On Tuesday, May 21, the Beaumont City Council unanimously approved the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan, a commercial and industrial development plan for 622.5 acres along the south side of State Route 60 west of Jack Rabbit Trail. In approving the project, the city also approved the annexation of 541.2 acres of unincorporated properties, the environmental impact report (EIR) and a development agreement between the city and Beaumont Pointe Partners establishing community benefit fees.
The plan includes 246,000 square feet of general commercial development on 30.2 acres, a 125-room hotel of approximately 90,000 square feet, and nearly 5 million square feet of industrial development on 232.6 acres. In addition to this, 124.7 acres will be set aside for open space and another 152.4 acres of open space to be conveyed to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, contributing to the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan preserve.
The plan is separated into an industrial park, which consists of four large buildings (600,000 to 1.379 million square feet) intended for light industrial, warehousing and light manufacturing, and an entertainment hub featuring sit-down and casual dining, the hotel and active entertainment, such as miniature golfing and go carting.
The council’s approval came during its second public hearing for the development, following alterations made by the developer at the council’s request. The changes addressed roadway and fire safety concerns and the council’s desire for increased community benefits paid by the developer.
The project has been in the works for about four years and the public was given several opportunities to study and provide input at multiple stages along the way.
The 30-day notice of preparation was publicly issued Sept. 7 to Oct. 6, 2022, a public scoping meeting was held Sept. 17, 2022, the draft EIR was released for a 45-day public review period Dec. 22, 2022 to Feb. 8, 2023, two public hearings were held by the Beaumont Planning Commission at its Nov. 29, 2023 and Jan. 10 meetings, and the city council held one previous public hearing on March 19.
At the council’s March 19 meeting Councilman Mike Lara expressed concern about the plan’s emergency ingress and egress. As presented, there was one primary point of entry/exit and one secondary entrance/exit intended for emergency use only. Lara was concerned that the secondary entrance, at 24 feet wide, was not wide enough to accommodate exiting evacuees and entering emergency vehicles simultaneously. While the fire marshal and the developer’s fire evacuation planner noted that 24 feet was the accepted width by Cal Fire for an emergency exit, the developer agreed to widen the exit road to 40 feet.
To address concerns that truck traffic would not adhere to designated truck routes, the developer established an enforcement plan with escalating financial penalties for project tenants that allow their drivers to violate the agreed upon routes and regulations. This plan specifically prohibits the use of Potrero Boulevard and Oak Valley Parkway north of the Potrero/SR-60 interchange.
In response to the public and council concerns about the project’s visual impact to the area, the developer provided elevation illustrations simulating projected views of the project south from SR-60 at 5 years and 10 years after construction. The projected views show the commercial buildings significantly or fully screened by the hills and landscaping by 5 years and all fully obscured from view at 10 years after completion.
The developer also agreed to $5 million in public benefit fees, scheduling $3 million to be paid 90 days after the annexation and $2 million at certificate of occupancy.
This payment schedule was requested by council during the March meeting so that the funds could be used toward the city’s Potrero interchange project, which the council deemed necessary to support the traffic of the Beaumont Pointe project.
In addition to this, the project will create a community facilities district that will generate $250,000 a year at build out for facilities and infrastructure maintenance, which will increase by 2 percent each year.
At full build out, the project is projected to generate $1.5 million per year for the city with a projected 20-year revenue of $24 million.
During the May 21 meeting, Lara expressed the belief that the public benefit fee, based on a $1 per square foot rate for industrial uses, should be raised to $1.40 per square foot to account for an updated study on the impacts of warehouses and inflation. This would increase the public benefit fee by $2 million.
As a counter offer, the developer agreed to pay the $1.40 per square foot with the caveat that if a fulfillment center comes into the project the community benefit fee is capped at $5M (or the $1 per sf).
(During previous discussions, the council had expressed a strong preference to fulfillment centers over distribution centers as fulfillment centers bring sales tax revenues to the city unlike distributions centers.)
During public comment, many people spoke in favor of and in opposition to the development, with speakers from both sides claiming to be in the majority.
“I will say that, from the public comment that I’ve heard from the prior meetings and today, I see a 50/50 percent myself. I don’t see an overwhelming, ‘No,’” Councilman Julio Martinez III said.
Those who spoke against the project opposed the additional traffic and negative impacts it would have on air quality and quality of life.
The project EIR rated the development’s impacts as “less than significant” for all categories but noise, transportation and air quality, for which the city approved a statement of overriding consideration, a formal declaration that the project’s benefits override its negative impacts.
“I imagine tens of thousands of trucks and cars on the 60 and the 10 come through Beaumont every day. That is not significantly different than it’s been for 10 years. Someone brought up the quality of life. To be honest with you the quality of life in Beaumont is not as good as it could be. We know that because everyone talks about how bad our traffic is,” said Councilman Lloyd White. “One of our biggest resources is our location. Our location provides us with an industry we can benefit [from] because of our location. It’s coming to Beaumont — the entire council recognizes it — even if Beaumont says, ‘No,’ to logistics and all industry of that type. It’s all coming through the Pass.”
Those in favor of the project, largely workers from trade unions, praised the additional jobs the project would bring to the area, both permanent and temporary, noting that having jobs close to home would reduce their commutes and greatly increase their quality of life.
The project is projected to create 6,500 jobs, 5,451 of which would be permanent.
Proponents of the project also opined that it is appropriately located, on the edge of existing industrial zones and separated from neighborhoods by the freeway.
