Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCC 05.15.2022 Agenda Packet CITY COUNCIL CLOSED & REGULAR SESSION 550 E. Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA Tuesday, March 15, 2022 Closed Session: 4:00 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 - 4:00 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 White, Mayor Pro Tem Martinez, Council Member Fenn, Council Member Santos, Council Member Lara Public Comments Regarding Closed Session 1. Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Steve Fortier v. City of Beaumont, Riv. Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. 2105608 2. Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Pending Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1). One Case: Christian Lee vs. City of Beaumont: Case No. RIC 2003005 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. Agency Designated Representatives: Todd Parton or His Designee. Unrepresented Employees: 1. Administrative Services Director 2. Assistant City Manager 3. Chief of Police 4. City Engineer/Public Works Director 5. Community Development Director 6. Community Services Director 7. Finance Director 8. General Manager of Utilities 9. Police Managers 10. Managers/Professional/Technical 5. Conference with Labor Negotiators - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 City Designated Representatives City Manager Todd Parton and Administrative Services Director Kari Mendoza. Employee Organizations: SEIU Adjourn to Regular Session REGULAR SESSION - 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER 2 Mayor White, Mayor Pro Tem Martinez, Council Member Fenn, Council Member Santos, Council Member Lara 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 Conflict of Interest Disclosure ANNOUNCEMENTS/ RECOGNITION / PROCLAMATIONS / CORRESPONDENCE 1. Presentation by Pastor Brian Burson of Sandals Church in Banning Regarding the Dear California, a Volunteer Service Event Scheduled for April 9, 2022. For more information https://sandalschurch.com/dearcalifornia/ 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 time limit on public comments. There will be no sharing or passing of ti me 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 March 1, 2022. 3. Ratification of Warrants Recommended Action: Ratify Warrants dated: February 25, 2022, and March 4, 2022. 4. Second Reading of Ordinance to Adopt an Amendment to the Four Seasons Specific Plan Recommended Action: Waive the second full reading and adopt by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Adopting an Amendment to the Four Seasons Specific Plan (SP2022-0007).” 5. FY2022 General Fund and Wastewater Budget to Actual through February 2022 Recommended Action: Receive and file the attached reports. 6. Adopt a Resolution to Oppose Initiative 21-0042A1 3 Recommended Action: Waiving the full reading and adopting by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1.” 7. Cancellation of Regular City Council Meeting Scheduled for July 5, 2022 Recommended Action: Discussion and direction to cancel the regular City Council meeting of July 5, 2022. 8. Investment Policy Certification Recommended Action: Receive and file report. PUBLIC HEARINGS Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. 9. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Establishing Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 “Food Trucks” 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 adding Chapter 5.72 “Food Trucks” to the Beaumont Municipal Code.” ACTION ITEMS Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. 10. Accept the Final Recycled Water Reuse Strategy Analysis Report for the City of Beaumont and Provide Direction to City Staff Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council accept this report, select Option 3 as the City’s preferred option, and authorize the City Council’s representatives to initiate a 2 x 2 meeting with the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District. 11. Nvoicepay – Accounts Payable Automation Service Presentation Recommended Action: Receive and file presentation. 12. Consideration of Possible Amendments to Settlement Agreement, Mitigation Measures, and Condition of Approval Relating to the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Recommended Action: This is a discretionary policy decision of the City Council to take action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the following actions relating to the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan: Interpret Mitigation measures “timing trigger” to be at the time of payment of traffic mitigation fees instead of requiring the measures to be completed prior 4 to certificate of occupancy (subject to final approval at a subsequent City Council meeting). Should City Council be willing to consider changing the “timing trigger” for the mitigation measures (i.e., Item 1), approve the following amendment to Condition of Approval 27 set forth in Exhibit B of the Settlement agreement (subject to final approval at a subsequent City Council meeting): 27.c. The City shall not issue any final inspections or certificates of occupancy for the Project until compliance with the improvements contemplated by the Specific Plan set forth in the mitigation measures and approved by the City for the Project to the following streets and intersections: have been completed: the intersections of Beaumont Avenue and Oak Valley Parkway, Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way, Beaumont Avenue and Brookside Avenue and Beaumont Avenue and Cherry Valley Boulevard. Specifically, the improvements will result in compliance with the level of service required in the mitigation measures approved by the City for the Project. Where the mitigation measures permit fair share fees in lieu of construction of improvements, payment of fair share fees shall constitute full compliance with the mitigation measures. Demand a new Traffic Study to the extent City Council agrees to approve Items 1 and 2 above. 13. Re-Establish a Time, Date and Place for Special Workshop Recommended Action: Discuss and establish a time, date and place for a special workshop. 14. Notice of Economic Development Committee Industry Expert Seat Recommended Action: Direct City staff to notice a vacancy for an “industry expert” with specifics of industry of interest and professional background desired. 15. Review of Local Emergency Declaration Established via the Adoption of City of Beaumont Resolution No. 2020-07 Adopted on March 17, 2020 Recommended Action: Take no action and keep the existing declaration of emergency resolution in place, or Direct staff to prepare a resolution stating a local emergency declaration is no longer required to be presented for adoption at a future meeting. 16. Approval of City Attorney Invoices for the Month of February 2022 Recommended Action: Approve invoices in the amount of $154,376.60. LEGISLATIVE UPDATES AND DISCUSSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE Economic Development Committee Report Out and City Council Direction 5 CITY TREASURER REPORT Finance and Audit Committee Report Out and City Council Direction CITY CLERK REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT 17. List of Pending Litigation CITY MANAGER REPORT 18. Department Project List Updates February 2022 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL REPORTS - Lara - Santos - Fenn - Martinez - White 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, April 5, 2022, at 5:00 p.m., unless otherwise posted. 6 3/10/22, 6:26 PM Dear California - Sandals Church | Sandals Church https://sandalschurch.com/dearcalifornia/1/3 Hear about Dear California? Register here Dear California is a movement across the state to show real love in a tangible way. We will mobilize thousands of volunteers on Saturday April 9, 2022 to complete community projects across the dozen cities where Sandals Church campuses are located. WHEN: April 9 WHERE: Communities across California COST: $10 (Covers lunch and a volunteer t-shirt) SIGN UP TO VOLUNTEER CONTACT US DOWNLOAD OUR APP TAKE A NEXT STEP GIVING  7 Item 1. 3/10/22, 6:26 PM Dear California - Sandals Church | Sandals Church https://sandalschurch.com/dearcalifornia/2/3 We want to do our best to show our city and county officials, small business owners and fellow community volunteers that Sandals Church loves our city and cares about the things that matter most to them. If you would like to be a part of showing your love for your community, sign up today! A few examples of projects we are going to take on are: Park/roadway beautification Pop up tent for free haircuts to low income families Graffiti cleanup Homeless outreach and wellness checks   Directions & Service Times DARK MODE VISIT Times & Locations Watch Online SandalsChurch.tv Sandalskids.tv MEDIA Sermons Podcast GET CONNECTED Start the Growth Path Volunteer on a Team Find a Group B M b ABOUT Our Vision Our Beliefs Leadership 8 Item 1. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED & REGULAR SESSION 550 E. Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA Tuesday, March 01, 2022 Closed Session: 5:00 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 MINUTES CLOSED SESSION - 4:00 PM A Closed Session of the City Council / Beaumont Financing Authority / Beaumont Utility Au thority / 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 negotiations, 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 at 4:03 p.m. Present: Mayor White, Mayor Pro Tem Martinez (present at 4:15 p.m.), Council Member Fenn (present at 5:35 p.m.), Council Member Santos, Council Member Lara Public Comments Regarding Closed Session No comments. 1. Conference with Labor Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. Agency Designated Representatives: Todd Parton or His Designee. Unrepresented Employees: 1. Administrative Services Director 2. Assistant City Manager 3. Chief of Police 4. City Engineer/Public Works Director 5. Community Development Director 6. Community Services Director 9 Item 2. 7. Finance Director 8. General Manager of Utilities 9. Police Managers 10. Managers/Professional/Technical No reportable action. 2. Conference with Labor Negotiators - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 City Designated Representatives City Manager Todd Parton and Administrative Services Director Kari Mendoza. Employee Organizations: Police Management and SEIU No reportable action. Adjourn to Regular Session REGULAR SESSION - 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER at 6:56 p.m. Present: Mayor White, Mayor Pro Tem Martinez, Council Member Fenn, Council Member Santos, Council Member Lara Report out from Closed Session: see above Action on any Closed Session Items: None Action of any Requests for Excused Absence: None Pledge of Allegiance Adjustments to the Agenda: Request to table Item 9. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None ANNOUNCEMENTS/ RECOGNITION / PROCLAMATIONS / CORRESPONDENCE 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 time 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. No comments. 10 Item 2. 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. 1. Approval of Minutes Recommended Action: Approve Minutes dated February 15, 2022. 2. Ratification of Warrants Recommended Action: Ratify Warrants dated: February 10, 2022, and February 17, 2022. 3. Re-Ratification of Local Emergency and Re-Authorizing the Use of Teleconferencing to Conduct Public Meetings 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 March 1, 2022, through April 5, 2022, Pursuant to Provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act.” 4. Request for City Council to Accept the Street and Sewer Improvements Associated with Parcel Map No. 34209 into the Publicly Maintained System and Exonerate Maintenance Bond No. 107174931 Recommended Action: Accept the Street Improvements associated with Parcel Map No. 34209, Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Certificate of Acceptance, and Authorize City staff to issue a Bond Exoneration Letter for Maintenance Bond No. 107174931. 5. Second Reading to Approve an Addition to Municipal Code Section 1.16 “General Penalty” Adding Penalties for the Possession and Use of Illegal Fireworks Recommended Action: Waive the second full reading and adopt by title only, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, Amending the Beaumont Municipal Code to Amend Chapter 1.16 Entitled ‘General Penalty’ and Making Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.” 11 Item 2. Motion by Council Member Santos Second by Council Member Lara To approve the Consent Calendar Approved by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. 6. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Resolution Establishing a Solid Waste SB 1383 Organics Waiver Application Fee City Attorney John Pinkney recused himself for potential conflict of interest. Public Hearing opened at 7:07 p.m. No comments Public Hearing closed at 7:08 p.m. Motion by Council Member Lara Second by Mayor White To waive the full reading and approve by title only, “Resolution Establishing an Organics Waste Service Waiver Application Fee for Commercial Premises in Accordance with City of Beaumont Municipal Code Section 8.12.180.” Approved by a unanimous vote. 7. Public Hearing and First Reading of An Ordinance to Adopt an Amendment to the Four Seasons Specific Plan (SP2022-0007) Public Hearing opened at 7:12 p.m. B. Ginnetti - Representing the Four Seasons HOA, supported the amendment due to the current issues mentioned. Public Hearing closed at 7:13 p.m. Motion by Council Member Lara Second by Council Member Santos To waive the first full reading and approve by title only, “An Ordinance of the City Council of Beaumont, California, Adopting an Amendment to the Four Seasons Specific Plan (SP2022-0007).” Approved by a unanimous vote. 8. Public Hearing to Adopt California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the West Side Fire Station Located on the East Side of Potrero Boulevard, North of SR 60 Freeway and South of San Timoteo Canyon Road 12 Item 2. Public Hearing opened at 7:19 p.m. No comments Public Hearing closed at 7:22 p.m. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Martinez Second by Council Member Fenn To adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the West Side Fire Station project, and direct staff to prepare a Notice of Determination to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk Recorder. Approved by a unanimous vote. ACTION ITEMS Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. 9. Approval of Compensation Plan and Salary Table Item tabled to a future meeting. 10. Rangel Park Update Suggestions of the smaller version of the basketball court, fencing only around the playground area and partial of the basketball court. Consensus to move forward with the current plan and contemplate a splash pad feature at a later time. 11. Request to Authorize Grant Writing Assistance to Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. in the Amount of $15,000 Motion by Council Member Lara Second by Mayor White To approve a one-time request for grant writing assistance with Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. in the amount of $15,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Approved by a unanimous vote. 12. PARS 115 Trust Investment Policy Motion by Council Member Lara Second by Mayor White To approve PARS 115 Trust Investment Policy. Approved by a unanimous vote. 13 Item 2. 13. Award a Professional Services Agreement to Dudek, Inc., for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services Related to the Maximum Benefit Monitoring Program Motion by Council Member Lara Second by Mayor White To award a Professional Services Agreement to Dudek, Inc., for groundwater and surface water monitoring services for three years in the amount not to exceed $52,330 in year one, $53,900 in year two, and $55,500 in year three. Approved by a unanimous vote. 14. Set Time, Date and Place for Special Workshop Budget Workshop scheduled for April 21, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. 15. Assign and Approve a Designated City Council Member to Participate in the Review and Recommendation of Proposals for Landscape Architecture and Engineering Design Services for the Stewart Park Improvement Project Consensus to designate the City Treasurer and a sub-committee of the Finance and Audit Committee to participate in the review and recommendation of proposals for landscape architecture and engineering design services for the Stewart Park Improvement Project and all other RFPs with exception to Public Works bid which require an award to the lowest responsive bidder. 16. Consider a Resolution to Oppose Initiative 21-0042A1 Consensus to approve the resolution. 17. Discussion of Assembly Bill 571 and Campaign Contribution Limits Consensus to take no action at this time and follow state campaign limitations. 18. Economic Development Committee Vacancy of Community Member Seat Motion by Mayor White Second by Council Member Lara To direct City staff to notice the partial-term vacancy on the Economic Development Committee for the “Non-Business Community Member” and “Alternate” seats. Approved by a unanimous vote. 14 Item 2. LEGISLATIVE UPDATES AND DISCUSSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE Economic Development Committee meeting will be held next week. CITY TREASURER REPORT Finance and Audit Committee meeting will be held next week. CITY CLERK REPORT No report. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report. CITY MANAGER REPORT Shared a printed Capital Improvement Project booklet printed for distribution. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL REPORTS Lara - No report. Santos - Attended the Mickelson Park ribbon cutting. Fenn - No report. Martinez - No report. White - Attended the Four Season's National Night Out, Mickelson Park ribbon cutting, and Jessie's Hidden Garage ribbon cutting. ADJOURNMENT at 8:56 p.m. 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, March 15 2022 , at 5:00 p.m., unless otherwise posted. 15 Item 2. 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. 37 Item 3. 38 Item 3. 39 Item 3. 40 Item 3. 41 Item 3. 42 Item 3. 43 Item 3. 44 Item 3. 45 Item 3. 46 Item 3. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Christina Taylor, Community Development Director DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance to Adopt an Amendment to the Four Seasons Specific Plan Background and Analysis: The Four Seasons Specific Plan (Plan), originally known as the Hovchild Specific Plan was approved in 1989. The Plan was later amended to be called the Four Seasons Specific Plan. The entire project was approved as an “active adult” community, restricted to persons of 55 years of age or older. The Four Seasons community is located west of Highland Springs Avenue and south of Potrero Boulevard. Surrounding land uses include the Sun Lakes residential community in Banning to the east; the Seneca Springs residential community to the west; the Loma Linda Medical Center to the north; and vacant lands and the Potrero Creek open space preserve to the south. The Four Seasons Specific Plan is now built out. There are a variety of lots ranging in size from a minimum of 2,600 square feet to greater than 6,300 square feet. The minimum front yard setbacks range from a minimum 7 feet to a minimum of 20 feet. Many of the homes built earlier in the development are on large lots with greater setbacks. The newer homes have been constructed on smaller lots with much smaller setbacks. Throughout the years, City staff and the Four Seasons Home Owners Association Board (HOA) have worked with many home owners on tree removal issues. Typical issues requiring tree removals are roots affecting pipes and trees causing roof damage. Due to many of the affected sites having no alternative location for planting a replacement tree without incurring similar damage again in the future, City staff is recommending a change to the front yard landscaping requirements in the Four Seasons Specific Plan. 47 Item 4. Citywide, landscape regulations vary based on area, however, a minimum of two trees in the front yard of a single-family residence is a municipal code requirement. Specific plans tend to have their own front yard landscaping requirements. On page IV-66 in the Four Seasons Specific Plan reads as follows: 11. Front Yard Landscaping a. The Developer/Builder will provide full front yard landscaping and automatic irrigation systems for all homes subject to City approval. Front yard landscape design and installation in the Sundance Specific Plan shall be subject to the Landscaping Standards as set forth in Title 17 of the Beaumont Municipal Code, or pursuant to subsequent requirements, as deemed applicable by the City of Beaumont. b. Landscape areas shall be automatically irrigated and planted in an appropriate manner, which meets or exceeds industry standards, and shall comply with the design intent and minimum set forth in these guidelines. c. All lots shall provide for a minimum of one 15 gallon front yard tree and one 15 gallon accent tree. City staff is recommending the following changes: 11. Front Yard Landscaping a. The Developer/Builder will provide full front yard landscaping and automatic irrigation systems for all homes subject to City approval. Front yard landscape design and installation in the Sundance Four Seasons Specific Plan shall be subject to the Landscaping Standards as set forth in Title 17 of the Beaumont Municipal Code, or pursuant to subsequent requirements, as deemed applicable by the City of Beaumont. b. Landscape areas shall be automatically irrigated and planted in an appropriate manner, which meets or exceeds industry standards, and shall comply with the design intent and minimum set forth in these guidelines. c. All lots shall provide for a minimum of one 15 gallon front yard tree and one 15 gallon accent tree. The requirement for maintaining two trees may be waived if one of the following conditions are met: 1. The tree(s) has been removed due to property maintenance issues; or 48 Item 4. 2. The front yard depth is less than 20 feet The proposed changes to the Plan are a result of City staff working with representatives of the HOA. The proposed change, not requiring trees to be replaced, given certain requirements, will reduce some of the challenges homeowners face regarding property maintenance. This proposed amendment was presented at the City’s Planning Commission meeting on February 22, 2022. A representative from the HOA was in attendance and spoke in favor of the amendment. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. Fiscal Impact: Cost to prepare this staff report and changes to the specific plan are approximately $500. Recommended Action: Waive the second full reading and adopt by title only “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Adopting an Amendment to the Four Seasons Specific Plan (SP2022-0007).” Attachments: A. Four Seasons Specific Plan page IV-66 redline B. Ordinance 49 Item 4. 10. Common Drive Lanes Common drive lanes will have intermittent landscape areas located outside of the 25’ right-of-way as part of individual lot landscaping or common area landscaping. 11. Front Yard Landscaping a. The Developer/Builder will provide full front yard landscaping and automatic irrigation systems for all homes subject to City approval. Front yard landscape design and installation in the Sundance Four Seasons Specific Plan shall be subject to the Landscaping Standards as set forth in Title 17 of the Beaumont Municipal Code, or pursuant to subsequent requirements, as deemed applicable by the City of Beaumont. b. Landscape areas shall be automatically irrigated and planted in an appropriate manner, which meets or exceeds industry standards, and shall comply with the design intent and minimum set forth in these guidelines. All lots shall provide for a minimum of one 15 gallon front yard tree and one 15 gallon accent tree. The requirement for maintaining two trees may be waived if one of the following conditions are met: 1. The tree(s) has been removed due to property maintenance issues; or 2. The front yard depth is less than 20 feet F. WALLS AND FENCES 1. The wall and fence design criteria is intended to provide variety and privacy for each lot while providing continuity of design within Four Seasons at Beaumont. Refer to the Architectural Guidelines section for all allowable materials. All wall and fence heights are measured from the highest-grade elevation on either side of the wall or fence. • Front Yard: Fencing and walls may not exceed 42 inches in height when located within the required front yard setback except as otherwise allowed in the Specific Plan Development Regulations (Section V). Fencing and walls between the edge of the setback and a dwelling unit shall not exceed six (6) feet in height and may be solid or transparent. • Side Yard: Solid fencing is permitted to a maximum height of six (6) feet between the front yard setback and rear yard property line. • Rear Yard: Fencing along rear yards and top of slope shall be a maximum of six (6) feet in height. • Sound Attenuation: When required for sound attenuation, solid walls in side and rear yards may exceed six (6) feet in height. 50 Item 4. SECTION IV – DESIGN GUIDELINES IV-66 February 2016 51 Item 4. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FOUR SEASONS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP2022-0007) WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Four Seasons Specific Plan in 1989; and WHEREAS, the City has proposed an amendment to the Four Seasons Specific Plan in order to reduce some of the challenges home owners in the age restricted, senior community face regarding property maintenance; and WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were conducted on this matter as required by law by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2022, and the City Council on March 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Four Seasons Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Council has amended the text of the Four Seasons Specific Plan area to allow a change in the landscape requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Beaumont has reviewed the reasons for the recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission as described above; THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds that the amendment to the Four Seasons Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Beaumont. SECTION 2: The amendment to the Four Seasons Specific Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby approved. SECTION 3: The City Council hereby finds that the Environmental Impact Report, certified by the City Council in 1989, complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and this change poses no impact upon the environment. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage and within fifteen (15) days after its passage the City Clerk shall cause a summary to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Beaumont, in a manner prescribed by law for publishing of ordinances of said City. MOVED AND PASSED upon first reading this 1st day of March, 2022, by the following roll call vote: 52 Item 4. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: MOVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of March, 2022, upon second reading by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lloyd White, Mayor Attest: ______________________ Nicole Wheelwright, Deputy City Clerk Approved as to form: _______________________ John O. Pinkney, City Attorney 53 Item 4. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: FY2022 General Fund and Wastewater Budget to Actual through February 2022 Background and Analysis: City staff has updated the analysis of the General Fund and Wastewater Fund for FY2022 with results through February 2022. General Fund Analysis:  Six months of sales tax has been received and has surpassed the budgeted projection, City staff is working with HDL to determine if the most recent payment is one-time in nature or will be a continuous revenue;  Other taxes include motor vehicle in-lieu of property tax which has recorded one of two payments and is trending higher than budget;  Increased building permit activity trending higher than budget;  Investment earnings are trending below budget;  17 of 26 pay periods have been reported and costs are trending lower than budget;  Utility costs are trending high; and  Contractual services are trending lower than budget. The first quarter fire service invoice has been paid and was $914,004.51. The attached report (Attachment A) provides preliminary estimates reflecting the initial eight months of FY2022. Estimates will be reviewed and revised as actual f iscal activity is recorded. Property tax is received in January and May of each year. Six months of sales tax has been received and has outperformed forecasts. Building permit activity is also trending high however other permit activity will be decreased due to a change in deposit accounting. Investment income remains lower than budget and will be closely monitored. Personnel costs are trending to have a savings; however, recruitment is trending high. On August 3, 2021, City Council approved a budget amendment for 54 Item 5. unspent prior year appropriations and reappropriated $214,799 for FY2022. This allows for $741,845 of available funds for City Council to appropriate throughout the year. Wastewater Fund Analysis:  Three of six utility billings recorded and trending lower than budget,  17 of 26 pay periods recorded and costs are trending lower than budget,  Utilities are trending higher than budget, and  One of two debt service payments have been recorded. Based on year-end projections the Wastewater Fund is trending to have approximately $369k to be retained for utility reserves for FY2022. This is driven by savings in both personnel and operating costs. Fiscal Impact: City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $375. Recommended Action: Receive and file the attached reports. Attachments: A. General Fund Budget to Actual through February 2022 B. Wastewater Fund Budget to Actual through February 2022 55 Item 5. Budget Comparison ReportCity of Beaumont, CAGeneral Fund Budget to Actual through February 2022Beginning Fund Balance17.5M Parent Budget  2019‐2020YTD ActivityThrough Per  2020‐2021YTD ActivityThrough Per  2021‐2022YTD ActivityThrough Per  2021‐2022V3  FY2022 Estimate NotesCategory: 40 ‐ TAXES400 ‐ Real Property Taxes 3,147,077.24          3,650,483.05          3,861,138.22          6,516,588.00         6,703,535.00 403 ‐ Personal Property Taxes 254,416.12             210,630.22             207,936.32             277,822.00            221,115.00 409 ‐ Sales Taxes 3,020,074.94          3,805,493.06          10,892,909.13       7,402,550.00         16,744,552.00 Received 4th QTR payment and have surpassed budget420 ‐ Other Taxes 3,661,672.74          4,158,841.59          4,596,600.93          8,462,873.00         8,663,382.00 Received 1st payment of VLFTotal Category: 40 ‐ TAXES: 10,083,241.04       11,825,447.92       19,558,584.60       22,659,833.00      32,332,584.00 Category: 41 ‐ LICENSES430 ‐ Business Licenses 147,132.91             215,980.53             146,921.54             405,000.00            402,635.00 Total Category: 41 ‐ LICENSES: 147,132.91             215,980.53             146,921.54             405,000.00            402,635.00 Category: 42 ‐ PERMITS450 ‐ Building Permits 1,554,648.42          1,052,514.59          2,262,494.54          2,857,250.00         3,218,114.00 Continued increase in building permit activity453 ‐ Inspections 127,671.83             197,075.70             31,375.00               376,200.00            113,520.00 456 ‐ Other Permits 281,007.66             330,841.60             457,259.77             746,575.00            685,889.00 515 ‐ Public Works ‐                           ‐                           6,539.98                 ‐                          6,540.00 Total Category: 42 ‐ PERMITS: 1,963,327.91         1,580,431.89         2,757,669.29         3,980,025.00        4,024,063.00 Category: 43 ‐ FRANCHISE FEES406 ‐ Franchise Fees 6,870,475.49          1,876,200.76          1,811,591.66          3,111,474.00         3,148,051.00 Total Category: 43 ‐ FRANCHISE FEES: 6,870,475.49         1,876,200.76         1,811,591.66         3,111,474.00        3,148,051.00 Category: 45 ‐ INTERGOVERNMENTAL465 ‐ State ‐                           ‐                           ‐                           ‐                          - 470 ‐ Local 2,549.65                 ‐                           ‐                           ‐                          - Total Category: 45 ‐ INTERGOVERNMENTAL: 2,549.65                 ‐                           ‐                           ‐                          - Category: 47 ‐ CHARGES FOR SERVICE500 ‐ Sanitation 112,614.53             122,138.50             (23,189.88)              ‐                          505 ‐ Animal Control 70,360.27               74,001.34               57,434.25               111,564.00            86,151.00 510 ‐ Community Development 4,386.00                 3,666.00                 2,742.00                 6,135.00                4,113.00 515 ‐ Public Works 7,379.00                 48,958.06               63,913.44               15,500.00              95,870.00 525 ‐ Abatements 39,612.33               52,656.40               57,699.63               67,399.00              86,549.00 530 ‐ Public Safety 158,752.90             181,533.41             325,179.29             611,696.00            563,452.00 535 ‐ Facilities 86,312.06               63,163.37               126,060.97             131,020.00            189,090.00 540 ‐ Programs 75,282.00               500.00                    5,503.00                 18,750.00              8,254.00 545 ‐ Other 32,335.45               76,411.20               92,920.39               280,050.00            139,380.00 Total Category: 47 ‐ CHARGES FOR SERVICE: 587,034.54             623,028.28             708,263.09             1,242,114.00        1,172,859.00 56Item 5. Category: 50 ‐ FINES AND FORFEITURES555 ‐ Vehicle 47,460.99               43,262.17               59,805.72               76,608.00              89,858.00 557 ‐ Other 25,320.72               9,120.04                 28,034.43               52,195.00              42,051.00 Total Category: 50 ‐ FINES AND FORFEITURES: 72,781.71               52,382.21               87,840.15               128,803.00            131,909.00 Category: 53 ‐ COST RECOVERY465 ‐ State 24,854.02               ‐                           15,159.44               20,000.00              22,738.00 565 ‐ Other Income 494,809.85             128,269.75             299,382.56             432,500.00            449,073.00 Total Category: 53 ‐ COST RECOVERY: 519,663.87             128,269.75             314,542.00             452,500.00            471,811.00 Category: 54 ‐ MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES560 ‐ Investment Earnings 76,555.03               47,101.45               18,455.61               275,000.00            41,650.00 Investment earnings below budget565 ‐ Other Income 26,880.14               27,022.45               149,708.64             34,000.00              125,620.00 Total Category: 54 ‐ MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES: 103,435.17             74,123.90               168,164.25             309,000.00            167,270.00 Category: 58 ‐ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES595 ‐ Sale of Assets 13,417.10               ‐                           2,205.98                 ‐                          2,206.00 599 ‐ Other (31.75)                     (26.99)                     89.11                       ‐                          89.00 Total Category: 58 ‐ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: 13,385.35               (26.99)                     2,295.09                 ‐                          2,295.00 Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS900 ‐ Transfers 1,408,140.30          5,046,491.66          3,874,754.66          7,859,575.00         7,859,575.00 All transfers expected to be madeTotal Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS: 1,408,140.30         5,046,491.66         3,874,754.66         7,859,575.00        7,859,575.00 Total Revenue 21,771,167.94       21,422,329.91       29,430,626.33       40,148,324.00       49,713,052.00      Category: 60 ‐ PERSONNEL SERVICES600 ‐ SALARIES AND WAGES 7,743,411.85          8,002,640.41          9,147,462.05          14,823,198.00      14,788,583.00 17 of 26 pay periods recorded610 ‐ BENEFITS 4,882,057.24          4,006,202.51          4,138,405.56          6,577,935.00         6,329,325.00 615 ‐ OTHER 166,554.93             176,349.83             198,559.64             304,570.00            303,679.00 699 ‐ OTHER 20,762.19               20,913.96               22,964.87               95,850.00              95,850.00 Total Category: 60 ‐ PERSONNEL SERVICES: 12,812,786.21       12,206,106.71       13,507,392.12       21,801,553.00      21,517,437.00 Category: 65 ‐ OPERATING COSTS615 ‐ OTHER 24,506.06               34,485.20               43,380.85               35,000.00              65,070.00 650 ‐ UTILITIES 1,123,659.87          1,134,856.85          1,241,117.66          1,624,392.00         2,127,629.00 Utility costs trending high655 ‐ ADMINISTRATIVE 272,015.89             294,343.36             328,898.29             642,892.00            595,196.00 660 ‐ FLEET COSTS 266,687.22             254,819.18             314,476.26             415,389.00            581,653.00 665 ‐ PROGRAM COSTS 468,478.87             465,213.81             349,474.35             750,250.00            624,211.00 670 ‐ REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 241,545.06             440,994.63             372,166.98             885,627.00            664,890.00 675 ‐ SUPPLIES 184,658.37             138,408.07             346,182.55             998,261.00            822,823.00 680 ‐ SPECIAL SERVICES 491,902.40             144,689.86             384,397.87             906,200.00            660,790.00 690 ‐ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,723,121.66          2,844,388.13          2,591,752.36          7,813,297.00         7,126,901.00 1 of 4 Fire invoices recorded 697 ‐ ADMIN OVERHEAD (375,000.00)           ‐                           3,498.49                 ‐                          - 699 ‐ OTHER 1,163,956.84          1,552,757.41          1,833,097.71          1,955,874.00         1,873,752.00 Total Category: 65 ‐ OPERATING COSTS: 6,585,532.24         7,304,956.50         7,808,443.37         16,027,182.00      15,142,915.00 57Item 5. Category: 70 ‐ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS700 ‐ EQUIPMENT 36,414.67               52,482.37               251,889.73             344,751.00            344,751.00 703 ‐ FURNITURE 6,465.81                 ‐                           ‐                           ‐                          705 ‐ VEHICLE 209,690.26             318,231.02             470,213.62             848,626.00            848,626.00 710 ‐ STRUCTURE ‐                           ‐                           125,000.00             ‐                          Total Category: 70 ‐ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: 252,570.74             370,713.39             847,103.35             1,193,377.00        1,193,377.00 Category: 77 ‐ CONTINGENCY770 ‐ CONTINGENCY ‐                           ‐                           24,500.00               150,000.00            150,000.00 Total Category: 77 ‐ CONTINGENCY:‐                           ‐                           24,500.00               150,000.00            150,000.00 Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS900 ‐ Transfers 5,527.53                 270,954.99             ‐                           449,166.00            449,166.00 All transfers expected to be madeTotal Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS: 5,527.53                 270,954.99             ‐                           449,166.00            449,166.00 Total Expenses 19,656,416.72 20,152,731.59 22,187,438.84 39,621,278.00 38,452,895.00 Total Fund - 100 General Fund 2,114,751.22 1,269,598.32 7,243,187.49 527,046.00 11,260,157.00 Add Back Reappropriation of Unspent Funds 214,799.00 214,799.00 Fund Over(Under) Budget741,845.00 11,474,956.00 Estimated Ending Fund Balance$28.9m58Item 5. Budget Comparison ReportCity of Beaumont, CABudget to Actual through February 2022Beginning Fund Balance $6.4m Parent Budget  2019‐2020YTD ActivityThrough Per  2020‐2021YTD ActivityThrough Per  2021‐2022YTD ActivityThrough Per  2021‐2022V3  FY2022 Estimate NotesCategory: 42 ‐ PERMITS453 ‐ Inspections ‐                       ‐                       150.00                ‐                       150.00 Total Category: 42 ‐ PERMITS: ‐                       ‐                       150.00                ‐                       150.00 Category: 50 ‐ FINES AND FORFEITURES557 ‐ Other 1,000.00             1,945.93             ‐                       5,000.00             5,000.00 Total Category: 50 ‐ FINES AND FORFEITURES: 1,000.00             1,945.93             ‐                       5,000.00             5,000.00 Category: 53 ‐ COST RECOVERY565 ‐ Other Income 6,236.10             ‐                       283.28                5,000.00             3,000.00 Total Category: 53 ‐ COST RECOVERY:6,236.10             ‐                       283.28                5,000.00             3,000.00 Category: 54 ‐ MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES560 ‐ Investment Earnings 26,906.66           15,155.56           5,293.33             25,000.00           25,000.00 Total Category: 54 ‐ MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES:26,906.66           15,155.56           5,293.33             25,000.00          25,000.00 Category: 56 ‐ PROPRIETARY REVENUES570 ‐ WasteWater 5,062,238.22     5,286,134.08     5,806,120.68     12,300,500.00   12,153,650.00 3 of 6 billings recorded, trending lower than budgetTotal Category: 56 ‐ PROPRIETARY REVENUES:5,062,238.22     5,286,134.08     5,806,120.68     12,300,500.00  12,153,650.00 Category: 58 ‐ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES599 ‐ Other 780.00                ‐                       1,480.00             ‐                       - Total Category: 58 ‐ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: 780.00                ‐                       1,480.00             ‐                       - Total Revenue 5,097,160.98     5,303,235.57     5,813,327.29     12,335,500.00   12,186,800.00      59Item 5. Category: 60 ‐ PERSONNEL SERVICES600 ‐ SALARIES AND WAGE 716,964.83        721,735.16        954,155.53        1,743,067.00     1,627,341.00 17 of 26 pay periods recorded610 ‐ BENEFITS 230,376.67        220,704.25        320,829.59        648,237.00        506,236.00 615 ‐ OTHER 12,005.81           11,065.42           14,279.26           24,103.00           22,057.00 699 ‐ OTHER 695.37                1,898.76             1,860.24             12,300.00           12,300.00 Total Category: 60 ‐ PERSONNEL SERVICES:960,042.68        955,403.59        1,291,124.62     2,427,707.00     2,167,934.00 Category: 65 ‐ OPERATING COSTS615 ‐ OTHER ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       - 650 ‐ UTILITIES 537,655.67        567,371.10        543,576.36        767,796.00        931,845.19 Utilities Trending High655 ‐ ADMINISTRATIVE 93,379.92           152,343.52        122,722.51        187,475.00        184,083.00 660 ‐ FLEET COSTS 18,233.24           25,000.62           32,017.91           34,820.00           54,887.00 670 ‐ REPAIRS AND MAINTE39,424.46           23,539.46           50,336.45           96,200.00           86,291.00 675 ‐ SUPPLIES 127,028.06        215,412.06        281,407.77        553,900.00        472,111.00 690 ‐ CONTRACTUAL SERVI 470,442.47        511,265.48        615,741.15        1,318,816.00     1,205,365.00 Contractual services trending lower than budget697 ‐ ADMIN OVERHEAD 325,000.00        ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       699 ‐ OTHER 90,567.69           59,373.30           183,988.70        562,106.00        406,352.00 Total Category: 65 ‐ OPERATING COSTS: 1,701,731.51     1,554,305.54     1,829,790.85     3,521,113.00     3,340,934.18 Category: 70 ‐ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS700 ‐ EQUIPMENT ‐                       93,410.86           223,549.92        95,000.00           321,026.00 705 ‐ VEHICLE ‐                       ‐                       148,927.84        405,582.00        365,291.00 750 ‐ OTHER ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       263,693.00        - Total Category: 70 ‐ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: ‐                       93,410.86           372,477.76        764,275.00        686,317.00 Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS900 ‐ Transfers 3,013,214.96     3,496,843.75     3,062,650.90     5,622,405.00     5,622,405.00 All transfers exected to be madeTotal Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS: 3,013,214.96     3,496,843.75     3,062,650.90     5,622,405.00     5,622,405.00 Total Expense 5,674,989.15     6,099,963.74     6,556,044.13     12,335,500.00   11,817,590.17      Total Fund 700 - Wastewater Fund (577,828.17) (796,728.17) (742,716.84) - 369,209.83 Estimated Ending Fund Balance $6.7m60Item 5. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution to Oppose Initiative 21-0042A1 Background and Analysis: At its meeting of March 1, 2022, City Council agreed to pass a resolution opposing Initiative 21-0042A1. This resolution is presented for final consideration and action. The Office of the Attorney General for the State of California has received Initiative No. 21-0042A1 titled “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.” A copy of the initiative is included in Attachment B. The League of California Cities (League) is requesting that municipalities pass resolutions of opposition to this initiative due to the fact that their analysis shows it will limit voter input, implement stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and make it more difficult to hold State and local violators accountable. A legal summary has been provided by the League (Attachment C) which summarizes the limits to voter authority and accountability, restrictions on local fee authority and the provision of services, restrictions on governmental authority to issue fines and penalties, and restrictions on local taxing authorities’ abilities to provide services. In addition to its legal analysis, the League has sent two more documents that discuss the fiscal impacts of the Initiative (Attachment D) and tax loopholes that would be created (Attachment E). Fiscal Impact: City staff estimates it cost approximately $146 to prepare this report. Recommended Action: 61 Item 6. W aiving the full reading and adopting by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1.” Attachments: A. Resolution – Opposition to Initiative 21-0042A1 B. Initiative 21-0042A1 C. League of California Legal Analysis – Initiative 21-0042A1 D. League of California Cities Fiscal Analysis – Initiative 21-0042A1 E. League of California Cities Tax Loophole Analysis – Initiative 21-0042A1 62 Item 6. RESOLUTION NO. 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING INITIATIVE 21-0042A1 WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot; and WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources; and WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and WHEREAS, the measure makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to state and local services at risk, and could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and WHEREAS, the measure would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Beaumont opposes Initiative 21-0042A1. THEREFORE, BE IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Beaumont will join the NO on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state. We direct staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at BallotMeasures@calcities.org. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 15th day of March, 2022, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 63 Item 6. ATTEST: _______________________________ Lloyd White, Mayor _______________________________ Deputy City Clerk 64 Item 6. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Cancellation of Regular City Council Meeting Scheduled for July 5, 2022 Background and Analysis: The first regular meeting of the City Council in July falls on July 5. Due to the proximity to the Independence Day holiday, it is proposed that the July 5 meeting be cancelled. Fiscal Impact: City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $98. Recommended Action: Discussion and direction to cancel the regular City Council meeting of July 5, 2022. 65 Item 7. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Investment Policy Certification Background and Analysis: On May 18, 2021, City Council approved a revised City of Beaumont Investment Policy. City staff submitted the investment policy to the California Municipal Treasurers Association (CMTA) Certification Program and is pleased to present to City Council the certification that has been received. According to CMTA the benefits of having the investment policy certified include the following:  Trust, confidence and verification to the governing body that the policy has been reviewed and certified by a professional organization within California;  The policy has been reviewed by fellow CMTA members, many of which have earned the Certified California Municipal Treasurers (CCMT) designation;  To show transparency of the governing body to the public;  To demonstrate that due diligence was performed on the investment policy;  California Government Code sections are included (cited) in policy;  Assist to satisfy auditors when reviewing the investment policy; and  Eighteen areas of investment policies are addressed: scope, prudence, objective, delegation of authority, ethics and conflicts of interest, authorized financial dealers and institutions, authorized and suitable investments, review of investment portfolio, investment pools/mutual funds, collateralization, safekeeping and custody, diversification, maximum maturities, internal controls, performance standards, reporting, investment policy adoption and glossary City staff has reviewed comments provided by the program reviewers which include suggestions for possible improvement and will be considered at the next policy review. Fiscal Impact: City staff has estimated the cost to prepare this report to be $75. 66 Item 8. Recommended Action: Receive and file report. Attachments: A. Investment Policy Certification B. Reviewer #1 Scorecard C. Reviewer #2 Scorecard D. Reviewer #3 Scorecard 67 Item 8. California Municipal Treasurers Association Investment Policy Certification Issued on 03/02/2022 City of Beaumont The California Municipal Treasurers Association certifies that the investment policy of the City of Beaumont complies with the current State statutes governing the investment practices of local government entities located within the State of California. President Date 03/02/2022 68 Item 8. CMTA Investment Policy Scorecard NAME OF ENTITY: City of Beaumont EVALUATOR: Doug Robinson SECTION 2 – SCOPE – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 11 – COLLATERALIZATION – MAX 5 POINTS 3 SECTION 3 – PRUDENC E – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 12 – SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 4 – OBJECTIVE – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 13 – DIVERSIFICATIO N – MAX 5 POINTS 4 SECTION 5 – DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 14 – MAXIMUM MATURITIE S – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 6 – ETHICS AND CONFLICT S OF INTEREST – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 15 – INTERNAL CONTROLS – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 7 – AUTHORIZED DEALERS & INSTITUTIONS – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 16 – PERFORMING STANDARDS – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 8 – AUTHORIZED & SUITABLE INVESTMENTS – MAX 10 POINTS 10 SECTION 17 – REPORTING – MAX 10 POINTS 10 SECTION 9 – REVIEW OF INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO – MAX 5 POINTS 3 SECTION 18 – INVESTMENT POLICY ADOPTION – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 10 – INVESTMENT POOLS/MUTUAL FUNDS – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 19 – GLOSSARY – MAX 5 POINTS 5 TOTAL 48 TOTAL 47 GRAND TOTAL 95 CERTIFIED (85 POINTS OR ABOVE): YES X NO EVALUATOR COMMENTS: Overall, an excellent policy! Review of Investment Portfolio – Although covered very well in several areas, please consider a separate investment review section such as, “The securities held by the City must be in compliance with the authorized investments in Section 15 at the time of purchase. Because the City is typically a buy and hold investor, some securities may not comply with this section after the date of purchase. The Finance Director shall at least quarterly review the portfolio to identify those securities that do not comply and establish procedures to report these securities to Council and the Investment Review Committee.” Diversification – Although very well covered in 17. Managing Portfolio and Investment Risks, please consider a separate diversification section. Collateralization – Although touched on in several areas, please consider a separate collateralization section including collateral requirements for Certificates of Deposit not covered by FDIC insurance and repurchase (and reverse repurchase) agreements. 69 Item 8. CMTA Investment Policy Scorecard NAME OF ENTITY: City of Beaumont EVALUATOR: Shaun Farrell SECTION 2 – SCOPE – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTIO N 11 – COLLATERALIZATION – MAX 5 POINTS 4 SECTION 3 – PRUDENCE – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTIO N 12 – SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 4 – OBJECTIVE – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTIO N 13 – DIVERSIFICATIO N – MAX 5 POINTS 4 SECTION 5 – DELEGATIO N OF AUTHORITY – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTIO N 14 – MAXIMUM MATURITIE S – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 6 – ETHICS AND CONFLICT S OF INTEREST – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTIO N 15 – INTERNAL CONTROL S – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 7 – AUTHORIZED DEALERS & INSTITUTIONS – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTIO N 16 – PERFORMING STANDARDS – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 8 – AUTHORIZED & SUITABLE INVESTMENTS – MAX 10 POINTS 10 SECTIO N 17 – REPORTING – MAX 10 POINTS 10 SECTION 9 – REVIEW OF INVESTMEN T PORTFOLIO – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTIO N 18 – INVESTMENT POLICY ADOPTION – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 10 – INVESTMENT POOLS/MUTUAL FUNDS – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTIO N 19 – GLOSSARY – MAX 5 POINTS 5 TOTAL 50 TOTAL 48 GRAND TOTAL 98 CERTIFIED (85 POINTS OR ABOVE): YES NO EVALUATOR COMMENTS: This is a very well prepared investment and excellent policy. It mentions all of the important points of what needs to be mentioned in an investment policy. If I were really critical or nitpicky, I would mention that you have noted these topics within other paragraphs, but I would make a separate paragraph for Collateralization and Diversification. For section 8 – Authorized Investments – You have all of the right information. I would simply place the important information into a table for a ‘quick glance’. It was a pleasure to read. Thank you. 70 Item 8. 71 Item 8. CMTA Investment Policy Scorecard NAME OF ENTITY: City of Beaumont EVALUATOR: Deborah M. Higgins, President Higgins Capital SECTION 2 – SCOPE – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 11 – COLLATERALIZATION – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 3 – PRUDENCE – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 12 – SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 4 – OBJECTIVE – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 13 – DIVERSIFICATION – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 5 – DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 14 – MAXIMUM MATURITIES – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 6 – ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 15 – INTERNAL CONTROLS – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 7 – AUTHORIZED DEALERS & INSTITUTIONS – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 16 – PERFORMING STANDARDS – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 8 – AUTHORIZED & SUITABLE INVESTMENTS – MAX 10 POINTS 10 SECTION 17 – REPORTING – MAX 10 POINTS 5 SECTION 9 – REVIEW OF INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO – MAX 5 POINTS 4 SECTION 18 – INVESTMENT POLICY ADOPTION – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 10 – INVESTMENT POOLS/MUTUAL FUNDS – MAX 5 POINTS 5 SECTION 19 – GLOSSARY – MAX 5 POINTS 5 TOTAL 49 TOTAL 45 GRAND TOTAL 94 CERTIFIED (85 POINTS OR ABOVE): YES NO EVALUATOR COMMENTS: Section 3 – Prudence: Suggest you remove the last sentence under this section. I believe “seek optimize portfolio return subject to these constraints” would be better suited for explanation under Section 16 Performing Standards. Section 9 – Review of Investment Portfolio: Suggest you add a separate section on the review of the portfolio. Your IP has commentary on review of credit downgrades and your procedures, but I could not find your timeframe for review of your securities. For example, how do you know a credit has been downgraded? Based on a monthly review, quarterly review, etc. Section 11 – Collateralization: Suggest you add this section to highlight the collateralization requirements on certificates of deposit at 110% of market value and repurchase agreements at 102% of market value. Or, for consistency, under 7. Collateralized Time Deposits, add the 110% of market value for Certificates of Deposits that is consistent with 10. Repurchase Agreements at 102% of market value. Section 17 – Reporting: Code has 2 sections that address reporting requirements. 53607 & 53646. Your policy addresses 53646. However, if the council delegates authority (which is Beaumont’s case), you MUST submit monthly transactions reports. If you chose to report quarterly (in addition to monthly transaction reporting), there are specific guidelines you must adhere to. I suggest that you add the quarterly report shall be submitted within 30 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report. Section 19 – Glossary: I suggest that you review the Glossary and remove terms that are not in the body of the Investment Policy. For example, Accrued Interest and Amortization are only found in the Glossary. 72 Item 8. 73 Item 8. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Christina Taylor, Community Development Director DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Establishing Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 “Food Trucks” Background and Analysis: On December 7, 2021, and February 1, 2022, discussion was held and City staff received direction from City Council regarding developing an ordinance for regulating food trucks and other motorized, mobile food vendors. The ordinance is intended to address motorized and mobile food vendors not covered by SB946. Based on the direction staff received, a draft ordinance was prepared and presented at Planning Commission on March 8, 2022. The draft ordinance addresses licensing, permitting and health department requirements; operational standards; renewal and revocation. The draft ordinance establishes a food truck permit process which accompanies the business license process. A copy of the draft food truck permit application is included as an attachment to this staff report. At the March 8, Planning Commission meeting, there were no public comments provided but there was Commission discussion resulting in the following recommended considerations for City Council:  Verification of food borne illness and number of reports (5.72.050 (b)),  Consideration of allowing alcohol sales from food trucks if part of a special event (5.72.060 (12)),  Consideration of allowing in residential areas if part of a special event (5.72.060 (2)),  Downtown Area – one block may be too restrictive (5.72.060 (3)) o Consider allowing food truck operations on the same block as a restaurant or across the street, and o Consider allowing food truck operations in the same block or center as a restaurant if part of a special event. 74 Item 9. City staff has prepared a brief presentation to walk through each component of the ordinance and to aid in discussion of the recommendations from Planning Commission. A copy of the presentation is attached to the staff report and available to the public along with the other materials in this staff report. Fiscal Impact: The cost to prepare and advertise this item is approximately $1,000. 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 adding Chapter 5.72 “Food Trucks” to the Beaumont Municipal Code.” Attachments: A. Ordinance B. Beaumont Municipal Code Section 5.72 Food Trucks C. Food Truck Permit Application D. Power Point Presentation 75 Item 9. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 5.72 FOOD TRUCKS TO THE BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City Council desires to regulate motorized, mobile vendors (food truck) activities in order to promote public health, safety and welfare while providing an opportunity for a variety of business activities in a non-traditional manner; and WHEREAS, the City has proposed the addition of Chapter 5.72 “Food Trucks” to the Beaumont Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were conducted on this matter as required by law by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2022, and March 3, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Municipal Code Chapter; and WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Council has approved the addition of Chapter 5.72 “Food Trucks” to the Beaumont Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Beaumont has reviewed the reasons for the recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission as described above; THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds that the addition of Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 “Food Trucks” is consistent with the adopted policies in the Beaumont Municipal Code and the General Plan of the City of Beaumont. SECTION 2: The addition of Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 “Food Trucks”, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby approved. SECTION 3: 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 significant effect upon the environment and the proposed additions 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 4: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage and within fifteen (15) days after its passage the City Clerk shall cause a summary to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Beaumont, in a manner prescribed by law for publishing of ordinances of said City. 76 Item 9. MOVED AND PASSED upon first reading this 15th day of March, 2022, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: MOVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of April, 2022, upon second reading by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lloyd White, Mayor Attest: ______________________ Nicole Wheelwright, Deputy City Clerk Approved as to form: _______________________ John O. Pinkney, City Attorney 77 Item 9. 1 Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks 5.72.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to regulate motorized, mobile vendors (food truck) activities in order to promote public health, safety and welfare while providing an opportunity for a variety of business activities in a non-traditional manner. The city council hereby finds that, to promote the health, safety and welfare, restrictions on motorized, mobile food vendor (food trucks) activity are necessary in part to: 1. Ensure no interference with the performance of public safety officers. 2. Ensure no interference with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 3. Ensure the safe sale of food and merchandise by providing the public a simple way to ensure food truck operators prepare food safely and according to Riverside Department of Public Health requirements. 4. Prevent unsanitary conditions and ensure trash and debris in the areas vending is taking place are removed by food truck operators. 5. Ensure reasonable access for the use and maintenance of the public right-of-way. 5.72.020 Intent It is unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale, or conduct business from any vehicle parked, stopped or standing on any public street, alley, parkway, sidewalk or other public property in the city except in accordance with all applicable requirements of this code and the provisions of the Beaumont Municipal Code. 5.72.030 Definitions The following words, terms and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. If a term or phrase is not defined in this part, or elsewhere in this Code, the most common dictionary definition is presumed to be correct. Building means a structure of a permanent nature located or constructed on a parcel of land, and shall include but not be restricted to, dwelling, hotel, apartment house, apartment, court, rooming house, boarding home for the aged, motel, cottage, house trailer, commercial establishment, store, office, plant, factory, warehouse and similar buildings. Business license means a City of Beaumont business license. City means City of Beaumont Food means any item provided in Health and Safety Code § 113781, or any successor section. Food truck shall mean any motorized device or vehicle by which any person or property may be propelled or moved upon a highway, or which may be drawn or towed by a motorized vehicle, from which food or food products are sold, offered for sale, displayed, bartered, exchanged or 78 Item 9. 2 otherwise given. This definition shall exclude sidewalk vendors as defined in Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.66 Sidewalk Vending. Food truck event shall mean an organized gathering of food truck vendors which is open to the general public. Immediate vicinity means the streets abutting an activity or event (and any contiguous parking areas), the sidewalks on either side of such streets, as well as any open or unoccupied space between the activity or event and the abutting streets and sidewalks. Park means a public park owned or operated by the city. Property owner shall mean the holder of fee title to a property, whether a person, partnership, corporation or other entity recognized by law, and his/her/its lessees, permittees, assignees or successors in interest. Public property shall mean any real property owned, leased, operated, or controlled by the City of Beaumont other than a street, alley, parkway, sidewalk or other area dedicated, identified or used as a public right-of-way. Public right-of-way shall mean any public street, road, avenue, highway, named or u nnamed alley, lane, court, place, trail, parkway, sidewalk or other public way, operated and/or controlled by the city or other public entity, or subject to an easement owned by or dedicated or granted to the city. Residential means any area zoned or used exclusively as residential in the city. Special event means any temporary event, as further described herein, whether indoors or outdoors, or on improved or unimproved public or private property, which is inconsistent with the permanent use to which the property may legally be put, or the occupancy levels permitted thereon. Special event shall also refer to any activity that may result in the closure of any public streets, or any activities which may temporarily require the installation of materials or dev ices using building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, flammable or similar materials. Special events may include, but are not limited to, short-term events such as any show, circus, concert, festival, carnival, dance open to the public, exhibition, lecture, auction, rave, boxing match, wrestling match, walk-a-thon, marathon run, cycling event, sporting event, permitted film production event, farmers' market, pumpkin patch, outdoor sales, including, but not limited to, vehicle sales, or any combination thereof which members of the public are invited for free or admitted for a fee. All special events shall be classified under one of the following categories: 1. "Major special events" shall mean those events that impact multiple departments within the City and (a) have participation by 500 or more persons, or (b) will result in the closure of a City roadway, street, right-of-way, or highway, or more than 50 percent of a city park (i.e., carnivals, parades, festivals, car races, marathon events, street fairs). 2."Minor special events" shall mean those events that impact multiple City departments and (a) have participation by less than 500 persons, or (b) will have an impact on City rights -of- way (i.e., 5K/10K races, bicycle rides, boxing matches, block parties, grand openings). 79 Item 9. 3 3."Miscellaneous special events" means those events which impact only one City department, including, but not limited to, the following departments: a. Community Services b. Police Department c. Community Services; or d. Fire Department. 5.72.040 Permit and License Required No person shall conduct a food truck operation within the City of Beaumont, without first obtaining a business license and food truck permit from the City pursuant to this chapter, Title 5 Business, Taxes, Licenses and Regulations, and if necessary, the provisions of the Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 9.03 Regulation of Special Events, except in the following situations: 1. No food truck permit shall be required when the food truck activity is associated with the operation of a city-permitted special event and subject to the conditions thereof. The following requirements must be provided to the City prior to issuance of the business license and food truck permit: 1. A copy of the county health permit for each food truck operating in the City. 2. Proof that the food truck operator possesses a valid California Department of Tax and Fee Administration seller's permit which notes the city as a location or sublocation, which shall be maintained for the duration of the operator's food truck permit. 3. Proof of public liability insurance and property damage insurance, including general commercial liability coverage in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00. A. A copy of the business license and food truck permit shall be displayed in conspicuous view, on each food truck, at all times while business is conducted. B. Business licenses and food truck permits are non-transferable. Any change in ownership or operation of a food truck requires a new business license and food truck permit as set forth in this chapter. 5.72.050 Health Permit Required It is unlawful for any person to engage in the activity of operating a food truck in the City of Beaumont without a valid permit, certificate, or other authorization as required by the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health. A copy of said permit shall be kept in the food truck and shall be visible at all times. All food products sold or provided from a food truck shall comply with all applicable food labeling requirements established by the State of California. a. Quarterly inspections of all food trucks operating in the City shall be required to verify business license, health department permit and food truck permit validity. 80 Item 9. 4 b. More than three reports of food borne illness are grounds for revocation of the business license and food truck permit. 5.72.060 General Operational Standards for Food Trucks 1. Food trucks shall not operate on public streets unless approved by a food truck permit. 2. Food trucks shall not operate in residential areas as defined in this chapter. 3. No food truck shall operate within one block of a restaurant located within a building. 4. No food truck shall operate within one block of any off-street food truck event or city- permitted special event or activity. 5. No operator shall operate within one block of a school, park, community center or public playground facility; provided, however, that operation at or near a city park is permissible when it has been approved by the city in conjunction with an approved special event. 6. No operator shall permit the food truck to vend within 50 feet of a crosswalk. 7. Food trucks shall not operate on any undeveloped lot within the city except as part of a city-permitted special event. 8. No food truck shall operate before 6:00 a.m. or after 12:00 a.m., including setup and clean-up, except as approved by a special event permit. 9. The operation shall comply at all times with the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.02, of the Beaumont Municipal Code. 10. No temporary lighting shall be provided on the site where the food truck is operating, except that localized lighting may be used on or in the food trucks for the purpose of inside food preparation and menu illumination. 11. No signage other than that exhibited on the food truck may be displayed at the site where the food truck is operating. The prohibition shall include any handheld signage , handbills or flyers. 12. No sales or service of alcohol shall be permitted. 13. Food trucks shall provide refuse and recycling containers during all hours of food truck operations. Food truck operators shall remove all refuse and refuse containers upon the close of operation daily for disposal or more frequently if needed. 14. Food truck operations shall consist only of service from the food truck itself. No canopies, tables, chairs or other accommodations shall be allowed unless approved as part of a special event permit. 15. The food truck operator shall properly dispose of solids or liquids consistent with applicable law and shall not dispose of solids or liquids by discharging such solids or liquids into the public right-of-way or storm drains. a. Proof of a recycling, dump receipt or haul-off receipt shall be provided at the required quarterly inspection. 81 Item 9. 5 5.72.070 Food Trucks on Private Property The following standards apply to food truck operations on private property and are in addition to the general operational standards included in this chapter: 1. Food trucks may operate on private properties pursuant to approval of a food truck permit or a special event permit and the following additional minimum standards and conditions: 2. The food truck must be parked entirely on paved portions of the private property. 3. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each food truck. The parking required herein shall not be reserved, encumbered, or designated to satisfy the off-street parking of another business or activity that is operating on the site at the same time as the food truck. 4. Additional separate refuse and recycling containers shall be provided on -site during all hours of food truck operations. Food truck operators shall remove all refuse and refuse containers upon the close of operation daily for disposal or more frequently if needed. 5. No overnight parking of food trucks shall be allowed on the permitted vending site located on the private property. 6. Uncovered seating area may be provided to serve patrons of the food truck on private property in conjunction with a food truck permit or special event permit . All seating areas shall be removed prior to close of business for the day. The seating shall be located in an area of the site that is not landscaped, reserved, encumbered, or designated to satisfy the off-street parking of a business or activity that is operating at the same time as the food truck, and shall not obstruct any pedestrian or vehicular traffic or impede line of sight. 5.72.080 Food Trucks on Public Right-of-Way The following standards apply to food truck operations in the public right -of-way and are in addition to the general operational standards included in this chapter: 1. Food trucks may only operate on a public right-of-way while parked in a legal parking space. 2. Food trucks shall be parked directly adjacent to a paved sidewalk, free and clear for pedestrian passage. 3. Food service shall be limited solely to that side of the food truck facing the adjacent sidewalk. No food truck may dispense food street side. 4. No food truck may operate on the same block for longer than four hours. The four-hour time period is cumulative for all time that the food truck is operating on the same block in each 24-hour period and does not start over by moving the food truck to another parking space on the same block or closing the sales window between sales. The four- hour limit does not include set-up or clean-up time, provided that the food truck is not vending or not ready to serve customers during set-up or clean-up. 82 Item 9. 6 5.72.090 Fees Food truck permit fees shall be based on staff time required for processing and shall be in addition to the cost for a business license and other applicable fees. Fees are subject to change based on review and modification by City Council. 5.72. 100 Term and Renewal All Food Truck permits are subject to the terms of approval at the time of issuance. Any modification to the food truck permit shall require a new food truck permit to be filed. Business license term and renewal are subject to Title 5 Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations of the Beaumont Municipal Code. 5.72.110 Revocation Any food truck permit may be revoked by the city manager, or the city manager's designee for good cause shown including but not necessarily limited to any of the following reasons: a. Citation for operator's third or subsequent violation of the requirements set forth in this article. b. Falsification of any information supplied by the food truck operator upon which issuance of the food truck permit was based. c. Failure of the food truck operator, or any employees or subcontractors of the operator, to comply with the regulations set forth in this article. d. Conviction of a violation, or plea of guilty or nolo contendere, by the food truck operator, or any employee, subcontractor or independent contractor of the permittee, of any federal or state law, or municipal ordinance while in the course of conducting food truck activity pursuant to the food truck permit. e. Conviction of a violation, or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, by the food truck operator of any applicable provision or requirement of this section. f. Conviction of, or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, by the food truck operator of any misdemeanor, or conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, the same, which is a crime of moral turpitude or a crime that is violent or sexual in nature, as defined by state and/or local law. g. No food truck operator whose food truck permit is revoked shall be eligible to apply for a new food truck permit for a period of one year following such revocation. In the event of a food truck operator who owns more than one truck, the revocation shall apply to the food truck permit for each truck. Revocation of a business license is subject to the provisions in Title 5 Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations of the Beaumont Municipal Code. 83 Item 9. 7 5.72.120 Appeals Appeal of a food truck permit revocation or denial is subject to the following: A. Any applicant may appeal the final decision of the administrative authority or the revocation of a permit granted pursuant to this Chapter to the City Council within two days thereafter. Appeals shall be filed with the City Clerk, either by personal service, fax or first class mail (postage prepaid). Any such appeal shall set forth the reasons for the appeal and shall be accompanied by an appeal filing fee. The appeal filing fee shall be established by the City Council by resolution. Failure of any person to receive written notice shall not invalidate same. The City Council shall act upon the appeal at the next regularly scheduled council meeting held more than five working days and less than ten working days after the filing of the appeal. If no such meeting is scheduled, or if a regularly scheduled meeting is not held within such tim es, the mayor may call a special City Council meeting to consider and act upon such appeal within ten working days after the filing of such appeal. The decision of the City Council regarding such an appeal shall be final. B. If there is insufficient time for a timely appeal to be heard by the City Council prior to the date on which the proposed use event or activity is scheduled, the applicant may, at his or her option, request an appeal before the City Manager or a neutral hearing officer. Any such appeal shall set forth the reasons for the appeal and shall be accompanied by an appeal filing fee. The appeal filing fee shall be established by the City Council by resolution. Upon request for an appeal, the City Manager or neutral hearing officer, shall hold a hearing no later than two working days after the filing of the appeal but in any case before the date of the proposed event or operation start date, and will render his or her decision no later than one working day after hearing the appeal but in any case before the date of the proposed event or operation date. Upon such appeal, the City Manager or neutral hearing officer may reverse, affirm or modify in any regard the determination of the administrative authority or impose any conditions upon approval that the administrative authority could have imposed. The decision of the City Manager or neutral hearing officer regarding such an appeal shall be final. Appeal of a special event permit decision is subject to the provisions in Chapter 9.03 Regulation of Special Events of the Beaumont Municipal Code. Appeal of a business license decision is subject to the provisions in Title 5 Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations of the Beaumont Municipal Code. 5.72.130 Violations Any person who willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, or of any conditions attached hereunder, or who falsifies any information on any application hereunder is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable as set forth by state law and is subject to administrative penalties and fines as set forth in Chapter 1 of the Beaumont Municipal Code. Any special event otherwise in accordance with this Chapter shall be a public nuisance which may be enjoined or abated as allowed by law. The City retains any and all civic remedies, including the right of civil injunction for the prevention of the violations and for the recovery of money damages therefor. 84 Item 9. City of Beaumont 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 (951) 769-8520 www.beaumontca.gov For Applicants wishing to apply for a Food Truck Permit. 1. Please submit your application AT LEAST four (4) weeks prior to you event. Processing time is not guaranteed. If you want to have your event at a City Facility, please check with Community Services regarding availability prior to completion. 2. All food trucks shall have a City of Beaumont business license. Please be aware that business license application(s) and other required documents should be submitted with the Food Truck Permit Application. 3. The fee for a Food Truck Permit is based on staff time for processing. An invoice will be provided and must be paid prior to issuance of the Food Truck Permit approval or Business License. 4. For events on Public Property (i.e. Parks) a separate permit may be required for review and approval by the Community Services Department. 5. Violations of any conditions issued as part of your approval may lead to immediate revocation and possible fines. 85 Item 9. 2 FOOD TRUCK PERMIT APPLICATION APPLICANT: ________________________________________________________________ BUSINESS NAME: ____________________________________________________________ ADDRESS:________________________________ CITY/STATE: _______________________ ZIP: __________ TELEPHONE: _______________________________ EMAIL: ____________________________________________ WEBSITE: __________________________________________ CONTACTS (If different from above) NAME: ___________________________________________ EMAIL:_____________________________ ADDRESS: _________________________________________ CITY/STATE: ________________________ ZIP: ____________________ TELEPHONE: _________________________________________ GENERAL INFORMATION General Location of Operation within the City: ______________________________________________ Downtown (streets): ___________________________________________________________________ Outside of Downtown (street(s)): _________________________________________________________ On private property (address/APN): _______________________________________________________ Hours of Operation: __________am/pm to ________ am/pm Days: M T W Th F Sat Sun Estimated number of patrons per day: __________________ Additional Information: _________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ 86 Item 9. 3 FOOD TRUCK PERMIT APPLICATION MANDATORY ATTACHMENTS: The items below are required to be submitted with every application: Narrative: Please provide a statement of operations including a clean-up plan and waste disposal plan. Site Diagram: For activities on public and private property: a detailed drawing depicting the proposed layout, including the location of the food truck, trash cans and any other allowed equipment/materials. For any activity on private property: diagram must also show all marked parking spaces, adjacent streets, residential units, and indicate the linear feet from the event boundary to streets and residences. Private Property: Food truck operations on private property requires property owner authorization. A letter from the property owner (or an agent authorized by the owner) must be included with this application. The letter should be on company letterhead acknowledging approval of the event, knowledge of the date, time and activities scheduled to take place. Contact information (address, email and phone) for the property owner/agent must be included in the letter. Other Submittal Requirements as specified in BMC 5.72.040 ADDITIONAL EVENT INFORMATION Will there be a tent or canopy? Yes No If yes, date being erected: _______________ Size(s): _________________________________ Will electrical power be used? Yes No If yes, please specify how: _________________________________________________________ Will a generator be used? Yes No Will tables/chairs be set up? Yes No If yes, total of each: _____________________________ Indicate all cooking methods Electrical appliance: Yes No Liquid fuel device: Yes No Wood/Charcoal BBQ: Yes No Deep Fryer: Yes No Other cooking method not specified: _______________________________________________________ Will any items other than food/beverage be sold? Yes No If yes, please describe: __________________________________________________________________ 87 Item 9. 4 Any other activity not listed? Yes No If yes, please describe: __________________________________________________________________ Additional information describing above responses: __________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ DECLARATION: As the authorized representative of the applicant, I hereby declare that: 1. The information contained in this application and attachment(s) is true, complete and to the best of my knowledge. 2. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, or liabilities incurred by City, its officers, agents, or employees, arising from Applicant's acts or omissions under this Agreement or any act of omission of the Applicant's permission or invitation of Applicant, except as may arise from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees. In any action or claim against City in which Applicant is defending City, City shall have the right to approve legal counsel providing City's defense and such approval shall not be reasonably withheld. 3. Applicant has received and understands the information contained in the Food Truck ordinance and will adhere to required arrangements listed within these requirements. 4. Applicant will pay for actual costs of any City services provided. Signature___________________________________________________ Date _______________ Print Name _________________________________________________ Title_______________ Business Name ________________________________________________________________________ Telephone__________________________ Email_________________________________________ 88 Item 9. 5 FOOD TRUCK PERMIT APPLICATION APPROVALS 1. Community Services_______________________________________ Date:_________ Comments: 2. Police___________________________________________________ Date:___________ Comments: 3. Fire ____________________________________________________ Date: _____________ Comments: 4. Planning________________________________________________ Date:______________ Comments: 5. Public Works ______________________________________________ Date: _______________ Comments: 89 Item 9. FOOD TRUCK ORDINANCE City Council 03.15.22 90 Item 9. ■Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to regulate motorized, mobile vendors (food truck) activities in order to promote public health, safety and welfare while providing an opportunity for a variety of business activities in a non -traditional manner. The city council hereby finds that, to promote the health, safety and welfare, restrictions on motorized, mobile food vendor (food trucks) activity are necessary in part to: 1.Ensure no interference with the performance of public safety officers. 2.Ensure no interference with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 3.Ensure the safe sale of food and merchandise by providing the public a simple way to ensure food truck operators prepare food safely and according to Riverside Department of Public Health requirements. 4.Prevent unsanitary conditions and ensure trash and debris in the areas vending is taking place are removed by food truck operators. 5.Ensure reasonable access for the use and maintenance of the public right-of-way. Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks 91 Item 9. Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks ■Definitions ■Permits & Licenses Required ■Health Permit Required ■General Operational Standards for Food Trucks ■Food Trucks on Private Property ■Food Trucks on Public Right-of- Way ■Fees ■Term and Renewal ■Revocation, appeals and violations 92 Item 9. Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks The Definitions section of this new code provides meanings to words or phrases used in the section of the code. The intent is to provide consistency and clarity for both applicants and staff when reviewing and making decisions regarding food trucks. 93 Item 9. Permits & License Required Business License Food Truck Permit Health Department Approval Sellers Permit Liability Insurance Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks 94 Item 9. Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks ■Health Permit Required –Health Department approval must be visible at all time –Quarterly inspections of all food trucks operating within the City –More than 3 reports of food borne illness are grounds for revocation 95 Item 9. Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks –Compliance with noise and dark sky ordinances –No sales or service of alcohol unless permitted as part of a special event –Must provide trash and recycling containers –Proof of proper disposal of fats, oils & grease ■General Operational Standards –Shall not operate in residential neighborhoods unless permitted as part of a special event –Shall not operate within 1 block of a restaurant, other food truck event, school or park –Shall not operate on an undeveloped lot without a permit –Hours of operation 6am –12 midnight 96 Item 9. Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks 97 Item 9. Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks ■Food Trucks on Private Property –Must have a permit & License –Must park on paved portions of the lot –A minimum of 2 onsite parking spaces must be provided –No overnight parking of food truck at a vending site –Uncovered seating may be provided ■Food Trucks on Right-of-Way –Must be in a legal parking space ■Sidewalk adjacent for service ■No “street side” food service –Limited to 4 hours per day on the same block –No on-site seating, take and go only 98 Item 9. Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks ■Business license fees are application based ■Food Truck Permit is based on staff review time until a new fee is set ■Business Licenses must be renewed each year by July 1 ■Food Truck Permit renewal will be subject to terms at the time of issuance 99 Item 9. Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks ■Revocation –More than 3 reports of food borne illness –Falsification of information –Non-Compliance –Revocation is for a period of 12 months ■Appeals –Food Truck Permit revocation can be appealed to City Council –Business Licenses have their own established revocation process in Title 5 Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations –Special Events have their own appeal process in Chapter 9.03 Regulation of Special Events 100 Item 9. Chapter 5.72 Food Trucks Next Steps ■Public Hearing and Planning Commission recommendation to City Council ■Staff will incorporate any appropriate changes ■Public Hearing and First Reading of the Ordinance at City Council March 15 ■Second Reading of the Ordinance at City Council on April 5 ■Ordinance takes effect 30 days after approval 101 Item 9. Ctaylor@beaumontca.g ov 951.769.8518 The Planning Department welcomes your input 102 Item 9. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Accept the Final Recycled Water Reuse Strategy Analysis Report for the City of Beaumont and Provide Direction to City Staff Background and Analysis: The City of Beaumont’s newly constructed wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) has been built to produce recycled water in compliance with the State of California criteria for uniform water recycling, commonly referred to as “Title 22” water. This study identifies and evaluates multiple strategies for deploying its Title 22 water. Ultimately, the analysis recommends a preferred option to maximize the use of this resource in the most sustainable and cost-effective manner. This analysis addresses permitting considerations, hydrogeologic considerations, and an options analysis. It is intended to guide the City Council as it works cooperatively with the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District (District) and other involved agencies to use the resource. Recommendations provided in the report are based on the following overall goals for recycled water reuse: 1. Maximize the production and beneficial use of City-produced recycled water. 2. Offset some of the need for imported water. 3. Minimize the City’s long-term state-imposed liability as the producer of recycled water. 4. Encourage and support sustainable development. Should the City Council accept this report and select a preferred option, City staff suggests a 2 x 2 meeting with District representatives to present the report, discuss the City Council’s preferred option, and initiate discussions to prepare a memorandum of understanding between the City and the District. 103 Item 10. Fiscal Impact: City staff estimates it cost approximately $275 to prepare this report. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council accept this report, select Option 3 as the City’s preferred option, and authorize the City Council’s representatives to initiate a 2 x 2 meeting with the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District. Attachments: A. Recycled Water Reuse Strategy Analysis Report for City of Beaumont California – January 2022 104 Item 10. FINAL RECYCLED WATER REUSE STRATEGY ANALYSIS REPORT FOR CITY OF BEAUMONT CALIFORNIA January 2022 Hunt Thornton Resource Strategies 105 Item 10. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. ES-1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Background ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. Goals ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3. Overview of Groundwater Reuse Concepts ................................................................. 1-1 2. Permitting Considerations .................................................................................................... 2-4 2.1. Regulatory Background ................................................................................................ 2-4 2.1.1 Water Quality Regulations and Policies ............................................................... 2-4 2.1.2. Recycled Water Permitting ................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.2.1 Non-Potable Reuse ........................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.2.2 Indirect Potable Reuse ......................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.3. Permit Enforcement and Liability ......................................................................... 2-5 2.1.3.1. Statutory and Civil Liability ........................................................................... 2-6 2.1.3.2. Statutory Criminal Liabilities......................................................................... 2-6 2.1.3.3. Statutory Recycled Water Spill Liabilities ..................................................... 2-7 2.1.3.4. Willingness to Pay ......................................................................................... 2-7 2.2. Current Permit and Requirements ............................................................................... 2-7 2.3. Future Permits and Requirements for Non-Potable Reuse .......................................... 2-8 2.3.1. Non-Potable Reuse Permitting Mechanism ......................................................... 2-8 2.3.2. Non-Potable Reuse Regulatory Requirements ..................................................... 2-9 2.3.3. Non-Potable Reuse Special Studies and Approvals .............................................. 2-9 2.3.4. Non-Potable Reuse Timeline for Approval ........................................................... 2-9 2.4. Permitting for Groundwater Replenishment by Surface Application (Indirect Potable Reuse) ........................................................................................................................ 2-10 2.4.1. Indirect Potable Reuse Permitting Mechanism .................................................. 2-10 2.4.2. Indirect Potable Reuse Regulatory Requirements ............................................. 2-11 2.4.3. Indirect Potable Reuse Special Studies and Approvals ...................................... 2-13 2.4.4. Timeline for Approval ......................................................................................... 2-15 3. Hydrogeologic Considerations ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1. Beaumont Basin Adjudication ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1. Basin Safe Yield ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2. Basin Storage Accounting ..................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.3. Transfer and Adjustment of Water Rights ............................................................ 3-3 3.2. Beaumont Basin ............................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2.1. Aquifer Conditions ................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2.2. Groundwater Production ..................................................................................... 3-4 106 Item 10. 3.2.3. Faulting and Groundwater Levels and Flow ......................................................... 3-4 3.2.4. Recycled Water, State Water Project (SWP) and Groundwater Quality .............. 3-6 3.3. Spreading Grounds ..................................................................................................... 3-10 3.3.1. Recharge Capacities ............................................................................................ 3-12 3.3.2. Required Diluent Water...................................................................................... 3-13 3.3.3. Hydrogeology Near the Spreading Grounds ....................................................... 3-14 3.4. Groundwater Levels and Mounding ........................................................................... 3-15 3.5. Nearby Water Supply Wells and Travel Times ........................................................... 3-15 3.6. Potential for Recycled Water Recharge ..................................................................... 3-19 3.7. Hydrogeologic Benefits, Challenges, and Considerations .......................................... 3-19 3.7.1. Benefits ............................................................................................................... 3-19 3.7.2. Challenges/Considerations ................................................................................. 3-20 4. Options Analysis ................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1. Option 1 – City Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Indirect Potable Reuse- Tertiary Treatment ....................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.1. General Description .............................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.2. Conceptual Facilities ............................................................................................. 4-4 4.2. Option 2 – BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Indirect Potable Reuse-Tertiary .............................................................................................................. 4-4 4.2.1. General Description .............................................................................................. 4-4 4.3. Option 3 - BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD Sole Permittee, Indirect Potable Reuse-FAT .................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.3.1. General Description .............................................................................................. 4-5 4.4. Option 4 – City/BCVWD Operation, Non-Potable and Potable Reuse-Tertiary .......... 4-7 4.4.1. General Description .............................................................................................. 4-7 4.5. Relative Cost Comparison of Options ........................................................................... 4-9 4.5.1. Capital Costs ......................................................................................................... 4-9 4.5.2. O&M Costs ............................................................................................................ 4-9 4.6. Benefits, Challenges, and Considerations .................................................................. 4-12 4.6.1. Sustainability and Storage Credit ....................................................................... 4-12 4.6.2. Facilities Ownership and Liability ....................................................................... 4-13 4.6.3. Regulatory Considerations ................................................................................. 4-14 4.6.4. Costs ................................................................................................................... 4-14 4.6.5. Stakeholder Consensus ...................................................................................... 4-15 4.7. Preferred Option ........................................................................................................ 4-15 4.8. Schedule for Option 3 (Preferred Option) .................................................................. 4-16 5. References ............................................................................................................................ 5-1 107 Item 10. List of Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Recycled Water Reuse Options ......................................................... ES-5 Table 2-1 Authorized Discharge Locations for the WWTP ....................................................... 2-8 Table 2-2 Timeline for Approval of a Non-Potable Reuse Program ....................................... 2-10 Table 2-3 Timeline for Approval of Groundwater Replenishment Project (by Surface Application) .......................................................................................... 2-16 Table 3-1 Storage Limit and Water in Storage as of 2020 ........................................................ 3-3 Table 3-2 Groundwater Quality Objectives and Average SWP, Recycled Water and Groundwater Quality ................................................................................................ 3-8 Table 3-3 Annual Supplemental Recharge – Calendar Year Accounting ................................ 3-12 Table 3-4 Spreading Basins Aquifers and Characteristics ....................................................... 3-14 Table 4-1 Projected WWTP Effluent Supply ............................................................................. 4-4 Table 4-2 Comparison of WWTP Recycled Water Production with Irrigation Demand ........... 4-8 Table 4-3 Relative Costs Comparison of Options ................................................................... 4-10 List of Figures Figure 3-1 Adjudicated Beaumont Basin and Management Zone Boundaries ...................... 3-2 Figure 3-2 Model-Simulated Groundwater Elevation Contour Map in December 2020 ....... 3-5 Figure 3-3 Groundwater in the Beaumont Basin ................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-4 Beaumont Basin Spreading Grounds .................................................................. 3-11 Figure 3-4 Recycled Water Monthly Distribution for 1 Year of Recharge in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds .............................................................................................. 3-17 Figure 3-5 Recycled Water Yearly Distribution For 10 Years of Recharge in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds .............................................................................................. 3-18 Figure 4-1 Preliminary Outfall from WWTP to Recharge Ponds ............................................ 4-3 Figure 4-2 Option 2 Pipeline Schematic ................................................................................. 4-6 Figure 4-3 City of Beaumont Recycled Water Use Project – Option 3 Preliminary Schedule (preferred option) ................................................................................................ 4-17 108 Item 10. Appendix Appendix A – January 16, 2020, Email Correspondence Between City and SARWQCB (Julio Lara (Regional Water Board) to Brian Knoll (Webb Associates) and Kristine Day (Beaumont) 109 Item 10. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 1,2,3-TCP 1,2,3-trichloropropane AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering ACL administrative civil liabilities AF acre-feet AF/acre/day acre-feet per acre per day AFY acre-feet per year Banning City of Banning Basin Adjudicated Beaumont Groundwater Basin Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin BCVWD Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District Beaumont or City City of Beaumont BOD biological oxygen demand WWTP City of Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CECs constituents of emerging concern CFS cubic feet per second CAO cleanup and abatement orders CDO cease and desist orders County Riverside County CWC California Water Code DDW Division of Drinking Water DIP ductile iron pipe DWR Department of Water Resources FAT full advanced treatment fps feet per second ft-bgs feet below ground surface ft/day feet per day GMZ Groundwater Management Zone gpm gallons per minute GRRP Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project MBR membrane bioreactor MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MG million gallons MGD million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter MND Mitigated Negative Declaration 110 Item 10. NDMA n-nitrosodimethylamine NOV notices of violation NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonate PFOA perfluorooctane sulfonic acid Regional Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board RO reverse osmosis RWC recycled water contribution RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board SAT soil aquifer treatment SGPWA San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency SMWC South Mesa Water Company State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board Study Area Beaumont Basin SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS total dissolved solids TIN total inorganic nitrogen Title 22 Recharge Groundwater recharge with Title 22 recycled water TOC Total Organic Carbon TSO time schedule orders TSS total suspended solids USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey UV ultraviolet Watermaster Beaumont Basin Watermaster WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements WQOs Water Quality Objectives WRRs Water Reclamation Requirements or Water Recycling Requirements YVWD Yucaipa Valley Water District 111 Item 10. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Beaumont (City or Beaumont) has constructed facilities at the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to produce recycled water in compliance with California Uniform Water Recycling Criteria1 (Title 22) which provides reuse options to the community to enhance water supply reliability and improve sustainability. There are multiple options to utilize recycled water for beneficial purposes and this report is intended to assist the City Council in determining its preferred reuse option(s). This, in turn, will guide the City Council as it works cooperatively with the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District (BCVWD) and other involved agencies to maximize use of the resource in the most sustainable and cost-effective manner. Recycled water is treated domestic wastewater that is reused for beneficial purposes and is a valuable water resource that is widely used across California, the country, and the world as a supplemental water supply. In normal times, but particularly in times of drought and water shortages, recycled water provides a relatively drought resilient water source supporting overall water supply sustainability because recycled water is locally available and controlled and is available even when other sources may be restricted. From a regulatory perspective, recycled water reuse in California is divided into three types: 1) non-potable reuse, 2) indirect potable reuse, and 3) direct potable reuse. Regulations have been adopted for non-potable reuse and indirect potable reuse, but direct potable reuse regulations are currently in development. Non-potable uses include activities such as agricultural and landscape irrigation, toilet flushing, cooling towers, and dust control that do not involve recycled water being intentionally introduced to the groundwater or drinking water sources. During non- potable reuse, the recycled water is typically taken up by plants, evaporated, consumed by the activity, or returned to the wastewater treatment plant. Indirect potable reuse involves indirect, intentional replenishment of drinking water sources, such as groundwater recharge through surface application (spreading), groundwater recharge through subsurface application (injection), or surface water augmentation (mixing into drinking water reservoirs). Direct potable reuse involves direct, intentional addition of recycled water to a potable drinking water supply. This report considers non-potable reuse and indirect potable reuse (groundwater recharge by surface spreading only), not direct potable reuse. There are separate state regulations, requirements, and permits associated with each of these two uses. Title 22 specifies the minimum treatment requirements (e.g., disinfected secondary, disinfected tertiary, and full advanced treatment) depending on the final use. For disinfected secondary treatment, the organic matter is stabilized to ensure oxygen is present and disinfection occurs to reduce bacteria. For disinfected tertiary treatment, filtration is utilized to remove turbidity prior to disinfection to reduce viruses and bacteria. For full advanced treatment (FAT), reverse osmosis (RO) is utilized to remove dissolved constituents and an oxidation treatment is added to reduce 1 California Code of Regulations Title 22, Chapter 3. 112 Item 10. constituents of emerging concern and pathogenic microorganisms (viruses, giardia, cryptosporidium). The City’s WWTP is designed to produce disinfected tertiary recycled water with RO provided as a treatment enhancement to reduce total dissolved solids. Disinfected tertiary treated recycled water can be used for non-potable reuse and indirect potable reuse (groundwater spreading only) projects. Indirect potable reuse for groundwater injection and surface water augmentation requires FAT. This report includes preliminary evaluations and comparisons of four options for recycled water reuse under consideration by the City. The proposed options were developed in consultation with City staff, experts in the field of recycled water reuse, and City attorneys with water expertise. Each option provides benefits, challenges, and considerations. Ultimately, an option must be evaluated and agreed upon within the context of logistical functionality, cost, and regulatory requirements. In addition, the option ultimately selected by the City will involve close coordination between the City and BCVWD (and possibly San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency). The City’s initial overall goals for recycled water reuse include: • Maximize the production and beneficial use of City-produced recycled water, • Offset some of the need for imported water in the adjudicated Beaumont Groundwater Basin (Beaumont Basin or Basin), • Minimize the City’s long-term state-imposed liability as the producer of the recycled water, and • Encourage and support sustainable development. Section 1 summarizes the City’s goals and options with respect to the use of the recycled water produced by the WWTP. The identified recycled water reuse options include: Option 1 - (City Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Indirect Potable Reuse-Tertiary Treatment) - This option includes indirect potable reuse via surface spreading within the Beaumont Basin with the City constructing, owning, and operating an outfall pump station and conveyance pipeline between the WWTP and the recharge sites. Tertiary recycled water with 50% of the water undergoing RO would be delivered to the existing BCVWD spreading grounds (also referred to as spreading grounds, spreading basins or recharge facilities). The recycled water could also potentially be recharged in the existing San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA) spreading grounds. Non-potable reuse for irrigation or other non-potable uses would not occur under this option. The City and BCVWD would likely be co-permittees with liability extending from the WWTP through conveyance to the point of groundwater extraction for water supply. Recycled water recharged in the spreading grounds would be credited to the City’s, BCVWD’s, and/or SGPWA’s Basin storage accounts. 113 Item 10. Option 2 - (BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Indirect Potable Reuse- Tertiary Treatment) - This option includes indirect potable reuse via surface spreading within the Basin with BCVWD constructing a new pump station adjacent to the WWTP and operating its existing non-potable pipeline to convey recycled water to the existing BCVWD and/or SGPWA spreading basins. Tertiary recycled water with 50% of the water undergoing RO would be delivered to the spreading grounds. This option proposes that BCVWD disconnect and reroute its existing irrigation connections along the pipeline in order to limit City liability for permit violations associated with irrigation. Thus, non-potable reuse would not occur under this option. The City and BCVWD would likely be co-permittees with liability extending from the WWTP through conveyance to the point of groundwater extraction for water supply. Recycled water recharged in the spreading grounds would be credited to the City’s, BCVWD’s, and/or SGPWA’s Basin storage accounts. Option 3 – (BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD Sole Permittee , Non-Potable and/or Indirect Potable Reuse-FAT) – This option includes indirect potable reuse via surface spreading within the Basin with BCVWD constructing a new pump station adjacent to the WWTP and operating its existing non-potable pipelines to convey recycled water to the BCVWD and/or SGPWA spreading basins. FAT water would be produced by the City and delivered to BCVWD for conveyance and groundwater recharge. Non-potable reuse (such as irrigation) would be at the discretion of BCVWD and overseen by BCVWD. To limit potential City liability, the FAT recycled water would meet pathogenic reduction requirements via multiple treatment processes at the WWTP and the treatment requirements would be specified in the City’s permit for the WWTP. Under this option, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) has indicated the City’s liability would end at the WWTP when the FAT-compliant recycled water is delivered to BCVWD. BCVWD would then be the sole permittee with liability extending from conveyance to the point of groundwater extraction for water supply. Recycled water recharged in the spreading grounds would be credited to the City’s, BCVWD’s, and/or SGPWA’s Basin storage accounts. Option 4 – (BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Non-Potable and Indirect Potable Reuse-Tertiary Treatment) – This option includes non-potable reuse (such as irrigation) and indirect potable reuse (via surface spreading) within the Basin with BCVWD constructing a new pump station adjacent to the WWTP and operating its existing non-potable pipelines to convey recycled water to the BCVWD and/or SGPWA spreading basins. Tertiary recycled water with 50% of the water undergoing RO would be delivered to the spreading grounds. For the non-potable reuse portion, recycled water would be conveyed via the existing BCVWD non-potable transmission and distribution system to multiple irrigation sites. Irrigation/non-potable use would be conducted under permits issued by and overseen by the City. The City and BCVWD would likely be co-permittees with liability extending from treatment at the WWTP 114 Item 10. through conveyance and non-potable reuse to the point of groundwater extraction for water supply. Any recycled water not used for non-potable reuse would be recharged in the spreading grounds and credited to the City’s, BCVWD’s, and/or SGPWA’s Basin storage accounts. Table ES-1 summarizes the four options. Section 2 describes the regulatory background, including current and future permit requirements applicable to use of the City’s recycled water. As discussed above, the regulations, requirements, and permitting are different for non-potable reuse and indirect potable reuse projects. The different permits, applicable permittees, requirements, and regulations for each of these uses are discussed in this section. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board or SWRCB) adopts and implements statewide regulations and policies, including the regulatory requirements for treatment, distribution, and reuse of domestic wastewater. The SARWQCB or Regional Water Board and the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) are the two agencies responsible for overseeing recycled water reuse projects (both non-potable reuse and indirect potable reuse projects) in the Beaumont Basin. For the near future, non-potable reuse projects using disinfected tertiary recycled water produced at the WWTP will be regulated under a Master Reclamation Permit combined with an NPDES permit that is issued to the City. Indirect potable reuse projects (i.e., spreading) using recycled water produced at the WWTP will be regulated under site-specific Water Reclamation Requirements (WRRs). The site-specific WRRs will include required treatment processes, minimum recycled water quality, authorized discharge locations, allowable sources of diluent water (supplemental water such as imported water or stormwater), running monthly average recycled water contribution (RWC), response retention time, pathogenic microorganism control, monitoring, and reporting. A significant consideration for the City (and potentially also for BCVWD/SGPWA) is the potential liability related to any permit violations for both non-potable reuse and indirect potable reuse projects. Per meetings and correspondence between the City and SARWQCB, if tertiary recycled water is produced, the City is the sole permittee responsible for compliance with all non-potable reuse regulatory requirements including production, distribution, and reuse. As a result, the City would be liable for all violations of permit requirements involving use of the City’s recycled water (i.e., “from cradle to grave”). This means the City will bear ultimate responsibility and liability for future use of its recycled water by all third party irrigation (or other) users and BCVWD customers. Liability would extend to the City and the City’s WWTP Operator of Record for potential permit violations at multiple reuse sites. While the City Council can assign liability to another entity, it cannot do this on behalf of the WWTP Operator of Record. Option 4 is the only proposed option that includes City liability for non-potable reuse. If FAT recycled water is 115 Item 10. produced (Option 3), City liability would end at the WWTP and BCVWD would assume liability for any violations associated with non-potable uses and indirect potable reuse. Table ES-1 Summary of Recycled Water Reuse Options Option Uses Conveyance and Liability Responsibility Level of Treatment Recharge in the Spreading Grounds Irrigation and other Non- Potable Uses Tertiary with 50% RO FAT 1 X New pump station and pipeline constructed and operated by the City. City and BCVWD likely co- permittees with associated liabilities. X 2 X New pump station constructed by BCVWD and disconnection of all existing irrigation connections on the existing non-potable pipeline to spreading grounds. City and BCVWD likely co-permittees with associated liabilities. X 3 X At BCVWD’s discretion New pump station constructed by BCVWD and use of BCVWD’s existing conveyance pipeline to spreading grounds. City responsible for recycled water production only. BCVWD sole permittee responsible and liable for violations for indirect potable and non-potable reuse once recycled water leaves the WWTP. X 4 X X New pump station constructed by BCVWD and use of BCVWD’s existing conveyance system for non-potable reuse and delivery to spreading grounds. City solely responsible and liable for non-potable reuse. City and BCVWD responsible and liable for indirect potable use. X Notes: BCVWD – Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District RO – reverse osmosis FAT – full advanced treatment For indirect potable reuse with tertiary recycled water under Options 1, 2, and 4, it is likely both the City and the owner/operator of the spreading grounds (BCVWD and/or SGPWA) would be co-permittees. Potential liability for permit violations for Options 1, 2, and 4 extends to compliance with receiving water limitations (i.e., water quality objectives (WQOs) in 116 Item 10. groundwater after percolation of recycled water from the spreading basins). It is unclear if and how the SARWQCB might allocate responsibility between the City and spreading grounds operator(s) or if this will be left up to the City and its project partners to resolve through operational agreements. For indirect potable reuse with FAT recycled water under Option 3, the City’s liability would end after the FAT recycled water is produced at the WWTP. Section 3 discusses the hydrogeologic considerations for indirect potable reuse by surface spreading. The Beaumont Groundwater Basin is adjudicated, and the associated Judgment defines allowable volumes of pumping and storage by defined entities. The Beaumont Basin Watermaster (Watermaster) is governed by a committee composed of representatives appointed by the City of Banning (Banning), Beaumont, BCVWD, South Mesa Water Company (SMWC) and Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). The Watermaster manages the Basin and prepares annual reports documenting Watermaster activities and Basin conditions including pumping, recharge, groundwater levels and flow, and groundwater quality. Analysis of hydrogeologic considerations found that it is feasible to recharge the Basin with recycled water from the WWTP, taking into consideration depth to groundwater and potential mounding of the groundwater surface; existing conditions including recycled water, imported State Water Project (SWP) water, and groundwater quality; groundwater WQOs implemented by the SARWQCB; and recharge capacities of the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds owned and operated by BCVWD and Brookside Spreading Grounds owned and operated by SGPWA. While not preventing recycled water recharge, limitations were identified related to the diluent water and underground retention time requirements. Regulations for indirect potable reuse (by spreading) using disinfected tertiary recycled water allow a maximum of 20% recycled water recharged initially (RWC or recycled water contribution). The additional 80% recharge water is referred to as diluent water and is comprised of other sources of water such as SWP water or stormwater recharged in the spreading grounds. Mixing within the groundwater system is also considered a diluent water source. The hydrogeologic analysis found that based on historical SWP water recharge volumes in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds, a maximum of 2,469 acre-feet per year (AFY) of disinfected tertiary recycled water can be recharged in the spreading grounds while still meeting the initial 80% diluent water requirement. Accordingly, an additional volume of SWP and/or stormwater would need to be recharged in the spreading grounds to meet the initial 20% RWC requirement when the recycled water volume exceeds 2,469 AFY. At buildout of the WWTP in about 2045, it is estimated the total recycled water flow will be 5,153 AFY. The diluent water requirement would likely be reduced if additional RO treatment (greater than 50% of the flow) is provided and would drop to zero if FAT recycled water were delivered for recharge. The second limitation is related to underground retention (travel) time. Title 22 requires the recharged recycled water have a certain amount of residence time in the groundwater system prior to extraction at a drinking water well in order to provide time for pathogenic 117 Item 10. microorganism control (length of time depends on level of treatment provided at the WWTP) and to allow time to respond to potential off-specification recycled water being recharged in the spreading grounds (response retention time, regulatory minimum of 2 months). BCVWD owns a potable water supply well located adjacent to the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds (BCVWD Well 23). Travel time to this well is on the order of months and may not meet the underground retention time requirements for pathogenic microorganism control (for disinfected tertiary recycled water) or possibly the regulatory minimum response retention time (for disinfected tertiary or FAT recycled water). Accordingly, this well will need to be converted to non-potable uses or used solely for monitoring to allow recycled water recharge in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds under all options. This issue was discussed with BCVWD, and BCVWD indicated conversion of this well to non-potable uses is a possibility. In addition, two other community wells are located near the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds and their use and status will need to be verified prior to project start-up. The wells located near the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds are shown in Figure 3-4. Section 4 presents an analysis of the three recycled water reuse options identified above: • Option 1 - City Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Indirect Potable Reuse- Tertiary Treatment • Option 2 - BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Indirect Potable Reuse- Tertiary Treatment • Option 3 - BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD Sole Permittee, Non-Potable and/or Indirect Potable Reuse-FAT • Option 4 – BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Non-Potable and Indirect Potable Reuse-Tertiary Treatment Some of the benefits, challenges, and considerations associated with the options are presented below. Sustainability and Storage Credit • Options 1 and 2 maximize use of recycled water for recharge (100%) providing the most benefit in terms of drought resilient groundwater sustainability compared with non-potable reuse. If non-potable reuse is implemented, Option 4 and Option 3 would use less than 100% of recycled water for recharge. However, it is anticipated that Option 3 would likely still recharge significant volumes of recycled water. • All options offset the need for some future imported water by storing recycled water in the Groundwater Basin. Under Options 1 and 2, all recycled water is recharged. Under Option 3, BCVWD can use some recycled water for non-potable uses at its discretion, so less could be available for storage credit. Under Option 4, recycled water would be used primarily for irrigation (and potentially other uses) with less recharging the Basin and less storage credit compared with Options 1, 2, and 3. 118 Item 10. • Options 1, 2, and 3 allow the City, BCVWD, and potentially SGPWA, to maximize additions to their Basin storage accounts. Recycled water recharge allows the City to use the stored water for its use or sell the credit to Basin pumpers and BCVWD to pump more groundwater or make other use of the storage credit. Option 4 and potentially Option 3 would result in less Basin recharge and storage credit compared with Options 1 and 2 if some recycled water is used for non-potable uses. Facilities Ownership and Liability • Under Option 1, the City would own and operate the recycled water distribution system to the spreading grounds. The City would need to build a new pump station and distribution pipeline. • Under Options 2, 3, and 4, BCVWD would own and operate the recycled water distribution system to the spreading grounds. However, under Option 2, BCVWD would have to build pipelines and other facilities required to replace pipelines and irrigation connections that are removed to isolate the easterly portion of the 24- inch loop. Option 4 would utilize BCVWD’s existing non-potable distribution system for irrigation, but the City would have to provide oversight and regulation for non- potable uses such as irrigation. • For Options 1, 2, and 4, the City and the BCVWD would likely be co-permittees under site-specific WRRs for recharge. It is unclear how the SARWQCB would allocate relative responsibility for any violations of the permit. For Option 3, the City’s liability would end once the FAT recycled water is produced at the WWTP if pathogenic reductions can be achieved by multiple treatment processes at the WWTP. Under Option 3, BCVWD would be the sole permittee for distribution, groundwater recharge, and non-potable reuse with sole liability for violations. • Options 1, 2, and 3 help the City stay in compliance with recycled water permit requirements by limiting the number of recycled water users to two (City and BCVWD, and potentially SGPWA) and limiting City liability due to violations associated with leaks and spills that could occur with multiple irrigation (or other) users. • Under Option 4, the City would be the sole permittee responsible for non-potable reuse and would have full liability for violations of permit requirements. As a result, the City would have a higher level of liability exposure due to potential permit violation associated the multiple irrigation (or other) users. The City will need to implement and monitor all aspects of recycled water reuse including, but not limited to cross-connection control, runoff and irrigation overspray, spills from pipeline breaks, and other reuse requirements. The City will need to adopt a strict regulatory and enforcement ordinance and issue recycled water use permits for all users, along with developing a specialized enforcement division. Liability extends to the City and the City WWTP Operator of Record for potential permit violations at multiple points of use. While the City Council can assign liability to other entities, it cannot do this on behalf of the WWTP Operator of Record. • Option 4, and potentially Option 3, utilizes BCVWD’s existing non-potable distribution system to achieve wide distribution of recycled water to potentially 119 Item 10. over 300 non-potable water users. This system is currently in use only for irrigation water (groundwater and SWP water) distribution. • Under Options 1, 2, 3, and 4, BCVWD would continue to operate its existing irrigation system (or modified system under Option 2) in a similar manner as in the past by pumping groundwater, SWP, and/or recycled water into the irrigation system and using its storage tank located at the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds to pressurize the system and supply operational storage. Seasonal storage is provided by recharge and recovery in the Basin. Regulatory Considerations • Options 1, 2, and 3, which primarily recharge the Basin, are likely to have greater regulatory support (DDW and SARWQCB) compared to Option 4, which uses a larger volume for irrigation and other non-potable uses. • Option 4 would result in more exposure to the City for violations so it will require considerable regulatory and administrative oversight by the City for non-potable reuse. • Option 3 is likely to have greater DDW and SARWQCB acceptance and support due to the use of the higher quality FAT recycled water compared to Options 1, 2 and 4. • Option 3 will improve groundwater quality to a greater extent compared to Options 1, 2 and 4 due to the higher quality recycled water utilized for recharge. • Because FAT recycled water is considered potential drinking water, Option 3 will require BCVWD to install backflow prevention devices along its conveyance system to prevent mixing of FAT recycled water and any non-potable water sources such as SWP water. • Options 1, 2 and 4 will require diluent water to meet the RWC for recharge. If diluent water requirements cannot be met over the 10-year running averaging period, recycled water recharge will need to be halted until additional diluent water is available for recharge. Option 3 will have no diluent water requirements, eliminating the cost to purchase SWP water for spreading to meet RWC requirements. Option 3 also increases the reliability of recharge operations, since it would not rely on imported water, which can be unavailable during droughts. • Based on experience with similar projects, obtaining a permit for indirect potable reuse will take approximately 18 to 24 months while obtaining a permit for non- potable reuse will take approximately 9 to 16 months. • Under all options, BCVWD Well 23 may need to be converted to non-potable uses. Usage of wells on the Beaumont High School and California Baptist College sites would need to be confirmed, but if presently used for drinking water supply, may also need to be converted to non-potable uses or destroyed. Costs • Capital costs for pumping and conveyance for Option 3 and 4 are lower compared to Options 1 and 2. However, costs for regulation and oversight of the irrigation program under Option 4 are likely to be high and duplicative between BCVWD and 120 Item 10. the City. In addition, the potential costs for fines and penalties for violations of irrigation permits (or other non-potable uses) could be very high. The duplicative oversight requirements may lead to conflicts between the two agencies. Options 1, 2, and 3 reduce duplicative administration and oversight costs for recycled water use for irrigation and other non-potable uses (City liability ends at the WWTP under Option 3). • Option 3 would not require purchase of diluent water for recharge, so this option would be less costly for supplemental water supplies compared with Options 1, 2, and 4. • Under Option 3, FAT recycled water will be more expensive to produce compared to tertiary recycled water produced under Options 1, 2, and 4 (50% of the flow undergoing RO treatment). In addition, the volume of FAT recycled water will be less than produced for tertiary recycled water because there will be more residuals (e.g., brine or RO concentrate) generated during treatment. In addition to the increased treatment costs, there will be added costs for disposal of the larger volume of residuals. Residuals are discharged to the Inland Empire Brine Line for disposal by the Orange County Sanitation District. The City will be charged for a larger designated capacity of the brine line and higher ongoing costs based on volumes discharge to the brine line. It is assumed that the added costs for FAT would be passed along to recycled water users as increased rates. • Under Option 4 and potentially Option 3, BCVWD will need to develop a recycled water use plan including rules and regulations, monitoring and the enforcement of all restrictions in the City’s recycled water permit and have the plan approved by the City and likely the SARWQCB. In addition, the City will need to develop a permitting and enforcement division to oversee non-potable reuse under Option 4. Stakeholder Consensus • For all options, Beaumont and BCVWD will need stakeholder consensus including the Watermaster, for indirect potable reuse. The success of all options will rely to some extent on the Watermaster’s cooperation in maximizing accounting for storage of recharged recycled water in the Basin. Preferred Option From the City’s perspective, Option 3 is the preferred option for the following reasons: • Recharges a potentially high volume of recycled water in the Basin; • Recharge results in storage credits for the City, BCVWD, and potentially SGPWA; • City liability for permit violations ends at the WWTP, assuming full pathogenic reduction is achieved at the WWTP; • Use of FAT recycled water will have greater DDW and SARWQCB acceptance and support due to the production and use of higher quality recycled water; • Puts the highest quality water into the Basin which will improve groundwater quality; • Reduces overall costs by using existing BCVWD existing conveyance facilities; 121 Item 10. • Reduces uncertainty by eliminating reliance on imported water for diluent water, which can be unavailable during droughts; and • Reduces costs for purchase of imported water for dilution. 122 Item 10. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background The City of Beaumont (Beaumont or City) is in the process of upgrading its Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The resulting plant effluent (recycled water) will be of high quality and suitable for various reuses. The WWTP has been upgraded to treat approximately 6 million gallons per day (MGD) with a future buildout capacity of 8 MGD. At the same time, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB or Regional Water Board) is in the process of reissuing the WWTP’s operating permit. The City is evaluating options for reuse of its recycled water. 1.2. Goals The City’s initial overall goals for recycled water reuse include: • Maximize the production and beneficial use of City-produced recycled water, • Offset some of the need for imported water in the adjudicated Beaumont Groundwater Basin (Beaumont Basin or Basin), • Minimize the City’s long-term state-imposed liability as the producer of the recycled water, and • Encourage and support sustainable development. 1.3. Overview of Groundwater Reuse Concepts This report describes four recycled water reuse options and analyzes the feasibility, benefits, and challenges associated with each. The options for recycled water reuse are: Option 1 - (City Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Indirect Potable Reuse-Tertiary Treatment) - This option includes indirect potable reuse via surface spreading within the Beaumont Basin with the City constructing, owning, and operating an outfall pump station and conveyance pipeline between the WWTP and the recharge sites. Tertiary recycled water with 50% of the water undergoing RO would be delivered to the existing BCVWD spreading grounds (also referred to as spreading grounds, spreading basins or recharge facilities). The recycled water could also potentially be recharged in the existing San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA) spreading grounds. Non-potable reuse for irrigation or other non-potable uses would not occur under this option. The City and BCVWD would likely be co-permittees with liability extending from the WWTP through conveyance to the point of groundwater extraction for water supply. Recycled water recharged in the spreading grounds would be credited to the City’s, BCVWD’s, and/or SGPWA’s Basin storage accounts. 123 Item 10. Option 2 - (BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Indirect Potable Reuse- Tertiary Treatment) - This option includes indirect potable reuse via surface spreading within the Basin with BCVWD constructing a new pump station adjacent to the WWTP and operating its existing non-potable pipeline to convey recycled water to the existing BCVWD and/or SGPWA spreading basins. Tertiary recycled water with 50% of the water undergoing RO would be delivered to the spreading grounds. This option proposes that BCVWD disconnect and reroute its existing irrigation connections along the pipeline in order to limit City liability for permit violations associated with irrigation. Thus, non-potable reuse would not occur under this option. The City and BCVWD would likely be co-permittees with liability extending from the WWTP through conveyance to the point of groundwater extraction for water supply. Recycled water recharged in the spreading grounds would be credited to the City’s, BCVWD’s, and/or SGPWA’s Basin storage accounts. Option 3 – (BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD Sole Permittee, Non-Potable and/or Indirect Potable Reuse-FAT) – This option includes indirect potable reuse via surface spreading within the Basin with BCVWD constructing a new pump station adjacent to the WWTP and operating its existing non-potable pipelines to convey recycled water to the BCVWD and/or SGPWA spreading basins. FAT water would be produced by the City and delivered to BCVWD for conveyance and groundwater recharge. Non-potable reuse (such as irrigation) would be at the discretion of BCVWD and overseen by BCVWD. To limit potential City liability, the FAT recycled water would meet pathogenic reduction requirements via multiple treatment processes at the WWTP and the treatment requirements would be specified in the City’s permit for the WWTP. Under this option, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) has indicated the City’s liability would end at the WWTP when the FAT-compliant recycled water is delivered to BCVWD. BCVWD would then be the sole permittee with liability extending from conveyance to the point of groundwater extraction for water supply. Recycled water recharged in the spreading grounds would be credited to the City’s, BCVWD’s, and/or SGPWA’s Basin storage accounts. Option 4 – (BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Non-Potable and Indirect Potable Reuse-Tertiary Treatment) – This option includes non-potable reuse (such as irrigation) and indirect potable reuse (via surface spreading) within the Basin with BCVWD constructing a new pump station adjacent to the WWTP and operating its existing non-potable pipelines to convey recycled water to the BCVWD and/or SGPWA spreading basins. Tertiary recycled water with 50% of the water undergoing RO would be delivered to the spreading grounds. For the non-potable reuse portion, recycled water would be conveyed via the existing BCVWD non-potable transmission and distribution system to multiple irrigation sites. Irrigation/non-potable use would be conducted under permits issued by and overseen by the City. The City and BCVWD would likely be co-permittees with liability extending from treatment at the WWTP 124 Item 10. through conveyance and non-potable reuse to the point of groundwater extraction for water supply. Any recycled water not used for non-potable reuse would be recharged in the spreading grounds and credited to the City’s, BCVWD’s, and/or SGPWA’s Basin storage accounts. 125 Item 10. 2. PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS 2.1. Regulatory Background 2.1.1 Water Quality Regulations and Policies The SARWQCB adopts and implements the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan)2. The Basin Plan identifies the beneficial uses of groundwater and surface waters within the Beaumont Basin, establishes water quality objectives (WQOs) to maintain the beneficial uses, and prescribes how the WQOs are implemented in permits. For discharges to groundwater and surface waters in the Beaumont Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ), the Basin Plan establishes Maximum Benefit WQOs3 “to develop and implement projects that will assure reliable water supplies to meet rapidly increasing demands in this area.” The Maximum Benefit WQOs for recycled water recharge projects are 330 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for total dissolved solids (TDS) and 5.0 mg/L for nitrate-nitrogen, implemented as 10-year running averages. Compliance can be met by recycled water treatment or blending recycled water with other sources (dilution water), such as State Water Project (SWP) water and/or stormwater. Maximum Benefit commitments4 (projects, requirements) are prescribed to ensure water quality is consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state. The SARWQCB must review any proposed recycled water recharge projects to determine compliance with Maximum Benefit commitments. The State Water Board adopts and implements statewide regulations and policies. Title 22, Chapter 3 (California Uniform Water Recycling Criteria) includes the regulatory requirements for treatment, distribution, and reuse of domestic wastewater. Title 175and the California Plumbing Code6 includes the regulatory requirements for protection of drinking water systems which involves installing and testing backflow prevention devices and conducting cross-connection control investigations and testing. The Water Quality Control Policy for Recycled Water (Recycled Water Policy)7 encourages recycled water use (in compliance with state and federal requirements), establishes statewide goals for recycled water use, defines regulatory agency roles, and provides direction for developing and permitting recycled water projects. The State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW) develops recycled water regulations, reviews recycled water projects to determine regulatory consistency, and provides permitting 2 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.html 3 Resolution No. R8-2014-0005 4 Ibid 5 CCR Title 17, Article 1 and 2 6 Section 1505.13 7 Water Quality Control Policy for Recycled Water (Effective April 8, 2019) https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/recycled_water/policy.html 126 Item 10. requirements to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards). DDW evaluates regulatory compliance during its review and acceptance of each project’s Engineering Report.8 The Regional Water Boards then develop, adopt, implement, and enforce operating permits that are consistent with DDW requirements. 2.1.2. Recycled Water Permitting Different types of operating permits are issued for recycled water projects, depending on the designated end use and the Regional Water Board’s determination of projected impacts to water quality. 2.1.2.1 Non-Potable Reuse Operating permits for non-potable reuse (e.g., irrigation, industrial, construction uses) may be issued as a Master Reclamation Permit9, Site-Specific Water Reclamation Requirements (WRRs), or a Notice of Applicability under the Statewide General Order WRRs10. The permits may be issued to the recycled water producers, recycled water distributors, or recycled water users. The SARWQCB’s policy is to issue Master Reclamation Permits (combined with applicable NPDES11 permits and/or Wastewater Discharge Requirements12) to the recycled water producer that regulates operation of the wastewater treatment plant and the recycled water program. NPDES permits are limited by the federal Clean Water Act to 5-year permit terms. Master Reclamation Permits, WRRs and WDRs do not have termination dates. The permits can be implemented indefinitely until the Regional Water Board or the permittee determine revisions are needed. 2.1.2.2 Indirect Potable Reuse Operating permits for indirect potable uses (i.e., groundwater augmentation by surface application, groundwater augmentation by subsurface application, or surface water augmentation) can only be issued as Site-Specific WRRs. Permits for potable reuse projects are issued to the “project sponsor(s)” which may include any entity (in whole or in part) that will be responsible for implementing the project in compliance with regulatory requirements. 2.1.3. Permit Enforcement and Liability Enforcement of recycled water permit violations is discretionary, based on case review and decisions made by the Regional Water Board or State Water Board. The decision to pursue enforcement will be determined from the severity of the violations, compliance history of the 8 CCR Title 22 Section 60323 9 CWC Section 13523.1 10 State Water Resources Control Board Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW 11 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are issued pursuant to requirements specified in the federal Clean Water Act for discharges to water of the U.S. 12 Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) are issued pursuant to requirements specified in the California Water Code for discharges to waters of the State. 127 Item 10. discharger, impacts to high priority watersheds/waterbodies, and strength of evidence on hand. Potential enforcement actions range from oral and written comments, notices of violation (NOV), notices to comply, technical reports and investigations, cleanup and abatement orders (CAO), time schedule orders (TSO), cease and desist orders (CDO), and administrative civil liabilities (ACL). 2.1.3.1. Statutory and Civil Liability Civil liability requirements are specified in California Water Code (CWC) Section 13385. Liability can be assigned to a person or an entity that is deemed responsible for the violation. For violations of permits issued to municipalities or special districts, liability is typically assigned to the permittee. If liability is imposed by the superior court, the maximum penalty is $25,000 for each day the violation occurs and $25/gallon not cleaned up (except for the first 1,000 gallons spilled). If liability is imposed by the Regional Water Board or State Water Board, the maximum penalty is $10,000 for each day the violation occurs and $10/gallon not cleaned up (except for the first 1,000 gallons spilled). To determine the final penalty, the maximum penalty is calculated for each event and then reduced based the following conditions. At a minimum, the penalty must recover the economic benefits (if any) derived from the violation. 1. Nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation or violations; 2. Whether the discharge was susceptible to cleanup or abatement; 3. The degree of toxicity of the discharge; 4. The ability to pay; 5. The effect on the dischargers ability to continue its business; 6. Any voluntary cleanup efforts undertaken; 7. Any prior history of violations; 8. The degree of culpability; 9. The economic benefit or savings, if any, resulting from the violation; and 10. Any other matters that justice may require. 2.1.3.2. Statutory Criminal Liabilities Criminal penalties are specified in CWC Section 13387 and are assigned to any person that “knowingly or negligently” violates permit requirements. Criminal penalties are typically reserved for persons or organizations that intentionally or negligently introduce hazardous materials into waters of the state or falsify statements, reports, and monitoring results. Depending on previous convictions and the type of violation, criminal penalties for individuals range from $5,000 to $500,000 and criminal penalties for organizations range from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. 128 Item 10. 2.1.3.3. Statutory Recycled Water Spill Liabilities Administrative civil liabilities for unauthorized discharges of disinfected tertiary recycled water13 are specified in CWC Sections 13529.2 and 13529.4. The violation is issued to the permittee(s). An unauthorized discharge of 50,000 gallons or more of disinfected tertiary recycled water requires notification to the appropriate Regional Water Board. Notification must occur as soon as the permittee has knowledge of the discharge, notification is possible, and notification can be provided without impeding cleanup or other emergency measures. If notification is not provided, the permittee is subject to administrative liabilities ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 depending on the number of violations and timeframe between violations. 2.1.3.4. Willingness to Pay Another liability consideration related to fines is the responsible party’s willingness to pay. For example, in the event there is a violation that is clearly the fault of the end user (not the permittee), the City would receive the notice of violation and associated fine and might need to sue the responsible party for payment. An additional liability consideration is the time between the incident and the notice of violation, which could make allocation of responsibility more challenging. 2.2. Current Permit and Requirements The City is currently authorized to implement a non-potable recycled water program under a combined NPDES/Master Reclamation Permit. Order No. R8-2015-0026 allows production of disinfected tertiary recycled water for “landscape irrigation and other similar uses” and the discharge of “tertiary treated and disinfected wastewater” at the locations listed in Table 2-1. Discharge at any other location or in any other manner than what is described in the permit is a violation of Discharge Prohibition III.A. For enforcement purposes, discharge “at any other location” may include spills from pipeline breaks/equipment malfunctions, runoff at a recycled water use site, overspray at a recycled water use site, discharge of irrigation tailwater, and recycled water application before/after rainfall events (when ponding or runoff will occur). For enforcement purposes, discharges “in any other manner” may include improper operation of the WWTP or recycled water distribution system, non-compliance with effluent or recycled water limitations, negligence, and non-enforcement of the Rules and Regulations for Recycled Water Use (Title 22) at each of the reuse sites. The City is responsible for overseeing recycled water use to ensure regulatory compliance which involves adopting a recycled water use ordinance, conducting periodic inspections for compliance, protecting the public drinking water supply (e.g., backflow prevention device installation/testing, cross-connection control investigations/testing), and implementing corrective actions if needed. 13 CCR Title 22 Section 60301.230 129 Item 10. Table 2-1 Authorized Discharge Locations for the WWTP Discharge Point Description Type of Receiving Water 001 Cooper’s Creek Outfall Surface Water 002 Unnamed Tributary of Marshall Creek Outfall Surface Water R-001 Tukwet Canyon Golf Course Groundwater R-002 Oak Valley Golf Course Groundwater R-003 Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District Distribution System Groundwater The NPDES permit also prescribes compliance with receiving water limitations for discharge to surface waters (Surface Water Limitations V.A, page 15) and discharge to groundwaters (Groundwater Limitations V.B, page 16). Compliance is based on measurements and observed impacts within the receiving waters. The surface water limitations include WQOs specified in the Basin Plan, additional water quality standards adopted through state and federal regulations, and pollutants not mentioned in the permit but may bioaccumulate to concentrations that are harmful to human health. The groundwater limitations include WQOs in the Basin Plan, unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality, protection of designated beneficial uses, and prevention of pollution or nuisance conditions. To ensure compliance with effluent limitations and the Maximum Benefit WQOs, the RO concentrate produced at the WWTP is discharged to the Inland Empire Brine Line for ocean disposal by the Orange County Sanitation District. The City purchased capacity rights to the brine line and pays a base amount for pipeline maintenance, a dollar per gallon amount for flow contributions, and additional fees based on constituent concentrations measured above baseline monitoring results. 2.3. Future Permits and Requirements for Non-Potable Reuse 2.3.1. Non-Potable Reuse Permitting Mechanism For the near future, non-potable reuse projects utilizing disinfected tertiary recycled water produced at the WWTP will be regulated under a Master Reclamation Permit issued to the City. The SARWQCB utilizes Master Reclamation Permits to ensure implementation of Basin Plan requirements and Maximum Benefit commitments and to simplify regulation of producers and users under a single permit (see email correspondence with SARWQCB, Appendix A). Since the Master Reclamation Permit is part of an NPDES permit, the permit is revised and reissued on a 5-year cycle. 130 Item 10. 2.3.2. Non-Potable Reuse Regulatory Requirements Non-potable reuse regulatory requirements in a future Master Reclamation Permit are anticipated to be the same as specified in the current permit. As a result, the City will be responsible for compliance with all recycled water regulatory requirements including production, distribution, and reuse. If the City decides to implement a non-potable recycled water program, the specific types of uses should be identified in the future Master Reclamation Permit. The current permit only authorizes “landscape irrigation or other similar uses” which is a vague and limiting permit specification. All foreseeable non-potable uses should be defined in the CCR Title 22 Engineering Report and the Master Reclamation Permit to ensure authorization for additional uses and facilitate expansion of the recycled water during the permit term (as needed). For example, the City could seek pre-approval to use recycled water for agricultural irrigation, street cleaning, sanitary sewer cleaning, landscape impoundments, toilet flushing, and specific industrial processes if (and when) recycled water users are identified. 2.3.3. Non-Potable Reuse Special Studies and Approvals Typically, the only special study required for non-potable recycled water projects is preparation and ongoing maintenance of the Title 22 Engineering Report. The Engineering Report must clearly demonstrate how the recycled water project will comply with Title 22 and any other requirements specified by DDW or the Regional Water Board. The Engineering Report must be prepared by a qualified engineer (licensed in California and experienced in the field of wastewater treatment) and describe the treatment processes (including onsite validation bioassay testing of the ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system), distribution system, reliability features, contingency plans, program administrator14/authority, proposed uses, use sites, and use site protections. To ensure use site protection, the program administrator is required to conduct periodic site inspections, conduct backflow prevention device testing, and implement cross-connection control investigations/testing. Upon DDW “acceptance” of the Engineering Report and receipt of DDW’s written permit considerations, the Regional Water Board will prepare or revise the recycled water program operating permit. 2.3.4. Non-Potable Reuse Timeline for Approval The estimated timeline for approval of a non-potable reuse program is shown in Table 2-2. The activities are conducted in series, so the overall timeline is determined by summing the individual time periods. 14 Program Administrator is an entity (producer, distributor, user, or legal entity) that submits an application for a Master Reclamation Permit to the Regional Water Board and will issue permits for uses of recycled water consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria. The Program Administrator is responsible for coordinating, collecting data, and submitting reports to the Regional Water Board. 131 Item 10. Table 2-2 Timeline for Approval of a Non-Potable Reuse Program Activity Timeline City Prepares Engineering Report 1 – 3 months DDW Reviews Engineering Report and Provides Comments 1-2 months City Revises Engineering Report 1 month DDW Issues Conditional Acceptance of Engineering Report with Recommended Permit Provisions 1-2 months Regional Water Board Prepares Draft Permit with DDW Input 2 - 4 months Regional Water Board Releases Permit for Public Comment, Incorporates Changes as Needed, Adopts the Permit at Hearing 3 - 4 months Total 9 - 16 months 2.4. Permitting for Groundwater Replenishment by Surface Application (Indirect Potable Reuse) 2.4.1. Indirect Potable Reuse Permitting Mechanism The use of recycled water produced at the WWTP for groundwater replenishment by surface application (i.e., spreading) will be regulated under Site-Specific WRRs issued to the City and any other entity the SARWQCB deems responsible for meeting regulatory requirements. Depending on the quality of recycled water produced at the WWTP and ownership of the conveyance pipeline, BCVWD is anticipated to be either a co-permittee with the City or a sole permittee for groundwater replenishment. BCVWD (as the owner/operator of conveyance pipeline and the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds) will receive requirements to operate and maintain its facilities to prevent spills and ensure compliance with requirements for recycled water contribution (RWC15), response retention time, and underground travel time. These specific requirements are discussed in more detail below. Recycled water produced at the WWTP could also potentially be recharged in the Brookside Spreading Grounds which are owned and operated by the SGPWA and located just south of the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds. For recharge in the Brookside Spreading Grounds, it is anticipated the City and SGPWA would either be co-permittees or SGPWA would be the sole permittee in separate Site-Specific WRRs. 15 Recycled Municipal Wastewater Contribution (RWC) is the fraction equal to the quantity of recycled municipal wastewater applied at the spreading divided by the sum of the quantity of recycled municipal wastewater and credited diluent water (CCR Title 22 Section 60301.705). 132 Item 10. 2.4.2. Indirect Potable Reuse Regulatory Requirements The Site-Specific WRRs will include requirements for specific treatment processes, minimum recycled water quality, authorized discharge location, allowable sources of diluent water, running monthly average RWC, response retention time, pathogenic microorganism control, monitoring, and reporting. The anticipated requirements for groundwater replenishment by surface application are described below. Required Treatment Processes. “Disinfected tertiary recycled water” is the minimum level of treatment required for surface application (spreading). To meet CCR Title 22 requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water16, the wastewater must be oxidized, coagulated (if using filter media), filtered, and subsequently disinfected to inactivate and/or remove 99.999% of the plaque forming units of F-specific bacteriophage MS217 or polio virus in the wastewater. The recycled water currently produced at the WWTP meets the minimum treatment requirements. A portion of the filtered effluent is also pumped through a RO system to remove TDS. The extra treatment is needed to meet the Maximum Benefit WQOs for discharge to surface waters and groundwater. Full advanced treatment18 (FAT) is the next higher quality of recycled water defined in CCR Title 22. To achieve FAT, oxidized wastewater is treated using RO and an oxidation process that achieves 0.5-log reduction of 1,4-dioxane. The oxidation process typically involves UV disinfection followed by the addition of disinfection chemicals such as sodium hypochlorite or hydrogen peroxide. The treatment processes are validated through performance monitoring and pilot testing and DDW must approve the test results. Minimum Recycled Water Quality. The operating permit will include recycled water specifications to ensure high quality recycled water is produced and delivered to the spreading grounds. The minimum recycled water specifications consist of filter effluent turbidity limitations; UV transmittance and dose requirements; total coliform, total nitrogen, total inorganic nitrogen, and TDS limitations in the recycled water; and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) limitations in the recycled water (or groundwater). Authorized Discharge Location. The permit will define the allowable location(s) for surface application (spreading basins). The point of connection between the recycled water distribution pipeline and spreading basin inlet(s) will be identified by latitude/longitude coordinates in the permit. Discharge at any other location will be a permit violation. 16 CCR Title 22 Sections 60320.230, 60320.320 17 F-Specific Bacteriophage MS2 is cultivated, non-pathogenic strain of bacteria used for evaluating treatment process effectiveness. 18 CCR Title Section 60320.201 133 Item 10. Allowable Sources of Diluent Water. The permit will identify the sources of diluent water (e.g., SWP, rainfall, stormwater runoff, groundwater underflow) that can be used to determine compliance with the running monthly average RWC. Running Monthly Average RWC. The permit will specify a maximum 120-month running monthly average RWC and define the method used to demonstrate compliance. The initial project RWC is 0.20 or 20% unless DDW approves an alternate initial value. The alternate RWC will be based on the Engineering Report, public hearing results, and a demonstration that treatment processes can reliably achieve TOC concentrations ≤ 0.5 mg/L divided by the RWC. Use of FAT recycled water may increase the allowable RWC to 1.0 or 100% and decrease/eliminate the amount of diluent water required for permit compliance. Response Retention Time. Recycled water must be retained underground for a period of time (at least 2 months) to identify treatment failures and implement actions to protect public health. The response retention time is determined by the time needed to collect, analyze, and confirm problematic recycled water or groundwater samples, discuss actions with DDW and SARWQCB, and procure an alternate drinking water supply or provide wellhead treatment. The response retention time must be less than the underground retention time needed to achieve pathogenic microorganism control. For example, the response retention time must be less than the 10-months of underground travel time estimated for tertiary recycled water produced at the WWTP and described below for enteric virus reduction. Pathogenic Microorganism Control. Groundwater replenishment projects must achieve at least 12-log enteric virus reduction, 10-log Giardia cyst reduction, and 10-log Cryptosporidium oocyst reduction. The required log reductions are achieved by a combination of treatment process es (validated by pilot testing) and underground travel time. At least 3 separate treatment processes are required, and 1-log enteric virus reduction is granted for each month retained underground. For planning purposes, the treatment processes provided at the WWTP (primary/secondary, membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, UV disinfection) are estimated to provide 7-log enteric virus reduction, 11-log Giardia reduction, and 11-log Cryptosporidium reduction. The remaining 5-log virus reduction will have to be achieved through underground retention. Modeled underground retention time provides 0.5-log virus removal per month, so 10-months of modeled (modeled values are doubled to account for model uncertainties) underground travel time will be needed to meet the minimum 12-log virus reduction requirement. If the WWTP is upgraded to meet FAT requirements and all log reductions are met through treatment, a minimum 2-months underground travel time will be required. Monitoring. The permit will require monitoring of influent flow rates and quality, filter/RO/UV- AOP system operational parameters, recycled water flow rates and quality, diluent water flow rates and quality, and groundwater quality. Groundwater quality will be determined at monitoring wells located within specific travel times downgradient of the spreading grounds and upgradient of the nearest drinking water supply well. 134 Item 10. Reporting. The permit will require routine monthly, quarterly, and annual reporting of all required monitoring parameters. In the event of non-compliance with recycled water specifications or other permit requirements, notification to the SARWQCB, DDW, and the local potable water purveyor is typically required within 24-hours. 2.4.3. Indirect Potable Reuse Special Studies and Approvals Various special studies and approvals are required to obtain an operating permit for groundwater replenishment by surface application. The studies include validation of treatment processes, verification of recycled water quality, groundwater monitoring and modeling, diluent water monitoring, and documented plans to safeguard the public water supply. The anticipated special studies are described below. Groundwater Monitoring. Prior to project operation, the City and/or BCVWD (and potentially SGPWA) must determine the existing quality of all potentially affected groundwater aquifers. At least 4 representative samples, one sample per quarter to evaluate seasonal variations, must be collected from each aquifer and analyzed for specific chemicals, contaminants, and characteristics. Groundwater Modeling. The City and/or BCVWD (and potentially SGPWA) must conduct groundwater modeling to determine flow direction, underground travel time, and location of the nearest drinking water well. The modeling results will be used to select appropriate locations for monitoring wells, establish credits for enteric virus log reductions based on underground travel time, and the volume of underflow available for calculating diluent water contributions for compliance with the running monthly average RWC. Treatment Process Validation. Each treatment process utilized at the WWTP (including underground retention for virus removal) will be assigned a specific log reduction value that will be used to determine compliance with pathogenic microorganism control requirements. The City will need to submit standard values, approved results from tests conducted at similar facilities, or onsite testing results to DDW for validation and approval. Diluent Water Quality. The proposed diluent water sources may require testing and approval by DDW and SARWQCB. Potable water and SWP water are exempt from testing requirements. “New” (post 2004) stormwater must be evaluated to ensure compliance with Maximum Benefit WQOs. The testing methodology and planned compliance approach must be approved by the SARWQCB. A source water evaluation (per the American Water Works Association Watershed Sanitary Survey Guidance Manual) may be required for stormwater and groundwater underflow. The City and/or BCVWD will need to submit required documentation to DDW and the SARWQCB for review and approval. Diluent Water Volume. The proposed method for determining the volume of diluent water to be credited and the planned approach for introducing diluent water to ensure compliance with 135 Item 10. the running monthly average RWC must be submitted by the City and/or BCVWD to DDW and the SARWQCB for review and approval. Total Nitrogen and TOC Compliance. Recycled water (samples collected before or after surface spreading) must comply with a total nitrogen limit of 10 mg/L and a TOC limit of 0.5 mg/L. Sampling is recommended to predict compliance, evaluate treatment process operations, or propose groundwater compliance locations prior to preparation of the Engineering Report. If soil aquifer treatment (SAT) will be utilized to comply with the TOC limit, a soil-aquifer treatment factor must be approved by DDW based on demonstration studies conducted to predict removal efficiencies through the soil column. The City and/or BCVWD will need to submit the SAT studies to DDW for review and approval. Wastewater Source Control. The City must implement a pollutant source control program that includes chemical source investigations and monitoring for DDW-specified chemicals, outreach programs to minimize discharge of pollutants to the WWTP, tracking the fate of DDW-specified chemicals through the treatment processes, and current inventories of DDW-specified chemicals. A revised sewer use ordinance is recommended to prescribe local limits, develop appropriate enforcement procedures, and prohibit discharge of constituents of concern to the sewer system. Alternative Source of Drinking Water. The City and/or BCVWD (and potentially SGPWA) will need to develop a plan to provide an alternative source of drinking water or implement wellhead treatment if water quality standards are exceeded due to recycled water recharge. The proposed source of drinking water and implementation plan must be submitted to DDW for review and approval. Response Retention Time. The City and/or BCVWD (and potentially SGPWA) will need to develop a response retention time (minimum of 2 months) that provides sufficient time to identify treatment failures and implement actions to protect public health. The proposed response retention time must be submitted to DDW for review and approval. Zone of Controlled Drinking Water Well Construction. A primary zone of controlled drinking water well construction must be established based on the larger of the underground travel time approved for pathogen control or the response retention time. A secondary boundary is also required to delineate an area where more study or potentially mitigating activities may be conducted prior to drilling new drinking water wells. Riverside County (County), Department of Environmental Health issues permits for new well construction, reconstruction, abandonment, and destruction (Ordinance 682). Watermaster Resolution 2004-04 accepts the County well regulations and includes some additional stipulations. The City and/or BCVWD will need to coordinate with the County and Watermaster to identify existing potable supply wells and prevent drilling of new potable supply wells within the zone of controlled drinking water well construction. Adoption of an ordinance or agreement 136 Item 10. by or among the City, BCVWD, County, and Watermaster to prohibit new drinking water well construction within the primary zone is encouraged and may be required by DDW. Engineering Report. The City and BCVWD (and potentially SGPWA) must prepare Engineering Reports to describe the project facilities, treatment processes, results of the special studies (described above), and operational plans. The draft Engineering Reports are submitted to DDW and SARWQCB for their review and comment. After DDW and SARWQCB comments are addressed, the revised draft Engineering Reports will be made available for a 30-day public review period. At a minimum, all drinking water well owners located within 10-years underground travel time must be notified of the project by direct mail, newsletter, or local newspaper/TV/radio advertisements. Groundwater Tracer Study. After the project is approved and groundwater recharge is initiated, the City and/or BCVWD (and potentially SGPWA) must conduct a groundwater tracer study to verify the groundwater modeling results and ensure the required virus log reduction is achieved. Use of an intrinsic tracer (e.g., comparison between the mineral compositions of recycled water and ambient groundwater) is allowed, but only 0.67-log virus removal is credited per month. Use of an added tracer (e.g., fluorescent dyes) results in a full 1.0-log virus removal credit per month. Recycled Water Ordinance. Although not a regulatory requirement, the City’s recycled water ordinance (Ordinance 775) and recycled water rates and terms of service should be revised to reflect any shared arrangements between the City and BCVWD (and/or SGPWA) and the increased costs to produce and utilize recycled water for indirect potable reuse. Inland Empire Brine Line Capacity. If the WWTP is upgraded to FAT, 100% of the effluent will be treated with RO and more RO Concentrate will be generated for disposal. The City will need to purchase additional capacity in the Inland Empire Brine Line to make sure the larger volume of RO concentrate will be accepted. In addition, the City will pay higher recurring fees based on discharge flow rates and possibly surcharge fees based on changed quality of RO concentrate. 2.4.4. Timeline for Approval The estimated timeline for approval of a groundwater replenishment project (by surface application) is shown in Table 2-3. Some of the activities are conducted in parallel and others are dependent on approval of previous documents and monitoring results. The total range of 18 to 30 months is predicted from experience with similar projects, but the actual timeline will depend on the type of recycled water produced (tertiary vs. FAT) and regulatory agency staff workload and availability. 137 Item 10. Table 2-3 Timeline for Approval of Groundwater Replenishment Project (by Surface Application) Activity Timeline Project sponsors conduct groundwater monitoring to characterize existing groundwater quality 12 months Project sponsors conducts groundwater modeling to determine volume of underflow for diluent water credit (if diluent water is needed), identify closest drinking water well, determine underground retention time, and locate required monitoring wells 6 months City validates treatment processes to ensure compliance with required pathogen LRVs (length of time depends on the number and type of treatment processes to be validated) 1-6 months Project sponsors demonstrate appropriate diluent water quality (if diluent water is needed) 1-3 months Project sponsors develop method to determine the volume of diluent water to be credited (if diluent water is needed) 1-3 months Project sponsors demonstrates compliance with total nitrogen and TOC requirements 1-3 months City demonstrates compliance with wastewater source control requirements 1-3 months Project sponsors develop plan to provide alternative source of drinking water (i.e., plan that would be implemented if drinking water standards are violated at potable well) 1 month City updates recycled water ordinance to reflect shared arrangements with project sponsors and costs of providing recycled water 3-6 months City purchases additional capacity in the Inland Empire Brine Line for disposal of RO concentrate 2-3 months Project sponsors develop protective response retention time 1 month Project sponsors and other agencies adopt ordinance to establish zone of controlled drinking water well construction 2-3 months Project sponsors prepare Engineering Report 3 months DDW reviews Engineering Report and provides comments 3 to 6 months Project sponsors revise Engineering Report 1-2 months Project sponsors hold public hearing 1-2 months DDW issues conditional acceptance of Engineering Report with recommended permit provisions 1-2 months SARWQCB prepares draft permit with DDW input 2 to 4 months SARWQCB releases permit for public comment, incorporates changes as needed, and adopts the permit at hearing 3 to 4 months Total 18 - 30 months Notes: 138 Item 10. TOC – total organic carbon SARWQCB – Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board LRVs – Log Removal Values DDW – Division of Drinking Water 139 Item 10. 3. HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS 3.1. Beaumont Basin Adjudication An adjudication of the Beaumont Basin was adopted by a court judgment in 2004 and amended in 2006, 2008, and 2019 (Judgment). The adjudicated Beaumont Groundwater Basin boundaries are shown (in yellow) on Figure 3-1. The larger Beaumont Management Zone, spreading grounds, and WWTP are also shown on the figure. The Judgment identifies Appropriator Parties including the cities of Banning (Banning) and Beaumont, BCVWD, South Mesa Water Company (SMWC), and Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD). It identifies parties with water rights as Banning, BCVWD, SMWC, YVWD and other Overlying Parties (with smaller water rights). The Judgment established Basin Safe Yield, groundwater rights and provided for the creation of storage accounts and mechanisms for water transfers and adjustments of water rights. The Watermaster prepares annual reports documenting Watermaster activities and Basin conditions including pumping, recharge, groundwater levels and flow, and groundwater quality. 3.1.1. Basin Safe Yield The Safe Yield of the Beaumont Basin is defined by the Judgment as “The maximum quantity of water which can be produced annually from a groundwater basin under a given set of conditions without causing a gradual lowering of the groundwater level leading to depletion of the supply in storage.” The Safe Yield was originally defined in 2004 at 8,650 AFY and reevaluated in 2013 at 6,700 AFY based on use of the Watermasters refined groundwater flow model (Harder and ALDA, 2015). The Safe Yield can be increased through basin management such as managed aquifer recharge. 3.1.2. Basin Storage Accounting Currently, water can be stored in the Basin by Banning, Beaumont, BCVWD, SMWC, YVWD, the Morongo Band of Indians, and SGPWA. Other parties could potentially store water in the Basin under a new agreement with the Watermaster. The current allowed storage volume by entity and the water in storage as of 2020 are provided in Table 3-1. From the inception of the Judgement, Appropriators have accumulated water in their storage accounts. The accumulation of storage has not taken into consideration potential storage losses due to underflow from the Basin. 140 Item 10. Figure 3-1 Adjudicated Beaumont Basin and Management Zone Boundaries 141 Item 10. Table 3-1 Storage Limit and Water in Storage as of 2020 Storage Allowed (AF) Water in Storage as of 2020 (AF) City of Banning 80,000 50,899.2 BCVWD 80,000 39,749.8 City of Beaumont 30,000 0.0 South Mesa Water Company 20,000 10,134.2 Yucaipa Valley Water District 50,000 16,287.7 Morongo Band of Mission Indians 20,000 0.0 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency 10,000 471.8 Total in Storage 290,000 117,532.8 Notes: AF – acre-feet BCVWD – Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District A Study of Recharge Loses was published in 2018 (Harder and ALDA) that modeled six different managed recharge and pumping scenarios. Under current and simulated recharge/pumping scenarios, some groundwater underflow leaves the Basin at various locations along the southeastern and western boundaries (see Section 3.2.3). Managed recharge at the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds has increased underflow out of the Basin by raising groundwater levels. Modeling showed that losses could potentially exceed 10%, mostly to the Banning area. Additional pumping in the southeastern portions of the Basin could mitigate some of the underflow losses. The City, BCVWD, the Watermaster, and potentially SGPWA would need to work on a strategy for how recycled water recharged to the Basin would be credited to each agency. 3.1.3. Transfer and Adjustment of Water Rights There are three types of transfers that the Watermaster accounts for: 1. Transfer of water rights and/or water in storage between Appropriators, 2. Transfer of water rights from Overlying Producers to an Appropriator in exchange for water service, and 3. Allocation of unused Overlying Water to the Appropriator Parties based on their share of the Operating Safe Yield. The Judgement defines Appropriator’s Production Right to “consist of an Appropriator’s share of the Operating Yield, plus (1) any water acquired by an Appropriator from an Overlying Producer 142 Item 10. or other Appropriator pursuant to this Judgement, (2) any water withdrawn from the Appropriator’s storage account, (3) and New Yield created by the Appropriator. 3.2. Beaumont Basin 3.2.1. Aquifer Conditions Groundwater in the Beaumont Basin occurs within consolidated and semi-consolidated sedimentary rock overlain by unconsolidated to semi-consolidated alluvium consisting of interbedded layers of sand and silt with interbedded gravel and cobbles (Harder and ALDA, 2015). Crystalline basement rocks form the base of the aquifer system. The water-bearing deposits have been divided into an Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer. The Upper Aquifer is comprised of alluvial deposits and is more permeable than the Lower Aquifer. The Lower Aquifer is comprised of sedimentary deposits and ranges from 150 to 730 feet thick. The aquifers thicken toward the central area of the Basin to greater than 1,500 feet (maximum well depths). Most flow to wells, typically more than 80%, comes from the Upper Aquifer above approximately 1,000 feet below ground surface (ft-bgs) in the central portion of the Basin. The upper portion of the Upper Aquifer is likely unconfined with the deeper portion being semi- confined. The Lower Aquifer is assumed to be confined (Harder and ALDA, 2015). 3.2.2. Groundwater Production The Watermaster documents annual groundwater production from the Basin. While groundwater pumping fluctuates significantly from year to year, the highest Appropriator Party pumping was documented in 2020 (16,725 AF) (ALDA et al., 2021). Appropriator Party pumping accounted for 84% of the total pumping from the Basin. Overlying Party pumping has been decreasing over time. If Overlying Parties do not use their full water right, it is distributed to the Appropriator Parties. Municipal supply wells in the Basin are as deep as 1,500 feet (BCVWD, 2021). Domestic, irrigation, and agricultural supply wells are typically shallower with lower yields. 3.2.3. Faulting and Groundwater Levels and Flow The boundaries of the Beaumont Basin are based on faults that often form barriers to groundwater flow (Bloyd, 1971). The interpretation of the fault locations has evolved over time (Harder and ALDA, 2015). Major faults in the area include the Banning and Cherry Valley faults, which form the northern boundary of the Basin. The Beaumont Plains Faults are a series of northwest-southeast faults crossing roughly the center of the Basin west of Noble Creek (see Figure 3-2). They have been simulated with the Basin model as partial barriers to groundwater flow. 143 Item 10. Figure 3-2 Model-Simulated Groundwater Elevation Contour Map in December 2020 144 Item 10. Figure 3-2 shows faults and model-generated groundwater elevation contours in December 2020 (ALDA, et al., 2021). Along the Banning Fault, groundwater levels on the north side of the fault outside the basin are as much as 400 feet higher than groundwater levels on the south side of the fault inside the Basin. The Beaumont Plains Faults form a groundwater divide roughly along the Noble Creek drainage with flow moving west toward a pumping depression around BCVWD Well 29 in the west of the Basin and the San Timoteo Wash. In the eastern portion of the Basin, flow is southeasterly toward Banning. Groundwater underflow leaves the Basin at various locations along the southeastern and western boundaries of the Basin as shown in Figure 3-2. Groundwater levels have generally declined 120 to 180 feet in the Beaumont Basin and surrounding area since 1927 (Harder and ALDA, 2015). Since the 2000s, groundwater level change has varied based on location within the Basin. As shown in groundwater level hydrographs in Figure 3-3, wells near, south and southeast of the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds are showing increasing trends presumably due to managed recharge in the spreading grounds. Further south in the eastern and western portions of the Basin, groundwater levels continue to show declining trends. The pattern of trends in the hydrographs clearly demonstrate the benefits of managed aquifer recharge with SWP water at the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds and the potential additional benefits of recycled water recharge. 3.2.4. Recycled Water, State Water Project (SWP) and Groundwater Quality The SARWQCB has established Antidegradation and Maximum Benefit Water Quality Objectives (Antidegradation WQOs and Maximum Benefit WQOs) for TDS and nitrate as nitrogen (nitrate- nitrogen or nitrate) and other constituents in groundwater in its Basin Plan (SARWQCB, 2019). Antidegradation WQOs consider the goal of preserving historical groundwater ambient concentrations. Maximum Benefit WQOs consider management activities such as recharge with recycled water. As shown in Table 3-2, the Maximum Benefit WQOs for groundwater for TDS and nitrate-nitrogen are 330 mg/L and 5 mg/L, respectively. As specified in its Basin Plan (SARWQCB, 2019), the ambient groundwater quality in the Santa Ana Watershed, including the Beaumont GMZ, must be recalculated every three years. The Beaumont GMZ is an area defined by the SARWQCB that is slightly larger than the adjudicated Beaumont Basin area; however, ambient concentrations for the Beaumont Groundwater Management Zone are considered representative of the adjudicated Beaumont Basin, as most monitored wells are located within the Basin. The most recent recalculation was completed in 2020 for water quality data collected from 1999 to 2018 (WSC, 2020). The ambient TDS and nitrate-nitrogen groundwater quality for this period are 280 mg/L and 2.7 mg/L, respectively, as shown in Table 3-2. 145 Item 10. Figure 3-3 Groundwater Hydrographs in the Beaumont Basin 146 Item 10. Table 3-2 Groundwater Quality Objectives and Average SWP, Recycled Water and Groundwater Quality TDS (mg/L) Total Inorganic Nitrogen (mg/L) Nitrate as Nitrogen (mg/L) Antidegradation WQO 230 1.5 Maximum Benefit WQO 330 5.0 Average Ambient Groundwater1 280 2.7 Average SWP2 262 0.42 Average Tertiary RW with 50% RO3 3654/2605 3.9 Ten-Year Running Average for RW Recharge6 330 6.7 6.7 Typical FAT RW7 55 - 80 0.3 – 1.1 Available Assimilative Capacity 50 2.3 Notes: TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter BPO – Basin Plan Objective RW – recycled water RO – reverse osmosis FAT – full advanced treated recycled water SARWQCB – Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board WWTP – Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant 1 – Average in Beaumont Groundwater Management Zone from 1999 to 2018 (WSC, 2020) 2 – Average 2015 to 2018 (SGPWA, 2020) 3 – 50% of RW is run through RO treatment 4 – Average 2021 concentrations with limited RO runs 5 – WWTP Engineer’s estimate of TDS when plant operations are optimized 6 – Per SARWQCB (2014 and 2015) including bended water such as SWP, surface water and/or stormwater 7 – Typical range observed at West Basin Municipal Water District’s Edward C. Little Water Reclamation Water Replenishment District of Southern California’s Leo J. Vanderlans Advanced Water Treatment Facility, Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center and Orange County Water District’s Groundwater Replenishment System SGPWA reports imported SWP water quality data from the sampling station at Devil Canyon in San Bernardino, which is the closest sampling station to the SGPWA service area (SGPWA, 2020). SWP water quality varies from year to year and from month to month. Water quality at the station is primarily a function of water quality conditions in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta and runoff in watersheds tributary to the Delta. That water quality in turn is largely a function of overall California hydrology. In wet years and during wet periods within dry and average years, fresh water from upland rivers drains to the Delta and improves overall water quality with dry years exhibiting poorer water quality. Table 3-2 shows the average SWP water quality at the Devil Canyon station from 2015 to 2018 (SGPWA, 2020). Average TDS and nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in SWP water are 262 mg/L and 0.42 mg/L, respectively. 147 Item 10. Table 3-2 also shows estimated and measured TDS and total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) or nitrate- nitrogen concentrations in recycled water quality at the WWTP assuming tertiary treatment with 50% of the effluent stream undergoing RO (tertiary/50% RO) to reduce TDS. Typical FAT recycled water quality from other facilities is also presented in the table. The City believes RO treatment of 100% of the effluent stream (tertiary/100% RO) and FAT are feasible in the future. The WWTP can currently produce tertiary/50% RO, with the plant still undergoing operational optimization. The recycled water quality for TDS and TIN under tertiary/50% RO, with limited RO runs in 2021, are currently 365 mg/L and 3.9 mg/L, respectively. The WWTP Engineer estimates TDS will be in the 260 mg/L range once plant operations are optimized, including reduction in RO shutdowns, and addressing diurnal flows with implementation of equalization basins. The 3.9 mg/L TIN value is expected to be higher than the nitrate-nitrogen concentration and nitrate- nitrogen is also expected to be reduced with implementation of equalization basins and better biological removal. SARWQCB Resolution No.R8-2014-005 and Order No. R8-2015-0026/NPDES No. CA0105376 require recharge of recycled water in the Beaumont Groundwater Management Zone be limited to the amount that can be blended with other recharge sources or RO diluent to achieve a 10- year running average equal to or less than the 330 mg/L “maximum benefit” TDS objective and less than or equal to the 6.7 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen “maximum benefit” objective or 6.7 TIN (taking the nitrogen loss coefficient of 25% into consideration) (Table 3-2). Potential sources of blending include imported water, stormwater, and/or groundwater underflow. Assuming a RWC of 0.20 or 20% and current TDS and TIN/nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in tertiary/50% RO recycled water and 80% SWP diluent water, yields bended TDS and TIN/nitrate- nitrogen recharge concentrations of 282 mg/L and 1.1 mg/L, respectively, which are below those required by the SARWQCB in existing permits and the Basin Plan. The blended TDS is slightly higher than ambient groundwater, but effluent TDS concentrations are expected to be lower once the treatment train is optimized. The recycled water quality for TDS and nitrate under tertiary/100% RO or FAT produced at the WWTP would need further study. Beaumont believes tertiary/100% RO and FAT treatment are feasible for the WWTP with additional plant upgrades and reductions in tertiary/50% TDS and nitrate concentrations will be achieved with plant optimization. By enhancing treatment to tertiary/100% RO, it is expected that the City could achieve greater reductions in the concentrations of TDS and nitrate. With treatment optimization and blending with SWP water, the expected result would be TDS and nitrate concentrations that are lower than ambient groundwater. Tertiary/100% RO and FAT would both have TDS and nitrate concentrations less than ambient groundwater. Table 3-2 shows the current assimilative capacity of the Basin for TDS and nitrate-nitrogen. Assimilative capacity is the difference between the groundwater Maximum Benefit WQOs and 148 Item 10. ambient groundwater quality. All treatment levels of recycled water combined with SWP diluent water are expected to improve ambient groundwater quality if recharged. While only TDS and nitrate are discussed in this section, other constituents including chemicals of emerging concern (CECs) such as perfluorooctane sulfonates (PFOS), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOA), n-nitrosodimehtylamine (NDMA), 1,2,3-tricloropropane (1,2,3-TCP), and others, will likely need to be tested in recycled water and addressed if the recharge project moves forward. 3.3. Spreading Grounds There are two active spreading grounds in the Beaumont Basin, the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds owned and operated by BCVWD, and the Brookside Spreading Grounds owned and operated by SGPWA. There are also the Little San Gorgonio Creek Spreading Grounds owned and operated by SGPWA located just outside the Beaumont Basin north of the Banning/Cherry Creek faults. The Watermaster has opined that spreading of imported water at the San Gorgonio Creek Spreading Grounds is likely to be a source of subsurface recharge to the Beaumont Basin; however, the Watermaster has not formally adopted this finding. The Noble Creek Spreading Grounds are comprised of Phase 1 basins located northwest of Noble Creek and Phase 2 basins located southeast of Noble Creek. The facility includes 14 ponds divided into “trains” or sets of percolation ponds operated similarly in terms of wetting, drying and maintenance cycles. Phase 1 includes approximately 10.2 wetted acres of ponds and Phase 2 includes approximately 17 acres of wetted ponds. SWP water purchased by BCVWD has been recharged in the Phase 1 NCSBs since 2008 and the Phase 2 basins since 2015 (BCVWD, 2021). BCVWD has plans to recharge approximately 250 to 500 AFY of stormwater in the Phase 2 basins through a project currently underway with the Riverside Flood Control District (Jagger, 2021). Banning also purchases SWP water for spreading in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds. SWP water is received directly through a 24-inch turnout into the spreading basins. The Noble Creek Spreading Grounds and Brookside Spreading Grounds are shown on Figure 3-4. The Little San Gorgonio Creek Spreading Grounds are located outside the Basin and shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3. SGPWA began recharging SWP water in the Brookside Spreading Grounds in 2019. The facility includes five ponds and approximately 20 acres of wetted area (SGPWA, 2021). The wetted area is the area of ponds covered when the ponds are full. Table 3-3 shows the volume of water recharged annually in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds, Brookside Spreading Grounds, and Little San Gorgonio Creek Spreading Grounds (ALDA, et al., 2021). 149 Item 10. Figure 3-4 Beaumont Basin Spreading Grounds 150 Item 10. Table 3-3 Annual Supplemental Recharge – Calendar Year Accounting Year Banning1 (AF) BCVWD1 (AF) Total NCSGs (AF) SGPWA2 (AF) Total (AF) 2003 - - - - - 2004 - - - 813.8 813.8 2005 - - - 687.4 687.4 2006 - 3,501.0 3,501.0 777.7 4,278.7 2007 - 4,501.0 4,501.0 541.3 5,042.3 2008 1,534.0 2,399.0 3,933.0 1,047.4 4,980.4 2009 2,741.2 2,741.2 5,482.4 823.4 6,305.8 2010 1,338.0 5,727.0 7,065.0 1,222.3 8,287.3 2011 800.0 7,979.0 8,779.0 1,842.0 10,621.0 2012 1,200.0 7,783.0 8,983.0 1,827.2 10,810.2 2013 1,200.0 7,403.0 8,603.0 881.8 9,484.8 2014 608.0 4,405.0 5,013.0 16.5 5,029.5 2015 694.0 2,773.0 3,467.0 9.2 3,476.2 2016 1,477.0 9,319.0 10,796.0 17.8 10,813.8 2017 1,350.0 13,590.0 14,940.0 - 14,940.0 2018 500.0 12,121.0 12,621.0 - 12,621.0 2019 250.0 13,645.0 13,895.0 257.8 14,152.8 2020 250.0 11,005.0 11,255.0 214.0 11,469.0 Totals 13,942.2 108,892.2 122,834.4 10,979.6 133,814.0 Notes: AF – acre-feet BCVWD – Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District SGPWA – San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency NCSGs – Noble Creek Spreading Grounds SWP – State Water Project 1 - SWP water recharged in the BCVWD Noble Creek Recharge Facility 2 - Through 2018, the SGPWA recharged imported water at the Little San Gorgonio Creek Spreading Ponds, located just to the north of the Beaumont Basin boundary. Starting in 2019, the SGPWA recharges at their new spreading basins located at the southwest corner of Beaumont Blvd. and Brookside Ave. Imported water recharged at this location will be credited to the agency in their storage account. 3.3.1. Recharge Capacities The Noble Creek Spreading Grounds have a percolation rate of 7 to 10 acre-foot per acre per day (AF/acre/day) (BCVWD, 2021). The recharge capacity of the spreading grounds is estimated to be 25,000 to 30,000 AFY (D. Jagger, 2021). At full buildout, and assuming 1.8 MGD for environmental stream releases, incidental losses through treatment, effluent discharge to the brine line, and reuse on the WWTP site, it is estimated that approximately 4.6 MGD would be the maximum recycled water volume discharged in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds in the future. This is equivalent to 5,153 AFY. BCVWD has recharged a maximum of approximately 15,000 AFY since recharge operations began. Based on the lower estimated recharge capacity of 151 Item 10. 25,000 AFY results in 10,000 AFY of unused available recharge capacity and more than enough to accommodate the maximum anticipated recycled water volume of 5,153 AFY. It is estimated that the recharge capacity of the Brookside Spreading Grounds is approximately 20,000 AFY (SGPWA, 2021). As SGPWA has only been recharging at the facility for a short period of time since December 2019, it is unclear what maximum or average volumes of SWP water might be recharged in the future; however, it is likely that in most years, there would be unused capacity in the Brookside Spreading Grounds that could be used to accommodate recycled water recharge, if needed. The recharge capacities of the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds and Brookside Spreading Grounds appear more than adequate to accommodate the maximum volume of recycled water generated at the WWTP in the future. 3.3.2. Required Diluent Water If tertiary treated recycled water is recharged to the Beaumont Basin, diluent water is required beginning with a RWC of 0.20 or 20% and a diluent water contribution of 0.80 or 80%. Diluent water can include SWP water and stormwater recharged in the ponds as well groundwater underflow within a defined mixing area. These percentages are calculated as a running average over 10 years. BCVWD and Banning have recharged a 10-year running average of approximately 9,800 AFY of SWP in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds between 2011 and 2020. The current volume of recycled water produced by the WWTP is approximately 1,568 AFY (see Section 4, Table 4-1). These relative volumes of SWP and recycled water would result in a RWC of 0.16 or 16%, which would meet the initial regulatory requirements. At full plant build-out flows of 8 MGD and considering losses during treatment, recycled water reused at the plant, 1.8 MGD discharged to Cooper’s Creek for environmental habitat, and effluent discharged to the Brine Line results in an estimated maximum 4.6 MGD available for recharge. This is equivalent to 5,153 AFY of recycled water. Using the 10-year running average of SWP diluent water recharged in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds yields a RWC of 38%, which is greater than the regulations allow. The RWC can be increased over time. An alternative initial RWC (up to 1.0) can be approved by DDW based on effluent TOC concentrations and public hearing results. For example, the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds in Los Angeles County have been tentatively approved for a RWC of 45%; however, the increase from 20% to 45% has been gradual and taken a number of years (LARWQCB, 2009). Based on the last 10-year running average of SWP water recharged in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds (9,835 AFY), the maximum tertiary treated recycled water that could be recharged would be 2,459 AFY. Groundwater underflow, additional recharge of SWP water, and/or additional stormwater recharge would be needed to meet the 20% RWC assuming the maximum anticipate recycled water volume and 20% RWC. Groundwater underflow is 152 Item 10. anticipated to be minimal given faulting north and west of the spreading grounds, which limits groundwater inflow. A larger RWC (up to 1.0 or 100%) may be approved for recharge using FAT recycled water. In addition, the SARWQCB and DDW are more likely to approve increases in the RWC if tertiary/100% RO recycled water is produced and recharged in the spreading basins. 3.3.3. Hydrogeology Near the Spreading Grounds The Noble Creek Spreading Grounds and Brookside Spreading Grounds sit along Noble Creek in the north-central portion of the Beaumont Basin. A geohydrologic investigation was conducted at the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds prior to their construction to assess the site’s potential as a managed recharge site, in particular the existence of fine-grained confining layers, which could inhibit the downward percolation of recharge water (Geoscience, 2002). The investigation characterized four aquifers and is a modification of the Watermaster’s characterization of a regional Upper Aquifer and Lower Aquifer. The aquifers, depth to groundwater, and aquifer properties from a pumping test are presented in Table 3-4. Table 3-4 Spreading Basins Aquifers and Characteristics Depth (ft-bgs) Depth to Groundwater During Investigation (ft-bgs) Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day) Storativity (dimensionless) Perched Aquifer 300 -400 300 - 400 Shallow Aquifer 480 - 520 480 Intermediate Aquifer 600 – 1,000 500 - 505 20 - 27 0.0261 Deep Aquifer >1,000 495 - 498 Notes: ft-bgs – feet below ground surface ft/day – feet per day While a perched aquifer was identified with groundwater levels about 100 to 200 feet shallower than the shallow, intermediate, and deep aquifers, Geoscience concluded, based on observation well responses during the pumping test, that the zone between the perched and shallow aquifers was a semi-confining unit and recharge water would slowly move from the surface spreading basins to the intermediate aquifer where most groundwater is produced (comparable to Watemaster’s Upper Aquifer). Also, the storativity value calculated from pumping tests indicated semi-confined as opposed to fully confined conditions in the intermediate and deep aquifers. Observed mounding in the deeper aquifers around the spreading grounds indicates that recharge water is reaching these zones. Also, hydrographs of perched aquifer and deeper monitoring wells (NC-4S and NC-4D) at the spreading grounds, while showing differences in 153 Item 10. groundwater elevations, show the same pattern of increasing groundwater levels since recharge operations began. The deeper well does lag the perched well, supporting the characterization of delayed percolation of recharge water through the semi-confining layer (Jagger, 2021). The lateral movement of recharge water is also confirmed by rising groundwater levels in wells located southeast and south of the site as shown in Figure 3-2. 3.4. Groundwater Levels and Mounding Groundwater levels at the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds have risen since BCVWD began recharging SWP water in 2006 forming a mound around the basins. Groundwater levels rose approximately 90 feet between 2016 and 2020 (ALDA, et al., 2021). BCVWD has increased pumping in the area east of the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds to mitigate the mounding. Based on the groundwater elevation contours in December 2020 (Figure 3-1) and an estimated ground surface elevation of 2,700 feet mean sea level, the depth to groundwater beneath the spreading basins was about 400 feet. The degree of mounding will vary based on the volume of recharge in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds and Brookside Spreading Grounds. Mounding affects groundwater flow directions resulting in radial flow in the local area of the spreading basins. Understanding flow patterns/directions and velocities is essential to recycled water recharge planning. Mounding can be an issue if groundwater levels rise to near the ground surface, which can reduce infiltration rates, impact shallow underground structures like basements or freeway underpasses, discharge to surface water, or mobilize shallow contamination areas (i.e., environmental release sites). Given the depth to groundwater (400 feet) after 15 years of spreading grounds operation, any additional mounding due to recycled water recharge, which is a small percentage of the total recharge, is not expected to have adverse impacts. This was confirmed with groundwater modeling, which showed groundwater levels do not rise above current levels with maximum projected recycled water recharge. 3.5. Nearby Water Supply Wells and Travel Times Understanding travel time for water to flow underground from one point to another is also important in recycled water recharge planning. Recycled water recharge regulations require various water travel times be demonstrated including travel time to the nearest monitoring and drinking supply wells, pathogen reduction time, and time to respond to improperly treated recycled water recharge (response retention time). Water travel times are used to define the zone of controlled drinking water wells. For planning purposes, these travel times are typically demonstrated with a groundwater flow model and confirmed with a tracer test after project startup. 154 Item 10. The Watermaster’s groundwater flow model was used as a preliminary evaluation of travel times to nearby potable supply wells. The modeling assumed the 2010 to 2019 SWP recharge volumes (average 9,416 AFY) and current volume of recycled water (1,568 AFY) being produced. When using a groundwater flow model for recycled water recharge planning, the regulations require a safety factor of two to account for uncertainties associated with groundwater flow models. Assuming the underground travel time to provide pathogen reduction credit is 5 months, under the regulations this is equivalent to 10-months when estimated with groundwater modeling. The importance of travel time is demonstrated in Figures 3-4 and 3-5. Figure 3-4 shows modeled travel times with monthly contours for the first year of recycled water recharge in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds. Figure 3-5 shows annual contours for 10 years of travel time for recycled water recharge. BCVWD Well 23 is located just south of the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds and is currently used for potable supply. This well is at 8-months travel time from the spreading grounds and would not meet regulatory criteria for underground residence time of recycled water assuming a required pathogen reduction time of 10-months. BCVWD has indicated the well could be converted to non-potable uses to allow use of the spreading grounds for recycled water recharge (Jagger, 2021). The Riverside County, Department of Environmental Health website shows wells located on the Beaumont High School and California Baptist College sites located just west and northwest of the spreading grounds, respectively. These wells are located 4 to 7-months of travel time from the spreading grounds. It is unclear from the website if these wells are used for potable supply or irrigation. The usage for these two wells will need to be clarified, and if used for potable supply, the wells will need to be converted to non-potable uses or destroyed in order to implement recycled water recharge. Once the zone of controlled drinking water wells is defined, it is recommended that a study be conducted to determine if there may be undocumented wells within the zone through review of drillers’ logs, County and Watermaster records and databases, BCVWD water supply connection records, and a windshield survey. As shown in Figure 3-5 recycled water is estimated to take a little less than 3 years to reach the next closest drinking water well to the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds, BCVWD Well 21. This amount of travel time is likely sufficient to meet underground retention time requirements. Travel time to BCVWD Well 23 and two other nearby wells was discussed previously. The 10-year travel time is shown to indicate the area where well owners would need to be notified of the recycled water project. Figure 3-5 shows wells included in the Watermaster’s modeled pumping. Other potential well owners in the area will need to be verified and given notice prior to the required public hearing. 155 Item 10. Figure 3-4 Recycled Water Monthly Distribution for 1 Year of Recharge in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds 156 Item 10. Figure 3-5 Recycled Water Yearly Distribution For 10 Years of Recharge in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds 157 Item 10. 3.6. Potential for Recycled Water Recharge The use of the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds and potentially the Brookside Spreading Grounds to recharge recycled water appears feasible considering the following. • TDS and nitrate-nitrogen (and TIN) concentrations in tertiary/50% RO recycled water, tertiary/100% RO recycled water, and FAT recycled water meet regulatory requirements for spreading with recycled water assuming blending with SWP water and/or stormwater for tertiary treated recycled water. • The available spreading grounds capacity is more than adequate to accommodate current and maximum recycled water and diluent water volumes. • Available diluent water (SWP) based on the last 10 years of recharge in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds is adequate to allow recharge of up to 2,459 AFY of tertiary treated recycled water assuming 50% of the recycled water undergoes RO treatment. After this threshold, an increase in the RWC, more SWP water, introduction of stormwater recharge, a higher percentage of RO treatment, and/or FAT recycled water will be needed. • Modeling of travel times indicate that BCVWD Well 23 located adjacent to the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds would need to be converted to non-potable uses. Travel time to the next closest potable supply well, BCVWD 21, appears adequate to meet required underground retention time. • The current status of wells located on the Beaumont High School and California Baptist College sites will need to be verified. 3.7. Hydrogeologic Benefits, Challenges, and Considerations 3.7.1. Benefits Use of recycled water for recharge has the following benefits relative to hydrogeologic consideration. • Maximizing use of recycled water for recharge provides the most benefits in terms of drought resilient groundwater sustainability compared with non-potable reuse. • Recycled water recharge will help (along with SWP recharge) reverse long-term declining trends in groundwater levels. • BCVWD, Beaumont, and SGPWA have existing storage agreements with the Watermaster, which accommodate recycled water recharge. • Use of tertiary/50% RO, tertiary/100% RO and FAT recycled water are all feasible with respect to groundwater quality considering TDS and nitrate concentrations and blending with diluent water (as needed). FAT recycled water provides the most groundwater quality benefits as it has the lowest TDS and nitrate concentrations, followed by tertiary/100% RO recycled water and tertiary/50% RO recycled water. 158 Item 10. • Beaumont believes recycled water quality will improve at the WWTP as operations are optimized and generation of tertiary/100% RO and FAT recycled water are feasible. • Based on historical recharge, enough SWP water is available to meet diluent water requirements for tertiary treated recycled water under current recycled water production volumes and up to 2,459 AFY of recycled water in the future. Regulators may approve increases in the RWC over time and would likely consider an increase in the RWC if tertiary/100% RO were recharged. Diluent water may not be required to recharge FAT recycled water with DDW approval. • Model-estimated underground travel time appears adequate to meet regulatory requirements for BCVWD Well 21; however, as discussed above, BCVWD Well 23 located adjacent to the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds, would need to be converted to non-potable uses. 3.7.2. Challenges/Considerations • Meeting regulatory requirements and getting regulatory approval is typically more involved than for non-potable reuses. Additional studies will be required, including modeling. Planning and permitting could take multiple years. • BCVWD Well 23 would need to be converted to non-potable uses. Usage of wells on the Beaumont High School and California Baptist College sites would need to be confirmed and if presently used for drinking water supply, would need to be converted to non- potable uses or destroyed. • Based on historical SWP recharge volumes in the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds, a maximum of 2,459 AFY of tertiary/50% RO recycled water can be recharge in the spreading grounds while meeting the 20% RWC. • Additional SWP and/or stormwater may need to be recharged in the spreading grounds to meet the 20% RWC once the recycled water volume exceeds 2,459 AFY. There is very little groundwater underflow to provide diluent credit. • Beaumont/BCVWD will need to address other potential chemicals in recycled water including CECs. • Upgrades to the WWTP could be required by the regulators or may be needed to meet the RWC as volumes of recycled water increase. • Beaumont and BCVWD will need stakeholder consensus, including the Watermaster. 159 Item 10. 4. OPTIONS ANALYSIS The City of Beaumont owns and operates the WWTP. The facility receives and treats domestic and commercial/industrial wastewater generated within the City and the Highland Springs area (portions of the unincorporated area of Cherry Valley). The facility was originally designed and permitted to discharge up to 4 MGD of tertiary-treated wastewater. The City's treated wastewater is currently discharged to Cooper's Creek, a tributary to Marshall Creek and Noble Creek, all of which are tributary to San Timoteo Creek. The discharge to Cooper's Creek overlies the Beaumont Groundwater Management Zone. The Cooper’s Creek outfall does not overlie the adjudicated Beaumont Basin and studies have shown that very little of the wastewater recharges the Beaumont Groundwater Management Zone. The discharge primarily recharges the downstream San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zone. In order to comply with the SARWQCB Basin Plan and WWTP permit, the City’s salt mitigation measures include RO treatment as well as construction of a 23-mile-long Brine Line commencing at the WWTP and terminating at the City of San Bernardino’s connection point to the Inland Empire Brine Line for exporting excess salt. The Inland Empire Brine Line conveys the brine to the Orange County Sanitation District for discharge with treated effluent in the Pacific Ocean. The City’s Brine Line is completed and is in operation. The final construction for the WWTP and Brine Line to produce tertiary/50% RO recycled water, including WWTP expansion from the current 4 MGD to 6 MGD, has been completed. The upgraded WWTP design includes activated sludge, membrane bioreactor (MBR), RO, and UV disinfection facilities to treat wastewater to Title 22 reuse standards. The Master Reclamation/NPDES permit for the WWTP is currently being reissued by the SARWQCB. Upgrading the WWTP to produce FAT recycled water would likely take an additional 18 to 24 months; although, given recent supply chain issues, it is difficult to reliably predict construction times. The current upgraded WWTP was designed to ensure compliance with the Maximum Benefit WQOs for TDS and nitrate-nitrogen, as well as effluent limits for conventional pollutants as required by the discharge permit. The expected effluent quality is as follows: • Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) < 20 mg/L • Total Suspended Solids (TSS) < 20 mg/L • Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) < 5 mg/L • Turbidity < 2.0 NTU • Total Coliform < 2.2 MPN/100 mL • Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) < 330 mg/L 160 Item 10. Four options for reuse of the WWTP recycled water have been developed and are described and assessed in the following section. 4.1. Option 1 – City Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Indirect Potable Reuse-Tertiary Treatment 4.1.1. General Description Option 1 includes recharge of recycled water into the Basin through the construction and use of a City-constructed, owned and operated dedicated WWTP outfall pump station and pipeline to the BCVWD and/or SGPWA spreading basins. The treatment plant will produce tertiary recycled water with 50% undergoing RO suitable for indirect potable reuse. This option includes a recycled water pump station located at the WWTP and outfall pipeline from the pump station to the BCVWD and/or SGPWA’s spreading grounds. Figure 4-1 is a conceptual illustration of the components of this option. Disinfected tertiary/50% RO recycled water from the WWTP would be pumped from the in-plant final treated effluent holding basin(s) directly to the BCVWD and/or SGPWA groundwater recharge basins. No recycled water would be diverted for irrigation, which would limit the City’s final end-users to BCVWD and, potentially, SGPWA. The recycled water will commingle with groundwater that can be recovered by groundwater wells for use in BCVWD’s potable and non-potable distribution systems. Recycled water recharged in the spreading grounds would be credited to the City’s, BCVWD’s, and/or SGPWA’s Basin storage accounts. The WWTP recycled water quality and permit requirements are discussed above in Section 2 The City and BCVWD would likely be co-permittees for recycled water reuse with liability extending to the point of groundwater extraction for water supply. Table 4-1 summarizes existing and expected WWTP effluent flows through build-out of the WWTP. Currently, the WWTP treated effluent is being discharged into Cooper’s Creek adjacent to the WWTP and as a result of this long-term discharge, regulatory agencies have required that at least 1.8 MGD continue to be discharged into Cooper’s Creek for environmental mitigation. In addition, there are losses that occur in the treatment process including evaporation and RO brine discharges. The City estimates these losses are about 20% of the inflow. 161 Item 10. Figure 4-1 Preliminary Outfall from WWTP to Recharge Ponds 162 Item 10. Table 4-1 Projected WWTP Effluent Supply Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 WWTP Gross Production, MGD 4.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 WWTP Net for Reuse, MGD1 1.4 3 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 WWTP Net for Reuse, AFY 1,568 3,360 3,808 4,257 4,705 5,153 Notes: WWTP – Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant MGD – million gallons per day AFY – acre-feet per year1 (Source: City of Beaumont projected WWTP flows) 1 – Net effluent available for reuse after 20% in-plant losses and 1.8 MGD discharge to Cooper’s Creek for environmental mitigation 4.1.2. Conceptual Facilities The conceptual facilities for this option include an approximately 400 horsepower recycled water pump station located at the WWTP, and approximately 21,000 feet of 20-inch diameter pipeline crossing multiple railroad tracks and Interstate 10. Both the railroad and freeway crossings are envisioned to be completed by bore and jack or micro-tunnel technologies. 4.2. Option 2 – BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Indirect Potable Reuse-Tertiary Treatment 4.2.1. General Description Option 2 includes indirect potable reuse via surface spreading within the Basin with BCVWD constructing a new pump station adjacent to the WWTP and operating its existing non-potable pipeline to convey recycled water to the BCVWD and/or SGPWA spreading basins. Tertiary recycled water with 50% of the water undergoing RO would be delivered to the spreading grounds. BCVWD will need to disconnect and reroute all of the existing irrigation connections along the pipeline since non-potable reuse would not occur under this option. Recycled water recharged in the spreading grounds would be credited to the City’s, BCVWD’s, and/or SGPWA’s Basin storage accounts. Currently, BCVWD has about 30 miles of non-potable water transmission pipelines in place, which are supplemented by an extensive network of smaller distribution lines installed by developers as part of tract development that has occurred since about 2002. The transmission system forms a loop around the City comprised primarily of 24-inch diameter ductile iron pipe (DIP). The system includes a 2 million gallon (MG) non-potable water reservoir which provides gravity operational storage and pressurization for the system. The 2 MG tank is located at elevation 2,800 at the BCVWD’s groundwater recharge facility at Beaumont Avenue between Brookside Ave. and Cherry Valley Blvd. 163 Item 10. The 2 MG tank is configured to receive potable water or untreated SWP water through air gap connections. The non-potable water system can have a blend of recycled water (when available), non-potable, imported water, and potable water. A reach of the 24-in diameter DIP pipeline loop in 4th Street also runs in front of the WWTP. For this option, the easterly potion of BCVWD’s non-potable 24-inch diameter loop would be used exclusively to transport recycled water from the WWTP to the recharge ponds and isolated from the rest of the loop system. All irrigation distribution pipelines and direct connections along this portion of the loop would be disconnected. This is illustrated schematically in Figure 4-2 where the solid line represents the dedicated portion of the pipeline to be used as the recycled water outfall to the spreading basins. It is in the City’s interest to disconnect the irrigation connections to limit its potential liability for permit violations. For tertiary treated recycled water, the SARWQCB has indicated the City is the sole permittee responsible for non-potable reuse. Elimination of non- potable reuse will limit the number of direct recycled water users to only BCVWD and/or SGPWA. This option requires the BCVWD to construct a recycled water pump station adjacent to the WWTP, connect into its 24-inch non-potable pipeline in 4th Street, and construct facilities necessary to completely isolate the easterly part of the loop system from any irrigation or other types of non- potable uses. The City and BCVWD would likely be co-permittees for recycled water reuse with joint liability extending to the point of groundwater extraction for water supply. 4.3. Option 3 - BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD Sole Permittee, Non-Potable and/or Indirect Potable Reuse-FAT 4.3.1. General Description Option 3 includes indirect potable reuse via surface spreading within the Basin with BCVWD constructing a new pump station adjacent to the WWTP and operating its existing non-potable pipeline to convey recycled water to the BCVWD and/or SGPWA spreading basins. FAT water would be produced by the City and delivered to BCVWD for conveyance and groundwater recharge. Non- potable reuse such as irrigation would be at the discretion of BCVWD under this option. To limit potential City liability, the FAT recycled water produced would meet the required pathogenic reductions using multiple treatment processes at the WWTP. The SARWQCB has indicated in verbal discussions with the City (Van Belle, 2021) that compliance withall pathogenic reduction requirements at the WWTP would result in the City’s liability ending once the FAT water is delivered to BCVWD at discharge from the WWTP. 164 Item 10. Figure 4-2 Option 2 Pipeline Schematic 165 Item 10. FAT is the treatment of an oxidized wastewater using RO and an advanced oxidation treatment process. The RO and advanced oxidation processes must meet design and performance criteria specified and validated by DDW. The advanced oxidation process typically employs hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorite, ozone and/or ultraviolet light, which breaks down organic molecules into metabolites. The exact treatment train to achieve FAT with complete pathogenic reduction at the WWTP has not been determined and would require additional City planning and design. Generation of FAT recycled water would require the City to provide RO treatment for 100% of the recycled water. BCVWD would be the sole permittee for recycled water distribution and reuse and liable for any permit violations. Recycled water recharged in the spreading grounds would be credited to the City’s, BCVWD’s, and/or SGPWA’s Basin storage accounts. This option requires BCVWD to construct a recycled water pump station adjacent to the WWTP and connect into its 24-inch non-potable pipeline in 4th Street. Because the FAT recycled water with complete pathogenic reduction at the WWTP is considered a potential potable supply, BCVWD would need to provide backflow prevention along its conveyance system to prevent mixing of FAT water with other non-potable water such as SWP water. 4.4. Option 4 – BCVWD Conveyance, BCVWD and City Co-Permittees, Non-Potable and Potable Reuse-Tertiary Treatment 4.4.1. General Description Option 4 includes recycled water reuse for irrigation and other non-potable uses using BCVWD’s existing non-potable transmission pipeline system and pump station (to be constructed adjacent to the WWRP) with surplus recycled water discharged into BCVWD’s and/or SGPWA’s recharge basins to recharge the Basin. Irrigation would be under permit and oversight by the City. BCVWD has over 300 non-potable irrigation connections and, as describe in Option 2, a large non-potable distribution system, part of which is a 24-inch DIP loop transmission system with a reach running in front of the WWTP and a 2 MG operational storage tank. In 2021, non-potable irrigation water demand closely matches WWTP recycled water production. However, BCVWD does not currently have any monthly or seasonal recycled water storage. Table 4-2 illustrates the annual irrigation demand compared with the projected annual WWTP recycled water production, estimated through build-out in year 2045. Recycled water production will exceed irrigation demand in 2025 or when the WWTP flows approach 6 MGD. The WWTP will have flow equalization in place which will level out daily flows; however, there will be no seasonal storage to capture winter WWTP recycled water production when irrigation demand is at a minimum. 166 Item 10. Excess recycled water would be recharged in the spreading grounds or discharged to Cooper’s Creek. Table 4-2 Comparison of WWTP Recycled Water Production with Irrigation Demand Beaumont WWTP Projected Flows1 Irrigation Demand2 Year Rated3 (MGD) Net4 (MGD) Net (AFY) AFY Difference5 2020 4 1.4 1,569 0 1,569 2025 6.0 3.00 3,362 1,957 1,405 2030 6.5 3.40 3,810 2,175 1,635 2035 7.0 3.80 4,258 2,478 1,780 2040 7.5 4.20 4,706 2,561 2,145 2045 8.0 4.60 5,153 2,578 2,577 Notes: BCVWD – Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District WWTP – Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant MGD – million gallons per day AFY – acre-feet per year 1 – Source: City of Beaumont 2 – Recycled Water Demand, BCVWD Draft Urban Water Management Plan, July 2021, Table 4-5 3 – Rated WWTP capacity is the WWTP flow rate capacity in MGD recognized and permitted by the RWQCB 4 – Net includes rated flow less 1.8 MGD for environmental mitigation and 20% losses for miscellaneous losses including brine disposal 5 – Difference between WWTP recycled water production and BCVWD irrigation demand Under this Option, the City would have the highest level of liability exposure for permit violations associated with recycled water irrigation or other non-potable reuses. This means that the City will need to have its own staff of professionals providing oversight, inspection, and control of its recycled water reuse, duplicating the oversight and control necessarily provided by BCVWD. The City will likely not be able to support this Option because the potential liability is extreme compared with other Options and also considering current and past observed irrigation leakage and overspray occurring at sites irrigated with BCVWD’s non-potable system and under BCVWD’s oversight and control. The City would have a high level of liability exposure due to the multiple irrigation users, requiring the City to implement and monitor all aspects of recycled water reuse including, but not limited to, cross-connection control, over-irrigation and runoff, spillage from pipeline breaks and leaks, and other reuse-regulated requirements. The City might also have to enact and enforce, special recycled water use permits for all users, and develop and adopt regulations through a dedicated recycled water reuse enforcement department. This duplication of oversight and control is not cost effective or economic for City residents and BCVWD customers, who will pay for it for both agencies. While the City Council can assign liability to another entity for potential violations, they cannot do this on behalf of the WWTP Operator of Record. 167 Item 10. 4.5. Relative Cost Comparison of Options Table 4-3 roughly compares Option 1 with Options 2, 3, and 4 with regards to capital and operating costs. 4.5.1. Capital Costs Option 3 and 4 have the lowest capital costs as they utilize BCVWD’s existing conveyance system for recharge and irrigation; although BCVWD will need to resolve any cross-connection issues related to its non-potable distribution system under Option 4 and will need to install backflow prevention under Option 3. All four options require construction of a new pump station, monitoring wells, and performance of tracer tests. Options 1 and 2 are comparable in terms of conveyance as Option 1 requires the City to construct a new conveyance pipeline, while Option 2 requires BCVWD to disconnect and reroute all irrigation connections. Option 1 provides the least duplication of public services and least exposure for the City to excessive liability for violations of its WWTP permit discharge requirements because it would construct, own, operate, and maintain the pumping and conveyance system. Under Option 3, the City will have added costs to produce FAT recycled water. The City and BCVWD may recover capital expenditures through rates and fees. 4.5.2. O&M Costs Options 1 requires the City to maintain and provide conveyance to the spreading grounds. The City will recover these costs through recycled water fees. Options 2, 3, and 4 are similar in terms of O&M costs for BCVWD for maintenance and operation the recharge facilities. Options 3 and 4 have added costs for BCVWD for maintenance, operation, and regulation and oversight of non- potable facilities. The City has significant regulation and oversight costs for Option 4 non- potable facilities. Options 1, 2, and 4 require BCVWD to purchase diluent water. No diluent water will need to be purchased for Option 3. This will reduce the O&M costs associated with the purchase of SWP diluent water. The City will need to work with BCVWD and SGPWA to develop the relative water costs associated with each option. FAT recycled water will be more expensive to produce under Option 3. Options 2 and 4 will all utilize tertiary/50% RO recycled water so costs for production of the recycled water should be similar. Because the City will recover the costs of conveyance under Option 1, the cost of recycled water to BCVWD would be higher. 168 Item 10. Table 4-3 Relative Costs Comparison of Options Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Capital Cost City Capital Costs: City Capital Costs: City Capital Costs: City Capital Costs: • The City builds and operates the Option 1 pump and distribution facilities • City capital cost is relatively minimal mostly covered in WWTP expansion. • Increased City capital costs to produce FAT recycled water and additional brine disposal may be passed to BCVWD/SGPWA in recycled water rates. • City capital cost is relatively minimal mostly covered in WWTP expansion. BCVWD Capital Cost: BCVWD Capital Cost: BCVWD Capital Costs: BCVWD Capital Cost: • Cost to install an additional monitoring well and conduct and report on tracer tests.1 • BCVWD will need to build a recycled water pump station at the WWTP. • The cost to disconnect and reestablish irrigation connection. • Cost to install an additional monitoring well and conduct and report on tracer tests.1 • BCVWD will need to build a recycled water pump station. • BCVWD will need to provide backflow prevention along its conveyance pipeline to prevent mixing of FAT and non-potable water (SARWQCB permit requirement). • Cost to install an additional monitoring well and conduct and report on tracer tests.1 • BCVWD will need to build a recycled water pump station • BCVWD’s additional capital costs for resolving cross connections and potential recycled application site related runoff issues. • Cost to install an additional monitoring well and conduct and report on tracer tests.1 169 Item 10. Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Operational Costs City O&M Costs: City O&M Costs: City O&M Costs: City O&M Costs: • Maintain and operate PS and pipeline and pumping cost will likely be the largest component. Costs may be passed to BCVWD/SGPWA in recycled water rates. • Potential costs for permit violations. • The City's cost will largely be those related to distribution and discharge permit monitoring plus, the cost of added risk and liability. Costs may be passed to BCVWD/SGPWA in recycled water rates. • Potential costs for permit violations. • City O&M costs likely to be minimal once FAT water leaves the plant. • The City will need to build a recycled water discharge permit enforcement department to monitor potentially over 300 BCVWD irrigation users. • The City's cost will largely be those related to distribution and discharge permit monitoring and enforcement. • Potential costs for permit violations. BCVWD O&M Cost: BCVWD O&M Cost: BCVWD O&M Costs: BCVWD O&M Cost: • Cost to operate, monitor, and report annually on recycled water recharge in the spreading grounds.2 • Distribution costs will likely be similar to current costs. • Cost to purchase diluent water. • Potential costs for permit violations. • Maintain and operate PS and pipeline with pumping cost will likely be the largest component. • Cost to operate, monitor, and report annually on recycled water recharge in the spreading grounds.2 • Distribution costs will likely be similar to current costs. • Cost to purchase diluent water. • Potential costs for permit violations. • Recycled water irrigation use permit monitoring and enforcement cost. • Maintain and operate PS and pipeline with pumping cost will likely be the largest component. • May have increased costs for monitor and enforcement of BCVWD rules and regulations for irrigation end users. • Cost to operate, monitor, and report annually on recycled water recharge in the spreading grounds.2 • Distribution costs will likely be similar to current costs. • Potential costs for permit violation. • Recycled water irrigation use permit monitoring and enforcement cost. • Maintain and operate PS and pipeline with pumping cost will likely be the largest component. • May have increased costs for monitor and enforcement of BCVWD rules and regulations for irrigation end users. • Cost to operate, monitor, and report annually on recycled water recharge in the spreading grounds.2 • Distribution costs will likely be similar to current costs. • Cost to purchase diluent water. • Potential costs for permit violations. Notes: PS – pump station O&M – operations and maintenance HP – horsepower BCVWD – Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District GRRP – Groundwater Replenishment Recharge Project RWC – Recycled Water Contribution 1 - It appears BCVWD has adequate monitoring for the closest required monitoring well(s), but a second down gradient monitoring well between the GRRP and BCVWD Well 21 will need to be installed. In addition, a tracer test to verify modeled travel times will be required. The City could potentially share some of these costs. 2 - The spreading grounds recharge water and monitoring wells would need to be monitored and annual reporting including documentation of the RWC to the SARWQCB will be required. The City could potentially share some of these costs 170 Item 10. Under Option 4 (and possibly Option 3), groundwater and SWP water for irrigation would be largely replaced by recycled water. Relatively speaking recycled water is likely the least expensive water supply, although the City would need to develop rates. The cost of groundwater is highly dependent on the depth to groundwater and the associated pumping costs. SWP water is likely the most expensive of the three water sources (recycled water, groundwater, and SWP water). A comparison of water supply (recycled water, SWP water, and groundwater) costs among the options is beyond the scope of this study. In order to objectively compare water costs of each option, the real cost of water for each option would need to be calculated and compared between the options. The real cost of water isn’t necessarily comparable with the water rate charged by a water supplier. The real cost of water is basically the amortized cost of capital facilities plus operational and maintenance costs spread over the full amount of water delivered through those facilities. However, there are other revenue streams that water agencies use to offset some costs such as property tax and developer fees and in lieu facilities. As an example, SWP contractors cover some if not all their SWP purchased water though property tax revenues, then base their water rates on their local operations costs. Thus, their water rates do not reflect the cost they paid for the SWP water purchase. 4.6. Benefits, Challenges, and Considerations Some of the benefits, challenges, and considerations associated with the options are presented below. 4.6.1. Sustainability and Storage Credit • Options 1 and 2 maximize use of recycled water for recharge (100%) providing the most benefit in terms of drought resilient groundwater sustainability compared with non-potable reuse. If non-potable reuse is implemented, Option 4 and Option 3 would use less than 100% of recycled water for recharge. However, it is anticipated that Option 3 would likely still recharge significant volumes of recycled water. • All options offset the need for some future imported water by storing recycled water in the Groundwater Basin. Under Options 1 and 2, all recycled water is recharged. Under Option 3, BCVWD can use some recycled water for non-potable uses at its discretion, so less could be available for storage credit. Under Option 4, recycled water would be used for irrigation (and potentially other uses) with less recharging the Basin and less storage credit compared with Options 1, 2, and 3. • Options 1, 2, and 3 allow the City, BCVWD, and potentially SGPWA to maximize additions to their Basin storage accounts. Recycled water recharge allows the City to use the stored water for its use or sell the credit to Basin pumpers and BCVWD to pump more groundwater or make other use of the storage credit. Option 4 and potentially Option 3 would result in less Basin recharge and storage credit compared with Options 1 and 2 if some recycled water is used for non-potable uses. 171 Item 10. 4.6.2. Facilities Ownership and Liability • Under Option 1, the City would own and operate the recycled water distribution system from the WWTP to the spreading grounds. The City would need to build a new pump station and distribution pipeline. • Under Options 2, 3, and 4, BCVWD would own and operate the recycled water distribution system to the spreading grounds. However, under Option 2, BCVWD would have to build the required pipelines and other facilities to replace pipelines and irrigation connections removed in order to isolate the easterly portion of the 24-inch loop. Option 4 would utilize BCVWD’s existing non-potable distribution system for irrigation, but the City would have to provide oversight and regulation for non-potable uses such as irrigation. • For Options 1, 2, and 4, the City and the BCVWD would likely be co-permittees under site-specific WRRs for recharge. It is unclear how the SARWQCB would allocate relative responsibility for any violations of the permits. For Option 3, the City’s liability would end once the FAT recycled water is produced at the WWTP if pathogenic reductions can be achieved by multiple treatment processes at the WWTP. Under Option 3, BCVWD would be the sole permittee for distribution, groundwater recharge, and non-potable reuse with sole liability for violations. • Options 1, 2, and 3 help the City stay in compliance with recycled water permit requirements by limiting the number of recycled water users (City and BCVWD and potentially SGPWA) and limiting City liability due to violations associated with leaks and spills that could occur with multiple irrigation (or other) users. • Under Option 4, the City would be the sole permittee for non-potable reuse and would have full liability for violations of permit requirements. As a result, the City would have a higher level of liability exposure due to potential permit violations associated the multiple irrigation (or other) users. The City will need to implement and monitor all aspects of recycled water reuse including, but not limited to cross- connection control, runoff and irrigation overspray, spills from pipeline breaks, and other reuse requirements. The City will need to adopt a strict regulatory and enforcement ordinance and issue recycled water use permits for all users, along with developing a specialized enforcement division. Liability extends to the City and the City WWTP Operator of Record for potential permit violations at multiple points of use. While the City Council can assign liability to other entities, it cannot do this on behalf of the WWTP Operator of Record. • Option 4 and potentially Option 3 utilizes BCVWD’s existing non-potable distribution system to achieve wide distribution of recycled water to potentially over 300 non- potable water users. This system is currently in use only for irrigation water (groundwater and SWP water) distribution. • Under Options 1, 2, 3, and 4, BCVWD would continue to operate its existing irrigation system (or modified system under Option 2) in a similar manner as in the past by pumping groundwater, SWP, and/or recycled water into the irrigation system and using its storage tank located at the Noble Creek Spreading Grounds to 172 Item 10. pressurize the system and supply operational storage. Seasonal storage is provided by the recharge and recovery in the Basin. 4.6.3. Regulatory Considerations • Options 1, 2, and 3, which primarily recharge the Basin, are likely to have greater regulatory support (DDW and SARWQCB) compared to Option 4, which may use a larger volume for irrigation and other non-potable uses. • Option 4 would result in more exposure to the City for violations so it will require considerable regulatory and administrative oversight by the City for non-potable reuse. • Option 3 will have greater DDW and SARWQCB acceptance and support due to the use of the higher quality FAT recycled water compared to Options 1, 2 and 4. • Option 3 will improve groundwater quality to a greater extent compared to Options 1, 2 and 4 due to the higher quality recycled water utilized for recharge. • Because FAT recycled water is considered potential drinking water, Option 3 will require BCVWD to install backflow prevention devices along its conveyance system to prevent mixing of FAT recycled water and any non-potable water sources such as SWP water. • Options 1, 2 and 4 will require diluent water to meet the RWC for recharge. If diluent water requirements cannot be met over the 10-year running averaging period, recycled water recharge will need to be halted until additional diluent water is available for recharge. Option 3 will have no diluent water requirements, eliminating the cost to purchase SWP water for spreading to meet RWC requirements. Option 3 also increases the reliability of recharge operations, since it would not rely on imported water, which can be unavailable during droughts. • Based on experience with similar projects, obtaining a permit for indirect potable reuse will take approximately 18 to 24 months while obtaining a permit for non- potable reuse will take approximately 9 to 16 months. • Under all options, BCVWD Well 23 may need to be converted to non-potable uses. Usage of wells on the Beaumont High School and California Baptist College sites would need to be confirmed, but if presently used for drinking water supply, may also need to be converted to non-potable uses or destroyed. 4.6.4. Costs • Capital costs for pumping and conveyance for Option 3 and 4 are lower compared to Options 1 and 2. However, costs for regulation and oversight of the irrigation program under Option 4 are likely to be high and duplicative between BCVWD and the City. In addition, the potential costs for fines and penalties for irrigation permit violations could be very high. These duplicative oversight requirements may lead to conflicts between the two agencies. Options 1, 2, and 3 reduce duplicative 173 Item 10. administration and oversight costs for recycled water use for irrigation and other non-potable uses (City liability ends at the WWTP under Option 3). • Option 3 would not require purchase of diluent water for recharge, so this option would be less costly for supplemental water supplies compared with Options 1, 2, and 4. • Under Option 3, FAT recycled water will be more expensive to produce compared to the tertiary recycled water produced under Options 1, 2, and 4 (50% of the flow undergoing RO treatment). In addition, the volume of FAT recycled water will be less than produced for tertiary recycled water because there will be more residuals (e.g., brine, RO concentrate) generated during treatment. In addition to the increased treatment costs, there will be added costs for disposal of the larger volume of residuals. Residuals are discharged to the Inland Empire Brine Line for disposal by the Orange County Sanitation District. The City will be charged for a larger designated capacity of the brine line and higher ongoing costs based on volumes discharge to the brine line. It is assumed that the added costs for FAT would be passed along to recycled water users as increased rates. • Under Option 4 and potentially Option 3, BCVWD will need to develop a recycled water use plan including rules and regulations, monitoring, and the enforcement of all restrictions in the City’s recycled water permit. In addition, the City will need to develop a permitting and enforcement division to oversee non-potable reuse under Option 4. 4.6.5. Stakeholder Consensus • For all options, Beaumont and BCVWD will need stakeholder consensus including the Watermaster and other parties, for indirect potable reuse. The success of all options will rely to some extent on the Watermaster’s cooperation in maximizing accounting for storage of recharged recycled water in the Basin. 4.7. Preferred Option From the City’s perspective, Option 3 is the preferred option for the following reasons: • Recharges a potentially high volume of recycled water in the Basin; • Recharge results in storage credits for the City, BCVWD, and potentially SGPWA; • City liability for permit violations ends at the WWTP, assuming full pathogenic reduction is achieved at the WWTP; • Use of FAT recycled water will have greater DDW and SARWQCB acceptance and support due to the production and use of higher quality recycled water; • Puts the highest quality water into the Basin which will improve groundwater quality; • Reduces overall costs by using existing BCVWD existing conveyance facilities; 174 Item 10. • Reduces uncertainty by eliminating reliance on imported water for diluent water, which can be unavailable during droughts; and • Reduces costs for purchase of imported water for dilution. 4.8. Schedule for Option 3 (Preferred Option) Construction of Option 3 facilities is expected to take approximately 3 years to complete. Figure 4-3 illustrates the estimated project schedule. 175 Item 10. Figure 4-3 City of Beaumont Recycled Water Use Project – Option 3 Preliminary Schedule (preferred option) Task Days Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 180 SGPWA Complete Construction of WWTP Upgrades 360 Obtain Updated WWTP Permits GRRP Engineering Report Approval/Permit 720 CEQA MND 180 Upgrade WWTP with FAT Evaluation of WWTP and Predesign 180 Prepare a Financial Plan and Final Design 180 Construct FAT 360 BCVWD Recycled Water Pump Station Prelim Design inc. Survey, Geotech 90 Final Design 120 Advertise and Bid and Award 60 Construction 360 Startup, Testing and Troubleshooting 90 360 Notes: BCVWD - Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act - upper estimated time schedule SGPWA - San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency MND - Mitigated Negative Declaration WWTP - Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant FAT - fully advanced treated GRRP - Groundwater Replenishment Recharge Project Secure Final Agreements with BCVWD and SGPWA BCVWD Prepare and Upgrade Irrigation System as needed 176 Item 10. 5. REFERENCES ALDA, Inc. (ALDA), Thomas Harder & Company (THC), Rogers, Anderson, Malody, and Scott, LLP (RAMS), April 2021, Draft 2020 Consolidated Annual Report and Engineering Report prepared for Watermaster Board. Arcadis et al, Chino Basin Water Bank Planning Authority, March 2020, Scenario Preliminary Evaluation Technical Memorandum, Estimated Facilities Costs, (unpublished). AQUA Engineering (AQUA) and Albert A. Webb Associates (Webb), January 2020, Beaumont, California Wastewater Treatment Plant Title 22 Engineering Report, prepared for City of Beaumont. Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District (BVWD) and City of Beaumont (Beaumont), July 2019, Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Recycled Water by and between the BCVWD and Beaumont. Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District (BVWD), July 2021, Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Geoscience), July 1, 2002, Geohydrogeologic Investigation Noble Creek Artificial Recharge Ponds Study, prepared for BCVWD. Jaggers, D., General Manager, BCVWD, July 20, 2021, Zoom Call with S. McCraven and J. Thornton. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), 2009, Order No. R4-2009-0048- A-XX, Amending Water Recycling Requirements for Groundwater Recharge and Waste Discharge Requirements in Order No. 91-100 as Amended by Order No. R4-2009-0048 for the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel River Spreading Grounds. San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA), January 2020, Annual Report on Water Conditions Reporting Period Calendar Year 2018. San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA), Adopted June 21, 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), 2014, Resolution No. R8-2014- 0005, Resolution Amending the Water Quality Plan for the Santa Ana Region Incorporate Updates Related to the Salt Management Plan for the Santa Ana Region, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.html. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), 2015, Order No. R8-2015-0026, NPDES No. CA0105376, Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Reclamation Permit for the City of Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant, Riverside County. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), June 2019, Updated Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) including amendments. 177 Item 10. Thomas Harder & Co. (Harder) in cooperation with ALDA, Inc. (ALDA), April 3, 2015, 2013 Reevaluation of the Beaumont Basin Safe Yield, prepared for the Beaumont Watermaster. Thomas Harder & Co. (Harder) in cooperation with ALDA, Inc. (ALDA), September 6, 2018, Beaumont Basin Storage Loss Analysis, prepared for the Beaumont Watermaster. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Geology, Ground-Water Hydrology, Geochemistry, and Groundwater Simulation of the Beaumont and Banning Storage Units, San Gorgonio Pass Area, Riverside County, California, Scientific Investigation Report 2006-5026. Van Belle, Thaxton, November 2021, Verbal communications with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board staff, re: City liability related to FAT recycled water. Water Systems Consulting, Inc (WSC), July 8, 2020, Recomputation of Ambient Water Quality in the Santa Ana River Watershed for the Period 1999 to 2018, prepared for: Santa Ana Watershed Protection Authority (SAWPA) Basin Monitoring Program Task Force. 178 Item 10. APPENDIX A January 16, 2020, Email Correspondence Between City and SARWQCB (Julio Lara (Regional Water Board ) to Brian Knoll (Webb Associates) and Kristine Day (Beaumont) 179 Item 10. 180 Item 10. 181 Item 10. Todd Engineers March 15, 2022 City of Beaumont Recycled Water Reuse Strategy Analysis Findings Handouts 1 Hunt Thornton Resource Strategies 182 Item 10. List of Acronyms 2•BCVWD –Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District•City –City of Beaumont•CEQA/NEPA –California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act•DDW –State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water•FAT –full advanced treatment of recycled water•IPR –indirect potable reuse (e.g., recycled water recharge to groundwater via surface spreading or subsurface injection)•LWA –Larry Walker Associates•MOU –memorandum of understanding•NPR –non-potable reuse (e.g., recycled water reuse for irrigation, industrial, construction uses, etc.)•SARWQCB –Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board•SGPWA –San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency•SWP –State Water Project imported water•Title 22 –California Code of Regulations containing recycled water regulations•WWTP -Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant 183 Item 10. Options Summary 3 Option Uses Conveyance and Liability Responsibility Level of TreatmentRecharge in the Spreading Grounds Irrigation and other Non- Potable Uses Tertiary with 50% RO FAT 1 X New pump station and pipeline constructed and operated by the City. City and BCVWD likely co- permittees with associated liabilities. X 2 X New pump station constructed by BCVWD and disconnection of all existing irrigation connections on the existing non-potable pipeline to spreading grounds. City and BCVWD likely co-permittees with associated liabilities. X 3 X At BCVWD’s discretion New pump station constructed by BCVWD and use of BCVWD’s existing conveyance pipeline to spreading grounds. City responsible for recycled water production only. BCVWD sole permittee responsible and liable for violations for indirect potable and non-potable reuse once recycled water leaves the WWTP. X 4 X X New pump station constructed by BCVWD and use of BCVWD’s existing conveyance system for non-potable reuse and delivery to spreading grounds. City solely responsible and liable for non- potable reuse. City and BCVWD responsible and liable for indirect potable use. X 184 Item 10. Todd Engineers March 15, 2022 City of Beaumont Recycled Water Reuse Strategy Analysis Findings 1 Hunt Thornton Resource Strategies 185 Item 10. Introductions 2 Consultant Team•Hunt Thornton Resource Strategies John Thornton, Water Resource Consultant•Todd Groundwater Sally McCraven, Senior Hydrogeologist•Larry Walker Associates Denise Conners, Associate Engineer City of Beaumont•City Council Lloyd White, Mayor Julio Martinez III, Mayor Pro Tem David Fenn, Councilmember Mike Lara, Councilmember Rey SJ Santos, Councilmember•Todd Parton, City Manager•Kristine Day, Asst City Manager•Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director•Thaxton VanBelle, General Manager of Utilities•Jeff Hart, Director of Public Works –City Engineer SBEMP•City Attorney’s Office John Pinkney Peg Battersby 186 Item 10. Recycled Water Reuse Goals 3 •MAXIMIZE production and beneficial use of City’s recycled water in the Beaumont Basin•OFFSET some of the need for imported water •MINIMIZE the City’s long-term state-imposed liability as the producer of recycled water•ENCOURAGE and support sustainable development Existing Spreading GroundsDevelopment187 Item 10. Presentation Overview 4 •Recycled Water Reuse Options Developed•Analysis of Options and Preferred Option•What's Next Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) in Spreading Basins 188 Item 10. Recycled Water Reuse Project Options 5 •Option 1 Tertiary treatment City constructed, owned, and operated conveyance (new pipeline and new pump station) Recharge in existing spreading grounds for indirect potable reuse (IPR) No direct irrigation or other non- potable uses (NPR) from pipeline City and BCVWD co-permittees for IPR New City Pipeline and Pump Station Recharge in Spreading Grounds 189 Item 10. Recycled Water Reuse Project Options 6•Option 2 Tertiary treatment BCVWD owned and operated conveyance (existing pipeline and new pump station) Recharge in existing spreading grounds for IPR No direct irrigation or other NPR from pipeline (disconnection and rerouting of existing irrigation connections) City and BCVWD co-permittees for IPR Existing BCVWD Pipeline Recharge in Spreading Grounds 190 Item 10. Recycled Water Project Options 7 •Option 3 Full Advanced Treatment (FAT) including all pathogen reduction at the WWTP BCVWD owned and operated conveyance (existing pipeline and new pump station) Recharge in existing spreading grounds for IPR and irrigation/ other NPR from pipeline at BCVWD discretion BCVWD sole permittee for recycled water reuse FAT is the highest quality Title 22 recycled water Existing BCVWD Pipeline 191 Item 10. Recycled Water Project Options 8•Option 4 Tertiary treatment BCVWD owned and operated conveyance (existing pipeline and new pump station) Recharge in existing spreading grounds for IPR and irrigation/ other NPR from pipeline BCVWD and City co-permittees for IPR, City sole permittee for NPR Irrigation Reuse Recharge in Spreading Grounds Existing BCVWD Pipeline 192 Item 10. Analysis of Options 9 •Sustainability and Basin Storage Credit Maximizing groundwater basin recharge is more desirable than using recycled water for irrigation and other NPR (Options 1, 2, 3)•Facility Ownership and Liability Use of recycled water for irrigation and other NPR leads to high regulatory compliance liability for City (Option 4) City’s regulatory compliance liability is minimized if FAT recycled water is produced (Option 3) 193 Item 10. Analysis of Options 10 •Regulatory Considerations Options that maximize groundwater basin recharge will have the most regulatory agency support (Options 1, 2, 3) Recharge using FAT recycled water will improve groundwater quality and will have the most regulatory agency support (Option 3)•Costs Cost to construct a new conveyance system is high (Option 1) Cost to disconnect and reconnect irrigation systems is high (Option 2) Cost to produce FAT recycled water is high but offset by eliminating need to purchase SWP diluent water (Option 3) 194 Item 10. Analysis of Options 11 •Stakeholder Issues Identify stakeholders and stakeholder concerns Develop consensus among BCVWD, SGPWA, Watermaster, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders Beaumont Watermaster Well Owners The Public Collaborating For Success Others? 195 Item 10. Option 3 is Preferred 12 •Increases sustainability and storage credits by recharging a high volume of recycled water•Limits City liability to when FAT recycled water leaves the WWTP•Improves groundwater quality and ensures higher level of regulatory acceptance•Reduces costs by using existing BCVWD conveyance system•Reduces costs by eliminating need to purchase SWP diluent water Recharge in Spreading Grounds Many Agencies Use the Term “Purified Water” instead of FAT 196 Item 10. What’s Next 13 •City Council Review and accept Report Select preferred option Provide direction to City Council representatives•BCVWD Participate in PowerPoint presentation Participate in 2 x 2 meetings Negotiate MOU 197 Item 10. What’s Next 14 •SGPWA Participate in PowerPoint presentation Confirm support for City/BCVWD direction•SARWQCB and DDW Participate in PowerPoint presentation Confirm support for City/BCVWD direction Identify next steps 198 Item 10. What’s Next 15 •Implementation Develop funding plan Conduct studies Upgrade WWTP (Option 3) Prepare DDW Engineering Report Obtain operating permit(s) 199 Item 10. Questions and Answers 16 Pure Water Monterey Project Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 200 Item 10. Needed Studies 17 •Groundwater modeling to determine travel times, underflow, mounding, monitoring well siting, etc.•Identification of all potable wells and establish Zone of Controlled Drinking Water Well Construction•Adopt ordinance/MOU to prevent installation of new potable wells in Zone of Controlled Drinking Water Well Construction•Develop groundwater monitoring and reporting plan•Conduct groundwater monitoring and water quality characterization•Conduct soil aquifer treatment study, if needed 201 Item 10. Needed Studies 18 •Prepare design reports for WWTP upgrades to FAT, if needed•Develop methodology to track diluent water volume if needed•Prepare Title 22 Engineering Report for IPR•Develop General Operations Plan•Prepare Operations Optimization Plan•Adopt City and BCVWD ordinances/regulations for irrigation and other NPR•Prepare pump station design reports•Update WWTP Source Control Plan•Conduct CEQA/NEPA studies 202 Item 10. List of Acronyms 19•BCVWD –Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District•City –City of Beaumont•CEQA/NEPA –California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act•DDW –State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water•FAT –full advanced treatment of recycled water•IPR –indirect potable reuse (e.g., recycled water recharge to groundwater via surface spreading or subsurface injection)•LWA –Larry Walker Associates•MOU –memorandum of understanding•NPR –non-potable reuse (e.g., recycled water reuse for irrigation, industrial, construction uses, etc.)•SARWQCB –Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board•SGPWA –San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency•SWP –State Water Project imported water•Title 22 –California Code of Regulations containing recycled water regulations•WWTP -Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant 203 Item 10. Options Summary 20 Option Uses Conveyance and Liability Responsibility Level of TreatmentRecharge in the Spreading Grounds Irrigation and other Non- Potable Uses Tertiary with 50% RO FAT 1 X New pump station and pipeline constructed and operated by the City. City and BCVWD likely co- permittees with associated liabilities. X 2 X New pump station constructed by BCVWD and disconnection of all existing irrigation connections on the existing non-potable pipeline to spreading grounds. City and BCVWD likely co-permittees with associated liabilities. X 3 X At BCVWD’s discretion New pump station constructed by BCVWD and use of BCVWD’s existing conveyance pipeline to spreading grounds. City responsible for recycled water production only. BCVWD sole permittee responsible and liable for violations for indirect potable and non-potable reuse once recycled water leaves the WWTP. X 4 X X New pump station constructed by BCVWD and use of BCVWD’s existing conveyance system for non-potable reuse and delivery to spreading grounds. City solely responsible and liable for non- potable reuse. City and BCVWD responsible and liable for indirect potable use. X 204 Item 10. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Lisa Leach, Assistant Finance Director DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Nvoicepay – Accounts Payable Automation Service Presentation Background and Analysis: In August 2020, Tyler Technologies, the City’s current financial software provider, reached out to Finance staff regarding a new service being developed for third party payments. Finance staff reviewed the presentation and determined at the time that participating in the pilot program was an increase on staff’s time. In May 2021, Tyler reached out again to the Finance staff with a fully functional program and provided references of current customers. Upon further due diligence, Finance determined to go live with Nvoicepay in December 2021. Nvoicepay is a third-party service, integrated with Tyler Technologies, that offers three types of payments, checks, ACH and virtual card. Vendors have choices of payment methods to increase timely payments. Using the third party provides fraud and misuse protections for the City by transferring the risk to Nvoicepay. Important to note, the accounts payable process and new vendor vetting process is still the same to ensure the best system of controls. With a reduced need to cut checks in house, the City saves on the cost of checks, ink, envelopes and postage and City staff time. Finally, Nvoicepay provides a revenue-sharing program in the form of a rebate to the City. Fiscal Impact: City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $465. Recommended Action: Receive and file presentation. Attachments: A. Nvoicepay PowerPoint presentation 205 Item 11. NvoicepayCity of Beaumont206Item 11. What is Nvoicepay?AP Automation enables organizations to quickly and accurately automate vendor paymentsIntegrated service in Incode with Tyler personnel dedicated to support and continuous improvementFacilitates payments through Check, ACH, and Virtual Card. Offering multiple modes of payment provides vendors with flexibilityIn house checks are still an optionThe City is protected for Fraud and Misuse of payments issued through provision of Indemnification, Insurance and Dispute ResolutionContract reviewed by Legal Counsel207Item 11. Risk of FraudNvoicepay’s GuaranteeMost common fraud is theft through ACH payment. Scammers send an email that looks like a request from the vendor to change the bank and routing number for future payments. Switching to third party Nvoicepay transfers risk of ACH fraud to them. Note: The City’s Accounts Payable process and new vendor set up remains the same. Internal Controls have not changed.208Item 11. Benefits of NvoicepayVendors have choices of payment methods to increase timely paymentsTransfers risk to a third partyDecreases costs to the CityChecksInkEnvelopesPostageDecreases staff time in stuffing checksCity staff work with Nvoicepay when a check becomes staleProgram provides a revenue sharing in the form of a rebate to the City209Item 11. 210Item 11. 211Item 11. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Consideration of Possible Amendments to Settlement Agreement, Mitigation Measures, and Condition of Approval Relating to the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Project History and Background: 2005 Approval of Project, and Certification of the Final EIR: On or about February 15, 2005, the Beaumont City Council certified the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”), adopted the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan subject to Conditions of Approval, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (“Project”). The City filed a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Recorder in connection with the Project. CEQA Lawsuit: On March 17, 2005, Petitioners Cherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors (“CVAN”) and Cherry Valley Environmental Planning Group filed an action against the City in Riverside County Superior Court entitled Cherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors, et al. v. City of Beaumont, Case No. RIC 427282, challenging the City's certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The developer, Noble Creek Meadows, LLC (“Noble Creek”) was named as a Real Party in Interest in the action. Settlement Agreement: In or about May 2006, the parties1 entered into a settlement agreement. As set forth more fully below, the settlement agreement modified the Project and certain Conditions of Approval originally issued by the City on February 15, 2005, including Condition of Approval 27 which is at issue here. The tentative tract map was also approved around the time of the settlement. 1 The parties to the Settlement Agreement include the following: (1) CVAN; (2) Cherry Valley Environmental Planning Group; (3) the City of Beaumont; (4) Noble Creek; (5) Fiesta Development; (6) Olinger Riverside Limited Partnership; and (7) Diamond Riverside Limited Partnership. 212 Item 12. Noble Creek Objects to Mitigation Measures and Condition of Approval: On August 5, 2021, approximately 16 years after the Project was approved, legal counsel for Noble Creek provided written notice of a Mitigation Fee Act protest. Specifically, Noble Creek objected to the City's imposition of three mitigation measures from the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan EIR (i.e., Mitigation Measures 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3) and Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Condition of Approval 27. On September 13, 2021, the City responded to Noble Creek’s August 5, 2021, notice of Mitigation Fee Act Protest. Noble Creek was advised that City did not believe its protest had any merit. First, City staff communicated that Noble Creek completely ignored the Settlement agreement, which changed the conditions of the Project and made it clear that Noble Creek must construct certain transportation improvements prior to the City’s issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Second, Noble Creek was advised that the traffic improvements in the Transportation Mitigation measures and Condition of Approval 27 must follow the EIR, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and Settlement agreement. Based on the clear language set forth in these documents, the City stated that Noble Creek is obligated to physically construct the traffic improvements contemplated for buildout of the entire Specific Plan. Tolling Agreement: On November 5, 2021, the City and Noble Creek entered into a Tolling Agreement to preserve the parties claims and defenses under the Mitigation Fee Act for 180-days (i.e., until May 4, 2022). Noble Creek requested the Tolling Agreement because it was working with CVAN to amend the Settlement agreement regarding Condition of Approval 27. PROJECT CASE HISTORY: Project Location: The Project is within the City of Beaumont and is comprised of 332 undeveloped acres, located southwesterly of the intersection of Brookside and Beaumont Avenues. It is approximately 1.5 miles northeasterly of the I -10/Oak Valley Parkway interchange. Project Summary: The Specific Plan is comprised of a consortium of property owners. Noble Creek, one of the property owners, initially proposed single-family residential uses, as well as areas for a middle school, recreation, and open space. When fully developed, the EIR proposed the construction of a maximu m of 965 homes in the Project area. However, as discussed below, the Project has been reduced in size since that time. 213 Item 12. History of Specific Plan Area After Approval of Specific Plan and EIR : A substantial portion of the Specific Plan area has now been devel oped. Brookside Elementary School was constructed along Brookside Avenue and Mountain View Middle School was constructed at the intersection of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. Both were completed prior to adoption of the Specific Plan and made roadway improvements immediately along their respective frontages. In addition, the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency constructed its spreading grounds project along Beaumont Avenue without constructing any offsite improvements beyond its frontage. The San Gorgonio Pass Agency’s recharge basins were constructed in an area that was planned and analyzed for residential units in the Specific Plan and EIR. Specifically, the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency property was allocated 126 units in the Specific Plan. Those 126 units will no longer be constructed in the Specific Plan area. In addition, Specific Plan Planning Area 1, which was anticipated to include 180 units by the Specific Plan, is vacant and the tentative map for the property has expired. Therefore, the 180 units slated for Planning Area 1 will not likely be developed. Noble Creek has obtained approval of a tentative map from the City that allows 274 single family units on its portion of the Specific Plan, which expires in November 2022. The number of units that would be constructed for the Project represents less than 43% of the residential units contemplated by the Specific Plan (648 units total) and less than 30% of the residential units analyzed in the EIR (965 units total). MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL AT ISSUE: Mitigation Measure 4.7.1: Pursuant to the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Consolidated Environmental Impact Report Dated May 2004 (“Draft EIR”) and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan within the Final EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.7.1 states as follows: “4.7.1 To provide City of Beaumont threshold Level of Service "D" or better, and as applicable, the County threshold Level of Service “C” or better during the peak hours for buildout traffic conditions with the Project, the following off -site intersection improvements are required: o In order to achieve County threshold of LOS C at the intersection of Beaumont Avenue (NS) at Cherry Valley Boulevard (EW):  Construct a second through lane for all approaches;  Provide an additional left turn lane for the northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches;  Provide northbound, eastbound, and westbound right turn lanes. 214 Item 12. o In order to achieve City threshold of LOS D at the intersection of Beaumont Avenue (NS) at 14th Street (EW):  Construct a second westbound through lane;  Provide a second left turn lane for the northbound, southbound and westbound approaches;  Provide a right turn lane for the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches. o In order to achieve City threshold of LOS D at the intersection of Beaumont Avenue (NS) at I-10 Freeway WB Ramps (EW):  Restrict 5th Street access to/from Beaumont Avenue;  Construct a loop ramp in the northeast quadrant to provide westbound access onto the I-10 Freeway. This improvement will eliminate the northbound left-turn lane at this location;  Provide a southbound right turn lane;  Provide a shared westbound lane for left and right turns. o In order to achieve City threshold of LOS D at the intersection of Beaumont Avenue (NS) at I-10 Freeway EB Ramps (EW):  Restrict 4th Street access to/from Beaumont Avenue at this location;  Construct an additional northbound through and right lane;  Construct a second southbound and eastbound left turn lane;  Provide an eastbound free right turn lane.” Although not part of the specific text of Mitigation Measure 4.7.1, the Draft EIR states directly below the mitigation measure the following: “As mitigation for Project-related traffic impacts at the above-referenced intersections, payment of traffic impact mitigation fees shall be realized consistent with the Project fair share contribution to intersection improvements presented in Table 4.7-11.” Table 4.7-11 states as follows: Intersection Existing Traffic Buildout With Project Project Traffic Growth Project Fair Share Percentage Beaumont Avenue (NS) at: Cherry Valley Blvd. (EW) 836 5792 365 4956 5.35% 14th Street (EW) 1052 6888 320 5836 5.48% 1-10 Fwy WB Ramps 5th Street (EW) 2181 7080 99 4899 2.02% 215 Item 12. 1-10 Fwy EB Ramps 4th Street (EW) 3117 8034 69 4917 1.40% Source: Noble Creek Specific Plan Traffic Study (Revised) Beaumont, California (Urban Crossroads) March 26, 2001. Mitigation Measures 4.7.2: Pursuant to the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan within the Final EIR, Mitigation Measures 4.7.2 state as follows: “4.7.2 Construct Beaumont Avenue south of Brookside Avenue to the south Project boundary at its ultimate half-section width as a Major highway in conjunction with development.” Mitigation Measures 4.7.3: Pursuant to the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan within the Final EIR, Mitigation Measures 4.7.3 state as follows: “4.7.3 Construct Brookside Avenue from the west Project boundary to Beaumont Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary highway.” Mitigation Measures 4.7.2 and 4.7.3 do not discuss fair share contribution, nor did the Traffic Study analyze the Project’s fair share calculations at these intersections. Condition of Approval 27: As set forth above, the Beaumont City Council approved certain Conditions of Approval on February 15, 2005 for the Specific Plan. The Settlement agreement subsequently modified Conditions of Approval 27 to the Specific Plan (the portion modified/added is indicated by the double underline) to state as follows: “27. The Circulation Plan contained in the Specific Plan shall be modified as follows: a. The cross-section for Beaumont Avenue shall be modified to reflect a divided two-lane roadway, based upon the County of Riverside standard for an industrial collector, with a right- of-way of 78 feet and a curb-to-curb width of 52 feet. b. The cross-section for Noble Creek Parkway shall be modified to reflect a divided two-lane roadway, based upon the County of Riverside standard for an industrial collector, with a right- of-way of 78 feet and a curb-to-curb width of 52 feet. c. The City shall not issue any certificates of occupancy for the Project until the improvements contemplated by the Specific 216 Item 12. Plan to the following streets and intersections have been completed: the intersections of Beaumont Avenue and Oak Valley Parkway, Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way, Beaumont Avenue and Brookside Avenue and Beaumont Avenue and Cherry Valley Boulevard. Specifically, the improvements will result in compliance with the level of service required in the mitigation measures approved by the City for the Project.” NOBLE CREEK REQUESTS THAT THE CITY AGREE TO AMEND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES: Noble Creek contends that their understanding of Condition of Approval 27 and Mitigation measures 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 at the time the Project was approved was that it would only be responsible for its fair share of traffic fees based on the amount of traffic generated by development on Noble Creek’s property. In other words, it believes it is only required to pay fair share fees for project-related traffic impacts at intersections in lieu of physically constructing the traffic improvements. However, as discussed above, the City believes that the Mitigation measures and Condition of Approval require Noble Creek to construct traffic improvements contemplated for buildout of the entire Specific Plan, excluding Brookside Elementary School and Mountain View Middle School, which were built and in service prior to its adoption of the Specific Plan. Further, the only fair share contribution analysis done in the Noble Creek Specific Plan Traffic Study was the intersection improvements relating to Mitigation Measure 4.7.1 (which also discussed fair share fees in the EIR). Nevertheless, City staff in conjunction with the City’s legal counsel has identified that the City Council may have available some discretion in settling the parties’ disputes under the Mitigation Fee Act. City Council may consider amendments to the measures/condition of approval previously discussed in this report. Noble Creek claims that the buildout of the entire Specific Plan exceeds Noble Creek’s proportionate impact on those traffic facilities, since it owns only a small portion of the property within the Specific Plan. It further claims that the City’s intent in 2005 was that Noble Creek would be responsible only for its fair share of traffic fees based on the amount of traffic generated by development on its property for all mitigation measures/conditions of approval. For example, it points to the “Circulation Element” in the EIR, which states that “the Project will be required to contribute its fair share of transportation improvements.” (EIR, pp. 4.1-36.) Mitigation Measure 4.7.1 does require fair share contribution, so Noble Creek argues that it is unclear why the other two mitigation measures do not have similar language. Furthermore, Noble Creek states the Specific Plan contemplates fair share payments based on pro-rata parcel acreage, a phased approach to infrastructure, and the City’s 217 Item 12. greater than customary management role with respect to the Specific Plan area. In particular, the Specific Plan states as follows: “It is expected that the proposed project will be phased over a 5 year period, in response to market demands, according to a logical and orderly extension of roadways, public utilities and infrastructure.” (Specific Plan, p. 4-1, emphasis added.) “Infrastructure improvements shall be implemented on a fair share basis based on pro-rata parcel acreage as described in the Specific Land Use Plan Statistical Summary. In conjunction with submittal of the first tentative subd ivision map the applicant shall formulate a program, approved by the Planning Director2 and the City Engineer, which will enable infrastructure improvements to be paid for on a fair share basis for the entire Specific Plan area. (Specific Plan, p. 4-3, emphasis added.) The City staff and legal counsel met with Noble Creek on February 17, 2022, to discuss possible amendments to the Settlement agreement and Mitigation measures. Noble Creek has advised that CVAN has “agreed in principal” that it would revise the language in Condition of Approval 27. Specifically, it would agree to remove the requirement that the improvements must be completed prior to the certificates of occupancy and Noble Creek would be only required to pay its fair share of traffic fees. Since the City is a signatory to the Agreement, it would also have to sign off on the proposed changes. Noble Creek has requested that the City approve the revisions to Condition of Approval 27 prior to seeking final approval from CVAN. In addition, Noble Creek has requested that the City agree to revise Mitigation Measures 4.7.2 and 4.7.3 with fair share contribution langua ge. The language would be interpreted the same as Mitigation Measure 4.7.1. TRAFFIC STUDY Noble Creek has agreed to prepare a traffic study to determine the fair share calculations, since the intersections for Mitigation Measures 4.7.1 was only analyzed in the previous traffic study. The purpose of the revised traffic study is to evaluate the development of the Noble Creek Specific Plan project from a traffic circulation standpoint. The traffic study must include the project’s fair share contribution calculations to the study area. The calculations at each intersection should analyze the following: (1) existing traffic; (2) buildout with project traffic; (3) project traffic; (4) growth; and (5) project fair share percentage. The PM peak hours (typically the period when the traffic volumes are the greatest) must be used for the calculations. 2 This is now the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 218 Item 12. NO SUBSEQUENT OR SUPPLEMENTAL EIR IS REQUIRED If the City agrees to the proposed changes in the settlement agreement and mitigation measures, the City’s legal counsel does not believe a subsequent or supplemental EIR would be necessary. Once an EIR has been certified, a public agency's discretion to require further environmental review is confined. An agency may be required to review the possible need for a subsequent or supplemental EIR only if one of the three threshold conditions that can trigger the need for a further EIR has occurred : (1) substantial changes are proposed in the project; (2) substantial changes occur in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken; or (3) new information of substantial importance to the project becomes available. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; see, e.g., City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1005.) New information can include changes in the project, changes to the environmental setting, or additional new data or other information. However, recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR “merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” (14 Cal. Code Reg. § 15088.5(b)3 [emphasis added].) Public agencies have substantial discretion to determine what constitutes compliance with adopted mitigation measures, if that determination is reasonable. (Stone v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 927.) In Stone, the Court of Appeal held that agencies must interpret imposed mitigation measures in a reasonable manner, consistent with the intent at the time the measure was adopted. In that case, the agency found that a mining operator complied with a mitigation measure requiring a certain level of pollution liability insurance coverage, even though the amount of insurance was substantially less than specified in the mitigation measure. The reasonableness of the reduced amount was supported by risk assessments, which demonstrated that the maximum exposure would be less than the amount of the reduced coverage. The Court of Appeal held that an agency's compliance determination will be upheld as reasonable and not subject to further CEQA review, provided that the reduced or changed compliance does not result in significant new environmental impacts. Here, the fair share language proposed in the settlement agreement and mitigation measures is simply meant to clarify the original intent of the EIR. The changes will not require major revisions to the EIR or result in new or substantially more severe impacts. Since none of the conditions in California Code of Regulations § 15162 triggering preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, the City might prepare an addendum to the EIR. (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15164(a); Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 946.) An addendum to an EIR need not be circulated for public review but may be included in or attached to the final EIR. (14 Cal Code Regs §15164(c).) The agency's 3 Although CEQA Guideline § 15088.5 applies specifically to recirculation of an EIR prior to certification, the statute has been used for guidance in analyzing “significant new information” for subsequent and supplemental EIR's after certification. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1129). 219 Item 12. decision-making body must consider the addendum along with the final EIR before making a decision on the project. (14 Cal Code Regs §15164(d).) Preparation of an addendum is thus a way to make minor corrections to an EIR without recirculating the EIR for further review. Fiscal Impact: Once the updated traffic study has been completed, the City will be able to determine the fiscal impacts. City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report is $6,500. Recommended Action: This is a discretionary policy decision of the City Council to take action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the following actions relating to the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan: 1. Interpret Mitigation measures “timing trigger” to be at the time of payment of traffic mitigation fees instead of requiring the measures to be completed prior to certificate of occupancy (subject to final approval at a subsequent City Council meeting). 2. Should City Council be willing to consider changing the “timing trigger” for the mitigation measures (i.e., Item 1), approve the following amendment to Condition of Approval 27 set forth in Exhibit B of the Settlement agreement (subject to final approval at a subsequent City Council meeting): 27.c. The City shall not issue any final inspections or certificates of occupancy for the Project until compliance with the improvements contemplated by the Specific Plan set forth in the mitigation measures and approved by the City for the Project to the following streets and intersections: have been completed: the intersections of Beaumont Avenue and Oak Valley Parkway, Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way, Beaumont Avenue and Brookside Avenue and Beaumont Avenue and Cherry Valley Boulevard. Specifically, the improvements will result in compliance with the level of service required in the mitigation measures approved by the City for the Project. Where the mitigation measures permit fair share fees in lieu of construction of improvements, payment of fair share fees shall constitute full compliance with the mitigation measures. 3. Demand a new Traffic Study to the extent City Council agrees to approve Items 1 and 2 above. Attachments: A. Noble Creek Vistas – Final Specific Plan, Revised June 2014 220 Item 12. B. Noble Creek Vistas – Traffic Mitigation Measures (Table 4.2-1) 221 Item 12. Noble Creek Vistas Final Specific Plan Prepared for: City of Beaumont 550 E. Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Prepared by: Applied Planning, Inc. 5817 Pine Avenue Suite A Chino Hills, CA 91709 REVISED June 2014 222 Item 12. Noble Creek Vistas Final Specific Plan Prepared for: The City of Beaumont 550 E. Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Prepared by: Applied Planning, Inc. 5817 Pine Avenue, Suite A Chino Hills, CA 91709 Revised June 2014 223 Item 12. Noble Creek Vistas Table of Contents Specific Plan Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Location and Local Land Uses .........................................1-1 1.2 Market Objectives .........................................................1-11 SECTION 2.0 - SPECIFIC PLAN 2.1 Planning Objectives .........................................................2-1 2.2 Proposed Land Uses ........................................................2-2 2.3 Architectural Concepts .....................................................2-18 2.4 Recreation Plan............................................................2-22 2.5 Landscaping and Community Elements Plan ..................................2-25 2.6 Circulation Plan ...........................................................2-38 2.7 Drainage Plan .............................................................2-44 2.8 Water and Sewer Plans .....................................................2-46 2.9 Grading Plan ..............................................................2-49 SECTION 3.0 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 3.1 Introduction ...............................................................3-1 3.2 Development Standards .....................................................3-2 3.3 Development Guidelines ....................................................3-7 SECTION 4.0 – IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 4.1 Phasing of Development.....................................................4-1 4.2 Application Processing ......................................................4-3 4.3 Specific Plan Amendments...................................................4-5 4.4 Interpretations .............................................................4-6 APPENDICES Appendix A: Legal Description 224 Item 12. Noble Creek Vistas Table of Contents Specific Plan Page 2 LIST OF FIGURES 1.1-1 Regional Location ..........................................................1-2 1.1-2 Project Vicinity .............................................................1-3 1.1-3 Existing Land Uses .........................................................1-4 1.1-4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ..................................1-8 1.1-5 Existing Zoning ............................................................1-9 2.2-1 Planning Areas .............................................................2-4 2.2-2 Planning Area 1 ............................................................2-6 2.2-3 Planning Area 3 ............................................................2-7 2.2-4 Planning Area 5 ............................................................2-9 2.2-5 Planning Area 6 ...........................................................2-10 2.2-6 Planning Area 7 ...........................................................2-11 2.2-7 Planning Area 8 ...........................................................2-13 2.2-8 Planning Area 9 ...........................................................2-14 2.2-9 Planning Area 10 ..........................................................2-16 2.2-10 Planning Area 11 ..........................................................2-17 2.3-1 Proposed Architectural Details ..............................................2-19 2.3-2 Proposed Residential Product Prototypes .....................................2-20 2.4-1 Recreation Plan............................................................2-24 2.5-1 Landscape Plan ...........................................................2-26 2.5-2 Hardscape Plan ...........................................................2-29 2.5-3 Drainage Corridor .........................................................2-30 2.5-4 Subdivision Theme Walls ...................................................2-31 2.5-5 View Walls ...............................................................2-32 2.5-6 Perimeter Wall and In-tract Fencing ..........................................2-33 2.5-7 Major Entry Monument ....................................................2-35 2.5-8 Secondary Entry Monument ................................................2-36 2.5-9 Neighborhood Entry Monument.............................................2-37 2.6-1 Circulation Plan ...........................................................2-39 2.6-2 Cross Sections .............................................................2-41 2.6-3 Roadway Cross Sections, Street A and B ......................................2-42 2.6-4 Street Section Exhibit .......................................................2-43 2.7-1 Drainage Plan .............................................................2-45 2.8-1 Water Plan................................................................2-47 2.8-2 Sewer Plan................................................................2-48 2.9-1 Grading Plan ..............................................................2-49 225 Item 12. Noble Creek Vistas Table of Contents Specific Plan Page 3 LIST OF TABLES 2.2-1 Land Use Summary .........................................................2-3 3.2-1 General Residential Standards................................................3-2 3.2-2 Development Standards - Planning Area 1 .....................................3-4 3.2-3 Development Standards - Planning Area 7 .....................................3-5 3.2-4 Development Standards - Planning Area 8 .....................................3-5 3.2-5 Development Standards - Planning Area 10 ....................................3-5 3.2-6 Development Standards - Planning Area 11 ....................................3-6 3.2-7 Recreational Standards ......................................................3-6 226 Item 12. SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 227 Item 12. Noble Creek Vistas Introduction Specific Plan Page 1-1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 - PROJECT LOCATION AND LOCAL LAND USES The Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan project site is comprised of approximately 332+ acres in the City of Beaumont's sphere of influence, as shown on Figure 1.1-1, “Regional Location” and Figure 1.1-2, “Project Vicinity.” The site is bounded by Oak Valley Parkway to the south and Brookside Avenue to the north. The project site is bounded to the east by Beaumont Avenue. Existing land uses in the project area include single-family homes, apartments, mobile homes, the Noble Creek Park, neighborhood commercial, vacant land and a Riverside County Road Department maintenance yard. 1.1.1 Existing On-Site Land Uses and Zoning Designations Figure 1.1-3, “Existing Land Uses,” identifies existing uses within the project site and on vicinity properties. The approximately 332-acre project site presently lies within unincorporated Riverside County, at the northerly limits of the City of Beaumont. Incorporated areas of the City abut the project site to the south, east, and west. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would occur only upon annexation of the project site into the City of Beaumont. 1.1.2 Project Site Land Uses The irregularly-shaped project area is bounded by Brookside Avenue on the north; Beaumont Avenue on the east; Oak Valley Parkway to the south; Noble Creek Park to the southwest, and the Oak Valley Planned Residential Community to the west. From its northeasterly corner at the intersection of Brookside Avenue and Beaumont Avenue, the project area slopes gently southwesterly. 228 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 1.1-1 Regional Location Source: Applied Planning, Inc. nSan Ber ardino County er e Co ntRivsid u y Cleveland National Forest Moreno Valley Redlands Beaumont Banning Hemet Big Bear Lake Arrowhead Idyllwild San Bernardino National Forest San Bernardino Hemet Murrieta Lake Elsinore 91 10 215 30 15 60 74 79 79 10 PROJECT SITE San Bernardino National Forest 229 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 1.1-2 Project Vicinity Source: Applied Planning, Inc. Brookside Avenue Oak Valley Parkway Beaumont Avenue10 60 10 Highland Springs RoadCity of Banning County of Riverside County of Riverside PROJECT SITE City of Beaumont Bellflower AvenueCherry Valley Boulevard Noble Creek Park Oak Valley Planned Residential Community Unincorporated Community of Cherry Valley 230 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 1.1-3 Existing Land Uses Source: Applied Planning, Inc. P1 P2 MH MY City Sports Park Noble Creek Park Mobile Home Park Riverside County Road Maintenance Yard V MF SF SSF C I Vacant Multi-Family Residential Single Family Residential Scattered Single Family Residential Commercial Industrial LEGEND: Brookside Avenue Kirkwood Ranch (SF) SSF PROJECT SITE Cherry Valley Boulevard Oak Valley Parkway MH MY Deutsch Land Uses SF P2 3-Rings Ranch (SF) Oak Valley Estates (SF) Golf Course BUSD High School Site Proposed BCVWD Recharge Basin eunevA tnomuaeBBUSD Middle School Site V C MF SF MF SFP1 SSF/SFSSF/SF SSF/SF V SFSSF SSF I 60 10 10 231 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Introduction Specific Plan Page 1-5 Elevations within the project area generally range from 2,700 feet above mean sea level (m.s.l.) in the northeast, to 2,570 feet m.s.l. in the southwest. The majority of the project site has historically been used for limited dryland farming and cattle grazing. However there is no current, nor has there been any recent, productive agricultural use of the project area. At present, the proposed Specific Plan area is predominantly vacant and unimproved. Within the past three years, two new schools have been developed on site including an elementary school located at the northwest corner of the site (Brookside Avenue and Oak View Drive) and a middle school on the northwest corner of Cougar Way and Beaumont Avenue. One residential home, together with scattered auxiliary buildings, also exists within the project area. The unlined Noble Creek storm channel transects the project site in a northeast to southwest direction. Within the Noble Creek channel, limited sand and gravel mining/reclamation is currently being conducted. Another notable feature within the project area is a Southern California Edison utility easement. With overhead high-voltage power lines in place, this easement crosses the southern portion of the site in an east-west direction, approximately 1,000 feet north of Oak Valley Parkway. 1.1.3 Adjacent Land Uses Land uses abutting the project site to the north/northwest are characterized by scattered single family residences and vacant, unimproved properties. Additional uses in this area include a mobile home park and a County maintenance yard located to the north/northwest of the project site. Northerly of the project, across Brookside Avenue, the Beaumont Unified School District has developed a 110-acre high school site. Although its boundaries extend to Brookside Avenue, the defined enclave of the unincorporated community of Cherry Valley lies approximately 1/2 mile further to the north, across Cherry Valley Boulevard. Residential units are located south of the Sports Park. An existing 232 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Introduction Specific Plan Page 1-6 commercial shopping center is located at the northeast corner of Oak Valley Parkway and Beaumont Avenue. Adjacent and abutting properties to the east, south, and west of the project site lie within the City of Beaumont. Easterly of the project site, across Beaumont Avenue, are mixed of uses including vacant, unimproved properties; single and multifamily residential development; neighborhood commercial uses; and the City Sports Park. Southerly of the project site, across Oak Valley Parkway, are vacant properties and scattered single-family residences. Noble Creek Park constitutes the southwesterly boundary of the proposed Specific Plan area. To the west of the Project, ongoing construction of the Oak Valley Planned Residential Community is occurring. The area north of the Specific Plan area (north of Brookside Avenue) is located within the boundaries of the Cherry Valley Community of Interest. The Community of Interest boundaries are recognized by LAFCO and reflect the establishment of the identifiable community of Cherry Valley as a Riverside County Unincorporated Community. Planning for Cherry Valley seeks to maintain a rural ambience and reinforcement of the community's low-density character. The Community of Interest designation is advisory, not legislative. The implementation of the Specific Plan requires annexation to the City of Beaumont. 1.1.4 Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations The project site currently lies within Riverside County (as of August 2006), and within the City of Beaumont’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The completion of annexation to the City is expected in late 2006. The proposed Specific Plan area is currently bounded to the west, south, and east by the City. As an element of any City approval, the project site would be annexed to the City of Beaumont. Considerations regarding the project’s potential land use impacts presented in subsequent discussions within this section, including General Plan and Zoning consistency, are predicated on approval of the project’s requested General Plan Amendment and prezoning, and annexation of the project area to the City of Beaumont. 233 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. The latest Riverside County General Plan, adopted in O ctober 2003, indicates a land use1 designation of “Very Low Density Residential (1 acre minimum lot size)” for the northern portion of the Project site, and “Medium Density Residential (2-5 D.U./acre)” for the southern portion of the site. Noble Creek Vistas Introduction Specific Plan Page 1-7 Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations of the project site and vicinity are presented in Figure 1.1-4 and 1.1-5 respectively. As applicable, both Riverside County and City designations are indicated. 1.1.5 Project Site General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations Current Riverside County Zoning designations of the project site are: A-1-20, “Light Agriculture-20 Acre Minimum Lot Size”; W-2, “Controlled Development ”; R-1, “One- Family Dwelling”; and W-1, “Water Course.” In summary, these land use designations reflect the current undeveloped state of the project area, as well limited residential and agricultural uses that have occurred in the past.1 City General Plan Land Use designations for the project site, as reflected by land use designations for properties within the City’s SOI, are: 1.2 (SP), “Low Density Residential (Specific Plan)” and 5.1, “Recreation.” A limited area of the project site, approximately 4-5 acres located northerly of Noble Creek Park, along the westerly project boundary, currently lies within the City of Beaumont. City General Plan Land Use designation of this property is 1.2, “Low Density Residential.” Correlating City Zoning of this property is R-SF, “Residential Single-Family.” 234 Item 12. Figure 1.1-4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Source: City of Beaumont; Applied Planning, Inc. NOT TO SCALE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES INDUSTRIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES COMMERCIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES OPEN SPACE LAND USE CATEGORIES PUBLIC FACILITIES LAND USE CATEGORIES 1.1 Rural Density (0-2.3 Units/Acre) 1.2 Low Density (2.4-4.1 Units/Acre) 1.3 Medium Density (4.2-8.0 Units/Acre) 1.4 High Density (8.1-16.0 Units/Acre) 2.1 Neighborhood Commercial 2.2 Community Commercial 2.3 Highway Commercial 3.1 Light Industrial 3.2 Business Park 4.0 Public Facilities 5.1 Recreation City Boundary PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF BEAUMONT CITY OF BEAUMONT Project Boundary RCGP RCGP RCGP = Riverside County General Plan RCGP RCGP Note: Land use designations within RCGP areas, south of Brookside Avenue, reflect City SOI land uses and classifications. 235 Item 12. Figure 1.1-5 Existing Zoning Source: City of Beaumont; Applied Planning, Inc. NOT TO SCALE Project Boundary City Boundary RESIDENTIAL ZONES OPEN SPACE ZONES R-SF Residential-Single Family R-MF Residential-Multiple Family R-HD Residential-High Density C-N Commercial-Neighborhood C-G Commercial-General C-HS Commercial-Highway Service M-IP Industrial Park M-C Commercial-Light Manufacturing OS Open Space, Conservation & Recreation PUD Planned Unit Development SPA Specific Plan Area OTHER ZONES COMMERCIAL ZONES MANUFACTURING ZONES CITY OF BEAUMONTRIVERSIDE COUNTY W-2 Controlled Development R-1 Residential Single Family W-1 Watercourse A-1 Light Agriculture W-2 R-SF W-2 W-2 R-1 R-1 W-1 W-2 A-1 W-2A-1 R-1 PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE CITY OF BEAUMONT CITY OF BEAUMONT C-G C-G C-G C-G RIVERSIDE COUNTY 236 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. The October 2003 County General Plan designates areas north of the Project Site as “Rural2 Community, V ery Low Density Residential (1 acre minimum lot size).” Noble Creek Vistas Introduction Specific Plan Page 1-10 1.1.6 Adjacent General Plan and Zoning Designations Northerly of the project, the City SOI General Plan Land Use designation is 1.1 (SP), “Rural Density Residential (Specific Plan).” Current Riverside County Zoning for areas north of the project site include A-1, “Light Agriculture (10-20 Acre Minimum Lot Size)”; W-2, “Controlled Development”; and R-A, “Residential Agriculture.”2 Easterly of the project site, City General Plan Land Use designations are 1.2 (PUD), “Low Density Residential (Planned Unit Development),” and 1.2, “Low Density Residential.” Correlating City Zoning for these areas is R-SF, “Residential-Single Family.” Southeasterly abutting the project site is an approximately 15-acre parcel of currently unincorporated Riverside County. The City’s SOI General Plan Land Use Element designation for this parcel is 1.2 (SP), “Low Density Residential (Specific Plan).” Current Riverside County Zoning of this parcel is W-2, “Controlled Development.” As directed by LAFCO, this parcel would be annexed to the City concurrent with annexation of the Noble Creek Specific Plan area. South of this parcel are limited areas of 2.1, “Neighborhood Commercial,” and 1.4, “High Density Residential” City General Plan land uses. Correlating City Zoning for these areas are, respectively, PUD, “Planned Unit Development” and C-G, “Commercial-General.” Southerly of the project area, across Oak Valley Parkway, is an approximately 60-acre area of previously unincorporated Riverside County. Now annexed, the City General Plan Land Use designations are 1.2 , “Low Density Residential,” and 5.1, “Recreation.” Correlating City Zoning for this area is R-SF, “Residential-Single Family.” 237 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Introduction Specific Plan Page 1-11 Southwesterly abutting the project site is Noble Creek Park. This park currently lies within unincorporated Riverside County. The City SOI General Plan Land Use Element designation for this area is 5.1, “Recreation.” Current Riverside County Zoning designations of Noble Creek Park are R-1, “Residential” and W-2, “Controlled Development.” As directed by LAFCO, Noble Creek Park would be annexed to the City concurrent with the Specific Plan annexation. West of the project site is the Oak Valley Planned Residential Community. City General Plan Land Use designation of this area is 1.3 (PUD), “Medium Density Residential (Planned Unit Development).” Correlating City Zoning for this area is SPA, “Specific Plan Area.” 1.1.7 City of Beaumont Annexation As previously identified the project lies within the City of Beaumont sphere of influence. The project site is currently within an unincorporated portion of Riverside County immediately adjacent to the City of Beaumont corporate boundary. Project implementation will require annexation to the City of Beaumont. The City of Beaumont is acting as lead agency for the concurrent processing of the Specific Plan, subdivision maps, and environmental impact report. 1.2 - MARKET OBJECTIVES This project has been designed to be targeted toward and cater to the needs of a wide variety of buyers. Specific market objectives are: •Provide a variety of single-family detached housing types and densities which will reflect the marketing needs of the area. •Plan the project to exude a sense of a planned community. •Provide recreational amenities which will serve the needs of the community. 238 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Introduction Specific Plan Page 1-12 •Provide land uses that are consistent with on-going development in the area. Provide “move-up” opportunities for present residents in the vicinity and the surrounding Riverside County area. •Provide a functional roadway system on-site which fosters the safe and efficient movement of local traffic, while discouraging through traffic when possible. •Reinforce community identity of the project through control of design elements such as entry statements, signage, walls/fencing, and landscaped parkways. •Provide a balanced community which is aesthetically pleasing to residents and visitors, and acceptable to the City of Beaumont. •Provide a sensible land use transition between the more urbanized components of Beaumont and the rural community of Cherry Valley. 239 Item 12. SECTION 2: SPECIFIC PLAN 240 Item 12. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-1 SECTION 2: SPECIFIC PLAN 2.1 - PLANNING OBJECTIVES This Specific Land Use Plan is being prepared within the framework of a detailed and comprehensive multi-disciplinary planning program. Issues such as land use planning, traffic engineering, City General Plan goals and objectives, development phasing and local community goals have been fully examined and considered. To further ensure the environmental compatibility, aesthetic satisfaction and functional integrity of the plan, specific planning goals and objectives were identified. These were defined and identified in part through a careful analysis by an Opportunities and Constraints S tudy. With this analysis and the site goals and objectives in mind, the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan: •Considers topographic, geologic, hydrologic and environmental opportunities and constraints to create a design that generally conforms to the character of the land by retaining and utilizing basic landforms as much as possible. •Reflects anticipated marketing needs and public demand by providing a range of single detached housing types which will be marketable within the developing economic profile of the Beaumont area. •Provides residential development and adequate support facilities (recreation) and circulation in a convenient and efficient manner. •Provides direct and convenient access to individual residential neighborhoods and recreational areas via a safe and efficient circulation system composed of a network 241 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-2 of Arterial, Major, Secondary, Collector, Local Roadways, each designed for appropriate traffic and user needs. •Provides for alternative modes of transportation within and adjacent to the site including pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle trails, which will foster the conservation of valuable energy resources a s well as lessen potential future air pollution in the immediate area. 2.2 - PROPOSED LAND USES The Noble Creek Vistas development will be a high quality, master-planned community. Through a strong cohesive community design, the development will offer a diverse, convenient living environment for future residents. When fully developed, a maximum of 648 homes will be constructed at Noble Creek Vistas. The homes will be developed on lots ranging from 6,000 square feet to over 15,000 square feet. In addition, Noble Creek Vistas residents will be provided with four neighborhood parks for recreational use, and an elementary school and middle school. Proposed land uses have been separated into planning areas as presented in Table 2.2-1 and summarized in the following discussions. Please also refer to Figure 2.2-1, “Noble Creek Vistas Planning Areas.” Development standards for each of the planning areas are presented in Section 3. 242 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-3 Table 2.2-1 Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Land Use Summary Planning Area Land Use Acres Typical Lot Sizes Dwelling Units Average D ensity 1 Residential 58.4 6,000-15,000 sf 180 3.1 2 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency Recharge Area 41.26 7,000-12,000 sf 126 3.41 7 Residential 25.14 7,303 sf 80 3.18 8 Residential 36.19 6,858 sf 128 3.54 10 Residential 40.0 7,000-15,000 sf 68 1.7 11 Residential 21.51 8,192 sf 66 3.07 Subtotal 222.5 648 2.9 3 Elementary School 12.6 n/a 0 n/a 4 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency Recharge Area 8.9 n/a 0 n/a 5 Park 16.18 n/a 0 n/a 6 M iddle School 20.0 n/a 0 n/a 9A Park/Open Space 10.6 n/a 0 n/a2 9B Park 10.8 n/a 0 n/a --Roads, Easements 30.7 n/a 0 n/a3 TO TA L 332.28 648 1.3 (overall) Source: Tahiti Group Notes: 1 It is noted that this Planning Area was originally planned for residential uses, but is now planned for use as a San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency recharge area. The units originally associated with this Planning Area may be reallocated within the Specific Plan (subject to City review and approval), as long as the total number of units does not exceed 648. 2 Total park and open space area. 3 Includes arterial, major and secondary streets only. 243 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 2.2-1 Noble Creek Vistas Planning Areas Source: Tahiti Group NUE AVEIDEOKSBRO eunevA tnomuaeB.ywkP keerC elboNNot a Part Middle School Cougar Way.rD weiV kaOA teertS kraPlennahC mrotS keerC elboN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9A 9BkraP 10 11 Oak Valley Parkway owe rline P EasementPark 1 = Planning Area Elementary School 1 244 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-5 Planning Area 1 Planning Area 1 as depicted on Figure 2.2-2, provides for the development of 58.4 acres. The Noble Creek Storm Channel is adjacent to this planning area. Class II bike lanes will be provided on roadways adjacent to this planning area. Primary access to this planning area will be provided from a major highway, Brookside Avenue. Secondary access will be provided from an additional driveway off Brookside Avenue and an existing collector roadway located on the west side of the planning area. A major entry statement is planned for the primary access, as well as roadway landscape treatments along the collector roadway. Residential lots within Planning Area 1 will average 7,500 square feet, with minimum 6,000 square foot lots. Lots backing up to Brookside Avenue will be a minimum of 10,000 square feet in size, while twenty-five (25) percent of these lots will be a minimum of 15,000 square feet in size. Fifty (50) percent of the homes adjacent to Brookside Avenue will be single story units. Planning Area 2 Planning Area 2 is located at the northeastern corner of the Specific Plan area, along Brookside Avenue and Beaumont Avenue. This planning area will be used for water recharge through the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency. Planning Area 3 Planning Area 3 is located at the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area, along Brookside Avenue and Oak View Drive. This planning area is developed with a 12.6 acre Elementary School. The site is owned by the Beaumont Unified School District. Planning Area 3 is illustrated in Figure 2.2-3. 245 Item 12. Figure 2.2-2 Planning Area 1 Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 246 Item 12. Figure 2.2-3 Planning Area 3 Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 247 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-8 Planning Area 4 Planning Area 4 is located along the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area, along Brookside Avenue. This planning area will be used for water recharge through the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency. Planning Area 5 Planning Area 5, as depicted in Figure 2.2-4, provides for the development of 16.18 acres as a neighborhood park. Access to this planning area will be provided from local streets. A park/residential edge treatment is planned, to buffer the park and residential land uses, where applicable. A Class II bike lane will also be provided. Recreational facilities planned for this park include combination pedestrian/bicycle path and par course. Planning Area 6 Planning Area 6 is located on the northwest corner of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. This planning area is developed with a 20.0 acre middle school site. The site is owned by the Beaumont Unified School District. Figure 2.2-5 illustrates this planning area. Planning Area 7 Planning Area 7 provides for the development of 25.14 acres of residential uses. This planning area is bordered on the south by Cougar Way, on the west by Noble Creek Storm Channel, and on the east by a collector roadway. Access will be provided by Cougar Way and the collector roadway, as shown in Figure 2.2-6. Lots within this planning area will have an average size of 7,303 square feet. Eighty (80) dwelling units are planned within this planning area at a density of 3.18 du/ac. 248 Item 12. Figure 2.2-4 Planning Area 5 Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 249 Item 12. Figure 2.2-5 Planning Area 6 Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 250 Item 12. Figure 2.2-6 Planning Area 7 Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 251 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-12 Planning Area 8 One hundred twenty eight (128) residential dwelling units are planned within this 36.19 acre planning area. The total number of lots within the planning area will be an average size of 6,858 square feet, with 6,000 square foot minimums. Overall density for the planning area is 3.54 du/ac. As illustrated in Figure 2.2-7, this planning area is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Noble Creek Parkway and Cougar Way. Access will be provided from Noble Creek Parkway and Cougar Way. Roadway landscape treatments will be provided along Noble Creek Parkway and Cougar Way. A park/residential edge treatment is planned, to buffer the park and residential land uses, where applicable. A Class II bike lane will also be provided. Planning Area 9 Planning Area 9 is transected by Noble Creek Parkway, and as such has been split into Areas 9A and 9B, for ease of reference. These areas are presented in Figure 2.2-8. Planning Area 9A is located on the west side of Noble Creek Parkway and provides for the development of 10.6 acres as a neighborhood park. Recreational facilities planned for this park include combination pedestrian/bicycle path, open play area, picnic tables and par course. Planning Area 9B is located on the east side of Noble Creek Parkway and provides for the development of 10.8 acres as a neighborhood park. Recreational facilities planned for this park include open play areas, combination pedestrian/bicycle path, tot lot, and picnic tables. 252 Item 12. Figure 2.2-7 Planning Area 8 Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 253 Item 12. Figure 2.2-8 Planning Area 9 Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 254 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-15 Planning Area 10 This 40-acre planning area is located on the southwest corner of Beaumont Avenue and Cougar Way. This planning area provides for the development of 68 residential dwelling units at a density of 1.7 du/ac. Lots within this planning area will range from 7,000 to 15,000 square feet in size. Twenty- five (25) percent of the lots adjacent to Beaumont Avenue need to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet. Fifty (50) percent of the homes constructed adjacent to Beaumont Avenue need to be single story. Figure 2.2-9 illustrates a conceptual design for this planning area. Planning Area 11 Planning Area 11, as shown in Figure 2.2-10, is located on the northeast corner of Oak Valley Parkway and Noble Creek Parkway. This planning area encompasses 21.51 acres. Planning Area 11 will contain 66 residential dwelling units with an average lot size of 8,192 square feet. Lots will be a minimum of 6,270 square feet. The overall density of the planning area is 3.07 du/ac. Access to Planning Area 11 will be provided from Noble Creek Parkway. Roadway landscape treatments will be provided along Oak Valley Parkway and Noble Creek Parkway. A neighborhood entry is proposed west of the planning area, north of Oak Valley Parkway. A power easement edge treatment to buffer the park, power easement and residential land uses will also be provided, where applicable. 255 Item 12. Figure 2.2-9 Planning Area 10 Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 256 Item 12. Figure 2.2-10 Planning Area 11 Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 257 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-18 2.3 ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS The architectural concepts for the Specific Plan area include substantial monolithic forms, deep-set openings, stucco and masonry walls, pitched tile roofs and light-subdued earthtone colors. Figure 2.3-1 illustrates these architectural details. Product prototypes are presented in Figure 2.3-2. The main objective is to encourage quality architectural design, while permitting the developer/builder flexibility to design a residential neighborhood and neighborhood commercial centers with their own unique identity and design integrity. Specific objectives are as follows: •To provide a variety of housing opportunities and lifestyles to the consumer, within a range of economic levels. •To create a unified environment through cohesive relationships between architecture, landscape and site planning. •To create architecture that expresses a strong relationship to the outdoor environment. •To develop an appropriate residential scale for a traditional Southern California neighborhood. •To establish a unifying theme which would give a strong identity to the community. •To select neighborhood styles or sub-styles which encourage variation of materials, colors and architectural detail. •To create high quality neighborhood commercial centers which are thoughtfully planned and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and the local environment. •To reduce any negative visual impact of large scale commercial buildings by encouraging tasteful and imaginative designs for individual buildings. 258 Item 12. Figure 2.3-1 Proposed Architectural Details Source: Tahiti Group Southwest Traditional Mediterranean European Stepped Overhang Decorative Tile Vents Iron Details With Recesses Shutters Or Enhanced Corners Wood Corbels and Iron Railings Wood Columns and Trim Or Shutters Corner Treatments Double Trim With Siding Wood Railing Shutters Or Arched Recessed Window With Stucco Reveals Enriched Cornices and Corners Iron Railings Ceramic Tiles Pre-Cast Ballustrade Or Shutters Quoins Keystone with Pilasters Bracketed Cornices Classic Columns 259 Item 12. Figure 2.3-2 Proposed Residential Product Prototypes Source: Tahiti Group Southwest Traditional Mediterranean European Details Consistent With Architectural Character Note: This figure is not intended to limit architectural expression, but to illustrate that certain character elements are more strongly identified with specific architectural themes. Entrance Courtyard Motor Court With Turn-In Garage Asymmetrical Plans As Appropriate To Architectural Styles Divided Lights And Window Groupings 260 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-21 2.3.1 Building Form, Mass and Scale The architectural image and identity of the community will primarily be perceived from public spaces such as streets, parks and other open space areas. Building form, massing and scale are therefore primary design components which require careful articulation in their architectural expression to these public spaces. The visible side and rear elevations of residential units are important, depending upon the location and orientation of the home. Consideration will be given to the articulation of rear and side elevations viewed from public spaces by providing variations in roof forms. Interesting building form and massing should be achieved without superficial design elements. 2.3.2 Building Heights and Setbacks In order to avoid monotonous street scenes in residential planning areas, repetitive floor plans should be alternately reversed and their roof expressions varied. Single-family residences should maintain low plate lines and profiles along street fronts and boundary edges. Front yard setbacks should be staggered. To soften the architectural edge at area boundaries, building heights shall maintain a low profile through a combination of one and two story elements and varied floor setbacks at second-stories. To lower the apparent height, second-story rooms may be tucked into roof planes and roofs may be clipped at the sides and comers of the buildings. Building height and setback requirements shall conform to the Development Standards as set forth in Section 3 of this Specific Plan. 2.3.3 Roof Forms and Materials Roof forms are a highly visible community feature. A range of roof forms and pitches should be utilized to add an appealing visual impact to the community/streetscape. Simple pitched gable, hip or shed roof forms will be the predominant roof elements in Noble Creek. Roof projections and overhangs are encouraged as response to energy and climate concerns. Low maintenance details limiting the amount of exposed wood are encouraged. All pitched roofs shall be tile or equivalent. All flat roof areas, when utilized, shall require a gravel surface of earthtone color or similar uniform coverage treatment. 261 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-22 2.3.4 Exterior Materials and Color Exterior building materials shall be of natural materials which are compatible with and reflect the elements of the surrounding environment. This includes wood, masonry, stone, concrete and stucco. Exposed wood sheathing shall be limited to the underside of roofs or patio decks. The simple use of tile, brick, stone, masonry or pre-cast concrete are permitted as design accents and trim. Exterior stucco shall be utilized as the primary wall material and shall have a smooth, sand or other light finish texture. Color is intended as a primary theme element. The value should generally be light earthtones, with darker or lighter accents to highlight the character of the structure; particularly in respect to balcony railings, fascias, awnings, inlaid tile bands and cornice bands. Complementary accent materials and colors are allowed and encouraged. All accents must relate to the architectural form and character of the building. Wood trim shall be stained with semitransparent stain or painted as accents. 2.4 - RECREATION PLAN Each increment/phase of development within the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan will be required to meet the prevailing City of Beaumont requirements regarding dedication and improvement of park facilities. The City’s standard provides for five acres of fully improved and usable park space for every 1,000 residents. It is also recognized that the Specific Plan Area is comprised of multiple ownership and park facilities proposed within the Specific Plan are not proportionally assigned to the respective ownership entities. As a result, the design, development and maintenance of park facilities may be accomplished by the City through its Community Facilities District and funded by the landowners and ultimate occupants of the project. As an alternative, each increment of development may demonstrate self-sufficiency in terms of meeting park requirements. 262 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-23 A major focal element of the Noble Creek Vistas community is the recreation program. The program is extensive and provides a wide array of recreational opportunities in which all members of the community can participate. Opportunities vary from passive (i.e. bike lanes), to active (i.e. neighborhood parks), to potentially structured (i.e. recreational programs which could be offered at the schools). Varying types and degrees of activities will be available which will provide residents the opportunity to “take quiet walks in the park”; participate in active outdoor informal recreational activities; and participate in potentially structured, organized and instructed sporting or exercise events. The various elements of the program are presented in Figure 2.4-1, “Recreation Plan” and discussed below. 2.4.1 Neighborhood Parks Three neighborhood parks are planned in Noble Creek Vistas (Planning Areas 5, 9a and 9b) at strategic locations throughout the site. All of the parks are moderate in size, and, as such, will function to serve nearby neighborhood residents. It is proposed that the parks will be constructed by the developer, then dedicated to a homeowners association or community facilities district for ownership and maintenance. Facilities will vary from park to park, but may include the following: picnic areas, tot lots, open play areas, combination pedestrian/bicycle paths, ball fields, on-site parking, barbecue pits, linear restroom facilities and par course. The pedestrian/bike paths, designed as passive use within the Noble Creek Storm Channel will interconnect the park within Planning Area 5, and the surrounding neighborhood. Planning Area 9a will also be designed for passive use along the Noble Creek Storm Channel. 263 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 2.4-1 Recreation Plan Source: Tahiti Group Neighborhood Park Class II Bike Lane Multi-purpose Trail LEGEND: Oak Valley Parkway Easement Cougar Way Middle School Beaumont AvenueOa iw D .k V e rS tre et A Noble Creek ParwaykNot a PartoblNeCreekn C han el St ro m Brookside Avenue Pow e liner Elementary School 264 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-25 2.4.2 Bike Lanes Class II bike lanes will be provided on Oak Valley Parkway, Oak View Drive, Cougar Way, Brookside Avenue and some interior collector level streets. A Class II bike lane consists of a painted bike lane within the street R.O.W. Additional bike trails are anticipated to be constructed along the Noble Creek Storm Channel. 2.4.3 Multi-purpose Trails A multi-purpose trail will be provided adjacent to the powerline easement. The multi- purpose trail will be dedicated to the City’s community facilities district for maintenance and ownership responsibilities. 2.5 - LANDSCAPING AND COMMUNITY ELEMENTS PLAN 2.5.1 Landscaping The landscape design of Noble Creek Vistas will be an important element in establishing the overall community image. The primary goal is to establish a distinctive character by using xeriscape principles. Low water use plant material has been selected to fulfill all functional and aesthetic requirements of this master planned community. Drought-tolerant plants are acclimated to weather soil conditions of the area and, therefore, have a higher success rate and require less maintenance. Xeriscape implies not only the creative use of low water consuming plants but efficient irrigation systems, appropriate soil amendments and low maintenance. The Conceptual Landscape Plan is presented in Figure 2.5-1. 265 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 2.5-1 Landscape Plan Source: Tahiti Group Entry Accent Trees Existing Deodar Trees Relocated Deodar Trees Major Collector Theme Trees Evergreen Canopy Theme Trees Primary Street Theme Trees LEGEND: Oak Valley Parkway Powerline Easement Cougar Way Middle School B um ntenea o Av ueOa i wD.k Ve rStr e et A P rakoe aN bl CreekP rkwayNot a PartPkarbNo leCreekC h n l an e Storm B B A C AB B Brookside Avenue Elementary School 266 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-27 Plant materials will be used to reinforce the circulation hierarchy and establish a sense of place to the residents of this community. This will be accomplished through the establishment of design themes for the major streets and entryways and adherence to a plant list that will unify the entire site. In general, an informal theme will be used. The existing Deodar Cedars along Beaumont Avenue however, make a more formal statement because they have been planted on a regimented interval. These trees which are very drought tolerant once established will be saved to preserve their cultural heritage. The landscape design will transition to a more informal character internally. To this end, the project design proposes a 40 foot landscape buffer from the western edge of Beaumont Avenue right-of-way to the project boundary, with a berm along the project wall, and a meandering sidewalk within the landscape buffer. The project design also incorporates a permeable surface in a 25 foot radius around the Deodar trees (except in those areas on the street side in which there will be a distance of less than 25 feet to the street). Other landscape design features include a landscape buffer along the southern edge of Brookside Avenue right-of-way to the southern boundary. The width of the buffer is 38 feet. There is also a landscape buffer along the southern edge of Noble Creek Parkway. The width will range from 18 to 38 feet to accommodate Noble Creek as it crosses Brookside Avenue. Plant Palette All builders will be required to choose plants listed in Attachment A of the County of Riverside Guide to California Friendly Landscaping for landscaping of their lots/parcels. All landscape and irrigation shall be designed to promote ease of maintenance. Plant material size and form should be appropriate for its function to minimize the need for pruning. Plant spacing should reflect mature size requirements to avoid overcrowding. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and ground covers should be a “hard line” drip system. The 267 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-28 irrigation controllers should have the capability of long watering times to accommodate a drip system. Irrigation backflow prevention devices and controllers shall be located with minimum public visibility or shall be screened with appropriate plant materials. Homeowners will be encouraged to select plant material from the plant palette identified in this Specific Plan. Covenants Conditions and Restrictions shall be prepared and recorded for each lot which require that all yard areas shall be planted, that hardscape be limited to 50 percent of yard area and that all plant material be maintained in a healthy condition. 2.5.2 Streetscape Landscape development zones have been established which will provide a total of 20 feet from face of curb to the subdivision theme wall on major and secondary roadways. These large landscaped areas provide additional buffers to the internal land use and establish a community theme. Collector level streets will receive landscape treatment between the sidewalk and community wall. The location of subdivision theme walls, primary pedestrian sidewalks and entry monumentation are presented in Figure 2.5-2, “Conceptual Hardscape Plan.” Figures 2.5-3 through 2.5-6 present other various streetscape features of the project. 268 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 2.5-2 Hardscape Plan Source: Tahiti Group Major Entry Secondary Entry Neighborhood Entry 6’ Subdivision Theme Wall 6’ View Wall Primary Street Theme Trees LEGEND: Oak Valley Parkway Powerline Easement Cougar Way Middle School Beum ntvenua o A eOa View Dr.kS tree t A P rakoe aN bl CreekP rkwayNot a PartPkarbNo leCreek Ch an nel Storm Brookside Avenue Elementary School 269 Item 12. Figure 2.5-3 Drainage Corridor Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 270 Item 12. Figure 2.5-4 Subdivision Theme Wall Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 271 Item 12. Figure 2.5-5 View Wall Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 272 Item 12. Figure 2.5-6 In-Tract Fencing Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 273 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-34 2.5.3 Entry Monuments The major project entry will occur at the intersection of Beaumont Avenue and Brookside Avenue. Entry monumentation will provide the initial opportunity to portray the quality community image of Noble Creek. The theme wall used throughout the community will be enhanced as an entry feature providing the opportunity for signage. The major entry will establish the theme for the secondary and neighborhood entries, which will reflect the same character on a smaller scale. Figures 2.5-7 through 2.5-9 illustrate the various categories of entry treatments for Noble Creek. Plant materials will enforce the hardscape design and provide a variety of colors and textures for seasonal interest. A judicious use of turf will highlight the major entry statement. Entry monuments will be maintained by a Landscape and Lighting District, Homeowners Association or Community Facilities District, which shall assume maintenance and ownership responsibilities. The location of the monuments can be found on Figure 2.5-2, Conceptual Hardscape Plan and on the Planning Area Graphics, Figures 2.2-2 through 2.2-10. 274 Item 12. Figure 2.5-7 Major Entry Statement Source: Tahiti Group PLAN VIEW ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE 275 Item 12. Figure 2.5-8 Secondary Entry Statement Source: Tahiti Group PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE 6’ THEME WALL MONUMENT SIGNAGE 5’ THEME WALL CANOPY TREE ACCENT TREE ACCENT SHRUB FLOWERING GROUNDCOVER 65’ TYP..PYT ’37MOUNDING (TYP.) (2’ MAX. HT.) 5’ THEME WALL MONUMENT SIGNAGE 6’ THEME WALL ELEVATION 276 Item 12. Figure 2.5-9 Neighborhood Entry Statement Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 277 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-38 2.6 - CIRCULATION PLAN Principal north/south roadway access to the site is provided by Beaumont Avenue, which is an existing roadway, classified as a Major Highway - 156' R.O.W. It should be noted that the improvements to Beaumont Avenue north of Oak Valley Parkway are intended to avoid the existing rows of Deodar Cedar trees which line both sides of the roadway beginning approximately one quarter mile north of Oak Valley Parkway. The Deodar Cedar trees are considered a significant aesthetic resource and their preservation is encouraged within the Specific Plan standards. Existing Deodar Cedars along Beaumont Avenue will be retained. Removal of any trees will be limited to improvements at Cougar Way and Beaumont Avenue. Consequently, Beaumont Avenue is proposed to be improved from its current two-lane undivided status to a primary highway from Brookside Avenue to south of Oak Valley Parkway. This will be accomplished through a modified street section wherein the west side of Beaumont Avenue will be improved with a 78' half section on the west side of the roadway. This will include 39' of right-of-way and 28' of pavement from the centerline to the curb. A 40' open space buffer will be developed between the right of way line and the rear property lines of the proposed residential units. The cross section is presented in Figure 2.6-3. 278 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 2.6-1 Circulation Plan Source: Tahiti Group evenude AoksiBro .ywkP keerC elboNNot a Part Middle School Cougar WaylennahC mrotS keerC elboN Oak Valley Parkway SECONDARY HIGHWAY ARTERIAL HIGHWAY DIVIDED COLLECTOR P w r i e o e l n Easement Oak ViewDr.ParkParkStr e e t A Beaumon AvenetuElementary School 279 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-40 Similarly, Brookside Avenue adjacent to the Project Site will be developed with a modified half section. This section will include 44' of right-of-way including 32' of pavement as measured from the centerline to the curb. Beyond the right-of-way a landscaped parkway measuring between 18' to 38' will be developed adjacent to the rear property lines. Noble Creek Parkway will be developed as a 78' right-of-way with 56' of pavement and 11' parkways. Noble Creek Parkway will also include an additional 19' landscape buffer area on the eastside of the street. Three separate roadways provide east/west access, two of which have interchange access with the San Bernardino (10) Freeway. The roadway is Oak Valley Parkway, an Arterial Highway - 110' R.O.W. The second east/west access road is Brookside Avenue, which is classified as a Secondary - 100' R.O.W. The third east/west access to the Specific Plan is available through Cherry Valley Boulevard, which is classified as a Major Highway - 100' R.O.W. Cherry Valley Boulevard is located to the north of the site but is not a contiguous part of Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan. A network of roadways accommodates on-site circulation efficiently. Each roadway's location and size is designed to facilitate the efficient movement of traffic throughout the site. Local street layout will be determined at the tract map stage in conjunction with each planning area it is associated with. The main objective of the circulation plan is to provide direct, and convenient access to individual residential clusters, commercial centers, recreation areas, and institutional facilities through a safe and efficient system of collector and local roadways, and a pedestrian sidewalk system. Roadway crosssections are shown on Figures 2.6-2 and 2.6-3. 280 Item 12. Figure 2.6-2 Cross-Sections Source: Kunzman Associates NOT TO SCALE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY (Oak Valley Parkway) *Class II Bike Lane within Right-Of-Way SECONDARY HIGHWAY (Brookside Avenue) 281 Item 12. Figure 2.6-3 Roadway Cross-Sections, Street A and Street B Source: Tahiti Group DIVIDED COLLECTOR PAINTED OR RAISED MEDIAN COLLECTOR STREET (Street A) LOCAL STREET (Interior Residential Streets) (Street B) 282 Item 12. Figure 2.6-4 Street Section Exhibit Source: Tahiti Group NOT TO SCALE 283 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-44 2.7 - DRAINAGE PLAN The site lies just west of the crest of San Gorgonio Pass. Bounded by Oak Valley Parkway on the south and Brookside Avenue on the north, Noble Creek lies within this project and drainage is in a southwesterly direction within Noble Creek Vistas. Drainage runoff from Cherry Canyon, San Bernardino National Forest and easterly Cherry Valley flows within Noble Creek as it enters the project site. The Noble Creek Channel essentially bisects the site in a northeast/southwest diagonal direction. A system of storm drain facilities will be required to drain the site into Noble Creek. Portions of the project are within the 100-year floodplain and will require either being raised above the 100-year floodplain or safeguarded by improvements to Noble Creek to eliminate the floodplain within the project, or a combination of both. In order to meet County Flood Control District standards, it may be necessary to incorporate detention basins into planning area subdivision design. Each tentative tract map submittal shall be required to demonstrate that the appropriate flood control requirements have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director. Please refer also to Figure 2.7-1, Drainage Plan. Development of the site will alter natural on-site drainage courses to a certain extent. After development, new drainage courses will consist of streets, channels and swales, underground storm drains and/or a combination of the above. The majority of all on-site water will exit the site and drain into Noble Creek. Approximate drainage line locations are shown, however, the system layout and sizing will be determined during tract map preparation, when final planning and engineering studies have been completed. 284 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 2.7-1 Drainage Plan Source: Tahiti Group Oak Valley Parkway Powerline Easement Cougar Way Middle School B umntenuea o Av e Vi D .Oak ew rStr e e t A ParkNo leCek Pa wayb rerkNot a PartParkblNo eCreekn C han el S trmo Note: Final system layout and sizing will be determined during tract improvement plan preparation, when final planning and engineering studies have been completed. = Storm Drain and Catch Basin System Elementary School 285 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-46 2.8 - WATER AND SEWER PLANS The water purveyor for the site will be the Beaumont - Cherry Valley Water District. The only domestic water facilities near the site, at present, is a 12" line in Oak Valley Parkway, a 12" line in Cherry Valley Boulevard, and 12" line on the east side of Beaumont Avenue south of Brookside, which are inadequate to serve the project. Master plan water facilities and storage facilities, as shown on Figure 2.8-1, will be required by the project and will become an integral part of the planning process for the project. The Water District proposes a new +3.0 million-gallon water reservoir north of the project and a new 16" transmission water main to supply this zone. These new facilities are planned to be in place to supply this development. Approximate water line locations are shown, however, the system layout and sizing will be refined during future final tract map preparation. Sewer service is provided by the City of Beaumont. There are, at present, no sewer facilities available in the project. The City of Beaumont is presently designing a system of trunk sewer lines, in accordance with the approved Sewer Master Plan, which will, when constructed, be brought to the site along the easterly side of the Noble Creek Channel to Brookside Avenue. The trunk sewer line is being designed to serve this project. Collector sewers within the project will connect with the trunk sewer at various points, as shown on Figure 2.8-2. Sewer line sizes are not shown. Proposed alignment connection points and sizing will be accomplished upon obtaining detailed planning and engineering criteria during tract map preparation. 286 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 2.8-1 Water Plan Source: Tahiti Group Oak Valley Parkway Powerline Easement Cougar Way Middle School u neBeamot Av nueO k View Dr.atS tree A P rako e aN bl Creek PrkwayNot a PartParkbNo leCreekCh nn el a orm St= Backbone Water = Transmission Water = Water Main Note: Final system layout and sizing will be determined during tract improvement plan preparation when final planning and engineering studies have been completed. To 3.0 + MG Reservoir Elementary School 287 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 2.8-2 Sewer Plan Source: Tahiti Group Oak Valley Parkway Powerline Easement Cougar Way Middle School Beaumont Avenuea iw D .Ok V e rS tree t A P rakNole Creek Par waybkNot a PartP karbNo leCreek Ch a nnel Storm Brookside Avenue = Trunk Sewer = Collector Sewer = Sewer Main Note: Final system layout and sizing will be determined during tract improvement plan preparation when final planning and engineering studies have been completed. Elementary School 288 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan Specific Plan Page 2-49 2.9 - GRADING PLAN Grading for the Noble Creek Vistas site will be tailored to the existing topography of the property. It is intended that the proposed plan be sensitive to and reflect original natural land forms, where possible, so that various land uses and residential enclaves are distinguished and separated by topographic features. Please refer also to Figure 2.9-1, “Conceptual Grading Plan.” The majority of the site is gently sloping, with the exception of the Noble Creek Channel traversing through the site. Those gently sloping portions of the site will require minimal cut and fill operations. Earthwork quantities will be balanced in logical areas on site. The Grading Plan also establishes a basis for appropriate treatment of drainage requirements and provides for a street system which meets City of Beaumont standards for acceptable grades. 289 Item 12. NOT TO SCALE Figure 2.9-1 Grading Plan Source: Tahiti Group Natural Contours Graded Contours LEGEND: 2 7 0 0 269 0 2 6 0 8 2 6 0 7 2 6 0 6 2 6 5 0 2640 602 3 2 6 2 0 2 6 1 0 26 0 0 2610 2620 2 3 0 6 26 04 2 5 0 6 2 6 0 6 2 6 7 0 2590258028062 6 9 0 2680 2690 290 Item 12. SECTION 3: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES 291 Item 12. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-1 SECTION 3: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES 3.1 INTRODUCTION The following provisions establish use restrictions and development standards for each land use to be developed within the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan project area. Noble Creek Vistas development standards will be established through creation of Specific Plan Area zoning. 3.1.1 Purpose and Intent The general purpose and intent of this Specific Plan is to preserve and promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. This Specific Plan has been drafted and tailored to specifically provide detailed land use restrictions and development standards. This Specific Plan will give the City control over proposed development which will in some instances be more restrictive than the existing City of Beaumont Zoning Ordinance. 3.1.2 Applicability These development standards shall be applicable to all property within the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan area. Licenses and permits for land development shall be issued only when it has been determined by the City that the proposed land uses are in conformance to the provisions of the Specific Plan. 292 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-2 3.1.3 Interpretation The provisions of this Specific Plan shall be held to be minimum requirements in their application and interpretation. No provision of this title is intended to abrogate or interfere with any deed restriction, covenant, easement, or other agreement between parties. City of Beaumont staff shall interpret this Specific Plan. If there is dissention in the interpretation of the provisions of this Specific Plan between City of Beaumont staff and the project proponent, then the City of Beaumont Planning Commission shall interpret the intent by resolution of record. The decision of the Commission shall be final unless the project proponent is in disagreement with their decision at which time he/she may seek final decision of the City Council. 3.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3.2.1 Residential Standards 3.2.1.1 General Standards The following standards shall apply to all Planning Areas within the Specific Plan. Table 3.2-1 General Residential Standards Item Standard M inimum Lot Size 6,000 square feet M inimum Setbacks: Front Yard 20 feet (Measured from property line.) Dwellings with side entry garages shall be perm itted a 10 foot fro nt setback. Rear Yard 15 feet Interior Side Yard 5 feet; 10 feet for two-story structures. (N o side yard setback required if approved for alternative residential layouts through subdivision process.) Corner Lot Street Side Yard 10 feet 293 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Table 3.2-1 General Residential Standards Item Standard Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-3 Encroachments into Setbacks Chimneys - 2 feet Roof Overhangs - 3 feet Building Height No building shall exceed tw o (2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet, whichever is lesser in height. Off-Street Parking A minim um of two spaces shall be provided per dwelling unit in an enclosed garage. No vehicle shall be parked in any setback area of a residential lot except in drivew ays. Landscaping •All builders shall choose plants listed in Attachment A of the County of Riverside Guide to California Friendly Landscaping for landscaping of their lots/parcels. •Landscaping shall include shrubs, trees, vines, ground covers, hedges, flowers, bark, drips, decorating cinders, gravel, and similar material which will improve the appearance of yard areas. •Required front and side yards shall be continually maintained by the property owner and shall not be used for off-street parking of vehicles or loading spaces, with the exception of a 10-foot wide side yard, which may be used for parking. •Each yard (front and rear) shall be served by at least one permanent water hose bib. •Front yard landscape plans shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of building perm its for each residence. All front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy. Signs The provisions of Chapter 17.60 of Title 17 shall apply. 294 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Table 3.2-1 General Residential Standards Item Standard Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-4 Off-site Improvements Off-site im provem ents including streets, curbs, and gutters shall be provided where abutting each residential lot prior to certificate of occupancy issuance. W here determ ined necessary during tract map review, sidewalks shall also be provided prior to certificate of occupancy. Lot Coverage (max. permitted)60 percent Unit Size Unit sizes will be reviewed by the City at the time each individual tract is subm itted for review. Unit sizes shall comply with any applicable City standard. Energy Efficiency All residential units shall comply with the California Green Builder Program. 3.2.1.2 Specific Standards The following tables further refine the standards of each Planning Area. Table 3.2-2 Development Standards - Planning Area 1 Product Type Single-Family Home (Detached) Lot Size 6,000 - 15,000 sf M inimum Lot Width 55 feet M inimum Lot Depth 90 feet N otes: •All lots that back up to Brookside Avenue shall be at least 10,000 square feet. In addition, 25 percent of these lots shall be a m inimum of 15,000 square feet. •At least 50 percent of the homes that back up to Brookside Avenue shall be single-story homes. 295 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-5 Table 3.2-3 Development Standards - Planning Area 7 Product Type Single-Family Home (Detached) Lot Size 6,000 - 15,000 sf M inimum Lot Width 55 feet M inimum Lot Depth 90 feet N otes: •A minim um of 29 lots within the Planning A rea shall be larger than 7,200 square feet. Table 3.2-4 Development Standards - Planning Area 8 Product Type Single-Family Home (Detached) Lot Size 6,000 - 15,000 sf M inimum Lot Width 55 feet M inimum Lot Depth 93 feet N otes: A m inimum of 32 lots within the Planning Area shall be larger than 7,200 square feet. Table 3.2-5 Development Standards - Planning Area 10 Product Type Single-Family Home (Detached) Lot Size 7,000 - 12,000 sf M inimum Lot Width 60 feet M inimum Lot Depth 90 feet N otes: •All residential lots that back up to Beaumont Avenue shall be at least 10,000 square feet in size. In addition, at least 25 percent of these lots shall be a minim um of 15,000 square feet. •At least 50 percent of the homes that back up to Beaumont Avenue shall be single-story hom es. 296 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-6 Table 3.2-6 Development Standards - Planning Area 11 Product Type Single-Family Home (Detached) Lot Size 6,270 - 15,000 sf M inimum Lot Width 57 feet M inimum Lot Depth 110 feet N otes: A m inimum of 53 lots within the Planning Area shall be larger than 7,200 square feet. 3.2.2 Recreational Standards The following Table 3.2-7 presents the standards applicable to the recreational areas contained within Planning Areas 4, 5, 9a, and 9b. Table 3.2-7 Recreational Standards Lot Area M o minimum lot area requirement Setbacks These setbacks shall be applicable to the location of buildings (restrooms, equipment storage) on the site. Whenever a building is to be constructed on a lot in this zone, it shall have a front yard, side yard and rear yard, each of which shall not be less than 20 feet. If m ore than one building is constructed on the lot, there shall be not less than 20 feet separation between buildings. W herever feasible, restrooms shall be sited as far as possible from proposed neighboring residences. Off Street Parking On-site automobile parking may be required in this zone. Detailed park plans w ill be reviewed by the City at the plot plan stage and will provide adequate parking in compliance with the City's requirem ents. Bike Lanes Class II bike lanes will be provided on all arterial, major, secondary and collector level streets. Trash Areas A ll trash collection areas shall be enclosed with a solid fence or wall, no less than six feet high. 297 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Table 3.2-7 Recreational Standards Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-7 Signs Signs shall be permitted and regulated by the provisions of Chapter 17.60 of Title 17. The Planning Director shall have the authority to approve signage exceeding the standards as specified in Chapter 17.60 provided that said signage by review of design, materials, color and location is determined to be in the interest of the public health, safety, general welfare and aesthetics of the community. Landscaping Landscaping in the form of ground cover shall be required in this zone. Shrubs, canopy and accent trees will be strategically located to provide shade and aesthetic quality to development within this zone. A ll landscaping shall be irrigated. 3.3 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 3.3.1 Residential Guidelines Accessory Building Uses Accessory buildings and structures, including private garages and storage structures (sheds) which shall be developed under the following site development standards: •Accessory buildings greater than one (1) story (fourteen feet in height) shall not occupy any part of a required yard, and no accessory building shall occupy more than twenty (20) percent of a required rear yard. All accessory structures shall maintain a minimum five (5) feet setback from any property lines. •Accessory buildings shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to the nearest part of a main building in order to maintain sufficient lighting and ventilation. Accessory buildings are considered to be storage sheds, gazebos and other ancillary structures. •No accessory building shall occupy a portion of a required front or side yard. •In the case of a reversed comer lot, no building shall be erected upon such lot closer than five (5) feet to the property line of any abutting lot to the rear. 298 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-8 Tentative Tract The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of a tentative tract. The tentative tract approval may include conditions requiring fencing and landscaping of the parcel to further enhance compatibility with the surrounding area. •Zero lot line or Cluster Residential Development alternatives to traditional residential street layouts will be permitted through plot plan review. Densities will not exceed planning area allowances. All residential site development standards shall apply except there shall not be any interior side yard setback requirements. This alternative is only available within Planning Areas 6-10. •Temporary real estate tract office and/or mobile homes located within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period of 2 years in any event, unless an extension is approved by the Planning Commission. •Nurseries, horticultural, during development of the Specific Plan site to facilitate project development. The planning area graphics, presented in Section 2, serve the purpose of identifying landscape edge treatments, number of dwelling units, lot sizes and acreage within each planning area, and are considered to be a useful tool for guiding future developers and/or merchant builder. Internal street layout and subdivision of individual units are not illustrated at the Specific Plan level. This level of detail will be provided by the individual developer/merchant builder of each planning area at the tract map stage. In addition, planning areas shall be required to demonstrate adequate secondary access at that time. Residential site planning criteria has been established and is intended as a positive means to achieve a cohesive character and quality, which will protect and enhance the entire community. 299 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-9 The site planning concepts shall: •Maintain a consistent design approach (streetscape, etc.) which unifies individual neighborhoods. •Achieve a variety of unit types appropriate to each planning area. •Use innovative site planning and building design to achieve a sensitive relationship between the built and the natural environment. •Maximize exposure of units to open space and other amenities. •Preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the community. •Utilize energy efficient design in the structures. Conditional Permit Uses Conditional Permit Uses are not proposed and will not be permitted on the site. Public Uses The following uses are permitted in all Residential Planning Areas subject to the approval of a Public Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.70.100 of Title 17 and given that they encompass the entire planning area. •Public schools, private schools and educational institutions and churches. Site Planning The residential development within the Noble Creek Specific Plan area is comprised of single-family detached homes on lots ranging from 6,000 square feet to one acre. All units will have individual lots. For these uses the following guidelines shall be followed: •Use of cul-de-sacs to deter through traffic on local roads. •Minimize geometric grid layout of streets and lots. •Minimize grading where feasible. •Vary setbacks of homes from street. •Vary orientation of garages and entries to create an interesting streetscape. 300 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-10 •Encourage articulation of the streetscape by varying unit footprints, massing, roof forms, garages, entries and architectural details. •Create identifiable neighborhoods. •Create pedestrian scale. •Establish park and pedestrian linkages. •Provide access to recreation. Environmental Responsibility All residential units constructed within the project site will include energy efficient design and features that are mindful of the environment. To this end, all homes will be constructed and certified under the California Green Builder Program, as described on the California Green Builder website. 3.3.2 Architectural Guidelines Building Form, Mass and Scale The architectural image and identity of the community will primarily be perceived from public spaces such as streets, parks and other open space areas. Building form, massing and scale are therefore primary design components which require careful articulation in their architectural expression to these public spaces. The visible side and rear elevations of residential units are important, depending upon the location and orientation of the home. Consideration should be given to the articulation of rear and side elevations viewed from public spaces by providing variations in roof forms. Interesting building form and massing should be achieved without superficial design elements. A ppropriate Inappropriate Articulation of wall planes to create shadow relief and visual interest. Large expanse of plain, straight wall planes, not otherwise articulated by form, fenestration or m aterials. Simple monolithic building forms conveying an impression of permanence. 301 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-11 Projections and recesses to provide shadow and depth. Raised banding and relief at eaves, openings and chimneys. Gabled roof w ith raised plate for vertical accent. Building Heights and Setbacks Building height and setback requirements shall conform to the Development Standards as set forth in the Specific Plan and these Guidelines. In order to avoid monotonous street scenes in residential planning areas, repetitive floor plans should be alternately reversed and their roof expressions varied. Single-family residences should maintain low plate lines and profiles along street fronts and boundary edges. Front yard setbacks should be staggered. To soften the architectural edge at area boundaries, building heights shall maintain a low profile through a combination of one and two story elements and varied floor setbacks at second-stories. To lower the apparent height, second-story rooms may be tucked into roof planes and roofs may be clipped at the sides and comers of the buildings. A ppropriate Inappropriate Variation in plate h eight, minim um plate height 8 foot. Consistent front yard setback with no variation. Variation in ridge line height and alignm ent. Sym metrical or asymm etrical plans as appropriate to architectural styles. Floor plans arranged to provide usable private exterior spaces such as patios, atriums and recessed entries. Varied front yard setbacks. 302 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-12 Roof Forms and Materials Roof forms are a highly visible community feature. A range of roof forms and pitches should be utilized to add an appealing visual impact to the community/streetscape. Simple pitched gable, hip or shed roof forms will be the predominant roof elements in Noble Creek. Roof projections and overhangs are encouraged as response to energy and climate concerns. Low maintenance details limiting the amount of exposed wood are encouraged. All pitched roofs shall be tile or equivalent. All flat roof areas, when utilized, shall require a gravel surface of earthtone color or similar uniform coverage treatment. A ppropriate Inappropriate Roof Materials: Clay barrel or "s" tile, integral color concrete "s" or shake tile and slate. M ansard, gambrel and "period" style roof form s. Simple pitched gable, hip and shed roof forms or combination thereof with raised plate for vertical accent. N on-continuous roof parapets. Pitched roof material palette should contain m ore than one color to achieve a variegated appearance. Flat roofs in excess of 20 percent of the total roof area. Small areas of flat roofs with parapets are allowed up to 20 percent of the total roof area. W ood shake and composition shingle. Roof pitches as appropriate to the architectural style, but in no case less than 4:12. Brightly colored glazed tile. Variation in ridge line height and alignm ent. Varying plate heights. Simple fascia detailing. Exterior Materials and Color Exterior building materials shall be of natural materials which are compatible with and reflect the elements of the surrounding environment. This includes wood, masonry, stone, concrete and stucco. Exposed wood sheathing shall be limited to the underside of roofs or patio decks. The simple use of tile, brick, stone, masonry or pre-cast concrete are permitted as design accents and trim. Exterior stucco shall be utilized as the primary wall material and shall have a smooth, sand or other light finish texture. 303 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-13 Color is intended as a primary theme element. The value should generally be light earthtones, with darker or lighter accents to highlight the character of the structure; particularly in respect to balcony railings, fascias, awnings, inlaid tile bands and cornice bands. Complementary accent materials and colors are allowed and encouraged. All accents must relate to the architectural form and character of the building. Wood trim shall be stained with semitransparent stain or painted as accents. A ppropriate Inappropriate Predominantly exterior stucco and m asonry as primary w all materials. H eavy textured stucco, such as Spanish lace, swirl or heavy trowel. Use of wood as trim or accent material.Vinyl, metal or aluminum siding Sm ooth-textured stucco, may have uneven surface to recall hand-worked appearance. Rustic materials utilized as primary wall surfaces and dark earthtone colors. W here timber is utilized, it should be substantial in proportion and appearance. Over application of bright accents or trim colors. Where architectural materials, such as masonry or stone, are applied to a facade, those materials shall be applied to the side elevations where visually prominent, and w rap around comers by a m inimum of 4 feet. M aterials changes may be utilized to visually break up second-story elevations. A pply architectural treatments to all elevations, especially where prominently visible, as at street comers. Light earthtone colors on primary wall surfaces. Contrasting trim colors. Limited use of selected accent colors which complement the designated color scheme. 304 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-14 Windows and Doors Detailed and recessed door, window and wall openings are characteristics of the intended architectural style of Noble Creek, and should convey the appearance of thick, well-founded walls. Fully recessed openings are encouraged. Design treatment and architectural features such as pediments, small roofs, overhangs and projections to recess windows and doors are appropriate. Projecting windows may be used to add articulation to wall surfaces. Particular attention must be given to the shading of windows, especially those with a western exposure. Exterior and interior shading devices and solar screens are encouraged. All windows shall be double insulated to reduce solar heat gains and losses. A ppropriate Inappropriate Divided window lights to reduce the scale of large windows and provide visual interest (encouraged). Plain exterior doors where visually prominent. Deep recessed openings conveying an impression of thick walls and creating strong shadows. Exclusive use of conventional aluminum frame windows without architectural treatment, such as divided lights, trim, recessed or projecting, etc. Rectangular and arched openings.Reflective glass. Character, greenhouse and bay w indows.Gold or silver window and door fram es. Color accented window frames and mullions.M etal awnings. Clerestory and transom windows. Window balconies, dormer windows and roof windows. D ecorative w ood and glass panel doors w ith sidelights. French doors. Decorative brass or anodized hardware. Gabled window with pot shelf. Simple gated courtyard entry. H orizontal grouping of double hung windows. 305 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-15 H ooded window with pot shelf. Greenhouse bay with french doors. Garage Doors Garages are a major visual element in single-family detached housing. Garage doors should be the same color (light) and incorporate the same design elements and materials as the dwelling units. Ornamentation is encouraged as it relates to the architecture and provides visual variety along the streetscape. The design treatments include color accents and architectural features such as sediments, molding, small roofs, overhangs and projections to recess the garage door. A ppropriate Inappropriate Minimum 12" recess from adjacent walls.Garages without architectural treatment on side elevations. Roll-up doors, wood or metal acceptable.Corrugated metal doors. If painted or stained, color should be the same as the primary w all or trim color. Bold trim and patterns. Side-in garages.Bright accent colors. Deep overhangs. Chimneys Chimneys, as an architectural form, shall be simple in design, having the same material texture and color as the building to ensure consistency of character and style. Chimney caps should repeat the fascia cornice band treatment integrating the trim colors. A ppropriate Inappropriate Simple, smooth plaster form s.Exposed flues. Boldly projected from wall surfaces.Rustic material veneers. Design feature adding articulation to walls.Extravagant m etal fireplace caps. Raised plaster banding, insets and tile accents.Brightly colored caps. 306 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-16 Chimney caps appropriate to architectural style. Private Courtyard Walls Private courtyard walls are encouraged to provide privacy, security and landscape definition. Wall treatment viewed from public streets shall be slump block or stucco finish consistent in treatment with the adjacent building. Plant material should be utilized to visually soften walls. Vines and espaliered trees are especially encouraged. A ppropriate Inappropriate Smooth or sand finish plaster or stucco walls.Plain walls, not otherwise articulated by form, m aterials or alignm ent. 6" slum p block walls.M aterials inconsistent with the architectural style such as standard concrete block or chain link fencing. Accent tile banding or wood trim repeating cornice band. Adequate planting pockets between walls and walkways. Height, proportions and scale must be sympathetic to architecture of adjacent buildings. Use of pot shelves, low planters, recesses and niches. Pilasters with prominent bases and caps. Low garden walls which can serve as seating and flat display surfaces. Simple gated entry to a courtyard. Building Details •Mechanical Equipment All air conditioning/heating equipment, soft water tanks, electric meters and gas 307 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-17 meters should be screened from public view. Sound attenuation is encouraged. Roof mounted equipment and related duct work are prohibited on pitched roofs. Mechanical equipment located on flat roof areas is prohibited, unless screened by parapet walls as high or higher than the equipment. Exposed duct work is prohibited on flat roofs. Roof mounted mechanical equipment on flat roof areas shall not be allowed on houses located below other houses. •Gutters and Downspouts Gutters and downspouts and other devices for the control of roof water are important elements which may be concealed or exposed if designed and integrated as a continuous architectural feature. Exposed gutters and downspouts shall be painted to match adjacent roof, wall or trim material color. •Flashing, Sheet Metal and Vents All flashing, sheet metal, vent stacks and pipes shall be painted to match adjacent building surface. Painted metals shall be properly prepared and primed to ensure a durable, long lasting finish. •Antennas All antennas are restricted to the attic or interior of the residences. This standard will be enforced through the recordation of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions on individual lots. •Skylights Skylights shall be designed as an integral part of the roof. Their form, location and color should relate to the architectural character of the building. Skylights shall be double insulated glazing, clear or white. •Solar Panels Solar panels shall be integrated into the roof design, flush with the roof slope and not mounted on racks. Frames must be colored to complement the roof. 308 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-18 Mill finish aluminum frames are prohibited. Support solar equipment shall be enclosed and screened from view. •Accessory Structures Patio trellises, pergolas and other exterior structures shall be constructed of wood or stucco as permitted by governing codes, with finishes compatible with adjacent building and complying with the approved material and color palette. Trellises and patio covers of bold, clean forms are encouraged. Free standing metal storage buildings are prohibited. 3.3.3 Landscaping Guidelines •All builders will be required to choose plants listed in Attachment A of the County of Riverside Guide to California Friendly Landscaping for landscaping of their lots/parcels. •All detailed landscaping programs for planning areas and roadways will be prepared by a qualified landscape architect. •Project entry statements will be designed with landscaping and architectural treatments that provide a high quality image for the project site. •Major, secondary or neighborhood signage may be provided at each entry statement. Said signage shall be coordinated with wall design so that it will be aesthetically pleasing. •Special landscaped treatment buffers will be developed at the park/residential edge and at the powerline easement edge. •Primary entry roads to the site will have landscaped shoulders to define the project's design concept. The introductory landscape theme will include elements such as tree clustering to reinforce the project theme and character. Sidewalks will meander through the landscaped land on each side of the road. •Planning areas may be separated by either roads or slopes reflecting the original natural terrain. •The landscaping theme for the site will include trees, shrubs and ground cover compatible with natural vegetation growing on-site, where feasible. 309 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-19 •The applicant and/or developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slope planting, common landscaped areas, and irrigation systems until accepted for maintenance by the Landscape & Lighting District, Homeowners Association or Community Facilities District. Streetscape Landscaping The following section identifies the streetscape standards for Noble Creek Vistas roadways. The standards include a street theme tree with complementary plantings within the landscape development area. Street/Section from Figure 2.5-1 M ajor Tree Street Section A Cedrus deodar (Deodar Cedar) Street Section B Pinus brutia eldarica (Mondel Pine) Street Section C Acacia saligna (Wattle Tree) The major theme tree should represent approximately 60 percent of the total quantity of street trees used within each designation. This will establish a theme for each roadway. The remaining plant material will be selected from Attachment A of the County of Riverside Guide to California Friendly Landscaping for landscaping of their lots/parcels. It is intended that a simple consistent palette of plant materials be utilized throughout to reinforce a strong sense of community identity. The minimum tree size to be used within the project streetscape is a 24-inch box. Climate Constraints The climatological factors of this area mandate careful adherence to the provided plant list. Temperature extremes and limited rainfall are determining factors in plant selection. Microclimate conditions created by development will need to be considered to guide in the most appropriate plant material selection. The following is a summary of the climatic conditions in the Beaumont area. 310 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-20 •Temperature The average summer daytime maximum temperature is 92 degrees Fahrenheit with the average nighttime temperature being 56 degrees. The average winter daytime temperature is 58 degrees with an average nighttime temperate of 37 degrees. Generally, the extreme summer temperate is 105 to 110 degrees and generally the minimum winter temperature is 15 to 20 degrees. •Rain Average annual rainfall is 17 inches per year. •Humidity Average annual humidity is 24.5 percent. Maintenance/General All landscape and irrigation shall be designed to promote ease of maintenance. Plant material size and form should be appropriate for its function to minimize the need for pruning. Plant spacing should reflect mature size requirements to avoid overcrowding. Irrigation for trees, shrubs and ground covers should be a "hard line" drip system. The irrigation controllers should have the capability of long watering times to accommodate a drip system. Irrigation backflow prevention devices and controllers shall be located with minimum public visibility or shall be screened with appropriate plant materials. Homeowners will be encouraged to select plant material from the plant palette identified in the Specific Plan. Covenants Conditions and Restrictions shall be prepared and recorded for each lot which require that all yard areas shall be planted, that hardscape be limited to 50 percent of yard area and that all plant material be maintained in a healthy condition. 311 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-21 3.3.4 Recreational Guidelines Principal Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of Site Plan review by the Planning Commission. The Site Plan may include conditions requiring fencing and landscaping of the parcel to further enhance compatibility with the surrounding area. More than one use shall be permitted on a lot. •Picnic area •Group barbecue area including grills •Basketball court (half-court or full-court) •Volleyball court •Tot lot •Adventure play •Tennis courts •Shade arbor •Restrooms •Equipment storage building •Parking lot •Bicycle racks/storage •Par (exercise) course •Baseball/softball, football/soccer fields •Additional recreational uses that are determined to be "substantially similar" to the listed examples and in complete accord to the Purpose and Intent of this zone. 3.3.5 Circulation Guidelines •The proposed Circulation Plan provides an efficient traffic design that meets or exceeds the public safety, security and transportation needs of the project. 312 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-22 •Through traffic to the greatest extent feasible should be eliminated from residential neighborhoods. Major roadways should be implemented as non-access roadways, with residential neighborhoods served by smaller residential local roads. •Future tentative tract maps shall comply with the street improvement recommendations/mitigations outlined in the project traffic study. •On-site roads will be constructed as: Beaumont Avenue (39' half section) Noble Creek Parkway (78' R.O.W.) Brookside Avenue (44' half section) Cougar Way/Elm Street (94' R.O.W.) Collector Streets (70' R.O.W.) Local Streets (60' R.O.W.) •Landscaping requirements will be based on street width in accordance with the Landscaping Plan, illustrated in Figure 2.5-1, and may be implemented through an assessment district or similar financing mechanism. •Some roadway improvements may be implemented through an assessment district or similar financing mechanisms. •All roads shall be constructed to ultimate City standards as a requirement of the implementing subdivisions for the Specific Plan, subject to approval by the Public Works Director. •Internal street layout (local roads) shall be provided by the individual developer/merchant builder of each Planning Area at the tract map stage. In addition, each Planning Area shall be designed to provide adequate secondary access to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. 313 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-23 3.3.6 Drainage and Flood Control Guidelines •Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements as identified on the Drainage Plan (Figure 2.7-1) shall be provided in accordance with the City of Beaumont's drainage requirements. The design of each tentative tract map shall meet the flood control standards established by the County of Riverside, City of Beaumont and Clean Water Act. Consistency with aforementioned standards may require the implementation of on-site detention and/or siltation basins, raising of pad elevations or channel improvements. •Maintenance of project drainage facilities will be determined during review of tentative tract map submittals. Major flood control facilities are typically maintained by the County of Riverside or the City of Beaumont. •The Noble Creek Flood Control Channel will be maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control District or City maintenance entity. A cross-section of this channel is shown on Figure 2.5-3, Drainage Corridor. •The project will be required to comply with the Army Corps of Engineers 404 and California Department of Fish and Game 1601 permit process. 3.3.7 Water and Sewer Guidelines •All water lines and related and required water service will be designed per City of Beaumont and Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District requirements. •All sewer service improvements will be constructed in accordance with the City of Beaumont's requirements. •All sewer service improvements to be maintained by the City of Beaumont. •All water and sewer lines will be properly sized to adequately service proposed future growth potential. 314 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-24 •The cost of constructing oversized lines to serve existing or future off-site population shall be the responsibility of those to be served in accordance with the rules and regulations of the City of Beaumont. 3.3.8 Grading Guidelines •All grading activities shall be in substantial conformance with the overall Grading Plan (Figure 2.9-1), and shall implement any grading related mitigation measures outlined in: Seismic Safety (EIR), Slopes and Erosions (EIR) and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Technical Appendices). •Prior to any development within any area of the Specific Plan, a Grading Plan for the portion in process shall be submitted for Planning and Engineering Department approval. The Grading Plan for each such area shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual stages of development within that area. •All streets shall have a gradient not exceeding 10%. •All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the City of Beaumont Grading Standards. Standard engineering techniques will minimize the soil erosion and siltation potential to acceptable levels. Prior to grading plan, approval, the project proponent shall submit to the City of Beaumont for review and approval an erosion control program which indicates proper control of siltation, sedimentation and other pollutants. The erosion control program measures will include but are not limited to, revegetation of cut and fill areas, utilization of sediment control devices at construction sites and diversion of storm run-off from development areas. All drainage will be conveyed in non-erosive drainage devices to suitable disposal points. Energy dissipation and methods for preventing scour and erosion should be part of any drainage improvements. 315 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-25 •Prior to submittal of the final tract map, a detailed Grading Plan shall be prepared and included with the map. The Grading Plan shall include the following information: a)Preliminary grading quantity estimates; b)Designation of areas which will be off-limits for temporary borrowing or exporting of material; c)Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process; d)Approximate time frames for grading including identification of areas which may be graded during the rainy season (November through April); e)Preliminary pad and roadway elevations; and f)Site drainage during grading. •Detailed grading plans shall be prepared prior to any on-site grading for each project or group of projects. •The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all planting and irrigation systems until those operations become the responsibility of other parties. •The overall shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed in concert with the existing natural contours and scale of the natural terrain of a particular site. •Potential brow ditches, terrace drains or other minor swales, determined necessary at future stages of project review, shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete. •Grading work shall be balanced on-site where and whenever possible. •Graded slopes shall be planted with interim erosion control plant materials if and when needed. 316 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Development Standards & Guidelines Specific Plan Page 3-26 •All cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no steeper than two (2) horizontal feet to one (1) vertical foot unless otherwise approved by the City, and/or the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. •Grading shall not be permitted prior to approval of grading permits for the development area in question. •Graded slopes shall be oriented to minimize visual impacts to surrounding areas. 317 Item 12. SECTION 4: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 318 Item 12. Noble Creek Vistas Implementation and Administration Specific Plan Page 4-1 SECTION 4: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 4.1 - PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT 4.1.1 Phasing Plan It is expected that the proposed project will be phased over a 5 year period, in response to market demands, according to a logical and orderly extension of roadways, public utilities and infrastructure. 4.1.2 Phasing Standards The maximum dwelling unit total for the project as a whole is 648, however, for any particular planning area the number of dwelling units may be exceeded by up to ten (10) percent. If the developer should wish to exceed the maximum for a particular planning area, as stated above, a tracking report will be submitted to the City Planning Department, to demonstrate all dwelling unit shifts on a project-wide basis. A Specific Plan Amendment will not be required, provided that the tracking report explains to the satisfaction of the Planning Director the proposed dwelling unit distribution. Adherence to applicable development standards shall be required in any event. Prior to issuance of building permits, improvement plans for the respective landscape areas for that stage of development shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for approval. The improvement plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: 319 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Implementation and Administration Specific Plan Page 4-2 •Final grading plan. •Irrigation plans certified by a licensed landscape architect. •A landscaping plan with seed mixes for mulching and staking methods; locations, type, size and quantity of plantings. •Fence treatment plans. •Special treatment/buffer area treatment plans. •The availability of infrastructure will determine project phasing. Maintenance Districts Successful operation of maintenance districts and associations are important in maintaining quality in the project area. It is anticipated that maintenance responsibilities for private community facilities will be divided among a Master Homeowner's Association, or Neighborhood Associations. Maintenance costs for parks will be addressed through annexation to a Community Facilities District (CFD 93-1). Further, it is anticipated that public facilities will be dedicated to, and maintained by the City of Beaumont. Parks Three parks will potentially be provided for the benefit of community residents, as discussed previously in this report. These parks are proposed to be constructed by the project developer then dedicated to a Community Facilities District or similar maintenance organization. As described in prior sections, a more detailed parks program will be developed to ensure that all landowners/developers participate equitably in the attainment of the City’s park standards. Schools Two (2) school sites are owned and operated by the local school district. Project Roadways All public project roadways will be designed and constructed to standards acceptable to the City and will therefore be dedicated to the City for maintenance. 320 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Implementation and Administration Specific Plan Page 4-3 Management of the Specific Plan This Specific Plan will be used by the City to guide and control land development throughout the Noble Creek Vistas site. Development of the site will be in accordance to the infrastructure plans and the Development Standards contained herein. Future Tract Maps and Plot Plans will be reviewed by the City relative to compliance with this Specific Plan. If a proposed future land development project is not in compliance with this Specific Plan, then the City may choose to either decline or approve that project, or formally amend the Specific Plan. Project Implementation Infrastructure improvements shall be implemented on a fair share basis based on pro-rata parcel acreage as described in the Specific Land Use Plan Statistical Summary. In conjunction with submittal of the first tentative subdivision map the applicant shall formulate a program, approved by the Planning Director, which will enable infrastructure improvements to be paid for on a fair share basis for the entire Specific Plan area. Implementation of the project in a coordinated fashion represents a significant challenge, given the current lack of an overall master developer and because the project is comprised of multiple property ownerships. It may be necessary for the City of Beaumont to take on a greater than customary management role to ensure that the project’s many common elements (i.e., parks, flood control facilities and other infrastructure, entry treatments and landscape buffers) are developed in a timely and consistent manner. The City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) may be employed as a financing and administrative entity for these purposes. 4.2 - APPLICATION PROCESSING Development within the Project area shall be implemented through the City of Beaumont Specific Plan Review process as set forth in Section 17.36 of the City's Zoning Code. The implementation process described below provides for the mechanisms for review and approval of development projects within the Project area. 321 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Implementation and Administration Specific Plan Page 4-4 4.2.1 Development Review Development Review is required for the adoption of the Specific Plan and concurrent Master Plot Plan for the project. Submittal of a Development Review Permit application shall be of a form and content consistent with the City of Beaumont requirements. The City Council shall review and concurrently approve the Specific Plan and Master Plot Plan. After City approval of a Master Plot Plan, changes to the size, location, and design of any uses or structures may be approved by the Planning Director. Upon determination by the Planning Director that the proposed revision is in substantial conformance with the provisions of this Specific Plan, the revised plan shall be approved by the Planning Director or the Director's designee. 4.2.2 Specific Plan Zone Section 17.36 of the City of Beaumont Zoning Code presents the intent of the Specific Plan Zone: The provisions of Section 17.36, inclusive, shall be known as the SPA Specific Plan Area Zone, and are intended to accommodate Specific Plan Areas shown on the City of Beaumont General Plan or on those lands for which a specific plan has been adopted by the City Council pursuant to the Government Code. Application of the SPA Zone can create an unlimited variety of land uses in conformance with the General Plan. Upon adoption of the SPA designation as the Zone for a particular parcel(s), the designation shall include a density factor setting for the maximum number of dwelling units per residential acreage which shall not include acreage used for non- residential purposes. Where a Specific Plan is not consistent with the General Plan, appropriate General Plan amendments must be considered concurrently with the Specific Plan. 322 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Implementation and Administration Specific Plan Page 4-5 An adopted specific plan supersedes the City zoning for the site area included in the proposed land use plan of the Specific Plan. All other provisions of the City Zoning Code, which are applicable to the site, shall apply unless identified in the Specific Plan. 4.2.3 Division of Land Procedures (Subdivision Map Act) Implementation of the Specific Plan would require the subdivision of land with a Parcel Map pursuant to California Government Code, Title 7, Division 2, Subdivision Map Act. When the subdivision of land is associated with the Specific Plan, a public hearing is required for the approval of subdivisions. 4.3 - SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS The City of Beaumont Planning Director shall be responsible for administering the provisions of this Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of the State of California Government Code, Subdivision Map Act, and the City of Beaumont General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 4.3.1 Minor Amendments Minor amendments include simple modifications to text or graphics that do not change the meaning, intent, or are contrary to any provision of the Specific Plan. Minor modifications may be accomplished administratively by the Planning Director and are appealable to the Planning Commission and City Council. 4.3.2 Major Amendments Major modifications are amendments to exhibits or text that are intended to change the intent, development standards or other significant provisions of the Specific Plan. Major modifications require a Specific Plan Amendment and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with requirements of the City's Zoning Code. 323 Item 12. © 2014 Applied Planning, Inc. Noble Creek Vistas Implementation and Administration Specific Plan Page 4-6 4.4 INTERPRETATIONS Unless otherwise provided, any ambiguity concerning the content or application of the Noble Creek Vistas Specific Plan shall be resolved by the City of Beaumont Planning Director in a manner consistent with the goals, policies, purpose and intent established herein. 324 Item 12. APPENDICES 325 Item 12. APPENDIX A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION 326 Item 12. 327 Item 12. 328 Item 12. 329 Item 12. 330 Item 12. 331 Item 12. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Re-Establish a Time, Date and Place for Special Workshop Background and Analysis: At the March 1, 2022, City Council meeting, a date of April 21, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. was decided for the next budget workshop. It has come to the attention of City staff that not all Council members are able to attend a meeting on April 21. City staff is requesting the discussion and establishment of a revised date for the next budget workshop. The following dates were given for consideration: April 20, 2022, April 27, 2022, or April 28, 2022. Fiscal Impact: City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $65. Recommended Action: Discuss and establish a time, date and place for a special workshop. 332 Item 13. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Nicole Wheelwright, Deputy City Clerk DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Notice of Economic Development Committee Industry Expert Seat Background and Analysis: The Economic Development Committee Policies and Procedures established by City Council allows for a rotating “industry expert” seat on the committee. At the March 9, 2022, Economic Development Committee meeting it was discussed and recommended that the City seek applicants for this seat. City staff is seeking direction on advertisement as to the industry of interest or professional background desired. Applications will be brought forward to City Council for consideration and appointment on April 5, 2022. Fiscal Impact: City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $95. Recommended Action: Direct City staff to notice a vacancy for an “industry expert” with specifics of industry of interest and professional background desired. Attachments: A. Economic Development Committee Policy 333 Item 14. 334 Item 14. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager DATE March 15, 2022 SUBJECT: Review of Local Emergency Declaration Established via the Adoption of City of Beaumont Resolution No. 2020-07 Adopted on March 17, 2020 Background and Analysis: On March 17, 2020, the City Council passed and approved Resolution No. 2020-07 (“Resolution”) which authorized the City Manager to execute a declaration of the existence of a local emergency in the City of Beaumont. Approval of the Resolution was in response to the declaration by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the COVID – 19 pandemic, Governor Gavin Newsom’s declaration of a state of emergency for all California, and the increase of infections within the City of Beaumont and the immediate area. The emergency declaration must be reviewed every 60 days in order to determine whether conditions exist for its continuance. This emergency declaration was reviewed by the City Council on January 18, 2022, and was not modified. The City Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 2020 -07 established the existing emergency declaration and empowered the City Manager to: 1. Make and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency; 2. Obtain vital supplies, equipment and such other properties found lacking and needed for the protection of life and property, and to bind the City for the fair value thereof; 3. Require emergency services of any City officer or employee, and, in the event of the proclamation of a state of emergency in Riverside County, to command the aid of as many citizens of Beaumont as is deemed necessary by the City Manager for the execution of the City Manager’s duties; such persons shall be 335 Item 15. entitled to all privileges, benefits and immunities as are provided by state law for registered disaster service workers; 4. Requisition necessary personnel or material to any City department or agency; and 5. Execute all ordinary duties and powers of the City Manager as well as special powers conferred by the Beaumont Municipal Code, by resolution or emergency plan adopted by the City Council, and all other powers conferred by the City Council and any other lawful authority. As of the time that this memorandum was prepared, the most recent executive order N- 04-22 dated February 25, 2022, terminates portions of 11 executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic (Attachment A). Under this order, 19 provisions are terminated immediately, with an additional 18 to be lifted on March 31, 2022, and 15 to expire on June 30, 2022. If Beaumont’s emergency declaration remains in effect, it will be brought back to the City Council for consideration no later than May 17, 2022. In the event that the City Council determines that a local emergency declaration is no longer required, an amending resolution will be presented for City Council consideration at the next regular City Council meeting of April 5, 2022, or earlier at a special meeting convened by the City Council for that purpose. Fiscal Impact: There are no costs resulting from the continuation of a local state of emergency. City staff estimates that preparation of this report cost to be approximately $75. Recommended Action: Take no action and keep the existing declaration of emergency resolution in place, or Direct staff to prepare a resolution stating a local emergency declaration is no longer required to be presented for adoption at a future meeting. Attachments: A. Order N-04-22 B. City of Beaumont Resolution No. 2020-07 336 Item 15. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE ORDER N-04-22 WHEREAS on March 4, 2020, I proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19; and WHEREAS since March 2020, the State has taken decisive and meaningful actions, relying on the most current data and science available, to reduce the spread, and mitigate the impacts, of COYID-19, saving an untold number of lives; and WHEREAS on June 11, 2021, as a result of reducing case rates throughout California at that time, I issued Executive Order N-08-21, which systematically rolled back many of the Executive Order provisions I put in place to ensure for the continued provision of public and essential services while preserving public health and safety; and WHEREAS following my issuance of Executive Order N-08-21, the Delta and Omicron variants of COVID-19 spread throughout California, the United States, and the world, posing significant threats to the health and safety of Californians and necessitating additional decisive actions, including those implemented through Executive Order; and WHEREAS as a result of the effective actions Californians have taken, including more than 73 percent of eligible Californians who have been fully vaccinated, another 9 percent of eligible Californians who are partially vaccinated, and more than 56 percent of eligible Californians who have received a booster, California has turned another corner in its fight against COVID-19, and in particular, the Omicron variant; and WHEREAS on February 17, 2022, I unveiled the SMARTER Plan, which will guide California's strategic approach to managing the next phase of the COYID-19 pandemic while moving the state's recovery forward, with a focus on continued readiness, awareness and flexibility; and WHEREAS in light of the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic in California, it is appropriate to, again, through measured and decisive action, roll back additional provisions of my COYID-19-related Executive Orders; and WHEREAS certain provisions of my COVID-19 related Executive Orders currently remain necessary to continue to help California respond to, recover from, and mitigate the impacts of the COYID-19 pandemic, including maintaining California's robust testing and vaccination programs and protecting hospital capacity, and the termination of certain provisions of my COYID-19 related Executive Orders during this stage of the emergency would compound the effects of the emergency and impede the State's recovery by disrupting the State's ability to support ongoing medical response and preparedness; and WHEREAS under the provisions of Government Code section 8571, I find that strict compliance with various statutes and regulations specified in this Order would continue to prevent, hinder, or delay appropriate actions to prevent and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. 337 Item 15. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of California, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the State Constitution and statutes of the State of California, and in particular, Government Code sections 8567, 8571, and 8627, do hereby issue the following Order to become effective immediately: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The following provisions are terminated. 1) State of Emergency Proclamation dated March 4, 2020: a. Paragraph 1. The State Emergency Plan as it relates to the COVID-19 pandemic shall remain active; b. Paragraph 5; and c. Paragraph 6. 2) Executive Order N-25-20: a. Paragraph 6; and b. Paragraph 8. 3) Executive Order N-40-20, Paragraph 14. This provision sha ll apply to any expenses incurred prior its termination. 4) Executive Order N-41-20. 5) Executive Order N-45-20, Paragraph 10. 6) Executive Order N-50-20: a. Paragraph 1; b. Paragraph 3; and c. Paragraph 4. 7) Executive Order N-55-20: a. Paragraph 15; b. Paragraph 17; and c. Paragraph 18. 8) Executive Order N-63-20, Paragraph 8, subparagraphs (d) and (f). 9) Executive Order N-66-20: a. Paragraph 7; and b. Paragraph 8. 10) Executive Order N-02-21, Paragraph 2. 11) Executive Order N-12-21, Paragraph 8. The following provisions shall remain in place and shall have full force and effect through March 31, 2022, upon which time they will expire subject to individual conditions described in the enumerated paragraphs below. 12) Executive Order N-57-20: a. Paragraph 1; b. Paragraph 2; c. Paragraph 3; and d. Paragraph 4. 338 Item 15. 13) Executive Orders N-25-20, Paragraph 7, N-35-20, Paragraph 3, and N- 84-20, Paragraph 4, except that Executive Order N-25-20, Paragraph 7 shall remain in effect as applicable only to emergency appointments made pursuant to Government Code section 19888.1 and California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 300 through 303 for participants in the California Medical Assistance Team (CAL-MAT) Program. Any hours or days worked during the 2021-22 fiscal year by an individual hired pursuant to these provisions prior to their termination shall not count toward the work-hour or work-day limits prescribed under the respective statutes and regulations identified in these Executive Orders. 14) Executive Order N-71-20, Paragraph 5. 15) Executive Order N-12-21, Paragraph 7. Any retired person who returned to service pursuant to this provision prior to its termination shall be able to remain in service through the end of the 2021-22 fiscal year notwithstanding any limitation that would otherwise apply pursuant to Government Code section 7522.56, subdivision (f). 16) Executive Order N-3-22: a. Paragraph 3. Any days for which a substitute teacher was assigned to a single general education assignment prior to the termination of this provision shall not count toward the limitations in California Code of Regulations, Title 5, sections 80025.1 (c) and 80025.3(a) and (b), as modified via Section 47 of Assembly Bill 167, Chapter 252, Statutes of 2021; b. Paragraph 5. Any compensation earned by a retired member during the 2021-22 school year pursuant to this provision prior to its termination shall not count toward the post-retirement compensation limits under Education Code section 24214, subdivisions (d), (f), and (g); c. Paragraph 6. Any retired member who meets normal retirement age and returned to service pursuant to this provision prior to its termination shall be able to remain in service through the end of the 2021-22 school year notwithstanding any limitation that would otherwise apply pursuant to Education Code section 24214.5, subdivisions (a) through (g); and d. Paragraph 7. Any retired classified and certified personnel who returned to service pursuant to this provision prior to its termination shall be able to remain in service through the end of the 2021-22 fiscal year notwithstanding any limitation that would otherwise apply pursuant to Government Code section 7522.56, subdivision (g). The following provisions shall remain in place and shall have full force and effect through June 30, 2022, upon which time they will expire subject to individual conditions described in the enumerated paragraphs below. 17) Executive Order N-38-20: a. Paragraph 1; b. Paragraph 2; c. Paragraph 3; d. Paragraph 4; and e. Paragraph 5. 339 Item 15. 18) Executive Orc;jer N-43-20 (as modified via Executive Order N-08-21 and extended via Executive Order N-16-21): a. Paragraph 2; b. Paragraph 3; c. Paragraph 4; d. Paragraph 5; e. Paragraph 6; f. Paragraph 7; g. Paragraph 8; h. Paragraph 9; and i. Paragraph l 0. 19) Executive Order N-71-20, Paragraph 18. 20) Executive Order N-12-21 : a. Paragraph l. This is a further extension beyond that provided in Paragraph 1 of Executive Order N-21-21; b. Paragraph 2. This is a further extension beyond that provided in Paragraph 1 of Executive Order N-21-21; c. Paragraph 3. This is a further extension beyond that provided in Paragraph 1 of Executive Order N-21-21; d. Paragraph 4. This is a further extension beyond that provided in Paragraph 1 of Executive Order N-21-21; e. Paragraph 5. This is a further extension beyond ~hat provided in Paragraph l of Executive Order N-21-21; and f. Paragraph 6. This is a further extension beyond that provided in Paragraph l of Executive Order N-21-21. 21) Executive Order N-17-21, Paragraph l. This is a further extension beyond that provided in Paragraph 2 of Executive Order N-21-21 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as soon as hereafter possible, this Order be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given of this Order. 340 Item 15. This Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 25th day of February 2022. ATTEST: SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D. Secretary of State 341 Item 15. 342 Item 15. 343 Item 15. 344 Item 15. 345 Item 15. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com ANGIE ARCILLA arcilla@sbemp.com FIRM ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT REPLY TO: Palm Springs, California March 7, 2022 CITY OF BEAUMONT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THRU: 2/28/2021 TOTAL DUE: $154,376.60 Sincerely, SBEMP,LLP By: Angie Arcilla 346 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*AIG Professional services through: 2/28/2022: Invoice # 69505 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $35,117.50 347 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Carpenters Professional services through: 2/28/2022: Invoice # 69500 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $1,842.50 348 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Fibracast Professional services through: 2/28/2022: Invoice # 69501 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $18,755.00 349 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Fortier Professional services through: 2/3/2022: Invoice # 69507 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $2,997.50 350 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Gregg Professional services through: 1/31/2022: Invoice # 69493 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $9,212.50 351 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Iloputaife Professional services through: 2/28/2022: Invoice # 69508 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $7,232.50 352 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Lee Professional services through: 1/31/2022: Invoice # 69494 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $22,663.70 353 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Norton Rose Professional services through: 1/31/2022: Invoice # 69495 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $4,482.50 354 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Peters Professional services through: 1/31/2022: Invoice # 69496 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $440.00 355 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Urban Logic Professional services through: 1/31/2022: Invoice # 69497 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $4,630.85 356 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont*Weka Professional services through: 1/31/2022: Invoice # 69498 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $17,290.00 357 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont-NobleCreekRev Professional services through: 2/28/2022: Invoice # 69504 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $3,154.80 358 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont-OverRetainer Professional services through: 2/28/2022: Invoice # 69502 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $19,048.30 359 Item 16. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Orange County, CA T (714) 435-9591 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 New Jersey T (609) 955-3393 New York T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 1800 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fed. ID #33-0833010 Telephone 760-322-2275 Facsimile 760-322-2107 March 7, 2022 City of Beaumont E-MAIL INVOICES Our file no: City of Beaumont-Retainer Professional services through: 2/28/2022: Invoice # 69509 Amount BALANCE DUE – PLEASE SUBMIT PAYMENT: $7,508.95 360 Item 16. Pending Litigation Against the City (does not include litigation initiated by the City) 1. Christian Lee v. City of Beaumont, Riv. Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. RIC 2003005 (Pre- Trial) 2. Charles Peters dba Pioneer Mobile Village v. City of Beaumont et. al., Riv. Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. RIC 1707116 (Appeal) 3. Ezekwesili Iloputaife, et. al. v. City of Beaumont et. al., EDCV 21-1452-JWH(AGR) (Pleading) 4. Ezekwesili Iloputaife, et. al. v. City of Beaumont et. al., Riv. Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. 2105069 (Pleading) 5. Steven Fortier v. City of Beaumont, Riv. Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. 2105608 (Pleading) To: City Council From: John O. Pinkney, City Attorney Date: March 9, 2022 Re: List of Pending Litigation Against City of Beaumont 361 Item 17. 362 Item 18. 363 Item 18. 364 Item 18. 365 Item 18. 366 Item 18. 367 Item 18. 368 Item 18. 369 Item 18. 370 Item 18. 371 Item 18. 372 Item 18. 373 Item 18. 374 Item 18. 375 Item 18. 376 Item 18. 377 Item 18. 378 Item 18. 379 Item 18. 380 Item 18. 381 Item 18. 382 Item 18. 383 Item 18. 384 Item 18. 385 Item 18. 386 Item 18. 387 Item 18. 388 Item 18. 389 Item 18.