss and provide direction to City staff.
406
Item 17.
Staff Report
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sean Thuilliez, Chief of Police
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Purchase of Mobile Data Computers for Six Police Vehicles, Mobile
Command Unit and Detective Bureau
Background and Analysis:
The FY21/22 budget includes eight additional Panasonic Toughbook CF33 Mobile Data
Computers (MDCs) for the Beaumont Police Department. Six (6) MDCs will be installed
in new patrol units and two installed in the Mobile Command Center and Detective
Bureau.
CDCE Mobile Integration of Yorba Linda is still identified as the lowest -priced local
distributor/installer of the MDC solution. The total per unit cost (Toughbook, keyboard,
port replicator, mounting kit, additional warranty, Cradlepoint IBR900 first net routers
with Wi-Fi, low profile shark fin 2G/3G/4G LTE Antenna, cables, and installation) is
approximately $8,614.88 per MDC (see attached quote), for a total cost of $68,919.10.
The MDCs in the patrol units will require two Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards;
one from Verizon (or similar wireless carrier) and one from AT&T (or similar wireless
carrier), to provide secure Wi-Fi connectivity and redundancy. The two additional MDCs
will require one SIM card each for a total of 14 SIM cards. Each SIM card is projected
to cost approximately $40.00 per card (law enforcement rate), per month for a total
annual cost of $6,720.
City staff is also requesting to purchase Net Motion. Net Motion is a secure virtual
private network (VPN) software that allows the MDCs to communicate to the network
securely. It also assists to maintain constant connectivity and redundancy in our entire
fleet of MDCs. The addition of Net Motion will be at a cost of $4,000 annually.
Fiscal Impact:
Funding was budgeted for this fiscal year. The fiscal impact to the Internal Service
Fund (Account 600-5050-8060-0000) totals $79,639.10.
407
Item 18.
Recommended Action:
Approve the purchase of eight (8) Panasonic Toughbooks, Cradlepoint IBR900
first net routers with Wi-Fi, low profile shark fin 2G/3G/4G LTE Antennas and
cables for a cost of $68,919.10 from CDCE Mobile;
Approve the purchase of 14 SIM cards (8 from Verizon and 6 from AT&T) to be
used in the MDCs for connectivity at a yearly price of $6,720; and
Also approve the purchase of Net Motion to enhance the connectivity of the
entire patrol fleet for at a yearly cost of $4,000.
Attachments:
A. CDCE Inc. Quote for MDCs
B. Net Motion Quote
408
Item 18.
409
Item 18.
410
Item 18.
411
Item 18.
412
Item 18.
413
Item 18.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Councilmember Julio Martinez
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Discussion and Position Direction on Assembly Constitutional
Amendment 7 (ACA 7) and Initiative 21-0016
Background and Analysis:
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 (ACA 7) was introduced by Assembly Member
Muratsuchi and co-authored by Senator Glazer. ACA 7 seeks to amend the Constitution
of the State of California with regards to local government police power, land use,
zoning and municipal affairs. For a constitutional amendment to be placed on a ballot, it
must first be passed by a 2/3 vote in both the State Assembly and State Senate. A
constitutional amendment must then be approved by majority of voters in California.
ACA 7 speaks to the two types of cities: Charter and General Law. The City of
Beaumont is a General Law city. General Law cities have the power to adopt
ordinances to protect the public health, safety and welfare. This is known as “Police
Power.” Typically, an ordinance adopted under police power cannot be enforced if it
conflicts with State law. An ordinance adopted under the municipal affairs power cannot
be enforced if it affects a “matter of statewide concern.” In these cases, State law or
matters identified as being of statewide concern eclipse local ordinances or regulations.
If approved by voters, ACA 7 would affect a broad stretch of State law including general
laws relating to zoning and land use and more specifically, government code sections
regulating or mandating, General Plan elements, accessory dwelling units (ADUs),
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and density bonuses, to name a few. ACA
7 could also have an indirect impact on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as
it pertains to land use. Although the CEQA code sections are not specifically included in
ACA 7, CEQA is a major part of regulating land use.
The foundation of ACA 7 is the return of local control. The amendment provides for local
ordinances to prevail over State law if a conflict exists with regards to zoning or land use
within a city (or County) boundary. If enacted, the amendment would not allow cities to
414
Item 19.
simply ignore State law but would provide the opportunity for cit ies to adopt ordinances
or regulations pertaining to the land use and zoning issues within their boundaries, even
if they are in conflict with State law.
On August 26, 2021, a citizens initiative was submitted to the California Attorney
General. This is now known as Initiative 21-0016. It parallels ACA 7 and is drafted to
return local discretion on land use matters, including zoning regulations and general
plan policies. This initiative would also protect voter-approved local measures that
regulate zoning, development or land use. It provides that these voter-approved
measures could not be nullified or overturned by any legislative body.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost to prepare this staff report is approximately $250.
Recommended Action:
Hold discussion and provide direction on taking a position on ACA 7.
Attachments:
A. League of California Cities Working Group Packet – ACA 7
B. Initiative 21-0016
415
Item 19.
ACA 7 (Muratsuchi) Working Group
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
10:00 am – 12:00 pm
Register for this meeting:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJcqcOmpqz4vE9wJdasg1pGD4cKay5bYlpld
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining
the meeting.
AGENDA
I.Welcome and Introductions
Chair, Marshall Goodman, Council Member, City of La Palma
Vice Chair, David Pollock, Council Member, City of Moorpark
II.Opening Remarks
President Cindy Silva, Council Member, City of Walnut Creek
III. Establish Guiding Principles for Constitutional Land-Use Reform
Jason Rhine, League of California Cities
Derek Dolfie, League of California Cities
IV.Review ACA 7 (Muratsuchi) Municipal Affairs. Land Use and Zoning
Jason Rhine, League of California Cities
V.Review Initiative 21-0016 Local Land Use. Amended October 1, 2021
Jason Rhine, League of California Cities
VI.Public Comment
VII.Adjourn
416
Item 19.
ACA 7 WORKING GROUP
October 27, 2022
Staff: Jason Rhine, Assistant Director, Legislative Affairs
Derek Dolfie, Lobbyist, Legislative Affairs
ACA 7 (Muratsuchi) Local Government Police Power. Municipal Affairs. Land Use and
Zoning. (Full Text)
Bill Summary:
This measure would provide that with regard to the zoning or use of land within the
boundaries of a county or city, local ordinances, regulations, or charter provisions,
would prevail over state law if a conflict exists.
Bill Description:
ACA 7 is an Assembly Constitutional Amendment that, if approved by the voters, would
provide the following:
•A county or city ordinance or regulation enacted under the police power that
regulates the zoning or use of land within the boundaries of the county or city
would prevail over conflicting general laws, with specified exceptions; and
•A city charter provision, or an ordinance or regulation adopted pursuant to a
city charter, that regulates the zoning or use of land within the boundaries of the
city is deemed to address a municipal affair and would prevail over a conflicting
state statute, with specified exceptions.
Specified exceptions are as follows:
•The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000)
of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute;
•The siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50
megawatts of electricity; and
•The development or construction of a water or transportation infrastructure
project for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why the
project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best interests of
the state. For purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project
does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential,
commercial, or mixed use.
Background:
There are two types of cities, charter cities and general law cities. Of California’s 482
cities, 108 of them are charter cities. The Constitution grants both types of cities the
power to adopt ordinances to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare. This
grant is called the “police power.” The Constitution grants charter cities the additional
power to adopt ordinances affecting “municipal affairs.” This power, commonly
referred to as “home rule” is based on the principle that a city, rather than the state, is
in the best position to identify and satisfy the needs of the local community.
An ordinance adopted under the police power cannot be enforced if it “conflicts” with
state law. State law is said to “preempt” the local ordinance. An ordinance adopted
ATTACHMENT A
1 417
Item 19.
under the municipal affairs power cannot be enforced if it affects a “matter of
statewide concern.” The subjects that have been “preempted” and the subjects that
have been identified as “matters of statewide concern” have changed over the years
with changing economic, social, and political circumstances.
Since the 1960s, the state has enacted laws that have restricted local land use and
zoning. These laws include the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Housing
Element, Housing Accountability Act (HAA), density bonus, Permit Streamlining Act,
Accessory Dwelling Units, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and many more.
Fiscal Impact:
There would be no direct fiscal impact to cities.
Existing Cal Cities Policy:
Vision
To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of
California's cities.
Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to
enhance the quality of life for all Californians.
We Believe
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy.
• Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest.
• In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving
problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect,
and civility.
• The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities.
• Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public
trust.
• Cities are vital to the strength of the California economy.
• The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
• The active participation of all city officials increases the League's effectiveness.
• Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and
lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary
leadership and effective and efficient city operations.
Zoning
Cal Cities believes local zoning is a primary function of cities and is an essential
component of home rule. The process of adoption, implementation and enforcement
of zoning ordinances should be open and fair to the public and enhance the
responsiveness of local decision-makers. State policy should leave local siting and use
decisions to the city and not interfere with local prerogative beyond providing a
constitutionally valid procedure for adopting local regulations. State agency siting of
facilities, including campuses and office buildings, should be subject to local notice
and hearing requirements in order to meet concerns of the local community. Cal Cities
opposes legislation that seeks to limit local authority over parking requirements.
2 418
Item 19.
Housing Element
Housing issues should be addressed in the general plan as other planning issues are. The
housing element should be prepared for the benefit of local governments and should
have equal status with the other elements of the general plan.
Subdivision Map Act
Cal Cities supports maximizing local control over subdivisions and public improvement
financing. Discretion over the conditions and length of subdivision and parcel maps
should be retained by cities.
Annexation and Incorporation
Cal Cities supports strengthening city control over urban boundaries. Sphere of
Influence law should be modified to ban county development and to allow cities to
annex logical growth. The Revenue and Taxation Code should not allow counties to
block annexations in exchange for unreasonable property tax sharing agreements. In
addition, cities should have expanded authority over adjacent lands outside of their
sphere of influence regardless of jurisdictional lines so long as the land is not within
another city’s sphere. Cities should not be required to incur costs for planning to meet
infrastructure needs of unincorporated areas or leveraged to annex areas which would
result in unfunded costs. Cal Cities supports facilitating the incorporation of cities that
have met procedural requirements and voter approval. Cal Cities opposes efforts by
the Legislature to disincorporate a city for any reason, unless requested by the affected
city.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Cal Cities has extensive existing policy regarding CEQA. Most of this policy is highly
specific to the implementation of the Act. Click here to review the full policy.
Comments:
ACA 7 is an Assembly Constitutional Amendment that requires a two-thirds vote in both
legislative houses in order to be placed on the ballot for the November 2022 statewide
general election. If voters approve the measure, by a simple majority vote, the
California State Constitution will be amended.
ACA 7 encompasses a broad swath of state law. The State Planning and Zoning Law
which stretches from Government Code 65000 - 66301 includes the following state
“general laws” relating to "zoning" and "use of land:"
• Prohibition on discrimination (65008): An action taken by a city that denies to
any individual or group of individuals..." any land use" is unlawful. [This statute is
used to challenge city's land use decisions that do not provide sufficient
affordable housing, etc.]
• Mandated elements of general plan (65302): Land use element; circulation;
housing; conservation; open-space; noise; safety; environmental justice.
Mandated reporting to the Department of Housing and Community
Development regarding implementation of plan (65400). Housing element
requirements such as affirmatively furthering fair housing (65583(c)(10));
promoting and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities throughout the
community (65583(c)(5); conserve and improve the condition of the existing
affordable housing stock (65593(c)(4); zone for emergency shelters (65583(d)).
• Housing Accountability Act (65589.5).
3 419
Item 19.
• Limitation on inclusionary rental housing ordinance (65850.01).
• ADUs/JADUs (65852.2, 65852.22).
• Requirement to allow rebuilding of multifamily dwelling destroyed by fire
(65852.25).
• Requirement to zone sufficient land for housing (65913.1); prohibition on
subdivision standards that preclude housing for all economic segments of the
community (65913.2).
• SB 35 ministerial approval of housing on certain infill sites (65913.4).
• Density bonus (65915).
Another area of law impacted by ACA 7 is the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). While CEQA is not in the code sections listed above, compliance with CEQA is
an integral part of "regulating the zoning or use of land.”
It is important to note that under ACA 7, a city could not simply ignore these state laws.
Rather, ACA 7 would allow a city to adopt ordinances that "conflict" with these laws,
thus allowing the ordinances to prevail over state law.
Finally, given the broad scope of ACA 7, it is possible that the measure might be a
“revision” rather than an “amendment” to the Constitution. Although the voters can
amend the Constitution by an initiative, a "revision" of the Constitution may be
accomplished only by convening a constitutional convention and then obtaining voter
approval of what the convention proposes. The idea is that "comprehensive changes"
to the Constitution require more formality, discussion and deliberation than is available
in the initiative process [Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 335].
4 420
Item 19.
california legislature—2021–22 regular session
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7
Introduced by Assembly Member Muratsuchi
(Principal coauthor: Senator Glazer)
March 16, 2021
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7—A resolution to propose
to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution
of the State, by amending Section 7 of, and adding Section 5.5 to, Article
XI thereof, relating to local government.
legislative counsel’s digest
ACA 7, as introduced, Muratsuchi. Local government: police power:
municipal affairs: land use and zoning.
The California Constitution authorizes a city or county to make and
enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances
and regulations not in conflict with general laws, which is also known
as the police power. Existing law also authorizes a county or city to
adopt a charter, as provided. The California Constitution authorizes a
city governed under a charter make and enforce all ordinances and
regulations in respect to municipal affairs and provides that, with respect
to municipal affairs, a city charter supersedes all inconsistent laws.
Under the California Constitution, the power to regulate land use is
within the scope of the police power, and is also generally considered
to be a municipal affair, for purposes of these provisions.
This measure would provide that a county or city ordinance or
regulation enacted under the police power that regulates the zoning or
use of land within the boundaries of the county or city would prevail
over conflicting general laws, with specified exceptions. The measure,
in the event of the conflict with a state statute, would also specify that
99 5 421
Item 19.
a city charter provision, or an ordinance or regulation adopted pursuant
to a city charter, that regulates the zoning or use of land within the
boundaries of the city is deemed to address a municipal affair and
prevails over a conflicting state statute, except that the measure would
provide that a court may determine that a city charter provision,
ordinance, or regulation addresses either a matter of statewide concern
or a municipal affair if it conflicts with specified state statutes. The
measure would make findings in this regard and provide that its
provisions are severable.
Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
line 1 Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the
line 2 Legislature of the State of California at its 2021–22 Regular
line 3 Session commencing on the seventh day of December 2020,
line 4 two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby
line 5 proposes to the people of the State of California, that the
line 6 Constitution of the State be amended as follows:
line 7 First—That the people of the State of California find and declare
line 8 all of the following:
line 9 (a) The circumstances and impacts of local land use decisions
line 10 vary greatly across the state from locality to locality.
line 11 (b) The infrastructure required to maintain appropriate levels
line 12 of public services, including police and fire services, parklands
line 13 and public open spaces, transportation, schools, and sewers, also
line 14 varies greatly across the state from locality to locality.
line 15 (c) Land use decisions made by local officials seek to balance
line 16 development with the economic, environmental, and social needs
line 17 of the particular communities served by those local officials.
line 18 (d) Thus, it is in the best interests of the state for these complex
line 19 decisions to be made at the local level to ensure that the specific,
line 20 unique characteristics, constraints, and needs of those communities
line 21 are properly analyzed and addressed.
line 22 (e) Gentrification of housing adjacent to public transportation
line 23 will reduce or eliminate the availability of very low income housing
line 24 near public transit.
line 25 (f) The Legislature cannot properly assess the impacts upon
line 26 each community of sweeping land use rules and zoning regulations
line 27 that apply across the state and, as a result, do great harm to many
line 28 local communities with differing circumstances and concerns.
99
— 2 — ACA 7 6 422
Item 19.
line 1 (g) Development within a community should not be controlled
line 2 by state laws that may or may not address the needs of, and the
line 3 impacts upon, that local community.
line 4 (h) Numerous state laws have been enacted, and continue to be
line 5 proposed, that eliminate or erode local control over the type and
line 6 character of local development.
line 7 (i) The purpose of this measure is to ensure that all decisions
line 8 regarding local land use controls and zoning regulations are made
line 9 within the affected communities in accordance with local law,
line 10 while still allowing either local or state law to control, as it
line 11 otherwise would, in those instances where state and local law
line 12 conflict regarding the coastal zone, the siting of a power plant that
line 13 can generate more than 50 megawatts of electricity, or the
line 14 development or construction of a water or transportation
line 15 infrastructure project for which the Legislature declares why the
line 16 project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the best
line 17 interests of the state. For purposes of this measure, it is the intent
line 18 that a transportation infrastructure project not include a
line 19 transit-oriented development project that is residential, commercial,
line 20 or mixed used.
line 21 Second—That Section 5.5 is added to Article XI thereof, to
line 22 read:
line 23 SEC. 5.5. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in the
line 24 event of a conflict with a state statute, a city charter provision, or
line 25 an ordinance or a regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter,
line 26 that regulates the zoning or use of land within the boundaries of
line 27 the city shall be deemed to address a municipal affair within the
line 28 meaning of Section 5 and shall prevail over a conflicting state
line 29 statute.
line 30 (b) A city charter provision, or an ordinance or a regulation
line 31 adopted pursuant to a city charter, may be determined by a court
line 32 of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with Section 5, to address
line 33 either a matter of statewide concern or a municipal affair if that
line 34 provision, ordinance, or regulation conflicts with a state statute
line 35 with regard to any of the following:
line 36 (1) The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20
line 37 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code),
line 38 or a successor statute.
line 39 (2) The siting of a power generating facility capable of
line 40 generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity.
99
ACA 7 — 3 — 7 423
Item 19.
line 1 (3) The development or construction of a water or transportation
line 2 infrastructure project for which the Legislature has declared in
line 3 statute the reasons why the project addresses a matter of statewide
line 4 concern and is in the best interests of the state. For purposes of
line 5 this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not
line 6 include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential,
line 7 commercial, or mixed use.
line 8 (c) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision
line 9 of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall
line 10 not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect
line 11 without the invalid provision or application.
line 12 Third—That Section 7 of Article XI thereof is amended to read:
line 13 SEC. 7. (a) A county or city may make and enforce within
line 14 its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and
line 15 regulations not that are not, except as provided in subdivision (b),
line 16 in conflict with general laws.
line 17 (b) (1) A county or city ordinance or regulation that regulates
line 18 the zoning or use of land within the boundaries of the county or
line 19 city shall prevail over conflicting general laws, except for the
line 20 following:
line 21 (A) An ordinance or regulation that conflicts with the California
line 22 Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000)
line 23 of the Public Resources Code), or a successor statute.
line 24 (B) An ordinance or regulation that addresses the siting of a
line 25 power generating facility capable of generating more than 50
line 26 megawatts of electricity.
line 27 (C) An ordinance or regulation that addresses the development
line 28 or construction of a water or transportation infrastructure project
line 29 for which the Legislature has declared in statute the reasons why
line 30 the project addresses a matter of statewide concern and is in the
line 31 best interests of the state. For purposes of this subparagraph, a
line 32 transportation infrastructure project does not include a
line 33 transit-oriented development project, whether residential,
line 34 commercial, or mixed use.
line 35 (2) The provisions of this subdivision are severable. If any
line 36 provision of this subdivision or its application is held invalid, that
line 37 invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can
line 38 be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
O
99
— 4 — ACA 7 8 424
Item 19.
ACA 7 WORKING GROUP
October 27, 2022
Staff: Jason Rhine, Assistant Director, Legislative Affairs
Derek Dolfie, Lobbyist, Legislative Affairs
Initiative 21-0016 – Local Land Use (FULL TEXT)
This measure is nearly identical to ACA 7 (Muratsuchi). Please see Attachment A for a
detailed analysis.
However, it is important to note three key differences between Initiative 21-0016 and
ACA 7. Initiative 21-0016 was recently amended to add the following:
•Declares the purpose of the measure is to ensure that all decisions regarding
local land use controls, including zoning law and regulations, are made by the
affected communities in accordance with applicable law, including but not
limited to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, the prohibitions against discrimination, and
affirmatively furthering fair housing.
•Prohibits modification to appropriations for state-funded programs, and no state
grant applications or funding shall be denied as a result of the application of this
constitutional amendment. No benefit or preference in state appropriations or
grants shall be given to an entity that opts not to utilize these provisions.
•Prohibits a city or county from superseding or otherwise interfering with any voter-
approved local initiative pertaining to land use or zoning restrictions.
ATTACHMENET B
9 425
Item 19.
10 426
Item 19.
11 427
Item 19.
12 428
Item 19.
13 429
Item 19.
14 430
Item 19.
15 431
Item 19.
16 432
Item 19.
17 433
Item 19.
18 434
Item 19.
435
Item 19.
436
Item 19.
437
Item 19.
438
Item 19.
439
Item 19.
440
Item 19.
441
Item 19.
442
Item 19.
443
Item 19.
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager
DATE November 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Consider Establishing a Formal Position of the City Council
Regarding the Riverside County Supervisory Redistricting Plan and
Authorize Mayor Lara to Submit a Position Letter to the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors
Background and Analysis:
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors (Board) is in the process of redrawing
supervisory district boundaries. This effort must occur every 10 years after publication of
the County population data published by the US Census Bureau. The 2020 US Census
data has now been released and the Board must adopt a new supervisory district map
by December 15, 2021.
There are six draft redistricting maps under consideration by the Board. Three of the
options have been prepared by Riverside County and the final three were submitted
through the public participation process. The draft maps included in Attachment A
through F of this memorandum.
Two more public hearings before the Board have been scheduled to take public
comment and deliberate the six options. They are scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday,
November 9 and 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 16.
Three of the draft maps propose to split up the Pass Area’s IH-10 corridor by splitting
portions of either Banning or Beaumont into multiple supervisory districts. These
strategies are reflected in Riverside County Map E (Attachment A), Riverside County
Map F (Attachment B), and Community Map 1 (Attachment D).
There is a concern that apportioning the Pass Area’s IH-10 corridor communities into
multiple supervisory districts could prove harmful. The communities of Banning,
Beaumont, and Calimesa share common concerns and face similar challenges that are
unique to the geographic area. It will be important that the area may speak with a
common, consistent voice to address the impacts of expansive growth that each
444
Item 20.
community is now facing. Much of the development of these communities is occurring
along common boundary lines and are blurring the jurisdictional boundaries from a
community identify perspective.
The draft letter included in Attachment G states the City’s opposition to redistricting
efforts that divvy up Banning, Beaumont, and Calimesa communities. It has been
drafted for Mayor Lara’s signature.
Fiscal Impact:
City staff estimates that it cost approximately $1,170 to prepare this report.
Recommended Action:
City staff recommends that the City Council take a position to oppose
redistricting scenarios that would split the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, and
Calimesa into multiple supervisory districts and authorize Mayor Lara to execute
and submit the draft letter included in Attachment G of this memorandum.
Attachments:
A. Riverside County Map E
B. Riverside County Map F
C. Riverside County Map G
D. Community Map 1
E. Community Map 3 (Walsh v. 2 Map)
F. Community Map 4
G. City of Beaumont – Draft Letter
445
Item 20.
DRAFT446Item 20.
EOTC E Redisticting Boundaries
with 2020 US Census Data
Riverside County
Supervisorial District Summary
California Adjusted 2020 US Census Public Law File 94-171
Table 1. California Adjusted 2020 Census Total Population by Race/Ethnicity
District
Total
Population Hispanic White Black
American
Indian/ Alaskan
Native Asian
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander Other Race
Two or more
minority race
484,854 295,478 112,199 30,154 1,650 27,775 1,328 2,613 13,657
100%60.9%23.1%6.2%0.3%5.7%0.3%0.5%2.8%
484,554 230,017 149,309 26,086 1,406 56,750 1,314 2,592 17,080
100%47.5%30.8%5.4%0.3%11.7%0.3%0.5%3.5%
483,804 158,599 224,742 24,942 3,223 41,466 1,870 2,621 26,341
100%32.8%46.5%5.2%0.7%8.6%0.4%0.5%5.4%
482,266 260,721 176,549 13,206 2,934 14,779 449 2,203 11,425
100%54.1%36.6%2.7%0.6%3.1%0.1%0.5%2.4%
481,960 256,514 125,930 52,140 2,746 24,048 1,813 2,545 16,224
100%53.2%26.1%10.8%0.6%5.0%0.4%0.5%3.4%
2,417,438 1,201,329 788,729 146,528 11,959 164,818 6,774 12,574 84,727
100%49.7%32.6%6.1%0.5%6.8%0.3%0.5%3.5%
Table 2. California Adjusted 2020 Census Total Population by Race/Ethnicity Over the Age of 18
District
Total
Population
(Over 18)
Hispanic
(Over 18)
White
(Over 18)
Black
(Over 18)
American
Indian/
Alaskan
Native
(Over 18)
Asian
(Over 18)
Hawaiian or
Other
Pacific
Islander
(Over 18)
Other Race
(Over 18)
Two or more
minority
race
(Over 18)
363,078 206,527 95,491 23,811 1,347 23,654 1,001 1,784 9,463
100%56.9%26.3%6.6%0.4%6.5%0.3%0.5%2.6%
361,106 159,577 121,520 20,466 1,121 44,676 1,030 1,831 10,885
100%44.2%33.7%5.7%0.3%12.4%0.3%0.5%3.0%
361,536 107,153 180,218 19,394 2,419 33,024 1,471 1,797 16,060
100%29.6%49.8%5.4%0.7%9.1%0.4%0.5%4.4%
379,290 181,133 162,773 10,499 2,229 12,542 328 1,553 8,233
100%47.8%42.9%2.8%0.6%3.3%0.1%0.4%2.2%
357,751 175,315 107,278 38,997 2,002 20,179 1,343 1,797 10,840
100%49.0%30.0%10.9%0.6%5.6%0.4%0.5%3.0%
1,822,761 829,705 667,280 113,167 9,118 134,075 5,173 8,762 55,481
100%45.5%36.6%6.2%0.5%7.4%0.3%0.5%3.0%
Table 3. CA Adjusted 2020 Census Difference from 2021 Target Supervisorial District Population of 483,488
District Number Percent Percent Spread (Largent - Smallest)
1 -1,366 -0.28%0.60%
2 -1,066 -0.22%
3 -316 -0.07%
4 1,222 0.25%
5 1,528 0.32%
1
5
COUNTY
TOTAL
COUNTY
TOTAL
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
Source: California Statewide Database Public Law (P.L.) 94-171 and US Census Bureau Website, enacted by Congress in December 1975, requires
the Census Bureau to provide states the opportunity to identify the small area geography for which they need datain order to conduct legislative
redistricting.
For more information about Public Law (P.L.) 94-171: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/rdo/summary-
files.html
DRAFT
447
Item 20.
ETOC E Redisticting Boundaries
with 2020 US Census Data
Riverside County
Supervisorial District Summary
California Adjusted Citizen Voting Age Population 2020 US Special Tabulation From the 2015-2019 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS)
District Total
Not
Hispanic
or Latino
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Asian Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Black or
African
American
Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
White Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
White
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Asian and
White
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Black or
African
American
and White
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
Black or
African
American
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Remainder of
Two or More
Race
Responses
Hispanic
or Latino
435,570 188,808 1,162 23,822 30,861 860 122,888 1,126 3,407 2,418 129 1,807 246,760
100%43.3%0.3%5.5%7.1%0.2%28.2%0.3%0.8%0.6%0.0%0.4%56.7%
434,377 240,875 1,014 39,954 24,361 827 162,724 1,974 4,440 2,340 174 2,591 193,704
100%55.5%0.2%9.2%5.6%0.2%37.5%0.5%1.0%0.5%0.0%0.6%44.6%
451,368 308,961 2,454 29,923 23,639 2,771 231,237 2,639 7,291 3,666 704 4,279 142,462
100%68.4%0.5%6.6%5.2%0.6%51.2%0.6%1.6%0.8%0.2%0.9%31.6%
416,854 222,740 3,070 11,401 15,130 303 186,309 1,452 1,820 1,547 87 1,060 193,957
100%53.4%0.7%2.7%3.6%0.1%44.7%0.3%0.4%0.4%0.0%0.3%46.5%
418,131 214,403 2,479 17,806 51,968 1,000 132,467 1,462 2,201 2,918 174 1,606 203,673
100%51.3%0.6%4.3%12.4%0.2%31.7%0.3%0.5%0.7%0.0%0.4%48.7%
2,156,300 1,175,787 10,179 122,906 145,959 5,761 835,625 8,653 19,159 12,889 1,268 11,343 980,556
100%54.5%0.5%5.7%6.8%0.3%38.8%0.4%0.9%0.6%0.1%0.5%45.5%
District CVAP Total
CVAP Not
Hispanic
or Latino
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Asian
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: White
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
White
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Asian
and White
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
and White
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
Black or
African
American
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
Remainder of
Two or More
Race
Responses
CVAP
Hispanic
or Latino
310,335 154,923 971 19,572 24,374 805 103,728 879 1,879 1,098 99 1,180 155,391
100%49.9%0.3%6.3%7.9%0.3%33.4%0.3%0.6%0.4%0.0%0.4%50.1%
306,977 187,549 811 30,401 19,147 736 129,716 1,633 2,053 992 171 1,484 119,612
100%61.1%0.3%9.9%6.2%0.2%42.3%0.5%0.7%0.3%0.1%0.5%39.0%
320,581 234,672 1,951 22,958 18,403 2,037 179,831 1,642 3,063 1,704 453 2,213 85,862
100%73.2%0.6%7.2%5.7%0.6%56.1%0.5%1.0%0.5%0.1%0.7%26.8%
322,606 196,812 2,278 9,045 11,822 208 169,220 1,250 730 728 72 820 125,767
100%61.0%0.7%2.8%3.7%0.1%52.5%0.4%0.2%0.2%0.0%0.3%39.0%
296,199 170,526 1,739 14,426 38,013 615 110,242 1,202 1,334 1,645 169 750 125,611
100%57.6%0.6%4.9%12.8%0.2%37.2%0.4%0.5%0.6%0.1%0.3%42.4%
1,556,698 944,482 7,750 96,402 111,759 4,401 692,737 6,606 9,059 6,167 964 6,447 612,243
100%60.7%0.5%6.2%7.2%0.3%44.5%0.4%0.6%0.4%0.1%0.4%39.3%
2
3
4
5
2
Table 3. Citizen Population - (CVAP) 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
1
2
COUNTY
TOTAL
Table 4. Citizen Voting Age Population - (CVAP) 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
3
4
5
COUNTY
TOTAL
1
DRAFT
448
Item 20.
ETOC E Redisticting Boundaries
with 2020 US Census Data
Riverside County
Supervisorial District Summary
District Total
Not Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Not Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Asian District
DOJ CVAP
Total
DOJ CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
DOJ CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
DOJ CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Asian
62,796 2,288 33,279 27,229 48,773 1,850 25,472 21,451
100%3.6%53.0%43.4%100%2.9%40.6%34.2%
74,083 2,988 26,701 44,394 55,037 2,444 20,139 32,454
100%4.0%36.0%59.9%100%3.3%27.2%43.8%
69,612 5,093 27,305 37,214 49,721 3,593 20,107 26,021
100%7.3%39.2%53.5%100%5.2%28.9%37.4%
34,420 4,522 16,677 13,221 25,853 3,528 12,550 9,775
100%13.1%48.5%38.4%100%10.2%36.5%28.4%
78,834 3,941 54,886 20,007 58,359 2,941 39,658 15,760
100%5.0%69.6%25.4%100%3.7%50.3%20.0%
319,745 18,832 158,848 142,065 237,743 14,356 117,926 105,461
100%5.9%49.7%44.4%100%4.5%36.9%33.0%
3
5
COUNTY
TOTAL
COUNTY
TOTAL
For more information about CVAP products, visit https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/voting-rights/cvap.html
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/rdo/technical-documentation/special-tabulation/CVAP_2015-2019_ACS_documentation.pdf
Table 5. DOJ Tabulation: Citizen Population (CVAP) 2015-
2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
Table 6. DOJ Tabulation: Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5
Source: Statewide Database 2015-2019 Citizen Voting Age Population, adjusted to reflect reallocated incarcerated persons, on 2020 Census Blocks.
The original data source for the Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) is the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is an ongoing survey by the
U.S. Census Bureau sent to approximately 250,000 households each month. The ACS estimates used to develop these data were collected from
January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019 utilizing the 2010 Census block groups, which were disaggregated to the 2020 Census blocks by the Statewide
Database.
Because this is a special tabulation of data and not part of the standard data products shown on the Census Bureau’s data.census.gov website, these
estimates are rounded. Therefore, individual categories may not exactly add to the total.DRAFT
449
Item 20.
DRAFT450Item 20.
EOTC F Redisticting Boundaries
with 2020 US Census Data
Riverside County
Supervisorial District Summary
California Adjusted 2020 US Census Public Law File 94-171
Table 1. California Adjusted 2020 Census Total Population by Race/Ethnicity
District
Total
Population Hispanic White Black
American
Indian/ Alaskan
Native Asian
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander Other Race
Two or more
minority race
479,099 299,163 104,349 31,631 1,458 25,419 1,418 2,589 13,072
100%62.4%21.8%6.6%0.3%5.3%0.3%0.5%2.7%
482,661 224,017 153,474 25,805 1,444 56,732 1,285 2,556 17,348
100%46.4%31.8%5.3%0.3%11.8%0.3%0.5%3.6%
487,705 162,326 224,138 25,454 3,284 41,480 1,877 2,614 26,532
100%33.3%46.0%5.2%0.7%8.5%0.4%0.5%5.4%
484,291 261,937 176,768 13,516 2,939 14,981 450 2,209 11,491
100%54.1%36.5%2.8%0.6%3.1%0.1%0.5%2.4%
483,682 253,886 130,000 50,122 2,834 26,206 1,744 2,606 16,284
100%52.5%26.9%10.4%0.6%5.4%0.4%0.5%3.4%
2,417,438 1,201,329 788,729 146,528 11,959 164,818 6,774 12,574 84,727
100%49.7%32.6%6.1%0.5%6.8%0.3%0.5%3.5%
Table 2. California Adjusted 2020 Census Total Population by Race/Ethnicity Over the Age of 18
District
Total
Population
(Over 18)
Hispanic
(Over 18)
White
(Over 18)
Black
(Over 18)
American
Indian/
Alaskan
Native
(Over 18)
Asian
(Over 18)
Hawaiian or
Other
Pacific
Islander
(Over 18)
Other Race
(Over 18)
Two or more
minority
race
(Over 18)
356,348 208,551 88,613 24,755 1,188 21,419 1,053 1,780 8,989
100%58.5%24.9%6.9%0.3%6.0%0.3%0.5%2.5%
359,815 155,065 124,881 20,198 1,133 44,651 1,014 1,795 11,078
100%43.1%34.7%5.6%0.3%12.4%0.3%0.5%3.1%
363,691 109,580 179,452 19,751 2,448 33,049 1,472 1,798 16,141
100%30.1%49.3%5.4%0.7%9.1%0.4%0.5%4.4%
380,793 181,994 162,963 10,726 2,237 12,705 329 1,557 8,282
100%47.8%42.8%2.8%0.6%3.3%0.1%0.4%2.2%
362,114 174,515 111,371 37,737 2,112 22,251 1,305 1,832 10,991
100%48.2%30.8%10.4%0.6%6.1%0.4%0.5%3.0%
1,822,761 829,705 667,280 113,167 9,118 134,075 5,173 8,762 55,481
100%45.5%36.6%6.2%0.5%7.4%0.3%0.5%3.0%
Table 3. CA Adjusted 2020 Census Difference from 2021 Target Supervisorial District Population of 483,488
District Number Percent Percent Spread (Largent - Smallest)
1 4,389 0.91%1.78%
2 827 0.17%
3 -4,217 -0.87%
4 -803 -0.17%
5 -194 -0.04%
1
1
2
3
4
5
5
COUNTY
TOTAL
COUNTY
TOTAL
1
2
3
4
Source: California Statewide Database Public Law (P.L.) 94-171 and US Census Bureau Website, enacted by Congress in December 1975, requires
the Census Bureau to provide states the opportunity to identify the small area geography for which they need datain order to conduct legislative
redistricting.
For more information about Public Law (P.L.) 94-171: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/rdo/summary-
files.html
DRAFT
451
Item 20.
ETOC F Redisticting Boundaries
with 2020 US Census Data
Riverside County
Supervisorial District Summary
California Adjusted Citizen Voting Age Population 2020 US Special Tabulation From the 2015-2019 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS)
District Total
Not
Hispanic
or Latino
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Asian Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Black or
African
American
Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
White Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
White
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Asian and
White
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Black or
African
American
and White
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
Black or
African
American
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Remainder of
Two or More
Race
Responses
Hispanic
or Latino
428,245 180,615 996 20,672 33,058 754 116,734 1,111 3,214 2,312 210 1,590 247,596
100%42.2%0.2%4.8%7.7%0.2%27.3%0.3%0.8%0.5%0.0%0.4%57.8%
433,775 244,618 1,059 40,465 23,956 851 166,301 1,928 4,486 2,461 167 2,610 189,389
100%56.4%0.2%9.3%5.5%0.2%38.3%0.4%1.0%0.6%0.0%0.6%43.7%
457,302 311,024 2,489 29,910 24,198 2,771 232,557 2,684 7,314 3,716 706 4,375 146,380
100%68.0%0.5%6.5%5.3%0.6%50.9%0.6%1.6%0.8%0.2%1.0%32.0%
419,016 223,429 3,055 11,533 15,520 303 186,416 1,472 1,822 1,547 87 1,052 195,411
100%53.3%0.7%2.8%3.7%0.1%44.5%0.4%0.4%0.4%0.0%0.3%46.6%
417,962 216,101 2,580 20,326 49,227 1,082 133,617 1,458 2,323 2,853 98 1,716 201,780
100%51.7%0.6%4.9%11.8%0.3%32.0%0.3%0.6%0.7%0.0%0.4%48.3%
2,156,300 1,175,787 10,179 122,906 145,959 5,761 835,625 8,653 19,159 12,889 1,268 11,343 980,556
100%54.5%0.5%5.7%6.8%0.3%38.8%0.4%0.9%0.6%0.1%0.5%45.5%
District CVAP Total
CVAP Not
Hispanic
or Latino
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Asian
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: White
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
White
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Asian
and White
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
and White
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
Black or
African
American
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
Remainder of
Two or More
Race
Responses
CVAP
Hispanic
or Latino
302,110 147,720 863 17,024 25,791 697 98,301 930 1,809 1,029 177 1,050 154,354
100%48.9%0.3%5.6%8.5%0.2%32.5%0.3%0.6%0.3%0.1%0.3%51.1%
307,592 190,510 842 30,656 18,756 758 132,894 1,586 2,048 1,066 167 1,467 117,281
100%61.9%0.3%10.0%6.1%0.2%43.2%0.5%0.7%0.3%0.1%0.5%38.1%
324,429 236,086 1,984 22,952 18,888 2,037 180,589 1,648 3,072 1,730 453 2,278 88,310
100%72.8%0.6%7.1%5.8%0.6%55.7%0.5%0.9%0.5%0.1%0.7%27.2%
324,042 197,371 2,262 9,162 12,094 208 169,329 1,283 733 728 72 821 126,620
100%60.9%0.7%2.8%3.7%0.1%52.3%0.4%0.2%0.2%0.0%0.3%39.1%
298,525 172,795 1,799 16,608 36,230 701 111,624 1,159 1,397 1,614 95 831 125,678
100%57.9%0.6%5.6%12.1%0.2%37.4%0.4%0.5%0.5%0.0%0.3%42.1%
1,556,698 944,482 7,750 96,402 111,759 4,401 692,737 6,606 9,059 6,167 964 6,447 612,243
100%60.7%0.5%6.2%7.2%0.3%44.5%0.4%0.6%0.4%0.1%0.4%39.3%
2
3
4
5
COUNTY
TOTAL
1
3
4
5
2
Table 3. Citizen Population - (CVAP) 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
1
2
COUNTY
TOTAL
Table 4. Citizen Voting Age Population - (CVAP) 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)DRAFT
452
Item 20.
ETOC F Redisticting Boundaries
with 2020 US Census Data
Riverside County
Supervisorial District Summary
District Total
Not Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Not Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Asian District
DOJ CVAP
Total
DOJ CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
DOJ CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
DOJ CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Asian
61,363 2,107 35,370 23,886 47,446 1,793 26,820 18,833
100%3.4%57.6%38.9%100%2.9%43.7%30.7%
74,355 2,987 26,417 44,951 54,954 2,428 19,822 32,704
100%4.0%35.5%60.5%100%3.3%26.7%44.0%
70,311 5,173 27,914 37,224 50,274 3,632 20,618 26,024
100%7.4%39.7%52.9%100%5.2%29.3%37.0%
34,949 4,527 17,067 13,355 26,262 3,545 12,822 9,895
100%13.0%48.8%38.2%100%10.1%36.7%28.3%
78,767 4,038 52,080 22,649 58,807 2,958 37,844 18,005
100%5.1%66.1%28.8%100%3.8%48.0%22.9%
319,745 18,832 158,848 142,065 237,743 14,356 117,926 105,461
100%5.9%49.7%44.4%100%4.5%36.9%33.0%
3
3 3
4 4
5
Table 5. DOJ Tabulation: Citizen Population (CVAP) 2015-
2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
Table 6. DOJ Tabulation: Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
1 1
2 2
5
COUNTY
TOTAL
COUNTY
TOTAL
For more information about CVAP products, visit https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/voting-rights/cvap.html
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/rdo/technical-documentation/special-tabulation/CVAP_2015-2019_ACS_documentation.pdf
Source: Statewide Database 2015-2019 Citizen Voting Age Population, adjusted to reflect reallocated incarcerated persons, on 2020 Census Blocks.
The original data source for the Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) is the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is an ongoing survey by the
U.S. Census Bureau sent to approximately 250,000 households each month. The ACS estimates used to develop these data were collected from
January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019 utilizing the 2010 Census block groups, which were disaggregated to the 2020 Census blocks by the Statewide
Database.
Because this is a special tabulation of data and not part of the standard data products shown on the Census Bureau’s data.census.gov website, these
estimates are rounded. Therefore, individual categories may not exactly add to the total.DRAFT
453
Item 20.
DRAFT454Item 20.
EOTC G Redisticting Boundaries
with 2020 US Census Data
Riverside County
Supervisorial District Summary
California Adjusted 2020 US Census Public Law File 94-171
Table 1. California Adjusted 2020 Census Total Population by Race/Ethnicity
District
Total
Population Hispanic White Black
American
Indian/ Alaskan
Native Asian
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander Other Race
Two or more
minority race
485,219 296,328 94,989 45,539 1,379 28,596 1,788 2,725 13,875
100%61.1%19.6%9.4%0.3%5.9%0.4%0.6%2.9%
486,754 228,426 152,011 26,703 1,459 56,833 1,287 2,563 17,472
100%46.9%31.2%5.5%0.3%11.7%0.3%0.5%3.6%
483,890 162,043 221,837 25,341 2,956 40,979 1,874 2,595 26,265
100%33.5%45.8%5.2%0.6%8.5%0.4%0.5%5.4%
477,626 253,777 180,794 12,023 2,447 14,526 441 2,204 11,414
100%53.1%37.9%2.5%0.5%3.0%0.1%0.5%2.4%
483,949 260,755 139,098 36,922 3,718 23,884 1,384 2,487 15,701
100%53.9%28.7%7.6%0.8%4.9%0.3%0.5%3.2%
2,417,438 1,201,329 788,729 146,528 11,959 164,818 6,774 12,574 84,727
100%49.7%32.6%6.1%0.5%6.8%0.3%0.5%3.5%
Table 2. California Adjusted 2020 Census Total Population by Race/Ethnicity Over the Age of 18
District
Total
Population
(Over 18)
Hispanic
(Over 18)
White
(Over 18)
Black
(Over 18)
American
Indian/
Alaskan
Native
(Over 18)
Asian
(Over 18)
Hawaiian or
Other
Pacific
Islander
(Over 18)
Other Race
(Over 18)
Two or more
minority
race
(Over 18)
357,128 205,092 80,035 34,718 1,092 23,792 1,303 1,821 9,275
100%57.4%22.4%9.7%0.3%6.7%0.4%0.5%2.6%
362,723 158,164 123,643 21,018 1,151 44,755 1,015 1,810 11,167
100%43.6%34.1%5.8%0.3%12.3%0.3%0.5%3.1%
360,404 109,286 177,447 19,647 2,191 32,631 1,473 1,784 15,945
100%30.3%49.2%5.5%0.6%9.1%0.4%0.5%4.4%
377,418 176,590 166,760 9,603 1,925 12,380 324 1,558 8,278
100%46.8%44.2%2.5%0.5%3.3%0.1%0.4%2.2%
365,088 180,573 119,395 28,181 2,759 20,517 1,058 1,789 10,816
100%49.5%32.7%7.7%0.8%5.6%0.3%0.5%3.0%
1,822,761 829,705 667,280 113,167 9,118 134,075 5,173 8,762 55,481
100%45.5%36.6%6.2%0.5%7.4%0.3%0.5%3.0%
Table 3. CA Adjusted 2020 Census Difference from 2021 Target Supervisorial District Population of 483,488
District Number Percent Percent Spread (Largent - Smallest)
1 -1,731 -0.36%1.89%
2 -3,266 -0.68%
3 -402 -0.08%
4 5,862 1.21%
5 -461 -0.10%
1
5
COUNTY
TOTAL
COUNTY
TOTAL
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
Source: California Statewide Database Public Law (P.L.) 94-171 and US Census Bureau Website, enacted by Congress in December 1975, requires
the Census Bureau to provide states the opportunity to identify the small area geography for which they need datain order to conduct legislative
redistricting.
For more information about Public Law (P.L.) 94-171: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/rdo/summary-
files.html
DRAFT
455
Item 20.
ETOC G Redisticting Boundaries
with 2020 US Census Data
Riverside County
Supervisorial District Summary
California Adjusted Citizen Voting Age Population 2020 US Special Tabulation From the 2015-2019 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS)
District Total
Not
Hispanic
or Latino
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Asian Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Black or
African
American
Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
White Alone
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
White
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Asian and
White
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Black or
African
American
and White
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
Black or
African
American
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Remainder of
Two or More
Race
Responses
Hispanic
or Latino
435,558 191,196 941 22,908 49,727 978 107,306 976 3,432 2,540 136 1,761 244,493
100%43.9%0.2%5.3%11.4%0.2%24.6%0.2%0.8%0.6%0.0%0.4%56.1%
437,590 244,657 1,046 40,800 25,571 851 164,342 1,939 4,471 2,551 182 2,675 192,920
100%55.9%0.2%9.3%5.8%0.2%37.6%0.4%1.0%0.6%0.0%0.6%44.1%
455,071 308,819 2,378 29,849 24,054 2,750 230,773 2,562 7,321 3,720 706 4,383 146,282
100%67.9%0.5%6.6%5.3%0.6%50.7%0.6%1.6%0.8%0.2%1.0%32.1%
410,020 222,507 1,911 10,938 13,984 339 188,940 1,449 1,775 1,469 87 1,046 187,335
100%54.3%0.5%2.7%3.4%0.1%46.1%0.4%0.4%0.4%0.0%0.3%45.7%
418,061 208,608 3,903 18,411 32,623 843 144,264 1,727 2,160 2,609 157 1,478 209,526
100%49.9%0.9%4.4%7.8%0.2%34.5%0.4%0.5%0.6%0.0%0.4%50.1%
2,156,300 1,175,787 10,179 122,906 145,959 5,761 835,625 8,653 19,159 12,889 1,268 11,343 980,556
100%54.5%0.5%5.7%6.8%0.3%38.8%0.4%0.9%0.6%0.1%0.5%45.5%
District CVAP Total
CVAP Not
Hispanic
or Latino
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Asian
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: White
Alone
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
White
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Asian
and White
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
and White
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native and
Black or
African
American
CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
Remainder of
Two or More
Race
Responses
CVAP
Hispanic
or Latino
304,370 152,212 841 18,522 37,390 804 89,192 799 1,778 1,242 121 1,056 152,189
100%50.0%0.3%6.1%12.3%0.3%29.3%0.3%0.6%0.4%0.0%0.3%50.0%
309,854 190,075 824 30,890 19,975 758 131,038 1,600 2,049 1,104 182 1,492 119,775
100%61.3%0.3%10.0%6.4%0.2%42.3%0.5%0.7%0.4%0.1%0.5%38.7%
322,737 234,634 1,872 22,882 18,808 1,997 179,500 1,578 3,060 1,710 453 2,302 88,052
100%72.7%0.6%7.1%5.8%0.6%55.6%0.5%0.9%0.5%0.1%0.7%27.3%
319,291 197,046 1,513 8,800 10,880 243 171,474 1,268 732 704 72 787 122,186
100%61.7%0.5%2.8%3.4%0.1%53.7%0.4%0.2%0.2%0.0%0.2%38.3%
300,446 170,515 2,700 15,308 24,706 599 121,533 1,361 1,440 1,407 136 810 130,041
100%56.8%0.9%5.1%8.2%0.2%40.5%0.5%0.5%0.5%0.0%0.3%43.3%
1,556,698 944,482 7,750 96,402 111,759 4,401 692,737 6,606 9,059 6,167 964 6,447 612,243
100%60.7%0.5%6.2%7.2%0.3%44.5%0.4%0.6%0.4%0.1%0.4%39.3%
2
3
4
5
2
Table 3. Citizen Population - (CVAP) 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
1
2
COUNTY
TOTAL
Table 4. Citizen Voting Age Population - (CVAP) 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
3
4
5
COUNTY
TOTAL
1
DRAFT
456
Item 20.
ETOC G Redisticting Boundaries
with 2020 US Census Data
Riverside County
Supervisorial District Summary
District Total
Not Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Not Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
Not Hispanic
or Latino:
Asian District
DOJ CVAP
Total
DOJ CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino:
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
DOJ CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Black
or African
American
DOJ CVAP Not
Hispanic or
Latino: Asian
80,524 1,917 52,267 26,340 60,572 1,640 38,632 20,300
100%2.4%64.9%32.7%100%2.0%48.0%25.2%
76,378 2,985 28,122 45,271 56,442 2,424 21,079 32,939
100%3.9%36.8%59.3%100%3.2%27.6%43.1%
69,884 4,940 27,774 37,170 49,910 3,450 20,518 25,942
100%7.1%39.7%53.2%100%4.9%29.4%37.1%
31,526 3,360 15,453 12,713 23,897 2,781 11,584 9,532
100%10.7%49.0%40.3%100%8.8%36.7%30.2%
61,433 5,630 35,232 20,571 46,922 4,061 26,113 16,748
100%9.2%57.4%33.5%100%6.6%42.5%27.3%
319,745 18,832 158,848 142,065 237,743 14,356 117,926 105,461
100%5.9%49.7%44.4%100%4.5%36.9%33.0%
3
5
COUNTY
TOTAL
COUNTY
TOTAL
For more information about CVAP products, visit https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/voting-rights/cvap.html
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/rdo/technical-documentation/special-tabulation/CVAP_2015-2019_ACS_documentation.pdf
Table 5. DOJ Tabulation: Citizen Population (CVAP) 2015-
2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
Table 6. DOJ Tabulation: Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS)
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5
Source: Statewide Database 2015-2019 Citizen Voting Age Population, adjusted to reflect reallocated incarcerated persons, on 2020 Census Blocks.
The original data source for the Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) is the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is an ongoing survey by the
U.S. Census Bureau sent to approximately 250,000 households each month. The ACS estimates used to develop these data were collected from
January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019 utilizing the 2010 Census block groups, which were disaggregated to the 2020 Census blocks by the Statewide
Database.
Because this is a special tabulation of data and not part of the standard data products shown on the Census Bureau’s data.census.gov website, these
estimates are rounded. Therefore, individual categories may not exactly add to the total.DRAFT
457
Item 20.
458
Item 20.
459
Item 20.
460
Item 20.
461
Item 20.
462
Item 20.
District 2
District 1
District 5
District 3
District 4
463
Item 20.
CITY OF BEAUMONT
550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223
Phone (951) 769-8520 Fax (951) 769-8526
BeaumontCa.gov
______________________________________________________________________________________
Incorporated November 18, 1912
November __, 2021
Board of Supervisors
Riverside County
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, Ca 92501
Re: Riverside County 2021 Redistricting Plan
Honorable Board of Supervisors,
The Beaumont City Council appreciates the Riverside County Board of Supervisors’ (Board)
efforts to keep the general public and each community updated on the 2021 redistricting plan.
Beaumont Council members understand that this is an exceedingly complex issue that must
strike an acceptable balance to ensure fair and equal representation for all citizens.
Several of the redistricting options published thus far divide the Pass Area amongst multiple
supervisory districts. Pass Area communities face unique challenges and issues, based on our
geographic location and the available transportation corridors currently serving our area. These
challenges are much different from those faced by the other geographic areas. Furthermore,
those who choose to call the Pass Area home share a common identity and expect their local
elected leaders to implement cooperative measures to address shared problems and secure
resources to address them.
Each of us along the IH-10 corridor are now experiencing an explosion of growth and economic
development activity which is blurring our respective municipal boundaries. The need for
coordination and unified leadership is at a premium during such a critical time for the Pass
Area. Divvying up our communities amongst multiple supervisory districts will unnecessarily
fragment our leadership and diminish our voice at a time when it is most needed. The Pass Area
is one of Riverside County’s most dynamic economic engines and it must remain unified to the
benefit of all.
It is the position of the Beaumont City Council that the new redistricting plan must maintain the
Cities of Calimesa, Beaumont, and Banning in the same supervisory district. Beaumont opposes
the redistricting options presented thus far that provide for any such division.
464
Item 20.
Page 2 of 2
Thank you in advance for considering Beaumont’s thoughts on this matter. We look forward to
new redistricting scenarios that respect the needs of the Pass Area and protect the well -being
of all our citizens.
Sincerely,
Mike Lara
Mayor
465
Item 20.
Pending Litigation Against the City (does not include litigation initiated by the City)
1. Christian Lee v. City of Beaumont, Riv. Co. Sup. Case No. RIC 2003005 (Pre-Trial)
2. Charles Peters dba Pioneer Mobile Village v. City of Beaumont et. al., Riv. Co.
Sup. Case No. RIC 1707116 (Appeal)
3. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. City of Beaumont, Riv. Co. Sup.
Case no. CVRI2000635 (Pleading)
4. Ezekwesili Iloputaife, et. al. v. City of Beaumont et. al., EDCV 21-1452-JWH(AGR)
(Pleading)
To: City Council
From: John O. Pinkney, City Attorney
Date: October 20, 2021
Re: List of Pending Litigation Against City of Beaumont
466
Item 21.